And let's not forget our first rate software developers - the Scope SDK and developer community is absolutely the best, as they produce excellent plug-ins at very reasonable prices (some would even say "cheap", but I could never use this word to describe any of the plug-ins I bought for Scope - all top class). When people ask me what's that sound, and I say it's an LBH by SpaceF and they go like... *blank* he he
I mean where else do you get Flexor and SpaceF and John Bowen and DAS, and Shroomz, (the list goes on... thank you all), where else is there a free SDK so that you yourself can learn to program and build your own devices?
I agree that new drivers would be enough, and it would surely attract new customers. Vista is being so aggressively pushed to people, that it's an inevitabily... I, for one, would also like to see OSX and Linux support as well...
But, if we have the best developers, if we have an interesting and interested customer base, we also have a very interesting market opportunityt: Drivers! How much would you pay to have the exact same thing you have now, but with Vista/OsX/Linux support? $50? $100? More?
How come there isn't anyone doing this? Maybe the hardware serial number that's used to register plug-ins could also be used to activate the driver, preventing, you know, free-copying... imagine, imagine...
Much peace,
T
Anyone wait a software update?
jep,
certainly a new scope wouldn`t cost 12000€.
Back in the earlier days they had to design the hardware and the used sharcs +software from ground. The sharcs in 1999 were higher end chips and they build 15 on a card. It was never a low cost product.
You could even think of a low upgrade path, from what I have heard the tiger sharcs are a completly different design to the old sharcs, but there are also more or less codecompatible new sharcs that have more power and by optimizing the code you can get even more power out of them.
I guess they used these chips in the ASB boxes and they are quite powerful already. And I think they don`t have to rewrite the complete code to port software. (for sure to take full advantage of the new power some tweaking is needed)
Now think of a new pci-ex design mainly based on the old card using a few of these newer generation chips combined with a vista driver and a resonable price.
I disagree also on the statement that the existing userbase wouldn`t upgrade to a new card.
I think these would be the first that would invest into a new card. The existing userbase knows how good scope is and would easily invest into a new design if reasonable priced as they trust soniccore for their quality.
If you look to the automobile market there ís a similar phenomena. People have a 5 year old BMW and still buy a newer one although their old one is still doing fine.
Actually its more diffcult to get new users. the price is important here, if its too high, it gets something like a luxus product and only few pro consumers will buy it.
a price in the range of 1000€ or a bit lower (999€) will also attract hobbiests and this userbase is way bigger. For example kvr has 133000 users and I think there are way more that don`t use forums or a not registered.
So the market is small as long as you adress to highend pro audio gear .
These days there is no need for different card designs (4,6,15 chips) as the chips are relative cheap.
The price differences should be done via the software packages that are delivered.
For example youcan buy a powercore quite cheap but if you want the full power of there reverbs you have to buy the vss3, nonlin and they are quite expensive.
I think this is a good buisness model.
And it would also work fine for a new scope.
And keep in mind that scope always was a high-class audio interface. the Powercore and uad are not.
You don`t find many low latency quality multichannel audio interfaces for less than 400€.
Scope is not just a dsp booster card.
And as I mentioned in another thread, scope is the only card that could combine analog modules with digital like the waldorf Q+ hybride.
So they could also enable new attraction points for buyers.
Hell, they could even team up with a synthdeveloper company.
a driver upgrade is welcomed too, but I am afraid nobody does buy a driver alone.
So the best would be to bundle a new driver with minor bug fixing to a scope 5 and deliver anew high class synth into the package for lets say 250!
or even 300 if its an ARP2600
certainly a new scope wouldn`t cost 12000€.
Back in the earlier days they had to design the hardware and the used sharcs +software from ground. The sharcs in 1999 were higher end chips and they build 15 on a card. It was never a low cost product.
You could even think of a low upgrade path, from what I have heard the tiger sharcs are a completly different design to the old sharcs, but there are also more or less codecompatible new sharcs that have more power and by optimizing the code you can get even more power out of them.
