Creamware

TimingLess · Post by **TimingLess** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:10 am

Frank wrote:
But the fact is that SFP is so amazing that it simply can no longer go unnoticed.
Marketing SFP is extremely hard as we found again and again. It is not mainstream and it follows a rather complex idea. It requires experience (problem awareness) to really be understood. Try to explain SFP in your simplest words to the average Guitar Center employee - he will have no clue what you are talking about. Just by what it IS it has a niche profile. Try to build a US marketing campaign ("short attention span" compatible) on this basis - good luck! Ideas and help are much appreciated, really.
_____________________________________________

It´s true.
I had a friend who was willing to by a new sound card for his home PC to have a cheap home station to work with. He was used to work with Mac and protools.
So he asked me what pulsar is like. And I could not really answer him that and so I invited him to my studio and we worked together for an evening. He was impressed by the possibilities for that little money. But unfortunatly he bought a pulsar card and I was his supporter (He bought a new PC as well). I made him suggestions for the motherboard, the processor and all that stuff newbies need to know. Installing everything. Tweaking the PC. Bandwith errors. etc. etc. etc...
Then came the first project on his machine ...!!!
My support for him is still going on after 2 years.

Yes, it´s hard to explain what pulsar is like and how to make it work

Honestly, If someone comes up to me and asks me what Pulsar is about, i give him the link to webside and planetz.

After all I´ve been thru with Hard Disk recording I feel more like PC-Dokter than an guitar player even so I´m having a good system now.

Imagine you have no clue about PC at all. No way to get along with pulsar and a seq. with out help.

PS. I´d like to thank all the planetz staff for the help and Creamware for giving me a nice tool to work with - Cheap and good.
May your ideas and projects find theire way to the market.

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:14 pm

*I* didn't really need help at all when I first bought Pulsar. I thought it was quite simple. Why does everybody think it's the most complicated software in existence?

Shayne

Post by **garyb** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:21 pm

it IS simple.unfortunately,it does take knowledge of recording studios as well as computers.

bosone · Post by **bosone** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:22 pm

i completely agree: for me pulsar was very easy to understand and use. i had no problem in figuring out how to do things. but i understand there are people less "technology oriented" than me who find tricky the use of both software and hardware...

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:28 pm

It took me a full day to get a single sound out of the thing. But then when I bought it I had no clear idea what it did, nor did the people in the music shop have a clue - they couldn't tell me anything. I got it purely on the strength of some blurb I read somewhere which said it had good synths. I like synths...

They told me to keep it for a week and if I couldn't get it to work, bring it back.

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:53 pm

So...SFP is easier for "technology oriented" people.

Can someone tells me why Creamware is virtually unknown in professional audio structures?

My answer would be that professionals can't afford to spend full days to tweak a system for making it working properly.

Some tweaking routines would be very welcome in the SFP installation software. Maybe for SFP4?

Tony B · Post by **Tony B** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:58 pm

I made several request to return my card because I had problems understanding it. The guys at the shop did not take me on. I got to realize that they too did not fully understand the Creamware cards. I am very much computer literate. I build and sell PCs. Yet I had to put up a fight. With the help of you guys on this forum I WON. I cannot see a system as powerful and sturdy as a Creamware based one. No joking.

Tony B · Post by **Tony B** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:03 pm

A suggestion. Maybe Creamware should hire us guys on this forum who understands the cards and place us in major music stores across the Globe especially in the US and Europe until a clear understanding of the cards are achieved.

Protools has lots of training sessions in various schools, online and universities

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:12 pm

I think that the system has come a long way since I first installed my Pulsar II in 2000. Some hardware tweaks were necessary to get it working ok, but the other factor that plays into this was the OS that most of us used, Win98 or WinME. XP seems to be much better, making this process easier.

