I would like this thread to be without debate.
I think it would be realy cool, if people would write down, what their card(s) is to them. We have many discussions related to this. But try and just type your very own reasons, and leave the others with their's. I think this procedure will make the most givving thread.
So: why did you not get rid of your CW card(s)?
Why do you still own your CW card(s)?
What Pulsar1 is to me:
It is like, I go into a music store. I buy 4 400$ compressors and a 600$ delay unit.
Then ½an hour later, I go back to the shop, give them the equipment back and get a full refund. Now I buy a 2000$ synthesizer. I use it for my recordings, go back to the shop with the synth and get my money back. Now I want a 2500$ mixer, so I get that. After a couple of days, I do not need the mixer anymore, so I go to the shop... One day, all I need is a chorus for my guitar - I get that too. Or an organ - I get that too (mod2).
Best thing is, the shop is in my room - it is like, I call them, and after a few seconds of loading, the bell rings, and I have the new equipment delivered right at my door.
If I one day buy a Luna for expansion, it just means, that I get to have an extra 1000$ synth and 3 1700$ reverbs more at a time.
I live in a music shop
Immanuel
It is like, I go into a music store. I buy 4 400$ compressors and a 600$ delay unit.
Then ½an hour later, I go back to the shop, give them the equipment back and get a full refund. Now I buy a 2000$ synthesizer. I use it for my recordings, go back to the shop with the synth and get my money back. Now I want a 2500$ mixer, so I get that. After a couple of days, I do not need the mixer anymore, so I go to the shop... One day, all I need is a chorus for my guitar - I get that too. Or an organ - I get that too (mod2).
Best thing is, the shop is in my room - it is like, I call them, and after a few seconds of loading, the bell rings, and I have the new equipment delivered right at my door.
If I one day buy a Luna for expansion, it just means, that I get to have an extra 1000$ synth and 3 1700$ reverbs more at a time.
I live in a music shop
Immanuel
Information for new readers: A forum member named Braincell is known for spreading lies and malicious information without even knowing the basics of, what he is talking about. If noone responds to him, it is because he is ignored.
I keep mine because it offers this amazing environment where I seem to have complete control (well as much as I can expect anyway) over what I'm doing.
When I'm composing I'm pretty messy. I use the Dynamic mixer and tend to end up with 4 mixers on my screen with wiring going everywhere. I tend to use it in collaboration with VSTi so I'm not using a ton of sound generators, it is more routing with a synth or two thrown in for good measure.
Then I'll often bounce the tracks down to audio and run them through a separate project with a pulsar mixer or something for the mix down - although I often just prefer to use the dynamic mixer with my tangle of cables again.
Finally my stereo track will be in Cool Edit 2000 and I'll feed it back through the Pulsar card for mastering.
It sounds overly complex, but I usually see the whole process in 3 phases anyway so I don't find it necessary to do the composition, mix down and mastering in one hit.
I guess I can do all this with Cubase and plugs, but it doesn't seem to have the same magic for me. I actually feel different when working with Pulsar than I do working with a native solution.
Meanwhile I'm on my way to getting and SRB or Scope card so that I come up against Pulsar's physical limitations less.
I know - it all might sound a bit kooky. But I guess as long as it works for me at the time.
Incidentally, I am hopeless at mixing and mastering. Eventually I hope to get those skills together to produce a moderately professional result. It's a shame because I really like my compositions but I find I let them down in the mixing and mastering. Does anyone else find that?
When I'm composing I'm pretty messy. I use the Dynamic mixer and tend to end up with 4 mixers on my screen with wiring going everywhere. I tend to use it in collaboration with VSTi so I'm not using a ton of sound generators, it is more routing with a synth or two thrown in for good measure.
Then I'll often bounce the tracks down to audio and run them through a separate project with a pulsar mixer or something for the mix down - although I often just prefer to use the dynamic mixer with my tangle of cables again.
Finally my stereo track will be in Cool Edit 2000 and I'll feed it back through the Pulsar card for mastering.
It sounds overly complex, but I usually see the whole process in 3 phases anyway so I don't find it necessary to do the composition, mix down and mastering in one hit.
I guess I can do all this with Cubase and plugs, but it doesn't seem to have the same magic for me. I actually feel different when working with Pulsar than I do working with a native solution.
