2448 / 1632

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:04 am

This isn't mean to be a gripe, but just to further my understanding of things - why does the 2448 mixer take up SO MUCH more DSP than the 1632? There is a sound difference - how significant is it?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:27 am

aside from the fact that the 2448 has much more 'on board', the 1632 seems a marvel in taking anything from the DSPs that isn't in use or connected.
I noticed this during a masterverb test when I wanted (for lazyness sake) to load a few of them into the inserts of the 1632, assuming I'd get the number of masterverbs possible ... (6 are my best result with 3 Pulsar first gen cards)
I could add a 7th, 8th, 9th , ten... it wouldn't stop

but as soon as I added some virtual cables the usual error popped up

my guess is that with the same stuff activated, you'll get a similiar DSP load - maybe the 2448 has to allocate a bit more resources (due to it's more complex structure) to keep the signals aligned.

cheers, Tom

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:38 am

is the 1632 a newer development than the 2448 series?

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:08 pm

Not really, the 1632 is the mixer that comes with scope 4 as standard. If you bought the mixer package 2 (I think it's Mix and master now) then you would get stm2448 and stm4896.

Post by **hubird** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:08 pm

you'd not wanne mis the 24/48 one

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:41 pm

bassdude wrote:Not really, the 1632 is the mixer that comes with scope 4 as standard. If you bought the mixer package 2 (I think it's Mix and master now) then you would get stm2448 and stm4896.

When I bought my scope card (in 2003) I got the 2448 mixer, it was part of the package then. I'm ready to go back to using the 1632, because until I can afford an expansion card (that won't be for some time) it's pointless using it on my 6 chip system because I can't do much but mix and activate a few sends and eqs. I like the sound of my mixes better since I've been using the 2448, but since I'm such an inexperienced mixer anyways, the latest mixes will always sound better

I dunno if there is much of a sound difference. (Yes I'm sure there are strong opinions on either side).

Post by **hubird** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:50 pm

I don't think the sound is different, specially not when headroom isn't disturbing the picture, if at all

Post by **garyb** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:22 pm

i think the 24/48 sounds better, but i don't know if that automatically translates into better sounding mixes...

geoffd99 · Post by **geoffd99** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:00 am

Does it sound better because it seems or looks better, are the atoms (or whatever they are) for the mixing any different across the mixers?

Why would Scope use second rate mixing on ANY of its mixers, even the mini ones?

I assume that all mixing is the same on everything, and this would be upgraded across the range whenenver it improved. Its maths, right?

Any technical input on this?

Post by **hubird** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:17 am

you could do a simple phase cancelation test

geoffd99 · Post by **geoffd99** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:50 am

It should not be required to test every mixer, does anyone know what code is in the mixers? Is it the SAME code for all, or is it different code?
We should be told...

Post by **hubird** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:10 am

geoffd99 wrote: We should be told...

I doubt that, a code is a code...

Post by **garyb** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:36 am

why should we be told?
why shouldn't one sound better than the other? the stm series was a dramatic improvement in sound over the old "big mixer", but some still used the big mixer long after it wasn't even in the pakage anymore.
why not just use your ears and use what you like?

tempest in a teacup...

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:03 am

I absolutely don't think it's likely we would see the actual programming logic behind the mixer, their programming code is a secret code... Of course the thing to do is trust your own ears, but I don't trust mine completely. That's why I was looking for some info on this topic, nothing more...

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:17 am

I'm likely to start using the 1632 mixer in the future, as the 2448 takes up too much processing for my meagre 6-chip system (though it shore looks perty). I use a UAD card too (the original reason I bought a scope card was that I wanted something that would do for synths that the UAD did for effects. I sure got more than I wanted or thought i needed) I'm just trying to see what I'll be missing.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:18 pm

Liquid Len wrote:I absolutely don't think it's likely we would see the actual programming logic behind the mixer, their programming code is a secret code... Of course the thing to do is trust your own ears, but I don't trust mine completely. That's why I was looking for some info on this topic, nothing more...

Len, have a look thru the STM2448 user manual. You'll see that Creamware weren't at all secretive about the architacture. There's even a screenshot taken from the sdk showing a block diagram (circuit of modules in this case) of the core elements of an STM channel. Worth a look !

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:55 pm

That image will now be removed from the STM manual....

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:59 pm

Are those boxes atoms? Or are they 'modules', 'components' made up of atoms?

If they were atoms, I would know likely enough that there is no (unaccounted) sound difference between the two mixers, except in that a really good arrangement of parameters makes it easier to use gear effectively, and then it always sounds good. If they were made up of atoms, then there might be a different character to the mixers as well.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Those are modules. They're built from a tree-like structure of other modules which are built from other modules &/or atoms.

Post by **garyb** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 7:00 pm

Len,
it's all good! please don't think i was dressing anyone down!