PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

braincell wrote:I wasn't very happy with the Scope mastering suite. Honestly, they can't compete with Waves and Izotope. Sometimes a company doesn't know when to quit. They aren't relevant in the modern market. DSP chips made a lot of sense when computers sucked which was the original idea but that became a really a stupid idea when computers have advanced enough.

I thought the original idea was to sound better. If the only aim was processing power, why didn't protocols just add cheaper intel processors?

DSP are designed for audio processing. PC processors are not.

Isotope Ozone is great if you like visuals - but to engineers that have spent a lifetime using their ears its not relevant in the modern mastering suite.

I know a mastering engineer with 2 top 30 hits and in both cases he said the sound was due to using a given setup for over a year. In one case native and in another DSP. He says that after using DSP he won't go back to native, but even so, the deciding factor is the amount of time he spent on each respective system getting to know how to get the most out of them.

You promote a visual tool with no reference to sound or experience, and I think that says buckets.

The SHARC processor was not designed specifically for audio at all. Check Wikiepdia:

"SHARC processors are or were used because they have offered good floating-point performance per watt.

SHARC processors are typically intended to have a good number of serial links to other SHARC processors nearby, to be used as a low-cost alternative to SMP."


The key word in this description is "were." Outdated, not needed.

God, you're a trolling prick. Please fuck off if you don't need these outdated DSPs.

I know, I know, "This post was made by Mr Arkadin blah blah" Sing a different tune, troll. You add nothing to this forum.

In Chinese, trolling is referred to as bái mù (Chinese: 白目; literally "white eye"), which can be straightforwardly explained as "eyes without pupils", in the sense that whilst the pupil of the eye is used for vision, the white section of the eye cannot see, and trolling involves blindly talking nonsense over the internet, having total disregard to sensitivities or being oblivious to the situation at hand, akin to having eyes without pupils.

braincell wrote:The SHARC processor was not designed specifically for audio at all. Check Wikiepdia:

"SHARC processors are or were used because they have offered good floating-point performance per watt.

SHARC processors are typically intended to have a good number of serial links to other SHARC processors nearby, to be used as a low-cost alternative to SMP."


The key word in this description is "were." Outdated, not needed.

I don't recall mentioning SHARC - I mentioned DSP - which is Digital Signal Processor - definately synonymous with Audio. The notion that SHARC processors are suitable for DSP applications is a valid one irrespective of original design goals. As you know S|C are not the only ones to transition thier product lines through two evolutions of the SHARC.

For someone who says anyone in denial only digs themselves deeper, you are your own best example.

All the pro mastering houses I know say its more important to know your gear over time than be constantly 'up to date'.

And none of them use Wiki as a reference for thier trade. LOL

SHARC is the DSP. DSP isn't an audio term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signal_processor

Such basic things as dithering you need to do and one of the things that Ozone excels at. I'm going to trust the testimony of the people who use it (and my own ears) rather than the speculation from people who do not use it. The opinions from folks who never tried it are rather irrelevant as this negativity comes from an ignorant vantage point.

braincell wrote:Such basic things as dithering you need to do and one of the things that Ozone excels at. I'm going to trust the testimony of the people who use it (and my own ears) rather than the speculation from people who do not use it. The opinions from folks who never tried it are rather irrelevant as this negativity comes from an ignorant vantage point.

What opinions are you talking about ? I dont see any here that say Ozone can't do good dithering.

braincell wrote:SHARC is the DSP. DSP isn't an audio term. .

Never said it was

ummm dithering may or may not be important. strike that. it's not for most music, especially any kind of pop. VERY dynamic ambient or classical might benefit...

anyway, no reason not to master in Scope and then dither natively. or master with izotope if you prefer...

raise your if you do these kinds of things for a living and/or have music on the radio.


for many people's music, plugins are:

Oh nice. A religious argument about processor architectures and applications to audio. My favorite!

Alas, I'll sit this one out. Wiki the meaning of Processor Architecture though, and why it's so important to THE TASK AT HAND.

yes, that too. nice job staying out.

who gives a $%# why anyway? if it works the way you like, that's the main thing. please, no one said that using izotope was bad or that it sounded bad. there are many ways to get a good sound. what's the point of coming to a Scope lover's forum and trying to get love for other products? we might love those other products or not, but that's why there are so many. still, this is a Scope lover's forum. i'll never understand people who would call the people on this forum fanboys as though that's bad. that's the reason this forum is here...for fanboys.

braincell wrote:I'm going to trust the testimony of the people who use it (and my own ears) rather than the speculation from people who do not use it. The opinions from folks who never tried it are rather irrelevant as this negativity comes from an ignorant vantage point.

We could say the same about you and Scope

Oh, let me save you bothering to come back this forum:

braincell wrote:This post was made by Mr Arkadin who is currently on your ignore list.

Gary,

Anyone knows that a real violinist would be better than samples (provided he was good etc.) but that doesn't mean one should not use samples. What is best is not relevant if you are on a budget as most of us are. Maybe information from negative people is interesting sometimes but it does not really matter that much in the real world.

Sorry I can't reply to those of you who are on my ignore list (you know who you are).

In the general course of things I agree with GaryB in that I don't really give a dang about why Scope sounds better, it just does. But it's good to have an answer when having a good old Internet stouch.

My reason is in line with some other opinions reflected here:

There was an era, rightly indicated by BCell, where a computer CPU couldn't hack it. So developers looked around to see how they could outsource some additional horsepower. This was similar to how 3D gaming evolved with GL cards.

They found a targeted platform and did targeted development. It took years but paid off in quality.

When computer CPU became more powerful there was a rush by VST etc developers to make as much run on the computer as possible but there was so much competition that they had to take shortcuts mathematically to make it all work.

Now native CPU have hit a wall where it's too expensive to make them faster its just cheaper to add more if them (multicore) but the legacies of the shortcut in VST code still remain.

What also remains is the no-compromise code written for DSP and that is where the 2 platforms stand today. Comparable by power but marked apart by thier respective legacies.

Indeed, 'fanboy' is not a dirty word !!!

There are some modern nuggets in vst.. Like TAL new synths, which sound absolutely superb.

And vst isn't shackled by restrictive GUI components.. Hopefully scope6 will free scope developers hands.

And vsts do participate very neatly in a daw.

Bit like a Nord Lead, quality stands the test of time. For me, I like the sound of scope. Synths of such depth, the modular universe, great set of processors, and its routing capabilities .
I also enjoy the scene here, most of the time.

Like most things in life, its never an either / or world.
DSPs aren't outdated, vsts aren't shit, and you mostly get what you pay for..

@ Dante, That's what I thought: audio dedicated DSP attracted (-s)dedicated devellopers.
But I'm a nobody regarding technology stuff, so I kept it for me

Yeah its also like JKSuperstar said here http://forums.planetz.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32534 about take those same dedicated developers and put them onto Native and they cant quite get that sound back.