Pretty disappointed with V5 so far :-(

[Mr Arkadin]

yes. garyb have right. in the 5 years i must change 3 diferent uad's cards, and 2 poco cards. only same cw's hardware i use more than 10 years.

i wonder if i'd still be using the Yamaha DSP Factory audio card i was going to buy when i opted for Pulsar2 instead.

[ChampionSound]

yes. garyb have right. in the 5 years i must change 3 diferent uad's cards, and 2 poco cards. only same cw's hardware i use more than 10 years.

i wonder if i'd still be using the Yamaha DSP Factory audio card i was going to buy when i opted for Pulsar2 instead.

That's funny, A that time I also considered the YamahaDSP factory card and saved up for a Pulsar2 instead. It obviously seems that we did the right thing, Mr Arkadin

[Tau]

Not to rain on any parade here, but...

Scope 5 for PCI is a Release Candidate

Scope 5 for XITE is not a Release Candidate

Do you think there are many differences between the two of them? Not that many, really, and I have both here, so I know what I'm talking about.

While Scope 5 for PCI is praisable even as it is, and I agree with Gary's arguments there, Scope 5 for XITE is really just unfinished. And for a 3000Eur+ investiment... I mean, it's not written anywhere that the XITE is a beta testing version, it is promoted and sold on the basis that it is a complete product, even though there are still some promises unfulfilled. It does work, but it's not the revolution one would expect (150 DSP power...).

The XITE is S|C's product, and, as we know, the PCIs are Creamware. So nice of them to move the old platform forward, but IMHO they should really be focusing on perfecting their flagship model, so they can do XITE 0.5 and XITE 2 ASAP, and most of us Scopers can move along to PCIe, 64bit, Win7 or OSX without losing our past work.

As for their choice of new plug-ins, although the reverbs are extremely fine and welcome, and the gate/compressor modules sound good, I still don't like the sound of the SC9000 (and I didn't like the DAS version already), and the new SC EQ really doesn't sound that good to my ears. Maybe I need to experiment with it a little more, but it's how I feel about it now - if I need EQ, I'll load up PEQ4 and it does the job! Scope needs a channel strip, and this is just not it, sorry... And it could do with a couple more Compressor devices as standard (the DAS ones are really good, and would be a more welcome addition than the SL9000).

The way I see it, a much better use for this first run of XITEs would have been to give one (even on a loan) to each of the 3rd party devs (at least the ones with plugs sold in the store) who really make this platform exciting and unique, so that we could migrate our setups to the new platform with ease. Stock plugs and synths are good, nothing wrong with them, but the truth is I haven't used any of it in a long time.

Well, the SSBs, Vinco, Compressor (Classic) and PEQ do get used a lot to be fair... And the Prodissey

Just my opinion on the current state of affairs. Go S|C!

T

[garyb]

that's not rain!


btw-both XITE and PCI are Scope 5. look for finished versions in weeks not months(not official notice, but let's see if i'm right!). also, there have been a number of XITE revisions. do you have the latest? the XITE release just couldn't be put off any longer if the company was going to survive it's infancy. they had a heck of a time just keeping up with demand at first. i think things are more under control now. it's hard for a handful of guys(and gals) to undertake such a large project. i think they've done quite well. Scope is really still unrivaled and nobody is even close in competition with XITE's overall package.

[siriusbliss]

AFAIK both PCI and Xite versions are the same. Some other tweaks may have been done for Xite's DSP configurations, but for now, I have both latest RC's on my system.

And, yes, I'm presuming that we are near the final release.

Greg

[Tau]

Yeah, I understand the situation, and all in all, I think S|C are being super nice to update the old Creamware systems, which also benefits me directly. It does take time to do things properly, but I am a patient man.

I feel there's a bit of a lack of communication, and sometimes that makes me a little nervous, but as far as they know, I could be an industrial spy with an infinite budget to gather info on the competition (I am not, BTW).

Let's give it a little time, hopefully by the end of the year most of the issues will be solved, at least on the Windows platform.

Icing on the cake would be to offer the EC card to early buyers Just kidding (but it would be great).


T

[dawman]

There is only one senior coder as far as it has been hawked around. So it will be his genius and energy that defines the meaning of soon.

I wonder if he'll get laid off when the final release comes...........

[netguyjoel]

Yeah, I understand the situation, and all in all, I think S|C are being super nice to update the old Creamware systems, which also benefits me directly. It does take time to do things properly, but I am a patient man.

I feel there's a bit of a lack of communication, and sometimes that makes me a little nervous, but as far as they know, I could be an industrial spy with an infinite budget to gather info on the competition (I am not, BTW).

Let's give it a little time, hopefully by the end of the year most of the issues will be solved, at least on the Windows platform.

Icing on the cake would be to offer the EC card to early buyers Just kidding (but it would be great).


T

You are about to be surprised...

[siriusbliss]

mwahahahahahaahahahahha......ha



Greg

[netguyjoel]

OK COUNT!
u got me

[sandrob]

beside bugs. s/c must agrue people that scope do better summing than cubase (and similar) and they must create superior mastering tools.
i'll rather use scope mixer as summing box if i'll have more nice mastering tools like bx digital, timeworks limiter (or tc md3).

to me the best solution will be to use scope devices same as external hardware in the cubase, then route all chanels trough cubases buses to scope mixer (summing box) with superiror masterings plugins on the master channel.

now i use cubases master stereo out, instead scope, to mastering because i have better mastering tools in vst format.

in the youtube promo spots s/c must use song and slogan "what we need is a great big melting pot".
(with couple famous producers who will dance with xite in hands)

[siriusbliss]

I'd rather let SC focus on other things than developing mastering tools. bxDigital is already being used here with great results.

