Is SFP/Creaware still a competitive platform ?? Feedback wan

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:09 pm

(this is the second part of a long post...)

The first comparison:

Latency, routing & mixer
=================================

About latency...

With the old legacy of all cards in the SFP
family, surely some sour compromises must have
been done ? Such that makes the Pulsar & Scope
family not so "bleeding edge" (or even competitive?)

True, the genious way of making them all compatible
is worth loads of respect, BUT - do we really
benefit ?

Q1) Have anyone done a recent comparison with the
RME family of cards for instance ? And are the SFP
still competing at the same level ?

Q2) Will my oldest PulsarII card have as small
latency as a brand new PulsarII, or will it hog down
my system if I sync them both ?

When it comes to routing, I've found that if
you do a good plan, and get keep the good old
analog patchbay that many studios still have,
there seldom is any need of changing the routing
inside SFP. I haven't changed mine for at least
half a year...

Q3) Is the SFP routing still as outstanding and
unique as things where some years ago ?? Or is
it a heavy & bulky application that sits like
a fungus on our precious DAW, chewing CPU power
by the minute ? Maybe the RME-routing or even the
new mLAN patching is just as good ?

Then the mixer...

My DAW has mixers EVERYWHERE. Still, I've found
that the best way for me to work, and the easiest
way I can invite OTHERS to work in my studio is
to have a real hardware mixer at the heart - something
to grab and hold during all the work we do.

I've found that the best way I can utilize the
"soft" mixers is to have them as sub-mixers
and to group things. The final mixdown will always
be done at the real mixer. Today I have a Yamaha 02R96
at the heart of my studio and it's a true workhorse
in every project. Anyone I know prefers this mixer
instead of any software one. In fact, I haven't used
the Pulsar mixers in a year or two, other than
to diagnose certain problems with routing audio.

Q4) I find that the order of preference to the
"available mixers" for most people I know is:
1- Hardware mixer (Yamaha family, Mackie d8b etc)
2- DAW software mixers (Cubase SX, Logic etc)
3- Misc software (Reason, Reaktor etc)
4- and last... the soundcard mixer (like SFP ones)

Is this only me? Anyone with any kind of outboard
gear surely can't be satisfied with only the SFP-mixer ?

(continued in next post...)

/Magnus

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:31 pm

I have 2 Pulsar cards in a Magma chassis, and an RME multiface... I really don't know how you could even begin to compare the two...

For the record, the RME simply cannot compete with the Pulsars... (gathering dust waiting for drums to record...)

peace

ape-teenager · Post by **ape-teenager** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:41 pm

There is no better routing available than what pulsar has. Latency is very low too!

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:42 pm

Yup.. you should try using the routing on the RME hammerfall DSP! Totally lame and unintuitive.

peace

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:07 pm

What I'm thinking of as maybe an alternative is the "RME HDSP9652" and other similar cards (like the one Steinberg based the Nuendo card upon), something which seems far from lame and weak in my eyes.

http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9652.htm

Not the old multiface/digiface thingies...

Anyone done any real comparisons or seen any reviews doing this ?

/Magnus

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:14 pm

Old? They use pretty much the same drivers and software. You cannot do anything with the DSP except mix and route. The routing is a pain, it is not intuitive at all (TotalMix software).

On top of which, to compare the two is fundamentally ludicrous IMHO. The RME doesn't even do 5% of what SFP does.

peace

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:59 pm

On 2003-07-25 19:14, dArKr3zIn wrote:
Old? They use pretty much the same drivers and software. You cannot do anything with the DSP except mix and route. The routing is a pain, it is not intuitive at all (TotalMix software).

On top of which, to compare the two is fundamentally ludicrous IMHO. The RME doesn't even do 5% of what SFP does.

The new cards, with no "backpack" as in legacy, would probably be of a more efficient design than the old ones.

Also, the routing is no problem if it's intuitive or not, as long as it's scalable and accessible. I consider setting up a good routing template like planning how to rig your patchbay for the studio, something you do *once* and maybe tweak now and then with new gear coming in.

To clear things up: I don't compare the SFP vs RME as a 1-1 swapping of products, as one can't replace the other.

My point is - in a studio rig you build with the technology of *today*, described as I've tried to outline in my posts, is a big investment in a platform like SFP really justifiable ? Meaning: do the hardware/latency cut it ? do the synths cut it ? do the plugs cut it ?

or do other things in my rig execute things better than SFP, thus making me need just a huge front end sound card with no DSP.

/Magnus

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 7:14 pm

I consider setting up a good routing template like planning how to rig your patchbay for the studio, something you do *once* and maybe tweak now and then with new gear coming in.

Well if that's how you work than maybe SFP is overkill, but i tend to change patching per project as the song grows, i'm not tied in to one way of working. That's the whole point of SFP (well along with great synths, and...), it releases you from restrictive hardware routing limitations.

or do other things in my rig execute things better than SFP, thus making me need just a huge front end sound card with no DSP.

Well, only you can decide if you feel that your external stuff works/sounds better than SFP. For my money i am actually considering selling my beloved JD-800 because i am using things like MiniMax and Prophet so much that it's become a bit redundant.

