Hi,
ok ... a newbie-question, but it is a bit confusing to me as one can have versatile synths with many voices as VSTi on a fast PC (2Ghz)
and on the other hand the number of voices on a Pulsar DSP-board seems to be comparatively low.
So I'd like to know what are the real advantages of the Creamware Pulsar/Scope boards vs. native plugins?
Thanx in advance
chhers
Fortune
Q: what are the advantages of CW DSP vs. native VSTI-plugs
it is the superior sound quality of the devices.
also, creamware boards(SFP) vs plugins cannot be a comparison, really, as the SFP environment is a much broader thing.
anyway, snoop around these forums a bit when you get the chance - it is discussed a lot.
edit - pipped me at the post, gary
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: wayne on 2004-02-10 04:41 ]</font>
also, creamware boards(SFP) vs plugins cannot be a comparison, really, as the SFP environment is a much broader thing.
anyway, snoop around these forums a bit when you get the chance - it is discussed a lot.
edit - pipped me at the post, gary
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: wayne on 2004-02-10 04:41 ]</font>
Layman's facts:
Applications running under modern OS's (WinME/2k/xp, os9/X, linux etc) have a large amount of SHARED processing power to utilize. Processing power which is shared with other plugins, the host app, the OS, the background processes, the dll's loaded etc.
Creamware's DSP (and UAD/TC etc) provide DEDICATED resources which may not seem as 'plentiful' but the quality *always* the same regardless of how much of your dsp resources you have used (10% or 99%).
--------------------
And we all started from no replies I'm sure...
A musical analogy:
During the 80's digital synthesis took over the musical world offering massive (for that time) voicecounts and increases in ability. The same goes for digital effects boxes, which offered a dizzying array of processing options in a small compact unit.
However some people still seem to prefer their analog brethren for the 'quality of the sound' and other elusive things even though synth voicecounts can be as low as 1 voice and effects units are usually dedicated to a very limited (but to some a quality) palette.
[edit] that's what I get for being so wordy...THIRD!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: valis on 2004-02-10 04:45 ]</font>
Applications running under modern OS's (WinME/2k/xp, os9/X, linux etc) have a large amount of SHARED processing power to utilize. Processing power which is shared with other plugins, the host app, the OS, the background processes, the dll's loaded etc.
Creamware's DSP (and UAD/TC etc) provide DEDICATED resources which may not seem as 'plentiful' but the quality *always* the same regardless of how much of your dsp resources you have used (10% or 99%).
--------------------
And we all started from no replies I'm sure...
A musical analogy:
During the 80's digital synthesis took over the musical world offering massive (for that time) voicecounts and increases in ability. The same goes for digital effects boxes, which offered a dizzying array of processing options in a small compact unit.
However some people still seem to prefer their analog brethren for the 'quality of the sound' and other elusive things even though synth voicecounts can be as low as 1 voice and effects units are usually dedicated to a very limited (but to some a quality) palette.
[edit] that's what I get for being so wordy...THIRD!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: valis on 2004-02-10 04:45 ]</font>
-
ChrisWerner
- Posts: 1738
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Germany/Bavaria
- Contact:
First welcome to Z fortune.
That´s a real good question and I thought about it yesterday, too.
First I thought a great advantage for DSP instruments is that they are don´t bother your CPU power. But the CPUs today are so powerful that this advantage is lost from my view.
Then I thought the advantage of DSP instruments is the sound quality and that´s still true. The newer instruments like B-2003, Minimax, Solaris, FleXor sounds marvelous to me and are real close to hardware synths. But on the native side we have Absynth, Reaktor, FM7 etc. they sound very good, too. I´m sure that the sound quality of VST synths isn´t matured yet.
For me, it is hard to understand why I need a Pulsar2 at least or better 15 sound processors to play a Prisma synth with enough voices compared to a Absynth2 that perhaps uses 5 percent of my P4 2.8GHz.
When I use eight instances of Absynth2, I have enough CPU power left to complete a whole production but what about eight Prismas with 16 voices?
So I thought that the whole DSP thing isn´t profitably for me at the actual prices.
I would need at least three PowerPulsars, 3x1995 Euro to feel comfortable and to drive a complete production with a DSP system.
I could buy three strong P4 systems for one PowerPulsar.
To sum up, I think that the biggest advantage for a DSP system is the sound quality, but the prices for a DSP system like SFP is too high. Once the quality of native instruments reached a DSP system I won´t see any advantage to buy SFP.
Actualy, I use a Pulsar1 with a SRB board and I only use one or two SFP synths for a production because the bouncing to wavs, to free up my DSPs, disturbs my creativity.