Meanwhile I'm on my way to getting and SRB or Scope card so that I come up against Pulsar's physical limitations less.
I know - it all might sound a bit kooky. But I guess as long as it works for me at the time.
Incidentally, I am hopeless at mixing and mastering. Eventually I hope to get those skills together to produce a moderately professional result. It's a shame because I really like my compositions but I find I let them down in the mixing and mastering. Does anyone else find that?
Caleb
Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
Hello, I use Creamware stuff because of the sonics that can be achieved whith the right algorithms. I think Sharc-based "tools" have the potential to be high end. Having optimized instructions for a dsp-chip leads to a better result concerning the application. I think of the "Paul Tanti verbs", "Timeworks" stuff and the tube things from "DSPDEV"... But most of all I like the Vintage EQ from Timeworks, which is on a real mastering level!
Whith each and every dsp-chip there has to be a communication protocol, which will be faster than on native systems! Instruction that were executed from DSP based plugs, have more efficient access to the DSP chip and exploit the possibilites offered by a certain CPU. A CPU which offers a good set of general purpose instructions may not be the best solution suited for special applications! So even having optimized instruction for a certain dsp-chip might lead to a better result concerning the application. Those instructions that can be found on specialized DSP chips may not contain general purpose instructions... Sharcs were built by "Audio-systems". It is conceivable to compose instructions to be optimized for audio processing.... I say conceivable because even the manufacturer or designer of a chip can´t guarantee that everything will end up whith the desired result! Mr. "Bob Katz" found out that there are sonic differences between motorola based chips and Sharc based chips in favor of the Sharcs. I´ve done a lot of quality comparisons between different platforms and after 6 month of research I decided to take the plunge, although many people told me I should go for Protools. I belong to the sonic purists that would never choose a system which sounds worse than something else.... (post pro, mastering, recording) When you look at todays market of DSP cards, you´ll see companies like "TC", "UAD", "Korg", "Soundscape" and "Digi" of course.. I think a non-pro or semi-pro does also do a lot of investigation, in order to get the best "bang for the buck"-card which suits his budget and his needs. Right now everyone is going for the "UAD" or "TC" and it´s getting really hard to compete whith their plugs (for compressors and EQs). Of course we need some more plugs in the future to be more competitive, but you should also not forget, if you choose to buy something like the UAD-1 you might drag your mixes too far to the 80´s. Nonetheless the UAD is a great card and really does the job best for some of the applications... But I really like the Timeworks stuff... more neutral and transparent and the right touch of analog feel...
Regards,
Sunshine
Whith each and every dsp-chip there has to be a communication protocol, which will be faster than on native systems! Instruction that were executed from DSP based plugs, have more efficient access to the DSP chip and exploit the possibilites offered by a certain CPU. A CPU which offers a good set of general purpose instructions may not be the best solution suited for special applications! So even having optimized instruction for a certain dsp-chip might lead to a better result concerning the application. Those instructions that can be found on specialized DSP chips may not contain general purpose instructions... Sharcs were built by "Audio-systems". It is conceivable to compose instructions to be optimized for audio processing.... I say conceivable because even the manufacturer or designer of a chip can´t guarantee that everything will end up whith the desired result! Mr. "Bob Katz" found out that there are sonic differences between motorola based chips and Sharc based chips in favor of the Sharcs. I´ve done a lot of quality comparisons between different platforms and after 6 month of research I decided to take the plunge, although many people told me I should go for Protools. I belong to the sonic purists that would never choose a system which sounds worse than something else.... (post pro, mastering, recording) When you look at todays market of DSP cards, you´ll see companies like "TC", "UAD", "Korg", "Soundscape" and "Digi" of course.. I think a non-pro or semi-pro does also do a lot of investigation, in order to get the best "bang for the buck"-card which suits his budget and his needs. Right now everyone is going for the "UAD" or "TC" and it´s getting really hard to compete whith their plugs (for compressors and EQs). Of course we need some more plugs in the future to be more competitive, but you should also not forget, if you choose to buy something like the UAD-1 you might drag your mixes too far to the 80´s. Nonetheless the UAD is a great card and really does the job best for some of the applications... But I really like the Timeworks stuff... more neutral and transparent and the right touch of analog feel...
