We are dead, no creamware news at NAMM :(
that is the kind of buzz that will kill a company. maybe you think people sit around with sticks up their *ss*s? the scope platform is still THE best solution for a pc. there is NO competing product. it's only for the mac that something new is required AT THIS MOMENT. another year or two is a different story. don't hate. i'd rather they took their time and that they come up with a solution that is compatible with the current excellent product.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2005-01-23 20:53 ]</font>
The Scope platform still has enormous potential. CW did the right thing(TM) in 'opening' the SDK - maybe other improvements will follow, with less press and more impact - you know what I mean... 
But since we are in wishlist mode already, I'd like to see a new Scope PCI card, G5 compatible, based on AD TigerSharc TS201S DSP's, with improved, cross-platform software. But that won't happen soon (at least the TigerSharc DSP's - it would be a completely new card!)! The TS201S is roughly 35 times faster than the Motorola G4/ 500, and 23 times faster than the fastest Sharc DSP (MOPS/ MIPS)... Something like this, for audio:
ftp://ftp.bittware.com/photos/ts201/d6pc.jpg
If the OSX drivers get done, we might see a G5 compatible Scope card - it should be easy, BTW - I even found a Taiwanese company that sells 3.3V <-> 5V PCI adaptors for $ 10, but they wont fit in the G5 case (they raise the card by about 15mm, IIRC).
But since we are in wishlist mode already, I'd like to see a new Scope PCI card, G5 compatible, based on AD TigerSharc TS201S DSP's, with improved, cross-platform software. But that won't happen soon (at least the TigerSharc DSP's - it would be a completely new card!)! The TS201S is roughly 35 times faster than the Motorola G4/ 500, and 23 times faster than the fastest Sharc DSP (MOPS/ MIPS)... Something like this, for audio:
ftp://ftp.bittware.com/photos/ts201/d6pc.jpg
If the OSX drivers get done, we might see a G5 compatible Scope card - it should be easy, BTW - I even found a Taiwanese company that sells 3.3V <-> 5V PCI adaptors for $ 10, but they wont fit in the G5 case (they raise the card by about 15mm, IIRC).
Yes. It's time for you to sell your useless obselete cards to me (at a heavily discounted price of course =P.)On 2005-01-23 20:42, enb141 wrote:
Creamware it's only re-releasing old stufs with different names c'mon if there's no new products at NAMM I doubt they relase new products later
One thing to remember, developing products costs *alot* of money. Some companies have gone under because of this (like, say, Waldorf (RIP
.)) Think of the Noah, great product/idea, but it mauled Creamware a bit financially. Not releasing any new product isn't always a bad sign =P.-
hubird
Enb141, if you say it like that, you don't seem to estimate very well the current situation CWA is in.
Did you follow the devellopments and improvements since the 'comeback' of CWA?
They spent time on market (new site, re-organisation/presentation of products), made 3 'new' products (possible monymakers), and as stated they are bussy with Linux/OSX... in other words they are working on consolidation, thank Allah.
BTW are you missing something, plugs, synths...? what's your last created song...?
I think CWA is doing well, consolidation and getting strong again is the main goal now, I think they're on the right way
Did you follow the devellopments and improvements since the 'comeback' of CWA?
They spent time on market (new site, re-organisation/presentation of products), made 3 'new' products (possible monymakers), and as stated they are bussy with Linux/OSX... in other words they are working on consolidation, thank Allah.
BTW are you missing something, plugs, synths...? what's your last created song...?
I think CWA is doing well, consolidation and getting strong again is the main goal now, I think they're on the right way
Man, you do seem to have a preference for looking at it from the pessimistic side ... http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... 77&forum=5
about that topic ... very low cost PCs with current technology will be available for years to come in the market for used electronics. But hey, that is just my possitive way of seeing things. Who am I to tell what is right. I can tell you what is better to your stommach though.
Download/write down all your keys and SAVE them on your harddrive and a C and an external server. Then you can very likely use your CWA cards for years to come. Even if your dark prophecy comes true. Sure, there is a slight chance with anything man made, that it will brake down every time you fire it up. You can chrash on the highway too. But please do not start freaking over it or you will end up realising, that life is one big risk ... well, it isn't really a risk, because to have a risk you need to have something to win (risks include a potential for something going wrong, not a predetermination). And we are all going to die anyway ... even John Wayne in a deep freezer.
I may seem harsh, but I am kind of feed up with "doomers" acording to whoom CWA/CW has been close to going down for ... most of the time I have owned my Pulsar1 anyway (5 years). People yelling "we are going down" are doing nothing but warning potential new pulsarians from a risk which acording to my "statistics" in this subject are mostly way out of Scope. Hah, did you get that "out of Scope". I am so funny!
about that topic ... very low cost PCs with current technology will be available for years to come in the market for used electronics. But hey, that is just my possitive way of seeing things. Who am I to tell what is right. I can tell you what is better to your stommach though.
