PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

On 2004-04-27 18:55, astroman wrote:

On 2004-04-27 17:21, Flyerfred wrote:
...So maybe the solution would be a "lego"-like controller. I mean, you buy a box and the unitary controllers you want (switches, rotary or linear knobs, patch matrix, ...), then you're able to build your dream controller...

how could you know Fred ? I'm carrying exactly 'that' idea around for a couple of years now - just haven't found the proper encoding carrier yet
It must be something more flexible than the usual bunch of channel rotaries to be puzzled together à la Lego

cheers, Tom

Believe it or not, I've also been puzzling out how something like that could be designed. I don't know enough about electronics to work out how on earth you could do it.

I think it's a great idea to make keyboard versions of Creamware synths. It would make a lot of parameters a lot easier to adjust. It's hard to learn a rack-mount's features inside-and-out the way you do a real analog synth, all the parameters have to be accessed from a small screen one at a time. The only thing about making a detailed keyboard for an instrument is the cost would have to go up.

The sad thing about Noah is that it seems to have plopped more or less as a product.. and it's too late to make it CWA's "catch" product. It doubt it sold much, let alone, it didn't permiate the SFP market that was supposed to be the first candidates. (I think)

I still agree that the best would be to find a way to really emphasize CWA's flexibility. Problem is, Noah isn't flexible, it's not SFP compatible. Noah doesn't have free routing, and its software synths are limited to VA and other stuff that's been done too many times before. Well, the B2003 may be really good, and the moog clone may be awesome, but it's just not catchy enough. Solaris may be a really good candidate, as it's rather new in synth concept.. Dunno, CWA thinks "flexible" is a concept they can sell, but in reality it seems to vague.

Perhaps it's a problem of maketing "blurb" tho. The "flexible" concept needs a definite name. "studio in a box" sure doesn't work anymore. Roland calls theirs Vsyn (if I remember). Vsyn signifies their take on the "flexible" concept, but Vsyn sounds like something specific. That's just because it's a name. So, in reviews and other market talk, "Noah is good because of its SynFlex technology" sounds a bit more definitive than "Noah is good because it's quite flexible".

With a "blurb" term, you can define it however you want since the term has never existed before and therefore people don't have preexisting definitions of the term to look to. (to create expectations upon) With a general term like "flexible", you end up with all people having their own meaning of "flexible", and people will try to measure CWA's meaning of "flexible" up with their own expectations. In turn, they're easily disappointed.

Hi everyone,

I've just been alerted to this discussion - great to see the comments, and thanks for mentioning my survey.

I've been talking and thinking about hardware versions of my synths for 3-4 years now, and at one point it looked like something was going to happen using a specialised version of the Noah hardware. (Unfortunately it was too expensive to do, for too little polyphony, etc.). So, yes, these ideas and thoughts have been discussed in and around Creamware for many years. I think it's always been a problem of financing, more than anything else. The old standard of R.O.I. (return on investment) comes into play, and small companies know that it's near impossible to properly pull it off.
Building nice hardware is expensive, more than it seems most are willing to pay now (Of course, the way I worded the survey questions was a little stupid; most anyone is going to pick the least expensive option, regardless. I needed to include some specifications - what would have to be eliminated to get to a certain price point, etc.).

Noah's main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is mostly the user interface. I still long for lots of knobs and sliders, etc., just as many have expressed. I suppose the real problem is, it's not that economically feasible any more, especially with so many younger users coming up who are less familiar with hardware instruments, being raised on computers and quite comfortable/satisfied with that experience for their creative expression.

What my initial surveys are trying to do is establish whether or not there is enough interest to warrant further pursuit of the hardware idea, so that I can present the results to investors, bankers, etc. I do appreciate all the great comments about Solaris, and certainly hope I can have something someday that is a worthy competitor to the likes of Access Virus, Nord Lead, etc.
(So far there's not been enough responses to "take and show the bank", but hopefully over time that will change.)

peace,
john b.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnbowen on 2004-04-28 01:14 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnbowen on 2004-04-28 01:18 ]</font>

Hi Astroman,

one day a friend told me that good ideas often appear on different locations on the planet at the same time

BTW, as i'm frustrated with existing controllers on the market (none of them fits the devices i want to control), i think that a build-your-own controller approach is a good one. And, as i child, i used to play lego, that's the reason why.