I hate waiting.
Finally I think it is good to have both sides, a powerful CPU for many VSTi in one hand and the high quality sounding DSP world in your other.
I´m sure this topic will be continued.
cheers
That´s a real good question and I thought about it yesterday, too.
First I thought a great advantage for DSP instruments is that they are don´t bother your CPU power. But the CPUs today are so powerful that this advantage is lost from my view.
Then I thought the advantage of DSP instruments is the sound quality and that´s still true. The newer instruments like B-2003, Minimax, Solaris, FleXor sounds marvelous to me and are real close to hardware synths. But on the native side we have Absynth, Reaktor, FM7 etc. they sound very good, too. I´m sure that the sound quality of VST synths isn´t matured yet.
For me, it is hard to understand why I need a Pulsar2 at least or better 15 sound processors to play a Prisma synth with enough voices compared to a Absynth2 that perhaps uses 5 percent of my P4 2.8GHz.
When I use eight instances of Absynth2, I have enough CPU power left to complete a whole production but what about eight Prismas with 16 voices?
So I thought that the whole DSP thing isn´t profitably for me at the actual prices.
I would need at least three PowerPulsars, 3x1995 Euro to feel comfortable and to drive a complete production with a DSP system.
I could buy three strong P4 systems for one PowerPulsar.
To sum up, I think that the biggest advantage for a DSP system is the sound quality, but the prices for a DSP system like SFP is too high. Once the quality of native instruments reached a DSP system I won´t see any advantage to buy SFP.
Actualy, I use a Pulsar1 with a SRB board and I only use one or two SFP synths for a production because the bouncing to wavs, to free up my DSPs, disturbs my creativity.
I hate waiting.
Finally I think it is good to have both sides, a powerful CPU for many VSTi in one hand and the high quality sounding DSP world in your other.
I´m sure this topic will be continued.
cheers
Welcome to this forum.
Like some have pointed out the sound quality is maby the main point today when you get lot's of CPU power from your native CPU. Still when using your ear you will hear a big differense in quality, both in synths and as well in processing hungry effects like reverb. Pulsar, Powercore and UAD have always claimed that the main reason for people to go for their products is to get extra DSP power without loading you computer. I think the marketing stragedy today should be quality. The fact is that in professional music you still use outboard alot, secondly you will chose dedicated plugins running on DSP boards like SFP or powercore, then maby you will use some native plugins. It is also interesting that protools, the most sold computer recording hardware have always claimed that they use DSP hardware because of quality - wich they claim you will not yet optain using your host CPU!
Like some have pointed out the sound quality is maby the main point today when you get lot's of CPU power from your native CPU. Still when using your ear you will hear a big differense in quality, both in synths and as well in processing hungry effects like reverb. Pulsar, Powercore and UAD have always claimed that the main reason for people to go for their products is to get extra DSP power without loading you computer. I think the marketing stragedy today should be quality. The fact is that in professional music you still use outboard alot, secondly you will chose dedicated plugins running on DSP boards like SFP or powercore, then maby you will use some native plugins. It is also interesting that protools, the most sold computer recording hardware have always claimed that they use DSP hardware because of quality - wich they claim you will not yet optain using your host CPU!
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
Isn't Absynth a sample/waveform-based instrument, not a VA? (like Prisma)For me, it is hard to understand why I need a Pulsar2 at least or better 15 sound processors to play a Prisma synth with enough voices compared to a Absynth2 that perhaps uses 5 percent of my P4 2.8GHz.
When I use eight instances of Absynth2, I have enough CPU power left to complete a whole production but what about eight Prismas with 16 voices?
the link below refers to a whitepaper about the comparison of TigerSharcs versus PowerPCs for a certain application. Tnx BingoTheClowno 
http://www.bittware.com/corporate/artic ... partII.pdf
don't get confused by the different DSP type - it's a pretty general article.
To make it short (really techie stuff):
they tried to implement the 'best' algorithm for a FFT transform for each of the processor types, optimized up to the limit.
Then they estimated the result according to each chip's specs from the data sheet.
25-25k procs/sec were expected for both a 250 MHZ TS and a 500 MHZ PPC.
Result:
the TigerSharc perfrormed about as expected and did 23k processings while the PPC achieved only 8k, which means it reached only 25% of it's estimated power.
And that was optimized code by the experts !
There is always a processing overhead moving data to and from the CPU, but in case of a 'regular' OS I'd expect pure horror
Don't misunderstand this as a CPU whatever bash - I don't even know which kind of PPC they used.
