The purpose of freezing is to free processing power, but in the moment this is not regarding the cpu but external dsp processing, any eventual freezing procedure would be substantially a fake, because it had to perform a recording and then remove the devices from dsp....it would take a heck of time and resources just to avoid few clicks and the saving of a preset....
Freezing CPU processes makes sense, if it is just a way to gain time and to make the workflow easier, because the daw software IS calculated entirely by the cpu, but freezing external processes is like freezing an external reverb, you've gotta record it and disconnect it, if this is silent or not doesn't change the nature of the operation, with the drawback that you should consume some additional cpu power and have huge lines of additional code to automate this task that can be done more efficiently and with more control with 1-2 fingers.
News from Creamware - Status of the Company and Scope
- freeze (it saves CPU and DSP resources) i.e. I can play 32 (istant modificable, just press a button!) istances of Minimax with only 6 DSP.On 2005-07-31 17:12, alfonso wrote:
I don't really understand this love for VST integration...where is all the difference?
- SYNCRONIZATION (!!!) with other tracks, no more latency or weird midi-out-of-syncro.
- with FX teleport I can use the SCOPE in all of my network's computers.
The main problem, for me, remain the Syncronization: when I render a midi part to audio (with Cubase sx3) the track is ever out of syncro, not only at start (scope inside delay) but in all track with random delay or advance... I can't get never a damn "perfect" track!!!
Howewer they say that with "horrible" midi clock syncronization this is normal...
Suggestion are welcome
Don't use MIDI clock. The best way of sequencing in Scope is using Adern Flexor ramp sequencing - these use a gate signal to trigger the ramp and are sample accurate after that.
Or just sequence in your sequencer.. that's what it's there for
Re: Freeze - do you really need 32 instances of MiniMax? Is there really room for that in your mix? People in the VST get hung up on the number of instances because the synths sound so crap.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: darkrezin on 2005-08-01 05:08 ]</font>
Or just sequence in your sequencer.. that's what it's there for
Re: Freeze - do you really need 32 instances of MiniMax? Is there really room for that in your mix? People in the VST get hung up on the number of instances because the synths sound so crap.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: darkrezin on 2005-08-01 05:08 ]</font>
It was only for example... obiusly I don't use dozen istances of Minimax. ;o)Re: Freeze - do you really need 32 instances of MiniMax? Is there really room for that in your mix? People in the VST get hung up on the number of instances because the synths sound so crap.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: darkrezin on 2005-08-01 05:08 ]</font>
But sometimes several synths in one mix, yes.
And why not the possibility (the freedom) of freezing?
I really don't need a dozen of cars, I'm done with my Micra... but if I can get 12 Micra at same price as 1 with a simply software update, all my family, in busy days, could be more happy and free...
(apart the problem of pollution and the energy crisis...)
The freeze feature is very convenient:On 2005-08-01 00:57, alfonso wrote:
The purpose of freezing is to free processing power, but in the moment this is not regarding the cpu but external dsp processing, any eventual freezing procedure would be substantially a fake, because it had to perform a recording and then remove the devices from dsp....it would take a heck of time and resources just to avoid few clicks and the saving of a preset....
Freezing CPU processes makes sense, if it is just a way to gain time and to make the workflow easier, because the daw software IS calculated entirely by the cpu, but freezing external processes is like freezing an external reverb, you've gotta record it and disconnect it, if this is silent or not doesn't change the nature of the operation, with the drawback that you should consume some additional cpu power and have huge lines of additional code to automate this task that can be done more efficiently and with more control with 1-2 fingers.
- much quicker than realtime in the very great majority of the mix situations; save time
- "multiply the power" of the DAW system
- free the workflow; it's another step for flexibility
And also; freezing is now a common practice for native & UAD users. How to convince them to buy Scope DSPs without freeze? Only with sound quality and "realtime old school studio like" flexibility? Not so easy, I think... Would be easier with a freeze feature.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2005-08-01 17:55 ]</font>
I just don't think it's relevant to the way in which DSPs work for there to be offline mixdowns. DSPs calculate on a sample by sample basis... it just wouldn't be the same for me to put my trust in the Cubase mixer engine or whatever calculating everything for me offline. I would have to go and listen to the resulting master again anyway as I would just be paranoid that the offline process f**ked it up (yes I'm a control freak like that 
). More time wasted no?
IMHO the consumer culture will always seek out stupid crap which seems to make life easier but doesn't really pay attention to sound quality and may actually have other flaws (block-based native processing simply *sucks* for example).
Whatever one may think about this, I don't think it's necessary or wise for Creamware to go chasing that market. It is an extremely fickle market, which is distracted by the next superficially cool-looking thing that comes along, because they really don't know or appreciate what they already have. In the long term I'd say it's not a constructive or healthy sales strategy.
). More time wasted no?IMHO the consumer culture will always seek out stupid crap which seems to make life easier but doesn't really pay attention to sound quality and may actually have other flaws (block-based native processing simply *sucks* for example).
