 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Computer music & technology
Subject: Pulsar is realy good??
Original Message 1/53 01-Jan-99 @ 07:11 PM - Pulsar is realy good??
The Pulsar price is euivalent with the card?
Message 2/53 03-Jan-99 @ 12:00 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
It depends on what you want to do. I mean if you just need hard disc recording then probably something like Gina would be better. Pulsar is good for its synths and sample players. And the open platform for further expansion.
Message 3/53 03-Jan-99 @ 08:09 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Hi O Anonymous Ones:
It is quite true - _any_ product can be said to be appropriate as individula needs dictate or
demand. That's motherhood - pretty hard to disagree with.
In large part, you can look historically and see many products designed fundamentally around a
sole aspect or purpose - and that is not necessarily a bad thing given what technology has had to
offer thus far. But, it is not only a matter of tehnology's advances, but of advances in approach and
thinking. Even as technology affords us new methods and tools, it is more often than not to find
products designed to address a "single function".
"MIDI Workstations" are even this to an extent - though their manufacturers would suggest
otherwise. Sound source, sequencer, perhaps some signal processing - the package has not
fundamentally changed in quite a few years. Computer interfaces are another facet of this thought
pattern.
Initially, MIDI interfaces. SImple, 1 in/out hardware to accommodate the then limited software
options. Technology progresses and multi-port MIDI I/O to provide for greater software sequencer
track counts and multi-timbral sound sources. Then, professional quality audio interfaces. Stereo
at first followed by greater channel quantity options and more recently including dedicated
processors to offer even more performance options.
However, even in these recent products with additional "DSP" resources to take advantage of,
the thread remains essentially the same: minimal diversity and pre-defined functionality. The
closest to an "open" architecture has been with comparatively expensive systems utilizing
card-based multi-processor "farms" that can have a variety of popular signal processing "plug-ins"
operate on them. This whole premise though is still focused tightly around the concpet of studio
use and almost exclusively for "recording" purposes. This was the long way to get to what was said
just above.
If all you want to do is record, yup: there's a bunch of stuff available and it pretty much works - to
varying degrees. Interestingly, Pulsar does NOT include any application for the explicit purpose of
recording. Pulsar is, at this time, about everything _except_ recording - in and of itself. Like most
audio interfaces available. Face it - are you ready to consider switching to yet another recording
application environment after spending HOW LONG learning the one you currently use? Most
people aren't.
Pulsar is diverse enough that regardless of what you need to interface and why, it can probably
be employed in your system in some fashion. The most conspicuous aspect of Pulsar is the
hardware itself. Pulsar has a 20 in/20 out audio channel capability and also includes a standard
MIDI I/O/T interface as well. This PCI card has a couple of additional unique facets as well.
Four Analog Devices SHARC processors to supply resources for the included software and an
S/TDM bus connector that will permit processor and I/O expansion. Again, this is a situation
wherein the hardware is necessary for the operation of the software, but it is really the software that
offers the increased functionality and purpose of the product.
Synthesis and sample playback are, however, but a couple of the tools included with Pulsar.
Yes, they do quite a good job of it, but there are also the mixing (signal routing) and signal
processing portions of the software. Whether you are mixing and routing internal, Pulsar generated
sounds and effects or introducing external "live" signals or effects processing or bringing in disk-
based pre-recorded tracks, Pulsar can serve as a hub for the entire netweork of your studio.
And this is simply the start. Today, you use the recording application that you are most
comfortable with or suits your needs and purpose. Tomorrow, it is quite possible that Creamware
will change your expectations of what a recording environment is as well. One over-riding premise
with Pulsar and SCOPE is the ability to share ones working environment, not simply the
composition itself. In this fashion you are able to share with a collaborator, for instance, not only
the MIDI and audio "tracks" youhave created but the entire "studio" as well so that you are truly
working with exactly the same palette. There is nothing else out there offering this kind of
potential. Period. And, especially starting at the price of a Pulsar.
You can certainly get into "recording" for remarkably little today. A couple hundred bucks for a pro-quality sequencer, (or maybe even try some shareware,) and a few hundred dollars for some audio interface and you're good to go. RIght? It might be all you need - today. Pulsar is thinking a little bit farther down the road than just today.
Best of Luck!!
Jeff White
White Noise Marketing
http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
It is quite true - _any_ product can be said to be appropriate as individula needs dictate or
demand. That's motherhood - pretty hard to disagree with.
