To C.W. Frank

Tony B · Post by **Tony B** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:35 pm

An important suggestion Frank. Since all the Creamware cards use the same SFP. It gets a bit more confusing when we have Luna, Pulsar and Scope. There should be only one Creamware card. The difference should only be indicated by the number of DSPs on the card. For example if the Scope name is chosen it would be a Scope 3, Scope 6 or Scope 15. As I mentioned, the only difference MUST be the number of DSPs. When one has to explain a Luna, a Pulsar or a Scope to a prospective user you are more or less saying the same thing over and over again. Customers or prospective users tends to get confused quite easily. Especially if they are looking at other products.

[ This Message was edited by: abre on 2004-02-07 04:35 ]

andy · Post by **andy** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:46 pm

Absolutly right! Wise policy!

Post by **hubird** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:15 pm

yes!! one card, one software, different ## DSP

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 7:35 pm

Why is it confusing?

eliam · Post by **eliam** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 7:45 pm

I agree that everything that can be simplified should be simplified. Simply to make it easier to explain without useless distinctions.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:22 pm

All of the cards have a different function. Do not combine them.

siberiansun · Post by **siberiansun** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:26 pm

On 2004-02-04 19:35, braincell wrote:
Why is it confusing?

imagine a brand new company, selling soundcards:
"the injection", "the boost", "the machine" and "the boost2".
not to forget "the power-machine".

now which one will YOU choose?

wouldn't it seem easier with:

Scope 4
Scope 6
Scope 15

or whatever prefix before dsp count.

AND as Abre and Hubird suggested, ONE software pack for all systems.
I just bought myself a 2nd UAD-1 just because i needed more horsepowers for those amazing plugs.

I assure you the same thing will happen to 4 dsp users. they'll upgrade pretty quick when they realize 4 dsp's isn't enough to release SFP's full potential.
IF all mixers, synths effects etc are included.

[ This Message was edited by: siberiansun on 2004-02-04 20:34 ]

Post by **hubird** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:55 pm

I found it terrible to make up my mind buying it or not.
In the shops they often can't tell you the differences in a clear way, and if you don't know more than the rumours and the name CW, it's hard to make the investment.

Streamlining all this would be very, very good, I'm sure about that!

_________________
Let There Be Music!

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2004-02-04 20:58 ]

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 9:27 pm

The Scope 4, 6, 15 makes sense. That way the SFP 3.1 software actually seems to have a logical meaning.

Post by **hubird** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 9:35 pm

exactly

if that doesn't mean the name shouldn't changed to Scope or whatever

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 9:47 pm

I like what's been suggested, cool ideas. Too much jargon confuses potential customers quickly, especially those that are not too computer literate.

- simplicity sells -

soul-synthesis · Post by **soul-synthesis** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:10 pm

The universal principle that applies to everything! - KISS - keep it simple stupid. Those who learn 'Wing Chun' understand that simplicity is always best, anyway...

So yeah the idea of SCOPE 3, 4, 6, 15 is an excellent idea. All the cards are based on the same software, the only difference being the number of DSPs. The naming of IO configurations eg. PLUS, EX, ADAT can just be added to the end.

i reckon you're on a winner!

spoimala · Post by **spoimala** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:18 am

Are you serious???
How would be the Prices?

Scope 3 : 2000EUR
Scope 6 : 2300
Scope 15 : 3000EUR

Hardware costs nothing, it's the soft than does. Scope is "a little bit" more than LUNA with 15DSPs.

thorkell · Post by **thorkell** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 5:09 am

Actually I think we should keep in mind that Pulsar is probably CW's most videly known product name! Why dich it?

purator · Post by **purator** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 5:43 am

On 2004-02-05 05:09, thorkell wrote:
Actually I think we should keep in mind that Pulsar is probably CW's most videly known product name! Why dich it?

But Scope is in SFP...or should we make it PFP

samplaire · Post by **samplaire** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 5:47 am

But Scope is in SFP...or should we make it PFP

Cool idea, nice pronounciation but there is one con... too similar to PSP audioware. CFP is also nice (Creamware Fusion Platform) , isn't it?

[ This Message was edited by: samplaire on 2004-02-05 06:13 ]

Tony B · Post by **Tony B** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:05 am

We are not to waste time arguing over a NAME. I just mentioned SCOPE since Mr. Hans Zimmer is using it and maybe it is more established as the Creamware Powertool. Whether Luna, Pulsar or Scope that does not matter. The company is to decide where the bulk of their sales is coming from.

I just want to keep smiling. I am causing those Pro Studios where I am a lot of headache with the sound I am getting from my Creamware cards.

[ This Message was edited by: abre on 2004-02-05 06:06 ]

[ This Message was edited by: abre on 2004-02-05 06:07 ]

samplaire · Post by **samplaire** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:13 am

Steve-o · Post by **Steve-o** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:45 am

Consider marketing: costs are much lower, when using ONE name and ONE advertisement-design would be much more effective: you read "SCOPE" 150 times not 30 x Pulsar, 30 x Luna and 30 x SCOPE. Combine it with the idea mentioned above and you're set (3,6,9-15 DSPs).

BUT - this was intended by CW: that's called product - diversification. Goal: reaching several market-segments. But obviously it did not work! The question remains: does anybody draw the right consequences of the failures of the past? I really hope so!

Besides: the most important single change would be to HELP the customers/developers to build plugs an instruments with SCOPE - not to block them. Remember the STW 'case' - ask Kimgr.
Frank made THE most important decision when he stated, that anyone will be able to develop SFP-plugs without paying a fee of thousands of dollars for the development package! What made VST big? 3rd-Party dev. for plugs and VSTi's ! THIS will be the solution for CW's future on the basis of an excellent hardware/software (sfp) concept!

I am database developer and passionate musician since 1973 but I would never pay thousands for the Scope dev. package in ADDITION to my SCOPE system which already cost > 4000 € 2 yrs. ago!

K.I.S.S.

Steve

bluemystic · Post by **bluemystic** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:57 am

To add some ideas...

CWA presents the SCOPE/SP as an High-End Virtual Studio. I totally agree... if you double the number of DSP's.

I'm using 2 PowerPulsar and 1 Pulsar SRB (total of 34 DSP's) and I can now demonstrate and argue in this way as I can do a whole track production in SFP only (no VST, no Rewire, no external hardware...).

Their marketing campaign should highlight that's a real High-End Virtual Studio.

CWA should attract companies like Roland, Clavia, Access, Novation, etc to bring some of their gears to the SFP platform as they create VST's.

There's no comparison between VST's and DSP devices at all !!! And this should then captivate the attention of more people.

All my friends to which I made a demonstration are impressed by the unlimited possibilities of the system and it's sound quality.

And there starts the marketing too: from mouth to mouth. But in first instance, they do not easily believe until they see and ear it.

I'm not the one who has to tell them how to drive their marketing campaign but I make only remarks based on my perception of the system: VIRTUAL as good as a REAL studio.

30.000 CreamWare users is not enough! That's why the US market is an important target. It is BIG.

I hope for CWA they succeed in the challenge.

Regards,

bluemystic