 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Computer music & technology
Subject: Pulsar is realy good??
Original Message Date: 01-Jan-99 @ 07:11 PM - Pulsar is realy good??
The Pulsar price is euivalent with the card?
Message 21/53 07-Jan-99 @ 08:52 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Mr. White Noise,
Great. Wonderful. Have you done any recording/mixing with pulsar? People seem to love the synths, but I haven't heard anything about the converters, or any mixing stories. It's probably still early for this.
So the sample player loads samples (into memory?) from the cd rom and then can be played. Is latency a problem? Doe the cd rom that comes with it have any good drum sounds?
One thing I am very converned about is the converters, especially sound quality. Most 96k cards support that sample rate on the digital I/O only. Do the pulsar converters do 96k? Also, will the converters dither from 20to 16 bits to cubase, or are the last four bits truncated?
I have an Intel 233mmx with 80 mgs ram. Can I run this beast with out too many problems? Granted, I won't have a lot of fx, but can I operate pulsar and cubase together without massive slowdowns?
The "all-in-one" solution usually means compromise in certain areas. In what area does pulsar leave a little to be desired (and be honest here, now...)?
Any answers are appreciated.
Mr. Realist
Great. Wonderful. Have you done any recording/mixing with pulsar? People seem to love the synths, but I haven't heard anything about the converters, or any mixing stories. It's probably still early for this.
So the sample player loads samples (into memory?) from the cd rom and then can be played. Is latency a problem? Doe the cd rom that comes with it have any good drum sounds?
One thing I am very converned about is the converters, especially sound quality. Most 96k cards support that sample rate on the digital I/O only. Do the pulsar converters do 96k? Also, will the converters dither from 20to 16 bits to cubase, or are the last four bits truncated?
I have an Intel 233mmx with 80 mgs ram. Can I run this beast with out too many problems? Granted, I won't have a lot of fx, but can I operate pulsar and cubase together without massive slowdowns?
The "all-in-one" solution usually means compromise in certain areas. In what area does pulsar leave a little to be desired (and be honest here, now...)?
Any answers are appreciated.
Mr. Realist
Message 22/53 08-Jan-99 @ 11:15 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
In regards to the separate control fader, I am in the process of building a universal knob box and would rather use that to control pulsar (it has 40 knobs). I agree, though, that midi isn't precise enough and don't want the zipper effect, is there an easy way to smooth out the control info after-the-fact in cubase or pulsar?
Will knob movement like this be recorded in the sequencer, so the sequencer controls the pulsar's audio faders?
Will knob movement like this be recorded in the sequencer, so the sequencer controls the pulsar's audio faders?
Message 23/53 11-Jan-99 @ 12:09 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
It seems that major criticism on Pulsar is going on the Pulsar-dsp mailinglist at pulsar-dsp@usa.net. Users seem to be disappointed as the thing is not up to its potential. Instability, code, GUI problems, huge consumption of resources, it seems to be so RAM hundry that it's never enough for a flawless operation. Here's an excerpt from a posting to the list by Stuart Yoshida (I hope the author doens't mind):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-----------------
The Pulsar is an excellent sounding piece of audio hardware with plenty of great features, effects, dynamics processors, and inputs and outputs. In addition, Creamware has created a graphical user interface (GUI) to
represent their modular hardware/software environment that could be the start of a new paradigm for this type of system. However, the current instability and unreasonable resource load of the GUI makes the Pulsar a
marginal solution for those who are searching for the Holy Grail in ultimate low-cost, all-in-one DAW’s. So for now, I'm anxiously awaiting version 1.1 of the software in hopes of coming ever closer to reaching the
true potential of this powerful card.
Here’s how I rate the Pulsar on the “Electronic Musician” scale (out of 5):
Features: 4
Ease-of-use: 2 (due to instability and inefficient code)
Audio Quality: 4.5
Value: 3
PROS: High-quality audio sound, and gazillions of I/O options. Incredible flexibility and features; with everything from a GUI-based patchbay, to classic sounding synths that beat the pants off of any sample-based player,
to a 32-channel MIDI-controllable mixer that is loaded with inserts,processors, effects, and automation (provided you have a MIDI sequencer handy).
