new sharc dsp boards ??

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Sat Jun 08, 2002 10:37 pm

On 2002-06-07 14:12, Late wrote:
Don't dream too much.
Korg already smash lots on Oasys development but not getting a good result.
the TC and UAD-1 they have the annoying latency problem, but they have far better world class engineer So their programware are first class so that is why people loves it and disregar the latency also they have far more cash than creamware.
So stay real.

However, in the future (very soon) creamware will have to lower their DSP hardware price downl to half or even 1/3 due to the increase power of CPU today. In reality DSP won't make better sounds, the only difference is the software and the I/o. But the I/o system/Virtual analogo synths from creamware will stay cool for a while i suppose.
a 15DSP scope card, i suppose it's still the fastest(i might be wrong, 60mhz x 15=900mhz) DSP even compare to Protool HD(100mhz x 9=900mhz) UAD1(1G) Tcpowercre( maybe the same as UAD-1??sorry i'm not sure about its speed)
Maybe they are all at the same speed about 900mhz?? Maybe it's the limit for current DSP technology?

I might be wrong of all this but just like the Oasys developer said almost 4 years ago, CPU will eventually replace current DSPs.

[ This Message was edited by: Late on 2002-06-07 14:35 ]

Thank you very much, Late, for making me laugh out loud, it's a good feeling in my day.
For sure, the increasing power of new mobos+CPU is impressing.
But for Creamwares systems, there is also the Scope plugins quality.
The SFP 3.1 ergonomy impress me too. I like it.
Even if our Creamware's systems won't be the most powerful, they will always be attractives. And they always be an important part in my DAWs, even when they'll be "obsolete" in pure computing power considerations.
My thinking (if you can call this a thinking) is that in a medium lap of time Creamware will give all the plugins to all the users without considerations of DSPs quantity in the cards bought by the users. It's seems to me to be the best strategy for Creamware

This is my prophecy [:)] [lol]
Don't forget what I'm saying today

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Sat Jun 08, 2002 11:42 pm

Do someone knows if a convolution plugin is possible in Scope Fusion?
There are two things I would like our cards to be able: convolution and acoustical modeling.
Just remembered that Acoustic Mirror of Sonic Foundry use convolution, it's an amazing quality at an amazing price (must buy Sound Forge 6 until 30th of june, only 300$ !!).
In their future devellopents, I'd like Creamware to works on very high quality plugins like this one, the only who compete really in sound quality with the legendary hardware reverbs

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 12:30 am

On 2002-06-08 21:00, eliam wrote:
Hey Bassdude! It's good to read posts from you! How's Life?

Hello Eliam, life's great. Thanks for asking.

Hope it is good for you too!
Actually I have a girl friend who is going away overseas for 8 wks and I will miss her so i'll be sad for a little while. But I'm taking delivery of a nice new 5 string semi-acoustic fretless bass soon so that will help a little. Mmmmmmm, 5 string fretless.
I'll have two basses on stage then, like a real rock star. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Pulsar is good. (gotta keep on topic around here)

Cheers!

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 12:47 am

The UAD is an attractive card no question...
But I don´t think their customers are too pleased whith the "Realverb pro", even when there can be 9 instances ran simultaniously. Two month ago they were discussing a new verb called "Dreamverb", which will definitly not run 9 times on one card!

You can view those talks here:

http://www.chrismilne.com/uadforums/top ... PIC_ID=567

Regards,
Sunshine

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 2:08 am

What i said about the DSP power comparions is quite reasonable. Maybe you don't like I put 15DSP=UAD-1.

It has nothing to do with not liking what you said, this is exactly the annoying attitude DXL had. It's about getting your facts straight. If you go around claiming things like 60 Mhz x 15 = 900 Mhz, you are just making stuff up. And then that suddenly is the max for DSP? Rediculous! Did you ever think about the possibility to fit more than one scope board in a computer? Even then having a dual pentium 500 Mhz system does not equal a 1 Ghz processor. You can't just add figures like that to compare different system and "prove" your point.
Also why do people who criticise DSP always come with the lame argument that CPU's are always getting faster but DSP's are somehow at a complete technological standstill? There will be new, faster DSP's in the future, just as there will be new faster pentiums.

You will see that we are all perfectly willing to accept and discuss founded criticisms for the CW platform, because no, it is not perfect, and yes there are similar things available that might outclass CW in places. But that doesn't mean the CW cards aren't very good, yes even (dare I say it) professional products.