The point is that theoretical power has nothing to do with real world processing
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2004-02-10 09:52 ]</font>
http://www.bittware.com/corporate/artic ... partII.pdf
don't get confused by the different DSP type - it's a pretty general article.
To make it short (really techie stuff):
they tried to implement the 'best' algorithm for a FFT transform for each of the processor types, optimized up to the limit.
Then they estimated the result according to each chip's specs from the data sheet.
25-25k procs/sec were expected for both a 250 MHZ TS and a 500 MHZ PPC.
Result:
the TigerSharc perfrormed about as expected and did 23k processings while the PPC achieved only 8k, which means it reached only 25% of it's estimated power.
And that was optimized code by the experts !
There is always a processing overhead moving data to and from the CPU, but in case of a 'regular' OS I'd expect pure horror
Don't misunderstand this as a CPU whatever bash - I don't even know which kind of PPC they used.
The point is that theoretical power has nothing to do with real world processing
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2004-02-10 09:52 ]</font>
-
Shayne White
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Yes, the current advantage of SFP over native plugs is sound quality. If you listen to a raw sawtooth waveform coming from a CW synth (especially MiniMax and Pro-One, which raise the bar even higher) and then listen to a raw sawtooth waveform coming from ANY native synth (I haven't yet heard one that I liked), you'll be able to tell the difference. The only native synth that comes close is Arturia's Moog Modular V, BUT -- they messed up a whole bunch on the architecture; there were several aspects of the original synth that they got wrong. And also, guess what? On my P4 2.5GHz machine, at 5.8ms latency, playing the MMV in polyphonic mode ate up CPU cycles like crazy. So it wasn't any better (polyphonic-wise) than CW synths, because of the better sound quality.
I use both my DSP boards and my CPU for synths (mostly the FM7 on the native side, because there isn't any equivalent in the CW realm), and I fill up both of them. So they both have their place.
Shayne
I use both my DSP boards and my CPU for synths (mostly the FM7 on the native side, because there isn't any equivalent in the CW realm), and I fill up both of them. So they both have their place.
Shayne
Melodious Synth Radio
http://www.melodious-synth.com
Melodious synth music by Binary Sea
http://www.binary-sea.com
http://www.melodious-synth.com
Melodious synth music by Binary Sea
http://www.binary-sea.com
For me, it is hard to understand why I need a Pulsar2 at least or better 15 sound processors to play a Prisma synth with enough voices compared to a Absynth2 that perhaps uses 5 percent of my P4 2.8GHz.
When I use eight instances of Absynth2, I have enough CPU power left to complete a whole production but what about eight Prismas with 16 voices?
my guess would be, that lot's of native stuff uses stuff like lookup tables and low resolution control signal to reduce CPU hit. and they all use block processing for better efficiency.
now in Pulsar you have everything calculated in realtime, all modulation at audio resolution and per sample.
if you compare relatively simple design, like Lightwave with similar native counterpart you may get the feeling that a lot of power is wasted (cos it is then
)fun with Pulsar capabilities IMHO really starts when using modular fitted with Flexor.
at the moment it seems to be only design really takin advatage of what Pulsar can...
_________________
booze & weed are universal language
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Michu on 2004-02-10 14:19 ]</font>
-
ChrisWerner
- Posts: 1738
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Germany/Bavaria
- Contact:
-
Nestor
- Posts: 6685
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!
It's not just that sound in better quality, but in a different way as well. Quality may be interpreted in different ways and may be subjective. But what you can do through DSP plug-ins sounds with a REALISTIC character, and this is extremely important.
If you do everyting with just some VSTis, you'll come up with a "toyish" sound, whiile in SFP, i.e., in any Creamware board, you can achieve incredibly high levels of realism.
If you go to publish your music, and give the CD Master to a great studio, they will inmediately tell you, that the sound of one against the other is MORE PROFFESIONAL.
If you do everyting with just some VSTis, you'll come up with a "toyish" sound, whiile in SFP, i.e., in any Creamware board, you can achieve incredibly high levels of realism.
If you go to publish your music, and give the CD Master to a great studio, they will inmediately tell you, that the sound of one against the other is MORE PROFFESIONAL.
*MUSIC* The most Powerful Language in the world! *INDEED*
-
hubird
Just to be devil's advocate here, I think that the sound quality gap is getting extremely narrow and in many cases is offset by the polyphony convenience of native (as Chris pointed out).
There are also many sounds - again like Absynth - that you're not going to find on CWA synths. No one system covers everything.