CONS: The software is version 1.0. What more can I say? Too many crashes,too long a wait to load projects, too much resource drains on CPU utilization and system memory, and too sluggish a response from the GUI,
especially from a system that is supposed to off-load the CPU with dedicated DSP hardware.
At times I was elated with the Pulsar, and at other times I wanted to rip the card from its slot and send it back. Because on one hand, the new mix came out great in the end. The 4-band parametric EQ was very usable, and
the compressor was quite adequate for beefing up individual tracks. I also put a stereo phase on the lead guitar, and it really added spice to the mix. The quality of the effects are head-and-shoulders above the
equivalent features in SAWPlus, but I would expect that from a system with dedicated hardware. And the GUI patchbay is AWESOME. It’s very intuitive for the most part, and genuinely useful. I loved being about to route and re-route signals with just a click of the mouse to get the configurations I needed to optimize the mix.
On the other hand, I lost 2 hours worth of work when the program crashed and TRASHED THE PROJECT FILE. Yikes! To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement. But this typified the code stability of the initial
release. The slow response of the GUI was also annoying and counter-productive. I would trade-off a less flashy looking GUI for a more responsive program in a heartbeat.
IN SUMMARY
----------
Well, I'm gonna keep the Pulsar, but it’s a close call. Call me a sucker,but I think Creamware will take the Pulsar to its true potential. HOWEVER,they need to also take it to heart that the current release of their code
is in a place far, far from where it needs to be. The fact that the GUI itself requires a system with greater than 128MB of memory and a huge swap file is ridiculous! I can understand the need for plenty of system memory
for things like sample-based synths, but even the 32-channel mixer and “analog” synths suck up resources like a black hole. The excuse of saying,“buy a more powerful system” doesn't fly because that takes the onus off of
Creamware to fully exploit the capabilities of the Pulsar. And the sluggishness of the GUI is inexcusable. If you’re going to make a whole new GUI on top of Windows95, you better make it MORE EFFICIENT than
Windows95. The Pulsar GUI seems to have taken a giant step BACKWARDS.
My question is, “Why doesn't Creamware take the opportunity to create a truly powerful system that completely off-loads the PC so that anyone with
a Pentium computer can take advantage of the Pulsar?” This approach will tap into a much bigger market for them, and there isn't any reason why Creamware couldn't do this with the Pulsar.
Here’re some hard, cold facts about the Pulsar GUI:
* It took two minutes and 51 seconds to load a project into the Pulsar GUI. It took less than two SECONDS to load the equivalent project into SAWPro.
* SAWPro’s interface is very snappy and truly responsive. The automated mixing of channel levels and pan positions hardly makes the computer break a sweat. I can mix a 24-track project on my computer with all kinds of edits and pans, and the resource meter will keep in the 75% to 95% available range. The only things which slows down SAWPro are number crunching intensive operations such as EQ, compression, and reverb that
quickly bring the CPU to its knees. Pulsar, on the other hand, brings the CPU to its knees whenever a MIDI-controlled automated fader movement is made. And that’s where the Pulsar should shine!
So Creamware, here is my challenge to you: use SAWPro as the benchmark in code efficiency and speed that you aspire to reach so that the Pulsar can attain the status of a truly “stellar” product.
Maybe the helpful whitenoise guy could tell something in this regard?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-----------------
The Pulsar is an excellent sounding piece of audio hardware with plenty of great features, effects, dynamics processors, and inputs and outputs. In addition, Creamware has created a graphical user interface (GUI) to
represent their modular hardware/software environment that could be the start of a new paradigm for this type of system. However, the current instability and unreasonable resource load of the GUI makes the Pulsar a
marginal solution for those who are searching for the Holy Grail in ultimate low-cost, all-in-one DAW’s. So for now, I'm anxiously awaiting version 1.1 of the software in hopes of coming ever closer to reaching the
true potential of this powerful card.
Here’s how I rate the Pulsar on the “Electronic Musician” scale (out of 5):
Features: 4
Ease-of-use: 2 (due to instability and inefficient code)
Audio Quality: 4.5
Value: 3
PROS: High-quality audio sound, and gazillions of I/O options. Incredible flexibility and features; with everything from a GUI-based patchbay, to classic sounding synths that beat the pants off of any sample-based player,
to a 32-channel MIDI-controllable mixer that is loaded with inserts,processors, effects, and automation (provided you have a MIDI sequencer handy).
