Is SFP/Creaware still a competitive platform ?? Feedback wan

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:10 pm

(this is the third part of a long post...)

The second comparison:

Analog & modular synths & samplers
=================================

This is what everyone raves about, or
at least what they did rave about some time
ago.

What I'm asking is if the rest of the world
has catched up, and passed us long ago... ?

In my rig I have synths like Access Virus,
Korg MS2000, Waldorf MWXT, Roland V-Synth,
Korg Z1. The SFP can match some of these,
true, but I still keep the hardware because
they are the ones you can get a performance
out of, something that is very difficult with
an abstract platform like SFP.

But then we have the absolutely amazing
software alternatives that trample most things
in the way, e.g. the NI family with Absynth 2
and Reaktor 4 at the frontline. The samplebased
hybrids from Spectrasonics and similar products
also feel like they make the need less and less
for any synths that are less "accessible" than
native and hardware ones.

Q1) I have not tried the Modular VIII,
and not really used the V2 much either... but
can they really put up a match to the new NI
products and their competitors ? To me, they
feel a bit "lesser equipped" and not really
something that in itself would justify buying
the SFP family.

Q2) True, the Noah seems like a nice
concept - IF - it will become transparent to the
SFP DSP family and you can use it as a portable
resource with performance capabilities. Looking
at Noah as a "possible" extension of SFP, who is
ready to buy a rack synth for like $2k-3k when
you can get interesting machines for half that
money? Also, the DSP resources of Noah seems
a bit thin to be relied upon as a true workhorse
and powerful extension. It seems more like an
expensive solo/performance rack.

I guess noone would buy the normal Noah, and
instead go for the EX version, but last time I
checked the city music shop, noone where really
interested in getting a $3000 rack box that smell
weird for anyone not familiar to the SFP platform...

Gives me an itch...

Q2) The SFP samplers can't really be
anywhere near competitive nowadays, right ?
I guess they are only for those who have no
hardware sampler or Kontakt/Giga/Halion/EX24 etc.

My conclusion is that the synths, compared to
the competition, isn't all that hot anymore ?

(continued in next post...)

/Magnus

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:27 pm

Do you use your ears to judge a synth? Or do you look at the feature set?

If you would like to use Reaktor 4, then that's fine, but I know what I'd rather use...

Don't get me wrong.. I don't want to impose my view on you at all, or imply that you're wrong or whatever... but it seems like maybe you just don't know what to think (which is perhaps why you're asking us here) ?

By the way, perhaps you should try telling users of classic analog modulars that their equipment is no longer 'competitive' ... because Reaktor 4 can do sooooo many more voices...

peace

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:57 pm

On 2003-07-25 18:27, dArKr3zIn wrote:
Do you use your ears to judge a synth? Or do you look at the feature set?

I think I do both. The presets of any synth is a good "map" to show what it's capable of, and my startingpoint for evaluation. The sonic capabilities are of course part of this as well.

Then... as I'm from a technical background, I look at the platform/scalability/connectivity of the synth - like if I'm buying a piece of outboard gear, I look at how well it will integrate with my mostly digital rig, and if the features are redundant compared to the other gear I have.

At the last point (but I seldom get that far/deep before I buy or discard) I check what sonic capabilities *I* can get out of it, tweaking it to my liking. A monster synth with a worthless user interface isn't what I want in my rig.

On 2003-07-25 18:27, dArKr3zIn wrote:
If you would like to use Reaktor 4, then that's fine, but I know what I'd rather use...

Please elaborate on why you would choose what you've done, that's the feedback I'm looking for...

I just got Reaktor4, and haven't been able to compare it to SFP really, other than that it seems more flexible/scalable with sampling/granular synthesis and whatnot included, then again ModV3 may have some of this and that's why I'm asking. I never said Reaktor was "the holy grail".

On the other hand, Absynth2 seems to wipe the floor with what I've heard from the SFP so far...

On 2003-07-25 18:27, dArKr3zIn wrote:
By the way, perhaps you should try telling users of classic analog modulars that their equipment is no longer 'competitive' ... because Reaktor 4 can do sooooo many more voices...

Again, I think I didn't say that...

The question is if the SFP implementation of these and other things are up to par/better/worse than the alternatives?

I hope this feedback doesn't get too "religious" as I think we all would benefit from a neutral and "sober" point of view.

