hello! i' m new to the forum
I know that this is probably a stupid question
I wanted to know if using sfp i can mixdown EXPORTING audio from my sequencer, so the volumes and effects set in the mixer of sfp result in the final mixdown, thanks!
Mixdown (export Audio) question
-
Mr Arkadin
- Posts: 3283
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm
And I don't give a **** about the pro studios. This also assumes that any pro studios give a *** about Creamware.On 2003-11-11 05:08, dArKr3zIn wrote:
I'm sure all the Pro studios out there don't give a **** that they can't make an offline mixdown with their expensive hardware.
I just look at the incredible ease that VSTi delivers in this area, then look at SFP.
Not only is native just about equal to CW on sound quality, it is also way ahead on polyphony. With export it is also ahead on ergonomics and workflow. They're some pretty strong reasons to go native.
And the money for CW gear is in home users, not "pro studios".
The audio production market is moving and developing all the time; CPUs get faster all the time; VSTi synths get better all the time.
Now tell me what CW has been doing to keep up with some of this besides releasing an emulation or two ?
The only thing I can see is Noah, and that's not much direct use to Pulsar & Luna users.
What will make this platform flourish is innovation.
I don't even care whether it's audio export, but it does need something to give it a boost. The "quality" argument is running out of puff and another year or so of native development and CPU increases will make this claim laughably irrelevant (as it already is for many users).
Meanwhile the polyphony limits are hurting the platform - just search KvR for "creamware" and see what people think of CW polyphony. Horrified is the general impression.
Then look at some instruments like Absynth, & Rhino - nothing even remotely like that on SFP.
Even the much-loved Flexor extension to Mod-III lacks dozens of modules and capabilities that have been standard in Reaktor for years.
And the comparisons just get funnier: Look at samplers: Kontakt versus STS5000 !
Instead of defending Creamware they should be getting a giant kick in the rear !
This rant is partly "devil's advocate", but is still worth considering....
-
Mr Arkadin
- Posts: 3283
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm
i agree with the STS5000 argument but that's all.
Why don't you just go native Spirit if it's so good and leave us sad dinosaurs to our outdated cards?
Mr A
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2003-11-11 12:20 ]</font>
Now there's a can of worms. Also what is everyone's obsession with polyphony? This is the sort of thinking that screwed up Prodyssey.Not only is native just about equal to CW on sound quality, it is also way ahead on polyphony.
Why don't you just go native Spirit if it's so good and leave us sad dinosaurs to our outdated cards?
Mr A
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2003-11-11 12:20 ]</font>
Sorry if my reply is a little brutal but I don't think any other approach will work here.
Your arguments are bizarre. It's something like saying that since some guitars have MIDI, they should all have MIDI, and if they don't they are useless. Also, would you say a big, fat-sounding analog modular is useless because it doesn't have instant recall of patches and built-in MIDI?
You clearly don't understand the strong points of this platform - realtime performance, just like hardware. And quality algorithms which take a lot of DSP.
Absynth and Rhino sound like absolute poop quite frankly. They may have innovative interfaces but that's about it. (oh better not forget the bugs as well..)
A "devil's advocate rant" ?? Some would view that as trolling, perhaps.
My advice: stick to Fruity Loops.
peace
Your arguments are bizarre. It's something like saying that since some guitars have MIDI, they should all have MIDI, and if they don't they are useless. Also, would you say a big, fat-sounding analog modular is useless because it doesn't have instant recall of patches and built-in MIDI?
You clearly don't understand the strong points of this platform - realtime performance, just like hardware. And quality algorithms which take a lot of DSP.
Absynth and Rhino sound like absolute poop quite frankly. They may have innovative interfaces but that's about it. (oh better not forget the bugs as well..)
A "devil's advocate rant" ?? Some would view that as trolling, perhaps.
My advice: stick to Fruity Loops.
peace
I am a working producer making my living out of producing singer/songwriters and other artists. i have a very powerful computer, but i do not use it for synthesys. wanna know why? becouse i am in search of realy good sound. and once i find something with that realy good sound i try to find something that sounds even better. and VST's have been left behind in the race.
creamware have started with sounding better than computers 4 years ago (or was it 5)when pulsar was released. ez synth has sounded better than Rebirth, and blue synth better than Reality. all along cw was 1 step ahead of cpu in tearms of sound quality. on pulsar V2 we had a giant leap ahead and SFP 3 was even a bigger leap. now creamware are sounding even better with minimax and prodyssey, and alltho i also dont need any more VA's, i cant ignore that they sound so much better than any vst.
so while some people like to get a focusrite platinum preamp with lots of knobs, buttons and features, some of us would like to get a good neve preamp with 1 knob for gain.
you get my drift?
creamware have started with sounding better than computers 4 years ago (or was it 5)when pulsar was released. ez synth has sounded better than Rebirth, and blue synth better than Reality. all along cw was 1 step ahead of cpu in tearms of sound quality. on pulsar V2 we had a giant leap ahead and SFP 3 was even a bigger leap. now creamware are sounding even better with minimax and prodyssey, and alltho i also dont need any more VA's, i cant ignore that they sound so much better than any vst.
so while some people like to get a focusrite platinum preamp with lots of knobs, buttons and features, some of us would like to get a good neve preamp with 1 knob for gain.
you get my drift?