Regards,
Sunshine
-
ernest@303.nu
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Contact:
i started with electronic music in 1995... sampler, korgMS10, nordrack,... , fx, 24 channel mixer and atari 1024STF. in those days it wasn't all too serious. i had a time and energy consuming job. but i did make some 'ok' tracks my friends liked, and they tried to convince me to make a cd. so i went to a friend who made a cd for his hardjazzpunkcore band on his computer (drums recorded in the rehearsal room, rest at home). i made some 'live' recordings at home on a minidisk, and this result we recorded as a stereo track into cubase. this was all new to me, this audio recording stuff. he then applied some plugins (maximizer,...), did a fade in and blablabla. but i was impressed. i had never taken computer audio really serious until then (1999). this guy, a real computer wiz, gave me plenty of tips, magazines, and other reading matter. we had been looking for more than a year, starting with looking at stuff like guillemot isis, sounblaster 
, then this emu card, yamaha,... but nothing really could convince me. the prices of pc's had gone down and they had better performance. so it just came down to looking for the right soundcard.
i then bought a copy of computermusic (i didn't have a computer yet, hence couldn't look on the internet...i found it a ridiculous situation...). i then had the idea to have a laptop with an ego-sys wamibox, but i also noticed pulsar and digi001. it was up to these three. with this info, i went to friends who had acces to the internet, the guy who did the recordings started comparing specs... pulsar2 was something that looked really awesome! it did not only include the possibility to do recordings, but also these wonderful devices!!! we were impressed by the latency (my friend has an ISIS, and i found such a thing useless at all for this reason) and other things written about the card.
so off i went to the shop (two times before eventually buying the card) and liked what i saw and heard. it felt really natural... some things didn't really impress me, like EDS8i, some of the graphics, 6 sharcs seemed already at that time a bit on the low side, but i just went for it.
we then mailed to creamware what computer parts would be best for pulsar, but before we got an answer (don't know if the guy ever did get one), his ex girlfriend, and graphical designer, said she was going to sell her mac G3.
so in a week, i got myself a B/W G3 450Mhz, a pulsar2 and an A8 convertor. a lot of money for a hobbyist, not?... that's about one year ago. in the beginning i fooled around with my old atari as sequencer, pulsar as sound module. then i tried a logic and cubase crack. couldn't understand a thing about logic without the manual, cubase felt more comtortable to me, so i ordered that one.
in the meantime, i had moved and got myself an internet connection, and discovered Z . with the knowledge found here, happily provided by YOU, i got my machine up and running really smooth. the more you know, the more you realise the limits of your system. i still like my creamware card, i know it's limitted, but my 16voice nordrack2 synth costed the same as my pulsar. it was obvious from the start that at one time i had to expand, which is what i'm going to do in a few months (pulsar1 or lunaII). maybe i'm gonna buy a pc within a year or two, especially for my creamware card(s).
it took me more than a year to decide what to buy, it wasn't an impulsive purchase. i knew some of the most important shortcomings before buying pulsar...
that's why i keep it. i feel comfortable with the routing, i like the sounds, it's expandable, it hasn't really let me down, on the contrary (i was rather critical concerning digital audio in the beginning). i knew this card wouldn't replace an entire hardware studio. i had never thought professionals would use it, but apparently they do.
i have an idea where it's heading, for me.
, then this emu card, yamaha,... but nothing really could convince me. the prices of pc's had gone down and they had better performance. so it just came down to looking for the right soundcard.i then bought a copy of computermusic (i didn't have a computer yet, hence couldn't look on the internet...i found it a ridiculous situation...). i then had the idea to have a laptop with an ego-sys wamibox, but i also noticed pulsar and digi001. it was up to these three. with this info, i went to friends who had acces to the internet, the guy who did the recordings started comparing specs... pulsar2 was something that looked really awesome! it did not only include the possibility to do recordings, but also these wonderful devices!!! we were impressed by the latency (my friend has an ISIS, and i found such a thing useless at all for this reason) and other things written about the card.
so off i went to the shop (two times before eventually buying the card) and liked what i saw and heard. it felt really natural... some things didn't really impress me, like EDS8i, some of the graphics, 6 sharcs seemed already at that time a bit on the low side, but i just went for it.