CONS: The software is version 1.0. What more can I say? Too many crashes,too long a wait to load projects, too much resource drains on CPU utilization and system memory, and too sluggish a response from the GUI,
especially from a system that is supposed to off-load the CPU with dedicated DSP hardware.
At times I was elated with the Pulsar, and at other times I wanted to rip the card from its slot and send it back. Because on one hand, the new mix came out great in the end. The 4-band parametric EQ was very usable, and
the compressor was quite adequate for beefing up individual tracks. I also put a stereo phase on the lead guitar, and it really added spice to the mix. The quality of the effects are head-and-shoulders above the
equivalent features in SAWPlus, but I would expect that from a system with dedicated hardware. And the GUI patchbay is AWESOME. It’s very intuitive for the most part, and genuinely useful. I loved being about to route and re-route signals with just a click of the mouse to get the configurations I needed to optimize the mix.
On the other hand, I lost 2 hours worth of work when the program crashed and TRASHED THE PROJECT FILE. Yikes! To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement. But this typified the code stability of the initial
release. The slow response of the GUI was also annoying and counter-productive. I would trade-off a less flashy looking GUI for a more responsive program in a heartbeat.
IN SUMMARY
----------
Well, I'm gonna keep the Pulsar, but it’s a close call. Call me a sucker,but I think Creamware will take the Pulsar to its true potential. HOWEVER,they need to also take it to heart that the current release of their code
is in a place far, far from where it needs to be. The fact that the GUI itself requires a system with greater than 128MB of memory and a huge swap file is ridiculous! I can understand the need for plenty of system memory
for things like sample-based synths, but even the 32-channel mixer and “analog” synths suck up resources like a black hole. The excuse of saying,“buy a more powerful system” doesn't fly because that takes the onus off of
Creamware to fully exploit the capabilities of the Pulsar. And the sluggishness of the GUI is inexcusable. If you’re going to make a whole new GUI on top of Windows95, you better make it MORE EFFICIENT than
Windows95. The Pulsar GUI seems to have taken a giant step BACKWARDS.
My question is, “Why doesn't Creamware take the opportunity to create a truly powerful system that completely off-loads the PC so that anyone with
a Pentium computer can take advantage of the Pulsar?” This approach will tap into a much bigger market for them, and there isn't any reason why Creamware couldn't do this with the Pulsar.
Here’re some hard, cold facts about the Pulsar GUI:
* It took two minutes and 51 seconds to load a project into the Pulsar GUI. It took less than two SECONDS to load the equivalent project into SAWPro.
* SAWPro’s interface is very snappy and truly responsive. The automated mixing of channel levels and pan positions hardly makes the computer break a sweat. I can mix a 24-track project on my computer with all kinds of edits and pans, and the resource meter will keep in the 75% to 95% available range. The only things which slows down SAWPro are number crunching intensive operations such as EQ, compression, and reverb that
quickly bring the CPU to its knees. Pulsar, on the other hand, brings the CPU to its knees whenever a MIDI-controlled automated fader movement is made. And that’s where the Pulsar should shine!
So Creamware, here is my challenge to you: use SAWPro as the benchmark in code efficiency and speed that you aspire to reach so that the Pulsar can attain the status of a truly “stellar” product.
Maybe the helpful whitenoise guy could tell something in this regard?
Message 24/53 11-Jan-99 @ 06:18 PM - That sure sheds some light
128 mgs of memory in your computer to run Pulsar? You gotta be shitting me!!
Why would creamware design a self-contained system that runs slow? This sure makes me think twice about this card. I don't want to curse and moan every 5 minutes when using it.
Hey, Mr. White Noise, what about this? Maybe the above mentioned system is not configured correctly? Otherwise, this is fucked.
Mr. Realist
Why would creamware design a self-contained system that runs slow? This sure makes me think twice about this card. I don't want to curse and moan every 5 minutes when using it.
Hey, Mr. White Noise, what about this? Maybe the above mentioned system is not configured correctly? Otherwise, this is fucked.
Mr. Realist
Message 25/53 11-Jan-99 @ 07:35 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
I KNEW WINDOWS 95 WOULD BE THE DEATH OF THIS CARD. INDEPENDENT OPERATING SYSTEM MY ASS.
