PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Brotha' Man Astro,

I doubt I could even get what I want, but won't know until I see the hardware/software from SC.
I have the ability to do decent mixes on my cheapo stuff right now, but lack the MIDI CC's for VCR-128/VDAT for transport controlling.
MY old soundman from the Hussies used a KS88 for mixing.
Mostly for channel faders, EQ's, hardware effects in AUX's and monitoring for the wireless ear monitors, and even a muted mains/talk back button.
So I could get a basic mix and the double paging issue can be stored as template presets.
But therein lies the problem. When switching to another preset or template, the lack of motorized faders being reset to display the current setting, the software responds to the controllers levels, but the faders remain where they were last used and wreaks havoc upon the levels in the ear monitors if a fader or knob is touched. This caused problems during a show once where people suddenly have new signal levels in their ear and re adjusting those per performer was nothing short of tragedy live.
He definately earned his money.
On my KS88 & Fader Box I have the names well laid out but do not use other templates. That keyboard remains as a mixing controller, and I bit off more than I could chew by claiming I could do FOH/Monitor mixing while playing. I can, but it is a major hassle when people start making reuqests for different levels in their ears.
I cannot wait to start just playing my rig again.
Hopefully the new software will have some extra goodies, and I can use something already available.
But a Scope specific board would be so welcome, and the cost would be worth it.

astroman wrote:as written on the previous page it's a large size circuit board
a few hundred encoders, half a day to solder and another half to mount the boards
even without motorfaders you'd hardly be able to build it for less than 1k Euro (raw costs) in a local small series production
add a case, cover, switches, metering and indicator lights and it puts you off another grand.
an estimated sales price would be at least 5-7k to remain profitable

I agree with you Tom.

Maybe a more economic design with smaller footprint would be economically viable for a small company. A 24 or 32 ch mixer could just have 9 motorized faders, 8 of them being on a 3 or 4-page system (respectively) for the main channels. That's just one cost effective way of approaching it though. Also, there wouldn't need to be a few hundred encoders at all if the design was good. I'd say you could easily get away with max 50 encoders or even significantly less if you really wanted to keep the costs as low as possible. Note, that aside from the dedicated gain trim pots, a Yamaha O1V only has 5 encoders + 1 main rotary dial for data entry, which is much less than any of the ASB's have in terms of encoders. Also take into account that existing (or at least previously designed) PCB's and their components could possibly be used for the majority of IO's on such a device (A16 Ultra hardware for example).

Just a few more thoughts on the mixer front.

cheers,
Mark

I would also be feverish for some surface controls for delays/filters.
These are the choices I often have to assign controllers for.
Again I am getting by fine with what I have.
Transport controls for sequencers are very handy, but I would love to see some for VDAT.
It is the simplest, highest quality audio capture device I own.

A small affordable unit as described above is perfect. Besides I believe that cascading just like the old cards should be easily implemented.

The VDAT sounds great but the GUI is horrid because it's based on a hardware design from 1991. It is tedious and awkward to use much like the STS sampler serious. Why copy something unless there is an advantage to it? Another example of bad engineering. I hope in the future SC will look forward not backwards as Creamware always did.

Happy Turkey Day Brotha' Man Braincell,
Yes it is old but it works very well. It was designed to use w/ ADAT and that's probably why I like it so much, it was smooth and simple, just like the ADAT's were, only with better fidelity.
And I would absolutely die for a new design of the STS.
If it would use RAM better and stream it would be hard to beat, as Giga ( which is dead I'm afraid ) was a sampler also, not just a playback device.
I have had a few runs w/ the STS5000 and since Giga and K2 can be translated and converted to STS, one could customize/delete unwanted layers and make new STS instruments.

Small Steps in hardware mixer surfaces, and re designing a few things would put Scope way out front.

I currently have that crappy Roland SP808 box feeding my headphones by Scope's analogue outputs.
Assuming I want to capture (part of) a track played in VLC, I just push the 'arm track' button, 'record' and 'go' and there's my audio copy. 3 pushes and (possibly) a level adjustment.

