PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Emotive - by name and by nature..

emotive wrote:

happycritter wrote:From a Bayesian epistemological perspective, given enough samples with a coherent frequency - then 'assumptions' very soon become knowledge...

People in this forum tend to have a fixed view of what things, i.e. computers, software and equipment do and often try to impose that on others.

I will not stand for this in particular assumptions made about how one should work.

Oh and bringing in posts from another thread is not all that impressive to say the least.

Then you shouldn't have set the precedent... (Oh, I'm sorry for not playing the game correctly)

Speaking of assumptions, you have a very rigid and oft recited set of assumptions concerning those who frequent this board and about those who render unpaid assistance.

So, please enlighten us as to the vast splendor of what these aforementioned items can and can't do... We could all benefit from your insights.

I'll put it this way critter, for a start a computer in no way is equivalent to some kind of "audio gear" it is a computer, end of story.

The sales spin that often emenates from this forum is quite sickening, and the carry on about the workflows of old being replicated in some kind of "environment" that is infinitely stable, give me a break.

Scope is great for what it is but at the price it's being sold at, I have to consider owning multiple machines and I won't get any discount unless the $99 special comes up again.

All I am using it for is as a DSP mixer, it helps me know more about the dynamics of what I am programming.

It is abundantly clear that assumptions are the norm here, the evidence being the obvious slant towards 32 bit. This is not to mention being told of who and who doesn't know anything about music.

Ah... So, a computer is just a computer. Fascinating. Tell us more.

What makes a computer?


Concerning all of this nasty 'troll' business:

"one swallow does not a summer make." ~ Aristotle

"However, two on a cloudless day is pretty darn close" ~ happycritter's corollary

You have a good machine critter (old but good) I'll give you that.

at least the topic title has been changed after all

My main one is even older than that.

emotive wrote: It is abundantly clear that assumptions are the norm here, the evidence being the obvious slant towards 32 bit. This is not to mention being told of who and who doesn't know anything about music.

If that were the case then you would fit right in, oh Troll King of Assumptions.

emotive wrote:I'll put it this way critter, for a start a computer in no way is equivalent to some kind of "audio gear" it is a computer, end of story.

please forgive me, but this statement shows a vast ignorance to what a computer is and does and what audio gear is. what is this thing called "virtual reality" then?

emotive wrote:The sales spin that often emenates from this forum is quite sickening, and the carry on about the workflows of old being replicated in some kind of "environment" that is infinitely stable, give me a break.

i'm not even sure what you mean exactly, but what makes you think that audio has changed in any way because of computers?

emotive wrote:Scope is great for what it is but at the price it's being sold at, I have to consider owning multiple machines and I won't get any discount unless the $99 special comes up again.

you have my sympathies that the world doesn't function strictly for your comfort.

Computers have changed the economies of audio if not the process. And therefore the participants, whose expectations have exceeded the realities of both the technology and the corporate profiles of the real companies driving innovation.

Two physical systems are not needed to run Scope. Both cards and XITE will happily run on the same system and also sit and run happily on both 32 and 64 bit boot partitions on that same system.

So if you want to use STS boot the 32. If you want to use Kontakt with > 4G ram, boot the 64.

emotive wrote:All I am using it for is as a DSP mixer, it helps me know more about the dynamics of what I am programming.

and this dsp mixer differs fundimentally from traditional mixers in what way?

emotive wrote: It is abundantly clear that assumptions are the norm here, the evidence being the obvious slant towards 32 bit. This is not to mention being told of who and who doesn't know anything about music.

and elsewhere humans live without assumptions?
32bit is an assumption? no, the slant toward 32bit is mainly a predjudice against changing a working system. the prize is the music and sound, not having the latest computer. if you have a machine that works, there's no reason to change unless you can't do something. it's also that ALL AUDIO PROGRAMS ARE 32 BIT CODE, it's also that the STS samplers and XTC mode only work in 32bit, it's also that a 32bit machine sounds EXACTLY the same as a 64bit machine.

