Oh, I want a Creamware/SFP audio/midi sequencer so bad..!

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:34 am

/*you can see by CreamWare's support of the VST platforms, via XTC, (and excellent ASIO drivers) that this is the path they have chosen. You can already record 32-bit "truetape" into SX, anyway. why would they spend precious development time undermining this?*/

XTC at the present time does not IMO work, or it works to some extent in some VST hosts like Logic. I tried, but was never satisfied due to this. Also, I could never get non ASIO applications (like WinAMP) to play under XTC, as if no wave driver was loaded, even though it was loaded in my XTC setup.

We will just have to see how XTC will turn out in the future.

I will not use any native application any more for audio recording as they all have these inline mixers. I want to mix in SFP, and having to reroute in these applications annoys me. The thing is, I see what the application is supposed to be used for, and how. SFP really does not fit into this. As a Pulsarian I am just reminded about what a strange being I am for using this system, if you get my drift. It sure as hell does not inspire me to expand my system with more DSP power, as I would not really need to.

/*the signal would never leave SFP? any time audio goes through the soundcard and onto the harddrive, the signal leaves SFP. what makes you think that CreamWare can afford the time to build a driver better than ASIO (for Mac and PC)? especially when ASIO works so well? you make this all sound so simple, but you forget how expensive and time-consuming this would be to develop. can you remember how long it took CreamWare to develop tripleDAT drivers for Pulsar? these things are not simple. */

I know. Bad example - signal leaves SFP through ASIO or any other driver. The question is how. I have done some ASIO programming myself, and there are many alternatives within ASIO for the sake of compatibility. A dedicated SFP driver would not need wide-spread compatibility.

How they can afford? The driver is already built, and it is called cutMaster or VDAT.
It would not need much effort to customize these IMO.

The tripleDAT (audio recording/editing) -> cutMaster (radio broadcast system???) is IMO a stranger situation than what I am suggesting.

/*so just record your audio to ADAT using SFP/ VDAT and just sequence your synths/ samplers with something like Cubase, or Logic, or Sonar... or any of the great existing sequencers that are already fighting for a piece of the action on the bloated MI market. problem solved... and still you have the audio quality that you believe better. as for your automation concerns, although not ideal, MIDI automation of CreamWare's faders and knobs, through your native MIDI-sequencer, works very well. onboard SFP automation has been discussed before and would apparently require a basic overhaul of the entire SFP platform to implement (also making it much less DSP-efficient)... again not easy and very expensive, especially when there are already existing (and quite excellent) alternatives.*/

I was not advocating any extra-DSP use, like on-board automation. MIDI works very well at this. What could be a reality is a MIDI recorder for SFP.

What irritates me about these big-name sequencers is that I would only need to use them for MIDI, but still the audio engine would be there to hog system resources. There are other, less advanced alternatives.

Still, would it not be wonderfull to be able to work from just within SFP? That is my dream, at least.

For now I would have to settle with a VDAT/WaveLab combination and some prefered MIDI sequencer I have yet to find. In the meantime, Creamware would probably develope more synths..

Post by **garyb** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:24 am

On 2003-07-30 02:34, voidar wrote:
XTC at the present time does not IMO work, or it works to some extent in some VST hosts like Logic.

well,it works fine with logic,cubase and magix midi studio,to the extent it was meant to.

Also, I could never get non ASIO applications (like WinAMP) to play under XTC, as if no wave driver was loaded, even though it was loaded in my XTC setup.

as far as i can see,the real advantage of xtc mode is for mixing down audio in the host mixer while using cw plugs,saving resources(graphic and otherwise)by not running the cw soft.it is the pt "emulation".
sfp mode is far superior for tracking and arranging and i really see no advantage to using xtc synths over sfp synths.do what you like though.

We will just have to see how XTC will turn out in the future.

i don't expect much more as it works for my purposes....i'm not a hater though,i'm not AGAINST future developements.

I will not use any native application any more for audio recording as they all have these inline mixers. I want to mix in SFP, and having to reroute in these applications annoys me. The thing is, I see what the application is supposed to be used for, and how. SFP really does not fit into this. As a Pulsarian I am just reminded about what a strange being I am for using this system, if you get my drift. It sure as hell does not inspire me to expand my system with more DSP power, as I would not really need to.

WHATEVER that means..i love the integration of ingredients in my studio that was facillitated by my cw cards.i have found PLENTY of uses for 23 dsps.i really think that there is a new generation of people with these toys who have never spent much time as an engineer in a real life studio.

the native sequencer is just like a hadware multitrack if you want to use it like that.the mixer only need route the tracks to their proper outputs and then the mixing can be all in sfp if you like.of course that requires dsps....

i think that a lot of the griping is from those who have been raised on the strange workings of the computer studio and the ridiculous promises made by the manufacturers of those computer gadgets.
these people have no clue about things like signal flow and they don't notice that the have a device that will morph into various HARDWARE quality devices,saving lots of money and cabling.this stuff isn't magic,it's tools.how do you think hardware devices are integrated?they are connected the same as in sfp,but with real cables,not virtually.