Whatever one may think about this, I don't think it's necessary or wise for Creamware to go chasing that market. It is an extremely fickle market, which is distracted by the next superficially cool-looking thing that comes along, because they really don't know or appreciate what they already have. In the long term I'd say it's not a constructive or healthy sales strategy.
He's speaking from experience though. I'm pretty sure his experience with UAD/Poco has shown him that it also a bit of a PITA to deal with. The added latency isn't just important from a 'realtime monitoring' standpoint, but try doing 'true' nonlinear editing (ie, scrolling or skipping around) and listen to the resultant clicks that will eventually ensue. The basic problem is the whole concept of vst was initially built around the idea of being software-only, and for much of the market dsp cards are seen more as 'accellerators' than actual hardware (and treated as such when used with vst integration).
I also suspect part of the reluctance of many Creamware users to accept integration is borne not because they're stubborn & closeminded, but because over the last few years they've repeatedly seen Creamware suffer from funnelling too many efforts into the wrong direction.
It seemed to me at the time that one of the reasons 3.x took so long to 'emerge' was Creamware's focus on getting XTC working to keep up with TC & UAD who had recently jumped into the market with what everyone was claiming was a 'better' product. Its now almost 6 years later and I don't think you can definitively say that UAD & Poco are 'better' across the board. If that is true for some users then perhaps it would be better to go towards one of those products instead?
More recent users recall Noah, which is a rather nifty product but just as hard to market as the other products that emerged alongside it (VP9000, Chameleon, Receptor etc). Noah resulted in a rather drastic change at Creamware...
I'm not advocating that XTC should be *dead in the water*, its just understandable that many users see the current strength of Scope as a hardware piece with drivers and physical i/o, which works Very Well for what it does (gui slowness on NT os's aside). Claiming that vst integration is the One True Way is bound to be met with resistance imho, especially in light of what I've outlined above.
I also suspect part of the reluctance of many Creamware users to accept integration is borne not because they're stubborn & closeminded, but because over the last few years they've repeatedly seen Creamware suffer from funnelling too many efforts into the wrong direction.
It seemed to me at the time that one of the reasons 3.x took so long to 'emerge' was Creamware's focus on getting XTC working to keep up with TC & UAD who had recently jumped into the market with what everyone was claiming was a 'better' product. Its now almost 6 years later and I don't think you can definitively say that UAD & Poco are 'better' across the board. If that is true for some users then perhaps it would be better to go towards one of those products instead?
More recent users recall Noah, which is a rather nifty product but just as hard to market as the other products that emerged alongside it (VP9000, Chameleon, Receptor etc). Noah resulted in a rather drastic change at Creamware...
I'm not advocating that XTC should be *dead in the water*, its just understandable that many users see the current strength of Scope as a hardware piece with drivers and physical i/o, which works Very Well for what it does (gui slowness on NT os's aside). Claiming that vst integration is the One True Way is bound to be met with resistance imho, especially in light of what I've outlined above.
Grok - Nope... just saying that sometimes a concept can appear beneficial because of superficially appealing aspects, but there can be many flaws that are ignored. These flaws are not always show-stoppers (IMHO quick methods like VST and offline mixdown can be good sometimes for quick and dirty composition) but in many situations they can be...
... playing drums at 3ms or higher latency for example
And also the fact that I, like many others, feel more inspired and creative when something sounds good than when it sounds mediocre.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: darkrezin on 2005-08-02 19:33 ]</font>
... playing drums at 3ms or higher latency for example
And also the fact that I, like many others, feel more inspired and creative when something sounds good than when it sounds mediocre.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: darkrezin on 2005-08-02 19:33 ]</font>
Valis - absolutely... clicks all the time when working at anything resembling low latency (i.e. below 12 ms)... just totally infuriating and annoying. I'd never ever work with any UAD/Powercore plugin until I am sure everything is finished in a piece and I don't have to do any more work on it other than mixing. Scope stuff on the other hand, just invites me to play it. I know which paradigm is nicer for me
...More pleasing is to play real drums with no latency at all (record & mix them), real electro-acoustical instruments with no latency...On 2005-08-02 19:32, darkrezin wrote:
(...)
... playing drums at 3ms or higher latency for example
(...)
Noticing also that there are currently several "low latency/realtime" native VST solutions. And also low latency Linux...
I don't suscribe to the point of view that VSTis are always crap; some of them are plainly good. Using Scala microtuning files can also multiply inspiration, at least for me. I would strongly like that Creamware instruments would not be limited to the equal tempered scale... When they will support Scala files and Just Intonation, a new perfection will be born. Right now, I use the z3ta+ when I want special scales.
Anyway, the "freeze" has all to do with mix, and nothing to do with play, isn't it?...
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2005-08-02 21:41 ]</font>
It's not my intention to make an argument out of this, but if you insist...