as to the talk of not knowing anything about music production, creation, or music itself, this is self-evident. it's not any kind of a crime, since all humans must live and learn. the crime is pretending to be knwoledgable about things that one knows nothing about. do you know how you can often really tell who knows about music? when people seek you out to pay you to make music, you probably know something. of course, it's possible to be secluded one's whole life and srill know much about music and music production, but then basic newbie questions don't get asked as much and when they are asked, the explanation is easily understood.

it's good to emote in music, but the job of the engineer(the guy who runs the train, errr studio) doesn't involve emotion in any way, shape or form. engineers deal in reality, not ideas concepts or emotiuons. those things are for artists. it's possible to wear both hats, of course.

also, i harbor no ill will or even aggression as i write this. i'm still looking to be helpful. if i'm not helpful, then by all means, ignore me.

So emotive, have you fixed your glitches?

Eanna wrote:So emotive, have you fixed your glitches?

Hi Eanna,

Not yet, but garyb kindly pointed to the problem (another user did also on a previous occasion but I did not understand what they were saying at the time, something about a 40 bit word).

I'd like to avoid dual booting, and I do use my computer for things other than music (even at the same time) so whatever anyone says I am right to say the things I've said but by the same token others' here are also justified in their points of view even if they present as archaic.

Amen

So you have a DAC converter - what reclocking function is it providing for you?

What's serving your master clock? Is scope's sample rate dialog showing lock? You need to plan what your master clock is.

If your spdif cable is home made, check what resistance the cable is.. Spdif leads are a specific resistance (in ohms).
If adat is an option on you DAC then do try that. It might be spdif signal over optical cable too - most likely if your DAC is a stereo unit..

Like Gary said, try running analog outs from scope and see if glitchng persists. And try lowering the load on your machine too, by dropping the track count a bit.

Thanks for the advice Eanna, it is appreciated very much.

As much as I can accuse others of being set in their ways, I can be also too however I will follow these steps firstly by trying a new SPDIF cable.

Then of course I will try the ADAT, since my DAC (BMC-2) also allows ADAT in, even in SMUX mode but there is no way for a master clock to be involved in this scenario.

As I say, Scope is merely functioning as a "hardware mixer" and it's doing a great job. I can really hear the differences in dynamics and it is helping my MIDI programming a great deal and makes me wonder why SC & SB did not ever have a partnership, since the native mixer in Cubase is quite simply garbage and anyone who thinks native can be compared to DSP is talking rubbish.

While I do have UAD as well, it was never allowed to shine quite frankly so I am most glad I am now on board with Scope.

P.S. I can try the analog outs by going into a Roland M1000.

You do need to set one unit as master clock - and the other as slave.

emotive, you're a clueless moron, who contributes nothing and spends all your time dancing around your sense of self-importance and grandeur - rarely accepting any input from anyone.

Therefore I'm muting you.

Seeya

Eanna wrote:You do need to set one unit as master clock - and the other as slave.

Notwithstanding personal attacks, the BMC-2 merely accepts input.

As per TC Electronic web page:

"BMC-2 precision re-clocks all inputs, and features high performance jitter rejection based on patented JET technology that was originally developed for our flagship System 6000. All the benefits of optical interfacing without the problems - asymmetries are corrected and jitter is completely removed from the equation".

actually, the master/slave relationship is still important.
the sp/dif stream is not linear. without a proper clockstamp, there's absolutely no way for the receiving device to put the packets back together in the correct order which leads to missing data which makes pops, clicks and crackles. it looks like the TC only acts as slave which is the normal relationship for a device with only inputs.

as mintioned above impedance is very important with sp/dif. it must be a 75ohm sp'dif cable.

Gary, I did not know that about spdif. I've assumed it was simple/linear. Back to the books

Thank you!