What irritates me about these big-name sequencers is that I would only need to use them for MIDI, but still the audio engine would be there to hog system resources. Still, would it not be wonderfull to be able to work from just within SFP? That is my dream, at least.

on this,i feel ya.

still,how much resources are REALLY hogged by logic or cubase with no asio driver or audio tracks in the respective arrange window?not much,i'll bet.(ready to be wrong on this one...)

For now I would have to settle with a VDAT/WaveLab combination and some prefered MIDI sequencer I have yet to find. In the meantime, Creamware would probably develope more synths..

i really hope you get what you need.as i said i'm not speaking against you although i don't agree with everything you said.i hope cw DOES make some new synths and some effects too.i also hope they continue to improve the platform as i've seen them do since about v1.2.while that's going on,if they make a sequencer,how nice! i really find that what i have is very usefull for making music and if i can't make a first calss big-dollar-type production with what i have,it's not the machines fault.this tempers my opinions,and so a sequencer is a low priority for me........

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:00 pm

/*well,it works fine with logic,cubase and magix midi studio,to the extent it was meant to.*/

It does not work well in Ableton Live, though I can no say whether this is a Ableton bug or Creamware bug.

/*as far as i can see,the real advantage of xtc mode is for mixing down audio in the host mixer while using cw plugs,saving resources(graphic and otherwise)by not running the cw soft.it is the pt "emulation".
sfp mode is far superior for tracking and arranging and i really see no advantage to using xtc synths over sfp synths.do what you like though.*/

And this is what is annoying - having to swap modes.
I thought XTC was a good idea, and tried it out, but I quickly found out it did not perform all that well, and WaveLab i.e. could no longer find a wave driver to output to, even though it was included in the project. This means I would have to disable XTC mode when using non-ASIO sound applications, or just generally when I would want to listening to some music. Tedious.

/*the native sequencer is just like a hadware multitrack if you want to use it like that.the mixer only need route the tracks to their proper outputs and then the mixing can be all in sfp if you like.of course that requires dsps.... */

And this is what I have been doing up til now, but fact remains, and a lot of people on this forum can agree with me saying that everything sounds somewhat better while in fixed 32 bit SFP, and somewhat different when routing in and out of various ASIO and wave drivers when either playing back or mixing down. I started to mix down on a STS3000 because of this. The logical would thus be to keep the whole project in this format and Creamware would win on making this process easier for their users. But of course, you can survive with the VDAT.

/*i think that a lot of the griping is from those who have been raised on the strange workings of the computer studio and the ridiculous promises made by the manufacturers of those computer gadgets.
these people have no clue about things like signal flow and they don't notice that the have a device that will morph into various HARDWARE quality devices,saving lots of money and cabling.this stuff isn't magic,it's tools.how do you think hardware devices are integrated?they are connected the same as in sfp,but with real cables,not virtually.*/

I know "everything" about hardware devices and how they are connected. The difference between a system like SFP and various hardware is that everything in SFP runs on the same set of rules and in the same format while various hardware devices deviate from this due to different manufacturers etc. In a real analog system this is all natural and is a part of the concept of analog sound - the infinite posibilities. But SFP is a digital system where every module is controlled and works in an optimal way with the other. And this is what I want, more controll over what I am doing, but in a fun and easy way.

/*on this,i feel ya.

still,how much resources are REALLY hogged by logic or cubase with no asio driver or audio tracks in the respective arrange window?not much,i'll bet.(ready to be wrong on this one...)*/

This was more for the sake of argument, but you will constantly be reminded of that the application you are using was meant for more than just midi. For some it can have a psychological effect, relaly, hehe. Restrictions can be good.

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:31 am

Come on, guys. Building an advanced audio/MIDI sequencer is really complicated -- it has to have TONS of features to make it useful. Why do you think there are so few on the market? And all of that running on SFP -- I hardly think so. Is it really so complicated to load up Cubase/Sonar/Logic and press a few buttons? And I don't believe there is such a huge difference between 32-bit and 24-bit. I can hardly (if at all) hear a difference between 24-bit and 16-bit. You know what? I don't think it's worth the extra disk space anyway. So there are plenty of good programs already available (Cubase DOES offer 32-bit recording), and CW doesn't need to waste their time and money making something that wouldn't be half as good as what's already out there. They'd be far better off finishing their OSX software and their WDM drivers.

I wouldn't use anything that is less powerful than Sonar. There's no point! Why in the world should they bother?

Shayne
http://www.shaynesworld.com

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:34 am

P.S. I do record everything in 24-bit "in case it does sound better in the end." But 24-bit already has such a huge dynamic range that I don't think there really would be much improvement going to 32-bit.

Shayne

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:31 am

Interesting how this topic never fails to get people excited - one way or another. Asking for a simple sequencer seems to be the SFP equivalent of advocating stem cell research

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:56 am

On the contrary - a SFP sequencer would not need to have tonnes of features as the SFP environment already has. A SFP audio/midi sequencer would not need to have an internal mixer. The module would have audio and midi in/out. Internally it would have some form of audio/midi arranging, minor editing etc. This way you would still have to use the SFP mixers.