In large part, you can look historically and see many products designed fundamentally around a
sole aspect or purpose - and that is not necessarily a bad thing given what technology has had to
offer thus far. But, it is not only a matter of tehnology's advances, but of advances in approach and
thinking. Even as technology affords us new methods and tools, it is more often than not to find
products designed to address a "single function".
"MIDI Workstations" are even this to an extent - though their manufacturers would suggest
otherwise. Sound source, sequencer, perhaps some signal processing - the package has not
fundamentally changed in quite a few years. Computer interfaces are another facet of this thought
pattern.
Initially, MIDI interfaces. SImple, 1 in/out hardware to accommodate the then limited software
options. Technology progresses and multi-port MIDI I/O to provide for greater software sequencer
track counts and multi-timbral sound sources. Then, professional quality audio interfaces. Stereo
at first followed by greater channel quantity options and more recently including dedicated
processors to offer even more performance options.
However, even in these recent products with additional "DSP" resources to take advantage of,
the thread remains essentially the same: minimal diversity and pre-defined functionality. The
closest to an "open" architecture has been with comparatively expensive systems utilizing
card-based multi-processor "farms" that can have a variety of popular signal processing "plug-ins"
operate on them. This whole premise though is still focused tightly around the concpet of studio
use and almost exclusively for "recording" purposes. This was the long way to get to what was said
just above.
If all you want to do is record, yup: there's a bunch of stuff available and it pretty much works - to
varying degrees. Interestingly, Pulsar does NOT include any application for the explicit purpose of
recording. Pulsar is, at this time, about everything _except_ recording - in and of itself. Like most
audio interfaces available. Face it - are you ready to consider switching to yet another recording
application environment after spending HOW LONG learning the one you currently use? Most
people aren't.
Pulsar is diverse enough that regardless of what you need to interface and why, it can probably
be employed in your system in some fashion. The most conspicuous aspect of Pulsar is the
hardware itself. Pulsar has a 20 in/20 out audio channel capability and also includes a standard
MIDI I/O/T interface as well. This PCI card has a couple of additional unique facets as well.
Four Analog Devices SHARC processors to supply resources for the included software and an
S/TDM bus connector that will permit processor and I/O expansion. Again, this is a situation
wherein the hardware is necessary for the operation of the software, but it is really the software that
offers the increased functionality and purpose of the product.
Synthesis and sample playback are, however, but a couple of the tools included with Pulsar.
Yes, they do quite a good job of it, but there are also the mixing (signal routing) and signal
processing portions of the software. Whether you are mixing and routing internal, Pulsar generated
sounds and effects or introducing external "live" signals or effects processing or bringing in disk-
based pre-recorded tracks, Pulsar can serve as a hub for the entire netweork of your studio.
And this is simply the start. Today, you use the recording application that you are most
comfortable with or suits your needs and purpose. Tomorrow, it is quite possible that Creamware
will change your expectations of what a recording environment is as well. One over-riding premise
with Pulsar and SCOPE is the ability to share ones working environment, not simply the
composition itself. In this fashion you are able to share with a collaborator, for instance, not only
the MIDI and audio "tracks" youhave created but the entire "studio" as well so that you are truly
working with exactly the same palette. There is nothing else out there offering this kind of
potential. Period. And, especially starting at the price of a Pulsar.
You can certainly get into "recording" for remarkably little today. A couple hundred bucks for a pro-quality sequencer, (or maybe even try some shareware,) and a few hundred dollars for some audio interface and you're good to go. RIght? It might be all you need - today. Pulsar is thinking a little bit farther down the road than just today.
Best of Luck!!
Jeff White
White Noise Marketing
http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Message 4/53 04-Jan-99 @ 05:13 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Jeff-
Do you really think it's appropriate to be useing the Dancetech chat rooms for free advertiseing?
Do you really think it's appropriate to be useing the Dancetech chat rooms for free advertiseing?
Message 5/53 04-Jan-99 @ 04:33 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
TO WHITE NOISE MARKETING DUDE:
Spare us the long winded history of sound cards and give us some facts. Have you actually used Pulsar, or are you reading from the Creamware brochure?
Tell us what the damn thing can do from your own personal experience, not from what they tell you it can do. When you do that, come back here. Until then, well.....
