Scope 4.0 v 4.5 v 5.0

[polemic]

I can only say that in Scope mode, changing drivers in Cubase while Scope is running ( to and from SCOPE ASIO to onbard sound etc) is a lot more stable operation than it used to be ( it doesnt crash my system anymore ).

Thanks for that !

I've been told if you have a license for 4.0 you can run 4.5 but without as many features.

If someone knows the differences please please provide information.

I believe the driver in 5.0 was re-written as per Mr Arkadin post

Thanks again everyone

[dante]

If you have 4.0 you can pay to upgrade to 4.5 which gives you 5.0 free, or just go straight to 5.0. Cant think of any reason not to go from 4.0 straight to 5.0 though, why bother with 4.5 ? I never ran 4.5

[polemic]

Hey dante

I think I was told by someone wanting to sell a DSP card that having 4.0 allows you to run 4.5.

As I say, I don't know if there was a change to the driver in 4.5, meaning as garyb said running as a dumb sound card while being a stable system.

Basically you buy an old card from ebay, it costs to upgrade the soft.

Maybe a no-brainer to some but a valid consideration IMV

[dante]

Hey dante
I think I was told by someone wanting to sell a DSP card that having 4.0 allows you to run 4.5.

Not without paying for it. 4.5 to 5.0 is the free upgrade, not 4.0 to 4.5. If someone selling a board with 4.0 is telling you that you'll get 4.5 for free, they are either mixing things up with 4.5=>5.0 or trying to rip you off Id say.

[polemic]

Not without paying for it. 4.5 to 5.0 is the free upgrade, not 4.0 to 4.5. If someone selling a board with 4.0 is telling you that you'll get 4.5 for free, they are either mixing things up with 4.5=>5.0 or trying to rip you off Id say.

No the person said you can run 4.5 with a 4.0 license but not all features are available.

[dante]

Have no idea what that means. Sounds suss to me (maybe they're talking bout a 4.5 beta ????). Ask em to knock the price of the upgrade off the board & see what they say. Thats what I'd do. But then again if they only wanted $200 euro for the board I'd take it and pay the upgrade LOL !!

[polemic]

The seller did say that the 5.0 upgrade is paid for.

I believe there was another brand called Fairlight and this is where the caveat exists.

Maybe someone with additional knowledge can comment.

Thanks dante you've been most helpful to me.

[katano]

no, polemic is right. you can run 4.5 with the same license keys as 4.0, but you don't get the additional devices from 4.5 like SBC, because you haven't got the keys. got it?

Nothing has changed, no new drivers, from 4 to 4.5, except a few more included devices for the bucks...

Cheers,
Roman

[dante]

Ok, I missed the finer points of 4.5 - coz I never had it .. thanks for clarification Katano. The caveats would have been with Creamware. Although some scope cards were in another piece of fairlight gear I read somewhere here.

[garyb]

Maybe it can be done what I'm suggesting anyway, since as Mr Arkadin said, you load cubase first, so if I was working with one sound card and scope devices as wrapped VST's then I could change ASIO driver and work from there, problem I guess is then I'd loose those wrapped devices as they'd suddenly become unavailable.

no. if you really want to work in the constrained, but convienient world of computer ONLY music, then use xtc mode.

Scope mode is a different way of working. it's the real world way, but using the convieniences of the computer. it's more complicated, but only because you need to learn about how gear works and functions and about things like recording techniques, because EVERYTHING that you would EVER do in the finest studio can be brought to bear. there's no reason to load a synth in Cubase when you can just record it, audio or midi or both, just like if you had a REAL Minimoog(although a real minimoog doesn't have midi, so you actually have to learn how to play it...). there's no need for both, you can work either way, but if you use one, you don't need the other, trust me(hehe!).

i see that you are really a newbie when it comes to recording and music production(which is fine). Nuendo and Cubase are the same program. Nuendo has additional features, but there would be no reason to run both programs, nor would it be a good idea since they are both resource heavy. when i run both Sam and Cubase, i'm using my favorite sterengths for each program. Sam burns redbook master cds and it's editing features make it perfect for laying out an album. i like Cubase's editing for multitrack recording (audio and midi). if you REALLY want to use both Cubase and Nuendo at the sa,e time, you could, however. one would use the asio driver and one the windows wav driver.

