Wolfgang,
Thank you again for your information. I
certainly appreciate the fact that you've
taken your time to make such a complete and thorough report of your experience. And let me assure you that your breath is not wasted.
Joel and I discussed it on chat last night.
The problems which you expressed are being investigated, and there will be an answer forthcoming as soon as all issues can be addressed. Please have a little patience, as
Joel told me that it will take a little time to check into these matters.

Good morning everyone!,,,,Now lets take a look at this step by step

> Let`s start in the first part just with technical facts

As you know or understand them, let's make this clear.

> You get 16 buses with a SSHDR 1 (I think you get 32 with the Red but
that makes no difference) and 4 analog/digital outs and 2 ins plus 1 TDIF
(for the Red you got 3 TDIFs).

32-buses R.Ed (all models) and SSHDR1-Plus with Mixpander installed.

> The SSHDR 1 can do 12 tracks, the regular Red 32 tracks and the Red24 ,
guess what, 24 right.
> If 12 or 24 or 32 tracks are not enough you can add another unit and now
the problem starts.
> You are not able to connect the buses from one unit with the other. The
first machine has bus 1 to 16 and unit 2-bus 17 to 32. The same with the
ins and outs. It`s not possible to use them on the other unit and vice
versa. The only chance to connect 2 units together is with the TDIF bus
what means with a SSHDR 1 you`re loosing the only TDIF connector and you
have no chance to bring a third unit in that chain. The same with the RED
for 3 units you are loosing 2 TDIF ports and have just connected 8 buses
together. And don`t forget the heavy patching.
> I have left a lot of Y cables from that days.

I'm sure many users of 'other' systems have been left with much more
'legacy' hardware than just Y cables .

> For a reasonable mix inside the units without a separate mixing board you
have to have the mixpander card witch is announced now for almost 4 !!!
years and is supposed to be available at January. We`ll see.

The first Mixpanders shipped just before the end of November as promised in
the initial press releases in October. On time and working as expected.
Some users have already received them. Yes it was late, but find me a
product that ships on-time and it'll probably have been 'under tested'. The
market is full of products that ship with buggy, V1.0 (read beta) software
and hardware that is not really 'user ready'.
The only announcement made earlier was that there would be a DSP expansion,
with nothing more specific about dates or cost. It was an explanation of
the 512 channel expansion bus that was included in the V2 upgrade release
in 1997.

> In the SSHDR you have 1.5 DSP`s which are the same Digi is using, in the
RED you have 3. You can imagine what happens if you are using some serious
plugins. Nothing. So without a DSP expander no way. But you just can add
one expander with one unit. For every unit you have you have to buy a new
mixpander and guess what: still no chance to connect the buses together.
It is planned to bring out a expansion chassis but on the pictures of the
mixpandercards I can`t see a plug like the TDM cable. So it`s just a
housing.

The hardware has connectors to link Mixpanders together via 32-buses.
Software to enable this is in progress, however it's worth pointing out
that one Mixpander/9 card provides an enormous amount of DSP processing
power, far more than is available for any other multi DSP card, so there
not such a great need to connect multiple cards as there is for other
systems. Check out the specs for Mixpander/9 on our web site and then
compare with what's claimed for a PT MixPlus system (12 DSPs).
R.Ed stands for Recorder.Editor. It was never designed to be the full mixer
and effects engine without additional processing power. That's why the DSP
Expansion connector with 512 channel TDM bus is there !
The DSP expansion is available to ALL Soundscape users many of whom bought
their systems over the past 7 years. Also ALL of the features from the
latest Soundscape software and ALLplug-insare available to every
Soundscape DAW user. You don't have to buy the latest recorder hardware to
take advantage of this.
For instance, 24 bit recording is available for every Soundscape DAW, even
though the SSHDR1-Plus was designed for 16 bit operation. Find another
recording product that has managed this without significantly changing the
hardware.
With the Mixpander release and of course, the 96kHz support in R.Ed,
Soundscape DAWs have finally moved ahead in technical terms compared to the
main competition.
Mixpander is more powerful than any other DSP processing engine available
and has very advanced architechture and busing structure, so that you
don't run out of connections and you can 100% load the DSPs. For instance,
on Mixpander there are thousands of connections between DSP processes. This
is a significant step when you consider that the main reference (so far)
for DSP based mixing and effects, has been PT, where there are only 256
connections between DSP processes. This means that with an expanded system
(e.g. more than 12 DSPs) you have an imbalance between DSPs and
connections, and many PT users have complained that they run out of TDM
connections way before the DSPs are fully loaded.
It's not just how many DSPs or how fast they are, it's the efficiency of
the actual DSP code and how well you can load the DSPs that really counts.
Soundscape has always had very efficient use of DSPs and has been able to
load multipleplug-insper DSP since V2 was released in Jan 1997. For PT,
this arrived much later (multi-shell), around two years later ar the end of
1998, as I recall. All Soundscapeplug-instherefore share DSPs with other plug-ins whereas for PT, there are still manyplug-insthat currently
don't support multi-shell.
Mixpander also allows integration with PC based applications like
Gigasampler, Acid, VST etc. with streaming buses to/from the same DSP
based mixer that mixes the tracks from R.Ed/SSHDR1-Plus. As Soundscape
requires minimal use of the PC's processing time, you can happily use the
PC for these other applications. The dynamic mix automation from
R.Ed/SSHDR1-Plus can also be used for audio streams from the other
aplications. This means that for the first time a complete music
workstation is available on the PC with the right amount of additional
horsepower to run serious effects.

> The host card to the computer is a ISA card. For everybody who don`t know
PC: this ISA card is a 8 bit connection and is comparable to the old Nubus
but even older. The PC 2000 norm says that ISA isn`t supported anymore and
there is almost no modern motherboard which has more than 1 ISA slot on it.
If it has one.

