Creamware (sonic core) Scope

[oldspeak]

Hi,

So are you tellling me then that I can have only a "booster" board on it's own and somehow use it with a sync daughterboard therefore needing another audio interface?

I note there are some threads about using a secondary ASIO driver but I don't really know if that can work.

Maybe you can shed some light for me because Sonic Core manuals although quite explanatory are quite out of date.

Thanks again for your time

[garyb]

it is possible to use a Scope board with no i/os. in that case, XTC mode will be the only usable mode, a mode similar to the UAD card. you MUST have another interface in that case. this seems a shame to me(you won't save much, if any money and you'll lose some really cool functionality that i mention in the other thread), but i'm not the one who would use it.

btw- there might be some confusion in the ADAT name. the ADAT lightpipe is the 8 channel optical connector that can also be used as stereo sp/dif. it is on the Scope Project and Professional card X2 and on the i/o expander of the Scope Home(included with the new cards, but optional on older cards like the Luna).

ADAT 9 pin is a protocol of the ADAT Machine's big remote control. it exists because when Scope was first introduced, many people had ADAT machines and Scope had and has a virtual ADAT machine(VDAT), which could be synced to the hardware machines via 9 pin on the Syncplate.

[oldspeak]

Hey Gary,

Glad you are here to answer my questions as I am still trying to get my head around just what it is Scope is.

I ask about the so-called XTC mode not to try and do away with anything, on the contrary what I am trying to ascertain is firstly the difference and any additional benefit I might obtain from using a Scope system as opposed to an RME card eg., HDSP 9652.

I've looked at all the newer PCIe interfaces out there and decided that the 9652 was better value anyway, it didn't seem to have anything less in the FPGA department and provided wordclock onboard, but now of course I am thinking about the Scope system and how compelling it might be in the long run.

As I say if I could use it in the short term in this XTC mode then the problem becomes how many instances of a synth can I use and quite frankly this information doesn't appear to be on the website so maybe that should be updated in the near future to coincide with the release of version 5 of the software because although helpful those manuals really leave much to be desired in terms of explainaing exactly how the mixer works for example, as I note from another thread I'd have to use 2 mixers anyway which I hope to avoid altogether but RME can't do it at this time.

Best regards.

[garyb]

well, if it's PCI-e, then it's XITE-1 which is Scope on steroids, but is not usable without it's i/o. there is also nothing really comparable to it. Scope cards are PCI.

as to how many synth instances? well, that can't be answered directly, because some use more power than others. generally, the more INCREDABLE they sound, the more dsps they eat. something that is quite humdrum now, the MINIMAX(which destroys other minis that aren't real hardware Moogs), eats almost 2 dsps for the first voice. on the other hand, you couldn't do a model of that quality natively and expect to run a sequencer, so the MINIMAX on a Scope Project is quite a value, even for just 3 MINIMAXs(hardware costs how much?).

Scope IS hardware, actually.

also, the name of the game is the "recording business", so massive instances are not as important as FAT, quality sounds. one doesn't need to layer as heavily when the sounds stand on their own.

[johndunn]

...
also, the name of the game is the "recording business", so massive instances are not as important as FAT, quality sounds. one doesn't need to layer as heavily when the sounds stand on their own.

This is true probably 90% of the time, but there is another persuasion, of people who like to run huge modular systems or banks of synths or the softsynth equivalent, in order to work with a real time orchestra or ensemble. For this kind of work, the number of instances is every bit as important as the fatness of the sound. I've been working this way for years, first with the big synths, then with TX816's, then softsynths when they became available. VAZ, Reaktor, Tassman, that wonderful Moog V by Aturia, and so on. Finally I discovered Scope and for my money the problems that made working with a multi synth ensemble a lot like herding cats were at last solved.

The thing that is different about Scope is that it is the complete studio, Mixers, effects, stand alone synths, and modular synths along with great samplers. Plus a ton of audio widgets and tools. Plus the best and most trouble free multitrack recording setup based on the old Alisis VDAT. Also the analog and digital i/o is pristine and very flexible.

As for number of DSPs needed, I've found that my original 3 DSP Pulsar card did fine as a first rate audio card, which is why I bought it originally. It was great for routing and mixing, and for playing around with the various synths, but it was limited to only one or two instances of a synth, depending on the complexity and polyphony setting. Later I added 2 more 15 DSP SRBs, and got enough for maybe 8 or 12 good simultaneous synths. 16 if I ran it at the lowest bitrate of 32 kHz. Now I've added a 3rd card, and I can get 16 good synths at a time, although I still have to be careful with the polyphony settings, and not put in too many of the really fat ones. That's modular synths - I can get 16 simultaneous Vectrons (the full ones, not just the players) no sweat. But the MiniMax's are more troublesome, and can put in only a few at a time and even then it sometimes takes a couple loads before the cards figure out how to correctly stuff the DSPs.

So if I were starting from scratch I would probably go for the XITE. While I'm inclined to discount the claims of 10x the DSP power of a 15 DSP card, I figure it will easily enough have 2x and perhaps a little more of the capability of my current 3 card, 45 DSP setup. Once the dust has settled a bit after its release, I expect to replace my 3 card setup with the XITE.

Bottom line, if you are doing multi synth work, Scope is the way to go and there is no 2nd place. And you will need more DSP power than you probably want to pay for, but it's a major studio tool and a fine musical instrument that will last way beyond your next several generations of computer upgrades. So bite the bullet and get Scope.