-
Mr Arkadin
- Posts: 3283
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Ok, just to put my oar in briefly, if no-one minds!
I think that one point that Spirit makes is very important. We should always be prepared to criticise. My feeling is that one of the main reasons that Apple is in the situation it is in today (i.e. not ruling the roost) is because its userbase is too accomodating.
It's all too easy when you want to justify the benefits of your chosen platform to be unrealistic about its downsides. It's also easy to be unprepared to discuss them, in case people who don't use the product take them as a reason not to buy in.
With regard to Spirit's specific points about the Creamware platform, it's important to remember that it's probably tough for a company like CW to be able to afford to be too innovative. Its products must sustain the company and hence by definition must be fairly mainstream.
It's much more likely that 3rd parties will be able to raise the bar of innovation (as Flexor/Wavelength et al have done) and hopefully CW will fully support them. What was the last truly innovative plugin Emagic or Steinberg released (remembering they're significantly bigger than CW)?
On the topic of audio export, I understand the frustration, but as I understand it, this is something that the host software (i.e. Cubase/Logic) will have to support, as it is in the new Nuendo. I can't see technically how CW could do anything about it, as they do not have control of the midi/audio driving their devices. Probably not worth discussing here really.
On the sound quality issue, this is such a personal issue that I really don't think it's even relevant. A friend came round (who has worked for a while in a "proper" studio) and was massively impressed by what a bit of tweaking in SFP could do to a mix of his. However, certain styles of music will lend themselves better/worse to the SFP sound. If Spirit believes that for his use that native plugins provide the same level of sound quality for his music, then it does. For me in general, I prefer the sound of SFP synths to those I've used natively. That's not to say that it would stop me using native synths, as sound quality is nowhere near as important as people would make out. I'd even go as far as to argue that sound quality doesn't even exist, unless you're talking about fidelity of a live recording.
Anyway, finally, I agree that the samplers need sorting, as I would much prefer to sample in SFP, but feel that using a sample editor with virtually no undo is just crazy! Also, it takes too long to do stuff in the STS's. I always end up using the various apps (e.g. Awave etc.) to build sample programs instead.
Sorry for lengthy ramble,
Will
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: w_ellis on 2003-11-11 17:32 ]</font>
I think that one point that Spirit makes is very important. We should always be prepared to criticise. My feeling is that one of the main reasons that Apple is in the situation it is in today (i.e. not ruling the roost) is because its userbase is too accomodating.
It's all too easy when you want to justify the benefits of your chosen platform to be unrealistic about its downsides. It's also easy to be unprepared to discuss them, in case people who don't use the product take them as a reason not to buy in.
With regard to Spirit's specific points about the Creamware platform, it's important to remember that it's probably tough for a company like CW to be able to afford to be too innovative. Its products must sustain the company and hence by definition must be fairly mainstream.
It's much more likely that 3rd parties will be able to raise the bar of innovation (as Flexor/Wavelength et al have done) and hopefully CW will fully support them. What was the last truly innovative plugin Emagic or Steinberg released (remembering they're significantly bigger than CW)?
On the topic of audio export, I understand the frustration, but as I understand it, this is something that the host software (i.e. Cubase/Logic) will have to support, as it is in the new Nuendo. I can't see technically how CW could do anything about it, as they do not have control of the midi/audio driving their devices. Probably not worth discussing here really.
On the sound quality issue, this is such a personal issue that I really don't think it's even relevant. A friend came round (who has worked for a while in a "proper" studio) and was massively impressed by what a bit of tweaking in SFP could do to a mix of his. However, certain styles of music will lend themselves better/worse to the SFP sound. If Spirit believes that for his use that native plugins provide the same level of sound quality for his music, then it does. For me in general, I prefer the sound of SFP synths to those I've used natively. That's not to say that it would stop me using native synths, as sound quality is nowhere near as important as people would make out. I'd even go as far as to argue that sound quality doesn't even exist, unless you're talking about fidelity of a live recording.
Anyway, finally, I agree that the samplers need sorting, as I would much prefer to sample in SFP, but feel that using a sample editor with virtually no undo is just crazy! Also, it takes too long to do stuff in the STS's. I always end up using the various apps (e.g. Awave etc.) to build sample programs instead.