Let's assume further I want a small segment sampled as a loop.
I push the 'arm track' button twice, which sets it to 'bounce-mode'
Push the 'Sample' action button, which lights the next pad (kind of MPC-like) with no sample assigned to indicate the destination
The display shows the 'Sample Options' screen, usually I just confirm 'automatic start on level' by pressing 'Sample' once again.
It says 'Waiting for Sound...'
I press 'Play' and sampling automatically starts.
At the supposed endpoint I press the 'Sample' button a further time, and thats it - the loop is captured to the pad

Stop the track, play the pad to check the loop, push the 'Trim' button and dial the proper values while the thing is playing.
Btw this part is rather humble - it can only handle resolution in 1/100 seconds, not down to the single sample level and there's no graphic support (different from the MPC)... but hey, the thingy is from 1998

Setting the sampling options is between one and six pushes on the up/down arrow keys
After some time you just intuitively remember the number of pushes it takes and hardly look at the display at all. 1,2, dial right to increment, shift dial for larger steps.
etc etc bla bla...

The SP808 isn't a particular great machine, but there some points where Roland implemented a couple of smart moves according to a certain workflow.

Normally a 'Pad' samples the external mic/line input (as you would expect from a sampler)
But if a track is set to 'Bounce mode' this track automatically becomes the sampling source
... or the record source, if an empty track is armed and set to 'Record mode'
This works with up to 3 tracks simultaneously submixed according to their fader positions
the 'Track Mode' button can be dim (track muted), green (playback), orange (bounce), red (record)
only 'reasonable' states are possible - an empty track can only be armed to record

of course it would be a no-brainer to have a similiar control for VDAT (for example)
I just picked this example because I actually used the thing to sample
which I never felt motivated to with any of the STS samplers - that simple

cheers, Tom

Tom can that 808 thing record live control manipulations like the old MC-303? Just thinking that that would be a really cool feature on a hardware digital mixer that had HD recording capabilities. Being able to record live EQ & effect manipulations would be really nice on such a machine.

Mark

Ya' got me thinking Astro.
A surface w/ MPC style pads and controls for SpaceF's LBH or STS ( if ever allowed )
A mixer surface like you and Shroomz described with cascading modules as an upgrade, and a surface for effects.
Man, we're talking way ahead of ourselves but I am imagining me w/ these and a laptop and mixing a good sized showroom. It's a dream, but still, dreaming can become reality as my live Scope PA was realized. But that dream is becoming a nightmare.
Troubleshooting and striving to keep monitor sends happening, while the mains and my seperate levels for keys and synths are mixed all while playing was quite difficult at first, but I have it under control now, just in time to add new material and suffer further.

stardust wrote:

Shroomz~> wrote:Tom can that 808 thing record live control manipulations like the old MC-303? Just thinking that that would be a really cool feature on a hardware digital mixer that had HD recording capabilities. Being able to record live EQ & effect manipulations would be really nice on such a machine.

Mark

Hmm that sound now really expensive.

Alesis dropped out with the ambitious Andromeda concept of an fully analog signal path with modern digital controllers and modulation.

The full recording of it is possible with the NPRN but it is not mirrored in an HW sequencer that can handle it.

Yeah, by adding on board recording & storage + a parallel control recording sequencer the R&D costs (including time) would probably sky rocket.

nah, the box isn't that smart - it can only record audio
you can tweak the dials realtime, but switching presets may result in the usual parameter jump mess
afaik Roland considered this a 'Remix-Tool' in the first place
the hardware is (obviously) based on the VS-840, I bought it as an SP808, updatet it to the SP808-ex and then patched it to an A6 Video Canvas because the 808 versions failed with my CF-Card reader.
The A6 gets along with it, but is still bitchy about the type of card (I have enough to try, tho).
This software version is focussed on audio tracks on video clips, so some labels don't match the manual but anyway, basically it's the same machine.
As you would expect Roland never supported that kind of tampering at all - in fact they forced people to use zip-drives while there already were CF cards available.
You must know that the zip isn't just used now and then for saving - it is spinning constantly
holy sh*t, they stream from and to the floppy