we then mailed to creamware what computer parts would be best for pulsar, but before we got an answer (don't know if the guy ever did get one), his ex girlfriend, and graphical designer, said she was going to sell her mac G3.
so in a week, i got myself a B/W G3 450Mhz, a pulsar2 and an A8 convertor. a lot of money for a hobbyist, not?... that's about one year ago. in the beginning i fooled around with my old atari as sequencer, pulsar as sound module. then i tried a logic and cubase crack. couldn't understand a thing about logic without the manual, cubase felt more comtortable to me, so i ordered that one.
in the meantime, i had moved and got myself an internet connection, and discovered Z
. with the knowledge found here, happily provided by YOU, i got my machine up and running really smooth. the more you know, the more you realise the limits of your system. i still like my creamware card, i know it's limitted, but my 16voice nordrack2 synth costed the same as my pulsar. it was obvious from the start that at one time i had to expand, which is what i'm going to do in a few months (pulsar1 or lunaII). maybe i'm gonna buy a pc within a year or two, especially for my creamware card(s).it took me more than a year to decide what to buy, it wasn't an impulsive purchase. i knew some of the most important shortcomings before buying pulsar...
that's why i keep it. i feel comfortable with the routing, i like the sounds, it's expandable, it hasn't really let me down, on the contrary (i was rather critical concerning digital audio in the beginning). i knew this card wouldn't replace an entire hardware studio. i had never thought professionals would use it, but apparently they do.
i have an idea where it's heading, for me.
andy
the lunatics are in the hall
the lunatics are in the hall
I use my Pulsar II card for the synths, primarily Zarg's. They friggin' smoke any hardware VA out there, and are very much cost effective in doing so.
My PC= $900
My Pulsar2 = $1000
4 Zarg synths = $600
TOTAL= $2,500,
same price as one Supernova II kbd, or a Nord 2 and Virus A, etc., but infintely better in every way.
Mark
My PC= $900
My Pulsar2 = $1000
4 Zarg synths = $600
TOTAL= $2,500,
same price as one Supernova II kbd, or a Nord 2 and Virus A, etc., but infintely better in every way.
Mark
mark
i think you need a midi keyabord and a controler box.
yar it can do alot of things!!
play games, wordprocessing, internet, programing, recording, sequencing.
i dont think u can have the same power as supernova when playing sounds, the voice and sound quality, effects that can be use simontenously is the difference.
_________________
I'm still seeing new things in life.
<p><a href="http://mp3.com/dxl">www.mp3.com/dxl</a></p>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dxl on 2002-04-07 22:10 ]</font>
i think you need a midi keyabord and a controler box.
yar it can do alot of things!!
play games, wordprocessing, internet, programing, recording, sequencing.
i dont think u can have the same power as supernova when playing sounds, the voice and sound quality, effects that can be use simontenously is the difference.
_________________
I'm still seeing new things in life.
<p><a href="http://mp3.com/dxl">www.mp3.com/dxl</a></p>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dxl on 2002-04-07 22:10 ]</font>
I first saw a creamware card in action several years ago when a friend of mine showed me his new computer which was a U2W-SCSI based P2/300 -the fastest machine available those days- equipped with a tripledat16 and an A16 convertor. What I heard coming out of this machine was really amazing, and he never had any problems with it at all (it´s still working fine today and being heavily used for recording, cutting, mastering and mixing)
So my eyes were sharped on creamware from then. When I came across to have enough money, I decided to give away some pieces of gear and get a Pulsar2 with an A16. It immediately became the core of my setup, routing hardware and software devices, using all that it could offer. Later, I went to get an additional Powerpulsar and a 2nd A16 for more complex setups.
Although sometimes the lacks in support became a fact to get mad about, I still keep it up and would not change it for anything else. OK, I have paid quite a lot of money for this, but it´s still much cheaper than the sum of the hardware this system replaces altogether. This means, a high quality digital mixer, a quite convincing variety of synths, new studio setups every day just as you like or need it without touching anything else but my trackball, a good variety of basic FX (so you don´t need to bother a hardware effector for just a simple delay and can not use it then for a more specific routine), and so on, you know it all.
