Export audio

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sun Dec 02, 2001 11:25 pm

The greatest improvement I can imagine for Pulsar (and I can imagine a few

)would be an "export audio" function for its sequencer modules.

This is a pretty standard feature in most synth and sequener packages these days and would certainly make a life of looping several orders of magnitude easier.

Does anyone know whether there is some giant technical problem in making this happen ?

cheers,
Spirit

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Thu Jan 17, 2002 7:38 am

60 views and no answer except for a private email revealing that "export audio" is available on Scope, but never used.

Why ?

Every other decent program with a step sequencer has export audio.

It's really quite pathetic.

mjerom · Post by **mjerom** » Thu Jan 17, 2002 9:23 am

never seen a SCOPE module that can record to disk & I don't think that you can .
CREAMWARE don't provide STS atoms ...
as many others !!!

mjerom

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:12 am

Export audio available on Scope ?
well, i'd like to know where. It's not true at all.
What you 're looking for is something that allows you to export or "render" your audio tracks+pulsar effects without running the sequencer ? (like in VST)
That would be great(re: xtc mode?) but it 's not in any cw app i know of (except triple dat may be, but i'm not sure)

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Thu Jan 17, 2002 11:15 am

Maybe they were thinking of the SCOPE/SP device "VDAT"? ...Which allows you to record up to 64 channels of audio to disk without an external program.

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Thu Jan 17, 2002 1:49 pm

I want that VDAT!

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Thu Jan 17, 2002 9:58 pm

maybe it was me that 'spread the rumour' about Scope exporting wav, but I had read about that. Could it have been on DP instead of SP? I know the Tripledat does that, but TripleDAT is an ISA card lol!

I seriously thought there's a second generation DSP card interface which records to disk too...

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Thu Jan 17, 2002 9:59 pm

My apologies if I've unjustly accused anyone of inaction....

[ This Message was edited by: Spirit on 2002-01-17 22:00 ]

kimgr · Post by **kimgr** » Thu Jan 17, 2002 11:11 pm

I dont really see the usefullness of it since you can just record whatever you're doing in Cubase/Logic or Wavelab/SoundForge ?

Kim.

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Fri Jan 18, 2002 10:04 am

yes thre's a vdat module in SP (i haven't used it yet) but it 's the same as soudforge or vst or logic.
However, it's true that a "export audio" function would be nice under scope/pulsar, especially if it runs in cunjunction with your audio sequencer. I guess the technical problem would be to achieve this and make it compatible with major softwares, so when you export audio in vst, it also do it with pulsar at the same time

[ This Message was edited by: spacef on 2002-01-18 10:06 ]

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Fri Jan 18, 2002 8:02 pm

What really inspired this question was the horrible lack of one vital tool in Pulsar/Scope: a dedicated sequencer. The thread on this topic on the CW forum has to be the biggest and most supported ideas in the past year - roughly 200 "yes" votes for a sequencer!

A Pulsar/Scope midi+audio sequencer with an "export audio" function would be a hugely powerful tool. Sure you can sample into a STS or fluff around with Cubase and WaveLab etc, but that is NOT the same or as convenient as a dedicated sequencer.

Looping would be easier, the environment would be cleaner, the technical hassles would be fewer and perhaps most importantly the platform would be complete. Pulsar/Scope remains a three-legged dog without a sequencer. At present it must always be the partner to something else - usually the junior partner. Why not complete the package? Pulsar/Scope should be a unified concept and a total solution - sort of a like a "Super-Reason").

This would also make Pulsar much better value. Instead of spending another $500 or $600 on an outboard sequencer (wondering all the time how many hassles you're going to have), how about a $200 dedicated Pulsar/Scope device?

Let's go for it ! Why be afraid to compete ? Pulsar has EVERYTHING else for audio. If the sequencer in version 1.0 isn't a VST-killer who cares? Plenty of users will appreciate the fact that they are staying within the Pulsar/Scope environment.

