Pulsar II, PowerCore Element or Second PC?

vmartell · Post by **vmartell** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 7:35 pm

I am a current user of a Pulsar II + I combo. I am happy with it, and I am always thinking of adding DSP power to the system. Xmas is getting close, and with it, upgrade time. Earlier, this meant getting another Pulsar II (6 DSP Card).

However, two things happened:
1) TC Electronic released the PowerCore Element
2) I found out the Steinberg's V-Stack cost is around 49 euros.

Why is this causing doubt?

1)PowerCore is a much more "mainstream" card - at least it looks that way. It seems to be more succesful and while there are a lot more Creamware plugins (and a lot of wonderful plugins), it looks like it will catch on, just because the success is higher.

2)With V-Stack being so cheap, I can put together another computer for maybe around $500 dollars (or less) and well, have it act as my "DSP" - I do have a spare M-Audio card that I can use for this purpose.

In my view, this is what it will happen whatever path I choose:

1) Another Pulsar II
At first, it would be wonderful. The added DSP will greatly improve my workflow, allowing me to add more stuff before having to bounce to disk. As I said before, I would have chosen this route, however,
a) I am a bit nervous about Creamware's future. If I were to buy a DSP card, I would feel more future proof with a PowerCore.
b) Creamware plugins are very DSP hungry. I don't have the numbers right now, but I read the polyphony that you can achieve with the synths on the PowerCore and well, it is superior to Creamware's.
c) Creamware Plugins tend to be a little bit more expensive than the native counterparts.

Arguments for: Creamware's sound quality is wonderful, the SFP enviroment is ultra-flexible and the Modular III has no match (IMHO, of course), and, more importantly I already know it and use it.

2) PowerCore Element
a)Plugins are expensive.
b)From what I read, latency is fixed and kind of high, which forces you to use PDC and makes live playing problematic. I don't do that, but I do record the ocassional bassline or chord progresion live, and it would be an annoyance.
c) While I can afford only an Element, the most future proof option is actually the FireWire version, since PCI is actually close to the end of the line. However, the FireWire is out of my budget.

Pros: Seems that PowerCore has a lot of momentum and while is a lot newer than Creamware, it looks like sales, support and the future prognosis are a lot better than Creamware's. And from what I read (and have been able to hear), the plugins are just superb.

3)Another PC.
a)Well, I am assuming V-Stack works wonderfully... what if it doesn't?
b)It would mean going native. Right now, the only native plugins I have are the ones that came with my host, in addition to a couple of free plugins - some are really cool. Of course, I wouldn't 100% native suddenly; I can still use what I have; but for example, if I was at 100% DSP usage and wanted to add an extra part without bouncing, I would have to use a native instrument instead of the wonderful Creamware synths.
c)I would have to keep, maintain and upgrade two computers instead of one.
d)Top of the line native plug-ins can be close in price to the DSP based plugins - I saw Arturia's MiniMoog listed at $199 street price, $299 MSRP, while Minimax is 198 euros - not THAT big of a difference.

Pros: There are lots of good native plugins out there that are much cheaper than both the DSP based plugins and the top of the line native and probably are perfectly acceptable to a hobbyist like me. Plus a could use the second computer to implement a computing cluster!

What would you do?

Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:36 am

without a doubt, get a 2nd PC. use FXteleport instead if vstack. A new PC is more versatile. I was about to get a powerpulsar to add to my pulsar2+ system but i ended getting a AMD64 beast, definitely no regrets. Got 2 pcs hooked up via fxteleport and via screamernet for lightwave rendering. Gotta love technology!

ScofieldKid · Post by **ScofieldKid** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:21 am

I know what you mean about decisions, decisions, decisions.

My own personal use is more heavily on the SYNTH front and less on the mastering front. So for me, the PowerCore doesn't mean that much. The SYNTHS that are available in the Creamware are phenomenal. Then when you string in the effects, it's just a synthesis platform that is a step beyond.