Download/write down all your keys and SAVE them on your harddrive and a C and an external server. Then you can very likely use your CWA cards for years to come. Even if your dark prophecy comes true. Sure, there is a slight chance with anything man made, that it will brake down every time you fire it up. You can chrash on the highway too. But please do not start freaking over it or you will end up realising, that life is one big risk ... well, it isn't really a risk, because to have a risk you need to have something to win (risks include a potential for something going wrong, not a predetermination). And we are all going to die anyway ... even John Wayne in a deep freezer.
I may seem harsh, but I am kind of feed up with "doomers" acording to whoom CWA/CW has been close to going down for ... most of the time I have owned my Pulsar1 anyway (5 years). People yelling "we are going down" are doing nothing but warning potential new pulsarians from a risk which acording to my "statistics" in this subject are mostly way out of Scope. Hah, did you get that "out of Scope". I am so funny!
-
time_chase
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:00 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
-
Frontline Studio
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Planet Earth - Region: Netherlands
Hi,
My two (Euro)cents on the subject:
Bringing out new products every music fair is not a display of stability within a product line IMHO.
Besides that the hunger for new stuff is to me prove of the overconsuming modern society: it doesn't matter if the product is good, it's supposed to be NEW, COOL, FLASHY - regardless the quality, you've GOT to have it! Why? Because it's NEW and you CAN'T afford to miss out and stay behind. Why? Because the media and advertisers tell you so!
Enough ranting
My two (Euro)cents on the subject:
Bringing out new products every music fair is not a display of stability within a product line IMHO.
Besides that the hunger for new stuff is to me prove of the overconsuming modern society: it doesn't matter if the product is good, it's supposed to be NEW, COOL, FLASHY - regardless the quality, you've GOT to have it! Why? Because it's NEW and you CAN'T afford to miss out and stay behind. Why? Because the media and advertisers tell you so!
Enough ranting
CU,
John.
John.
As comparison Native Instruments seems to constantly release new products and it didn't really help their existing products year to year. It took them over 2 years to fix a Cpuid bug so that my p4-class Xeon processors were correctly seen as SSE/SSE2 enabled and not just a pentium 133mhz era cpu. Also Battery lagged for over 3 years before finally seeing an update.
Wsippel I would also eventually like to see an updated card. Perhaps they can go the route of Nvidia and use a PCI>PCIe bridge to allow them to continue the PCI33 design. This would allow them to make them 3.3v compatible first (and perhaps run at 66mhz optionally as well?) and then use the bridge a bit later to enable PCIe compatible for products they will need down the line when the Music market is PCIe en masse. Of course they could also follow the ATI route and engineer a superior PCIe base from the start and then later on release a line of PCI66 3.3v compatible cards for the Mac market...
Also in regards to using more powerful dsp chips, I believe that there are currently chips that are 2-4x the performance and CODE and (mostly) PIN compatible that will not only allow new designs minimum of fuss (r&d cost) but also they apparently fix the phase issues that we have in the current generations automatically as well.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: valis on 2005-01-24 04:56 ]</font>
Wsippel I would also eventually like to see an updated card. Perhaps they can go the route of Nvidia and use a PCI>PCIe bridge to allow them to continue the PCI33 design. This would allow them to make them 3.3v compatible first (and perhaps run at 66mhz optionally as well?) and then use the bridge a bit later to enable PCIe compatible for products they will need down the line when the Music market is PCIe en masse. Of course they could also follow the ATI route and engineer a superior PCIe base from the start and then later on release a line of PCI66 3.3v compatible cards for the Mac market...
Also in regards to using more powerful dsp chips, I believe that there are currently chips that are 2-4x the performance and CODE and (mostly) PIN compatible that will not only allow new designs minimum of fuss (r&d cost) but also they apparently fix the phase issues that we have in the current generations automatically as well.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: valis on 2005-01-24 04:56 ]</font>
valis,
IIRC, the TigerSharc is indeed pin- and binary compatible to the Sharc, but much faster and quite cheap (not as cheap as the Sharc, which costs about $ 10 each, but cheaper than the Motorola G4, which is only slightly faster at floating point ops - but then again, you could use more than one TigerSharc on a board)...
IIRC, the TigerSharc is indeed pin- and binary compatible to the Sharc, but much faster and quite cheap (not as cheap as the Sharc, which costs about $ 10 each, but cheaper than the Motorola G4, which is only slightly faster at floating point ops - but then again, you could use more than one TigerSharc on a board)...
