suggestions for creamware

katano · Post by **katano** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:29 am

bcslaam wrote:Ability to run more than 3 cards

please don't! I'd prefer ONE card that has the power of 3 "former" Scope Pros. That should be solvable with new dsps, shouldn't it?

i'd like to get rid of all these irq sharing issues and disabling half the features in my pc to get scope running properly...

cheers
roman

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:53 am

katano wrote:
bcslaam wrote:Ability to run more than 3 cards
please don't! I'd prefer ONE card that has the power of 3 "former" Scope Pros. That should be solvable with new dsps, shouldn't it?

1) new software usually comes with the demand for more potent hardware.
2) chaining scope cards doesn't give you more dsp power only. it increases the amount of I/O also. how would you solve that, should you want to abandon the chaining via stdm? with external boxes that are field-upgradable with more I/O via to-be-defined slots? well, maybe, but somehow I dislike this idea...

but if you just wanted to say: chaining yes, but stay with the 3 cards limit, I'm fine with that. certificated with magma, should they plan an extender for pci-e, would be nice, of course

.

-greetings, markus-

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:06 am

Rather than one card with the power of 3 scope pros, wouldn't you like to have 3 cards that each have 3x the power of a scope pro?

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:53 am

valis wrote:Rather than one card with the power of 3 scope pros, wouldn't you like to have 3 cards that each have 3x the power of a scope pro?

of course

although they won't be affordable at time of release for a lot of people. Scope G2[tm] will take some time to hit the used market...

hell, we talk again about eggs that have not been laid yet...

-greetings, markus-

bill3107 · Post by **bill3107** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:02 am

I would go for :
1 - One sole soundcard model (avoid 3/6/14dsp models) with different plugins packages (e.g. : uad) which is easier when it comes to hardware production...thus a lower price for the market !

2 - a software price that can compete with VST(i) : i mean, plugins should be excellent but quite cheap (approx 100€). Why ? :

- Because it is better to sell 10 000 plugins at 100€ than 100 plugins at 10 000€... It is just a matter of fame !!!!!!!! The more i see creamware logos (gigs, screens, studios) the more it is known as "professionnal" by the market.

- because those who are used to cracked VST(i) are able (and tempted !) to buy a cheap plugin ... The excellent P100 at 99 USD is a good example of that...

- Buying a creamware soundcard becomes an INVESTMENT as, once you get it, you can create your studio for a fair price... So, the third reason is that cheap (but good !) plugins lead to the increase of the demand...

3 - Music gear cannot be invisible ! I think this point is very important... Indeed, when it comes to technology and music gear, what we see is as important as the efficiency of the product (e.g. : preamp, vinrage stuff, 19'rach looks more professional...). Jsut because Musicians have a wierd relation with their gear like some people love their dog... Hence, although soudcards are inside the computer, it should be blatant that your studio are a creamware / SonciCore one... I personally dropped a host of purchases because of the look of the product (e.g. : plugins with a bad GUI, preamp too small, etc...). I am sure i am not alone...

Jonathan

katano · Post by **katano** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:05 am

kylie wrote: 1) new software usually comes with the demand for more potent hardware.
2) chaining scope cards doesn't give you more dsp power only. it increases the amount of I/O also.

1) agreed
2) what about a daughterboard? but i for myself like the idea of having the i/o's 'outside', connected with a fat cable to a i/o box in a rack. i hate the current cable connectors of my scope cards...
3) of course 3 cards with the power of 9 scope pros would be fine for me

sbp · Post by **sbp** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:06 am

A way to select new projects over MIDI, so you could run the card on a PC with no screen or keyboard, like the klangbox.

Linux port.

Cardbus expansion chassis, so we can use the cards with laptops and not have to pay 600 pounds for the privilege.

Negotiate for the rights to modelling algorithms like plucked string, drum membrane, whatever.

