Scope sequencer

[firubbi]

vdat sounds well, better than sonar/cubase... i was wondering can sc come up with their own sequencer like others do? what do you think?
thanks

[paulrmartin]

Wasn't there "Blue Cubase" once?

[erminardi]

My dream is sometime like Nuendo or Cubase "Special Edition" that features a total integration with Scope OS.
Do you can imagine a Cubase powered directly with Scope FX and Synths as main choice in parallel with optional VST usage?!
With scope's mixer as main mixer.
A sort of Steinberg's Protools HD!!!
All realtime, no ASIO latency (only if U use VST or VSTi instruments?) and no CPU usage.

I don't know if this works but is my dream

[dawman]

I would love to keep VDAT as my multitracker, using Clock 2 Click, and have a MIDI apllication for tricks like reverse audio, quantize.

Just the basics.

I think those would be perfect tools for a sucessful, quality recording.

[astroman]

... i was wondering can sc come up with their own sequencer like others do?...

others seems restricted to Avid aka Digidesign with ProTools...
the latter cannot deny it's Macintosh heritage struggling with the WinDoze paradigm, at least I found the 'native' versions extremely disappointing.

The 'classic' ProTools was a disk IO card (usually SCSI) plus a DSP processing card based on the Motorola 56K family of chips, reducing the Macintosh to something like a remote control - enabling a ridiculously small machine to fairly sophisticated results.
The programming environment was way superior to Windows and I'd rather extend this statement that Digidesign would have never succeeded to develope ProTools under Windows alone.

this is the main difference to Creamware, and part of the clue why there's no SFP sequencer. Mind you, they seriously intended to go the 'full scale solution' approach. There are still public statements by Frank online that they were about to challenge ProTools.

But as they came the Windoze way, they were bound to fail before they even started, possibly before they even knew.
Those were the days of Win98, a memory and interupt mess on it's own, capable of adressing just a few hundred megabytes...

Imho they probably would have liked to integrate the TripleDat recording app with the DSP environment, but it turned out too demanding in resources.

Today that's all history anyway, but the situation for 'special solution' developers are even worse under XP/Vista and OSX.
To warrant compatibility with the (general) system environment you have to consider a sh*t load of stuff that isn't directly related to your app.
It's simply overcomplicated.
To get programmers along at all Micro$oft released huge 'libraries' and program generators like .Net, COM and C#, which are extremely counterproductive in high performance apps - but spit out user interfaces for any sh*t within seconds.

Not only can you not afford to code efficiently, even worse you'd rather get lost in complexity of the 'system' and you're constantly facing patches and modifications at will by the OS manufacturer.
You'll also face a ton of requests that anyone wants anything he or she is currently running to be 'integrated' or 'compatible with'.

And what are your market chances ?
An established workflow will not be given up, be it ProTools, Cubase, Logic, Samplitude, Nuendo or Sonar.
Those are the professional installations backed by 'big money'
For anyone else there are 'L' editions, Reaper and a few others, plus all those amended copies of whatever software that floats the net.

that's my humble opinion about preconditions if you want to start building a sequencer on your own right now...

cheers, Tom

[lovenara]

i woudnt ask that much,if only i can load vst fx in scope audio track would be heaven for me.

[chriskorff]

Hello Astro!

Your post makes an awful lot of sense - BUT, can I just throw the name SADiE in there? Perhaps a closer comparison than (a) the polycopoly of native sequencers, the ones you mentioned, and (b) Pro Tools/Avid? To be honest I don't know an awful lot about the history of these companies, but from what I do know, wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?

[siriusbliss]

My dream is sometime like Nuendo or Cubase "Special Edition" that features a total integration with Scope OS.
Do you can imagine a Cubase powered directly with Scope FX and Synths as main choice in parallel with optional VST usage?!
With scope's mixer as main mixer.
A sort of Steinberg's Protools HD!!!
All realtime, no ASIO latency (only if U use VST or VSTi instruments?) and no CPU usage.

I don't know if this works but is my dream

I'm already doing this with Samplitude Pro integrated inside Scope.

Greg

[okantah]

i will prefer S/C conscentrate on the existing platform best,

[siriusbliss]

i will prefer S/C conscentrate on the existing platform best,

agreed. You can't fix your host by developing yet another host.
You CAN already insert your host 'inline' inside Scope anyways, so what's the point?

Greg

[astroman]

...BUT, can I just throw the name SADiE in there? Perhaps a closer comparison than (a) the polycopoly of native sequencers, the ones you mentioned, and (b) Pro Tools/Avid? ..., but from what I do know, wouldn't that be a fairer comparison?

interesting remark...
according to their website SADiE was aquired by Prism Sound - dunno if for economic or synergy reasons, but infact there's some 'similiarity'
Afaik both Creamware and SonicCore had (and/or still have) a foot in the professional audio market in broadcast and customer specific location installations.
Not very spectacular in public press, but probably what made them (at least CWA) to survive at all...

now switch back to SoniCore and their recent announcements - and what's the first response on boards like this ?
the XITE is called expensive
well, there are single channel preamps which costs more - so what ?
The XITE contains about everything people asked for over the last couple of years, even some mods only recently requested and it offers a guaranteed 5 times increase of processing power.
So it is very affordable for what it does...

it could in fact be too expensive for one's personal wallet, but then... is that the fault of SC ? or even their concern ?

in the so-called 'professional' market it may even appear as a cheapo and not get the attention it deserves - while 'amateurs' might consider it out of reach as they just focus on the price alone, forgetting about the 'true' content of the package.
not exactly mindbreaking thoughts - but it shows how difficult it is to establish a product in it's market segment.

the very same applies to an (admittedly) costly developement of a recording application.
imho it's only reasonable in a stand-alone box - but then... who'd be willing to pay (reasonably) for it ?
if you have a contract to supply (say) the BBC with recording gear then there may be a chance for a true return of an investment.
In the PC/homercording domain you can simply forget about it - imho.

As mentioned by Greg and others, there are several not too bad applications that integrate Scope fairly well.
There seems to be a mysterious misinterpretion about the capabilities of Analog Devices' DSP processors.
Those are great tools, but don't make anything sound like magic just on their own - or did anyone hear about Behringer Digital mixers be an aural revelation ?

Whenever I read requests about dedicated midi processors within the Scope environement I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Midi is a sh*tty 8 bit protocol and in fact it seems to be handled best with 8 bit CPUs ...
It's a huge waste of resources on a DSP as it really doesn't fit the latter architecture at all
A (somewhat) smartly coded midi application is probably less load on a current CPU than the process watching your network devices, read close to zero.

There is also no advantage - or rather not even a relation - between DSP processing and the writing of files.
This is plain native X86 code and deals with OS conventions if with anything at all.

Protools (and other early recording apps) has grown as a 'Box-in-the-Box' system only because harddisk performance via onboard devices wasn't exactly breathtaking in the early days of M68K Macs.
With high performance controllers on board noone would design it like that today.
People had to integrate custom file handling because there simply was no other way... and if I may add... it was a (usually) fairly lean and straight forward developement environment in those pre .Net, OS9, OSX days

cheers, Tom

[darkrezin]

Totally spot on.

If you need such an integrated system, you need to pay for it. There are already several systems out there - PT HD, Pyramix and others. All of them cost big $$$ and the people who need it and have the money use them. The rest of the world uses the best integration of multiple available tools, even if that means saving 2 or more files for each project (oh the horror :p )

This is certainly not going to change in the current economic climate.