But like I say, it depends on your goals. I personally went with the Scope Pro to add to my Pulsar II, and it got me almost exactly to the power level I want to be at. But I also have this as a dedicated "audio" station. My other PC is for Video and games. If I can do all audio on 1 PC, that's what I'm shooting for. [ though I do run it dual-head ]

valis · Post by **valis** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:48 am

I have 2 Creamware cards, an RME card and 2 computers. Something to think about in regards to this is the added complexity the 2nd PC adds (more presets & song files to save/load & backup per session etc).

vmartell · Post by **vmartell** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:00 pm

Indeed, the added trouble of having two PC music station configuration is something to think about... it's been a couple of days and I can't seem to make a decision. I am beginning to get stressed...

1.- How do you like the RME?
2.- Which one do you have?
3.- I don't have a digital mixer, so in my great ignorance, I have to ask: Is there an easy way to just connect the RMEs to analog active monitors(like mine)? - all the cards on their web site seem to have only digital interfaces
4.- Question for everyone - How about a PowerCore/RME combo?

Thnx for the replies

On 2004-09-17 05:48, valis wrote:
I have 2 Creamware cards, an RME card and 2 computers. Something to think about in regards to this is the added complexity the 2nd PC adds (more presets & song files to save/load & backup per session etc).

cleanbluesky · Post by **cleanbluesky** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:03 am

I heard that the Powercore has compatability issue. Also, the selection is more limited for the Powercore and getting cheap plugins is much easier with Creamware e.g. buying a S/H board to add to your comp that has plugins registered for it.

Creamware also has the routing and Synths. Part of the reason that Creamware is more expensive than Powercore is that it is a total recording solution and the software was only really aimed at the high-end of the market e.g. Minimax still holds the title as the best Moog softsynth emulator.

The second PC is your best option. You don't necessarily need $500. The vital parts are.

1) Processor (as fast as possible)

2) RAM (probably safe with 512mb for slave machine)

3) Small but fast HD (Plugins don't take much room so if you are only using it for audio FX)

4) Crap soundcard (If you use FX-Teleport then you don't even need a good soundcard with the slave)

5) Firewire or Gigabit LAN connections

This said, but if you use Gigastudio or plugins such as DrumkitFromHellSuperior, you would want to get a computer that has a great all-round spec.

valis · Post by **valis** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 7:31 am

1.- How do you like the RME?

Its great, exactly as I was led to believe.

2.- Which one do you have?

I have the Hammerfall HDSP card + Multiface (combo). Its a proprietary firewire connection to an external breakout box.

3.- I don't have a digital mixer, so in my great ignorance, I have to ask: Is there an easy way to just connect the RMEs to analog active monitors(like mine)? - all the cards on their web site seem to have only digital interfaces

They have a large catalogue with products meant for a variety of tasks, definately confusing for someone looking for a 'soundcard'. You can connect your monitors to the RME but I recommend using something external (and analog) for volume control with ANY soundcard (creamware included).

4.- Question for everyone - How about a PowerCore/RME combo?

I left this for your last question, but I wanted to clarify that *I* use the RME to connect my main DAW with the Pulsar1+Pulsar2 combo in the second PC. I did NOT mean to imply this was the best solution for you (that is up to you).

It is the one that I use, but that is due to the fact that I am a Logic user and wanted to investigate what it would be like using my Creamware boards as external gear since I am considering getting a G5 (someday) for my main Logic DAW and the Creamware cards would HAVE to be in a 2nd pc. I would have to say that I am really happy with the setup, and the routing that the Hammerfall offers (digitally inside the DSP card) is superior to most of the other stuff I've played with (MOTU's cuemix etc)--with the exception of SFP (which is most intuitive digital routing device I've yet to encounter.)

Why would you want to dump your 2 creamware cards and replace them with an RME? The Powercore is something to consider, but I think you should address something else first. What is your current workflow and what, if any, changes are you looking to make to that? Do a bit of thinking (and perhaps research) and answer that question and I suspect the rest of your decisions will be a lot easier. Do you mix in SFP or your sequencer? Do you do a lot of recording/tracking and rely on your cpu for mixing and effects? Or do you do a lot of synthesis/Vsti within your sequencer. Do you have any external hardware? etc etc...