The hurdle that one must overcome when selling or marketing these products is the problem of the first impression. Musicians that haven't used computers before, get fed up really quickly. It takes some level of committment to delve into that world.

scary808 · Post by **scary808** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:26 pm

When I first purchased my Pulsar II I had very little computer experience. I actually found it rather easy to learn. I did have a bit of prior audio experience. I bought a computer with the sole purpose of outfitting it with a Pulsar. I bought an off-the-shelf computer without realizing the VIA chipset thing. I really didn't have any problems until I added another CW card. 9 chips Is too much for the PCI bus. In spite of the occasional PCI overflow, I still cannot think of a more flexible software package. Having been trained with multimillion dollar consoles & Protools, with SFP I can do everything these hi-end studios can do, possibly more...

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:05 am

Hi Scary808,

Just for thought: 9 DSPs are not too much for the PCI ports. Even 45 DSPs are not too much.

What is too much, is the SFP accesses on the computer Ram, because the cards having not enough onboard Ram. There comes the PCI issues. PCI has not be conceived for such accesses.

Best,
Grok

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 5:25 am

I bought pulsar knowing absolutely nothing about audio or midi or synthesizers, besides having played with ReBirth for a while. I was learning Cubase and Pulsar at the same time but I never really had any problems setting it up. It's isn't complicated, it's just hard to explain in words what it does and how it works. It's much easier to show a picture, or draw a diagram or something.

Steve-o · Post by **Steve-o** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:59 am

I think that - besides opening Scope dev. package to everyone and 1-line-advertising - XTC is THE most important potential. CW realized that but stopped half the way (documentation?). Goal must be that people realize, that they need to decide between UAD, Powercore AND the CW-card (1 name only! If Scope or Pulsar doesn't matter). Why is this not the case? Because of SFP, because of the need to explain the concept of the "open, flexible" system. What happens then? People fear that they can't handle such a system and decide to buy UAD/PC where they CAN STAY IN THEIR SEQUENCERS ENVIRONMENT where they are at home! Plug, play (I tested it). CW: plug, problems, fiddling around (5 yrs. in my case so far...).

Consequence: HIDE SFP behind the card, support FULL XTC-mode and make access to SFP THROUGH XTC in a second step. Basically the same like before but with a complete different approch for a pot. new customer, who is looking for a good sounding, reliable and easy-to-handle card to extend his possibilities while making music!

Steve

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 7:10 am

On 2004-02-04 15:53, Grok wrote:
So...SFP is easier for "technology oriented" people.

Can someone tells me why Creamware is virtually unknown in professional audio structures?

My answer would be that professionals can't afford to spend full days to tweak a system for making it working properly.

Speaking from an audio engineering perspective, my answer is that "professional" people IE people who make a living doing this stuff already have a technical background. An audio engineer is exactly that - an engineer. These days I would expect an audio engineer would also be a capable computer technician as well. A novice walking into a studio wouldn't be able to immediately operate that studio at peak efficiency. Pulsar is a full on studio in a pc, so likewise I wouldn't expect a novice to understand pulsar instantly. For the argument "I want to make music, not be a techinician" says to me that said person should sell the pulsar cards, and book studio time and let someone else worry about the technical details.

wayne · Post by **wayne** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 7:27 am

i'm with you, bassdude.

TimingLess · Post by **TimingLess** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 10:25 am

I agree with you bassdude. And our points get along together well. But my focus was selling the product.
Another thought:
The first lie that was said to me, is that with the pulsar 1 card that I bought in 1999 i dould do anything that was proclaimed as possible. It was not. Even an added pulsar SRB did not make anything possible. All the good synths take so much dsp power that I stopped using them. I take SFP as mixing console uns use the VST Synths insted.

That was 1500 EURO. That is cheap for what you can do with it. But imagine - a soundcard for 1500 EURO.
Most People take an Hammerfall card and use the mixing inside the Sequenzer which is still necessary.

If you want to get those people to by creamware stuff you have to tell them why.