/Magnus

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:07 pm

Sorry, just felt in a weird mood, I think it was triggered by the surreal spread of a long post over 4 posts

Seriously though, if you can't hear for yourself why Mod3 is superior, then no amount of me convincing you here is going to make you believe me. Absynth2 and Reaktor alias like crazy for example. Also, have you tried simple things like pitch modulation of oscs and compared the quality? Just no comparison IMHO.

peace

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:16 pm

No worries

Thing is, I haven't heard the ModV3, nor seen it in action. I'd like to see a good demo of it, or check out a tune done by it...

The reason, I'm asking these loooads of questions is that me and a few friends/colleagues are right now at the decision-point of spending a few thousand dollars each on getting our rigs to "the next level". A huge thing if you ask me

If I would be mean, I could say that the "vibe" surrounding the Creamware family are very much similar to that of people holding on to e.g. the Commodore Amiga family - religious on the verge of blindness... But I didn't say that...

Anyway, objectivity is good...

/Magnus

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:22 pm

I see your point, but you have to understand we have seen posts like yours time and time again, it can get a bit tedious sometimes.

Also, you will find here many many people who are hardcore studio junkies and have huge experience with high-end kit. I myself was introduced to Pulsar by a friend of mine who had worked in several big studios with lots and lots of expensive, high-end gear. And Pulsar blew all of them away for him. And most others. You see, most of us here have checked out all the other options. And we *know* there is no other comparable system. I myself wasted a lot of money on worthless hardware over the years, because I bought into that whole music technology industry bullshit. I guess we all have to make our own mistakes in order to learn.

peace

Post by **garyb** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:45 pm

also,competition is not the point of music.it is not a sport.nike will not reward the victor.

i like to compare this thing to a toaster.a toaster pops up a piece of toast that you can take to your friends and make objective judgements about it's performance.(is it burnt on one side and raw on the other?does it come out burnt on the burnt setting and raw on the raw setting?does the action feel sturdy? does it match the colors in my kitchen?)

there is no taost with a musical instrument,however.it's strictly subjective.if you give the "best" guitar to a beginner,the music will be awful.if you give a mediocre guitar to a skilled player,the music will be wonderful.

don't watch the tool,watch the man that's behind it.

all this said,the tools in sfp are MORE than sufficient,especially when combined with a good sequencer and some nice native plugs.variety is the spice of life,it's not all or nothing.still,there is no solution which gives more or better,for the money or otherwise,but especially for the money.(if the money is not an issue,then buy everything made!)

huffcw · Post by **huffcw** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:58 pm

The Creamware setup is far from outdated. If you really listen, you will hear that the synths available for the system alone are worth the price. Nothing in the software synth world can come close to the purity of sound that is availabe - and there is also plenty of variety and unique synths available from third-party developers (e.g., check out Wavelength devices).

Yes - there are many good soft synths out there with a lot of things they can do. However, the same sound quality just insn't there. I own Reaktor and had Abynth. These are great in many ways - but I prefer the power of the sounds I get from the Pulsar synths I have on my system.

The Minimax synth alone is worth the price of a Pulsar system IMO. There is no where else you will find this close of emulation and quality of sound.

This is not outdated - this is cutting edge analog synth emulation!

Post by **garyb** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:59 pm

and notice how the minimoog can STILL cause so much stir!good gear never goes out of style.ask rupert neve.ask neumann if people aren't still more interested in the old mics...(would YOU bother with an old u-87/67?)

new machines won't improve the music.only musicians can do that.the machine can only help/hinder.

and i can't believe this conversation is about a product that is only a few years old!this MUST be a computer forum...

when it comes to sound gear,the sound is the issue.has anyone forgotten the sound of the movie gladiator?was this year's picture really better sounding than that?as i remember,that movie set the bar awfully high and the current plugs sound better than then......

(sorry for being long winded,avoiding rehearsal....)

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 5:27 am

Ok, it seems there is need for someone to take the opposite side, even though it's like sticking ones head into a hornets nest.

I do like SFP, but for the sake of argument - I think it's necessary, so I'll play along...

On 2003-07-25 23:59, garyb wrote:
and notice how the minimoog can STILL cause so much stir!...ask rupert neve.ask neumann ...

Wow, reality check...

SFP may be a good product, BUT comparing it to Minimoog, Neve & Neumann is plain ridiculous.

Also, don't tell me people go chasing old CW cards for their "vintage sound" ?

A good product is a good product, but the question is if some people in here have gotten tunnelvision. I try to have a very open mind about things...

On 2003-07-25 23:59, garyb wrote:
new machines won't improve the music.only musicians can do that.the machine can only help/hinder.

True, but as a musician (with a chunk of technician in me) I'm very eager to get the "machine" that helps the most, and hinders the least. The point of these threads is to find out - in a sober & objective way - if SFP *still* is that machine, or if others have left it in the dust...

and i can't believe this conversation is about a product that is only a few years old!this MUST be a computer forum...

