PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

OK John,

I do think you made a point there.

But would you need such flexibility to design a KlangBox-based QUANTUM WAVE or SOLARIS.

From what I guess, Quantum Wave does not need such dynamic loading structure. Is it the same for SOLARIS.

Please give us some news about your current work, john.

CheerZ

Thinking a bit more about that topic, my NOAH is able to do such thing without the need of a PC structure.
The technology should have been there. Or do the ASB/Klangbox hardware design is so much different compared to the NOAH (simplification for lower cost).
Moreover, from the information I understood, ASB and Klangboxes are "just" powered by 2 high-speed DSP (a less complicated structure to manage compared to the 10-DSP NOAH EX structure).
Another solution would be to get from one Klangbox unit a pair 6-voice polyphonic synthesizer each of them optimized to one DSP. That would afford many combination to offer some new products:
- dual 6 voices limited MINIMAX
- 6 voices MINIMAX + 6 voices PRO-5
- 6 voices MINIMAX + 6 voices PRODYSSEY
- dual 6 voices PRO-5
- 6 voices PRO-5 + 6 voices PRODYSSEY
- dual 6 voices PRODYSSEY
OK, it is a bit more complicated to manage regarding sellings, but we just have to keep in mind that both original MINIMOOG and ARP ODYSSEY were monophonic and that the original PROPHET-5 was 5 voices polyphonic...

Come on guys, dreams sometimes have to come true.

CheerZ

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUROLURA on 2006-10-13 16:58 ]</font>

- the lack of multitimbrality is a software issue. It has been hinted before that this would come as a software update.

- the "why dont have all devs in a unit at $300" is just plain stupid.

- the issue of not having either STS-5000/modular/quantum wave/Solaris or likewise is a harware issue. They WOULD have a killer if they could do a standalone version of Solaris, but it takes time and money. If current ASBs/klangboxes generates enuff revenues, a Solaris/quantum box would be the only sensible option.

just my 1,4 euros.

btw, its getting close to ten years and we
are still celebrating the same technology! AND ITS STILL (at least sort of) BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE!

this is totally off topic but hey, it should be mentioned in this "whats the hype?" world.

I`m sure CW could easily build a Klangbox that can switch the different softwares: Prodyssey, Pro-12, Minimax ....

But: I`m sure its much more work, to make the different software plug-ins work parallel.
The would cost the need to implement Multitasking/"sharing of the ressources" into these boxes.

So this would be a good thing and a first step into a new Scope hardware....

A box which loads different software from CF would be nice.

for this you need a scope/SFP that works as an OS. you put a scope board in a magma style box.
you switch computer on and sfp starts immediately. take a mini laptop (or a mini lcd screen that plugs direct to that box).
so now you have your sfp capable rack... no windows/mac apps though... and a lot of R&D.
It is just the creamware os, is missing nowadays... it's perfect for synths and most effects if you put an a16. In one or two years it should be easier to do this setup (mini laptop price go down, magma price go down, scope board price go down (it is quite cheap now even for a new one)).
No? or something like that to avoid all cables...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: spacef on 2006-10-14 11:42 ]</font>

you know it's funny, but synths are the weakest part of the scope system. synths are easiest to sell though, and the favorite of synth players.

everytime i see my complete studio system guttted for this one small part it really makes for a violent reaction in me. scope is the best soundcard/effects/mixing solution on the market. klangboxes and firewire boxes, nifty as they are, are no upgrade/replacement @#$$%!

keep scope in the computer!

i know i'm gonna lose this battle, i just need to say something so that when it's over it wasn't my fault for not speaking up.

yep.

On 2006-10-14 10:19, garyb wrote:
you know it's funny, but synths are the weakest part of the scope system. synths are easiest to sell though, and the favorite of synth players.

I can't really agree with that Gary, because apart from Scope's beautifully designed sdk & routing enviroment, synths & the designers of them like John Bowen, Spacef & others (like Adern with modular developements) are a big part of what makes Scope unique & attractive to many existing & potential customers. The work that all 3rd party SFP developers have done & continue to do deserves more credit than that & deserves to be supported as it also in various ways supports not only the platform, but CW themselves! We should be more than thankfull that John, Mehdi & many others haven't been lured away by the chance of full time or freelance work for big boys searching for their talents!!

