18 months later with scope as a standalone

[Chilliman]

So, about 18 months ago I made the decision to drop scope as an audio interface. I have 3 PCI cards, 15/6/4 chips.
They're in an xp P4 2.8ht pc, I had built by an audio pc specialist in 2003 ish. Still works, and I have core 2 duo unit with 3x PCI as a spare pc incase this one bites the dust.
I've always loved the scope system, the synths are top notch, I love the patch what you want to anything else way it works, I love the FX. Has always felt like a piece of multi use hardware, rather than vst's.
But it wasn't really viable to have a latest and greatest PC with cubase 11/12 and still be used.
Since I've started to treat it like a piece of outboard gear, it's been 10x better. I go in and out of scope via adat, aes and spdif. I have it setup as external FX in cubase on some adat channels, the rest I use for instruments.
It's works perfect, everything stays in the digital domain, no latency, no stuttering, comprehensive midi control with a novation SL MK3 makes each synth really feel like hardware. I swear I've still not heard better, hardware or software and I've got some very nice gear.
I'd be absolutely gutted if these cards packed in. Wish I could locate one of those word clock adapters to really lock in clock timings with my new interface, but one might turn up on eBay eventually for a realistic price.
I'm running scope 5.0. I wonder if anything has changed sonically with 5.1 or later.
I can't believe sonic core still supported these cards with software upgrades for this long, they deserve some serious kudos for that.
I'm glad I got to keep my scope system. Because I ain't got a spare 5k for an xite.

[valis]

I've done a sidecar Scope system since Win7 debuted, as I kept that machine XP and 32bit only for a very very long time. About 2 years ago I built a new 64bit quadcore 2017 era Xeon rig for Scope, which is what it is today.

Like you, I have found that keeping Scope independant of my primary DAW increases options and stability, without impacting workflow as much as one would think. I suspect half of this equation is the host machine's audio card, having multiple adat/AES and midi connections to Scope keeps the flexibility up with ASIO and software midi drivers (DAW on the same machine as Scope), so an inexpensive 4in 4out plus SPDIF soundcard is just not a good compatriot for Scope. Me? I have 4 RME machines all slaved to Scope (RME Multiface II HDSPe in each machine) and with my master clock everything has been as stable as can be.

[astroman]

@Chilliman a Syncplate and dedicated wordclock is a great benefit with multiple Adat connections, worth hunting one down, even if it takes a while.
Looks like I found my dream Scope base with an Asus P4C800 (Intel 875P, 5 PCI slots) and a 2 Ghz P4Mobile, running Win7/32 and Scope 5.1 with 3 Pulsar 2 boards. There‘s no audible difference to both 4.5 and 5.0 that I noticed.
(the main feature of the mobo is adjustable VCore to make use of the mobile CPU, the whole system burns only 200W)

Scope is connected to a G4 Mac with Pro Tools 5.1 TDM (several Digidesign io boxes and a MPC 4000) via Adat Bridge.
Routing is flawless and precise latency adjustments can be done by Scope or PT if required.

[darkrezin]

I’ve been doing the standalone thing for a long time and it’s great, was using ADAT but have almost finished moving to dedicated conversion instead (just need more ins before I can be happy ). I’m lucky enough to have some old apogee cinema converters modded for adat. They have an interesting benefit of automuting in the event of sustained digital noise if the scope cards freak out (I’m using a combo of gen1 and gen2 cards so possible my system is more susceptible to this). Couldn’t be happier with it as it is now.

[Chilliman]

@Chilliman a Syncplate and dedicated wordclock is a great benefit with multiple Adat connections, worth hunting one down, even if it takes a while.
Looks like I found my dream Scope base with an Asus P4C800 (Intel 875P, 5 PCI slots) and a 2 Ghz P4Mobile, running Win7/32 and Scope 5.1 with 3 Pulsar 2 boards. There‘s no audible difference to both 4.5 and 5.0 that I noticed.
(the main feature of the mobo is adjustable VCore to make use of the mobile CPU, the whole system burns only 200W)

Scope is connected to a G4 Mac with Pro Tools 5.1 TDM (several Digidesign io boxes and a MPC 4000) via Adat Bridge.
Routing is flawless and precise latency adjustments can be done by Scope or PT if required.

Is there any sonic or feature differences between 5.0 and later versions?

[Chilliman]

I've done a sidecar Scope system since Win7 debuted, as I kept that machine XP and 32bit only for a very very long time. About 2 years ago I built a new 64bit quadcore 2017 era Xeon rig for Scope, which is what it is today.

Like you, I have found that keeping Scope independant of my primary DAW increases options and stability, without impacting workflow as much as one would think. I suspect half of this equation is the host machine's audio card, having multiple adat/AES and midi connections to Scope keeps the flexibility up with ASIO and software midi drivers (DAW on the same machine as Scope), so an inexpensive 4in 4out plus SPDIF soundcard is just not a good compatriot for Scope. Me? I have 4 RME machines all slaved to Scope (RME Multiface II HDSPe in each machine) and with my master clock everything has been as stable as can be.

I've got 16 outputs from scope and 10 inputs. I've got to run one of my hardware mixer buses to scope to have everything hardwired to everything. I've changed so much in the last 18 months and still adding things, so I am always trying new routing options. The SL MK3 was key to getting everything working from one spot. Wish I'd split it up years ago.

[scary808]

I've been running Scope as an external rack since 2005. Preferred Logic pro and wanted to keep my DAW up to date. I'm exploring DAWless production more and more nowadays. Thinking of scrapping most of the Logic workflow and mixing in Scope. This topic sounds like a good subject for a poll!