We're not discussing a preamp or some vintage valve thing here. We are talking about software and DSP, and the honest truth is that digital technology has a VERY quick development cycle, and therefor a limited lifespan. If SFP and the CW hardware has evolved with this, then all is well, if not - then we should care about it.

I for one think that at least discussing it is valid...

has anyone forgotten the sound of the movie gladiator?was this year's picture really better sounding than that?as i remember,that movie set the bar awfully high and the current plugs sound better than then......

Maybe I'm all wrong here, if so please accept my apologies - I don't know the details, so I try to evaluate this from a common sense point of view:

First of all, H. Zimmer is a very good name to have associated with a product right ? Problem is, his name is in a lot of places, and in all honesty - maybe we should look at the use of this like how sportsmen have sponsorships form huge companies.

Making every home-studio owner feel like "Wow ! I'm using the same gear as Hans Zimmer !!" is a nice feeling. Problem is, we don't have his Zoo of tenths (hundreds?) of computers/workstations or his rooms full of modular vintage equipment.

Saying the "Gladiator score was a huge success - and so the SFP platform is the best of the best" is kind of wrong.

Maybe someone can post a link, where I can read about how HZ used SFP and only SFP for this, and I will be most happy to read it.

My guess would be that very little of what we hear in the Gladiator score, is actually produced from within SFP.

I could very well be all wrong, in which case you are allowed to slap me in public

but what really turns me off is the "religious" frenzy to fend of anything posing a threat to "our beloved toy", without backing up with sound arguments for it. Nothing personal against anyone

In closing, I'm not a "CW-hater", in fact I do like it and have been for a long time. The thing is I *do* have my doubts - and the all too pragmatic response I get here makes me very suspicious. So, for the sake of argument, I've taken the role of the "agitator"

...so sue me...

/Magnus

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 6:04 am

My guess would be that very little of what we hear in the Gladiator score, is actually produced from within SFP.

i don't know about Gladiator, but Black Hawk Down even has a track named after GrenzFrequenz's Synchrotron, plus if he only used SFP for a couple synths now and then why would he bother owning the 30-odd cards - not for any ostentatious reason as they're hardly as visual as a huge modular system on the wall?

OK not exactly the slap down you were after, more like a gentle prod with a feather cushion.

To be honest i'm starting to lose the point of this thread. Do you want us to convince you SFP is what you need/not what you need? Or is this just a general discussion with you as antagonist?

It's always good to keep perspective and not get evangelical about any platform, but when you find something you like (i'm sure we've all tried many different ways of working) you stick to it, especially if no-one comes up with a comparable device. Really, where's the card that undercuts SCOPE in cost or performance? If there is one i'll get it, but if it's made by Behringer and costs £99 i'll have my suspicions!

Neither UAD-1 or TC PowerCore are as flexible in the ease of routing, don't have the synths SFP has. RME are very good audio cards but are just that, very good for tracking audio.

Cheers,
Mr A (non-evangalist but man i love my SCOPE)

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2003-07-26 07:04 ]

rrominet4 · Post by **rrominet4** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 6:56 am

I have many recent vst synths, especially , Vstation, FM7, absynth 1&2, i almost bought xphraze (it sounds so GM).

Except FM7, there is no native synth that sounds close to any synth in SFP or Noah... SOme of them sound good, but not as good as a creamware synth. The features etc is another story, but even when i think of Native adsr enveloppe multisegment, i found i can do almost the same with some recent sfp synths.

it's incomparable.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:18 am

On 2003-07-26 06:27, Magnus wrote:
We're not discussing a preamp or some vintage valve thing here. We are talking about software and DSP, and the honest truth is that digital technology has a VERY quick development cycle, and therefor a limited lifespan.

WRONG. Just because life cycles of some products are artificially adjusted by marketing weirdos doesn't mean new ideas get into a program's code.
General software qulity has never been as bad as today. You can stand it only because CPUs have never been as fast as today

This is a billion dollar business running on it's own interests and not for the customer anymore.
I don't suffer from tunnelvision and have survived Apple evangelism as well, but CW looks like a real exception on the current market. They constantly evolve the product and sound quality, while supporting old systems (I have a Pulsar One) in a remarkable way.
Regarding the synth quality I can fake NI's sound with SFP, but not vice versa

I respect your survey (not a buddhism exercise ?) and don't have any problems with different opinions.

cheers, Tom

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:24 am

On 2003-07-26 07:04, Mr Arkadin wrote:
...plus if he only used SFP for a couple synths now and then why would he bother owning the 30-odd cards

Yes, point taken. I guess he does use them a lot, but on the other hand, he was probably given more than half of them for free just for the advertisement value of it. Also, if he would ever encounter a problem, he probably gets an instant SWAT-team visit from Creamware to fix it...