So basically, no, synths aren't the weekest part of the platfrom, they're one of the crucial legs it stands on (imo) !!!!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shroomz on 2006-10-14 11:49 ]</font>

It is true that in its essence, scope is a *music production system* in the classical sense of the term. The platform as a whole is a glorified mixing and routing environment, the synth being integrated within this matrix but still ad-ons which don't stand on their own, unless boxed as separate machines. I think that it's what Gary meant.

The true strength of scope is not within its synths but rather as whole music making architecture. This doesn't make the synths any less amazing, but it is a bit sad that cw's energy goes into something which is beside its own original purpose. If it can allow them to survive and thrive then so be it, but these klangboxes don't interest me for the simple reason that they have a fixed architecture and I want flexible tools.

You already have flexible tools (possibly the most flexible on the market to this day).

The Klangboxes are a bonus related to CW's survival & something which will hopefully sell very well to insure that survival

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shroomz on 2006-10-14 13:04 ]</font>

I don't question that! I'm just not so much of a synth guy to buy a dedicated 1 synth box, -unless there's a modular in the box...! I just don't rely on synths enough to make it a logical choice for me. What I would spend serious money on is an updated scope dsp system with more power.

Presently, for a few bucks more than a 6 dsp board I'm upgrading to a core2 cpu with 1 gig of ram. I know it's apple and oranges, but still that is some serious processing horsepower. It removes nothing of the quality of scope, however I can't help but feel that they're behind the actual movement and that these one-trick boxes are a compromise to give ready to eat stuff to the masses *instead of* or *to allow* the development of what scope really is and what it shall become in the future.

If it is what it takes, then so be it for good, but as I'm concerned, these 1-synth boxes just don't fit the bill.

scope synths are first rate and reason enough to use the cards, but as a platform to build a studio around, scope is wonderful even without any synths at all.

i'm not a keyboard player or a synthesist(although i use and love them). as an engineer, scope is the single most useful piece of studio gear i ever purchased, period. that's why i say that the synths aren't even the best part of scope. i have a few choice bits o kit, too with names like soundcraft, urei, orban, manley, demeter, soundeluxe, millenia, dbx, blue, blue sky, etc, etc. i work in a store that specializes in used gear and i have outfitted the eagles, david lindley, easy e, poison, the fabulous thunderbirds, allan holdsworth(some obvious names off the top of my head), i've seen some gear...

klangboxes are great! they look like a fine idea and a good moneymaker. i have a b4000 sold already. i just don't want to see the source of those nice synths become neglected.

On 2006-10-13 21:15, piddi wrote: ...They WOULD have a killer if they could do a standalone version of Solaris, but it takes time and money.

And so let me ask again - how much would you expect such a box to cost? This has a huge impact on whether or not this could become a reality.

-john b.

Hard to say John. I reckon if you could put Solaris in one of these Klangboxes and add enough dsp power to get 16 voices, You could easily charge $1000+. Maybe as much as $2000 for the desktop version with knobs on

Don't know how many you would sell at that price though

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sharc on 2006-10-15 06:02 ]</font>

...Then there's the issue of the modular elements. Would these have to be scrapped for a Klangbox Solaris?

I like the sound of the keyboard one at that price

Gary,

The cards and software cost too much. This is something affordable. I fear that fake analog synths are a trend that could die though. I wish they could come up with something more original than these. There are a lot of VST plug-ins I would rather have than this but there was a time not too long ago that I would have bought it.

On 2006-10-15 06:35, braincell wrote:
...I fear that fake analog synths are a trend that could die though. I wish they could come up with something more original than these...

they got to milk the cow 'as long as supply lasts' - then it may be time for something new

ASBs and Klangboxes are easy to market - but what the heck is a Solaris... ?

I'm afraid only 'live' performers among existing customers will buy it.
Of course everyone will appreciate the idea and find it cool, but who's gonna vote by the wallet in real life ?

It will be a tough marketing round against stage presence of Virus and Nord.
If you can keep it below 1K Euro with more or less complete interface it may work with a ton of the best presets spread and brought to attention everywhere.

As already mentioned my personal favourite would be the QuantumWave - it has a legendary (and highly exclusive) blueprint and some features that none of the other Scope synths have.
But that's just a personal guess - eventually ALL of John synths rule

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-10-15 11:42 ]</font>