If you mix almost entirely in software then a Powercore or UAD-1 may be a good solution, and may even live alongside your current Creamware cards without problem (depending on your motherboard). However both Powercore and UAD-1 imply that you'll be using Cubase SX, Samplitude/Sequoia or Sonar (or any sequencer with full PDC). I'm guessing you're an SX user though...

Danimusik · Post by **Danimusik** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:41 am

Working with 2 Pc can get a bit frustrating. Lot of presets, songs to save and Load. You always get the wrong mouse and Iits better to have everything in the same screen... I will choose buying a 2nd Scope to add power and new plugins.
By the way I'm selling a Pulsar II with Mix'master and Minimax for 500€

Look at scope purchasing.

ScofieldKid · Post by **ScofieldKid** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 9:10 pm

I think valis hit it pretty good here. It is an architectural question to be sure. I think either "Recording" or "Mix" magazine had a good comparison a few months ago about the ideal DAW setup.

They showed 3 different designs. In most cases they did include an external mixer for controlling signal levels and for patching in analog inputs. So the sort of critical things that controlled the design were 1) where does your mixer sit, and 2) where are you recording your tracks. In the old days it was all external mixer, and external 24-track etc.

In most of their examples they would still use the external mixer for line ins and for monitor outs, so that's something you might also consider in your design. Then they would take each line out directly into their DAW either with ADAT or with A/D of some kind. The differences they had were mainly in how multiple DAWS could patch together so that MIDI could fan out and so that, as you show in your questions, that they could devote more CPU to specific tasks. MIDI routing and MASTER CLOCK routing are good to pay attention to. They did also show SoundCard output routing. So you might want to draw a diagram of the signal flow you want.

In any case, I think you are on a good track. TC and PowerCore seem like killer things. And the RME interface is awesome. So it looks like you did your homework. So I could imagine a signal flow like:

microphones and lines ->
16-channel mixer or pre-amp (optionall) ->
RME multiface ->
RME TotalMix ->
Cubase SX

Then you could come out in two or three places for monitoring. You could monitor your mics and lines on the 16-channel. You could monitor your A/D inputs from an output of the RME to the 16-channel. You could monitor your Cubase Mix back out through the RME or out of another Soundcard in your system. Again, I would have that run out to some inputs on the 16-channel so you can guarantee you can knock the level down.

But yes, if you already have mic pre-amps and the Multiface gives you enough inputs and outputs for your purposes, you could live without the 16-channel. It would just make it easier to patch things in and to guarantee levels. I'm not sure what your "active" speakers can take as input, either speaker-level or line-level, but that seems to be the only sticky point.

[ This Message was edited by: ScofieldKid on 2004-09-18 22:19 ]

Post by **garyb** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 11:44 pm

yeah, that article gave me a good laugh...

ScofieldKid · Post by **ScofieldKid** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 2:22 am

Why is that? Because of the goofy way that he tried to use soundcards to an excessive amount???

Post by **garyb** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 4:18 am

no, because of what was considered ultimate, long on hype, short on function and usefulness(imho)...consumer action....magazines are good for letting you know what to buy among the products that are heavily advertised.

p.s. a mixer is not really what people with daws need, something like mackie's big knob is more like it. still, i do often recommend a used RECORDING or BROADCAST mixer as it will come with a monitor bus which allows you to have a master volume(the control room out) which allows listening to the computer without having to go through a channel and bus and all those electronics, and a bunch of good quality mic pres in the bargain with channels that have true direct outs. since the advent of digital mixers and daws themselves, the bottom has fallen out of the mixer market and they can be had for cheap.

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2004-09-19 05:19 ]

ScofieldKid · Post by **ScofieldKid** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:08 am

Ah. Sorry. I thought maybe the guy was interested in looking at the work flow issue and expanding his mic-in or line-in capabilities. I think I got a little off track there...

Good pointer on the Mackie Big Knob also. Here's another similar thingy by PreSonus, in Sound On Sound Oct 2004 by the way: http://www.presonus.com/centralstation.html

The PreSonus appears to be more along the lines of a purist passive design. But yeah, that Big Knob looks outstanding.