Mr Arkadin

Post by **garyb** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:23 pm

use what you like.there is no comparable product to cw's. .

dehuszar · Post by **dehuszar** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:31 pm

I can understand if you're just using SFP's routing facilities for tracking live-recordings, that the extensive options might not seem like such a boon, but when you're doing synth/sound mangling and tone creation, the routing is essentially the inside of a (or several) synth workstation(s).

In terms of sound quality, I've only seen the ProTools HD systems stand out from a mass of retreads. Creamware is still very much vital. I too am about to sell some, now superfluous, gear... my K2500 is now redundant and the electronics are noisy, and my Alesis FX processor has been put to no use in 3 years. Not even out of pity.

To replace this and other purchases were a Scope/SP, an A16Ultra, and a Magma chassis. I think beyond super high-end dedicated hardware or the ProTools HD systems, there's not really anything out there that competes with Creamware, and if they come close or are slightly better, it's usually in only one aspect of what SFP does. Nothing matches it feature for feature.

I can't think of a product that even contains it's full feature list at ANY level of quality. Maybe Kyma, but insomuch as I understand Kyma it is primarily focused on sound design and not much more.

And I can think of plenty of mixers I'd rather not have instead of my STM-48S (where are the plethora of HW surround sound mixers for under $3000? And that's before you get to any other feature of the SFP system!) or STM-4896 for that matter!

All I need is an extra monitor and some control surfaces and there's no contest.

Sam

[ This Message was edited by: dehuszar on 2003-07-25 22:31 ]

[ This Message was edited by: dehuszar on 2003-07-25 22:37 ]

huffcw · Post by **huffcw** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:37 pm

The synths available for the Pulsar are comparable or better than anything available in the digital world (hardware or software). You can't get anything better. For this alone, it is still competive and worthy of the price.

Also, the latency specs are just as good as just about any other interface available. Any differences are marginal at best.

By the way, why are you raising this question here - it sounds like you have made up your mind about what is best for your needs - are you looking for someone to convine you otherwise?

[ This Message was edited by: huffcw on 2003-07-25 22:39 ]

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 4:17 am

On 2003-07-25 20:14, Mr Arkadin wrote:
Well, only you can decide if you feel that your external stuff works/sounds better than SFP. For my money i am actually considering selling my beloved JD-800 because i am using things like MiniMax and Prophet so much that it's become a bit redundant.

Good point. Only to make things clear, I wasn't challenging the SFP from only the outboard HW side - but comparing it with the total palette of things available today.

Still a good point.

/Magnus

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 5:57 am

Another question...

About my old Pulsar II board (from the first year of production I think),

Is it capable of giving the same low latency as a PulsarII/PowerPulsar/Scope that is being manufactured today ? Is it riskfree to have old cards cascaded to new ones ?

I have some clicks & pops sometimes in my DAW and I can't figure out what causes it...

/Magnus

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 6:10 am

The fastest card in your setup is the one that matters, since only ONE card actually communicates with drivers etc.

So if you have an old Pulsar 1 (which only does 13ms on its own) chained together with a Pulsar2, you get the Pulsar2 latency (if properly set up that is)

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 6:36 am

Not if I use the two Pulsar II's for full ADAT lightpipe right ?

Then both cards hardware must be taken into count when thinking about latency and jitter.

So, when it comes to I/O and routing, what would happen in my case ?

If the old card is bad for my setup, I could very well replace it with a PowerPulsar or Scope board through the 2003 card exchange program, and maybe use the old Pulsar as the interface of one of my secondary DAW machines.

Of course, all of this depends on if I see the SFP as a good investment.

/Magnus

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 6:40 am

Only Pulsar I has the old latency issues. All Pulsar2/PowerSampler I cards were manufactured with the low latency feature. Even Luna I had low latency i believe.

Of course, all of this depends on if I see the SFP as a good investment.

To be honest, if it hasn't grabbed you yet then i would say that SFP really isn't for you and you should perhaps check out some different systems:
"You know when you've been Tango'ed."

Cheers,
Mr A

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2003-07-26 07:44 ]

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 6:08 pm

On 2003-07-26 07:36, Magnus wrote:
Not if I use the two Pulsar II's for full ADAT lightpipe right ?

Makes no difference. The latency is to do with Pulsar to Sequencer on the host and not to the outside hardware world. I have a pulsar2 and a pulsar1 and use both adat IO.

And, IMO, whilst I *may* prefer a $$$$$$ euphonix console (also uses sharc dsp's) over the stm2448/4896, I would use the stm's over an o2r96/dm2000.

I am thinking of getting an 02r96 myself actually, but mainly for 2496 IO and routing and not mixdowns. Currently I use a Ramsa Da7. If it supported 96kHz I wouldn't upgrade at all!

[ This Message was edited by: bassdude on 2003-07-26 19:25 ]

valis · Post by **valis** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 8:44 am

Incidentally the only issues with pulsar1 vs. pulsar2 hardware i/o on the card that I'm aware of are the sampling rate differences.

Pulsar1 analog (rca & xlr) i/o is limited to max of 24bit 48khz while Pulsar2 does 24/96. The adat ports on Pulsar1 are limited to 8 chans of 24bit 48khz max, while Pulsar2 offers s/mux for 4 chans of 24/96 (pairing chans to double datarate).

Magnus · Post by **Magnus** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:53 am

Interesting info there, Bassdude & Valis, thanks !

BTW, I think increasing bitdepth to 32bits in Windows made the GUI a bit faster... kind of usable now at least...

/Magnus