Message 26/53 12-Jan-99 @ 02:52 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
I've only just gotten onto the list, but from what I've
read a lot of users' problems have been because of too
much load on the pci bus. I wonder if Mr. Yoshida's GUI
problems would result w/ an AGP graphics card, which would
be a cheap fix.
Realist2, if you've got info on his specific setup, I'd
appreciate readin
read a lot of users' problems have been because of too
much load on the pci bus. I wonder if Mr. Yoshida's GUI
problems would result w/ an AGP graphics card, which would
be a cheap fix.
Realist2, if you've got info on his specific setup, I'd
appreciate readin
Message 27/53 12-Jan-99 @ 05:43 AM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Hi Gang; I've been bust for a couple of days - looks like y'all have been too. ;o) Stirrin' that ol' rumor pot is quite time consuming isn't it? Well, gosh, whose questions do I try to answer first. I'll tell you whose I'm not going to bother with - the repost. That is from the Pulsa-DSP Factory mailing list and as far as I am concerned the "debate" can rage there. I see no need to address the same information on two different forums. Sorry if you don't like that - but not really. *chuckle*
I will say though: No, Creamware is not "shitting" about the advised use of at least 128MB of RAM - especially for those of us, (myself included,) with "slower" machines. What the *un-realists* apparently choose to disregard is that systems of this nature are going to continually demand more performance capability of the system in general. Yes, Pulsar DOES do things that do not eat clock cycles on the CPU. That does not mean that other system elements are not having demand placed upon them, and _those_ perfunctory tasks DO require administration by the Master Computer. (Insert heavy, descending diminished chord progression here.)
Where are applications and their components stored? On the harddrives. Where do applications and there components get loaded to? RAM. Who executes the instructions contained in the applications and their components? THAT depends. In Pulsar's case - the SHARC processors. Who paints the pictures on the screen? The Video card. Who tells everybody when to jump and how high? The CPU - Coppus Pluribus Unum.
Sorry, bub, but your 233 is probably not a lot better than my 200. Of course, if you were just a bit more realistic you might find all kinds of use for Pulsar in your system. I do. I also find that after having used it on a faster system, I want a faster system. With more RAM, faster RAM, faster CPU, faster harddrives. And yes, I can use my host-based application's talents, (I believe you mentioned Cubase,) and Pulsar's talents combined. Of course - THAT's what it was designed for!! People who wouldn't take the time to investigate Creamware's audio production applications. ;o)
So, don't think twice about the card, Mr. Realist the First. Don't think about it at all. Use something else - some "couple-hundred dollar maybe more than two channel interface". It'll probably work just fine for you and you'll never have any difficulty whatsoever. After all, all it will be is just some ins and some outs, right? What could go wrong? You've got all of the processing you'll ever need in your software.
No, I'm not being condescending, but I also do not feel inclined to have to re-iterate and re-justify everything I say because you choose to hear something negative, take IT as gospel without anymore research or verification than you've given to my commentary, and launch insulting and negative commentaries in a public forum. You give barbs - expect 'em back. I'm only human, after all.
FWIW - there are at least as many, if not more people, on that list who have NOT had problems to report as "drastic" as Mr. Yoshida's. There are also quite a number of people I contact personally in my territory who do not participate on the Internet - THEY WORK. AND, they work _now_ using Pulsar. People are quite happy with most aspects of Pulsar. And there are things that Creamware FREELY ACKNOWLEDGES need to be fixed and improved. If all you want to do is bellyache - then start a thread of "Pulsar Whines". ;o) I promise not to interfere - or participate. You can say whatever you want!!
The FACT is that in spite of admitted and acknowledged and irritating and annoying problems, bugs, omissions, etc... Pulsar works. Today. And people are not slowing down buying it, the pace is pickin up. There is nothing else that does what this does. Period. There is nothing else today that will be able to do what this will be able to do tomorrow. Period. Particularly in this price range. Period.
As to the questions regarding the external controllers... Creamware is working on hardware surface concepts - but nothing in any way shape or form is announced or pending announcement at this time. I wouldn't expect to hear anything on the topic until the end of the year. If you are trying to develop your own controller, the only way I can imagine interfacing it at this time would be MIDI and that will introduce those 128 value limitations. You can _try_ to see if you might qualify as a Development Partner, but that is not through me - you need to contact Creamware directly.