And I certainly don;t buy into the VSTi "toy" idea. No offense but I think you are simply wrong with that. Make this assertion in any other music forum and you'd be flamed to a crisp within seconds.
VSTi can sound just as good and are certainly no barrier to a "professional" sound - whatever that is.
And the issue of integration into the VST environment is also an issue - at least for me. XTC mode is useless.
But there are many strengths to CWA gear other than synth sound quality.
Native users are always saying about how powerful their CPU is, but there is this constant stream of new devices which want their share. Anything which takes some pressure off is good.
And whatever you do you'll need a soundcard, and if you're serious about sound then you'll want to get a good one.
For really just a small amount extra from a "normal" card you can get something with incredible routing possibilities and dozens and dozens of free devices and effects.
That's a bargain.
There are also many sounds - again like Absynth - that you're not going to find on CWA synths. No one system covers everything.
And I certainly don;t buy into the VSTi "toy" idea. No offense but I think you are simply wrong with that. Make this assertion in any other music forum and you'd be flamed to a crisp within seconds.
VSTi can sound just as good and are certainly no barrier to a "professional" sound - whatever that is.
And the issue of integration into the VST environment is also an issue - at least for me. XTC mode is useless.
But there are many strengths to CWA gear other than synth sound quality.
Native users are always saying about how powerful their CPU is, but there is this constant stream of new devices which want their share. Anything which takes some pressure off is good.
And whatever you do you'll need a soundcard, and if you're serious about sound then you'll want to get a good one.
For really just a small amount extra from a "normal" card you can get something with incredible routing possibilities and dozens and dozens of free devices and effects.
That's a bargain.
I only see native systems getting more powerful as CPUs get more powerful. That leaves Creamware in a bit of a bind. There is only so much computer power..DSP or Native that is needed for audio. If DSP is not going to offer something that you can not do native, there is no justification for the extra expense. "Therein lies the rub."
The purist looking for the highest quality synthesis & effects can be confident that he's always getting 100% of the sound a device is capable of producing regardless of cpu or dsp load.
The engineer has at his disposal mixing, routing and Fx which are largely devoid of latencies with no 'magic' compensation eating cpu by creating massive buffer arrays behind the scenes to achieve this.
The avant-garde musician or sound designer has tools like ModularIII & Flexor, Vectron, Solaris etc. which can add a lot to your sonic palette, and since they all output digital audio they mix quite nicely with any 'native' softsynth you may care to put with them.
The card(s) also come with a ton of i/o options to complement the routing that you can do in SFP.
Lastly, as garyb suggests NONE of these things preclude using NATIVE SOFTWARE at all! Instead Creamware cards are great tools that ADD to what you can do.
The one caveat is that the product takes time to figure out, and a stationary box with PCI slots to host the cards. So I don't believe that CW cards are actually an 'everyman' solution. Some people would rather just plug in their Guitar/Bass or keyboard and bang out something as quickly as possible (how many times have we seen people post complaining about the complexity needed to just get sound routed). However for someone willing to put in a little time and effort they are incredible tools that are just as comfortable being one man's HUB for his whole DAW, while in another studio they're just doing duties in one of the Gigastudio machines.
The engineer has at his disposal mixing, routing and Fx which are largely devoid of latencies with no 'magic' compensation eating cpu by creating massive buffer arrays behind the scenes to achieve this.
The avant-garde musician or sound designer has tools like ModularIII & Flexor, Vectron, Solaris etc. which can add a lot to your sonic palette, and since they all output digital audio they mix quite nicely with any 'native' softsynth you may care to put with them.
The card(s) also come with a ton of i/o options to complement the routing that you can do in SFP.
Lastly, as garyb suggests NONE of these things preclude using NATIVE SOFTWARE at all! Instead Creamware cards are great tools that ADD to what you can do.
The one caveat is that the product takes time to figure out, and a stationary box with PCI slots to host the cards. So I don't believe that CW cards are actually an 'everyman' solution. Some people would rather just plug in their Guitar/Bass or keyboard and bang out something as quickly as possible (how many times have we seen people post complaining about the complexity needed to just get sound routed). However for someone willing to put in a little time and effort they are incredible tools that are just as comfortable being one man's HUB for his whole DAW, while in another studio they're just doing duties in one of the Gigastudio machines.
hmmm interesting this keeps popping up - XTC mode is useless! Not for me mate works marvellous - UAD1 is not useless either. The true lacking point about XTC is documentation from CW, but if you take the time to surf Planetz and learn how to use XTC it makes wonders, especially now with all the busses of Nuendo or Cubase sx 2.