Moreover, i'm happy with the CW concept (cards in a (rack) PC), and the plugins are tops. So the only thing i'm missing are synth controllers.

I'm not good at electronic, i'm a developper. And i know how to use CAD/CAM software, so i can sketch ideas (and give the plan to a factory in south east asia!!).

Maybe you already saw that Doepfer sells a card in order to design a personal controller (http://www.doepfer.de/mtc.htm). Well my idea (and yours) is to push it a little bit further, so that building controllers is so easy customers would buy a lot of unitary controls!!!

Take care

Fred - Paris

John Bowen, I think your Solaris-hardware idea is great, but do you envision Solaris as a synth, or as a soundmodule?
The reason for my question, is that there are many great analog synth-modules out there on the market, but that almost noone knows about. A conspicuously designed synth would attract much more attention, than "just another" sound module. I do think most musicians would prefer to have a VA-synth with a 4 octave keyboard.

Regarding Clavia's success, I think it not only has to do with the soundquality of their products, with the Nord Lead2 coming to mind. It has a very distinctive and recognizable sound, but the also the design is extremely important. People are constantly referring to the Nord-products as "the angry red" or whatever...
The synth has to be visually pleasing, with a conspicuous design that will stick in people's minds.
I absolutely love the Solaris, and would definately buy a Solaris synth/keyboard, but it needs to have most of the parameters "up front" via knobs and sliders, not in deep hidden menues on a small led-display.
I'm a great fan of John Bowen's work, and the Solaris is his crowning achievment IMO. It would definately be awsome with a Solaris hardware synth!

On 2004-04-28 08:47, music251 wrote:
John Bowen, I think your Solaris-hardware idea is great, but do you envision Solaris as a synth, or as a soundmodule?
The reason for my question, is that there are many great analog synth-modules out there on the market, but that almost noone knows about. A conspicuously designed synth would attract much more attention, than "just another" sound module.

You could do both, like Clavia does. They always have a keyboard and a module version of their synths.

I do think most musicians would prefer to have a VA-synth with a 4 octave keyboard.

Depends, if you already have a decent masterkeyboard a lot of people may want to save a bit of cash and opt for the module instead.

Regarding Clavia's success, I think it not only has to do with the soundquality of their products, with the Nord Lead2 coming to mind. It has a very distinctive and recognizable sound, but the also the design is extremely important. People are constantly referring to the Nord-products as "the angry red" or whatever...
The synth has to be visually pleasing, with a conspicuous design that will stick in people's minds.

Absolutely right. This is also a problem with the Noah, it looks too generic.
Maybe CWA and Clavia, or maybe Access should team up and build the ultimate VA synth with all the flexibility of the Noah and all the attractiveness and hands-on controls of a Virus or Nord Lead.

or make a new version of noah that actually floats, all along with lifesaver floats. hehe.

The visual design of noah must have been really hard... it has to look generic enough to suite all the softsynths it has (and will have), but it also has to look distinctive enough for it to become a symbol.. These 2 ideas don't seem to mix. I'd say go for the funky looking style tho.

Waldorf Q had Yellow, Access Indigo has blue LEDs, Clavia's red all the way, Triton and Prophecy created a silver trend.. What hasn't been done yet? Gold? Maybe even clear skeleton, although the idea's kinda old. (well, it's never been done before on a synth I think) If a synth looked really funky, I'd get it just for that. hehe.

Actually, that brings up a new thought.. in the age of soft synths and emus, I think one big strong point hadware synths have over software is... well, as said before, you can bring it to a gig and show it off! Kinda hard to do with a softsynth. So taking that into account, maybe we should even consider neon orange. lol.

Maybe even clear skeleton, although the idea's kinda old. (well, it's never been done before on a synth I think)

C'mon Ken, surely you remember the Gleeman Pentaphonic? (scroll down a bit) Or were you thinking more of a Goth thing going on with the skeleton idea?

Mr A

PS. Congrats on your recent weddings.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2004-04-28 11:55 ]</font>

Hello Guy's,
THERE IS a range of keyboards and organs based on CW's soft-and hardware!
Look to WERSI's Open Art System.(www.wersi.net)
I have the 2-manual VEGAS-organ and believe me..... just great.
The hardware inside is a P4-MoBo with two 6-dsp-cards from Creamware, and the software runs on the Scope-platform.
All voices are sts except for the OAS-drawbars witch is the B2003.
Best Regards!