Mr. Realist
Spare us the long winded history of sound cards and give us some facts. Have you actually used Pulsar, or are you reading from the Creamware brochure?
Tell us what the damn thing can do from your own personal experience, not from what they tell you it can do. When you do that, come back here. Until then, well.....
Mr. Realist
Message 6/53 04-Jan-99 @ 08:53 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Hi Astro:
I believed I was responding to a rather broad question. The first anonymous respondant had,
in typical Internet fashion, provided what could arguably be construed as a response - but as is
all too common one that it is ambiguous and lacking genuine information for the person who
began the inquiry.
I make no effort to hide who I am, or my affiliations. But I do try to answer questions
accurately and as completely as is practical. I did not initiate the thread - I merely responded to
it. As it happens, I was invited to this forum by someone who had seen my offerings elsewhere
and who also knew that there was an increasing amount of discussion here about Pulsar.
Apparently they seemed to think that I might be able to contribute something of use. Since
you cannot buy anything from me in the first place and most of you are likely to be outside the
area containing Dealers I do service, there is very little for me to gain or benefit from personally
by offering participation here. But, I know there are those who just love any chance to complain
and see the Internet as much as their little mouthpiece as those they claim to abuse it otherwise.
(The last remark was intended more for SirRealist than you, Astro. Your question was cordial.)
As to experience with the product, you betcha, Babe. Whaddya wanna know? That wasn't
the question that I was originally answering, but if you would seriously like an overview of stuff
that I personally have done, you're more than welcome to it.
If you look back up there, you see the question was whether or not it was believed the price
and the performance reflected each other. Not what those performances were in any given
scenario.
Now, in order to illustrate just what any might consider "worthy" of the prce, some examples
must be given, no? Not everyone out there apparently enjoys the depth of experience you must
hold and might appreciate a little comparative background. It is sometimes necessary to target
the least common denominator. Some people will find the information useful, some will find
that they have already lived through those experiences and wish for new ones. But, _everyone_
must start somewhere.
Some may consider some, (okay, most,) of my responses wordy, but I don't believe it is fair to give a 2-bit response to a 24-bit question. If you would be more comfortable emailing questions rather than having them posted here, that is why I included my address. I can also inlcude screen-shots of various projects composed with Pulsar to give a better feel for what it is actually doing.
If, SirReality, your objective is simply to harrass, then you've picked a poor candidate. My skin
is pretty thick and there is really little you can say that justifies your rants or shouting. I was trying
to answer the person's question. I try to do it thoroughly, rather than provide half-answers which
are like half-truths. I try to lend a little perspective. If someone wants performance details, they
can contact me - or Creamware - or they can subscribe to the pulsar-dsp@usa.net mailing list
which is not operated by Creamware but by a User of a Yamaha DS-2416 who thought it would
be good to have a forum comparing the two products. The discussions are largely about Pulsar
as there is a separate list just for Yamaha Users, but occasionally people reference the DSP
Factory products as well.
Best of Luck and Happy New Year!!
Jeff White White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
I believed I was responding to a rather broad question. The first anonymous respondant had,
in typical Internet fashion, provided what could arguably be construed as a response - but as is
all too common one that it is ambiguous and lacking genuine information for the person who
began the inquiry.
I make no effort to hide who I am, or my affiliations. But I do try to answer questions
accurately and as completely as is practical. I did not initiate the thread - I merely responded to
it. As it happens, I was invited to this forum by someone who had seen my offerings elsewhere
and who also knew that there was an increasing amount of discussion here about Pulsar.
Apparently they seemed to think that I might be able to contribute something of use. Since
you cannot buy anything from me in the first place and most of you are likely to be outside the
area containing Dealers I do service, there is very little for me to gain or benefit from personally
by offering participation here. But, I know there are those who just love any chance to complain
and see the Internet as much as their little mouthpiece as those they claim to abuse it otherwise.
(The last remark was intended more for SirRealist than you, Astro. Your question was cordial.)
As to experience with the product, you betcha, Babe. Whaddya wanna know? That wasn't
the question that I was originally answering, but if you would seriously like an overview of stuff
that I personally have done, you're more than welcome to it.
If you look back up there, you see the question was whether or not it was believed the price
and the performance reflected each other. Not what those performances were in any given
scenario.
