modular modular modular~~~purer WAHNSINN hierOn this we're agreed, I was saying that this is their chief marketing tactic in another recent thread, and a successful one at that.garyb wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:13 am i'd say that this is really UAD's(and others who license names) biggest advantage. the fact that they can claim that their emulations are more properly made, since they are allowed to use famous trademarks. the reality is that emulations sound NOTHING like the original, if you want to be pedantic about it, but that doesn't means that they are not useful, or that they do not sound GREAT.
valis wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:12 am It's fairly common to emulate what competitors are doing, stealing would mean outright use of intellectual property.
. It's just often they can do nothing about it and the market accepts and tolerates to some degree such emulation/copying/etc. When i owned SSL Duende plugins there was a thread on GS about them and i remember Jim from SSL was very angry that Cytomic and other Native developers was emulating the SSL compressors and he indeed viewed it as stealing and angrily lashed out at those doing the emulating. He did praise Waves and UA since their SSL emulations were authorized and payments are being made to SSL for the branding of said official emulations. Everybody who creates anything in life does some degree of copying from someone else but one has to know the boundaries to not cross or that someone else will view it as stealing, especially when their livelihood depends on their creations wich are copied. The market may accept much emulations but its not always wanted by the originators, cause such can cut into their profits. Likewise if UA make their platform exactly like SCOPE with a complete set of REALtime tools (synths, effects, samplers, drumsynths, etc) a Modular and a SDK for the users, then why would anyone want to by SCOPE? Emulating/copying/etc is not a victimless offense when done to a major extent.There are more than 2 'main' dsp's manufacturers and there are multiple unconventional solutions (when UA used the MPACT2 long ago that was unconventional solution). Texas-Instruments is a major player. Avid left Motorola and ported the Protools HDX platform to Texas-instruments dsp's. The HDX plugins run on TI dsp's and its Mixer runs on a FPGA Processor. There is also unconventional solutions like Waves Soundgrid REALtime co-processor wich uses a intel computer or Kurzweils solution wich is a custome made dsp for their Synth Workstation. UA has hinted at they were currently designing their own chip processor for the future when many of their users were complaining about the lack of power in mainstream dsp's. There is also multiple families of dsp's with many models in those families even with Analog Devices alone so it's just a little suspicious that UA ended up using the exact same chip as SCOPE, its the same family and same model. On its own using the same chip as SCOPE does'nt mean much but when i look at all the suspicious moves they made at a whole and it looks like they are copying SCOPE. It's the whole picture.valis wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:12 am When it comes to DSPs, there's only 2 real players in the market: Analog Devices & Motorola. My understanding is that the Analog Devices SDK exposes a lot of the functionality that we know in Scope and would make it easier for someone using the same foundation to create a functionally similar product.
Yea, SCOPE still has its advantages, but the gap is closing overtime with UAD. Just my 2 cents ofcourse.valis wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:12 am But where is Scope still superior to almost all others?
We've just come through an era where many are more comfortable in their DAW than in outboard roles for sound design and recording, and UAD has always supported that route first and foremost. XTC in our camp is on hiatus for modern platforms (alleged to return someday), sure. But make no mistake that Scope is still far far superior in an outboard context, played and used as you would any other hardware device in your workspace.
So the answer: Scope i's functionally identical to hardware, bolts into our software environments (via host computer and i/o), and remains one of the final products on the market to do so with products like the TC System 6000 long ago becoming legacy products. The real concern of course is that Scope remains a niche userbase and has only Holger and GaryB to champion us as users.
No disagreement that there's more solutions on the market, and custom made DSPs is where this all started, until companies started absorbing these products just for the Intellectual Property (looking at YOU soundblaster/creative labs). TI, Xylinx, x86, MIPS and more can be put to many uses of course, and TI is actually used across so many industries it's rediculous. They did create the first silicon transistor after all. Heavily embedded in the Defense & Ecommerce world, it's a sure bet to find their components in a lot of our gear (especially as they make a lot of the interface components to bridge the analog & digital divide).Sounddesigner wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:20 pm There are more than 2 'main' dsp's manufacturers and there are multiple unconventional solutions (when UA used the MPACT2 long ago that was unconventional solution). Texas-Instruments is a major player. Avid left Motorola and ported the Protools HDX platform to Texas-instruments dsp's. The HDX plugins run on TI dsp's and its Mixer runs on a FPGA Processor. There is also unconventional solutions like Waves Soundgrid REALtime co-processor wich uses a intel computer or Kurzweils solution wich is a custome made dsp for their Synth Workstation. UA has hinted at they were currently designing their own chip processor for the future when many of their users were complaining about the lack of power in mainstream dsp's. There is also multiple families of dsp's with many models in those families even with Analog Devices alone so it's just a little suspicious that UA ended up using the exact same chip as SCOPE, its the same family and same model. On its own using the same chip as SCOPE does'nt mean much but when i look at all the suspicious moves they made at a whole and it looks like they are copying SCOPE. It's the whole picture
dante wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:03 pm The similarities between Scope and UAD are like chalk and cheese to me and very, very use case dependent. I use them and native processors all for different complimentary purposes. UAD is a long way off what I use Scope for and vice versa. As is Rack Extension vs VST vs Reason SSL vs Harrison MB32.
None of them can replace any other but all together in the one system they are a powerhouse.