Well, maybe there are also great chances in native systems, but there IS definitely a difference in soundquality and additional features, which native solutions could not keep up with, not in those days, nor today. And as I believe, it will stay like that for some more years...
I keep it because it means creative freedom which is not given by anything else, unless you have a wonderland of studioequipment all in the reach of your fingertips!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JoeKa on 2002-04-07 19:20 ]</font>
So my eyes were sharped on creamware from then. When I came across to have enough money, I decided to give away some pieces of gear and get a Pulsar2 with an A16. It immediately became the core of my setup, routing hardware and software devices, using all that it could offer. Later, I went to get an additional Powerpulsar and a 2nd A16 for more complex setups.
Although sometimes the lacks in support became a fact to get mad about, I still keep it up and would not change it for anything else. OK, I have paid quite a lot of money for this, but it´s still much cheaper than the sum of the hardware this system replaces altogether. This means, a high quality digital mixer, a quite convincing variety of synths, new studio setups every day just as you like or need it without touching anything else but my trackball, a good variety of basic FX (so you don´t need to bother a hardware effector for just a simple delay and can not use it then for a more specific routine), and so on, you know it all.
Well, maybe there are also great chances in native systems, but there IS definitely a difference in soundquality and additional features, which native solutions could not keep up with, not in those days, nor today. And as I believe, it will stay like that for some more years...
I keep it because it means creative freedom which is not given by anything else, unless you have a wonderland of studioequipment all in the reach of your fingertips!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JoeKa on 2002-04-07 19:20 ]</font>
If I didn't have my Scope, I would need:
Virus, Nordlead (+Modular), Waldorf Q and Attack, Drumstation, Akai Sxxxx, Roland Juno/Jupitors ETC.
Plus:
Soundcard
Mixer (Good luck finding one you can afford that has the same soundquality as the ScopeMixer with STW plugs. Mackie d8b and Sony DMX100 comes to mind).
Outboard compressor's, EQ's, reverb and multiFX.
Try and do math. You can get a lot of Scope cards and plugs for the price of all that hardware.
The only thing I don't get with my setup is decent mixer-automation and support for hardware controller, but with Logic 5.1 and Logic Control I'm getting by...
And the overall soundquality of the Logic/Scope system is fantastic
Kim.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kimgr on 2002-04-07 23:44 ]</font>
Virus, Nordlead (+Modular), Waldorf Q and Attack, Drumstation, Akai Sxxxx, Roland Juno/Jupitors ETC.
Plus:
Soundcard
Mixer (Good luck finding one you can afford that has the same soundquality as the ScopeMixer with STW plugs. Mackie d8b and Sony DMX100 comes to mind).
Outboard compressor's, EQ's, reverb and multiFX.
Try and do math. You can get a lot of Scope cards and plugs for the price of all that hardware.
The only thing I don't get with my setup is decent mixer-automation and support for hardware controller, but with Logic 5.1 and Logic Control I'm getting by...
And the overall soundquality of the Logic/Scope system is fantastic
Kim.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kimgr on 2002-04-07 23:44 ]</font>
Hey Kim,
Tell me what you think of the Scope Mixer.
My distributor is letting me borrow his Scope card to try it out for a bit as I'm committed to either the SRB or the Scope card.
This is really generous of him I reckon, but he was definitely sold on the Scope mixer saying this was much better than the Pulsar mixer.
This could be one of the deciding factors in my purchase as I really want to use the Scope/Pulsar platform for my mix downs.
Eg. What do you think of the included compressors and EQs? Are they good enough to give a professional result not requiring additional Compressors, EQ?
Is it relatively easy to use? Do you have any criticisms about it?
Tell me what you think of the Scope Mixer.
My distributor is letting me borrow his Scope card to try it out for a bit as I'm committed to either the SRB or the Scope card.
This is really generous of him I reckon, but he was definitely sold on the Scope mixer saying this was much better than the Pulsar mixer.
This could be one of the deciding factors in my purchase as I really want to use the Scope/Pulsar platform for my mix downs.
Eg. What do you think of the included compressors and EQs? Are they good enough to give a professional result not requiring additional Compressors, EQ?
Is it relatively easy to use? Do you have any criticisms about it?
Caleb
Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
I first bought my pulsar 'cos I was moving to a tiny house with my girlfriend after living on my own with a whole big room for my studio. So the 32 channel desk had to go and so did a lot of the outboard stuff.