Now, in order to illustrate just what any might consider "worthy" of the prce, some examples
must be given, no? Not everyone out there apparently enjoys the depth of experience you must
hold and might appreciate a little comparative background. It is sometimes necessary to target
the least common denominator. Some people will find the information useful, some will find
that they have already lived through those experiences and wish for new ones. But, _everyone_
must start somewhere.
Some may consider some, (okay, most,) of my responses wordy, but I don't believe it is fair to give a 2-bit response to a 24-bit question. If you would be more comfortable emailing questions rather than having them posted here, that is why I included my address. I can also inlcude screen-shots of various projects composed with Pulsar to give a better feel for what it is actually doing.
If, SirReality, your objective is simply to harrass, then you've picked a poor candidate. My skin
is pretty thick and there is really little you can say that justifies your rants or shouting. I was trying
to answer the person's question. I try to do it thoroughly, rather than provide half-answers which
are like half-truths. I try to lend a little perspective. If someone wants performance details, they
can contact me - or Creamware - or they can subscribe to the pulsar-dsp@usa.net mailing list
which is not operated by Creamware but by a User of a Yamaha DS-2416 who thought it would
be good to have a forum comparing the two products. The discussions are largely about Pulsar
as there is a separate list just for Yamaha Users, but occasionally people reference the DSP
Factory products as well.
Best of Luck and Happy New Year!!
Jeff White White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Message 7/53 04-Jan-99 @ 09:52 PM - What???
Mr White Noise:
We all know that the pulsar has all this dsp power, mixer, blender, coffee maker, etc...No need to reiterate the specs or features.
What the common people want is practical info (how many fx before the dsp power folds up, how well it works with certain softwares, what are the problems, expecially bugs, and there are always some of those, arent' there?)
Spare us the articulate responses that beat around the bush. We want the beef. Sure there are beginners here, but they would benefit just as well from in depth technical shit (pardon my callous language), as it would motivate them to learn on their own!!
So, with this said, how about some experiences you've had with pulsar?
Mr Realist.
We all know that the pulsar has all this dsp power, mixer, blender, coffee maker, etc...No need to reiterate the specs or features.
What the common people want is practical info (how many fx before the dsp power folds up, how well it works with certain softwares, what are the problems, expecially bugs, and there are always some of those, arent' there?)
Spare us the articulate responses that beat around the bush. We want the beef. Sure there are beginners here, but they would benefit just as well from in depth technical shit (pardon my callous language), as it would motivate them to learn on their own!!
So, with this said, how about some experiences you've had with pulsar?
Mr Realist.
Message 8/53 04-Jan-99 @ 10:38 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Well, after all the above here comes an actual Pulsar user, albeit only for a short time. As a preamble, I'd like to say I've been involved with EM/CM for about ten years now. I studied in the EM department at Oberlin Conservatory where computer music is fairly thoroughly thrust down your throat. At the time, I thought there were possibilities for purely computer based music, but the hardware/software hadn't caught up. I have been converted.
Not being aware of specific questions people have I'll say this much, Pulsar performs as promissed. It's one of the first cards I've installed that was up and running right away, and this in a system with precious little IRQ room available (and it does require one). I put in the card, installed the software and everything was working, a big plus for a system of this complexity. The interface is cool, very intuitive. It does take a few seconds for the DSPs to register new devices when you add them to a project, but I find this only very mildly annoying, not really at all but there are nit-pickers.
The DSP can be overloaded, but it takes a good deal of stacking devices. Multiple synths with lots of voices (you can specify the number of voices for each synth device) can eat up power pretty fast, but that's to be expected. On the other hand, you can stack up a lot of sampled voices as the sample players are pretty DSP friendly. The synths all sound great. The miniscope can't match a real mini because of certain inherent digital characteristics (no one wants to program them to drift, although that would be cool), but in a mix it can definitely hold it's own. The programmability is nice, as are the 5 LFO sources (all sine alas). The Bluesynth is awsome, great sounds and very versatile and the EZ while not really sounding convincingly like a TB to me still has a great pallete. You can make pretty complex modular instruments as well. Overall I'd rate the sound quality of the synths as excellent.
The mixers are very intuitive (as is everything except a couple aspects of the modular) and sound great, same goes for the effects. My first quibble is with delay times. Although the stereo and cross delays sound great, the max of 683 milliseconds seems a little short to me. The phaser and chorus sound pretty damn good and I'd say that once the reverb is available (they're holding it back until it "sounds right" which considering overall sonic quality leaves me in anticipation) the pulsar will make an excellent efx unit, being able to chain up the individual effects any way you like.