On a more civil note with Mr. Realist the First and his questions concerning converters. You're absolutely right about the 96kHz thing. You're probably looking at a bit-splitting convertoer feeding the dual lightpipe inteface for a total of 8 channels from 16. Creamware has indicated that dither would occur at mixer output, but as yet has provided no details. I suspect we might hear something 'round the NAMM show/end of the month projected v1.1 release time.
I personally have been too busy creating the scripts for the trade show demos and content for my web site and attending to my Dealer's needs and assisting local customers and re-locating to take any time to do any recording myself. Besides, I'm hoping I can avoid ever having to use a MIDI sequencer for audio recording altogether and the v3.0 release for tripleDAT will arrive to spare me that horror. I may have to succumb, but it will be with strong resistance, I assure you. ;o) Oh, and I think that they've sneaked a peek of another synth onto the website. Of course, it probably isn't worth much since it's free....
Best of Luck!!
P.S. - I would appreciate it, tremendously, if you folks wish to address me that you use my name. I'm not ashamed of it - that's why I include it - and my real address too. I even named my company after me. What an ego, huh? ;o) Just a little respect though, please. It'd go a long way. And, "Jeff" is just fine. ;o) You want to remain anonymous, that's your call.
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
I will say though: No, Creamware is not "shitting" about the advised use of at least 128MB of RAM - especially for those of us, (myself included,) with "slower" machines. What the *un-realists* apparently choose to disregard is that systems of this nature are going to continually demand more performance capability of the system in general. Yes, Pulsar DOES do things that do not eat clock cycles on the CPU. That does not mean that other system elements are not having demand placed upon them, and _those_ perfunctory tasks DO require administration by the Master Computer. (Insert heavy, descending diminished chord progression here.)
Where are applications and their components stored? On the harddrives. Where do applications and there components get loaded to? RAM. Who executes the instructions contained in the applications and their components? THAT depends. In Pulsar's case - the SHARC processors. Who paints the pictures on the screen? The Video card. Who tells everybody when to jump and how high? The CPU - Coppus Pluribus Unum.
Sorry, bub, but your 233 is probably not a lot better than my 200. Of course, if you were just a bit more realistic you might find all kinds of use for Pulsar in your system. I do. I also find that after having used it on a faster system, I want a faster system. With more RAM, faster RAM, faster CPU, faster harddrives. And yes, I can use my host-based application's talents, (I believe you mentioned Cubase,) and Pulsar's talents combined. Of course - THAT's what it was designed for!! People who wouldn't take the time to investigate Creamware's audio production applications. ;o)
So, don't think twice about the card, Mr. Realist the First. Don't think about it at all. Use something else - some "couple-hundred dollar maybe more than two channel interface". It'll probably work just fine for you and you'll never have any difficulty whatsoever. After all, all it will be is just some ins and some outs, right? What could go wrong? You've got all of the processing you'll ever need in your software.
No, I'm not being condescending, but I also do not feel inclined to have to re-iterate and re-justify everything I say because you choose to hear something negative, take IT as gospel without anymore research or verification than you've given to my commentary, and launch insulting and negative commentaries in a public forum. You give barbs - expect 'em back. I'm only human, after all.
FWIW - there are at least as many, if not more people, on that list who have NOT had problems to report as "drastic" as Mr. Yoshida's. There are also quite a number of people I contact personally in my territory who do not participate on the Internet - THEY WORK. AND, they work _now_ using Pulsar. People are quite happy with most aspects of Pulsar. And there are things that Creamware FREELY ACKNOWLEDGES need to be fixed and improved. If all you want to do is bellyache - then start a thread of "Pulsar Whines". ;o) I promise not to interfere - or participate. You can say whatever you want!!
The FACT is that in spite of admitted and acknowledged and irritating and annoying problems, bugs, omissions, etc... Pulsar works. Today. And people are not slowing down buying it, the pace is pickin up. There is nothing else that does what this does. Period. There is nothing else today that will be able to do what this will be able to do tomorrow. Period. Particularly in this price range. Period.
