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

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:08 pm

Hello everyone,

I've been using the SFP family for some time now, bought
my first PulsarII just when they where released I think.
Still, I have very much to learn about the platform, but
maybe I'm not as convinced as most of you guys in here
of if it's *THE* way for my project-studio to develop.

I currently have 2x Pulsar II boards hooked up in my main
DAW machine, and the question is if I should continue this
path or look elsewhere...

There is a lot of questions related to this, and to make
it anywhere close to readable, I'm splitting this post
into several different posts... this first one being a
general overview.

I'm very sorry if the posts come off as very negative,
but the best way I can question the usefulness of SFP
is to provoke things that many of you see as the best
possible solutions ever created...

Background

Long ago when I bought my first Pulsar II, I did it to
get hold of the superior "ADAT-interface & free-routing"
combination, and at the time there where no competition
to this card, in this area & pricerange. I used to have
two Yamaha 01V's cascaded and the Pulsar card was the
ultimate companion to achieve a near "full desk" solution
for the two small mixers.

About a year ago, I needed to scale up, with more ADAT-ports
and other I/O so I was in the market for a new card.

I do use Cubase SX as sequencer and as it's only cabable of
working with one ASIO driver, there where pretty much no
alternatives than to buy another Creamware card and jack
them up.

It was this, or to can my old investment...

The reason why I wasn't all sure about buying the second
card was that I've never actually used the onboard DSP
power of SFP other than for routing, and I was wondering
if the SFP platform was really what I needed, considering
other alternatives like the RME family with good
connectivity and routing.

So...

Current scenario

I have a pretty good rig today, with plenty of gear, and
I try to decide about the SFP family by comparing the
major features of the SFP platform, with features of
other equipment that I already have or could buy.

I'll list my rig and any reflections/comparisons in the
other posts, and I'd be very happy if you guys could
check these posts, and confirm or correct my assumptions.

Maybe this could be an interesting comparison for some of
you, so please give it a shot.

In closing, for the general part, I'd like to put up
a provoking, but maybe not all untrue, statement to discuss:

"CW have (to some extent) failed to administer &
leverage the concept of SFP (and it's head start)"

Isn't it so ? What once was a quite unique (and still is,
in some areas) concept, have in my opinion NOT had the
success it deserved.

One of the biggest mistakes as I see it have been to
make it all too difficult (and expensive for an end user)
to become a developer of the platform.

For a market that do have very specific boundaries
(in terms of people owning the hardware) the best possible
way forward would have been to create a "momentum" of
many, many users customizing and developing the platform.

This in combination with partnerships with the right
companies to create high quality models of studio equipment
(good example UAD-1) would have ensured true success for
the platform, and gathered customers in droves.

Today, not even the employees at music stores know how
to become developers. And who is the end-user that can
drop between US $3000 - $7000 (for DSP) to try out the development
platform ? Who says that is justified ? Does that build
momentum ?

True, a free SDK will make the market flooded with
crappy trial&error-devices, but it sure does build momentum,
momentum draws entrepeneurs, and then we would've
gotten a nice fauna of commercial plugs to choose from.

Anyway... over to my comparisons (other posts...)

/Magnus

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:39 pm

You answered your own question regarding accessibility to Scope D/P : it would lead to a plethora of crap devices. Look at the mass of synthedit VST plugins out there... some nice ideas, but oodles and oodles of poop.

Modular2/3 is a great platform for building devices - I don't exactly see the Modular area bulging with people desperate to create new devices.

Creamware is a musician's platform. Of course, someone needs to develop devices for it, and there are a number of 3rd parties making devices. I've seen developers get DP kits for showing Creamware what they can do.. it's not closed at all. Why would they just give free cards and software away on the offchance that the person they're giving it to can and will make a good device? They have the reputation of their platform to think of.

I know quite a few programmers who managed to blag free devkits/cards for other platforms such as UAD and Soundscape mixtreme.. and guess what? They didn't do a damn thing for them at all. Mixtreme is all but dead now too.

