What about the onboard RAM and the convolution idea? I would be a waste that such power machine that cannot use convolution.
It would be also a good new for the samplers.
SCOPE X-ite still VIRTUAL?
i think the newer sharc chips even have some special code optimizations for doing fast and quality convolution....
And its possible that convolution on the sharcs will sound better than calculated natively because of a higher precision the scope chips provide over native systems presision....
the native solutions for convolution did never impress me btw.
And its possible that convolution on the sharcs will sound better than calculated natively because of a higher precision the scope chips provide over native systems presision....
the native solutions for convolution did never impress me btw.
I'm not really sure what the point is of having convolution on SC cards. There are already stifling patents on dynamic convolution, and there are plenty of products that already specialize in doing it - Focusrite Liquid stuff and the original Sintefex boxes. Therefore I personally can't see any point in SC throwing dev resources at it.
its all up to quality isn`t it?
I think we all agree that scope processing, even simple mixing through the scope engine sounds better than natively.
In my opinion almost every scope algo reverb sound better than native stuff because of the higher quality filter and more prescision in calculation maths...
now convolution is an extremly heavy calculation based on many math processing steps and if there is a quality loss it will degrade the sound more and more while more maths is done...
now through the fact that scope is superior to any hardware with single process calculation its likely that also stuff like convolution sounds way better on scope than f.e. native solutions.
if you do a quick search over at gearslutz, the users that own a sony S777 convolution unit claim it sounds way better than any native convolution reverbs.
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end ... 777-a.html
I have to say I never was a fan of convolution but my opinion was mainly based on the soundquality of native plug-ins.
native vstis did also never impress me much, yet still i am very happy that i have better sounding synths for scope.
So you cannot really say, we already have this natively or on a liquid mix.
The question should be more, if its possible with scope, how good would it sound?
From my experience with scope fx , its likely that a scope convolution would sound way more realistic and deeper and less dirty/unlean.
even if it takes much power and only few instances could be loaded, if the quality is way higher than native solutions or other ir stuff, it would be worth the effort.
I think we all agree that scope processing, even simple mixing through the scope engine sounds better than natively.
In my opinion almost every scope algo reverb sound better than native stuff because of the higher quality filter and more prescision in calculation maths...
now convolution is an extremly heavy calculation based on many math processing steps and if there is a quality loss it will degrade the sound more and more while more maths is done...
now through the fact that scope is superior to any hardware with single process calculation its likely that also stuff like convolution sounds way better on scope than f.e. native solutions.
if you do a quick search over at gearslutz, the users that own a sony S777 convolution unit claim it sounds way better than any native convolution reverbs.
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end ... 777-a.html
I have to say I never was a fan of convolution but my opinion was mainly based on the soundquality of native plug-ins.
native vstis did also never impress me much, yet still i am very happy that i have better sounding synths for scope.
So you cannot really say, we already have this natively or on a liquid mix.
The question should be more, if its possible with scope, how good would it sound?
From my experience with scope fx , its likely that a scope convolution would sound way more realistic and deeper and less dirty/unlean.
even if it takes much power and only few instances could be loaded, if the quality is way higher than native solutions or other ir stuff, it would be worth the effort.
I'm not really talking about native - I'm talking about sintefex realtime units, and the higher range focusrite liquid units that can also work real time. There are patents on dynamic convolution, and there are sooo many cost-effective native/almost native (liquid mix) solutions that I don't think it's really viable for SC to compete. I don't do the maths at SC though so my opinion is essentially futile.
-
lagoausente
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:00 pm
- Location: Spain
interesting this announcement claims its based on TigerSHARCs.
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2008/03/0 ... #more-3121
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2008/03/0 ... #more-3121
lets see if its true.It’s based on Analog Devices TigerSHARC DSP chips, offering 10x more processing power than their previous high-end Scope Professional card
well, well, well ... it's press 
I don't buy into the chip-part of the story
even more if you do a bit of number's magic with the 10
clock of original Sharc 66, new one 333 MHZ ergo factor 5
new Sharcs can do SIMD processing, resulting in twice the performance
multiply and you have those 10 times
cheers, Tom
(SIMD - means single instruction multiple data
the DSP can process more than one 'value' in a single operation)
I don't buy into the chip-part of the story
even more if you do a bit of number's magic with the 10
clock of original Sharc 66, new one 333 MHZ ergo factor 5
new Sharcs can do SIMD processing, resulting in twice the performance
multiply and you have those 10 times
cheers, Tom
(SIMD - means single instruction multiple data
the DSP can process more than one 'value' in a single operation)
yeah astro, that right,
it may be a press fault.
but normally the company(in this case sc) spread the press information.
but as mentioned in another place the normal sharc would have to be used 14-15 times on the xite-1.
The tigersharc maybe could deliver the same power with less chip count.
At the end its not that important which chip it is, as power x10 is simply power x10.
it may be a press fault.
but normally the company(in this case sc) spread the press information.
but as mentioned in another place the normal sharc would have to be used 14-15 times on the xite-1.
The tigersharc maybe could deliver the same power with less chip count.
At the end its not that important which chip it is, as power x10 is simply power x10.
according to the 'hypothesis' above it isn't even 10 times... under arbitrary conditions 
it's the peak improvement achievable in theory - if an algorithm isn't very simd-compliant, you'll loose half of the performance in less than the wink of an eye
... the rest will be barely enough to run a project about two or three times the complexity of your former setup at 96 khz...
nah, I don't wanna to spoil the party (and a lot of stuff really benefits from SIMD, seriously), but plain numeric figures have only a limited relation to reality
you know, in soccer it's called ...entscheidend ist auf'm Platz...
cheers, Tom
(sorry I lack a catchy phrase for the proverb)
it's the peak improvement achievable in theory - if an algorithm isn't very simd-compliant, you'll loose half of the performance in less than the wink of an eye
... the rest will be barely enough to run a project about two or three times the complexity of your former setup at 96 khz...
nah, I don't wanna to spoil the party (and a lot of stuff really benefits from SIMD, seriously), but plain numeric figures have only a limited relation to reality
you know, in soccer it's called ...entscheidend ist auf'm Platz...
cheers, Tom
(sorry I lack a catchy phrase for the proverb)
3) there were 18 of them in the XITE at the musikmess
EDITED I removed pics that I intended for planetz core users only as a very sneak preview thank you.
EDITED I removed pics that I intended for planetz core users only as a very sneak preview
thank you.
Last edited by spacef on Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:29 am, edited 11 times in total.