[garyb]

Not without paying for it. 4.5 to 5.0 is the free upgrade, not 4.0 to 4.5. If someone selling a board with 4.0 is telling you that you'll get 4.5 for free, they are either mixing things up with 4.5=>5.0 or trying to rip you off Id say.

No the person said you can run 4.5 with a 4.0 license but not all features are available.

4.0 and 4.5 are the same, and 4.5 can be used with a 4.0 key. 4.5 is a different package of plugins, those ones specific to 4.5 just won't run, otherwise, it'll work. for the purpose of 5.0, however, the 4.0 to 4.5 upgrade must be purchased to get v5 free(or, if you prefer, if the card doesn't have 4.5 keys, you have to pay for v5).

[garyb]

these two modes can't blend with each other. it's either one or the other. mix in the sequencer or mix in Scope, but the devices and presets are the same.

EDIT: I saw your extra post, why did Analog Devices think impossible?

too many chips running together like that...

[dante]

too many chips running together like that...

That was in ref to XITE-1 wasn't it ? (not the PCI cards)

[garyb]

yes.

[dante]

Which I find interesting as everyone accepts for granted the idea of spreading 12 DSP's over 1,2 or 3 PCI boards (and STDM in the case of Scope) or 3 PCIe boards (in the case of UAD2).

So what we're looking at here is an assertion that putting those same number of DSP on a single board throws up more challenges than having them spread across higher latency circuits or cables (PCI or STDM / PCIe busses).

I must be missing something here...?

[astroman]

well, it's about traffic...
just picture TimeSquare, Piccadilly Circus and Champs Elysee as one mega crossroad - and you're there ...
The functionality you take for granted only looks perfect at first glance.
As soon as you start digging deeper, some flaws become obvious.
For example the sample delay of certain processes in the Scope Modular Synth or displacement of mixer channels.
When DSP technology was developed, there was no reference - people had to learn the details.
Under certain circumstances you can easily live with some flaws, but as things grow in complexity some of those may become showstoppers.

It's also a mental problem because you KNOW that you can. So you want.
Even if it wouldn't matter at all in the end.
Just look on this board about 'phase accuracy' - imho it's way over the top (regarding musical context)

cheers, Tom

[garyb]

actually, more dsps on one board is better. the total number working in concert is the question.

[astroman]

that's what I meant with 'traffic'...
above a certain amount it becomes... 'complicated' ...

cheers, Tom

[dante]

Yeah but its the notion of how the complexity is any different with the same DSP's spread across 3 boards instead of one. I could understand some of the load times being an issue as less busses for the same amount of devices to load on. But once they're already loaded.

I suppose its also the cabling on the project GUI which changes after devices have already been loaded, its this type of dynamic configuration I could understand might get gnarley.

But if you can load 3 x UAD2 Quads in a single PC and have them work in concert one imagines you could amalgamate all of them together on the same board to work better. The only difference being that in a PC they have the bandwidth of 3 PCIe slots to work with instead of 1.

[garyb]

UAD dsps don't work "together", in the same way that Scope dsps do, but that's neither here nor there. the reason that big boards work better than several small boards is about big devices that span more than one dsp. having to span across the s/tdm cable has a lot more latency than spanning across the connections on the card itself. the latency can produce timing issues. for devices that don't span across multiple dsps, 3 small cards work about the same as one big one. the XITE just has such an abundance of dsp in a single package, all working as part of a dynamic environment, it was thought to be impossible by some. sorry, but the UAD isn't even a similar situation.

of course, all this info comes to you via a non-tech, so...