I think it's anything but trivial to implement that kind of user-interface on whatever
it's not just about a few buttons, but there is a locking(!) logic behind it
Certain options are activates (or handled) according to specific states of the machine and there's no way to bring it off it's path - unlike a software running under a PC OS.
Imho most GUI builders fail completely on stuff like that.
It wouldn't work too well on screen anyway, as the (haptic) robustness of true hardware is what allows (really) fast moves.

but these supposedly outdated, yet 'proven on the job' toys are great study objects in the man-machine-operation domain

cheers, Tom

Ah, ok. I guess they didn't continue along those lines then. It was a really neat feature on the MC-303 that you could record realtime filter sweeps, effect parameter sweeps etc into your programmed loops.

You don't need a controller for the VDAT just a better GUI with keyboard shortcuts.

Start making these important SC modules full screen. Have all the options visible not another module for sync. That is what I mean by tedious. Then you have to make a tape in yet another window. It it wasn't so fucking tiny they could show you all the options in one window. It doesn't have to look like hardware. That is stupid when it is at the expense of usability. Having to "create tape" also seems stupid. You have to know in advance how long it's going to be. Each track has to be the same length. Why does it have to be like tape? That is a limitation of tape not an advantage. Does it have to be 8 tracks because the ADAT was 8 tracks? and if you want more you have to add another module make tape again etc? That is poor engineering. I am against copying hardware when software could do so much more.

Points Taken,
But back in 1998/99 this was so chic I imagine, otherwise why all of the hardware look alike.
QWERTY shortcuts can be helpful and also re assignable via MIDI CC's.
I always hit my spacebar during a recording on VDAT, an old Mac habit from when I first tried using ProTools 1.0.
I have to say though from converting from an all hardware rig to a PC in 2005 was incredibly overwhelming for me, I didn't even know what an emeil was till I came here.
I would love to see a hardware surface to access transport controls.
But this is a selfish wish, I doubt anyone else records w/ VDAT as much as I have recently.
I plan on doing it until I hear something with equal or better qaulity.
It's just too easy for me to use Cubase 4.1 or a hardware sequencer for the drum tracks, and then dump it to VDAT.
Recording in real time w/o a click but just drums is so much more fun and fast in VDAT.
Besides for the styles I have been doing, I often enjoy the imperfection of the human interfacing.
My human unquantized drums suck major booty though, and require the Q factor.

braincell wrote:You don't need a controller for the VDAT just a better GUI with keyboard shortcuts.

Start making these important SC modules full screen. Have all the options visible not another module for sync. That is what I mean by tedious. Then you have to make a tape in yet another window. It it wasn't so fucking tiny they could show you all the options in one window. It doesn't have to look like hardware. That is stupid when it is at the expense of usability. Having to "create tape" also seems stupid. You have to know in advance how long it's going to be. Each track has to be the same length. Why does it have to be like tape? That is a limitation of tape not an advantage. Does it have to be 8 tracks because the ADAT was 8 tracks? and if you want more you have to add another module make tape again etc? That is poor engineering. I am against copying hardware when software could do so much more.

I general like the HW look, but I have to agree that the above could have been implemented much better.

braincell wrote:Start making these important SC modules full screen. Have all the options visible not another module for sync.

VDAT needs to have the VRC modules separate for very good reasons. It's important to remember that VDAT was designed at a time when ADAT machines were still widely used in the pro studio market. The VRC modules for VDAT are the virtual equivalent of the Alesis BRC hardware sync/remote transport units & they (like the VDAT) were designed to work either in series or parallel with the Alesis hardware units. The fact that VDAT can also be used standalone in Scope by anyone without the Alesis ADAT hardware (as is the case with sharc & I) is actually irrelevant to it's original design concept imo. Bottom line is that as part of the VDAT design concept, the VRC modules simply had to be a separate entity just like the BRC units were.

braincell wrote:Then you have to make a tape in yet another window. Having to "create tape" also seems stupid. You have to know in advance how long it's going to be. Each track has to be the same length. Why does it have to be like tape? That is a limitation of tape not an advantage. Does it have to be 8 tracks because the ADAT was 8 tracks? and if you want more you have to add another module make tape again etc?