New buyers may then look at their options and think: "Should I buy VST + plugins, or the unified Pulsar system?" At the moment they are forced to think: "VST plus plugins, or VST plus Pulsar card?"

And since there are no such dedicated devices out at the moment I think it would make exceptionally good marketing sense to build one. The platform - at least for a while - doesn't need yet another VA synth, filter or compressor. But it does need a sequencer - it's the ONLY audio function that you ca't do - and isn't that alone reason enough to create one ?

But to come back to my original point: since I didn't think that I'd see a dedicated sequencer with export audio anytime soon I thought I'd ask about the next best thing: export audio from the ModV2 sequencer module.

So the issue really comes down to: How about a dedicated sequencer for Pulsar/Scope ?

cheers,
Spirit

[ This Message was edited by: Spirit on 2002-01-18 20:13 ]

[ This Message was edited by: spirit on 2002-01-19 01:32 ]

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Fri Jan 18, 2002 8:49 pm

agreed at 2000% ! WE NEED A Pulsar SEQ !

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Sat Jan 19, 2002 9:36 am

what's a sequencer?

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Sat Jan 19, 2002 10:20 pm

doh !

JoeKa · Post by **JoeKa** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 1:33 am

Has anyone ever spent a thought on what will happen to DSP-resources when running a pure Pulsar/scope midi+audio sequencer as a device..?
I´d be happy enough if there was a way to have the Pulsarmixer fully integrated into VST, completely replacing the VST-mixer´n´stuff and acting as a direct pulsar-interface then, no XTC-mode, no latency, but audioexport and all the other conveniences of VST. Maybe there could be sort of reverse XTC-mode, making it possible to load direct-x and VST-plugins into the pulsarmixer; with the 3ms latency of Pulsar this should be much easier to compensate.
All this would result in a special VST-"Pulsaredition" that can only be run with the according hardware of course and sell maybe for the price of the "normal" VST, around 300.-Euro, which would be a fair deal then. And the main CPU would do the work of handling all the recorded audiodata, pulsar does FX+synths+mixing. Instead of cabling there could be rolldown menues at all connectors of the mixer, showing all free+legal connectors of the loaded devices (this would allow to use a modularpatch as an insertFX, for example).

But maybe all that is just something to dream of, I don´t know. As long as the Asio communication works really clean and stable, I´m happy with what I´ve got.
We users demand and demand more and still even more, but what was it like to make electronic music just 15 years ago? Remember that... and compare!

kimgr · Post by **kimgr** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 1:59 am

Did you guys ever try Logic (or Digital Performer) running on a Protools 24|Mix ? It's a near-perfect implementation of DSP hardware into an audio sequencer.

If only Creamware would make an interface like the Digital Audio Engine of Protools, so Emagic, Steinberg, MOTU and others could hook into the devices and in/out's...
No Asio, no VST, DirectX and (allmost) no latency. Just PURE DSP power directly in your sequencer !!!

With the Emagic System Bridge you even get the best of both worlds.

And the price of a Scope card is 1/3 of a Mix Farm.

That would be heaven. (To me at least:)

Kim.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 2:19 am

JoeKa - couldn't the sequencer run off CPU resources ?

JoeKa · Post by **JoeKa** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 10:07 am

I guess it surely could, but it will only make sense to people with more than six DSPs, or with a powerpulsar, because I believe that min. 3-4+ DSPs would be occupied by only that device (think of the DSP-hunger of a fully connected Pulsarmixer), and where do people want to load their synths´n´FX´n´stuff into then? Given that you need approx. one complete Pulsar1 to run such device, this would sum up to be a very expensive sequencer IMHO...

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 3:48 pm

TripleDAT doesn't take DSP & neither would this (in my ideal imagining). Why do you need DSP resources ?

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 9:04 pm

Yeah, it should integrate in Pulsar OS, but use CPU like 3dat plugin