CREAMWARE effects VS VST?

darkstar · Post by **darkstar** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:37 pm

Hello,
Can anybody compare creamware effects with serious vst effects?Because I have feeling that creamware stuff sound like toy compared to vst effects...maybe I am doing something wrong.Another thing is that "complete vst integration" is one big lie,and I am feeling ripped(I purchased LUNA II).Yeah,it's true that you can use main studio package inside cubase,but nobody told us that it's SO HARD do to everything...and unprofessional.Click here,go to xtc mode,without xtc you can't use it inside cubase....I am litlle bored with that...So,when I realize that I payed 350 euros for 1 in and 1 out,and for some basic effects,that sounds cheesy....I am thinking about RME.Can somebody compare some RME product with similar price(but HONEST comparision,if possible).

Please,don't get me wrong.I love creamware stuff,but I think they are overpriced.Pulsar II is maybe good deal,but LUNA II(or SCOPE HOME)certanly is not good deal.

Thanks,

Regards

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 6:42 pm

Because I have feeling that creamware stuff sound like toy compared to vst effects...maybe I am doing something wrong.

i think possibly you are, i've never heard that before (the other way round is often true though).

What are you trying to achieve with your card? Ie. Are you using it for just mixing, synths, real instruments, or combinations of these. Is it specific effects you're talking about or just a general thing?

Personally being a Mac user i have never used (and would never use even on PC) XTC mode. SCOPE mode is much more flexible - it just runs in the background of Cubase.

The only toy you've got is Cubase - believe me, i know, i use it and hate it more and more each day. i buss everything straight to SCOPE to avoid as much of Cubase's shitty summing/effects/inflexibility and just use it as a glorified tape deck - maybe you should try the same - you might be surprised how much better/flexible it is than XTC/VST mode.

Give us an indication of your aims and we'll be able to give better answers.

Regards,
Mr A

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2005-01-31 18:44 ]

darkstar · Post by **darkstar** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:08 pm

Yes,but I can't use effects in cubase if not in xtc mode.Or I can?How?
Well,I just wanted to hear other people opinions,because I can't compare for example voxengo pristine space with masterverb I got with luna...because masterverb sounds sooooooo childish compared to voxengo...again,maybe I am doing something wrong,or it's just my taste.

I want to master my recordings with as many quality effects as possible,and I want to take suggestions from other people here,

Thanks,
Regards

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:55 pm

Pristine space uses convolution whereas Masterverb uses the more traditional delay line approach to generating reverb. Not exactly a 1:1 comparison there.

Also, while the stock Creamware effects are quite usable there are far more powerful effects available, much like the stock Steinberg effects that ship with Cubase Sx versus the Voxengo plugins you seem to like (I like them too actually). Compare apples with apples again (Creamware's stock plugins versus Steinberg stuff) and see who wins out. Try some of the new Timeworks verbs, the Timeworks eq and Ison eq and Timeworks compressorX, Creamware's Vinco and Orbitone's Psy-fi series.

Better yet start looking into the additional synths that you can get as the ones bundled with the card as it ships are intended only as primers. Minimax, ProTone, Profit-5, ProOddyssey, Vectron, Solaris, Red Dwarf, Creamware's Modular II/III, Adern's Flexor modular addons, Neutron's various offerings, the list goes on and on. Effects and mixing in SFP are above par but if you ignore synthesis entirely you're missing one of the major strengths of the Creamware platform.

Give yourself time to learn SFP and the associated devices that you've already got. Once you've gotten your head around the routing interface and have a basic workflow in place for controlling SFP devices and recording the resultant audio (and mixes) then start checking out the free and donationware devices you'll find in the Devices section at the bottom of this site.

I would agree that the LunaII is definately meant to be the entry level for Creamware users. However its far from a bad investment as it is quite easily expandable both in terms of the plugins and software available for it, and on the hardware front. It is not cheap for people used to an Audigy and a handful of apps found on the net but when you compare it to the likes of Pro Tools and other systems on the market its actually very affordable. Comparing it directly to UAD-1 and Powercore leaves out the audio card + driver end of things (not to mention the great SFP.exe routing interface).

Also an RME is nothing like a Creamware card. All you will get is multiple i/o and built in basic mixing (summing and routing) without any automation or effects.

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:06 pm

Hi,

Here's a quick comparison:

RME: no plugins
UAD1/PowerCore: no I/O

VST tend to sound more like toys to me, I don't use them at all in fact. But I'm a bit biased, so don't mind me too much =P.

But keep in mind, the nice thing about the Luna (and all other cards) is that they're stackable, i.e. you can add more cards to it and they will happily and transparently play together.

Also, the Luna2 has a ZLink interface, which will accomodate 8 channels of 24bit/96khz coming from a Luna Box or A16Ultra interface. You can also get an extension thingy (at least, you could, not sure if it's still available) that'll add another ZLink interface and some ADATs. Plus the SPDIF, so you 1 input/1 output was only valid in the analog domain. RME also offers cards that have lots of ADAT (3x I believe) but not much analog i/o, in the same price range.