[ This Message was edited by: ScofieldKid on 2004-09-20 03:20 ]

vmartell · Post by **vmartell** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 6:21 pm

Thanks for the replies.

Still nowhere close to a decision. I have vacilated between going all out and getting a PowerPulsar and doing a doing a combo of new card(RME,ESI?)+Powercore + Second PC with Audiophile.

Workflow
1.- Pretty simple. 1 external input, a mic coming tru a mixer (Behringer MX802A) into an analog input - well, that's not true, there is also a Roland D-110 connected to the mixer that I never fire up anymore, once I sampled the hell out of it when I got my Pulsar; yes, I use STS-3000 and I like it! - if that is wrong, I don't want to be right

2.- But I digress. The way I work with the Pulsar is this:
a)External inputs are routed to an asio channel, then an audio track in the sequencer. They are mostly processed in the Pulsar.
b)Pulsar synths are connected to the stm 1632 mixer. Effects, etc are added there; they are taken out of the mix and routed to an asio channel into the sequencer, so they are mixed in with the rest of the stuff. Normally, I always keep two tracks, one MIDI and one audio per pulsar instrument. In order to get a final mix, the audio tracks are rendered to disk.

One is always looking for more power (so I don't have to bounce so often) and for us Pulsarians, that means more DSP. BUT:

1) I recently upgraded (Pentiem 4 3.0 GHz, abit motherboard) and started getting crackles that I haven't been able to get rid of. That is causing some frustation.

2) I started using VSTs and they are SOOO convenient, everything in one place - as you can see before, I tend to use SFP are an external rack, then concentrate everything on the DAW.

That got me thinking of trying different approaches to what I do (as described in the firs post of this topic).

I am, then inundated with options and possible approaches; I like to do research so I have all the info before making a decision even if that means going the easy way of adding more Pulsar DSP. That can lead to informatio overload, of course. Now in addition to the RME cards, I also found the ESI stuff which seems to be almost as good and a lot less expensive. I like the specs of the new Juli@, but it doesn't seem to be out yet - Has anyone looked at that card?

Thnx for all your help.

V

ScofieldKid · Post by **ScofieldKid** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 4:30 am

Yikes! Why a Juli?

It seems like you have a lot of different goals bundled up in all these potential purchases. Might want to prioritize at this point. What is the most important thing you want to improve in your current setup???

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that it sounds like you really want more synthesis plugins and effects plugins. If that is the case, then you are looking at 1) software plugins, 2) PowerCore boards + plugins, or 3) Creamware boards + plugins.

So the stuff about the 2nd PC, I wouldn't worry about that yet. I don't think you are maxing your current CPU. The stuff about the RME and the Juli, doesn't seem like I/O is really your top concern. I would probably focus on what plugin capabilities you want and maybe direct your money that way.

Just trying to give helpful suggestions here. I appreciate the difficulty of naviagating all of these similar/different/overlappying technologies.

vmartell · Post by **vmartell** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:15 pm

On 2004-09-22 05:30, ScofieldKid wrote:

Yikes! Why a Juli?

I checked the specs and it looks like a good card; however, I haven't checked and don't know the prices or reviews. Why Yikes, If you don't mind me asking? - Maybe I am wrong about considering that card

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that it sounds like you really want more synthesis plugins and effects plugins. If that is the case, then you are looking at 1) software plugins, 2) PowerCore boards + plugins, or 3) Creamware boards + plugins.

You got it there. Another concern is being future proof - or as much as possible. PCI is at the end of its life; sure, not immediately, but it will slowly become an issue - what if CW doesn't catch up in producing a Firewire/PCI-X/PCI Express solution, and all of the sudden, I end up with a solution that can't be used with current equipment? One argument is that even if CW goes out of businnes, your setup will continue working - yes, true, but for how long?