We have a standard EPP Printer Port cable available for use with R.Ed or
SSHDR1-Plus that allows users without an ISA slot to connect their unit to
any PC or to a laptop. As the connection is purely for control (the PC's
CPU is not involved in any real-time handling of audio at all, the speed or
data width is not an issue.
There's a PCI solution available now that we've just tested and this is to
use a very inexpensive EPP Printer Port PCI card with our EPP cable.
Details will be available shortly, but we've just tested this.
There will also be a PCI version of the host card next year.
There are many PC motherboards still available with one ISA slot (checkout
ASUS, ABit etc.). As Soundscape specifically doesn't require a fast PC, the
issue of constantly being forced to update your computer generally doesn't
arise. As pointed out in other postings, Soundscape will still work
perfectly happily on a very low end PC.
So, several options available here.

ca> With one host card you can run 2 SS units and all datas between the
computer and the units have to pass this 8 bit miracle. If you bounced a
mix and wants to burn it you have to copy it on the PC disk. If you wants
to do a backup you have to copy everything to the PC harddisk cause the PC
can`t see the SS disks. So world wide waiting is announced. Just remember
the old PT days when every card has it`s own SCSI bus ? That`s it. And if
you wants to copy a soundfile from one unit to the other it all has to go
thru that ISA speed monster.

Copies between units/drives connected to the same cable don't use the host
card. It's used for copies to/from PC or for example when copying from unit
1 to unit 3.

> SS is working with IDE disks. Maybe fast enough maybe reliable enough but
on the SS website there is not 1 aproofed harddisk which you still can buy,
it`s all models which are not anymore on the market and furthermore not
every disk which is working with a SSHDR is working with the RED and vice
versa. You all know how good SCSI disk are working with PT. 64 channels
record and play with 1 disk without fades and cuts are no problem.

Any low cost modern EIDE hard drive will work with R.Ed - eg. IBM, Seagate,
Western Digital, Maxtor, Quantum etc. IBM 75 GB drives are available and
cheap and there are a large number of drives over 30GB available.
With the SSHDR1-Plus, it's a little more restrictive due to some interface
timing issues with the latest drives. Even though there's an ATA spec for
drives we've found several times that when a manufacturer changes the range
fo hard drive models, even though the previous range was fine, the newer
model is not compatible in some respect. I should point out that this is
not something that's limited to Soundscape, other DAW manufacturers also
have to test and approve drives and sometimes have had very specific narrow
range of suppprted drives.
However, we've tested the Western Digital Caviar 45GB drive with the
SSHDR1-Plus and several others in the range. Fujitsu drives have also
generally produced good results.
As you know well, many Soundscape users have posted their findings about
drives on the Soundscape forum that they are using successfully.

Since you bring up PT, it's worth making the following comparison :-
For R.Ed, just one drive can playback all 32 tracks. For PT, 3 drives are
recommended for 64 track playback and 4 (16 tracks per drive) if you have a
lot of edits (this is directly from their web site today).
Since IDE is still way cheaper than SCSI for similar performing/size
drives, there's quite a cost benefit for drives for R.Ed.

> About fades: every fade is done by DSP. So if you want to export the
arrangement to a different DAW (thru the ISA card) you have to bounce down
every fade otherwise they are lost !

On the other hand, systems that have to generate a new file of each fade
can take ages to startup (ie. after a crash - you know ) and these files
often get lost in transfer to another system. Which way is better ? There
are positive and negative points to both approaches.

> About tracks and voices: SS don`t know a difference. Every track has just
one voice. With a SSHDR you can open 12 tracks and thats it. Even if on one
track is just 1 sec audio at the beginning of the song and you need
something different at the end, no way to share it. Maybe that`s not so
important for a full blown RED but it would have been nice on a SSHDR and
it is still needed by a RED24.

You could eaily use the track assign tool to put this 1 sec piece onto
another track that's only used at the end or at a different part of the
arrangement. The automation can be used to set separate effects, output
routing (via the sends), panning, levels etc.

> Okay you have a RED, a mixpander and are mixing 32 tracks + 8 midiunits +
4 external EFX + 6 internal EFX makes 50 mixerchannels. You are not able to
hide some tracks, you just can change the size for all tracks together and
if you are automating tracks you get an extra channel in your edit window.
If you just have one little thing automated in every track you have 50
extra channels makes 100.

The funny thing about software is that it's easily upgradeable. PT didn't
have this feature until relatively recent versions and you can bet that its
on the list. A very small thing too in comparison to the Mixpander
development.
One thing to note though is that you won't have to pay for it !

> I spent more time in scrolling the windows than in mixing. The automation
is something very special, it`s not working (logical) like a SSL, GML, Neve
or PT automation. Some like it some don`t. Guess what: I don`t like it
cause when you are used to a SSL or AMEK logic you are lost.

Not much I can say about this really.
We've had a very positive response about the capabilities of the
automation, the editing facilities, the fact that it can be recorded in the
same way (and at the same time if required) as the audio tracks and edited
with the same tools that users already use for audio has meant that most
users found it very easy to get to grips with with very little explanation.

> Something which started really good was that the mixer is independent
from the audio files. That means you can load different mixer sites with
the same edit window (it`s called arrangement window in SS) and audio files
or you keep the mixer and load different edit windows. No need for track
transfer, very good. But now with automation the problem is that the
automation datas belongs to the mixer and not to the audio files. In the
first sight that makes sense but think about: if you`re changing the audio
(next song on your album) you can`t use the automation datas from the song
before anyway. To me it would be more logical to save these datas with the
edit window and load it with the audio.