[netguyjoel]

I Agree...Scope is the only way to go in your case...I have a good number of hardware synths & when I got started working with the Scope environment ,I thought a 6 processor card would be enough. As I used it more,liked it more, I quickly realised I needed A LOT more processing power. So now I'm looking for more DSP (johnndunn, contact me if ya wanna sell some of those 15 dsp cards)

best wishes...

[dawman]

banksy-graffiti-street-art-soldier-beth.jpg

[Sounddesigner]

Judging by warp69's tests i have XITE-1's power estimated at a little bit over 5x the amount of a SCOPE Professional for the devices he used. I'm sure different devices power-usage will translate differently just like with UAD-2; some devices may be 5x instance count, some may be 10x, and some may be more running on XITE-1. Remember there will be software optimizations so ultimately we may see 10x or close for 'overall average' for power-consumption of plugins running on XITE at some point. But even 5x looks really good right now . Reverbs power-usage on the UAD-2 translated worser then other plugins iirc, that may be the case with XITE also.


PS. for the plugins that don't have a good power-usage translation for XITE's new dsp's there still is 6 old dsp's on XITE, wich ain't much but still should help counter bad translations for some plugins to some extent.

[hifiboom]

i get a depression if we cannot run 50 high-end reverbs side by side on scope-xite-1 simultaniously.

[Shroomz~>]

Reverbs power-usage on the UAD-2 translated worser then other plugins iirc, that may be the case with XITE also.

Yes, that's the point. It'll depend purely on whether the plugin/s you load use dsp memory & also on how much dsp memory they use. For example, loading a bunch of plugins which use large amounts of dsp memory for delays (reverbs are a likely candidate), will eat into your dsp resources much more than plugins which use far less dsp memory. Basically, using up the dsp memory eats away at your overall dsp power/consumption even if you're not taxing the dsps with cycle usage. Someone please correct me if that's wrong, since I don't want to spread false information.

~Mark

[netguyjoel]

My question is...what uses more...synths, or FX?

Joel

[hifiboom]

i guess the xite-1 onboard dsp memory won`t brake down the dsps that much.
While the dsp power is one sort of limitation(1), the the transfer bus to and from memory is a second one.
An plug-in optimized for xite-1 should not have bigger problems with load count imo because it can use onboard memory ressources.

But even non-optimized the load count will be quite good due to the faster pci-Ex interface of the xite.

[next to nothing]

A short answer is effects. Then again, this is not definitive at it depends on what you consider an adequate amount of voices for your synth (adequate is also a very loose term, some like monosynths, sopme like doing monopoly synths with unison voices, some synths have built in effects etc). also, some synths and effects allocate more DSP resource "than necessary" to remain phase coherent. This is based on the theory of the existing Creamware/soniccore cards though, how it will work on a system that has fewer DSPs having more power is a question yet to be answered. my guess is that phase coherence will still be an issue, but you can smack more guts to one DSP than earlier.

Basically, id say the only devices using an excessive amount of your system resources will be devices wich are constructed from a large amount of delaylines. This will in effect mean high end reverb algorithms, but also other stuff that needs to transfer a lot of data to your computer within a short time.

[netguyjoel]

I tend to agree. With the escalation in PC power, dual, quad, or 8 core CPUs, large amounts of RAM (hopefully a 64 bit driver, shortly after release of 5.0), Bus Speed (1066, 1333, 1666), PCIe, vs PCI & card slots, the consumption rate of the DSPs by synths or effects I think, can me minimised, or better utilised, leaving room for more instances of large, dynamic FX & synths congruently. (Would you agree Jimmy V & Garyb) I am optimistic these guys have thought a lot of this out...the brilliant evil geniuses they are.

please advise....best wishes...

Joel

[Shroomz~>]

Yes, that's the point. It'll depend purely on whether the plugin/s you load use dsp memory & also on how much dsp memory they use. For example, loading a bunch of plugins which use large amounts of dsp memory for delays (reverbs are a likely candidate), will eat into your dsp resources much more than plugins which use far less dsp memory.

Ok, I'll correct myself on this, since what I said above is a complete generalization & not entirely true, since obviously other types of plugins which seriously tax the dsps on an available cycle count basis on our current cards through complexity, poly count etc will definitely have a bearing on this subject. Plugins like John Bowen's Solaris or Quantum Wave for example will undoubtedly use large amounts of dsp power when set to high poly counts. Also, since it's possible to build infinitely large devices for Scope (in theory & not counting any real/actual restrictions), it's impossible to quantify whether one specific type of device like effect, synth, mixer or whatever, will use more power. It just depends on the specific device.

[netguyjoel]

As far as poly count...the stick figure, angry white boy, old school, industrial machine music I do....most poly settings are set to 1-4 voices. Yeah, unison x8 on a Solaris, prodessy, minimax, and especially Modular I, II, III, might present a problem, as well as what you mentioned (synths w/ FX) does slightly complicate things, depending on the depth of the FX included w/ the synth. I still remain optimistic with current hardware speed available toda,y in my last post...

please advise...thanking you in advance...

Joel

[Shroomz~>]

You won't need to wind it up anyway...

[netguyjoel]

GREAT!!! finally some levity !!! I will punish the machine.....

Joel