As to the questions regarding the external controllers... Creamware is working on hardware surface concepts - but nothing in any way shape or form is announced or pending announcement at this time. I wouldn't expect to hear anything on the topic until the end of the year. If you are trying to develop your own controller, the only way I can imagine interfacing it at this time would be MIDI and that will introduce those 128 value limitations. You can _try_ to see if you might qualify as a Development Partner, but that is not through me - you need to contact Creamware directly.
On a more civil note with Mr. Realist the First and his questions concerning converters. You're absolutely right about the 96kHz thing. You're probably looking at a bit-splitting convertoer feeding the dual lightpipe inteface for a total of 8 channels from 16. Creamware has indicated that dither would occur at mixer output, but as yet has provided no details. I suspect we might hear something 'round the NAMM show/end of the month projected v1.1 release time.
I personally have been too busy creating the scripts for the trade show demos and content for my web site and attending to my Dealer's needs and assisting local customers and re-locating to take any time to do any recording myself. Besides, I'm hoping I can avoid ever having to use a MIDI sequencer for audio recording altogether and the v3.0 release for tripleDAT will arrive to spare me that horror. I may have to succumb, but it will be with strong resistance, I assure you. ;o) Oh, and I think that they've sneaked a peek of another synth onto the website. Of course, it probably isn't worth much since it's free....
Best of Luck!!
P.S. - I would appreciate it, tremendously, if you folks wish to address me that you use my name. I'm not ashamed of it - that's why I include it - and my real address too. I even named my company after me. What an ego, huh? ;o) Just a little respect though, please. It'd go a long way. And, "Jeff" is just fine. ;o) You want to remain anonymous, that's your call.
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Message 28/53 12-Jan-99 @ 04:53 PM - It's good to have you back, Jeffrey...
We were wondering if you had decided to leave us. Then we'd have to find someone else to throw barbs at!!
Just kidding. You can see I don't take all of this back and forth yapping seriously, right?
About the pulsar: The previous post about the guy having serious problems brings up a few issues here:
Most people do not have a PII 450 machine with 128 mgs ram to run pulsar, software, etc. Of course, the more power the better. But creamware advertises the pulsar to run on it's own without cpu drainage, and that looks appealing to the average schmoe (like me) who has a slower computer and wants a pro sound card.
Creamware should come out and say, "You need a PII 300 (or whatever) and 128 mgs ram to get full functionality from the card." Of course, to do this would be a knife in the back of their sales, as they depend so much on the novice musician who looks at the brochure and says, "Wow, it looks cool and they say it does all this stuff, so I'm going to buy it." Hey, I've been there too, and I've learned some lessons along the way myself.
Another thing: I'd like to demo the card. How in the hell am I going to do that? The stores don't have them because there sold before they arrive (thank you clever marketing schemes). So am I dependent on what users say about it. And believe me, that guy above with the problems weighs quite heavily in swaying my opinion.
To summarize: Anything computer related will have problems, including the mixer/blender/coffee maker sound card that does it all. These forums are the voice of the infantry, not the officers....
Mr. Realist
Just kidding. You can see I don't take all of this back and forth yapping seriously, right?
About the pulsar: The previous post about the guy having serious problems brings up a few issues here:
Most people do not have a PII 450 machine with 128 mgs ram to run pulsar, software, etc. Of course, the more power the better. But creamware advertises the pulsar to run on it's own without cpu drainage, and that looks appealing to the average schmoe (like me) who has a slower computer and wants a pro sound card.
Creamware should come out and say, "You need a PII 300 (or whatever) and 128 mgs ram to get full functionality from the card." Of course, to do this would be a knife in the back of their sales, as they depend so much on the novice musician who looks at the brochure and says, "Wow, it looks cool and they say it does all this stuff, so I'm going to buy it." Hey, I've been there too, and I've learned some lessons along the way myself.
Another thing: I'd like to demo the card. How in the hell am I going to do that? The stores don't have them because there sold before they arrive (thank you clever marketing schemes). So am I dependent on what users say about it. And believe me, that guy above with the problems weighs quite heavily in swaying my opinion.
To summarize: Anything computer related will have problems, including the mixer/blender/coffee maker sound card that does it all. These forums are the voice of the infantry, not the officers....
Mr. Realist
Message 29/53 12-Jan-99 @ 07:01 PM - RE: Pulsar is realy good??