Well, mix automation is related to the mixer and this is an identical to
using a real console and a multi-track tape. If you start changing audio
connections between tape and console, then the automation for the project
doesn't work any more.
Not true. You CAN use automation for one project on another. You can use
the Append Arrangement function to load it into the next project - simple
and fast. The ONLY time that you can't use the automation data is if you
change the type of mixer strips. ie. you mix a project using mono-stereo
strips and the next mixer configuration is a completely different 5.1
surround strip. We are planning to remove this limitation in a later
release. Of course a traditional console doesn't have this problem as you
can't completely change the mixer configuration.

> Every year SS says new third party plugins will come. If you are lucky
there are 1 or 2 new plugins a year. Right now maybe 15 or so, with the
very important and expensive decrackler from ... I forgot. I really wants
to know how many copies SS has sold. You can`t get Waves, Wavemechanics
(besides a reverb) DUY and so on and on. The only plugins which makes sense
are the TC Master X and the SS toolbox which has a good compressor.

Oh yes, the Cedar Declick and Cedar Dehiss. Well known as the leaders in
serious audio restoration equipment. Cedar sell their products to serious
users in broadcast, film and such diverse areas as forensics all over the
world. They are expensive because they work properly and generate
significantly lower artifacts than cheap algorithms. Cedar's pricing policy
is their own affair, but I would guess that it relates to the amount of
development effort that was involved in making their algorithms and
products so well respected. Note that they don't make a plug-in for PT.
Otherplug-insavailable both for Soundscape and PT include :
Aphex Aural Exciter Type III
Aphex Big Bottom Pro
Dolby Surround Encoder/Decoder
TC Reverb
TC Dynamizer (Master X)
Arboretum Systems Hyperprism
Apogee Mastertools UV22
Others are already anounced or in various stages of development or
discussion. One of the things that has held back plug-in development has
been the availability of the DSP expansion, which is now history, as
Mixpander is shipping. You'll find many more developers jumping on the
Soundscape platform from now on, as we have the only system based on
Motorola DSPs (which most developers have experience of (due to PT) that
runs 96kHzplug-ins

> But now the clou: Once you bought a plugin you never can sell it again
without your hardware. The keyword for the activation is generated with the
serial number of your SS unit. So just forget by selling a used SS that you
get any money for your expensive plugins. Everybody know that you can`t
sell them separately and say: Yes I`m interested in your hardware but, you
know, I really don`t need your software so I don`t pay for it. That`s it,
as soon as you bought the plugins the worth is zero, null, nada.

The plug-in authorization method (using the hardware as the dongle) has
been pointed out (ie. at AES seminars on piracy/copy protection) as being
the way that offers the safest method of protecting the interests of
software developers. It's a serious problem as many 3rd party software
developers claim to be losing up to 75% of their income. They make less (or
no) profit because of this and cannot thus afford to re-invest in future
developments.
You can sell the plug-in when you sell the system, as you sell the
passwords for theplug-inswith the system. If you don't have them, then a
simple email to Soundscape will produce a list of authorized passwords. It
just depends whether the guy that buys the system wants theplug-insthat
are with it - you can't sell them separately.

> I could give you more details like this but I think that`s enough for
today. Everything I wrote is the last standing I know, maybe some problems
are solved right now or in the next future but not that I know or expect.

Well this is true, software moves steadily forward and the next version
will definitely have more features than the last. In this respect,
comparing the progress of Soundscape and PT gives some interesting points
for contemplation.
If in 1993 when Soundscape was released it didn't compete with PT at all
(it only competed with Session 8), and now it definitely does compete with
PT, who has moved the fastest?

> For me SS is a good free software (no costs for update) with an
oldfashioned hardware but rocksolid, never had a crash. But if you have to
work fast and professional, SS is to slow, not logical and almost not
scaleable. It is a good beginner system but don`t try to sell it, you won`t
get any reasonable money.

Beginner system ?
There are thousands of professional users with Soundscape in TV & radio
broadcast, post production, language dubbing and general music recording
who you insulted on the Soundscape forum with this type of statement. When
you previously stated this, many professional Soundscape users responded to
you and when you persisted, eventually you were shunned and told to go
away.
Too slow ?
There are many sound editors who say that they work faster with their
Soundscapes DAWs than with any other system they've used. Punch in-out is
as easy as a tape machine and display updates etc. are as fast as the
computer that you use, as it's not busy dealing with the audio.
As for scaleability, a R.Ed system goes up to 128 tracks with 128 outputs
and 112 inputs. Find me a system that can match this.

There are still some SSHDR1-Plus systems being sold today, to the type of
users who need stable fast editing, with serious tools and plug-in options,
but without the need for masses of tracks or 96kHz operation. These units
have a list price of just under US$3000, which is reasonable for a
professional and reliable workhorse.
If you coudn't sell your units, I'm interested to know how long you have
had them, the full specification and how much you were asking. If you just
advertised them on the Soundscape forum, then you were probably asking the
wrong set of individuals, as they already have systems.

> I hope you got an idea what kind of problems I had with SS.
> I`m so so so happy to have a PT, I can`t tell (I used to start on NT and
now on MAC ! I really don`t want to start the MAC vs. PC war but PC for
office and MAC for audiomedia. Definitely! ).

Well, I've looked at several postings on the DUC and you have been
extremely negative about PT too. In one posting you made to the Soundscape
forum, you claimed that the NT version of PT you were using was fantasic,
but on the DUC you claim that it sucks. Seems somewhat like a lack of
consistency there.

> Maybe there is a second part to come: the emotional part.
> Everything about the owners, the company politics, upgrade jokes and
business and their behavior against their customers.