Sorry for lengthy ramble,
Will
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: w_ellis on 2003-11-11 17:32 ]</font>
Hi Will,
I'm in no way opposed to criticism. My main issue with Spirit's post is that the arguments were nonsensical. Where is the point in comparing an apple and an orange and saying one is useless for not being the other?
I am in no way a CW-obsessive - I would like them to fix Mod3 bugs as much as anyone else, and I also think that the STS could do with an overhaul. However there are so many alternatives to Creamware sampling - and doing it natively is probably even better, for percussive/rhythmic stuff anyway, due to sample accuracy. And the Mod bugs are not crippling. Much as I'd like to see these things fixed, it's not at all essential, and I can see why it hasn't been done. I can still get on with making my music though. There are downsides to EVERY platform, from the cheapest to the most expensive. Many will never get fixed. This is reality. Get on with it. Negative whining does absolutely nothing constructive at all.
I also have no aversion to using native software: in fact my job heavily involves native software. However, I also appreciate that each platform has its own strengths and weaknesses which makes it a unique instrument - be it Pulsar, UAD1, TC Powercore, ProTools HD etc. Just because one of them does something better does not make the others 'ancient' or 'useless'. I see a similar attitude from people who say that Logic on PC is dead, not worth using: again, just absolute shit-talk.
peace
I'm in no way opposed to criticism. My main issue with Spirit's post is that the arguments were nonsensical. Where is the point in comparing an apple and an orange and saying one is useless for not being the other?
I am in no way a CW-obsessive - I would like them to fix Mod3 bugs as much as anyone else, and I also think that the STS could do with an overhaul. However there are so many alternatives to Creamware sampling - and doing it natively is probably even better, for percussive/rhythmic stuff anyway, due to sample accuracy. And the Mod bugs are not crippling. Much as I'd like to see these things fixed, it's not at all essential, and I can see why it hasn't been done. I can still get on with making my music though. There are downsides to EVERY platform, from the cheapest to the most expensive. Many will never get fixed. This is reality. Get on with it. Negative whining does absolutely nothing constructive at all.
I also have no aversion to using native software: in fact my job heavily involves native software. However, I also appreciate that each platform has its own strengths and weaknesses which makes it a unique instrument - be it Pulsar, UAD1, TC Powercore, ProTools HD etc. Just because one of them does something better does not make the others 'ancient' or 'useless'. I see a similar attitude from people who say that Logic on PC is dead, not worth using: again, just absolute shit-talk.
peace
True, I don't see any other product out there offering the same innovative flexible architecture as the creamware stuff.On 2003-11-11 08:54, Spirit wrote:
....
What will make this platform flourish is innovation.
....
This "native will make dsp redundant" argument has been running an awfully long time now.
The "quality" argument is running out of puff and another year or so of native development and CPU increases will make this claim laughably irrelevant (as it already is for many users).
I've seen the "death of dsp" prediction starting '98. Myself, I thnk we are still a long way off from having general purpose CPU's handle it all.Quality is a very subjective area and I try to keep my comments to a minimum about it, but (note: a conclusion that I have drawn for myself not for anyone else), from a mixing/effects point of view (not synths), I would have thought that dsp cards like UAD-1 and TC Powercore wouldn't be required if you could get nice reverbs, eqs, compressors etc that weren't cpu resource hogs all in the native environment.
I also agree that, depending on how you like to work, the SFP environment can be defficient in some areas of workflow efficiency compared to native systems. But it is a real time system with the benefits and drawbacks that go with it. SFP can't be "all things to all people". Myself, someone who only uses native sequencer software as a tape deck, incorporates external hardware with mixdowns, export audio is totally irrelevant.
You've been here a long time Spirit, and maybe you have just outgrown the product in areas specific to you.
I believe that Spirit expressed himself very clearly as to what he felt was negative about the Creamware platform.
However I do not believe he should be so sensitive about the replies that he receives to his post.
Passion about the Creamware platform runs two ways.
Everything including Creamware has its negatives and positives. Such is life!
For me nothing sounds as good as the Creamware synthesizers on the market today.
I also feel that sometimes this forum gets too caught up in specs and technical jargon rather than discussing music.
We can always compare Cubase to Logic and ProTools to Creamware and so on..........
However the truth be known all of the systems are capable of creating hits as well as creating absolute shit.
It is true that one is limited to his or her equipment, however brilliant music has been produced on much less than anything that we are discussing here.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nikibuzz on 2003-11-11 19:31 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nikibuzz on 2003-11-11 19:33 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nikibuzz on 2003-11-11 19:34 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nikibuzz on 2003-11-11 19:35 ]</font>
However I do not believe he should be so sensitive about the replies that he receives to his post.
Passion about the Creamware platform runs two ways.