Don't get me wrong - I love CW and today is one of those days where I'm thinking that I should go all out and get that PowerPulsar (or whatever is called); I'm pretty sure I would be pretty happy with it. But for how long? I'm being kind of a devil's advocate, really. CW is a great solution that I love dearly. My problem is that for example, is that the firewire version should already be out in order to compete with powercore. TC already has a roadmap; it would be great if CW would publish theirs. It would help me a lot in the decision. At this moment the only thing I'm sure is that there will be some new plugins released.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:41 pm

On 2004-09-22 19:15, vmartell wrote:
...PCI is at the end of its life; sure, not immediately, but it will slowly become an issue - what if CW doesn't catch up in producing a Firewire/PCI-X/PCI Express solution, and all of the sudden, I end up with a solution that can't be used with current equipment? ...

of course that statement is undeniable, yet it misses the point somewhat (imho)

the current 'architecture' of Scope with existing and upcoming plugins won't become unusable as long as you can get a piece of hardware to be configured as a sound expander/processing module - linked to whatever system - and that can be quite a long time.
(ot: I'm running an ISDN server on a 12 year old system, non stop 24/365, changing the harddisk every 3-4 years or so...)

As recent releases like Profit5 and STW P100 show there's still potential even in this rather 'traditional' way of use - and possibly the free SDK initiates even some more momentum.

But we all want further (and deeper) improvements, and honestly I'd rather appreciate some - they are absolutely essential.

Nevertheless THOSE improvements are beyond the current scope of Scope: access to hardware, memory, controller data, user interface etc require a deep re-design (or evolution) of the platform's fundamentals.

Otherwise there isn't much to improve beyond the current 'sound expander' paradigm and I doubt that's sufficient for a profitable business model.
It has been difficult in the (recent) past and it won't become easier...

I assume the heads at CWA are completely aware of the situation and determined to change it, why else should they have continued business after last years financial troubles

Conclusion: if the company (or technology) survives, so will show up the appropriate interfaces, be it FW or PCI-I-dunnowhat.

If release a new hardware version, then on a new interface - it doesn't cost more than on PCI because the majority of work is probably the software communication part.
Possible, though a bit speculative

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2004-09-22 22:49 ]

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:53 pm

It doesn't matter if CWA's stuff becomes "outdated" because you can always keep it in the computer it's in right now!! Some people keep old DOS/Win95 boxes around just to play their old games. You can always keep Scope running in an XP machine with ADAT/MIDI connectivity to your main machine, *if* computers a few years from now can no longer run Scope.

That's exactly what I plan to do. Unless, of course, CreamWare offers a "swap" program that isn't too expensive...

Shayne

valis · Post by **valis** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:24 am

I agree Shayne. I'm not sure that a future CW system would be 100% compatible and unless there's some compelling upgrade plan I see no reason to keep this in a corner of the studio much as you would any other hardware. In fact I've already moved my CW cards into a 2nd PC in preparation for that fact...

vmartell · Post by **vmartell** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:10 pm

On 2004-09-23 00:53, Shayne White wrote:
It doesn't matter if CWA's stuff becomes "outdated"
- snip -
because you can always keep it in
You can always keep Scope running in an XP machine with ADAT/MIDI connectivity to your main machine, *if* computers a few years from now can no longer run Scope.

That's exactly what I plan to do. Unless, of course, CreamWare offers a "swap" program that isn't too expensive...

Shayne

1.- Indeed a very good approach. I will probably do the same as I don't inted to get rid of my current CW setup. I just feel a bit nervous about putting more money into the system. Given the choice of having to do that (keep the legacy system to keep Scope going) to something more flexible, I would take the later... my comments are for the new investment. However... I would REALLY, REALLY , REALLY love to finally get that PowerPulsar

2.- More options to choose from. TC just announced a cheaper Firewire solution:

http://www.kvr-vst.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56941

3.- It has just occured to me that CW should be ready to release the external FireWire solution: Take a Noah, slap a FireWire interface, update the drivers and SFP (make sure that XTC works so you have a box that really goes against PowerCore and that it has the advantage of SFP mode) and voila!
PS.
make sure that it can add up all the DSP power in the system (PCI+FireWire) and that is compaptible with the plugins coded for the PCI version

If I were CW, I would do just that - In fact, I think its what they should have done, instead of Noah...