Our commitment to end users has never been in question. We've made free of
charge upgrades for the last seven years. Most Soundscape users that there
have every been are STILL Soundscape users and haven't jumped ship even
when our product development was still in 'catch up' mode. The basic
principles of hardware and software reliability, sound quality, on going
support and low cost of ownership have made the issue of a few missing plug-insor features small in comparison.
Compare this situation with that for any other DAW manufacturer and there
is not much to say. The system that you have (PT) has cost it's users a
great deal to keep it up to date, and this is a point of major heavy
criticism from its users. The value of 'old' systems is very little in
comparison to the situation with Soundscape, because whenever a 'new' PT
system comes out, the old system is immediately discounted by around 40%. I
know of one PT3 user who eventually upgraded to PT4 and before he had
installed in, PT24 was announced (didn't ship for about a year). What kind
of deal do you think he was offered for PT24 ?
I understand that you originally went through something like this with
Nubus PT3.

> But I think I`m feed up with it and don`t want to go thru again.

The only thing that I can say is that there's no pleasing everybody.
Soundscape HAS pleased the vast majority of its users and that's why
they've stayed with the system.
Soundscape was a relative latecomer to the DAW market, being released at
the same time as the Digidesign Session 8. It competed on price and
features with Session 8 and not at that time with PT. Users later compared
Soundscape with PT because the features were more professional than Session
8 and the price was much better than for PT.
Now it competes directly with PT and in several key technical areas the
features are ahead. Editing wise it's pretty similar. Price wise it stands
up to every comparison that you can possibly make.
Where is the Session 8 today ?

------------------
Joel Gette
Soundscape Digital
http://www.soundscape-digital.com

Hello

I expected these kind of answers. Did you enjoy that I gave you the possibilty to write a advertising for Soundscape ? 99 % of your answers were pure propaganda so let`s see what about the rest.
From beginning on I found it is a problem that somebody who is related with SS is moderating this "free" SS forum. So this is the second SS forum which is "under control" of SS.
My remarks are written in capitol letters so it`s easier for everybody what`s new.

> You get 16 buses with a SSHDR 1 (I think you get 32 with the Red but
that makes no difference) and 4 analog/digital outs and 2 ins plus 1 TDIF
(for the Red you got 3 TDIFs).
32-buses R.Ed (all models) and SSHDR1-Plus with Mixpander installed.
> The SSHDR 1 can do 12 tracks, the regular Red 32 tracks and the Red24 ,
guess what, 24 right.
> If 12 or 24 or 32 tracks are not enough you can add another unit and now
the problem starts.
> You are not able to connect the buses from one unit with the other. The
first machine has bus 1 to 16 and unit 2-bus 17 to 32. The same with the
ins and outs. It`s not possible to use them on the other unit and vice
versa. The only chance to connect 2 units together is with the TDIF bus
what means with a SSHDR 1 you`re loosing the only TDIF connector and you
have no chance to bring a third unit in that chain. The same with the RED
for 3 units you are loosing 2 TDIF ports and have just connected 8 buses
together. And don`t forget the heavy patching.
> I have left a lot of Y cables from that days.

I'm sure many users of 'other' systems have been left with much more
'legacy' hardware than just Y cables .

IF THIS IS YOUR ONLY ANSWER TO THIS PROBLEM THEN IT IS A REAL PROBLEM FOR SS WHICH CAN`T BE SOLVED WITH SOFTWAREUPGRADE. THAT`S REALLY BAD CAUSE YOUR SYSTEM IS REALLY NOT SCALEABLE WITHOUT A EXTERNAL MIXER . AND DON`T SAY RED STANDS FOR RECORDING AND EDITING , IF YOU COMPETE SS WITH PT YOU HAVE TO MESS WITH IT , PERIOD .

> For a reasonable mix inside the units without a separate mixing board you
have to have the mixpander card witch is announced now for almost 4 !!!
years and is supposed to be available at January. We`ll see.

The first Mixpanders shipped just before the end of November as promised in
the initial press releases in October. On time and working as expected.
Some users have already received them. Yes it was late, but find me a
product that ships on-time and it'll probably have been 'under tested'. The
market is full of products that ship with buggy, V1.0 (read beta) software
and hardware that is not really 'user ready'.
The only announcement made earlier was that there would be a DSP expansion,
with nothing more specific about dates or cost. It was an explanation of
the 512 channel expansion bus that was included in the V2 upgrade release
in 1997.

1998 SS PROMISED ME IN MY HANDS AT THE MUSICFAIR IN FRANKFURT THAT THE AUTOMATION IS COMING AT THE END OF THE YEAR (1998) AND THE MIXPANDER WILL COME EARLY NEXT YEAR (1999) . I RELIED ON THIS ANSWERS AND BOUGHT A FULLBLOWN SSHDR1R+ . I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IT BETTER , AS MY TEACHER SAID : IF YOU NEED SOMETHING RIGHT NOW BUY THE SYSTEM WHICH CAN DO IT NOW . NEVER TRUST A PROMISE FROM ANY COMPANY . THE COMPANY IS NEVER YOUR FRIEND THE ONLY THING THEY WANT FROM YOU IS YOUR MONEY . JUST YOUR MONEY .

> In the SSHDR you have 1.5 DSP`s which are the same Digi is using, in the
RED you have 3. You can imagine what happens if you are using some serious
plugins. Nothing. So without a DSP expander no way. But you just can add
one expander with one unit. For every unit you have you have to buy a new
mixpander and guess what: still no chance to connect the buses together.
It is planned to bring out a expansion chassis but on the pictures of the
mixpandercards I can`t see a plug like the TDM cable. So it`s just a
housing.

The hardware has connectors to link Mixpanders together via 32-buses.
Software to enable this is in progress, however it's worth pointing out
that one Mixpander/9 card provides an enormous amount of DSP processing
power, far more than is available for any other multi DSP card, so there
not such a great need to connect multiple cards as there is for other
systems. ... BLA BLA BLA ...