Actually, audio and midi could be split into two modules for the sake of argument.

My point is; the efficiency of the sequencer would depend on what other modules you have connected to it in your project, and not what it supplies on its own. This is how I view SFP in general - you can create what ever setup you want. It is a real virtual studio. Now, I would rather work fully in SFP than to complicate things with external software, that you probably will not even use to its full extent anyway.

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:24 pm

Yeah, and sequencer can run native instead of on dsp, like the interface of triple, it's a native interface to dsp hardware.

Consume no dsp, but integrate with it fully

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:35 am

Sounds good to me - the Triple example is a good guide perhaps ? You certainly will never get this level of discussion happening for any other possible device, and that alone is significant.

Post by **garyb** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:42 am

no one would hate something like that that worked!(english really IS an awkward language isn't it!)

emzee · Post by **emzee** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 1:38 am

So has anyone asked Creamware? Any idea how much people would be willing to pay and how many units they'd move? If there is viable demand, they may be open. If it's not financially viable they can't be expected to act.

In the words of Dr Seuss "NOW WHAT CAT , NOW WHAT?"

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 9:57 am

Either something like the tripleDAT which works as a native software (.exe) integrated with the hardware, or some .dev/.mdl (like the VDAT) module in SFP. Native software might work better in terms of GUI efficiency though. I believe tripleDAT has some internal mixer though, and this is obviously not needed for the example I propose.

To put it simple: either a driver-module or a sequencer-module

huffcw · Post by **huffcw** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 9:12 am

I like this idea of having an integrated sequencer within SFP. I, however, also agree that it would be next to impossible for Creamware to compete with products like Sonar and Cubase that have been developed for years, adding on to previous releases.

Maybe Creamware can design something that would work for most siuations but not designed to necessarily compete with the established audio/midi sequencers out there.

I personally would like to see more of an audio/midi performance sequencer (like on the Yamaha Motif). Even if it doesn't offer the deep editing capabilities found in Sonar, Cubase and others - it offers something unique and powerful for the SFP platform that is not well implemented in those other programs. If you need to do some deep editing - you could open up a program, edit and then load the new version back into the SFP module. Something like this would also be great for Noah users - so Creamware could leverage the development to both platforms.

What do you think?

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 11:22 am

On 2003-08-02 10:12, huffcw wrote:
Maybe Creamware can design something that would work for most siuations but not designed to necessarily compete with the established audio/midi sequencers out there.

What do you think?

That's exactly what i need and also realy be willing to pay for it right now

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 11:40 am

I don't expect it or want it to be an uber-MIDI-and-audio app. Just a bare-bones, simple app for quick doodles and loops.

Ditto to Marcus. I'm ready to buy.

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 1:28 pm

It seems nobody wants to near my question:

"Whatever happened with Blue Cubase?"

(Nobody loves me
Everybody hates me
I'm gonna eat some worms...)

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 1:34 pm

What is the Blue Cubase anyway?

petal · Post by **petal** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 2:51 pm

Maybe a possible solution would be to find a sequencer-deveolper with a working sequencer and make them do a special version that integrated with the SF-platform.
I don't know how much work this would involve, but seems to me the only sensible solution - Both companies could benefit from such a solution....well, maybe - Just a thought.

Thomas

LHong · Post by **LHong** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 3:22 pm

On 2003-08-02 15:51, Petal wrote:
Maybe a possible solution would be to find a sequencer-deveolper with a working sequencer and make them do a special version that integrated with the SF-platform.
I don't know how much work this would involve, but seems to me the only sensible solution - Both companies could benefit from such a solution....well, maybe - Just a thought.

Thomas

COOL! I like this idea! A simple standalone Sequencer? Who has the specs that what's exactly (Simply) it can be? Pricing?
Regards,
Long

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:27 pm

I don't think there's something like a 'simple standalone sequencer' anymore.
Too many OS variants, filesystems, interfaces, drivers. You have to deal with M$ developement stuff, which IS crap imho, or Apple's, which is completely different.
That makes a hell of work.
Next thing is you have to 'invent' some original interface handling which is superior to the current ones available to have at least a chance to make people switch.
And that's the biggest one: peolple are used to 'their favourite sequencer' and have invested a lot of learning time, specially Logic.
Whenever I read a mag review of a studio they have some Macs running Logic and frequently 'stars' not really interested in DAWs note 'well, I don't like it, but I got a Powerbook... and when I come to the studio we exchange projects - makes work much easier'.
This may apply to PCs running Cubase as well, I just found the Macs more often - it's not intended as the usual Mac-is-better statement

On the other hand I like the Triple handling and wonder why they just don't add some midi tracks and use the Cutter's 32bit file interface. Well, afaik Protools doesn't shine on midi too, so there must be something which makes it a rather difficult process, for whatever reason.
And midi isn't the most stunning part of SFP, isn't it ?
I'd rather buy a CW sequencer of course, but the workflow established on existing systems can't be neglected. And since Apple is about to integrate Logic into the OS the market for 'professional' seqencers shrinks significantly.

my 2 cents, Tom