I would like CWA not to go hardware again now ( please !!! )

Now when new chips will be onboard, a kind of extended Clavia G2 that could load every creations / wild projects made on CWA ... that could sell big ...

But I prefer to have a break before " the insolvency : the return "

Optima, regarding that Vegas-organ:
HOLY COW!! ..looks "kinda" nice, and kinda ehrm..expensive. I couldn't find a price listed at the spec page, which is never a good sign. Could you tell me what this monster costs? I have to say that vegas-keyboard sounds/looks amazing, but I'm pretty sure that it's way out of my price-range. Though, I'm REALLY curious about how much you paid for it!

I agree, King of Snake, a module AND a keyboard would be best of course, but I'm a bit sceptical to a module-only release. Then the possibility for it drowning in the multitude of other products would be considerably bigger. But then again, the Solaris is one heck of a synth...
Personlly, I think analog/VA-synths should look like small pieces of construction-art. ...Did I mention that I really love my MiniMoog Vger?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: music251 on 2004-04-28 17:49 ]</font>

10.490,- Euro's for the Vegas.
Options: Drawbarsystem: 690,-
Inbuild amplifier with speakers:
295,-
Realdrums: 795,-
25-note basspedal: 2.940,-
Expressionpedal: 190,-
Not cheap but compareable with other brands.
Regards.

Looks like Wersi has been having some problems of its own:

http://www.wersi.uk.com/

Didn't these folks produce a synth some years back?

a synth as an instrument must have some cool and unique attributes, something to identify with, to make it sell.

Though I'm convinced that the Solaris would benefit greately from a control surface (the layout looks already prepared for that), I'm also convinced it would be a complete failure.
Not sound wise, but in sales figures.

There are well established products with a similiar visual appearance and no idols performing with that thing...
...which will not change until it's got a unique shape or something else to make it stand from the crowd.

greetings to LiquidLen and FlyerFred for the common ideas
Fred, the Doepfer page deals with another type of control, but there's a dude selling 8 channel DIY controllers on German eBay for about 30 Euro frequently.

cheers, Tom

I'm not so sure the Solaris would be a complete failure sales wise. It might do well as a boutique item, something along the lines of the Studio Electronics, Jomox, and Macbeth synths. I don't think any of those companies sell as many units as Access or Clavia, but they still manage to turn a profit. At least I'm guessing they do.

just to prevent a misunderstanding:
I've expressed my opinion that straight because John Bowen is one of the people I admire most.
In both his work and his attitude towards his customers.
I wouldn't want any harm to happen to his business, which is of course beyond concern - he's really experienced in this domain

Nevertheless, in a different shape and with promotion the Solaris might in fact be able to reveal it's true potential and become a success.

I'm afraid it sounds better than a Nord, is more straight forward than other Modulars while still capable of exotic stuff.
Needless to mention the state of the art bread & butter synth department on-board

cheers, Tom

Hi there,

just to add something about "lego-like" customizable controllers: http://www.mawzer.com/

Cheers from Paris

Interesting that you mention the 'Mauzer' modular midi controllers. These have a clever buss protocol allowing modular connectivity.
The *really* interesting thing to add is that the same developers Raphael & Co are *seemingly* working on a deep modular enviroment for a certain programmable audio dsp engine. The interesting concept is that of modular midi controllers in conjunction with 'a' modular software enviroment.
So, build your own "wall to wall" modular software enviroment

not sure if they actually ship that stuff now, but a peek at their shop (and specs) pages reveals the (still remaining) problem:

it's too bulky, too expensive and not flexible enough in organizing function groups (of controls)
a Minimax style controller would be in the 800 Euro range, something for Solaris probably 1500.

a midi controller doesn't get any more operational just by equally filling an area with 120 dials.
btw you could midi merge 4 cheapo Behringers for exactly that purpose for 600 Euro

anyway, the mauzer system is a traditional industrial design and clearly shows the limits of this strategy - nevertheless the use of the plugs is smart.
There ARE applications for it, but it's not as far reaching as one would wish for real world surfaces of virtual instruments

cheers, tom

For once i actually agree with most of your points there, Tom. They also made a plug for the Chameleon called looper, which not surprisingly, loops audio