I guess they used these chips in the ASB boxes and they are quite powerful already. And I think they don`t have to rewrite the complete code to port software. (for sure to take full advantage of the new power some tweaking is needed)
Now think of a new pci-ex design mainly based on the old card using a few of these newer generation chips combined with a vista driver and a resonable price.
I disagree also on the statement that the existing userbase wouldn`t upgrade to a new card.
I think these would be the first that would invest into a new card. The existing userbase knows how good scope is and would easily invest into a new design if reasonable priced as they trust soniccore for their quality.
If you look to the automobile market there ís a similar phenomena. People have a 5 year old BMW and still buy a newer one although their old one is still doing fine.
Actually its more diffcult to get new users. the price is important here, if its too high, it gets something like a luxus product and only few pro consumers will buy it.
a price in the range of 1000€ or a bit lower (999€) will also attract hobbiests and this userbase is way bigger. For example kvr has 133000 users and I think there are way more that don`t use forums or a not registered.
So the market is small as long as you adress to highend pro audio gear .
These days there is no need for different card designs (4,6,15 chips) as the chips are relative cheap.
The price differences should be done via the software packages that are delivered.
For example youcan buy a powercore quite cheap but if you want the full power of there reverbs you have to buy the vss3, nonlin and they are quite expensive.
I think this is a good buisness model.
And it would also work fine for a new scope.
And keep in mind that scope always was a high-class audio interface. the Powercore and uad are not.
You don`t find many low latency quality multichannel audio interfaces for less than 400€.
Scope is not just a dsp booster card.
And as I mentioned in another thread, scope is the only card that could combine analog modules with digital like the waldorf Q+ hybride.
So they could also enable new attraction points for buyers.
Hell, they could even team up with a synthdeveloper company.
a driver upgrade is welcomed too, but I am afraid nobody does buy a driver alone.
So the best would be to bundle a new driver with minor bug fixing to a scope 5 and deliver anew high class synth into the package for lets say 250!
or even 300 if its an ARP2600
This is concerning. Is there no dialog between you and soniccore?garyb wrote:face it.
i'm waiting on Jurgen and Holger! they claimed to be Scope's savior when they bought the technology(OH YES, THEY DID!!!! continuing sales, support developement and production was the promise). it's time to step up! i have people telling me that U.S. customers can't even buy the BX update with a credit card! i can no longer get product. WHY?
rantin' and ravin' already.....
Stuart.
-
Crickstone
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:00 pm
- Location: Canada
i will be patient as well, but I run an amazing system based on scope, some of my recent work went to the Skywalker ranch for some post sound and nothing that I did was altered, it met with their standards on a movie post sound that I was part of with my scope set-up in my basement studio. But I hope there is some acitvity with the updates of drivers to help keep the platform going, but what I have is going to keep me going for alot of years. Vista is only a tool to make people buy more. I need less. Or at least what is available with development with what we hav e already.
either you want a great machine or you don't.
scope in 32bit is better and more useful than no scope at 64bit. my old p4 is still more than plenty with 3 scope cards. for sales right now, 32bit vista is all that it takes to continue making money and happy customers(xp is all they need, but new computers have vista). later, new hardware can be developed.
scope in 32bit is better and more useful than no scope at 64bit. my old p4 is still more than plenty with 3 scope cards. for sales right now, 32bit vista is all that it takes to continue making money and happy customers(xp is all they need, but new computers have vista). later, new hardware can be developed.
Absolutlygaryb wrote:either you want a great machine or you don't.
scope in 32bit is better and more useful than no scope at 64bit. my old p4 is still more than plenty with 3 scope cards. for sales right now, 32bit vista is all that it takes to continue making money and happy customers(xp is all they need, but new computers have vista). later, new hardware can be developed.
32,64 and 128bit, thats all just numbers
scopes soundquality is a fact!
I still use the 16bit asio modules, I see no big improvements jumping to 24 or 32 bit at all. So whats the fuzz about 64 bit?
I expect a much bigger increase in soundquality in a change of sampling rate.
