dNa Tape and optimus run on Scope 3.1

[geoffd99]

Scope is selling very expensive audio hardware now, the bundled software is all very old, it’s to make the hardware usable. As they know, very few people use the audio side software, it is all DAW these days. (I recall some EQ thingy came out with Scope 4, a sort of pretend 'new' plugin – SDS?).

Since 97 the only new plugins (ie creative) have been the third party ones, which I usually rush out and buy. As I tried to this time.

It's not my role to 'support' Scope - a commercial company selling very expensive top end hardware.
That is ridiculous!

There are lots of charities around who'd love £150.

Anyway, my plan is to knock up something and stick a retro UI on it, and give it away - if I ever get the time.

Back in the real world, why not check out my latest marketing wheeze for my app which is called 'Pay What You Want' - as used by Radiohead.

http://www.storyturbo.com

There is also an example of using it with Scope - at no. 7 - on this page:

http://www.storylite.com/how-to-use-sto ... -software/

PS this is the old version of the software, the Turbo version has images.

Thanks all! Geoff

[hubird]

Scope is selling very expensive audio hardware now,

'Expensive' says something about value against price, i.c. too much money for what you get.
Then I would like to know how you would call Protools...just to prove the relativeness of it.
You probably mean the Xite is pro gear with a pro price or something?
It matters, as it's important for how to valueate Scope

[geoffd99]

Garb
"you want new stuff? pay for it. jmho..."

yes that is what I am trying to do lol

[garyb]

well, be all that as it may, the shop won't be changing up this method soon...

[geoffd99]

"'Expensive' says something about value against price"
Yes I agree.
Scope does not compete against Protools, it is a boutique thing.

[astroman]

yeah, same old story... another mystery that will never cease circling digital lines

all versions of Scope were never a piece of audio hardware
it's the audio counterpart of what .Net at M$ is for business software today
a huge multipurpose collection of integrated tools...

Scope HAS a couple of flaws (some conceptual), but so has the Redmond stuff

cheers, Tom

[garyb]

that's right, it's "boutique". there's no gun to anyone's head. it's special and if you appreciate that and find it useful, then the cost is not a big issue. if it's too expensive or whatever, then too bad for SC. the prices for things are more than fair, for the work involved. that doesn't mean that it's something for everyone, nor should it be.

most people don't even know the correct way to use a compressor, let alone be worthy to judge audio gear. there are plenty of ignorant folks on kvr(and some not-so-ignorant ones too, of course!) and lots of free stuff there for those who don't see the value of something like Scope.

[hubird]

The only advantage of Protools is it's widely accepted standard status.

[Sounddesigner]

But the buyer base will never grow without true incentive to upgrade such as devices only available for v5 or XITE-1 this is just business sense. Sonic Core provided 64bit drivers for old SCOPE pci cards but this probably should've been XITE-1 only as well. Avid made 64bit only available for the new HDX platform and not tdm for incentive to upgrade, UA made 64bit only available for newer cards and discontinue old cards when 64bit arrived. Successful companies give incentive to upgrade i.e. plugins, O/S compatibility, functionality, etc or else much less people would ever upgrade. That's just business sense. If SonicCore did not make any money off devices sold and V5 needed to run devices it hurts more a already struggling company, and if dNa gets less money made due to piracy than that further hurts a already small company dNa as well.

Warp69 not having much success on SCOPE I'm sure had little to do with going the shop route when other developers who didn't have success as well did not go the shop route. Both routes had unsuccessfull developers. UA found immediate success largely cause they had a reputation for designing the actual high-end hardware they were modeling, a reputation that went back 50 years with their father Bill Putnam sr. There are lots of reasons for success and no-success.

dNa devices still can end up in non-paying customers hands even if the platform is small. The size of the platform should not determine whether a developer should protect their products or not. Fewer copies sold does not mean unworthy of protection, in that case dNa might as well drop the dsp protection and go Native. High End products need High-End-Protection. Also even the paying customer can install the purchased device on multiple SCOPE systems and a developer may only want it installed on one system and require multiple licenses to be purchased for multiple systems. There are several ways piracy can occur and a developers success or lack of should not determine whether they use strong copy-protection or not but the quality of the device should. Success comes threw determination and smart moves.

One don't know SCOPE's future either. S|C may have great success at some point and dNa devices floating around unprotected would end up in a lot of pirates hands who didn't pay for them, even more pirates as the platform userbase grows. Milton Hershey filed bankruptcy 8 times before Hersheys chocolate found success. I'm a believer that if S|C play their cards well they can have great success simply cause they have a great product.

[garyb]

no, astroman, Scope is not the equivalent of .net, except for the bundle of tools thing. Scope is audio HARDWARE controlled via the computer. a Lexicon LXP15 or 400 reverb also uses software, so does a Yamaha SPX90, so does a Euphonix console. no one would call those things expensive software with an expensive dongle...

as geoffd99 has so correctly pointed out, it's not necessarily an absolute MUST to upgrade it in any way. the hardware will continue to do it's job until it burns out.

