Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [oasys-pci] So what did the world want?

Expand Messages
    That s not a bad idea but I think that what bothered people most was not that it was in the computer, but that after spending so much money on the Oasys at the
    Message 1 of 57 , Dec 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      That's not a bad idea but I think that what bothered people most was not that
      it was in the computer, but that after spending so much money on the Oasys at
      the end of the day there wasn't enough DSP power to use more of the great
      sounds it did make at once. If we've learned anything its that there is never
      enough of a good thing, most DSP cards offer some degree of modularity, in that
      they are Multi card capable. You can get a few UAD-1's, Pulsars, TC
      Powercores, SW1000XG PLG's etc. In this way you would be able to build up to
      the level of DSP power you need. But with the Oasys I think many felt that it
      was too much to spend on a card that seemed to run out of power just when it
      was getting good. Take Creamware for instance if you want a little you can get
      it, if you want more you can get it, if you want to get ludicrous amounts of
      DSP, you can get it. If Korg had a similar modular approach perhaps they could
      have offered a card priced lower with just a little less DSP, but you could
      build up the system by adding more cards. And then they could have a Deluxe
      model that offered on one card a massive amount of DSP for those who wanted it.
      There was no entry level only the top of the line, so if you weren't ready to
      dive in the deep end and get the pricey Oasys, there was no other option. They
      should have kept the 1212 I/O but added a few DSP's to it and called it the
      entry level Oasys.

      TRACE :)

      --- Elmar Kurgpold <elmar@...> wrote:
      > But would people really have bought a PC+Oasys at 4k? What else could
      > you do with it (hypothetically speaking of course)? Would I be forced
      > to give up DP and use Cubase? Is Cubase certified on the "Oasys PC"?
      > Well, that's just the beginning...
      > We go through this discussion every few weeks, it seems, and everybody
      > (not excluding myself) seems to have their own idea of what would have
      > made Oasys successful.
      > Based on the previous few posts on this subject (and my own intuitive
      > market "research"), I think what would have sold better is a rack mount
      > version with a healthy and well organized library of sounds. Then you
      > connect it to your Mac or PC via MIDI or USB or whatever and use the
      > editor, just like we use today. Kinda like the POD, where you get some
      > cool sounds to play with, and the ability to go in and tweak via MIDI if
      > you so desire.
      > ++Elmar

      *** JAMTRAX ***
      Music Production

      Long Island, New York


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
    • Eric Baird <eric_baird@compuserve.com>
      ... I haven t tried the PlugSound stuff, but Atmosphere didn t seem to be especially processor-hungry on my system (XP2100+, DDR). It /is/ very memory-hungry,
      Message 57 of 57 , Dec 23, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In oasys-pci@yahoogroups.com, Dan Phillips <dan@k...> wrote:
        > I have to wonder if we are talking about the same product. I've
        > tried UVI's PlugSound instruments, and while they sound OK, they
        > have fairly limited synthesis capabilities, and yet use far more
        > processing power than some other soft synths. With low buffer
        > settings for reasonable latency, a three-voice drum pattern used
        > most of the processing power on my G4/400.

        I haven't tried the PlugSound stuff, but Atmosphere didn't seem to be
        especially processor-hungry on my system (XP2100+, DDR).
        It /is/ very memory-hungry, I think they recommend 512 or a Gig of
        memory if you want to be able to run a few of them at once, as part
        of a larger system.

        Yes, the synthesis on OASYS is pretty limited, but it's not really
        meant for radical synthesis -- as a "pad" machine with a big library,
        that's not really a problem. If you suddenly decide that you just
        want a Solina pad or a generic string section, and those things have
        already been set up to play nicely on Atmosphere, chances are you
        won't be wanting to dive in and radically change the sound.
        What I meant when I said that I thought that his was the way that the
        market was going, was that so far most of the softsynth efforts have
        been pure synthesis or pure samplers ... now I think were going to
        see more attempts to produce playable instruments based on large
        libraries and playback engines optimised for a particular job.

        Spectrasonics' "Trilogy" bass VST is a good example, it has another
        three Gig sample library, but is set up specially for playing
        basslines (eg it has has a feature that allows it to trigger slide
        and fretnoises by noteoffs).
        And I just noticed that Steinberg are bringing out a special "String
        edition" of Halon. I think we'll see some more of these.

        > So far, at least, soft samplers/sample players don't seem to
        > provide a compelling reason to trade in my e6400 Ultra, which
        > offers 64 voices (upgradable to 128), has no appreciable latency,
        > includes sophisticated synthesis features and superior audio
        > and finally has zero affect on my CPU. :-)

        Well, if they bring out something like that with an mLAN interface, I
        might be interested.

        > One might point out that soft samplers are cheaper. That's true -
        > but I would counter that you get what you pay for.

        To some extent.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.