I'm afraid you're wrong on this - the binary compatibility was explicetely mentioned for the 211xx line (successors of the 210xx), but never for any of the TS series.On 2005-01-24 09:16, wsippel wrote:
IIRC, the TigerSharc is indeed pin- and binary compatible to the Sharc, ...
There may exist compiler options to adjust your code accordingly (in VDSP++) for both targets, but you know how this goes out on existing stuff...
Anyway a chip at $200 in thousand quantities will never make it into CWA's market segment
cheers, Tom
-
Shayne White
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Yeah, I really think the updated Sharc processors (not TigerSharc) on PCI-E are the way to go. Updated cards MUST be backwards compatible with existing devices.
Melodious Synth Radio
http://www.melodious-synth.com
Melodious synth music by Binary Sea
http://www.binary-sea.com
http://www.melodious-synth.com
Melodious synth music by Binary Sea
http://www.binary-sea.com
well, lets take this for a (simplyfied) example about a small sized hightech company...
I read the TS101 is about $200 in thousands.
our company buys 1000 pieces for 1000 PC cards (it's more powerful etc...) selling for $1000 each
they have $500 profit (50% is complete nonsense imho, but for simplicity...)
they need a loan of $200K,
roughly $6500 due each month (at least 48 month)
they have to sell 12 cards for the interest rate
4 sophisticated workers/management each anoth $6500 monthly
sell 48 cards each month
4 co-workers for half the wages
sell another 24 cards
facility and gear 2 x $6500
adding another 24 cards
which adds to a sustained sales rate of roughly 100 cards per month for barely the running costs.
Add tax and reserve (let's neglect it for a moment, as profit doesn't look too high...)
In this example, if business runs smoothly, the pile of cards is used up in roughly one year.
But the $200k loan is only reduced by 25%.
To continue they need another $200k for the next 1000 cards, adding up depts to $350k, now making up for monthly...
yeah, business is easy...
cheers, Tom
I read the TS101 is about $200 in thousands.
our company buys 1000 pieces for 1000 PC cards (it's more powerful etc...) selling for $1000 each
they have $500 profit (50% is complete nonsense imho, but for simplicity...)
they need a loan of $200K,
roughly $6500 due each month (at least 48 month)
they have to sell 12 cards for the interest rate
4 sophisticated workers/management each anoth $6500 monthly
sell 48 cards each month
4 co-workers for half the wages
sell another 24 cards
facility and gear 2 x $6500
adding another 24 cards
which adds to a sustained sales rate of roughly 100 cards per month for barely the running costs.
Add tax and reserve (let's neglect it for a moment, as profit doesn't look too high...)
In this example, if business runs smoothly, the pile of cards is used up in roughly one year.
But the $200k loan is only reduced by 25%.
To continue they need another $200k for the next 1000 cards, adding up depts to $350k, now making up for monthly...
yeah, business is easy...
cheers, Tom
the title of the thread reads anything but fair - at least it will catch some attention
I'll spare you another example 'from the money side of the street', but those drivers will make a lot of work and will not gain one single new customer.
It would be nice if the product could be served better, but with limited resources it's first things first. And under these conditions they don't perform that bad (opposed to the thread's title).
While DirectAudio simply doesn't belong on a pro card, Gigastudio is widely known for performing best on a dedicated machine.
So it's not priority #1 as this can easily be achieved if it's really required without a Scope system.
MAudio (as you should know) aquired by Digidesign, an Avid division, sponsored by M$Soft...
Their driver and interface stuff isn't even 10% of what is put in a Scope card. THEY DO earn money with their cards...
I don't think anybody here is against your wishes of an improved support, but many probably consider the word 'dead' for an everyday workhorse with an immense creative potential simply displaced. It's so strange that it's not even offending
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-01-24 18:10 ]</font>
I'll spare you another example 'from the money side of the street', but those drivers will make a lot of work and will not gain one single new customer.
It would be nice if the product could be served better, but with limited resources it's first things first. And under these conditions they don't perform that bad (opposed to the thread's title).
While DirectAudio simply doesn't belong on a pro card, Gigastudio is widely known for performing best on a dedicated machine.
So it's not priority #1 as this can easily be achieved if it's really required without a Scope system.
MAudio (as you should know) aquired by Digidesign, an Avid division, sponsored by M$Soft...
Their driver and interface stuff isn't even 10% of what is put in a Scope card. THEY DO earn money with their cards...
I don't think anybody here is against your wishes of an improved support, but many probably consider the word 'dead' for an everyday workhorse with an immense creative potential simply displaced. It's so strange that it's not even offending
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-01-24 18:10 ]</font>