As I could see it the best solution was to move the whole lot inside of my computer - I had been looking at the pulsar since it was first announced and this seemed like a perfect time to get one.
Anyway to cut a long story short - this set up was so good - all digital, my MPX1 on the S/PDIF a tiny behringer notebook mixer for bringing all my outboard (cheap mic, minidisk , Nord Micro Modular, XTk, Bass guitar) in and a Fostex FD8 that I have kept it even now I am living in a big house again. My recordings are clean and of a pretty high quality (and improving as my engineering skills improve - its clear to me there is a lot more I can get out of this platform). I love having a stack of gear to draw upon - I've just discovered the Miniscope (hummel remix of course) after listening to lots of Coil.
I use PD as my primary sequencing/control tool - I use the XTk as the control surface and for the first time in my life I don't have a desparate gear aquisition urge - my primary focus is to get better at making music.
The bottom line is that the pulsar gives me access to a decent studio setup at a ridiculously low price (compared to actually having the same gear). As someone has pointed out adnausem you can't run it all at the same time but I don't work like that so this is a non issue.
You can listen to what I do at my website if you are interested.
Oh and did I mention how *GOOD* the Miniscope is
mark
_________________
__________________________________________
junklight - dark experimental electronics
http://www.junklight.com
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: junklight on 2002-04-08 03:32 ]</font>
As I could see it the best solution was to move the whole lot inside of my computer - I had been looking at the pulsar since it was first announced and this seemed like a perfect time to get one.
Anyway to cut a long story short - this set up was so good - all digital, my MPX1 on the S/PDIF a tiny behringer notebook mixer for bringing all my outboard (cheap mic, minidisk , Nord Micro Modular, XTk, Bass guitar) in and a Fostex FD8 that I have kept it even now I am living in a big house again. My recordings are clean and of a pretty high quality (and improving as my engineering skills improve - its clear to me there is a lot more I can get out of this platform). I love having a stack of gear to draw upon - I've just discovered the Miniscope (hummel remix of course
) after listening to lots of Coil. I use PD as my primary sequencing/control tool - I use the XTk as the control surface and for the first time in my life I don't have a desparate gear aquisition urge - my primary focus is to get better at making music.
The bottom line is that the pulsar gives me access to a decent studio setup at a ridiculously low price (compared to actually having the same gear). As someone has pointed out adnausem you can't run it all at the same time but I don't work like that so this is a non issue.
You can listen to what I do at my website if you are interested.
Oh and did I mention how *GOOD* the Miniscope is
mark
_________________
__________________________________________
junklight - dark experimental electronics
http://www.junklight.com
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: junklight on 2002-04-08 03:32 ]</font>
working with pulsar is very funny!
i play music only for hobby, had some money to spend, and choose the best (i think!). now i added a used luna for more power.
the routing window is fabulous, and so the software.
and , with pulsar, i bought a complete studio: synth, fx, mixer, etc...
now, i don't use warez plugins anymore, because i have all into pulsar! and i don't need to buy the original ones, becuse i have all i need in my hardware environment
i dont care a lot of sound quality, because i'm a bit deaf, and so i cannot judge the "sound" itself
i play music only for hobby, had some money to spend, and choose the best (i think!). now i added a used luna for more power.
the routing window is fabulous, and so the software.
and , with pulsar, i bought a complete studio: synth, fx, mixer, etc...
now, i don't use warez plugins anymore, because i have all into pulsar! and i don't need to buy the original ones, becuse i have all i need in my hardware environment
i dont care a lot of sound quality, because i'm a bit deaf, and so i cannot judge the "sound" itself
-
The Z Station
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
- Contact:
Greets!
I was actually considering on purchasing a stand-alone HD recording back in 1996 (specifically the Roland VS880). My buddy that worked at a local music store informed me of this new computer-based HD recording package called tripleDAT that included a built-in CD-R burning, which I thought, was a very remarkable feature that no other HDR offered at that time, and even now! Obviously, I became very curious and interested in this system by a company called Creamware.
So.... I went to check it out. At first, I was VERY skeptical of it's sonic qualities, for the fact that it was selling for only < $2000 (at that time). I was expecting it to cost more than that, being as a complete overall mulit-track/real-time DSP/mastering/CD-R master machine package!