Mr. Realist:
Cool, Man. I think you and I are actually making progress. And, truthfully, I have noticed quite a bit of sincere interest and thought in your posts - in and amongst the, well.... you know... ;o)
Pulsar has only been shipping a little over a month. Prior to that, Creamware was reluctant to put out a "minimal/optimal/excellent" system recommendation because it simply did not know how far it could take the software prior to release. I tell you truthfully that there is a significant difference in the performance of the software from the Beta version one week before release and what started shipping as v1.0.
I haven't called Creamware anonymously to inquire as to what they are recommending, but I think it has been put out there in more than one instance and pretty well established. Likewise, I am too busy to go peruse their web site daily to find out what their content or layout is. That's their responsibility, not mine. ;o) Your suggestion is quite valid and I beleive they have taken to recommending 300/128 as a realistic starting point.
Please do not forget (or mis-understand,) that Pulsar - like all Creamware products - is targeted as a professional product - not an enthusiast or hobbyist product. Just because it - like other Creamware products - has an attractively "low" price point (by comparison with many things) does not mean that it is intended even as an upgrade for someone who previously has done everything and been satisfied with a SoundBlaster. (My sincere apologies if anyone takes offense at that, but it is one of the best illustrations that can be made. If you ARE satisfied with your SoundBlaster, THAT is what is important.)
Only a week ago did Pulsar Plus become available. In two weeks we have the largest trade show of the year. Around that event are several proposed and planned reveisions, releases, and possibilities for announcements. But new announcements are held very close to the vest. Not even us reps get that information. To risky!! ;o)
The point is, Pulsar does run on slower machines. Slowly. ;o) I'm typing to you right now from the machine I use it on - a P-200, pre-MMX, with 64 MB EDO RAM, 2.5 GB EIDE HD, 2940UW, 5400 RPM 3GB SCSI HD, stock (wimpy) video. I run Pulsar. And I am psyched with it. BUT - I also realize that to use it the way I would LIKE to be able to use it, I need much. MUCH more machine.
Heck, I need much much more Pulsar. Rather, I am eagerly waiting for SCOPE - and the I/O-less, software-less SCOPE card that will be less than $5k retail for use as DSP expansion with Pulsar. AND much much more machine. I haven't bothered trying to do any serious recording with a MIDI sequencer because, IMHO and that of others, there are lots of problems with them. I have Cubase VST-24 and Cakewalk Pro Audio 8 and Sound Forge and Acid as well as tripleDAT. All of them work - to varying degrees. But I could easily spend all of my time becoming proficient enough with each of them and never really accomplish much. Perhaps after NAMM..... ;o)
The two single loudest complaints occurring right now on the pulsar-dsp@usa.net mailing list are related to recording offset in Cakewalk and rapid screen redraws. The first is not a "latency" issue as much as it pertains to the driver itself. It is known, it will be addressed quickly and should be resolved within a matter of days. The second creates more of a problem if trying to use the onscreen meters "reliably and accurately". Since I have always used meters _only_ as a tacet reference, it hasn't been a problem for me - but I am not everyone. ;o)
One surprise I found was that the release version of the FM synth went out as monophonic. I can only imagine that there will be a forthcoming change to that.
Anyway, come up with more questions. I'll do my best for you folks. As time permits. I am flying to BC next week and won't be around much for about three weeks because of the trade show and immediately following activities.
Regarding the User getting a demonstration.... I agree with you 1000% - the sotres should take the responsibility of setting up demo units on their floors. They do with other products. The sheer quantity of computer hardware though has made this an increasingly complex problem. I will say that Sam Ash in Hollywood DOES have a Pulsar instaled in a demo system on the floor - and a 300/128 to boot! It rocks!! I was really excited to go in and use their system.
You should check with your local Dealers to see if they a) carry Creamware and B) when they are scheduling product presentations with their local reps. We are very active in doing this right now - and for months to come. I am already booking into March in my area. You can always call Creamware to find out where a demo might be presented in your area as well.
Best of Luck!!
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Cool, Man. I think you and I are actually making progress. And, truthfully, I have noticed quite a bit of sincere interest and thought in your posts - in and amongst the, well.... you know... ;o)
Pulsar has only been shipping a little over a month. Prior to that, Creamware was reluctant to put out a "minimal/optimal/excellent" system recommendation because it simply did not know how far it could take the software prior to release. I tell you truthfully that there is a significant difference in the performance of the software from the Beta version one week before release and what started shipping as v1.0.