So, to put it in a nutshell : have you tried devices like Vorb, Vinco, Pro One, Minimax etc.. not to mention the imminent FleXor, which allows REALTIME possibilities that native software will never ever accomplish.

peace

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:48 pm

On 2003-07-25 18:39, dArKr3zIn wrote:
... oodles and oodles of poop.

LOL!

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:42 pm

On 2003-07-25 18:39, dArKr3zIn wrote:
...it would lead to a plethora of crap devices.

Very true, I definately don't need another "wannabe cheezy analog"-synth clone.

However, the "plethora" does not *kill* the platform, instead it builds a culture where gems will rise to the top and crap will sink to the bottom. The "plethora" will also show evidence of a very active & engaged userbase, something that will draw commercial attention.

The whole development of the Internet and/or Wintel PC we've seen the last decade speaks against the thought of "freedom killing Creamware". Their reputation certainly wouldn't suffer from saying the following fictive headline on the webpage of CW: "Over 200,000 user created modules - partnership with 50 leading music & audio-industri companies - compability & portability with ProTools, Cubase/Nuendo & Logic".

Of course this would never happen, but the point is - wealth, growth & diversity has never been bad from a development point of view. Apple suffered greatly for not realizing this in time.

On 2003-07-25 18:39, dArKr3zIn wrote:
free devkits/cards for other platforms such as UAD...

Did UAD ever release devkits ? I thought it was closed, but maybe early in the process they had plans for that...

One thing that sets UAD apart from the CW is that UA was EXTREMELY lucky in getting together a few golden gems of plugins into a VERY competitive package, and the userbase actually exploded as a result.

Still, last thing I heard from UA/Mackie is that they will keep the platform closed, and bet their money on succeeding with this trick once again.

On 2003-07-25 18:39, dArKr3zIn wrote:
So, to put it in a nutshell : have you tried devices like Vorb, Vinco, Pro One, Minimax etc.. not to mention the imminent FleXor, which allows REALTIME possibilities that native software will never ever accomplish.

I've played around with the Minimax, which is quite awesome, but the others - no. I will try looking into it - but also the reason why I'm asking these questions. One only has so much time in life...

/Magnus

Post by **garyb** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:32 pm

who gives a damn how many people use it if it gives the desired results.what card has BETTER overall plugs? none.there are only other good systems.because uad has mackie's marketing behind it(how about a marketing department that is willing to tell whoppers like this,allegedly from a "user",if from a user then from an idiot:"i work on ssl boards all day long and my mackie 8 bus sounds better than ANY ssl."there's a guy on crack who thinks a $3000 mixer outperforms a $500,000 mixer....)

cw's real problem is the zombiized consumer who knows nothing of the workings of a recording studio,but thinks that he can by one by reading a magazine ad..

(wow gary!you're grouchy today....)

dehuszar · Post by **dehuszar** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:00 pm

On 2003-07-25 22:32, garyb wrote:
cw's real problem is the zombiized consumer who knows nothing of the workings of a recording studio,but thinks that he can by one by reading a magazine ad..

(wow gary!you're grouchy today....)

No you're right. The only thing I'd add to that is that the retail outlets are run by zombies too. The real benefit of CW systems are not in line with what people are used to selling and buying in your average music shop.

SFP is really above and beyond all the studio-in-a-box business (which I think is selling it's self short a little) is that it's an incredibly dynamic composition platform.

Everything you could want to imagine is there to plug into something else, and what it doesn't have, you can route into it!

VST stuff got so wide spread because every aspiring musician + dog has a native CPU of some kind for crunching tones out. The unfortunate reality is that that CPU has more important tasks to tend to beyond some silly synths & FX. Like running the OS so you can see what the hell you're doing!

The other thing about Powercore and UA is that for some bizarre reason they were touted as VST 'cards'. People bitch and moan about the differences between Noah and SFP plugs, but imagine if you bought an expensive mastering pack for your native CPU and then dicovered that there was a better sounding version for which you had to buy an entirely different card and then the whole package over again? Enter Powercore!!!

The fact that they were able to advertise their system as a VST card is a sham as the plugs ran on an entirely different set of chips. Yet it was the letters V, S, and T that sold those cards when they were first released. I think the major reason why Creamware hasn't been able to really push the cards in the US has been the large-company club that gets priveledged access to Guitar Centers.