Whether I like it or not, real drums are not really an option for me outside my studio. When I play my trigger system through SFP, the lack of latency is great. When playing at 3ms it's bearable but still noticeable and annoying. My trigger system is mainly for keeping my limbs in practice and for getting quick ideas down. I'm not going to shoot myself for cheapening my art just yet with that one...
Secondly, my argument against Freeze is based on the sample-by-sample nature of DSP processing.
I have no problem with VSTs either (I use them a lot too), but I think going blindly down the road to *VST-only* is misguided and very limiting. I've never ever been able to work exclusively with VST for a serious production, because I simply think the resulting sound is pretty flat and lacking in character and weight.
I also think that it is silly to blindly chase that market for a company whose main expertise lies elsewhere. The VST market is pretty fickle as I said... people are so spoiled by freeware and warez now that sales are not always too good.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: darkrezin on 2005-08-03 01:46 ]</font>
Whether I like it or not, real drums are not really an option for me outside my studio. When I play my trigger system through SFP, the lack of latency is great. When playing at 3ms it's bearable but still noticeable and annoying. My trigger system is mainly for keeping my limbs in practice and for getting quick ideas down. I'm not going to shoot myself for cheapening my art just yet with that one...
Secondly, my argument against Freeze is based on the sample-by-sample nature of DSP processing.
I have no problem with VSTs either (I use them a lot too), but I think going blindly down the road to *VST-only* is misguided and very limiting. I've never ever been able to work exclusively with VST for a serious production, because I simply think the resulting sound is pretty flat and lacking in character and weight.
I also think that it is silly to blindly chase that market for a company whose main expertise lies elsewhere. The VST market is pretty fickle as I said... people are so spoiled by freeware and warez now that sales are not always too good.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: darkrezin on 2005-08-03 01:46 ]</font>
Pulsarian! Don't be "fascist"...
Democracy in our boards!!!
I wish only the freedom of choice for all of us.
If U don't like VST or VSTi, just don't use it.
If I like I use it...
Is so easy: a little (?) software update to VST possibility and we could be all happy
I don't think that VST system is un-professional, I've seen musician that created perfect (in both quality and cretivity) songs with cubase SX + a couple of VST, and people with Protools HD or Scope 30 dsp + external huge mixer + external efx that realised poor works...
How U can say that Reaktor 5 or FM7 are not pro? Or Chameleon 5000, UAD-1, POCO or URS eq? I think that are better than the 95% of Scope FX plugins.
I've purchased a couple of UAD because the Scope FX aren't so good as Pultec pro, LA2A, Urei, Plate, mastering Limiter, etc. UAD emulation. (and less expensive!!!)
The modular3+flexor (and generally the synths for Creamware) are absolutely astounding!!!
But why not VSTi version possibility? Eventually with a little VST adapter? Eh?
Welcome to the standard world, Neo...
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: erminardi on 2005-08-03 02:38 ]</font>
Democracy in our boards!!!
I wish only the freedom of choice for all of us.
If U don't like VST or VSTi, just don't use it.
If I like I use it...
Is so easy: a little (?) software update to VST possibility and we could be all happy
I don't think that VST system is un-professional, I've seen musician that created perfect (in both quality and cretivity) songs with cubase SX + a couple of VST, and people with Protools HD or Scope 30 dsp + external huge mixer + external efx that realised poor works...
How U can say that Reaktor 5 or FM7 are not pro? Or Chameleon 5000, UAD-1, POCO or URS eq? I think that are better than the 95% of Scope FX plugins.
I've purchased a couple of UAD because the Scope FX aren't so good as Pultec pro, LA2A, Urei, Plate, mastering Limiter, etc. UAD emulation. (and less expensive!!!)
The modular3+flexor (and generally the synths for Creamware) are absolutely astounding!!!
But why not VSTi version possibility? Eventually with a little VST adapter? Eh?
Welcome to the standard world, Neo...
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: erminardi on 2005-08-03 02:38 ]</font>
...I gracefully admit that this nature is somehow beyond my current technical understanding; so I keep on dreaming, say... to a kind of adjustable and instantaneous switch between the usual realtime DSP mode and an hypothetical quicker than realtime freeze modeOn 2005-08-03 01:42, darkrezin wrote:
(...)
Secondly, my argument against Freeze is based on the sample-by-sample nature of DSP processing.
(...)
If the DSP technical connoisseurs say it's impossible to achieve, then so be it...
If it is technically possible but impossible to prioritize because of not enough manpower, I can understand. I wish I use more often the Scope FXes; Samplitude and its audio treatments are so good and convenient that I tend to use only this app for mixing. In fact, Scope and Samplitude complete themselves very well: no brainer realtime and routing flexibility with Scope when needed, and ultrapowerful recording/analysing/editing/mixing/mastering/CD&DVD audio burning capacities with Samplitude.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2005-08-04 13:15 ]</font>