INDEED THERE IS NO NEED FOR CONNECTING MULTIPLE CARDS TO 1 SS UNIT BUT THERE IS A NEED TO SHARE 1 MIXPANDER TO 2 OR 3 SSHDR UNITS . THERE ARE A LOT OF USERS WHICH HAVE 2, 3, OR EVEN MORE SSHDR UNITS WORKING . IS IT REALLY THE INTENTION OF SS THAT THEY HAVE TO BUY FOR EVERY UNIT A SEPERATE MIXPANDER ? SO THEY HAVE FOR ALMOST EVERY TRACK A DSP . BUT NO MONEY AT THE BANK .

> The host card to the computer is a ISA card. For everybody who don`t know
PC: this ISA card is a 8 bit connection and is comparable to the old Nubus
but even older. The PC 2000 norm says that ISA isn`t supported anymore and
there is almost no modern motherboard which has more than 1 ISA slot on it.
If it has one.

We have a standard EPP Printer Port cable available for use with R.Ed or
SSHDR1-Plus that allows users without an ISA slot to connect their unit to
any PC or to a laptop. As the connection is purely for control (the PC's
CPU is not involved in any real-time handling of audio at all, the speed or
data width is not an issue.
There's a PCI solution available now that we've just tested and this is to
use a very inexpensive EPP Printer Port PCI card with our EPP cable.
Details will be available shortly, but we've just tested this.
There will also be a PCI version of the host card next year.
There are many PC motherboards still available with one ISA slot (checkout
ASUS, ABit etc.). As Soundscape specifically doesn't require a fast PC, the
issue of constantly being forced to update your computer generally doesn't
arise. As pointed out in other postings, Soundscape will still work
perfectly happily on a very low end PC.
So, several options available here.

EVERYTHING I UNDERSTAND IS : VERY LOW END AND SEVERAL SLOW OPTIONS .

ca> With one host card you can run 2 SS units and all datas between the
computer and the units have to pass this 8 bit miracle. If you bounced a
mix and wants to burn it you have to copy it on the PC disk. If you wants
to do a backup you have to copy everything to the PC harddisk cause the PC
can`t see the SS disks. So world wide waiting is announced. Just remember
the old PT days when every card has it`s own SCSI bus ? That`s it. And if
you wants to copy a soundfile from one unit to the other it all has to go
thru that ISA speed monster.

Copies between units/drives connected to the same cable don't use the host
card. It's used for copies to/from PC or for example when copying from unit
1 to unit 3.

BUT YOU HAVE TO AGREE THAT IF YOU WANTS TO BURN A CD OR YOU ARE BACKING UP YOUR WORK YOU HAVE TO COPY ALL THE FILES TO YOUR PC DISKS .

> SS is working with IDE disks. Maybe fast enough maybe reliable enough but
on the SS website there is not 1 aproofed harddisk which you still can buy,
it`s all models which are not anymore on the market and furthermore not
every disk which is working with a SSHDR is working with the RED and vice
versa. You all know how good SCSI disk are working with PT. 64 channels
record and play with 1 disk without fades and cuts are no problem.

Any low cost modern EIDE hard drive will work with R.Ed - eg. IBM, Seagate,
Western Digital, Maxtor, Quantum etc. IBM 75 GB drives are available and
cheap and there are a large number of drives over 30GB available.
With the SSHDR1-Plus, it's a little more restrictive due to some interface
timing issues with the latest drives. Even though there's an ATA spec for
drives we've found several times that when a manufacturer changes the range
fo hard drive models, even though the previous range was fine, the newer
model is not compatible in some respect. I should point out that this is
not something that's limited to Soundscape, other DAW manufacturers also
have to test and approve drives and sometimes have had very specific narrow
range of suppprted drives.
However, we've tested the Western Digital Caviar 45GB drive with the
SSHDR1-Plus and several others in the range. Fujitsu drives have also
generally produced good results.
As you know well, many Soundscape users have posted their findings about
drives on the Soundscape forum that they are using successfully.
Since you bring up PT, it's worth making the following comparison :-
For R.Ed, just one drive can playback all 32 tracks. For PT, 3 drives are
recommended for 64 track playback and 4 (16 tracks per drive) if you have a
lot of edits (this is directly from their web site today).
Since IDE is still way cheaper than SCSI for similar performing/size
drives, there's quite a cost benefit for drives for R.Ed.

JUST TELL ME WHY IS NO MODERN HD IN THE COMPATO LIST OF SS ?

> About fades: every fade is done by DSP. So if you want to export the
arrangement to a different DAW (thru the ISA card) you have to bounce down
every fade otherwise they are lost !

On the other hand, systems that have to generate a new file of each fade
can take ages to startup (ie. after a crash - you know ) and these files
often get lost in transfer to another system. Which way is better ? There
are positive and negative points to both approaches.

IF PT IS MISSING FADE FILES IT CAN BE WRITTEN AUTOMATICALY . IF YOU TRANSFER A SS ARRANGEMENT WITH OMF OR TRANSFER YOUR AUDIOFILES TO CDR WITHOUT BOUNCING, YOUR FILES ARE LOST .

> About tracks and voices: SS don`t know a difference. Every track has just
one voice. With a SSHDR you can open 12 tracks and thats it. Even if on one
track is just 1 sec audio at the beginning of the song and you need
something different at the end, no way to share it. Maybe that`s not so
important for a full blown RED but it would have been nice on a SSHDR and
it is still needed by a RED24.

You could eaily use the track assign tool to put this 1 sec piece onto
another track that's only used at the end or at a different part of the
arrangement. The automation can be used to set separate effects, output
routing (via the sends), panning, levels etc.

BUT IT TAKES A LOT MORE TIME TO ADJUST THE AUTOMATION THAN TO PRESS "NEW TRACK" .