You don't have to know in advance how long it's going to be & you don't have to keep making new tapes either (I've explained this to you before Braincell). Most recordings are going to be less than 10 mins, so sharc & I use a default 8 track 10 min tape which gets used over & over. After taking an 8 track recording we simply copy the tracks we want from the VDAT tape to another working folder & edit them to length leaving the VDAT tape untouched to be reused in the next take. If you want 16 or more tracks using multiple tapes, you still don't have to create new tapes, because you can just copy your default 8 track tape & add a '2' or something to the end of it's filename. This new copy can then be loaded into your 2nd instance of VDAT... and so on and so on.... If you're in the habit of recording a live jam for half an hour or whatever, just decide on a comfortable default tape length & create a 30 min tape which would work with exactly the same principles as I've described above. So you could have say 3 or 4 default tapes like 5, 10, 20 & 30min or whatever that never need to be recreated, just copied in whole or in part to another working location for editing etc.

Hope that finally makes sense. It's not particularly difficult to grasp.

Mark

oh my, for those old days(only a few years ago) when you had to find the reel of tape, thread it, rewind it, find the top, THEN go....how did we do ANY work at all?

oh well, no matter...even though it sounded better, my computer made that 2" 24 track machine the size of a washing machine irrelevant.

still, it makes me laugh at what people think is an unreasonable amount of time or hassle...

Regarding VDAT, I just want to add that the copying of your virtual tape after a take method I described above is mainly only relevant in multiple take situations (IE:- if you need to quickly get on with recording the next take). If you're just doing one take then going straight to multitracking/editing, you've got non-destructive editing in your sequencer, so VDAT tape file 'copying' isn't always necessary.

Ankyu...................yes those painful ADAT lock ups, and no syncing issues when you just made the best take........arrgghhh!
I would love to see todays virtual engineer in the box guys with a rack of VDAT's and a BRC...

I have to load an entire 8 tracks for playback after every song since this no drummer appraoch was my idea. Using VDAT simplifies my life no matter how archaic it may be.
But it sounds better than struggling w/ the mic'ing of a real drummer and having to compensate for the cymbals that are the only thing heard as the poor bastard sits inside of this plexiglass jail. And they wonder why drummers w/o any modern equipment are miserable and chug vast quantities of alchohol during the gig..........Jeez.

I struggle nightly in the dimly lit stage making adjustments and having to reload after every medley or song but it is well worth the torture.

But a surface controller w/ motorized faders and every idea we have discussed above would be most welcome. My sanity could be restored and the cost would be inconsequential for sure.

I am really waiting to see what creations the guys @ DAS are working on using the SAC Radikal's. It might even be cheaper to buy some of these old used items on ebay than waiting for someone to build, as I really NEED a solution when I go to a 1 x KS88 set up.

Excellent Tip.

I have an ancient JLCooper MIDI lighting controller, dimmer packs etc., from years ago that is a top shelf design, somewhat dated but works perfect w/ a hardware/software sequenced.
So I have been looking into experimenting in 5.1 and ran across this.
It can work in standalone via MIDI, and sure is much easier than a mouse, etc.
I think the Surround panner device at SC might be included w/ XITE-1, so I am watching this at ebay in hopes it gets relisted w/ no reserve.
I might have to wait and just buy pieces of gear as I go along as I don't see any Scope specific hardware coming out anytime soon.

I hope this isn't too OT, but I wish for hardware to use w/ Scope, so I shall share anything I deem relevant.

There is 16000 divisions that are just now starting to become available.
The VAX77 will be caddy corner from 1121 @ NAMM. I will see if it's more nonsense or an actual unleashing of available power. Just because it comes w/ an ADI DSP chip has pqued my interests.
Your suggestions are also something to for me to look into more.
MIDI in parallel w/ OSC should be fun in Monome.

I was under the impression that previous PB Wheels offereing 16000 divisions could be applied to this, but using such large amounts of data I think is the bottleneck w/ MIDI. Active sensing uses very small amounts in comparison, and is always a pain in a large MIDI production if not clicked off.