[astroman]

... Warp69 not having much success I'm sure had little to do with going the shop route when other developers who didn't have success as well did not go the shop route. Both routes had unsuccessfull developers. ...

exactly what I meant: it doesn't matter which way you pick...

... UA found immediate success largely cause they had a reputation for designing the actual high-end hardware they were modeling, a reputation that went back 50 years with their father Bill Putnam sr. ...

righty right... int's all in the GUI magic - and to have the proper right to use the trademark

cheers, Tom

[astroman]

no, astroman, Scope is not the equivalent of .net, except for the bundle of tools thing. ...

as Geoff obviously uses .Net himself as a developer, my comment was directed to that particular point
if you leave the different subjects aside it's in fact the same scheme of coding things
Scope is a graphical tool to generate intermediate code that a JIT compiler turns into instructions
the design may be > 15 years old, but afaik it's still unsurpassed in the audio domain
(just my humble guess, tho... and maybe Geoff regards it a bit higher now...)

cheers, Tom

[Sounddesigner]

Astroman, there still can be even less success for developers on SCOPE if their devices are pirated. Even if it's just a few less sales a few is more important to them than the bigger more successful companies on other platforms since they are small. Being small and on SCOPE means one needs to protect sales even more since every sale matters more.

But money aside, there is still the principle. I would not want my products in pirates hands even if it cost me sales due to my copy-protection. As a matter of principle and love for my work I'd do all I can to keep it out of pirates hands. If someone doesn't pay they shouldn't be able to play. The principle alone is valid, IMV.

I don't speak for dNa or S|C just giving my view point on the matter.

[SilverScoper]

Since 97 the only new plugins (ie creative) have been the third party ones, which I usually rush out and buy. As I tried to this time.

Many of the 5.x bundled mix/master plugs didn't exist in '97.

It's not my role to 'support' Scope - a commercial company selling very expensive top end hardware.
That is ridiculous!

Neither is it Rays job to support any user on old Scope version by changing his entire protection scheme. That is ridiculous!

There is a lot of new stuff on the market I would not be able to run without keeping my system up to date, from multiple vendors. That's just how software upgrades work.

[Sounddesigner]

... UA found immediate success largely cause they had a reputation for designing the actual high-end hardware they were modeling, a reputation that went back 50 years with their father Bill Putnam sr. ...

righty right... int's all in the GUI magic - and to have the proper right to use the trademark

cheers, Tom

That I agree with. And this is why the Neve, SSL, etc logo's are on the UAD plugins along with UA trademark and why UA have those companies on board cause they have a valuable trademark to go with the pretty gui's. Collectively well, this all is something that has been too hard for SCOPE to compete with.

[garyb]

i think the biggest problem is the opinions of "experts" who actually know nothing that proliferate the internet. it's pretty infuriating to see detailed explanations and comparisons and reviews and opinions of software made by people who have never even seen the hardware that the software emulates. and let's not get this twisted, 99.999% of audio software is some kind of emulation of hardware functions. in this environment, of course a logo means everything. no one knows the difference otherwise...

[astroman]

sigh... true words
to slightly extend it - even more ...

Astroman, there still can be even less success for developers on SCOPE if their devices are pirated. Even if it's just a few less sales a few is more important to them than the bigger more successful companies on other platforms since they are small. ...

there is no pirating threat
when you buy Scope you get a nice all-inclusive package, and that's about it

the true 'threat' for a developer is the JIT compliler
who owns the key to that one can 'see' algorithms in plain view, no need to decompile DSP assembly
(the problem is known to SC - and they in fact mentioned planning changes years ago)
at least that's why 3rd parties with a 'name' bailed out of evaluations (Quantum iirc)

people buy associative, not by ears, not by reason
without 'brands' on board you're simply p*ssed off, even with worldclass sound you're a nobody

I mean it's cool that SC still makes it (somehow), I really like the system...
a desktop OS will never be able to do Scope's tricks - FPGA technology might be a different story

but you don't have to look that far:
Scope isn't guaranteed the superior sound anymore (as mentioned frequently)
the guitar amp sim on my iPad kicks the butt of every Scope approach in that domain ever
it's better to realise changes than to ignore them all the time - know your enemy
loosely related to the original topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... MVfwI#t=45
that's where it's at, live and 20 bucks

one has to get along with this, strengthen own points - define a position

cheers, Tom

[geoffd99]

Tom (Astroman) "as Geoff obviously uses .Net himself as a developer"
The Story Turbo app is Java, same for Win and Mac (and Linux but never got around to it).

Your points are correct re. audio software, present systems etc.

Afaik the failure of Creamware / Scope was that the systems were unreliable so could not be reviewed very well. There was a famous show event where nothing worked on demo. This gives an overhead in set up, down time etc, and if you are in a hurry (ie pro) can't depend on it.
Plus no big names.
I have to say, whenever I got into a busy project the system would fail. Even now, my stable system, probably 1 in 3 it asks for keys. Whats that all about? So attracts hobbyists, who are very passionate.