I haven't called Creamware anonymously to inquire as to what they are recommending, but I think it has been put out there in more than one instance and pretty well established. Likewise, I am too busy to go peruse their web site daily to find out what their content or layout is. That's their responsibility, not mine. ;o) Your suggestion is quite valid and I beleive they have taken to recommending 300/128 as a realistic starting point.
Please do not forget (or mis-understand,) that Pulsar - like all Creamware products - is targeted as a professional product - not an enthusiast or hobbyist product. Just because it - like other Creamware products - has an attractively "low" price point (by comparison with many things) does not mean that it is intended even as an upgrade for someone who previously has done everything and been satisfied with a SoundBlaster. (My sincere apologies if anyone takes offense at that, but it is one of the best illustrations that can be made. If you ARE satisfied with your SoundBlaster, THAT is what is important.)
Only a week ago did Pulsar Plus become available. In two weeks we have the largest trade show of the year. Around that event are several proposed and planned reveisions, releases, and possibilities for announcements. But new announcements are held very close to the vest. Not even us reps get that information. To risky!! ;o)
The point is, Pulsar does run on slower machines. Slowly. ;o) I'm typing to you right now from the machine I use it on - a P-200, pre-MMX, with 64 MB EDO RAM, 2.5 GB EIDE HD, 2940UW, 5400 RPM 3GB SCSI HD, stock (wimpy) video. I run Pulsar. And I am psyched with it. BUT - I also realize that to use it the way I would LIKE to be able to use it, I need much. MUCH more machine.
Heck, I need much much more Pulsar. Rather, I am eagerly waiting for SCOPE - and the I/O-less, software-less SCOPE card that will be less than $5k retail for use as DSP expansion with Pulsar. AND much much more machine. I haven't bothered trying to do any serious recording with a MIDI sequencer because, IMHO and that of others, there are lots of problems with them. I have Cubase VST-24 and Cakewalk Pro Audio 8 and Sound Forge and Acid as well as tripleDAT. All of them work - to varying degrees. But I could easily spend all of my time becoming proficient enough with each of them and never really accomplish much. Perhaps after NAMM..... ;o)
The two single loudest complaints occurring right now on the pulsar-dsp@usa.net mailing list are related to recording offset in Cakewalk and rapid screen redraws. The first is not a "latency" issue as much as it pertains to the driver itself. It is known, it will be addressed quickly and should be resolved within a matter of days. The second creates more of a problem if trying to use the onscreen meters "reliably and accurately". Since I have always used meters _only_ as a tacet reference, it hasn't been a problem for me - but I am not everyone. ;o)
One surprise I found was that the release version of the FM synth went out as monophonic. I can only imagine that there will be a forthcoming change to that.
Anyway, come up with more questions. I'll do my best for you folks. As time permits. I am flying to BC next week and won't be around much for about three weeks because of the trade show and immediately following activities.
Regarding the User getting a demonstration.... I agree with you 1000% - the sotres should take the responsibility of setting up demo units on their floors. They do with other products. The sheer quantity of computer hardware though has made this an increasingly complex problem. I will say that Sam Ash in Hollywood DOES have a Pulsar instaled in a demo system on the floor - and a 300/128 to boot! It rocks!! I was really excited to go in and use their system.
You should check with your local Dealers to see if they a) carry Creamware and B) when they are scheduling product presentations with their local reps. We are very active in doing this right now - and for months to come. I am already booking into March in my area. You can always call Creamware to find out where a demo might be presented in your area as well.
Best of Luck!!
Jeff White President White Noise Marketing http://www.whitenoisemarketing.com
Message 30/53 13-Jan-99 @ 01:41 AM - Pulsar Sample player
This is a big one: Is the sample player multi-timbral?
Can you drive a sequencer with up to 16 different patches?
This sounds like it would be too good to be true, as then it would be a sound module and we would all be as happy as a pig in slop!!!
Mr. Realist
Can you drive a sequencer with up to 16 different patches?
This sounds like it would be too good to be true, as then it would be a sound module and we would all be as happy as a pig in slop!!!
Mr. Realist
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