_________________

[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2002-06-09 10:48 ]

Post by **Guest** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 3:41 am

Hi, it's not hard to know you are talking about DXL because everyone can see the big long DXL topic in the annousment session and when anyone turn to be agressive and angry they will assume he/she is DXL in both yahoo's and creamware's.

60 Mhz x 15 = 900 Scope
100mhz x 9= 900 Protools HD

That is the technical spec, notthing is fake, maybe for those bad attitude die heart creamwares you shoud be happy that Creamware is having the same power but at one third of the price.

Why i'm saying all this? Perhaps you didn't read thru my posts.
Lets take a fair example. Timework plugins for Native and CW, they all sound the same. The newest ReverbX from Timework sounds better than the one for CW.
Another fair example, Waves TDM/DXplug-ins they all sounds the same but the number of plugins can be used at once is very different.

All in all the quality of sound is not about the DSP itself that is significant, it's the algoristhm.
Another fair example for that is the Realverb Pro on UAD-1 and Protools.
Perhaps, to program DSP is easier than to program conventional CPU but it's just the matter of skill on some math convertion.

ps. the quality of the I/O will affect the sound quality.

To King of Snake:
I do know multiple cards are possible, it's the same as protools, TCpowercore, and UAD-1 will be able to in the future.
But, i don't really understand why you are furious about "maybe" 900mhz is the limits for now.
"Even then having a dual pentium 500 Mhz system does not equal a 1 Ghz processor." that is commen sense but the performance will depends on how the software can utilize the CPU. A simialer example is the DSP management in CW system: some bad sounding plugins are using more DSP.

However, people, the software and hardware can live forever but one can live at the same price longer than the other.

I know many of the Creamware supporters are having a hardtime recently but I don't wish CW to fall because I own one creamware card myself, I long to see some more professional software and better quality support and so on.
Lets let time to give us the answer.

[ This Message was edited by: Late on 2002-06-09 05:05 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 3:43 am

On 2002-06-09 00:42, Grok wrote:
Do someone knows if a convolution plugin is possible in Scope Fusion?

Grok, afaik this needs memory access (as discussed earlier), which unfortunately causes the infamous pci bandwith annoyances.
A new board design will hopefully contain local memory.

Sunshine, funny link: a certain kind of childlike behavior seems common practise these days

Gimme more, show 'em the FINGER, I only want to, but my purpose is...

Late, check http://www.musicdsp.org/
and have look on some example code.
They seem to have millions of lines.
It's not a speed, but a PRECISION issue.
DSP math is optimized for a special purpose as opposed to general math libs for CPU/FPU.

cheers, Tom

kimgr · Post by **kimgr** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 6:05 am

On 2002-06-09 04:41, Late wrote:

60 Mhz x 15 = 900 Scope
100mhz x 9= 900 Protools HD

That is the technical spec, notthing is fake, maybe for those bad attitude die heart creamwares you shoud be happy that Creamware is having the same power but at one third of the price.

Your numbers are correct, but they say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about dsp power !!!
Just as with CPU's, there's much more to it than just Mega & Giga Hertz:

A Scope card has 15 ADSP-21065 DSP's @ 60 MHz, each of which can do 180 MFLOPS @ 32bit.
(MFLOPS= Million FLoatingpoint Operations Per Second.)
That's 2700 MFLOPS !!! (Or 2.7 GFLOPS if you will.)

A Protools HD card has 9 Motorola 56K DSP's @ 100 MHz, each of which can do 100 MIPS @ 24bit.
(MIPS= Million Instructions Per Second.)
That's 900 MIPS. (Or 0.9 GIPS:)

Those are the relevant numbers if you want to compare specs, but that doesn't say to much about real life either...
According to those numbers a HD|card should only give you 33% of what a Scope gives you, but in reallity it's more like 66-75 %.

And as you say, a HD|Process card cost 3 times more than a ScopeSRB...

Why i'm saying all this? Perhaps you didn't read thru my posts.
Lets take a fair example. Timework plugins for Native and CW, they all sound the same.

That's not true.
Besides the fact that I can hear the difference, I also know the technical specs of the plugs, and the Creamware versions has higher resolution...

The newest ReverbX from Timework sounds better than the one for CW.

ReverbX does not exsist for the Creamware platform !!!
(If you wan't to compare, use the 4080 instead.)

