PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

The Market for Interface-DSP has only grown bigger and likely will continue to do so. Avid just released Carbon not that long ago wich is a interface and single unit DSP Platform. Both Avid and UA realized SCOPE and Metric Halo was on to something good with their dsp-interfsces. Interface-DSP is the sanctuary for DSP-Platforms and its existence has merit and justification. Its harder to justify the older UAD and Avid DSP-cards in this era of extreme computer power but not so hard to justify Apollo and Carbon. There's always a need for a great interface. Most Major interface designers like RME, MOTU, Antelope etc have all realised over time the need for DSP in their interfaces. Most interfaces tend to have simple DSP-Platforms and some get more sophisticated to varying degrees like SCOPE, Apollo, Carbon, Metric Halo but its all the same concept and principle at play. The more sophisticated platforms are only doing the same as the rest of the market just in a deeper and more complex way. The more sophisticated interfaces with dsp tend to have better sounding plugins and allow the user to buy Add-on and 3rd-party extra plugins wich is an advantage not a disadvantage, as well as other benifits. ILOK has not been cracked in a long time wich is great but nothing beats DSP for copy-protection.

Will SonicCore have good success in the era of Interface-DSP? that's another subject and question i can't answer, but the legitamacy of interface-dsp is real and beyond question.

Bud Weiser wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 7:51 pm Why are UAD devices FX mostly and their synth(s) run native ?

No idea - you would have to ask them. They outsourced their instruments to spitfire which dont have any DSP product. Maybe DSP isnt suited to samplers beyond STS. UAD minimoog is native also so if they wanted to do DSP synths the quickest way would have probably been to buyed SC or license from them. And since that didnt happen then strategically they may not see much gain in using DSP to do synths. To much drain on their dev/R&D when they can easily be done or licensed native.

In my system I use native to do most synth work (with a helping hand from Scope) and most effects from DSP

Sounddesigner wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 8:19 pmT Most interfaces tend to have simple DSP-Platforms and some get more sophisticated to varying degrees like SCOPE, Apollo, Carbon, Metric Halo but its all the same concept and principle at play. The more sophisticated platforms are only doing the same as the rest of the market just in a deeper and more complex way. The more sophisticated interfaces with dsp tend to have better sounding plugins and allow the user to buy Add-on and 3rd-party extra plugins wich is an advantage not a disadvantage, as well as other benifits.

If I was specifying XITE2 I would put:

1) newer faster sharcs
2) VST Mode
3) Impedance matching devices - preamps, amps, channel strips etc (like Apollo unison)
4) new sampler
5) Fixed BNC, functional STDM, Dante etc.
6) MIDI 2
7) Retina / High res GUI devices (Reason is coming out with this next month)
Sexy LED meters on front like Ferrofish / Carbon

You see I dont expect much for say $10K which I think it would cost.

dante wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:00 am If I was specifying XITE2 I would put:

1) newer faster sharcs
2) VST Mode
3) Impedance matching devices - preamps, amps, channel strips etc (like Apollo unison)
4) new sampler
5) Fixed BNC, functional STDM, Dante etc.
6) MIDI 2
7) Retina / High res GUI devices (Reason is coming out with this next month)
Sexy LED meters on front like Ferrofish / Carbon

You see I dont expect much for say $10K which I think it would cost.

I don't believe a new XITE-2 would suddenly make Scope successful - there's way more to a successful (business/money wise) product than just the product itself.

Your product above would not save the Scope platform. XITE-1 is already more capable DSP/function wise compared to Carbon, Metric Halo, Antelope and others.

Warp69 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:16 am
I don't believe a new XITE-2 would suddenly make Scope successful - there's way more to a successful (business/money wise) product than just the product itself.

Your product above would not save the Scope platform. XITE-1 is already more capable DSP/function wise compared to Carbon, Metric Halo, Antelope and others.

I agree,- and in regards to hi-res /retina graphics,- that´s nice additions but not urgently necessary IMO.
At least for me,- that´s cosmetics of an application.
It doesn´t sound better when it looks better.

SCOPE PCI and XITE seem to have a main disadvantage vs other (non-DSP only ?) interfaces WHEN being used as the ASIO interface of the DAW.
That is, you cannot change buffer settings on the fly and have to re-start Scope when you do !

I dunno if that´s also the case w/ UA Apollo, Metric Halo and Carbon,- is it ?



Bud

Warp69 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:16 am Your product above would not save the Scope platform. XITE-1 is already more capable DSP/function wise compared to Carbon, Metric Halo, Antelope and others.

I don’t recall saying it would. What I said was if I was designing it - eg a personal wish list.

But question remains - would it be hardware or software or what (if not Just DSP capability) ? And what of the entry level ?

Bud Weiser wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 7:51 pm And w/ the lack of manpower, I cannot imagine S|C will come up w/ new hardware soon,- except upgrading interface connectivity using the up to now unsued XTDM connector for whatelse ... Thunderbolt 4, Dante ... perhaps.

Cant see that happening. Wouldn't there be a dependency on pre-existing circuitry on the XITE-1 board (or some sort of wall wart external interface - itself 'new' hardware) ?

dante wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 12:24 pm

Bud Weiser wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 7:51 pm ..., I cannot imagine S|C will come up w/ new hardware soon,- except upgrading interface connectivity using the up to now unsued XTDM connector for whatelse ... Thunderbolt 4, Dante ... perhaps.