> Okay you have a RED, a mixpander and are mixing 32 tracks + 8 midiunits +
4 external EFX + 6 internal EFX makes 50 mixerchannels. You are not able to
hide some tracks, you just can change the size for all tracks together and
if you are automating tracks you get an extra channel in your edit window.
If you just have one little thing automated in every track you have 50
extra channels makes 100.

The funny thing about software is that it's easily upgradeable. PT didn't
have this feature until relatively recent versions and you can bet that its
on the list. A very small thing too in comparison to the Mixpander
development.
One thing to note though is that you won't have to pay for it !

AS MY TEACHER SAID : IF YOU NEED SOMETHING NOW ... . AND IF YOU DON`T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PT PLEASE BE QUIET . PT HAS AUTOMATION AND SHOW/HIDE TRACKS SINCE NUBUS SOFTWARE VERSION 3.0 .

> I spent more time in scrolling the windows than in mixing. The automation
is something very special, it`s not working (logical) like a SSL, GML, Neve
or PT automation. Some like it some don`t. Guess what: I don`t like it
cause when you are used to a SSL or AMEK logic you are lost.
Not much I can say about this really.

We've had a very positive response about the capabilities of the
automation, the editing facilities, the fact that it can be recorded in the
same way (and at the same time if required) as the audio tracks and edited
with the same tools that users already use for audio has meant that most
users found it very easy to get to grips with with very little explanation.

WE`VE HAD A LOT OF POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM A SINGLE PERSON . PLEASE READ IN YOUR SS FORUM . ALMOST EVERY POST I COULD SEE WAS A BIG QUESTION MARK . AND IF YOU WERE WAITING THAT LONG FOR A AUTOMATION ( SS WERE THE LAST WHO STILL DIDN`T HAVE THIS FEATURE ) YOU ARE HAPPY FOR ANY KIND OF AUTOMATION .

> Every year SS says new third party plugins will come. If you are lucky
there are 1 or 2 new plugins a year. Right now maybe 15 or so, with the
very important and expensive decrackler from ... I forgot. I really wants
to know how many copies SS has sold. You can`t get Waves, Wavemechanics
(besides a reverb) DUY and so on and on. The only plugins which makes sense
are the TC Master X and the SS toolbox which has a good compressor.

Oh yes, the Cedar Declick and Cedar Dehiss. Well known as the leaders in
serious audio restoration equipment. Cedar sell their products to serious
users in broadcast, film and such diverse areas as forensics all over the
world. They are expensive because they work properly and generate
significantly lower artifacts than cheap algorithms. Cedar's pricing policy
is their own affair, but I would guess that it relates to the amount of
development effort that was involved in making their algorithms and
products so well respected. Note that they don't make a plug-in for PT.
Otherplug-insavailable both for Soundscape and PT include :
Aphex Aural Exciter Type III
Aphex Big Bottom Pro
Dolby Surround Encoder/Decoder
TC Reverb
TC Dynamizer (Master X)
Arboretum Systems Hyperprism
Apogee Mastertools UV22
Others are already anounced or in various stages of development or
discussion. One of the things that has held back plug-in development has
been the availability of the DSP expansion, which is now history, as
Mixpander is shipping. You'll find many more developers jumping on the
Soundscape platform from now on, as we have the only system based on
Motorola DSPs (which most developers have experience of (due to PT) that
runs 96kHzplug-ins

SORY I FORGOT THAT SS DON`T NEED ANY BREAD AND BUTTER PLUGINS . EVERYBODY NEEDS TO DECLICK AND DEHISS HIS RECORDED MATERIAL . YOU STILL DON`T HAVE A SECOND EQ WITH SHELVING HIGHS OR LOWS .

> But now the clou: Once you bought a plugin you never can sell it again
without your hardware. The keyword for the activation is generated with the
serial number of your SS unit. So just forget by selling a used SS that you
get any money for your expensive plugins. Everybody know that you can`t
sell them separately and say: Yes I`m interested in your hardware but, you
know, I really don`t need your software so I don`t pay for it. That`s it,
as soon as you bought the plugins the worth is zero, null, nada.

The plug-in authorization method (using the hardware as the dongle) has
been pointed out (ie. at AES seminars on piracy/copy protection) as being
the way that offers the safest method of protecting the interests of
software developers. It's a serious problem as many 3rd party software
developers claim to be losing up to 75% of their income. They make less (or
no) profit because of this and cannot thus afford to re-invest in future
developments.
You can sell the plug-in when you sell the system, as you sell the
passwords for theplug-inswith the system. If you don't have them, then a
simple email to Soundscape will produce a list of authorized passwords. It
just depends whether the guy that buys the system wants theplug-insthat
are with it - you can't sell them separately.

JUST LOOK TO PT HOW IT COULD BE DONE WITH AUTHORIZER DISKS . AND IT WORKS .

> I hope you got an idea what kind of problems I had with SS.
> I`m so so so happy to have a PT, I can`t tell (I used to start on NT and
now on MAC ! I really don`t want to start the MAC vs. PC war but PC for
office and MAC for audiomedia. Definitely! ).

Well, I've looked at several postings on the DUC and you have been
extremely negative about PT too. In one posting you made to the Soundscape
forum, you claimed that the NT version of PT you were using was fantasic,
but on the DUC you claim that it sucks. Seems somewhat like a lack of
consistency there.

IF YOU WOULD HAVE READ EVERYTHING ( BTW WHAT ARE YOUR FEELINGS THAT YOUR ARE ABLE TO READ AND WRITE EVERYTHING AT THE DIGI FORUM ? ) THEN YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT I NEVER WROTE NEGATIV ABOUT PT BUT I WROTE NEGATIV ABOUT THE NT SUPPORT OF DIGIDESIGN . I STARTED WITH PT NT AND THE SOFTWARE VERSION WAS MAYBE 10 % BEHIND THE MACVERSION . THE NEXT WAS 20 % BEHIND AND THE THIRD ONE WILL MAYBE NOT EVEN APPEAR . THAT`S WHAT I AM REALLY ANGRY ABOUT . SO I SWITCHED TO MAC AND IN THE END IT IS EVEN MORE PERFECT .

