Oh, I want a Creamware/SFP audio/midi sequencer so bad..!

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:03 pm

:/. It would make life so much easier for us all, bypassing sample-conversion and latency related to ASIO etc. If it ever becomes a reality I would probably invest in another pulsar or a SRB.

I know the VDAT exists, but you still have to rely on external editing tools, and arranging would be hopeless.

Music Manic · Post by **Music Manic** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:03 pm

Same here with Cubase midi tools what a dream.Wouldn't need much else.

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:07 pm

What happened to Blue Cubase?

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:59 pm

Personally I feel Creamware should remain focused on what they do best, there are several things I'd like to see from them before having SFP an integrated suite.

First of which would be to upgrade their dsp & pci spec to be competitive in the upcoming marketplace (dsp chips are magnitudes faster with internal compensation for phase differences across multiple chips, pci-x support etc).

Second would probably be to have modular ported to noah in some fashion that makes sense to current modular users. While I realize that to fit it in their architecture for noah is probably a great deal of work, I also think it would take noah from the level of something interesting without specific needs (live etc) up to something that is truly competitive even in the home studio (I can have). The addition of an internal aux bus or two to facilitate routing internal devices into the modular's input would make it a DREAM box I suspect (this is something that makes my virus 50x better than it would have been as a simple multitimbral VA).

Now, all that being said (did you read this far) perhaps there are a few ways to 'have your cake' so to speak with some input from
the developers around here.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:46 pm

The wish for a simple CW sequencer has been my mantra for about two years.

I'd like one so that I can use CW devices to quickly create loops.

For example, let's say you're making some drum loops in FL Studio - ( which is probably the most friendly app for doing so ). You can trigger CW devices from FL Studio, but when it comes time to drop it to audio.... then there's the rather tedious audio-recording procedure. It simply does not compare with the speed and similicity of "export to wav".

I think this is a real problem.

Three, four, or even six DSPs gives you very little polyphony when using the best devices so you are forced to go to audio. So there shoud be some easy way of making perfectly cut audio loops within the SFP environment using only CW devices. If this were possible all my drum loops would be made from Adern's Kick-Me and Mod-III.

But to do that requires a decent, simple sequencer (I'm not asking for Logic here!) and some way to record the audio that is the equivalent in "ease of use" to apps like FL Studio.

The sequencers that come with CW devices like Synchrotron, Pro-One, SB-404 and Mod-II/III are, IMHO, useless. What do you do with them ? You can't grab the audio without recording it in some other app.

Am I really going to open up Soundforge and stuff around with recording then trimming and looping a single phrase when I could load Z3ta+ in FL Studio and get something in about 10% of the time ?

If it wasn't for this factor I'd spend my money on the Pro-One and Minimax, but instead I've bought some VSTi devices.

Now I know this isn't a problem for everyone. And often it's not a problem for me - I'll just record direct into AcidPro and that works like a charm. If you have Cubase then it's reasonably easy to record loops (but I don't).

Nor am I interested to hear the "oh but DSPs mean that recording audio is as hard as building a fusion reactor". Bollocks to that. The function of human brains is to creatively solve these sorts of problems.

And while I'm raving I should also have a blast at the sequencer interfaces on CW devices.

THEY'RE ALL HOPELESS.

The step sequencers are pathetic, unfriendly, tedious little bits of tat that belong in the late 1980s, not in modern software. Yes, I'm talking about you Synchrotron, SB-404, Pro-One and especially Modular !

Have a look at where sequencer technology is at and how they're controlled. Check out Reaktor 4 for a whole range of control options. Asjusting microscopic sliders and punching in numbers ? You're kidding ? Just a 16-step display in Modular ?

From all this you can probably tell I'm sick of the old line that CW is an audio platform and it's up to you to work out how to sequence and record. Yes, I suppose it is up to me - I'm using something else.

I'm still extremely happy with my Pulsar-II, and use the synths in most pieces I do (about two per week for work). I also sample the sounds so I can use them to bounce loops. My real problem and annoyance is that I want to CW devices in EVERYTHING I do !!

Rant ends.

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:58 pm

My only problem with the sequencer idea is that I'd hate to see other products suffer in an attempt to create something in addition to what they already have on offer, especially when there are aspects of that product that still need to continue to mature (the dsp speed & phase issues, and more importantly the speed of the GUI.)

Noah has shown what devoting an enormous amount of time to something ancillary to the main thrust of the CW line can do (I suspect its part of their current financial rebound).

It is definately tempting to have our tools be all-in-one, especially in the software area, but even in the professional graphics arena I've seen this hurt products time & time again.