Also, how many people actually walk into Guitar Center that are actually creative people? How many songs/riffs can you recognize blaring from the Marshall stacks? These are not people who would wrap their heads around CW stuff to well. Especially when they've already been programmed with the notion that the world of VST synths and their new Pod Pro are the pinnacle of music technology.

Granted, I love synths like Lounge Lizard, but I'd drop it like a ton of bricks if CW released an E-Piano plug tomorrow.

Sam

huffcw · Post by **huffcw** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:20 pm

What it comes down to is that the Creamware system sometimes offers too much for its own good. It's good for people who can get it, wrap their arms around all of its capabilities and appreciate it. The problem is that by providing so much - it becomes more of a niche product and is harder to market to the masses.

The problem is that the mass market is more interested in the latest gimmick. There is so much junk available and people just eat it up because they buy into the hype that its the latest so it must be the greatest thing available. When, the fact is, it doesn't have to be the latest thing to be released to still be worthy and offer something nothing else can do.

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 5:43 am

On 2003-07-25 23:20, huffcw wrote:
What it comes down to is that the Creamware system sometimes offers too much for its own good. It's good for people who can get it, wrap their arms around all of its capabilities and appreciate it.

Very true. I've had the product for years and only scraped the surface of it.

However, a product that is the "Jack of all trades" isn't usually the best in *any* category, and maybe that's what makes me suspicious. I can easily justify (most) pieces of gear in my rig, because they are very good at what they do. However, I also have a bunch of gear that I seldom use myself, but keep for compability and for others to use.

How about this analogy:

I have a few "workstation" synths/keyboards: XV5080, Triton, S80, Proteus 2500 etc, and they are quite good packages. Still, they are lacking in about every area possible when compared to dedicated devices. They are ok for "drafting", but in a final production, they will most certainly be replaced with something that is better (most often in software sampling & synthesis in my case lately).

What I still haven't figured out is if the SFP family is a "workstation", or if it also has the "edge" of dedicated equipment.

I will investigate these things more, and any help you can give me here will be much appreciated!

/Magnus

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 6:34 am

I have a few "workstation" synths/keyboards: XV5080, Triton, S80, Proteus 2500 etc, and they are quite good packages. Still, they are lacking in about every area possible when compared to dedicated devices. They are ok for "drafting", but in a final production, they will most certainly be replaced with something that is better

Well i almost do things the reverse of that. i used to write everything on my JD-800, which is no slouch in the sounds department, yet i'm finding more and more that i
a) End up replacing my JD sounds with SFP synths
b) Am now tending to write using SFP synths in the first place.

So in the final mix am replacing hardware with software. Not because of the convenience (what's more convenient than a hardware synth that you can switch on and have instant sounds?), but because of the sounds. i prefer SFP; i didn't always in some of the earlier Pulsar versions but SFP3.1 has made my JD redundant (anyone want a well loved JD-800?).

If it is a 'Jack-of-all-trades' it still manages to sound better/comparable to a lot of dedicated hardware.

Cheers,
Mr A.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2003-07-26 07:36 ]</font>

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:00 am

On 2003-07-25 19:42, Magnus wrote:
...Their reputation certainly wouldn't suffer from saying the following fictive headline on the webpage of CW: "Over 200,000 user created modules - partnership with 50 leading music & audio-industri companies - compability & portability with ProTools, Cubase/Nuendo & Logic".

Of course this would never happen, but the point is - wealth, growth & diversity has never been bad from a development point of view. Apple suffered greatly for not realizing this in time.
...
One thing that sets UAD apart from the CW is that UA was EXTREMELY lucky in getting together a few golden gems of plugins into a VERY competitive package, and the userbase actually exploded as a result.

Apple once did exactly that: giving a powerful yet simple to use developement kit free to end users, claiming 'with this kit everyone is able to write an application'.
That frightened the Pros away, noone took it serious and years after that SUN ruled the world with JAVA. If Apple had placed it's HyperCard (anyone remembers this?) as a professional tool, it would have been easy for them to take that place.