> But I think I`m feed up with it and don`t want to go thru again.

The only thing that I can say is that there's no pleasing everybody.
Soundscape HAS pleased the vast majority of its users and that's why
they've stayed with the system.
Soundscape was a relative latecomer to the DAW market, being released at
the same time as the Digidesign Session 8. It competed on price and
features with Session 8 and not at that time with PT. Users later compared
Soundscape with PT because the features were more professional than Session
8 and the price was much better than for PT.
Now it competes directly with PT and in several key technical areas the
features are ahead. Editing wise it's pretty similar. Price wise it stands
up to every comparison that you can possibly make.
Where is the Session 8 today ?

THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN SAY IS THAT IF YOUR STUDIO HAS SS YOUR CLIENT SAYS : WHAT`S THAT . AND IF YOU SAY PT YOUR CLIENT SAYS : OK .
80 % OF ALL PROFESSIONEL STUDIOS IN THE WORLD ARE WORKING WITH PT . ALMOST EVERY PROFESSIONEL ENGINEER KNOW HOW TO WORK WITH PT . 90 % OF THEM EVEN DON`T KNOW WHAT SS IS , AND SS TRY TO COMPETE WITH PT ? YOU ALWAYS WROTE SS IS CHEAPER , IS BETTER FOR THE PRICE AND SO ON . IF THE PRICE WOULD BE A IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR PROS WHICH SYSTEM THEY SHOULD BUY WHY ISN`T SS THE MOST SELLING DAW IN THE WORLD ? THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS ARE : COMPATIBILITY , RELIABILITY , SCALEABILITY , EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW TO WORK WITH AND AGAIN COMPATIBILITY .
PRICE IS THE VERY LAST FACTOR . AND WHERE SHOULD SESSION 8 BE TODAY ? UPGRADED TO PT . NOTHING MORE TO SAY .

This is my last post in this year cause tomorrow I`m in holidays.
I bet Mr. salesman has the better arguments than me cause that`s the way he is earning his money and especial if you have to argue in his nativ language . What about if you answer me in german ? I`m afraid you`re not going to do that .

Regards Wolfgang

Thank you, Joel!
That was an excellent and polite answer to a dedicated Soundscape antagonist (or so it seems). ;-)
About Wolfgangs remark on the "beginner system". The only aspect of Soundscape that could be called "beginner", is the fact that it's SO easy to use. I think I could put my Grandmother in charge of recording some tracks with the R.Ed.
When I first got my system I experienced the easiest installation ever. Everything just worked! The very next day I started recording a CD which was finished a week later. Not a problem.
Very fast, logical, easy and rock-steady! Since then I'm hooked. It can't get much better than this. In fact, it can, but what I mean is that it all comes down to making music, and technology shouldn't stand in the way of music. It should help.
Soundscape is a great tool for making music!
I've had some good experience with PT, as well. And some bad...
I've never had a bad experience with Soundscape (yet). I must also say that I work much faster and more musically with Soundscape, than with any other system I've tried.
On PT I've done re-takes because of lost audiofiles and program-crashes. On Soundscape, the only re-takes I've made were for musical reasons. I don't want to put PT down. It's a great and highly professional recording system (it IS the industry standard...), that seems to suit a lot of people. It's just a shame that not more people are aware of the R.Ed. power!

Here's some more of Wolfgang's remarks:

>The automation is something very special, it`s not working (logical) like a SSL, GML, Neve or PT automation. Some like it some don`t. Guess what: I don`t like it cause when you are used to a SSL or AMEK logic you are lost.

Guess what: You ARE lost! If you can't eat apples because you're used to oranges, you are truly lost! ;-)

No disrespect Wolfgang, but it's hard to discuss preferences in taste. Like Joel said, you can't please everybody.
Mr Wolfgang seems to be a man that's very hard to please. And maybe that's good for the industry. Keep 'em on their toes Wolfgang! Just complain about everything. Devoted musicmakers deserve good equipment! I agree. It's also good to hear that you give everybody their share of your displeasure, no matter how inconsistent it is. It's fun! You're funny ;-)

> I`m so so so happy to have a PT, I can`t tell.

You must be, considering the money you paid! It's like one guy stated:
"I love it because I have to!" He hadn't heard about Soundscape.

Isn't there anything bad with Soundscape? When it comes to sonic quality, reliability, flexibility and stability...NO!

However I would like to give you my suggestions for improvments on the otherwise superb system. (It's seven of them, Wolfgang! Since you like counting...;-)) These are some things that would make the sun shine even brighter, the days I'm working with the R.Ed.

1. Crossfades.
2. Shelving EQ.
3. A "redo" would be nice...
4. An insert mixer element with user definable I/O.

5. The opportunity to copy a completed mixer channel to the next column! Very handy when you're building a mixer, obviously. With this feature also the possibility to copy/move separate mixer-elements to another column.
I would also like to add a "selfsizing" feature to the mixer, so you don't have to "make room" for a new element. Just drop it on the strip, and the window resizes itself. If you want to move an element to a new position, the other elements should automatically reposition themselves.

6. I would also like a tool that does different things to a part depending on where on the part you're working. For instance: it could be a trim-tool if you're at the edge of a part, otherwise it's a move-tool. If you hold down the Ctrl-key, it's a copy tool etc.
And Wolfgang...I know there is a tool like this in PT (Smart-tool)...Good for you! :-)

7. The possibility to glue different takes together in the arrange-window. The "glued" takes would become a new take, and the processing would be faster than the real-time mixdown process. I think this was a feature in an earlier version of the software.
This is, of course, only an issue when exporting files to another DAW. (All takes start at 00:00:00) This could also be made with the OMF feature. It's just that OMF-export to PT with SDII-files only supports 16bit files, if I understand it correctly. I might be wrong.