Another fair example, Waves TDM/DXplug-ins they all sounds the same but the number of plugins can be used at once is very different.

What ?

All in all the quality of sound is not about the DSP itself that is significant, it's the algoristhm.

That's somewhat true, but those two things are connected:
An (almost) identical algorithm will sound better on a Sharc using 32bit float, than on a Morola using 24bit fixed.
That's why Waves uses 48bit double-precission algorithms in their plugin's on Protools.
(BTW: Timeworks uses 64bit internally in their CW plugs.)

ps. the quality of the I/O will affect the sound quality.

What ?

Kim.

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 9:47 am

To King of Snake:
I do know multiple cards are possible, it's the same as protools, TCpowercore, and UAD-1 will be able to in the future.
But, i don't really understand why you are furious about "maybe" 900mhz is the limits for now.
"Even then having a dual pentium 500 Mhz system does not equal a 1 Ghz processor." that is commen sense but the performance will depends on how the software can utilize the CPU. A simialer example is the DSP management in CW system: some bad sounding plugins are using more DSP.

Read my post again. I'm not "furious" at 900 Mhz being the limit, because it's not. It's a number that's totally irrelevant. With the "two pentium 500 does not equal a 1Ghz" comparison I tried to show you you cannot compute the total power of a system by adding the Mhz's of multiple processors. You admit this is true, but still maintain that 900 figure? So two scope cards is 1800 Mhz? Where's the limit now? Does that mean anything? No, because as you said it's about what's being done with the resources. Some plugins are bad, some are not.

For the rest, well KimgR has already corrected your errors.

musquash · Post by **musquash** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 11:07 am

another way to show how silly it is to compare mhz:
take a gamebenchmark with a p4 1600mhz + geforce 4 (300mhz) = 1900mhz
now the same benchmark with a p4 2000mhz + tnt (90mhz) = 2090
in dxl's view the second pc would be faster..

(to compare flops is the same silly thing, because flops are measured in different ways)

Post by **Guest** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 4:56 pm

I don't really notice those tiny details on those two hardwares, but the quality, stability with quanity are the points for the DSP contest on today's market.
For one reason I want to stay with CW becasue it wouldn't introduce latency as the other two competitor at about same price range. But the quality plugins and the
DSP just can't keep up with them, as well as the support. Those problems can all be solved by having a better finical consult and smarter programers. Hopefully it will happens in the near future.

You can heard the different from DSP processed or non DSP processed sounds? not to me and my friends, the difference on sound will be affected by the quality of the I/o and the signal processing/recording software.
I guess the way you think is the same as : When you think your heart or you liver isn't good, then after days and month, you health will go down.

Another fair example, Waves TDM/DXplug-ins they all sounds the same but the number of plugins can be used at once is very different.
it means you can use the same sounding plugin on both DSP and CPU but the one who get to use a CPU with a speed of P41.7G can use the same plugin two times more than the single Protools HD card.
(read the links for more referance)

I do know ReverbX doesn't exist on CW platform but the one you mentioned it meat to sound a bit better(not really to me) due to the new design for the Creamware version becasue it gets more control over the native version. Set aside the reverb, other plugins are the same, however Time Wroks does a great job on optimizing the DSP usage compare to others and so far the only one who dare to show the DSP usage list.

For the "900 Mhz " thing. I guess i should said per card, so maybe you will know what i meant.

p4 1600mhz + geforce 4 (300mhz) = 1900mhz
This comparisom is totally out of scope and there is no need to show off the childlike behavior as astroman said.

[ This Message was edited by: Late on 2002-06-09 18:28 ]

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 12:34 am

so what was this topic about again?

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:30 am

Thanks Kimgr for the "Mflops" presentation...
I was always wondering how those two cards actually do compare.

As for the sound comparison thing (DSP based vs. Native). I also belong to the ones who can hear differences. The Vintage Eq on the CW platform is able to boost more db at critical regions (7000hz for instance) Also whith larger Q values you get a more musical result. I was/am using a lot of outboard gear and compared the Vintage EQ (CW-version) to "Amek CIB (Neve EQ)" and "SPL Otimizer" and "Millenia Media NSEQ-2" equalizers, and the Vinatge-EQ always came out as winner. I don´t know of an application where I wouldn´t prefer the Vintage EQ. So even now that the "Pultec" is released for the UAD platform it doesn´t initiate an inferiority complex! (Hahha) But as I compared Direct-X plugs (Ozone, Timeworks, Waves Linear phase), I always had the impression that those plugs where good at one frequency region only, whith the exception of the Timeworks EQ which seemed to do all freqs at equal quality, but you can´t beat the CW version for "transparency" and "accurancy" and "musicality".... Recognizing those things also depends on your "monitors", your "room" and the "source" of course. When the source is too distorted, it may be preferable not to have a too transparent tool... People also do hear differences between the hardware "Waves L2" limiter and the direct-X version, although those two should have identical outcomes (according to waves), the L2 should sound noticeably better.