Everything including Creamware has its negatives and positives. Such is life!
For me nothing sounds as good as the Creamware synthesizers on the market today.
I also feel that sometimes this forum gets too caught up in specs and technical jargon rather than discussing music.
We can always compare Cubase to Logic and ProTools to Creamware and so on..........
However the truth be known all of the systems are capable of creating hits as well as creating absolute shit.
It is true that one is limited to his or her equipment, however brilliant music has been produced on much less than anything that we are discussing here.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nikibuzz on 2003-11-11 19:31 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nikibuzz on 2003-11-11 19:33 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nikibuzz on 2003-11-11 19:34 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Nikibuzz on 2003-11-11 19:35 ]</font>
look,the "newest","most innovative",is nice,but at the end of the day i want a piece of gear that will remain usefull.that is the only real requirement when i buy gear anymore.EVERYTHING is becoming outdated even before you buy it and yet,there are always some pieces that are always in demand.pre cbs fender amps are one example(WAY outdated hand soldered tube tech),an 1176 compressor(so popular they started making them again)is another,the minimoog for example(ditto),and on and on.
good sounds are NEVER useless or out of style.even if one just used the cw card in an old computer as a (via adat and converters)stand alone record interface or stand alone synth(what a module!) or as a stand alone multi effects(!)it would be useful.for a long time.because it sounds good and it works.
there is no similar sound card on the market.so,really,this thing can only get better from here,until as with all gear,it will be retired,but not from usefullness,just from manufacturing,because the computer will have changed.
so...what does this have to do with "native"?nothing.native is getting better,hurrah!I USE NATIVE.so should you all(in my opinion)! and use hardware too.
it's good to want to improve the thing,but the reality is that all of the extras that the card does,hide the fact that it's a really great soundcard for recording studios and production houses.whether they know this or not doesn't change the fact that it is a great card.(i know that there are those who say otherwise,but i say that a real engineer would find the thing to be a pussycat.)the fact that it is priced at the consumer level(quite fair on cw's part)causes amatuers(and pros sometimes,please don't read this cw) to think it's a toy.(well it can be! )those who do not currently use all of it's advantages can grow into it.it is infinitely scalable as a basic PLATFORM to work off of.i could rant on,but this is why i don't feel panic about the bugs.a platform is not a be all end all.it supports the rest of the work/space.
i would love to see the samplers updated,the 32bit audio sequencer,the pno modeler,newer,stranger synthesis,etc.i think off line bouncing is unlikely though because of communications problems(sfp is about streaming),but i find that to be a forgivable weakness.if it is the biggest,then for me that speaks loads about cw's strengths.i really prefer to hear my mixes in realtime.it is the last chance to change my mind or catch my error.for others,where speed is the ONLY factor,it's probably a big deal.i would bet that all in all,those who are in the biggest rush end up taking just as long from having to redo to fix mistakes caused by the haste(judging by my own life).
anyway,for the reader who survives all those words,have a nice day.
good sounds are NEVER useless or out of style.even if one just used the cw card in an old computer as a (via adat and converters)stand alone record interface or stand alone synth(what a module!) or as a stand alone multi effects(!)it would be useful.for a long time.because it sounds good and it works.
there is no similar sound card on the market.so,really,this thing can only get better from here,until as with all gear,it will be retired,but not from usefullness,just from manufacturing,because the computer will have changed.
so...what does this have to do with "native"?nothing.native is getting better,hurrah!I USE NATIVE.so should you all(in my opinion)! and use hardware too.
it's good to want to improve the thing,but the reality is that all of the extras that the card does,hide the fact that it's a really great soundcard for recording studios and production houses.whether they know this or not doesn't change the fact that it is a great card.(i know that there are those who say otherwise,but i say that a real engineer would find the thing to be a pussycat.)the fact that it is priced at the consumer level(quite fair on cw's part)causes amatuers(and pros sometimes,please don't read this cw) to think it's a toy.(well it can be!
)those who do not currently use all of it's advantages can grow into it.it is infinitely scalable as a basic PLATFORM to work off of.i could rant on,but this is why i don't feel panic about the bugs.a platform is not a be all end all.it supports the rest of the work/space.i would love to see the samplers updated,the 32bit audio sequencer,the pno modeler,newer,stranger synthesis,etc.i think off line bouncing is unlikely though because of communications problems(sfp is about streaming),but i find that to be a forgivable weakness.if it is the biggest,then for me that speaks loads about cw's strengths.i really prefer to hear my mixes in realtime.it is the last chance to change my mind or catch my error.for others,where speed is the ONLY factor,it's probably a big deal.i would bet that all in all,those who are in the biggest rush end up taking just as long from having to redo to fix mistakes caused by the haste(judging by my own life).
anyway,for the reader who survives all those words,have a nice day.