Finally I would like to say that I've never come across such good support as with Soundscape. So dedicated! It also seems that they provide good trade-in deals, and upgrade paths for their users when new products enter the market.
The fact that software upgrade is FREE just makes you go: Whooopeee!

Merry X-mas to you all!
Fredrik Lidin

Well said Fredrik !

I have a few answers for Wolfgang's points too.

1. It seems like Wolfgang is so pissed off because he was promised things that have now appeared. Plus he doesn't have the R.Ed system and couldn't sell his SSHDR1+ units for much money. All of his comments seem to be related to this and SSHDR1+ is the 'old' system. The benchmark here for comparison with PT is R.Ed.

I would guess that when he bought the SSHDR1+ system he paid much less than for the current PT system at the time (including an expensive Mac, expensive I/O, expensive drives, expensive sync unit etc). But he still expects the same as a *much* more expensive system.

2. Transfers between R.Ed and PC are already several times faster than for SSHDR1+. I can transfer a CD in about 12 minutes. Everyone expects that the PCI card that Soundscape are talking about will go faster again.

3. The advantages of being off the computer filing system for storage are that you have a more stable format, designed for audio. For example, you can't recover the files in PT (or any other system that relies on the computer for storage)if the power goes down while recording, like you can so easily in Soundscape.

The Import/Export utilities in Soundscape mean that getting projects in/out of any other system is straight forward.

4. The limitation to losing the fade information in OMF import/export is on the OMF side. It doesn't handle fades to/from levels other than max or min volume. As you know Soundscape has fades to/from any level.

The real-time nature of Soundscape's fade handling is much more convenient than having to regenerate all these tiny (and easy to lose) fade files each time.

5. As a system, Soundscape is far more scalable than Protools and more easily too. How do you get to 64 simultaneous tracks in Protools reliably? From everything that I've seen, it's even difficult to guarantee recording over 16 tracks at once and if you have heavy edits you need to spread the project over 4 drives. This is *very* inconvenient.

At least with Soundscape the division is very clear. You add a second, third or fourth unit to get up to 128 tracks.

You have harped on about Protools being able to have 7 Mix cards and 42 DSPs (on the SS forum) as though this is a wonderful thing and then when Joel pointed out that you will be able to link Mixpanders, you say that this doesn't cover the need for users with several units. I would imagine that to buy a couple of Mixpander/5 cards wouldn't come anywhere close to the cost of buying the equivalent PT power and gives just as flexible a system, especially if you can link them. Try to be more consistent.

6. R.Ed works with just about all modern IDE drives, just like a modern PC motherboard. Do you see a list of drives for this too ?
You are again talking about SSHDR1 and Joel already pointed out that the list is due to be updated. Give him a break!

7. I for one never posted anything about the automation on the user forum. There was no need. It works in typical Soundscape fashion, without drama and most importantly without bugs. I have no problem to do exactly what I need.

8. The Hyperprism has shelving EQ, but I agree that it's needed in the basic mixer set.

9. I know for a fact that almost every plug-in for protools is cracked. Perhaps that's why Soundscape don't use this method !

10. So you were forced to buy a Mac because the PT NT version is not progressing as promised. Sounds like a rather expensive problem to me. It also sounds like you've jumped ship just when everything that you've wanted for Soundscape is available.

11. Session 8 users were sold down the river, just like PT2, nubus PT3, PT4 and PT NT users. It's long been a trend and you can expect it to happen again if Digi ever get round to releasing a 96kHz version of their hardware with a better DSP design.

The PT history is that the latest features in new versions of software won't work on older hardware. You have this to contemplate. At least Soundscape have dealt with this inevitable issue kindly and still support the old hardware with up to date software.

It's gotten to be tiring that you feel the need to attempt to do damage to Soundscape in this way. Why not let bygones be bygones and move on ? Life is too short.

Good luck.
Stu

GENTLEMEN, GENTLEMEN...
Please, let's keep the personal digs down to a low roar! This isn't the SS site (obviously, since I'm allowed on here ), and
opposing points of view are encouraged. It's
because of Wolfgang that it has been proven that there are many people who have very
pro-SS feelings, and have given many reasons why. Wolfgang has made some valid points from
his perspective, and has taken his valuable time to post them, in what is at least his second language (who knows...maybe 3rd or 4th
language). So, please, let's all treat each other with respect, as this site is for the
ADVANCEMENT of our craft...
No need for apologies or responses to this,
let's please just keep things on a professional level...

For everyone here.

The thing that it different from all other forums is that we are all users of different formats and tools talking about our life experiences and discussing things on products we like or dislike within the same building.
The special thing about RO is you can be sure we are all learning here because the walls are thin; we all can hear what's going on.

Joel is the best man for the soundscape forum. He's here to help others, and promote something he believes in.

Wolfgang has a beef and emotions are involved. Good should come out of this if we all listen.

It would be better if you both took a few things at at time.

Hey audiokid! what's up??? well due to the long posts here I started a new thread to prevent people from getting dizzy from all the scrolling involved,,,,

------------------
Joel Gette
Soundscape Digital
http://www.soundscape-digital.com

Just reading through the history on this thread. Noticed the last post was in dec 2000. I may be the only SS user left in the world. I started on the SSHDR1 in the early 90's and moved up to the SS32 just prior to SSL dropping the line. Can't say i blame them but they could have left the user forum up. Other thing that pisses me off is i have schematics for all my gear going back to the 1950's. Schematics for SS products,,forget about it.
I will use the system till it dies.