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:19 am

katano wrote:
kylie wrote: 1) new software usually comes with the demand for more potent hardware.
2) chaining scope cards doesn't give you more dsp power only. it increases the amount of I/O also.
2) what about a daughterboard? but i for myself like the idea of having the i/o's 'outside', connected with a fat cable to a i/o box in a rack. i hate the current cable connectors of my scope cards...

daughterboards block a slot cover (backed by a real slot or not) anyway, and hard connecting them on the card needs a thouroughly constructed stacking machanism for 1) not making the whole stack instable while being mounted or transported 2) fitting right while stacking more then one DB, and you surely don't want to be limited to only one.
soft connecting them via ribbon cable is what we already have with stdm. no, I don't like the idea of daughterboards much

the fat cable will always be too short

the I/O box is already there, and its name is a16u (or luna i/o box). the standard ieee1394 cable is available almost everywhere, and that's what I like about it.
and yes, the current breakout cable is not exactly brilliant, not only because it is always too short, too.

-greetings, markus-

katano · Post by **katano** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:23 am

kylie wrote:the fat cable will always be too short

which one do u mean?

concerning the a16u, i have one... but i still have to crawl under the table to get that adat and spdif and midi connected!!

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:21 pm

maybe it would be a good idea, to run the new platform by default at a higher internal sampling rate (96k) to improve filters, algorithm precision, synth detail, reverb smoothness...... and so on....(antialiasing)
even if the host and ASIO is running at 44,1

the better synths (MiniMax) already use oversampling in critical circuits parts, from what I`ve heard.

but its a hard decision..... as it takes up to 50% of the performance.

But CW slogan always was: no compromise in soundquality.

I`m not sure which is the best way to go, but it is at least worth to think about carefully.

surely best would be to be fully flexibile to switch between the different sampling rates, but we all know that this has the sideffect of more work to put into coding and maybe more problems.... (Minimax does not run at 96k at the moment)

Post by **garyb** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:25 pm

katano wrote: concerning the a16u, i have one... but i still have to crawl under the table to get that adat and spdif and midi connected!!

why not extend with cables or a patchbay? no need to crawl.

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:36 am

garyb wrote:
katano wrote: concerning the a16u, i have one... but i still have to crawl under the table to get that adat and spdif and midi connected!!
why not extend with cables or a patchbay? no need to crawl.

my words

midi cables can be extended. I use cables that were made for a different use, but they do. the rest is done with chinch.
you could also place the outboard gear rack beside your daw to avoid long cables. do you really re-patch every now and then, katano?

and the fat cable is the one you had the idea of

-greetings, markus-

katano · Post by **katano** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:51 am

kylie wrote:do you really re-patch every now and then, katano?

yes i do sometimes, for my room measuring setup... no big deal, and not worth to build a patchbay for... however, a pre built patchbay for Scope would be a nice addon.

kylie wrote: and the fat cable is the one you had the idea of

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:05 am

katano wrote:however, a pre built patchbay for Scope would be a nice addon.

like the rme [digi|multi|rpm] face?

Post by **garyb** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:02 am

like the a16?

valis · Post by **valis** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:09 pm

The ONLY reason I have an RME Multiface instead of an a16u is because I decided to move my Scope cards into a 2nd PC. I'm very happy with that decision and still debate getting an a16u anyway.

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:22 pm

garyb wrote:like the a16?

no, because the a16u does not provide the analog, midi, adat, sp/dif and wordclock connections the multiface has. the hdsp card contains a single ieee1394 connector (carrying the rme bus protocol) only, and the extension box provides everything else. the cable is not as fat as katano's, but then, who cares?

-greetings, markus-

Post by **garyb** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:21 am

make an extension box. how hard can it be?

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:47 am

garyb wrote:make an extension box. how hard can it be?

is the connector kinda standard? and is there a recommended value for the length of such an extension cable? and maybe a pinout scheme? then of course one could easily build his or her own breakout box, maybe even for multiple cards...

-greetings, markus-

Post by **garyb** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:03 am

the connectors are standard and easily found. making a box is easy. pin out is easy. 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, etc. for detail take apart any midi cable. the audio is even easier. one could even use cables and put a female jack on one end, or buy an extension cable made that way. no big deal. length is not an issue. if you need 100's or 1000's of feet, there are cat5 midi extensions available. otherwise 50 or 75 feet(20+ meters) is no big deal.