Scope 4.0 v 4.5 v 5.0

[astroman]

UAD dsps don't work "together", in the same way that Scope dsps do, but that's neither here nor there. ...

good point Gary. Picking this up...
on a UAD you load independant devices that communicate via a VST host wrapper (usually with the sequencer).
Example: if you have 2 devices and wanted to insert a (say) filter into a feedback loop between them, you'd have to arrange this in your sequencer someway
... and multiply latency by 3 (if I pictured this right ).
In Scope the actual DSP processing code is modified on the fly by the routing software.

Does this give you a hint of how powerful this system actually is ?
... but of course it's old, rarely updated, bla, bla, bla

cheers, Tom

[dante]

Yeah, so theres even more 'glue' ( VST wrappers, host CPU etc ) interconnections and complexity between the DSP processing (in the sense that 'working together' means they are all working simultaneously to make a tune). Yet paradoxically Analog Devices or UA or whoever are saying that by removing that glue (by putting the DSP's all on one board) its all becoming 'too much'.

I know UAD and Scope work in different ways, but in the end it seems to boil down to how much 'stuff' is between each DSP chip and a notion of saying by removing that 'stuff' (connecting all the DSP's directly on one board) we're making things 'too much' whereas at another level one could be excused for thinking the opposite - that the 'less stuff' between them then the less complex and more straightforward. Again from a non-techy point of view though..

[dante]

I think - from discussions elsewhere, that the problem is the interconnections on board. Scope PCI and UAD are using connections elsewhere (STDM busses, Host CPU, VST wrappers etc).

Putting all this DSP power on one board means more interconnection bandwidth needed here so I think this is part of what is being referred to in saying 'it cant be done'.

The challenge is in the S|C routing software. But if this is improved then the sky is the limit.