A fixed internal sampling rate of 96khz or higher would be welcomed on a scope 2 board.
by the way: soniccores words "be patient" sounds promising
Gary, it's not that I think Vista drivers would be a bad idea, but more like I just personally won't be buying a 64-bit capable system & installing a 32-bit version of Vista on it to run Scope. Not only that, but I also think that good OSX drivers & software for the current platform & current cards would possibly do more for the platform's 'pro audio' market rep' in the long run, if not, at least for the foreseable future. That would probably just be a priority thing though. Personally I'd like to see the OSX support before Vista.
am I totally wrong now?
but in my thinking its possible to build a 64bit driver for a 64bit os commmunicating with a 32 bit pci card.
if its a 64bit driver or 32bit depends on the os used and cpu mode running.
a 64bit os just needs a customized driver for 64bit.
I think the slot type is unimportant.
but in my thinking its possible to build a 64bit driver for a 64bit os commmunicating with a 32 bit pci card.
if its a 64bit driver or 32bit depends on the os used and cpu mode running.
a 64bit os just needs a customized driver for 64bit.
I think the slot type is unimportant.
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
if one is to buy a system for serious audio use, this shouldnt be an issue at all. You should build your system according to your needs, but i know youre aware of that.
And if you make the mistake of buying a $2990 Dell prebuilt and find that the supplied vista is limiting you, you can do worse than spending $90 on a second OS.
Heck, they will probably switch licence for you for free.
as David Bowies lover once sang;
You cant always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, ju just might get what you need.
And if you make the mistake of buying a $2990 Dell prebuilt and find that the supplied vista is limiting you, you can do worse than spending $90 on a second OS.
Heck, they will probably switch licence for you for free.
as David Bowies lover once sang;
You cant always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, ju just might get what you need.
All I know is that I love what I have, and now that I heard about Gigastudio 4 being XP / Vista capable, instead of Vista in 32bit, I do not care what SonicCore does. New cards in 2008, fine, 2009,..no problemo,..........current cards playable till 2014, awesome, Body Of Ralf in 2015 ? Great.
I now know what mobo to ugrade to for this Christmas's DAW w/ DSP's galore.
I know that quad core's rock w/ SSE4 and DDRII, as has been proven w/ GVI. Bidule .095 is now capable of using multi cores also. I love the fact that DSP's rock all by themselves and have no need for 64bit, or 8GB's of RAM. I already can play several large libraries in GVI, so even if 24MB's of RAM is required for the initial sample to trigger via the endless streaming technology that Gigastudio uses ( Rockwell International patent ), that means I can still load 56 LARGE libraries in 32bit, even with the 1.35GB limitation in XP.
I know I have waffled IMO's about 64bit, but now that GS4 will still work w/ Scope,...............As Clark Gable once said in the 1939 epic movie, Gone With The Wind...................Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
I would rather be the old FAT BASTARD playing the old FAT BASTARDS. Even when the demise of SFP in 2015 happens as I envisioned.
I Am FAT, and proud of it !!
I now know what mobo to ugrade to for this Christmas's DAW w/ DSP's galore.
I know that quad core's rock w/ SSE4 and DDRII, as has been proven w/ GVI. Bidule .095 is now capable of using multi cores also. I love the fact that DSP's rock all by themselves and have no need for 64bit, or 8GB's of RAM. I already can play several large libraries in GVI, so even if 24MB's of RAM is required for the initial sample to trigger via the endless streaming technology that Gigastudio uses ( Rockwell International patent ), that means I can still load 56 LARGE libraries in 32bit, even with the 1.35GB limitation in XP.
I know I have waffled IMO's about 64bit, but now that GS4 will still work w/ Scope,...............As Clark Gable once said in the 1939 epic movie, Gone With The Wind...................Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
I would rather be the old FAT BASTARD playing the old FAT BASTARDS. Even when the demise of SFP in 2015 happens as I envisioned.
