## SFP running as VSTi

Device/Module Wishlist

Original topic on PlanetZ: https://forums.scopeusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=7228

####

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2002 5:37 am
by sharc
I know this may sound strange, but would it not be a good idea for CW to create a version of SFP which would run without the need of dedicated hardware. At the moment for example, I can get less out of my sts3000 running on LunaII than my friend can get out of Volksampler on VST.
With CW apparently refusing to upgrade their DSP's is it not about time to look at escalating CPU speeds as the way forward. If SFP were to run as a VSTi, my guess is that the average user would have at least 3 dsps worth of CW power to play with.
This would surely expand the CW user base (which can't be bad) and at the same time existing CW users would have more power to use SFP plug-ins....just a thought

####

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2002 6:58 am
by sharc
The more I think about this, the more it makes sense. Within a year or two we're going to be running machines with 4 or 5 Ghz processors (how many sharcs does that equal?). It would be kind of like an SRB in software. If you look at it another way, It wouldn't even need to be the entire SFP packaged into a VSTi. All you would need is a CW 'wrapper' of sorts. Just think how many extra Minimax's and Pro-One's would sell. In the meantime CW could carry on thinking about how it was going to upgrade their DSPs and still have a substantial user base to sell them to at the end of the day (More SFP plugin users = more SFP plugins = long live CW)...It's that simple

####

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2002 7:19 am
by at0m
This won't happen:
1) DSP coding is totally different from CPU coding cos
2) DSP are dedicated processors. To give you an idea, CW stated that one of the currently used Shark DSP's is as powerfull for audio as a G3 400. So my 21 DSP are equivalent to G3 8400MHz
3) wait fill CW releases -if they do- new cards w new DSP.
Take care.

####

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2002 7:41 am
by bosone

> On 2002-10-08 07:58, sharc wrote:
> All you would need is a CW 'wrapper' of sorts. Just think how many extra Minimax's and Pro-One's would sell

i don't think so.
while a CW -> VST or CW -> wrapper could be a good idea, the sound that you will achieve will NOT be good.
think a moment: minimax sound SO good (they say, i didnt try it!) because CW know its card and how digital to analog is performed, and how work their DSP INDEPENDENTLY from the host computer.
if you code a minimax as VSTi, some user will use it (warez! - this can be a problem!) on a Sound Blaster. will the sound be as good? i don't think so!

####

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2002 7:42 am
by sharc
Have you noticed though, that the Volksampler VSTi is already half way there. Surely CW didn't recode the STS from scratch. I'm unfortunately a PC user so I'm not sure what the minimum spec for the volksampler is on the Mac. What I do know is that I've seen several running on an Athlon 1800+, while my 3 dsp luna just manages 1 sts3000. I'm not arguing with your point, simply pointing out that todays hi-end processors should be able to handle emulation of 3 sharcs, therefore about 1 year from now, it wouldn't be so unrealistic. CPU's are going to keep on getting faster and cheaper, while dedicated dsp cards struggle to keep up. (hehe 21 dsp's - can I be in your band?) lol. cheers

####

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2002 7:47 am
by sharc

> if you code a minimax as VSTi, some user will use it (warez! - this can be a problem!) on a Sound Blaster. will the sound be as good? i don't think so!

maybe so. But, what about the users of other pro sound cards. Sure, it probably won't sound exactly the same as on CW. But neither do most VSTi's - some sound better on other cards. As for the warez side of things. I'm sure CW could impliment similar protection to what they're using just now, or find some workaround.

####

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2002 7:59 am
by sharc

> On 2002-10-08 08:41, bosone wrote:

> > while a CW -> VST or CW -> wrapper could be a good idea, the sound that you will achieve will NOT be good.
> > think a moment: minimax sound SO good (they say, i didnt try it!) because CW know its card and how digital to analog is performed, and how work their DSP INDEPENDENTLY from the host computer.

There are plenty of VSTi's already out there which have the same problem. NI's Pro-52/FM7 and Waldorf's PPG spring to mind. They sound different on different cards, but they still work great!. When you think about it all audio sounds different depending what card you're using, so it doesn't really matter, does it?

####

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2002 8:19 am
by sharc
OK...let's look at this from another angle. If we were to take Native Instruments as an example. They already have a fair piece of the VSTi pie (if you pardon the pun). They have excellent synths like the FM7, Pro53, Absynth and B4; they have an excellent sampler - Kontact; they have Reaktor which is along similar lines to the CW modular. Now lets say they had a range of dsp cards which compared to the CW range and while their plugins worked as VSTi's they could say they worked best on the NI cards ...Which platform would have the biggest user base, CW or NI?

####

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2002 9:24 am
by Spirit
I like your idea about a software emulation of a sharc. With heavy processing power this should be possible. Interesting . . .

####

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2002 10:47 am
by bosone

> On 2002-10-08 09:19, sharc wrote:
> OK...let's look at this from another angle. If we were to take Native Instruments as an example. They already have a fair piece of the VSTi pie (if you pardon the pun). They have excellent synths like the FM7, Pro53, Absynth and B4; they have an excellent sampler - Kontact; they have Reaktor which is along similar lines to the CW modular. Now lets say they had a range of dsp cards which compared to the CW range and while their plugins worked as VSTi's they could say they worked best on the NI cards ...Which platform would have the biggest user base, CW or NI?

good idea. in this case, NI will be the leader. no doubt! a dedicated hardware with low asio latency, hardware ins/outs and routing, and reaktor as the main window (like SFP)!
as a second tought, why didn't they think such a thing??
as last: why not a joint venture between CW and NI?? THIS would be a really breakthru! (this topic was covered before, if i don't remeber bad)

####

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2002 10:54 am
by Spirit
There was a rumour a few months ago that NI was working on a complete software studio app - obviously perfectly integrated with their other tools. With Reaktor as a base all they're really missing even now is a sequencer. Er, hang on, just like CW !

####

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:15 am
by huffcw
Here is a question that a asked NI a while back and their reply:
The question:
> Any chance that Native Instruments will ever consider releasing new or existing soft synths to run on the Creamware Scope platform? This would be a great enhancement to your products for people who own Creamware cards.
The response:
> Hello, no chance. Native Instruments means that our software runs on a computer and as well as our software a computer can be updated, so the growth of power will never end. That´s the great advance. Such a DSP card costs as much as a whole computer and a whole computer is much more powerful than a DSP card. There´s a better chance that we will do high worthy hardware in the far far future. But at the moment we just support mac and pc.
Best regards
Rico Baade
Technical Support