Finally, when I had a first-hand experience, I was stunned by the sound I was hearing... - I WAS SOLD!
I've been using tripleDAT since then and I definitely wouldn't part with it (tripleBOARDII). With all its quirks and lack of features (compared to system costing exponentially more - e.g. ProTools), I find that the tripleDAT environment, albeit, a little worn and tired now, is still far more superior, easier, and more fun to work with! I wouldn't trade it for anything else! And, now, that I've intergrated the Pulsar II Plus (+) an A16 Ultra I/O, tripleDAT runs stellar on both the native 3BOARDII hosted by a PIII 700MHz/512MB/Adaptec 29160 SCSI and also through the PulsarII+/3.01!
I haven't proceeded to explore the many synths within Pulsar (I've got a lot of outboard gears that I haven't even begun to exploit yet either). But, my main purpose for my Creamw@re cards is just to run multi-track recording/mastering using tripleDAT II/3.06&3.11b with the real-time DSP FX and its flexible mixing capabilities.
The only thing I wished tripleDAT/Pulsar has is having a slew of sync methods other than MTC like SMPTE - for syncing video with music. But, hopefully someday....
I am definitely a Creamware afficionado!
What I like to see now is having one of us Creamware producers have our music (made by Creamware) receive a Grammy or an Oscar! I think that would boost and solidify the CW name as a contender in the high-end music production unit with a very price-friendly cost!
A Toast to a successful music future to y'all!
Skoal!
The Z Station
I was actually considering on purchasing a stand-alone HD recording back in 1996 (specifically the Roland VS880). My buddy that worked at a local music store informed me of this new computer-based HD recording package called tripleDAT that included a built-in CD-R burning, which I thought, was a very remarkable feature that no other HDR offered at that time, and even now! Obviously, I became very curious and interested in this system by a company called Creamware.
So.... I went to check it out. At first, I was VERY skeptical of it's sonic qualities, for the fact that it was selling for only < $2000 (at that time). I was expecting it to cost more than that, being as a complete overall mulit-track/real-time DSP/mastering/CD-R master machine package!
Finally, when I had a first-hand experience, I was stunned by the sound I was hearing... - I WAS SOLD!
I've been using tripleDAT since then and I definitely wouldn't part with it (tripleBOARDII). With all its quirks and lack of features (compared to system costing exponentially more - e.g. ProTools), I find that the tripleDAT environment, albeit, a little worn and tired now, is still far more superior, easier, and more fun to work with! I wouldn't trade it for anything else! And, now, that I've intergrated the Pulsar II Plus (+) an A16 Ultra I/O, tripleDAT runs stellar on both the native 3BOARDII hosted by a PIII 700MHz/512MB/Adaptec 29160 SCSI and also through the PulsarII+/3.01!
I haven't proceeded to explore the many synths within Pulsar (I've got a lot of outboard gears that I haven't even begun to exploit yet either). But, my main purpose for my Creamw@re cards is just to run multi-track recording/mastering using tripleDAT II/3.06&3.11b with the real-time DSP FX and its flexible mixing capabilities.
The only thing I wished tripleDAT/Pulsar has is having a slew of sync methods other than MTC like SMPTE - for syncing video with music. But, hopefully someday....
I am definitely a Creamware afficionado!
What I like to see now is having one of us Creamware producers have our music (made by Creamware) receive a Grammy or an Oscar! I think that would boost and solidify the CW name as a contender in the high-end music production unit with a very price-friendly cost!
A Toast to a successful music future to y'all!
Skoal!
The Z Station
so what?
he don't use the synths and effects
but the routin system i suppose.
he don't use the synths and effects
but the routin system i suppose.
I'm still seeing new things in life.
<p><a href="http://mp3.com/dxl">www.mp3.com/dxl</a></p>
<p><a href="http://mp3.com/dxl">www.mp3.com/dxl</a></p>
so many same dealers here expressing same words, boring.
hey no other people here?
hey no other people here?
I'm still seeing new things in life.
<p><a href="http://mp3.com/dxl">www.mp3.com/dxl</a></p>
<p><a href="http://mp3.com/dxl">www.mp3.com/dxl</a></p>