I Am FAT, and proud of it !!
yes, but you won't be getting the best performance (probably by a considerable amount) from the 64-bit PC architecture. That's taking into account that if Scope DID move to 2nd or 3rd gen sharcs, their dual 64-bit bus architecture wouldn't be wasted. IE. A lot of the basic platform code & dsp modules would need re-written from the ground up to take advantage of the leap (if you want to call it that) in technology.hifiboom wrote:am I totally wrong now?
but in my thinking its possible to build a 64bit driver for a 64bit os commmunicating with a 32 bit pci card.
Shroomz, this doesn`t apply to a dsp based platormShroomz II wrote:yes, but you won't be getting the best performance (probably by a considerable amount) from the 64-bit PC architecture. That's taking into account that if Scope DID move to 2nd or 3rd gen sharcs, their dual 64-bit bus architecture wouldn't be wasted. IE. A lot of the basic platform code & dsp modules would need re-written from the ground up to take advantage of the leap (if you want to call it that) in technology.hifiboom wrote:am I totally wrong now?
but in my thinking its possible to build a 64bit driver for a 64bit os commmunicating with a 32 bit pci card.
scope has some parts that run natively, but thats not that much and never will be a bigger problem with actual dual/quadcore x000 mhz cpus
See it like this: on a well configured system 16 ASIO channels transfered to scope eat about 1% or less. Which performance boost do you expect from a 64bit driver.
I say neglible.
I really see no advantage in the 64bit architecture atm for scope. Its all about compatiblity and future of the platform.
For sure if there comes a new scope, pci-Ex is a must....
But even there a pci-ex bus lane only has one bit (not 32 or 64), 16 lanes have 16 bit for 16 seriell trasnfer channels.
the card bus bits have not much to do with the bits of an os. They are the transfer technique.
some years ago parallel interfaces were the way to go. (printer port, scsi, ide)
now these days all go to seriell point-to-point transfer which has many advantages.
SATA and PCI-ex are only examples.
Parallel had an advantage when speeds were so low that transmitting a byte (or two etc) in 'parallel' rather than one bit at a time made things 'faster' (this was the 'wide' in ultrawide scsi etc as well). Serial of course can clock higher in the long run and so all the old 'parallel' technologies are giving way to serial. In addition to the examples you give, scsi is now known as SerialSCSI and I believe that the Hypertransport protocol is largely serial.
However SGI & Cray used massive parallel interconnects to connect cpu's & cache in one machine to another to make 16 & 32 way machines out of 4 or 8 machines over 10 years ago, so parallel isn't always going to be giving way to serial in the hight performance lane, it's really up to the engineers. In fact moving back from high speed 'serial' pipelines in the P4 to our current more 'parallelized' multicore designs is a good example of that.
So much for anything being the rule in all cases.
Oh and for another example, we're getting past the hump now but something that 64bit proponents don't tell you is that the added overhead in moving around data that is 2x the width (that extra 32bits) adds extra overhead to the processing. If applications are tuned for it you can still reap the advantages (stuffing 2 32bit values into a 64bit register for instance) but it's only the hype you hear usually, not the tradeoffs. In the long run moving to 64bits is as inevitable as moving to 32 was, but even then Scope will be as unique to someone who enjoys it as any quality analogue synth from the 70's is today.
However SGI & Cray used massive parallel interconnects to connect cpu's & cache in one machine to another to make 16 & 32 way machines out of 4 or 8 machines over 10 years ago, so parallel isn't always going to be giving way to serial in the hight performance lane, it's really up to the engineers. In fact moving back from high speed 'serial' pipelines in the P4 to our current more 'parallelized' multicore designs is a good example of that.
So much for anything being the rule in all cases.
Oh and for another example, we're getting past the hump now but something that 64bit proponents don't tell you is that the added overhead in moving around data that is 2x the width (that extra 32bits) adds extra overhead to the processing. If applications are tuned for it you can still reap the advantages (stuffing 2 32bit values into a 64bit register for instance) but it's only the hype you hear usually, not the tradeoffs. In the long run moving to 64bits is as inevitable as moving to 32 was, but even then Scope will be as unique to someone who enjoys it as any quality analogue synth from the 70's is today.