Cheers
DT

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:18 am

On 2004-02-05 06:59, Steve-o wrote:
I think that - besides opening Scope dev. package to everyone and 1-line-advertising - XTC is THE most important potential. CW realized that but stopped half the way (documentation?). Goal must be that people realize, that they need to decide between UAD, Powercore AND the CW-card (1 name only! If Scope or Pulsar doesn't matter). Why is this not the case? Because of SFP, because of the need to explain the concept of the "open, flexible" system. What happens then? People fear that they can't handle such a system and decide to buy UAD/PC where they CAN STAY IN THEIR SEQUENCERS ENVIRONMENT where they are at home! Plug, play (I tested it). CW: plug, problems, fiddling around (5 yrs. in my case so far...).

Consequence: HIDE SFP behind the card, support FULL XTC-mode and make access to SFP THROUGH XTC in a second step. Basically the same like before but with a complete different approch for a pot. new customer, who is looking for a good sounding, reliable and easy-to-handle card to extend his possibilities while making music!

Steve

I agree, that too many people overlook XTC as being the third option. I could imagine too, that SFP is the reason. And if you don't want to use SFP - then you don't use the full potential (depending on viewpoint). And who will buy something new, that they are not going to use 100%? So they go TC or UAD. A pitty. Maybe not right, but some thoughts.

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:40 am

On 2004-02-05 07:27, wayne wrote:
i'm with you, bassdude.

That's because you are a fellow audio engineer recording live bands. More power to us eh!

The rules maybe different for electronic based artists.

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:49 am

On 2004-02-05 11:18, Immanuel wrote:
I agree, that too many people overlook XTC as being the third option. I could imagine too, that SFP is the reason. And if you don't want to use SFP - then you don't use the full potential (depending on viewpoint). And who will buy something new, that they are not going to use 100%? So they go TC or UAD. A pitty. Maybe not right, but some thoughts.

That's the unique flexability of the product though isn't it. It's a shame this get's lost on potential users. People buy it wanting to use it for one particular purpose and lose sight of what it really can do for them. So how do you market it?
It's very funny because I answered a post in another forum with 2 guys (both have pulsars) both wanting to buy the new Yamaha 01x to incorporate outboard gear. I thought - "are these dudes crazy?". I told them to buy a good ADDA and they have the best card, with no latency, to do this in their existing pulsar setups.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: bassdude on 2004-02-07 05:52 ]</font>

eye-q · Post by **eye-q** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 2:22 pm

Speaking from an audio engineering perspective, my answer is that "professional" people IE people who make a living doing this stuff already have a technical background. An audio engineer is exactly that - an engineer. These days I would expect an audio engineer would also be a capable computer technician as well. A novice walking into a studio wouldn't be able to immediately operate that studio at peak efficiency. Pulsar is a full on studio in a pc, so likewise I wouldn't expect a novice to understand pulsar instantly. For the argument "I want to make music, not be a techinician" says to me that said person should sell the pulsar cards, and book studio time and let someone else worry about the technical details.

I disagree. My opinion is that if you pay that big amount of money to get a dsp based system, you do it to achieve better stability and ease of work. If you are a musician + technician you expect to open your project, compose, save, exit. In my case I open the project, solve problem 1, solve problem 2, compose, solve problem 3, crash, lose my work. If the idea is just to add some good plugins into my session, then I would prefer a CPU upgrade rather than buying a CW dsp system. I use a PowerPulsar in XTC mode and I get loads of errors, caused by hundreds of software bugs. I have been working as an administrator and computer technician for several years solving thousands of issues, now I am a sound engineer in a major post production company. At work I use Pro Tools. Thus, I have spent hundreds of hours reading forums and talking to people about the problems caused by XTC. My opinion is, if you are a company don't sell products that don't work correctly, if you are a potential customer, don't invest money in products you know they won't work correctly. The bottom line is, I want to compose music. It is in deed needed to have some technical knowledge for doing that. But I don't want to waste my time playing McGyver.