Also, if you don't use XTC mode, you can still use Creamware plugins, just not inside Cubase's mixer.

_________________

[ This Message was edited by: symbiote on 2005-01-31 20:11 ]

Post by **hubird** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:39 pm

enough Darkstar?

it's true, all of it

I couldn't effort the energy to think about all the answers possible, so thanks guys

It is an entry card, and the better plugs are optional, that's public policy

And no way VST sounds better

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:08 pm

Yes,but I can't use effects in cubase if not in xtc mode.Or I can?How?

Well i use Cubase and i'm on Mac, no XTC so of course you can. Just think of SCOPE as hardware.

Send the signal you want effected to a buss, pick it up in the ASIO Source in SCOPE, send it to you effect (i prefer to use SCOPE's mixer anyway and add the effect in there) and then back into Cubase via SCOPE's ASIO Dest. No latency, all real time

Mr A

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:14 am

On 2005-01-31 18:42, Mr Arkadin wrote:
Because I have feeling that creamware stuff sound like toy compared to vst effects...maybe I am doing something wrong.
i think possibly you are, i've never heard that before (the other way round is often true though).

What are you trying to achieve with your card? Ie. Are you using it for just mixing, synths, real instruments, or combinations of these. Is it specific effects you're talking about or just a general thing?

Personally being a Mac user i have never used (and would never use even on PC) XTC mode. SCOPE mode is much more flexible - it just runs in the background of Cubase.

The only toy you've got is Cubase - believe me, i know, i use it and hate it more and more each day. i buss everything straight to SCOPE to avoid as much of Cubase's shitty summing/effects/inflexibility and just use it as a glorified tape deck - maybe you should try the same - you might be surprised how much better/flexible it is than XTC/VST mode.
[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2005-01-31 18:44 ]

I second every thing said here. Except you forgot to mention Cubase's bugs and instability - the Creamware platform does not crash so easily. (I use a PC, maybe the Mac version isn't so bad?) I've been considering changing sequencers for the last few months because I'm wasting so much time on Cubase's many bugs (their support is absolutely rank, too).

And the VST effects / softsynths are a joke, not Creamware's effects / synths. No comparison at all.

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:12 am

Thirded!

At least you get to see you signal(s) inside Scope...in Cubase only the left channel ones

Royston

ChrisWerner · Post by **ChrisWerner** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:28 am

Well, I work with SFP and Cubase in a perfect fusion since many years now and I have no problems nor I start to compare vst with cwa stuff, because it is simply great to use both worlds together in a perfect way. No XTC mode here, too.

Sure the cwa synths are more pressureful etc. also I like my Absynth, Reaktor or other synths/effects.

The great advantage of SFP is the routing of your studio enviroment, you can combine everything with everything in an easy way.
Beside this, I would never miss the modular of SFP again, it opened a totally new world for me and let me start to think modular.

Be happy, with SFP, a gate opened for you to combine all the VST,DirectX and Cubase power with the power of a virtual modular studio enviroment that lets you do nearly everything. Give it a chance!

Ah, by the way, if you don´t like the standard sfp effects, why don´t you build your own with the Modular?

okantah · Post by **okantah** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:54 pm

but nobody told us that it's SO HARD do to I am litlle bored with Can anybody compare creamware effects with serious vst effects?Because I have feeling that creamware stuff sound like toy compared to vst effects...maybe I am doing something wrong.......................................
never dare to say something like this any more,they may think you mad.
good luck for the reactions
cheers

darkstar · Post by **darkstar** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:24 pm

Thanks to all people that give me constructive comments on this.

I am not mad,I just wanted to hear opinions of people that USE dsp effects.I didn't use them,because my opinion is that effects I got with LUNA is NOT pro studio effects.

Anyway,all I wanted to see is vst compared to dsp(and that is topic theme).And I will try to make one tune with the dsp effects I have,and one with usual VST I use,and hear difference.

Thanks,
Regards

[ This Message was edited by: darkstar on 2005-02-01 15:27 ]

valis · Post by **valis** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:45 pm

You'll have to forgive our reactions to your stilted english btw, its not always easy to gauge whether a person is simply poor at english or being obtuse on purpose.

Anyway I think that there isn't really an either/or situation here. Software effects/mixing/sampling/synthesis etc. work very well *alongside* your luna and its abilities. In fact this is one of the reasons that we're so loyal to the platform. Once you've gotten your head around the tools enough to have a basic idea of how to setup your workflow the power becomes more than obvious.

The very first time you used an effect you were a master in its use? Rather I suggest you give yourself 1 or 2 or perhaps even 3 months of use before you decide whether the Luna is a 'toy' or an integral part of your toolset.