To be honest i'm starting to lose the point of this thread. Do you want us to convince you SFP is what you need/not what you need? Or is this just a general discussion with you as antagonist?

I'm sorry if I offended anyone by taking the role of the resisting agitator, but in an attempt to get rid of the pragmatic evangelism in here, I felt it was necessary to balance the discussion. I'll be more nice from now on

What I wan't from this thread is not anyone convincing the other, but a rational, sober & "down to earth" discussion about the platform - from where one can draw his/her own conclusions.

I've gotten some good examples of the plugins that you people like in SFP, and I will happily investigate that further. If anyone had some links to really good material produced with SFP and/or good comparisons with other products, I'd also be very pleased.

However, slapping up the name of Hans Zimmer have been the standard response for a long time in defending Creamware. Both Steinberg & eMagic have used the Zimmer name - does that mean any of them are right and the other wrong ?

Also, the type of arguments like "We roxx, you suxx. Period." make me bloody annoyed.

...but if it's made by Behringer and costs £99 i'll have my suspicions!

Hehehe

Neither UAD-1 or TC PowerCore are as flexible in the ease of routing, don't have the synths SFP has. RME are very good audio cards but are just that, very good for tracking audio.

Well, the thing is UAD & Powercore don't need "good routing" as they plug in extremely easy into the major DAW-softwares as inserts or send effects, right ?

I don't know much about Logic, but Nuendo/Cubase will soon have a good and flexible audio-routing matrix inside the software as well, making other things somewhat redundant.

True, the SFP excels in routing, but I can't say I've felt limited using the UAD.

Anyway, thanks for some good & solid points.

/Magnus

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:48 am

Well, the thing is UAD & Powercore don't need "good routing" as they plug in extremely easy into the major DAW-softwares as inserts or send effects, right ?

Again it boils down to how you like working. i like working as if i've got real cables, then i can see what is going on. In VST you click around like a mad bugger but never have a visual diagram of what's going on. You have to keep track of what you've routed in your head as it were. With SFP i can go: "Think i'll put MiniMax through a distortion, a flanger, via the Leslie on B-2003 into Masterverb then the Mixer" and all i have to do is connect them up and i always know what's happening. In VST i have to go to various menus, select where i want to route from/to using drop-downs with names - not very exciting or visual (for me anyway). Plus you always have to think in terms of inserts and sends - i prefer connecting things like in the real world - you don't insert a distortion box in your guitar, ya just plug it in! If you don't need that visualisation and are happy with most DAWs' somewhat 'easy for the software' approach to routing (as opposed to 'real world'-style plugging) then you probably don't need SFP.

Again i'm losing track of where this argument is leading but i seem to be saying SFP isn't for you.

Cheers,
Mr A

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:53 am

On 2003-07-26 08:18, astroman wrote:
On 2003-07-26 06:27, Magnus wrote:
...honest truth is that digital technology has a VERY quick development cycle, and therefor a limited lifespan.
WRONG.

English is not my first language, so maybe whan I meant didn't come across in my post.

What I'm pointing at is that within the computerindustry (both software but mostly hardware), the time for a new product to come to market, that most often will double the performance of the previous product - which in turn makes the old product close to obsolete - is EXTREMELY short. Unparallelled by any business or industry I know.

General software qulity has never been as bad as today. You can stand it only because CPUs have never been as fast as today

You are right in many ways, but the reason for the "low quality" is the absurd increase in complexity in todays software compared to that of 10 years ago. Having worked for both Lotus and IBM, I can tell you it's a wicked ride.

They constantly evolve the product and sound quality, while supporting old systems (I have a Pulsar One) in a remarkable way.

Yes, as a software developer myself, I've always been very impressed of how CW managed to launch such a genious design in the complex world of computers...

but... whatever way you put it - supporting old legacy always comes with a tradeoff, and I'm curious if this affects the overall performance of my DAW.

I respect your survey (not a buddhism exercise ?) and don't have any problems with different opinions.

An exercise of self torment ??

Anyway, I hope it turns out we've got some interesting facts & opinions written down here when it's over and done.