On the other hand Apple had the same restriction to developers as CW has today.
You had to buy a dedicated $10K machine and license a software kit IF you succeeded in an Apple training and they judged positive about your abilities. Yes, it can be called terror.
But without that force applied to programming style the Mac UI would have never been established and there wouldn't be Windows as a follow up either. Keep in mind the Gate's company never did (does) any original work themselve.
UAD is a follow-up company having access to the original Urei designs and patents. This is a regular business plan and of course a user base which doesn't exist explodes

Imho it's all hype about a vintage thing which suddenly becomes affordable.

cheers, Tom

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:05 am

However, the "plethora" does not *kill* the platform, instead it builds a culture where gems will rise to the top and crap will sink to the bottom. The "plethora" will also show evidence of a very active & engaged userbase, something that will draw commercial attention.

Well, I beg to differ. The fact is, that if a lot of crap devices appeared, the forums would be awash with whining and bleating about the quality of devices on offer. It just does not make sense. Think about it for a while.

You cannot compare a music platform with the Internet or Wintel concepts.

Did UAD ever release devkits ? I thought it was closed, but maybe early in the process they had plans for that...

One thing that sets UAD apart from the CW is that UA was EXTREMELY lucky in getting together a few golden gems of plugins into a VERY competitive package, and the userbase actually exploded as a result.

Still, last thing I heard from UA/Mackie is that they will keep the platform closed, and bet their money on succeeding with this trick once again.

Yes, the UAD thing was early in the process. And yes, they probably realised it was silly to release the devkit and risk a lot of shite devices appearing. Why is this so hard for you to believe? And you already stated that you have not scratched the surface with Creamware stuff. I take it you have not even tried out ANY version of the modular (the modular v1 comes free with all CW cards - although it does need to be downloaded). When you have not tried all the free stuff included, how can you say that UAD has a better suite of included plugins? They have absolutely no synths whatsoever, in case you hadn't noticed ;p

Why do you think 3rd party plugins are so spectacular and essential? By this I know that you mean 'famous names' like Antares, TC, etc. Just because a plugin has a famous logo on it, does not automatically make them good. The music technology industry however, would love you to think that this is not the case.

The fact is that you and all other Creamware users have everything you need right there. You just do not appear to want to use it. Everyone has the ability to make whatever effect or synth they want with the Modular. Many people do so. Most do not upload their creations here, because they assume that everyone will be making their own custom devices. There are many who don't even spend time on the internet and Planet Z, because they are too busy making music.

Signing out of this discussion now, because it just does not make any sense any more. I hope you make your decisions wisely.

bye

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:35 am

On 2003-07-26 09:05, dArKr3zIn wrote:
Well, I beg to differ. The fact is, that if a lot of crap devices appeared, the forums would be awash with whining and bleating about the quality of devices on offer.

The VSTi SDK is a fairly free one, wouldn't you say? I've been a member of the cubase.net forums for a few years and they aren't flooded at all. In fact, when a good solid plugin sees the world, it will get it's proper attention, be it commercial or free. I guess we see this from different angles...

You cannot compare a music platform with the Internet or Wintel concepts.

In terms of how it would handle "freedom", you sure can. Soo many opinions where raised some years ago that Internet would become useless & worthless because of all the "crazy & misinforming" web-pages out there. Still, most people find it quite useful today, don't they ?

I take it you have not even tried out ANY version of the modular

I have tried Mod v1, but found it a bit awkward to work with. Maybe the first impression was misjudged, but does that make me a lesser being ?

When you have not tried all the free stuff included, how can you say that UAD has a better suite of included plugins? They have absolutely no synths whatsoever, in case you hadn't noticed ;p

I sense a tone of patronizing in there.

I think I have tried most of what was included in my original Pulsar box, but I have to say in all honesty - what came right out of the UAD-1 box was a better success of "presets" if you wish to call them that. The plugins they launched where right on the spot, whereas the Pulsar didn't immediately tickle my senses. Remember I said I bought it for routing and I/O in the beginning.

Anyway, maybe there is more to this under the surface and/or a lot of things have happened since I bought my first Pulsar, and that's why I'm asking these questions.

Hopefully not everyone in here will think I'm a troublesome nuthead

/Magnus