Cant see that happening. Wouldn't there be a dependency on pre-existing circuitry on the XITE-1 board (or some sort of wall wart external interface - itself 'new' hardware) ?

When I said "new hardware" above,- I meant a new and up to now imaginary toy like a "XITE-2".
Subdevisions like connectivity and audio formats are a different story and I didn´t think about realisation atm.
And at least it was funny using your nick in that post ...

OTOH, I can imagine they might try to find a way to connect XITE to upcoming computer technology.
I dunno for how long PCIe x1 will exist.
At least for laptop or other mobile device connectivity they´d need replacement for PCIexpresscard 34.
The investment into a Sonnet (or other brand) PCIexpress 34 to Thunderbolt converter, for most endusers is too high when the S|C PCIexpresscard 34 has to be purchased separately too.



Bud

Well if theres no XITE-2 and they are going to include another comms protocol on XITE-1 - that would have to be a return-to-factory mod wouldn't it ?

dante wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:34 pm Well if theres no XITE-2 and they are going to include another comms protocol on XITE-1 - that would have to be a return-to-factory mod wouldn't it ?

That would be the worst case,- but maybe a new connector card (and firmware upgrade,- if necessary at all ...) would help too.

When PCIe x1 disappears, there´s still PCIexpress standard 4.0 and x4, x8, x16 bandwidth.
And when a 3rd party PCIexpress > Thunderbolt adapter still works TODAY w/ computers offering a TRUE Thunderbolt connection,- why shouldn´t it work in future and w/ TRUE Thunderbolt connections ?

I can imagine a unified interface box for XITE and desktop/ laptop, possibly future mobile devices using Thunderbolt too.
A small circuit board w/ the electronics of a PCIe 4.0/ x4 card inside a small case (possibly similar "linelump-PSU format) w/ HDMI (from XITE) and Thunderbolt connector (to host computer device) would connect both, desktop/rackmount and laptop machines to XITE.
Of course, that "card in a box" has to be a special device like the actual XITE PCIe card still is,- preparing XITE data traffic for standard Thunderbolt protocol in that case.
Computer system requirement: TRUE Thunderbolt 3 or 4 port.

Thunderbolt is PCIexpress,- so I guess it doesn´t need much changes inside XITE-1,- if at all.

And when S|C is able manufacturing todays PCIe x1 card and PCIexpress 34 interface card,- they should be able manufacturing a unified interface box w/ future standards too, making the two old solutions obsolete and possibly saving costs in addition by manufacture and sell only a SINGLE device.



Bud

PCIe won’t disappear, and Thunderbolt & USB will merge into similar compatible specs with Thunderbolt chipsets enabling higher power and signaling rates. Keep in mind both PCIe and Thunderbolt are electrical as well as signaling specs, and that TB can simply carry PCIe traffic and appear as native (at least as native as a chipset implementation, which most consumer lanes not intended for GPU usage typically are).

Using TB would probably increase BOM and licensing, but might simplify connection as you’re basically connecting the port to the case and eliminating the need for the HDMI style cable to carry data in a format different than the PCIe connection (Ie, the card won’t be needed and any electrical change to the signal can be done in the box where the current HDMI cable connection is). How this affects the hardware and cost to change this in terms of engineering, I have no idea.

With a working BNC connection, I think I would be just as happy with a new Xite 1D as with and Xite 2.

valis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:00 am
With a working BNC connection, I think I would be just as happy with a new Xite 1D as with and Xite 2.

Hmm,- it works for some,- at least for yayajohn ... Scope v7, Win7 x64, XITE-1 w/ A16U (via Z-Link) as slaves ...
viewtopic.php?p=344388#p344388



Bud

Bud Weiser wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:30 am

valis wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:00 am
With a working BNC connection, I think I would be just as happy with a new Xite 1D as with and Xite 2.

Hmm,- it works for some,- at least for yayajohn ... Scope v7, Win7 x64, XITE-1 w/ A16U (via Z-Link) as slaves ...
viewtopic.php?p=344388#p344388



Bud

Still working fine. (Xite as slave) Now on Win10

Bud Weiser wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:30 am And when S|C is able manufacturing todays PCIe x1 card and PCIexpress 34 interface card,- they should be able manufacturing a unified interface box w/ future standards too, making the two old solutions obsolete and possibly saving costs in addition by manufacture and sell only a SINGLE device.

They should also be able to manufacture an ADSP21469 Scope PCIe quad or octo card with some basic I/O (eg an Pulsar X) !

With TB, it might be possible to have multiple sizes as well.

In any case, we can play armchair engineer all day long with this stuff, I'm still looking at their current positioning as it stands for our incoming visitors, and we can extend that to a potential future market from that perspective. Which is why I see a market that would straddle ableton users who want a 'maximizer/limiter' solution with the ability to incorporate a few low latency external instruments into their mix as well (dj/live tabletop/sax accompanyment etc). Interface method & format play an even larger role here than with the upmarket offering, where customers will be more likely to build around the needs of the Xite. And yet, this market is half-served by several existing and mid to high end players in the field already, so it would have to be handled with care imho.

As for the Xite itself, I think all of your ideas are great but it's up to S|C to choose to implement anything new. Again I think the points about the interface method (Expresscard adapter > S|C adapter > cabled to Xite) could use some refinement, and faster DSPs would bother none of us if it didn't introduce even more gotchas to the workflow.

Well, I just only want S|C hireing me as a product design consultant, supplementing my small future pension.
It´ll help to buy S|C´s new gear then.



Bud