Summing through Scope is one of the main reasons I've been using it all these years.

Greg

[garyb]

i thouroughly disagree, but that's what talking is about sometimes.
i don't see a need for a sequencer to be the center of the world. that is ass-backwards, no matter how convienient. the tape machine should not be the universe. the current integration is the best way to join the inside and outside worlds.

as to more asio channels? there's nothing wrong with submixing, but for those ridiculous projects using more than 64 mono tracks(the phase issues in 32 stereo tracks are gargantuan) or for mixing down major motion picture sound tracks, ok, more asio i/o might be nice...

[pollux]

i thouroughly disagree, but that's what talking is about sometimes.
i don't see a need for a sequencer to be the center of the world. that is ass-backwards, no matter how convienient. the tape machine should not be the universe. the current integration is the best way to join the inside and outside worlds.

I thoroughly disagree for me the sequencer is way more than a tape machine, and I spend much more time in it than in the scope environment.. so it's way more conveinient for me to have everything in a single place (XTC)

as to more asio channels? there's nothing wrong with submixing, but for those ridiculous projects using more than 64 mono tracks(the phase issues in 32 stereo tracks are gargantuan) or for mixing down major motion picture sound tracks, ok, more asio i/o might be nice...

Classical music can use much more than 64 mono tracks, and I wouldn't call that ridiculous.
Modern productions with recorded instruments can easily hit 40 or more tracks and use *a lot* of busses.
Submixing is OK as long as you can easily continue to manipulate all the source tracks to make subtle changes all along the way. For that you still need to have all the tracks sent to scope, and then submix inside the SFP, or submix in the host and send the submixes to scope for the final mix, or load all the tracks in VDAT

[garyb]

classical music is recorded in stereo, unless it's artificial, like some film scores.

64 mono tracks are not necessarily ridiculous, but 64 stereo tracks might be, just because of the phase nightmares.

i understand the move to the sequencer as the center of the world, it IS convienient, but it disallows things that really make music great, like the real world. convienience is often a disguised slow death. electronic music is not the only reality, nor the only or best use of Scope. the best use(as far as using all of it's strengths! naturally, i'm not dissing Scope as an electronica tool or electronica, neither do i oppose electronica or dislike it!) is neither electronica, nor traditional recording, but all of the above. basing everything around the sequencer sacrifices traditional recording and other pure audio work. I'M NOT AGAINST THE OPTION, HOWEVER! i'm just sayin', there's more to life and music than your favorite sequencer, and if you utilize all of it, the current Scope interface is near perfect, considering the available technology. all that is left to make Scope the king of integration and usefullness in ALL audio applications at once is something like mackie control. jmho...

[pollux]

classical music is recorded in stereo, unless it's artificial, like some film scores.

64 mono tracks are not necessarily ridiculous, but 64 stereo tracks might be, just because of the phase nightmares.

i understand the move to the sequencer as the center of the world, it IS convienient, but it disallows things that really make music great, like the real world. convienience is often a disguised slow death. electronic music is not the only reality, nor the only or best use of Scope. the best use(as far as using all of it's strengths! naturally, i'm not dissing Scope as an electronica tool or electronica, neither do i oppose electronica or dislike it!) is neither electronica, nor traditional recording, but all of the above. basing everything around the sequencer sacrifices traditional recording and other pure audio work. I'M NOT AGAINST THE OPTION, HOWEVER! i'm just sayin', there's more to life and music than your favorite sequencer, and if you utilize all of it, the current Scope interface is near perfect, considering the available technology. all that is left to make Scope the king of integration and usefullness in ALL audio applications at once is something like mackie control. jmho...

I use the sequencer a lot and I don't do electronic music.. just as many other people out there
as I said, sequencers are much more than plain audio or midi tape machines, and for me, it's easier to have everything in a single place when mixing.

I do use a lot the Scope environment for tracking, but it's a totally different use

[garyb]

and for me, it's easier to have everything in a single place when mixing.

for me too! that's Scope.

don't think i don't get your point, i do. for me, the sequencer is like one of those hard disk recorders, it's all in one. if i had a nice Neve or Harrison to mix on, i surely would use the vs2480's mixer or effects, but that's me. as i said, i'm not against xtc-style inegration or seeing that integration improved, though. in fact, i think that it may have been improved and that it is about to see the real world.....

[pollux]

and for me, it's easier to have everything in a single place when mixing.

for me too! that's Scope.

don't think i don't get your point, i do. for me, the sequencer is like one of those hard disk recorders, it's all in one. if i had a nice Neve or Harrison to mix on, i surely would use the vs2480's mixer or effects, but that's me. as i said, i'm not against xtc-style inegration or seeing that integration improved, though. in fact, i think that it may have been improved and that it is about to see the real world.....

Try to split a clip, do some multi take comping, or using audio snap or beat inspector like tools inside VDAT, and you'll easily get my point

[garyb]

and for me, it's easier to have everything in a single place when mixing.

for me too! that's Scope.

don't think i don't get your point, i do. for me, the sequencer is like one of those hard disk recorders, it's all in one. if i had a nice Neve or Harrison to mix on, i surely would use the vs2480's mixer or effects, but that's me. as i said, i'm not against xtc-style inegration or seeing that integration improved, though. in fact, i think that it may have been improved and that it is about to see the real world.....

Try to split a clip, do some multi take comping, or using audio snap or beat inspector like tools inside VDAT, and you'll easily get my point

i DO get your point, those are operations that i use the sequencer for as well, but none of those operations have anything to do with MIXING.

why are we even arguing?

[pollux]

i DO get your point, those are operations that i use the sequencer for as well, but none of those operations have anything to do with MIXING.

I do them at the same time.. got spoiled by tracktion

why are we even arguing?

because it's fun and healthy?