[ This Message was edited by: valis on 2005-02-02 10:27 ]

darkstar · Post by **darkstar** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:57 pm

Hello,
I have luna for a year now,but I never used sfp effects.I hope you will understand my english now-I WANT TO GIVE CHANCE TO SFP AND USE CREAMWARE EFFECTS IN MY MUSIC,but when I heard those effects for first time,and managed to connect basic things,I had a feeling that those effects I got with my luna are not quality enough like other effects(waves,voxengo...).

I didn't want to tell that Creamware is bad company,or something like that,I just wanted to find out why I am not happy with those effects,and MANY people on this forum are telling it is first class.

Okay,here is my setup,maybe I am doing something wrong:

I downloaded CUBASE PROJECT setup from this forum(download section),and I use it since then .I can make a screenshot,if that will help.I find out that my way is not to use XTC,but then,I can't use effects inside cubase(I can use effect only on mixer in SFP that runs in background of cubase).When I start CUbase IN xtc mode,then I can use effects inside cubase(and this is how I compared effects).My card have only 3 dsp,and I can use some basic effects.

So,where I make mistake?

Thanks,
Regards

[ This Message was edited by: darkstar on 2005-02-01 15:59 ]

valis · Post by **valis** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:56 pm

Well again you're comparing stock creamware effects with 3rd party vst effects (voxengo etc) that are higher quality than the stock steinberg fx. Compare apples to apples. I'd say most of Creamware's 'stock' effects actually edge out even Waves myself, but 'sound' is often a personal taste.

As for XTC mode, it only works when SFP.exe is closed. When SFP is running you don't load drivers in cubase but rather in SFP and bus your audio out cubase's outputs to process in SFP.

Good luck...

darkstar · Post by **darkstar** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:37 pm

Okay guys,sorry if I made some confusion here,now we are all ok,and let start over again:

I will try and get demos from my retailer(but I don't think we HAVE a official retailer here).Can you reccomend pro effects from creamware(that ARE comparable to effects I mentioned?)and is there demo to download somewhere?

And yes,where can I learn more about routing,sfp....because manual is pretty poor on informations...

Thanks again,
Regards

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:44 pm

since the routing is basically the same as plugging real world cables, the manual is rather complete in that context - it's no black magic at all.
Imho they even manage to transmit a good overall introduction of the concepts, but if it just doesn't appeal to you some general studio literature (or online equivalent) will do.

Try to (imaginary) map the screen symbols to the connectors of the physical hardware equivalents. One (extremely convenient !) difference exists: you can draw as many connections FROM a point in the routing map as you like. But any DESTINATION can have only one connector.

3 DSPs are in fact a bit underpowered for the top reverb/delay fx - the STW stuff and Echo from SpaceF will not run.
There's a bunch of compressors to choose from (Vinco, D-Mute, Orbitone, AndreD's), some even free.

The TransientDesigner is a 'must have' - it will lift your Luna to a new level. Or the card will have paid off JUST FOR letting you use this plugin.
While it's known to be able to give any muddy drum the right 'smack', one of my favourite applications is to reduce those infamous 'high end early seventieth' reverb tail from old vinyls. It really can do that trick

Imho the ISON is a very, very good EQ for a moderate price.

It's true that CWA's stock fx aren't exactly mindblowing (at first listening) - but if they were NOT very good, they wouldn't be used by Fairlight (as an OEM) in some expensive consoles

Imho a lot of VST(i) sounds are totally dominated by FX. The 'sound' usually is so sh*tty that it just cries for something to give it at least a little more substance.

Maybe there's the key for your 'problem'. You adapt a technique that possibly doesn't even fit your own needs. If you concentrate more on the sound source itself, there isn't much 'bragging stuff' needed - and the CWA FX will add that extra, together with a clear and transparent sound.
The latter is said to significantly suffer under the Cubase audio engine, so a modified routing might already improve your sound significantly.

If you're convinced that a (certain) convolution reverb is just what you're after, you should use it. With the amount of DSPs at your command there's no alternative.

cheers, Tom

Clapaucius · Post by **Clapaucius** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:50 am

I'm very old and rather happy user of
Pulsar-II. I use DSP and also VST effects. For me Optimaster is much better than combination Waves C4-L2, for example, or something like Izotope. It looks more simple and pure, but do the job in more crystal and professional way, the result sounds more analogical and warm to me. For the last time I use the Scope system more and more in the XTC-mode. Why? Simply, because it alows me to use mutch more effects simultaniously. I work in Nuendo 2.2 and it's mixer works quite well. Sounds a little more muddy, than Scope's STM4896, but when working in the Scope platform it takes much more DSP and I can not use as much effects and synths as in XTC, so the advantage of it is not so great. Also, the new Nuendo mixing architecture alows to do such things, which you can't do in the scope platform as easy. Like inserts on auxilary effects, for example.