Also, tools like Fruityloops/Project5/Reason/Acid excel at what they are--integrated software studios allowing a great level. But when they start to expand to include other features at the very least this can render the new features feeling 'tacked on' or less fluid than the original core functionality (in the case of FL's audio features) or worse yet they can render what is an excellent tool into something that isn't really competetive with anything because it does too many things poorly and has lost the focus of what it once did so well (Acid).

Having an addition to the Creamware family that gives new creative possibilites is something I would never scoff at, but I have to raise a word of caution when it comes to what it may to do currently limited resources.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:28 am

True, but it all depends on what you consider to be the "main focus". Personally I donlt think the platform needs any more synths - especially subtractive retro emulations. There are already more synths available than anyone is ever likely to use.

So in my opinion development on more of these synths is a total waste of time.

The only synths that are needed now IMHO are new and unique designs. Can CW do something like the textures and controls of Absynth for example ?

And would giving people some degree of "completness" within SFP really be a diversion ? Or would it in fact be an extremely strong new marketing angle ?

It's all just horses for courses - I, for example, don't have any problems with the graphic speed etc....

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:53 am

i am perfectly happy to keep my sequencer on the native processor and leave the sharcs for routing/ processing/ synthesis. i already use enough of my sharc-power in a single project without adding a sophisticated sequencer to the pile. i find it a nice balance of power and functionality (SFP/ Cubase SX)... works for me, anyway. i actually don't desire a CreamWare sequencer at all and hope that they continue to push the envelope with killer instrument/ processing devices (and development tools!!!!).

i have been experimenting with Absynth-style flexibility in my device-design meanderings, but the trick is getting the synth DSP-friendly enough! an Absynth-ish synth would be a complete PIG on the sharcs, probably would require a minimum SCOPE-card to function at all (but would eclipse everything in its path). the CreamWare oscillator and filter designs are made with quality in mind and are therefore a bit power-hungry. you guys can notice that as the models get better and creamier that the DSP-usage goes up (Minimax, etc). despite Absynth's amazing flexibility and impressive feature-set, it still sounds fairly "brittle" to my ears... good for certain things, but seriously lacking in other "sonic" departments. i have been amazed at the quality and uniqueness of the timbres that i am coming up with on my new "uberPLASTIC" and its design is really not very complicated. i am getting a lot more with less, i suppose you could say... with the right approach and attention to detail.

regarding Graphical-loading speeds, etc... i found the greatest improvement to my SFP loading-times was investing in a decent 3D AGP graphics card, with plenty of its own RAM... made a huge difference.

- stinky-steve

http://www.track0.com/wavelength/

[ This Message was edited by: wavelength on 2003-07-29 05:17 ]

emzee · Post by **emzee** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:01 am

I'm a newbie, so please take into consideration when you read this post. When I was looking at Tracktion, I suggested by email that the developer talk to Creamware re: selling a fully sorted version as a plugin.

Why, other than naivety? Coz I think SFP needs a decent, mean and lean, sequencer add-on. If not Tracktion, then another, but PLEASE....give us something like this. It won't suit everybody, but neither will B2003.

I'm willing to put my money were my mouse is.

[ This Message was edited by: Mikka on 2003-07-29 06:30 ]

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:24 am

The main argument for a inline SFP sequencer (native/dsp like 3DAT i.e) is the quality of sound. All this ASIO routing "distorts" the sound to some extent.

Live and Tracktion are perhaps the finest sequencers to use with SFP. A Tracktion that would take input and output directly to a SFP module, in 32 bit integer, would be greatly appreciated.

I think I will be saving up for a VDAT now, actually. It might be a bit tedious to use, but it sure as hell would be worth it.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:47 am

On 2003-07-29 04:53, wavelength wrote:
i am perfectly happy to keep my sequencer on the native processor and leave the sharcs for routing/ processing/ synthesis. i already use enough of my sharc-power in a single project without adding a sophisticated sequencer to the pile.

I know lots of people don't want a sequencer - but lots do. You may recall a "do you want a SFP sequencer?" thread on the old CW forums which got more than 100 "yes" votes, which for that forum was quite significant and the most for any suggestion.

And of course some people will say "I don't want a sequencer". Well good for you. I don't want new synths or reverbs. So what.

Nor would a sequencer need to be complex, we're not talking Cubase or Logic. A simple sequencer is fine. Even just 64 steps Fruity-style for creating loops, with export to wav would be incredibly useful to me !

I humbly submit Your Honour that such a device would be of much more use than a new synth.