The software won't let you set up feedback loops, this is also a pet peave of mine, but I can understand the reasoning behind it. Nothing'll crash a processor faster than a bit of recursion. I have yet to test the connection between Pulsar and Cakewalk 8.0, been to busy playing with the various synths (plus I'm still waiting for my A16), but everything else has gone pretty smothly.
My last complaint is abt. the manual. I really hate the current trend away from having paper manuals, especially with software as complex as Pulsar. I'll be printing mine out on the color at work, but not everyone has the option. I'd pay a little extra for a nice bound manual, but oh well.
Anyway, I'd say that the variety of features available with Pulsar makes it one of the best price/performance cards out there. Combine it with some external AD/DA and you may be able to do as I am planning to do, replace your hardware mixer. Any specific questions, feel free to email me.
Not being aware of specific questions people have I'll say this much, Pulsar performs as promissed. It's one of the first cards I've installed that was up and running right away, and this in a system with precious little IRQ room available (and it does require one). I put in the card, installed the software and everything was working, a big plus for a system of this complexity. The interface is cool, very intuitive. It does take a few seconds for the DSPs to register new devices when you add them to a project, but I find this only very mildly annoying, not really at all but there are nit-pickers.
The DSP can be overloaded, but it takes a good deal of stacking devices. Multiple synths with lots of voices (you can specify the number of voices for each synth device) can eat up power pretty fast, but that's to be expected. On the other hand, you can stack up a lot of sampled voices as the sample players are pretty DSP friendly. The synths all sound great. The miniscope can't match a real mini because of certain inherent digital characteristics (no one wants to program them to drift, although that would be cool), but in a mix it can definitely hold it's own. The programmability is nice, as are the 5 LFO sources (all sine alas). The Bluesynth is awsome, great sounds and very versatile and the EZ while not really sounding convincingly like a TB to me still has a great pallete. You can make pretty complex modular instruments as well. Overall I'd rate the sound quality of the synths as excellent.
The mixers are very intuitive (as is everything except a couple aspects of the modular) and sound great, same goes for the effects. My first quibble is with delay times. Although the stereo and cross delays sound great, the max of 683 milliseconds seems a little short to me. The phaser and chorus sound pretty damn good and I'd say that once the reverb is available (they're holding it back until it "sounds right" which considering overall sonic quality leaves me in anticipation) the pulsar will make an excellent efx unit, being able to chain up the individual effects any way you like.
The software won't let you set up feedback loops, this is also a pet peave of mine, but I can understand the reasoning behind it. Nothing'll crash a processor faster than a bit of recursion. I have yet to test the connection between Pulsar and Cakewalk 8.0, been to busy playing with the various synths (plus I'm still waiting for my A16), but everything else has gone pretty smothly.
My last complaint is abt. the manual. I really hate the current trend away from having paper manuals, especially with software as complex as Pulsar. I'll be printing mine out on the color at work, but not everyone has the option. I'd pay a little extra for a nice bound manual, but oh well.
Anyway, I'd say that the variety of features available with Pulsar makes it one of the best price/performance cards out there. Combine it with some external AD/DA and you may be able to do as I am planning to do, replace your hardware mixer. Any specific questions, feel free to email me.
Message 9/53 04-Jan-99 @ 11:05 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Yes, the manual is probably the worst part. For such a complex system Creamware gives just a brief description on everything. They should offer a tutorial CD or something like that with it. For instance a simple task like choosing the number of channels for its dynamixer, for asio source, etc., I can't do that, and manual won't tell me how.As I put my Pulsar in place of AVM Apex soundcard, it was like jumping from a bike onto a spaceship. Takes some time to learn the controls. As I've previously written in the Creamware Pulsar thread, I had problems running it with Cubase. Now it works, although some questions are still left, some differences compared with the the installation guide. Will come back when I learn more. I have to work using the trial and error method - not the fastest one, really. I also have read someone complaining about instability of sample players - they were said to cause crashes sooner or later. Haven't noticed that. Given my really slow machine it's pretty stable, have had just few hangs.
Message 10/53 05-Jan-99 @ 06:04 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Just found out how to change that channel number. It's like everything with this card, as soon as you get the idea, it makes you smile how easy and simple it is.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
There are 53 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