Someone else said "Protools only advantage is that is standard system" - I mean, yes... long life, many upgrades, stability, all pro users have it, and millions of home users, many new products, er, stability... that's like saying round wheels are popular cos they are standard...
and I don't even use it, I have Scope.
Time for another smiley

[Sounddesigner]

@Astroman.. Just by SonicCore still hanging around is good news. One never count out a opponent until they are truly dead, as long as SCOPE is here and alive it is a threat and S|C has done something right.

S|C is creating a way to adapt with the times wich is Open-SCOPE wich opens the doors for many things that will be unique to SCOPE. At some point the market I feel will burn out and get tired of vintage emulations and at some point some people who are allergic to spending money on quality gear like SCOPE may realize Native isn't as good as they thought. SCOPE's old algorithms are of great quality still and just as other platforms have improved so has SCOPE with dNa, Modular 4, etc. SonicCore shouldn't really try to compete with $20 VST's or they'll loose, SCOPE is boutique high-quality gear wich many of us prefer over Native, and I'm sure many more with the right marketing and more developments.

Brand names are important but at some point those with big brand names didn't have them. Making a name for yourself is the starting point and one definitely can't say S|C can't make a name for themselves simply cause we don't know what S|C is capable of yet cause they have NEVER released their own platform software. Open-SCOPE , SCOPE 6 are solely S|C creations and provides the real metric to judge. Can't truly say what someone can or can't do until we see them in action and S|C haven't truly gotten started yet. But what is impressive is S|C has been around for 8 years surviving in this tuff age without truly ever getting started. UA has proven dsp's are still tops in this i7/cheap plugins/freeware/etc age cause Native developers can't get away with selling their plugins with a $1500 dongle like UA. The market is willing to pay a price for UA plugins that it wouldn't pay Native developers thus the market is stating dsp plugins sound better. Wich Native developers do you believe could truly create their own dsp platform and sell their Native plugins on the expensive dsp instead? Many Native developers find it hard to get away with a cheap ilok that is why many have abandoned it. Native developers can't sell their plugins with a $1500 dongle or dsp card cause the market don't believe their products are as good as what's on dsp platforms still cause if it did Native developer's plugins prices would be rising like uad prices have not falling like they are. Just by S|C surviving in high-end dsp world is impressive and something that VERY few are capable of. Even SSL, waves, TC, and Korg have failed with their dsp platforms/co-processors. SonicCore has survived and this is impressive and if S|C does become more successful when they finally release their own platform that success is a statement by the market as to who has the higher sound quality between SCOPE and Native, apart from maybe Algorithmix I don't believe Native developers can sell their plugins with their own dsp platforms or charge extremely high prices with ilok like Algorithmix, they don't believe it either since their prices are droping. Just by being here SonicCore has proven the quality of the SCOPE platform and more success will do it more so. Native developers can't do what S|C, UA, etc are doing, even some Native developers with big names have tried and failed with dedicated dsp such as SSL and Waves.

As for piracy I do believe it exist since I know there is multiple ways. If dNa did not use the shop then a user could install the plugins on multiple SCOPE systems when they only paid for one license. Or when they decide to sell their SCOPE boards they can have the plugin wich they purchased a single license for on all boards being sold to increase the boards prices. And if the platforms userbase grows piracy becomes a more significant threat (UAD had demo's hacked to run as full versions once). IMO it's not good to take unnecessary risks even if one feels piracy doesn't exist on SCOPE if even the possibility it can occur is there.

My 2 cents, and that's about all it is since I'm not SonicCore.


EDITED

[garyb]

Afaik the failure of Creamware / Scope was that the systems were unreliable so could not be reviewed very well. There was a famous show event where nothing worked on demo. This gives an overhead in set up, down time etc, and if you are in a hurry (ie pro) can't depend on it.
Plus no big names.
I have to say, whenever I got into a busy project the system would fail. Even now, my stable system, probably 1 in 3 it asks for keys. Whats that all about? So attracts hobbyists, who are very passionate.

Geoff, everything else is fine, but this is just Bullcrap.

i have recordings on US charts(top 20) made with my system NEVER crashing. i have done those demos including one year when we had 6 performances a day with 3-5 artists and 1 hour for stage changes each day for 4 straight days running for 10 hours a day. that's runing the PA and recording with not even one hiccup. major artists ARE using Scope and they actually paid money, this includes guys like Justin Timberlake and Hans Zimmer and Annie Lennox and Tom Keane. they didn't get free product in exchange for their names. your system always failed because of what you put together.

actually, Scope isn't for regular hobbyists AT ALL. it's for professional engineers and serious hobbyists. it's not perfect, but it's nowhere near as unstable and unreliable as you put forward. of course, it you want to use a special system like Scope and you don't want to put it in an environment where it can be successful, one that it doesn't like, then naturally it will work like crap.

oh and how unstable? the computer i am typing on has a Luna card in it. i use the computer for the internet and i don't have cable television so i watch all shows, movies and sports on that computer(through a projector), mostly streaming, and all the audio goes through the Luna. it runs a minimum of 16 hours a day, for the last 5 years or so, and i have never had any issues with Scope on that computer.

your computer is unstable because of your computer, not Scope.