Good synths and effects on SFP: 250 +
Good sequencers on SFP: 0

I think there's room here without changing the philosophy and direction of Creamware or other developers

It's just one device. That sort of arguement is like saying that the Pro-One means SFP is only for retro emulation synths. Absurd.

And what is this "Creamware focus" that some people seem so worried about ? What focus ? Is a small sequencer going to annoy the Pope or start WW3 ? Seems to me that the company hasn't exactly prospered or stormed the world with this so-called "focus" we keep hearing about.

Let's see something really different.

eliam · Post by **eliam** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:20 am

Yes Spirit, you've nailed it convincingly, although I've been in total agreement from the start with the idea of having a sequencer in sfp. On the midi side, we wouldn't need all the sophisticated transformation tools that we find in logic, but still be able to build complete sequences with easy access to controllers, event list and piano roll. The way I work, anything less than that would be interesting and useful to a certain extent but insufficient. Integrating audio in the same surface would undoubtedly fill a big gap which could eventually free us from anything outside sfp. And a vst wrapper would be all that's missing... well, we could find many other things, but that would be amazing! My feeling is that it wouldn't be so heavy on dsp.

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:48 am

Obviously I agree to that SFP is and should be more than just synths. The only thing that actually makes sense to add right now is sequencing. I would rather work exclusively in SFP right to the final mixdown. No ASIO, no VST. Creamware stuff is so much better compared to all that.

SevenString · Post by **SevenString** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:40 pm

Well, right now, I'm using Tracktion as my multi-tracker/sequencer with SFP, and that's basically all I'm using it for.

I was a CubaseSX user, but once I switched to the SFP hardware, the need for all those software fx and synths just melted away, and the Cubase interface started to become more of a burden.

With Tracktion, (a mere $80, BTW), I get a single context sensitive interface, not a bazillion pop-ups that I have to sort through.

Tracktion works QUITE nicely with SFP, and it now supports sampling and I/O depths of up to 32bits.

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 2:47 pm

On 2003-07-29 10:24, voidar wrote:
The main argument for a inline SFP sequencer (native/dsp like 3DAT i.e) is the quality of sound. All this ASIO routing "distorts" the sound to some extent.

Live and Tracktion are perhaps the finest sequencers to use with SFP. A Tracktion that would take input and output directly to a SFP module, in 32 bit integer, would be greatly appreciated.

I think I will be saving up for a VDAT now, actually. It might be a bit tedious to use, but it sure as hell would be worth it.

huh? it seems that you are talking about audio sequencing and not "MIDI"-style sequencing of synths/ samplers, etc. if you use a native MIDI sequencer to sequence your synths in SFP, there is nothing going through the audio drivers, you are listening to everything in realtime and could route this audio out to ADAT, for instance, for audio recording... what sound degradation is there from using a native sequencer?

you will never ever see an audio sequencer from within SCOPE that doesn't use a driver (like ASIO) to access the native computer's harddrive... where else would the audio be stored? unless all the audio got dumped into RAM upon loadup of a project (like samples)... this method would require a lot of RAM, obviously + would still require the mixdown through a driver (or again to digital/ analogue out from hardware).

[ This Message was edited by: wavelength on 2003-07-29 15:54 ]

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:04 pm

On 2003-07-29 10:47, Spirit wrote:

Well good for you. I don't want new synths or reverbs. So what...

... I humbly submit Your Honour that such a device would be of much more use than a new synth.

Good synths and effects on SFP: 250 +
Good sequencers on SFP: 0

getting snippy and juvenile in a dialogue just makes you look silly. where in my post did I express anything about a CreamWare philosophy, etc, btw? or that synths should be any kind of "focus"... hey, if CreamWare stopped making synths, this would actually be good for my business, right? think about it. i was just expressing my opinion like everyone else.

You might also like to note that MOST CreamWare users use the platform for routing/ processing (no synths at all), so there is no "conspiracy" to produce synths and nothing else.

My only point was that the SFP/ native sequencer option works so well for most that it is probably fairly far down the list of priorities for Creamware's development team.

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:11 pm

On 2003-07-29 12:48, voidar wrote:
Obviously I agree to that SFP is and should be more than just synths. The only thing that actually makes sense to add right now is sequencing. I would rather work exclusively in SFP right to the final mixdown. No ASIO, no VST. Creamware stuff is so much better compared to all that.

come on, guys! where on the SFP hardware do you see a harddrive attached directly to the board? this is impossible. maybe learn a little about the technology before you jump on a bandwagon here. you will always need a driver to record to the computer's harddrive... sorry, but this can only work this way (unless, again, you went directly out through the board's hardware outputs for the mixdown to a digital hardware recorder). I am not trying to rain on your parade, just pointing out a fact.