Regards,
Sunshine

remixme · Post by **remixme** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:39 am

Does any of these technical specs really matter? If you make a really good song and have a business head to sell it.

It gets taken to the mastering house, and put through thousands of pounds worth of equipment, easily outstripping even what protools or creamware can produce.

Why not just go make good music, use the plugin the works best for you, and leave the rest to the mastering engineers.

If you master your own songs, thats fair enough, but its likely that how YOU work is gonna have a larger effect on the sound, than how the plugin works.

Unless of course you are an Uber mastering engineer, with at least 10 years experience at your average mastering house; which in that case argue away!

Have fun

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 4:51 am

Do you think that a mixing engineer doesn´t do all the tweaks, that he thinks are necessary to the mix?

Don´t you think that a mix that was prepared whith better tools, doesn´t have a better outcome, also after mastering?

In Germany "mastering" is not as common as in the US or GB... Many mixing engineers have to master their stuff themselves. "Better" will always remain "better". And it´s often those subtle little things that do make the difference. And I know all the tools that are used at mastering houses (Weiss EQ, M5000, M6000, Z-sys EQ, Millenia Media NSEQ-2, Mytec/Prism/DBtech converters, Waves L2, Sonic Solutions/Sadie workstations) whith Sadie being Direct-X compatible again.... Although I haven´t heard all of those tools, I know they aren´t far away (quality wise). For me the Timeworks plugs are just as good! The main difference will always remain the engineer and his skills and on what he is focused. But for those who do not want to give the mix out of their hands you have to provide certain tools that do the job. And in my opinion yes, when it comes to mastering those things do make a differnce!

Regards,
Sunshine

remixme · Post by **remixme** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 5:12 am

My main point is that just use what works best for you, why debate about this 48bit as oppose to 64 bit resolution, if get a decent sound out of either?

I mean of course mastering with better tools makes a difference, to you or I, but above a certain level Joe Public is not going to be able to tell....So why get carried away?

I just can't help but think that today; music is more about the sound you use and get, as oppose to the music you write, which is backwards, in my opion.

First music, then sound.

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 5:51 am

I agree whith you!

But some of us don´t seem to be in the composition business and have no "musical" influence on the mix. But of course the best projects will always be the ones that have good musicians/singers whith a nicely composed song... The engineer is only responsible for the translation of all those musical elements that are present. I think the more you are into composition, maybe the less you care about what tools you use, epecialy when the differences are only subtle...

Regards,
Sunshine

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 3:32 pm

On 2002-06-09 17:56, Late wrote:

p4 1600mhz + geforce 4 (300mhz) = 1900mhz
This comparisom is totally out of scope and there is no need to show off the childlike behavior as astroman said.

hi,
does this mean you now understand how ridiculous that GHZ issue is ?
Great, should be no problem to change your mind on experiences.
I was a big fan of digital when CDs came out. It was digital, true, real fidelity. I thought.
Now I'm collecting vinyls again.

The statement above was not general but refered to the guys in the UAD forum who terribly reminded at kids in the sandbox.
I've already had the suspect that many of them neither deserve those tools, nor are they able to operate them or need them at all.
They simply want to shine in the light of the big names of those analog days, when everything was expensive as hell.
Guess what was the most important aspect of the Access Virus in the latest review ?
It 'sounds expensive' - and sometimes even more analog than analog.

Obviously there's a widespread need to compensate a lack of ideas, as Kilroy mentioned in the 'remember when' thread.

cheers, Tom

Post by **Guest** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 5:03 pm

I'm just expressing my thoughts, and said what i wanted to say, but I have no right to ulter your minds.
You love it then you love it.

please, any idea on building a new dual PC.

cheers~

[ This Message was edited by: Late on 2002-06-10 18:47 ]

Post by **garyb** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 11:44 pm