/Magnus

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:54 am

You seem obsessed with finding the 'latest and greatest'. You will recognise this in due course (sadly after wasting all your money) : the music industry *thrives* on your attitude... that's how they manage to sell a whole load of crap. I know because I have worked in Pro Audio retail before. It sure does not take a genius to figure out the workings of the industry.

OK, I'm going to leave aside analog synths now, and concentrate on digital. Take the Waldorf PPG Wave - a classic digital synth. It aliases like mad, is far surpassed in terms of 'digital perfection' by later synths. But does this automatically make it redundant? I think not. Similarly, classic Fairlight stuff is totally antiquated by today's standards. But I know a couple of people who insist on using them. Does that make them wrong? Does that put them 'behind the times'? Does it even matter?

Oh and re: the deliberately starting a debate to throw up an argument... some people (*some* people) would regard that as trolling... making no accusations here but you should not be surprised if such accusations appear.

peace

[ This Message was edited by: dArKr3zIn on 2003-07-26 09:08 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:26 am

Magnus, you've expressed your point pretty well and if you've suffered from the Lotus/IBM stuff my true feelings are with you

What's that incredible complexity good for ?
If you have a Lotus Notes system running, you're depending on that. It is too difficult and too expensive to change - so the company has to stay with the Notes product line. That keeps the Notes people on the job, and also the information department - we're only in it for the money

I have an original 15 year old M$ Powerpoint v1 (yes, it was a Mac program) - it doesn't look that much different from today.
Well, buddhism isn't related to torture, but the kind of discussion you started is frequently used as an execise for the mind

cheers, tom

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:02 am

dArKr3zIn, I'm in no way obsessed with the latest "buzz". As most project studio owners I've sure spent a minor fortune on all kinds of things, but I'm no "hype-junkie".

I'm only trying to make the best decision I can about how to move forward with the setup I have. Is it not justified to do this before spending another $3-5k ?

On 2003-07-26 08:54, dArKr3zIn wrote:
OK, I'm going to leave aside analog synths now, and concentrate on digital.
...cut...
Does that make them wrong? Does that put them 'behind the times'? Does it even matter?

No, it doesn't make them wrong.
A very good point.

Still, this isn't about a single (and maybe peripheral) synth in ones rig. This is about one of the most important centerpieces of a DAW - the audio I/O. A "hot spot" that has always been sensitive, and that will need to develop as the requirements & flow of data increases.

Oh and re: the deliberately starting a debate to throw up an argument... some people (*some* people) would regard that as trolling... making no accusations here but you should not be surprised if such accusations appear.

It's sad that you see it that way.

Me taking the opposite side in the discussion is only a way to break through some of the more evangelic posts you see in these forums. Being overly pragmatic and "blinded by the light" could be considered trolling as well if that was the case.

The PlanetZ is the best place I know on the internet to gather information about the SFP. You don't have to be a part of it, but please don't call me a troll for trying to have a solid conversation and searching for information.

/Magnus

[ This Message was edited by: Magnus on 2003-07-26 10:03 ]

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:16 am

However, slapping up the name of Hans Zimmer have been the standard response for a long time in defending Creamware. Both Steinberg & eMagic have used the Zimmer name - does that mean any of them are right and the other wrong ?

Also, the type of arguments like "We roxx, you suxx. Period." make me bloody annoyed.

Hmmm, maybe it's just me but I have never really seen many people here throw around Zimmers name much. Only ever when some info about him in relation to CW was revealed like with the Sound On Sound feauture, where he called CW gear his "secret weapon that no-one seems to know about" (so I'd say there's a good chance he uses this stuff a lot

)

...nor do I ever see arguments like "We roxx, you suxx. Period." on the Z, so I don't know what exactly you get annoyed about.

As for the technology getting outdated, I think it will only be outdated when PCI will no longer be standard in computer systems. This will mean that at some point, if you upgrade your computer you won't be able to use your old cards anymore, since there won't be a PCI slot to use it with.
However I don't know what is scheduled to come after PCI, and wether it will be backwards-compatible. It will probably be a long time before this happens. Until then, you might say that because the SHARCS aren't the fastest processors on the market anymore, that the product is outdated, but I don't think this really applies to a musical instrument. As was mentioned before, people are still using old synths with old components. Most of the analog stuff was perceived as "outdated" when digital synthesis became available, now everyone wants those old analog machines back, and even pay 5x as much for them! Even when we're talking about digital (VA) synths the same applies. My Nord Rack probably runs on really old, outdated DSP chips, but that doesn't mean the instrument is outdated does it? I can still play it in ten years time and it will still sounds gorgeous. The same goes for Creamware stuff.
I could theoretically boot up this very same computer in ten years time and still make music with it.