[ This Message was edited by: wavelength on 2003-07-29 16:27 ]

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 4:21 pm

Yes, if you look at this threads name you will see the words audio as well as midi.

Of course you need a driver, but there are other ways than simply ASIO. There could be a dedicated Creamware I/O driver with a dedicated native software like the tripleDAT i.e, which works in 32 bit integer.

What I would like to see is something like the tripleDAT utilizing the VDAT engine, with integrated midi sequencing support.

This is possible. It does not involve tonnes of RAM or Sharcs at all. It only involves a SFP driver (using very little DSP resources, like the VDAT) hooked up to a native CPU program using no more, or less, resources than the average software sequencer. It would just have to be an audio arranger with midi automation that could controll the STM mixers as well as synths. And the signal would in a sense never leave SFP. Think about it.
Audio recorded directly with the VDAT or STS samplers sound to my ears better than audio routed through a wave dest. or ASIO dest. into a 3rd party app.

[ This Message was edited by: voidar on 2003-07-29 17:28 ]

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 4:35 pm

I really don't think it's worth it... it is not exactly an easy thing to make a sequencer... it requires a lot of development effort and testing. I am aware of a couple of newish sequencer projects around at the moment (Muzys and Tracktion) and while they are nice, they are *certainly* not all things to all people. And they are *definitely* a long, long way from being finished.

Spirit, the fact is that even if CW were to make a simple sequencer for you, there would be plenty of others complaining that it was too simple, and asking why CW isn't making a special sequencer just for them...

Also, while a few people would like to use an SFP sequencer, I personally doubt that it would make the vast majority of producers change from their complex, evolved tools such as Logic, Cubase, Sonar, Nuendo, etc. To devote such a huge effort into development requires that there be a decent market to which to sell the product. I don't think it would be worth the development costs and efforts.

I'm not saying it *should not* be done, just offering some reasons why it is not at all surprising that it has not been done.

peace

wavelength · Post by **wavelength** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:01 pm

On 2003-07-29 17:21, voidar wrote:

Of course you need a driver, but there are other ways than simply ASIO. There could be a dedicated Creamware I/O driver with a dedicated native software like the tripleDAT i.e, which works in 32 bit integer.

you can see by CreamWare's support of the VST platforms, via XTC, (and excellent ASIO drivers) that this is the path they have chosen. You can already record 32-bit "truetape" into SX, anyway. why would they spend precious development time undermining this?

What I would like to see is something like the tripleDAT utilizing the VDAT engine, with integrated midi sequencing support.

Cubase SX already does this exceptionally well (at least on my system... but minus the convenient ADAT control-interface), especially when combined with SFP (which can host the convenient ADAT control-interface).

This is possible. It does not involve tonnes of RAM or Sharcs at all. It only involves a SFP driver (using very little DSP resources, like the VDAT) hooked up to a native CPU program using no more, or less, resources than the average software sequencer. It would just have to be an audio arranger with midi automation that could controll the STM mixers as well as synths. And the signal would in a sense never leave SFP. Think about it.

the signal would never leave SFP? any time audio goes through the soundcard and onto the harddrive, the signal leaves SFP. what makes you think that CreamWare can afford the time to build a driver better than ASIO (for Mac and PC)? especially when ASIO works so well? you make this all sound so simple, but you forget how expensive and time-consuming this would be to develop. can you remember how long it took CreamWare to develop tripleDAT drivers for Pulsar? these things are not simple.

Audio recorded directly with the VDAT or STS samplers sound to my ears better than audio routed through a wave dest. or ASIO dest. into a 3rd party app.

so just record your audio to ADAT using SFP/ VDAT and just sequence your synths/ samplers with something like Cubase, or Logic, or Sonar... or any of the great existing sequencers that are already fighting for a piece of the action on the bloated MI market. problem solved... and still you have the audio quality that you believe better. as for your automation concerns, although not ideal, MIDI automation of CreamWare's faders and knobs, through your native MIDI-sequencer, works very well. onboard SFP automation has been discussed before and would apparently require a basic overhaul of the entire SFP platform to implement (also making it much less DSP-efficient)... again not easy and very expensive, especially when there are already existing (and quite excellent) alternatives.

[ This Message was edited by: voidar on 2003-07-29 17:28 ]

[ This Message was edited by: wavelength on 2003-07-29 22:10 ]

[ This Message was edited by: wavelength on 2003-07-30 00:33 ]