[valis]

Mixing ITB is still going to be superior for many DAW based workflows, largely because it’s easiest to be 100% sample and phase accurate for the whole mix (cue GaryB about how sloppy things have been historically by comparison). Even with that, being able to route external gear, other computers and scope devices through scope to that ITB DAW is such a powerful workflow (compared to no Scope) that I cannot see forgoing it in my studio. I’ve even joined the users who have both legacy PCI and Xite versions of Scope…

[garyb]

if 100% sample and phase accuracy sound best, why do people clamor for an "analog" sound?

[valis]

Right on cue

[Chilliman]

I need a hardware mixer to have enough I/O for all my hardware synths and drum machines, mic's etc for recording.
There's no logical advantage to me spending huge amounts on all the computer I/O I would need, when I have a perfectly good mixer with good preamps and various auxillary buses, sub-mixes and direct outs, so it's not just one summed output for everything.
That's money that can be used for more synths. And there is still something to be said for having gain staging and minor eq tweaks at your fingertips on your input signal. Especially with 80s analogue synths that can jump 20db from one patch to the next.

[Chilliman]

I've been running Scope as an external rack since 2005. Preferred Logic pro and wanted to keep my DAW up to date. I'm exploring DAWless production more and more nowadays. Thinking of scrapping most of the Logic workflow and mixing in Scope. This topic sounds like a good subject for a poll!

I don't get the dawless thing. I do dawless jamming for myself. Sequenced synths, samplers and drum machines for my own amusement. But it's not an ideological goal or something.
The idea of cutting out cubase from my recording and mixing process seems bananas. I think cubase is the best DAW for mixing there is. (of the ones I've tried)
How far it has come in 20 years is crazy.
Things like spectral layers are just borderline witchcraft.
Can't imagine going backwards from this point.

[astroman]

Is there any sonic or feature differences between 5.0 and later versions?

I only have 5.1 and imh ears no difference in sound at all, except where obvious (like Mod4, which is „new“ code).
5.0 to 5.1 and later probably is more housekeeping under the hood, not the basic sound engine.

[doodyrh]

Very similar to chilliman here but smaller scale. Bought Creamware 6 DSP back when PCs were cranky and this seemed more reliable. It's been in various PC rebuilds since, sometimes without stopping to ask why, having long ago switched to external sound interface and mostly VST. Was even a bit surprised it still started up after a few years of no use.

Also route in over S/PDIF and out on ADAT. This on same machine as Cubase but treating it as external because Cubase has the ASIO driver. Currently just occasional use for send or inserts, comfort reverb for vocal recording and rediscovering creamy synths. But using more and more. Still on Scope 5 and would like to upgrade Modular. Wondering how well 6 DSPs will manage light use of newer versions.

[astroman]

6 DSP is a very tight modular budget. I have 18 and would describe it as „sufficient“, good workhorse, but far from powerful.
(and I‘m humble on polyphony, rarely using more than 2 voices)

If your budget allows, it seems Sonic Core still has some 6 DSP boosters (new old stock) for less than $300.

[sunmachine]

If your budget allows, it seems Sonic Core still has some 6 DSP boosters (new old stock) for less than $300.

Those cards were produced by the end of 2020, so no new old stock.

[astroman]

Ok, two and a half year old stock...
(just wanted to indicated they are not refurbished)

[doodyrh]

If your budget allows, it seems Sonic Core still has some 6 DSP boosters (new old stock) for less than $300.

Those cards were produced by the end of 2020, so no new old stock.

Interesting. Didn't know about those. Thanks.

[Sounddesigner]

Very similar to chilliman here but smaller scale. Bought Creamware 6 DSP back when PCs were cranky and this seemed more reliable. It's been in various PC rebuilds since, sometimes without stopping to ask why, having long ago switched to external sound interface and mostly VST. Was even a bit surprised it still started up after a few years of no use.

Also route in over S/PDIF and out on ADAT. This on same machine as Cubase but treating it as external because Cubase has the ASIO driver. Currently just occasional use for send or inserts, comfort reverb for vocal recording and rediscovering creamy synths. But using more and more. Still on Scope 5 and would like to upgrade Modular. Wondering how well 6 DSPs will manage light use of newer versions.

It definitely does not take a lot of DSP Power to have your Mixes benifit greatly from the great sound of SCOPE. The good thing about computers being so powerfull is that it means DSP's don't have to be extremely powerfull anymore. In your situation a second dsp-card should be significantly benificial, especially with Modular 4.

IMO, Modular 4 has no equal, not in hardware world not ITB. None can match its soundquality, flexibility, ITB-convienance, Realtime-capability Ratio. Native does'nt sound as good and hardware lacks the ITB-convienances. You don't need Mega-dsp-power to benifit well from Modular 4, but certainly is good to get enough power to accomplish your wishes. Another 6-dsp card might go a long way twards satisfying you!

[st1]

Not sure how to phrase this.
But - are you saying that you are experiencing benefits from keeping Creamware software (and hardware) off the main DAW PCs?

If so what exactly are those benefits?
- Stability?
- flexibility in terms of HW for main DAW?
- Performance?
- Ease of use (e.g. separation of different age GUIs)?
- Uncomplicatedness (as in not having to use Scope 4.5 under Win11 or something along that line).

I am considering re-doing my studio set-up (Scope/Ableton/Reason/softsynths).
Currently, I am using Creamware cards for ADAT I/O between machines.
(Most machines are HP or DELL workstation with one or more PCI slots.)

Would you prefer using non-Creamware I/O for the main DAW/Softsynth machine?
I could get an RME RayDat or similar (DigiFace), or even a cost-effective Behringer I/O-box.
This would allow great flexibility in the choice of PC hardware...
But would that be better than using, say, a spare Pulsar w. 2x ADAT I/O purely as a digital I/O board?

St1