PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Hallo!

Why doesn't Asio direct monitoring work with scope 4.0 (and Cubase VST5.1)?
On both systems Win98 and XP only silence is to hear when activate the "ASIO direct monitoring" checkbox in the Cubase Audio setup dialog.

With the old 3.01 pulsar software it worked!

What's the problem?
Does anyone use this successfully with VST5.1 and SCOPE 4.0 under XP?

Greetings Thomas

I don’t want to be impertinent, as my answer is not really “the answer” you are looking for, but why are you still using VST 5.1 when you can use the amazing SX? This will solve you many problems and allow to record in a pristine new sound that 5.1 does not have. Just an idea, because I have used 5.1 and are using SX, and can tell the difference, hope this helps in some way.

>why are you still using VST 5.1

I havent really tried SX. At a first look I was not so impressed to spend the money.

But can you tell me if "direct monitoring" works with your setup?

do you need direct monitoring for anything in scope mode? monitor in scope.

Direct Monitoring with Scope is only usefull to apply 'realtime' (well, including ASIO latency x2) VST effects to Scope stuff.

Make sure the ASIO2 drivers are loaded, ASIO1 doesn't support it, and that Direct Monitoring is enabled in Cubase. Then select an input for a track, and enable monitor on it.

yes, something handled better in the mixdown of recorded sources, in the sequencer itself.....still, it will work if you need it to, following at0m's advice.

Hallo!

The problem is not if "direct monitoring" is useful or not. (Indeed it is, I like monitoring during recording through the same routing than during playback this track. It's a normal behaviour of any tape-machine! Monitoring trough another channel dirctly in scope is a lousy workaround in my eyes resp. ears.)

The problem is: it doesn't work (with my setup) . And I want to try to figure out why not. ;-/

The way I work, I always monitor in Pulsar.

Then if what AtOm points you does not work, I don't know what else could be...

If my walk-thru didn't work for you, do you mind telling us what drivers you're using, and give some more info on the rest of the settings and/or setup?

Btw, an analog tape recorder doesn't introduce latency when monitoring, ASIO does. You'd be the only one using it that way (apart from the reason I pointed out in my previous reply) in Scope, which is totally, apart from the software drivers, realtime. Most of us, when faced with that realtime processing, don't ever want to go back. But hey, we live in a free world

Hallo At0m!

I use the normal drivers coming with software 4.0. ASIO2-32 Source64. But it didn't work with other ASIO2-drivers.

To usefullness of direct monitoring:
Imagin you record drums or guitar with 3 tracks. In this way ASIO direct monitring is the only way to use the same signal path for playback and listening during recoring. The only I can imagin to achive this in SCOPE only is to use a serveral little mixers to combine the ASIO-output from cubase(playback) and the signals that goes into cubase for recording. That means up to 20 of such little mixers! direct monitoring of course has a little delay but unhearble but it prevents you from such complicated setup.
Indeed I hate it and cannot work if I hear a different signal path during recording and playback. Esspecially on punch-ins.
In the ideal case there would be no differenc in sound after pressing "record".
There must be _no_ difference between a signal that is just recorded and a played track. "direct monitoring" allows this.
I hope I could explain why I need direct monitoring.

And all what I wanted to know is, why it doesnt't work with my setup.

Hallo Stardust!

>Thomas its seems that the basic problem for >you will be solved with using SX. Did you >think about the upgrade ?

I think about it. But only after testing a "trial" version. This means a actually a crack today...But I haven't got it until now nor had the time to test it.

But again. I don't think it solves the problem. If version 3.0c works and version 4 doesn't than there must be wrong with it.
But it seems I'm the only one who use direct monitoring. Nobody here could tell me if direct monitoring works on his setup and if yes what's his setup. Just to figure out what wrong. Maybe theres a hidden switch...

Don't wanne underestimate your mixer knowledge, but are you aware of the possibility to forward the tracks that should get recorded to one or more bus(ses), and send these busses to your ASIO recording channels?
No need to ad latency, and you hear what you record...
i work on Cubase 5 (mac), but I never used DI
It should work tho, hope you find out.

Just to add to this discussion...

It sounds like a software feature that you might also be interested in here is "Track Delay". I believe Ableton Live, Cubase SX, and Logic all have this feature.

Destiny... Destiny... no escaping that's for me... er... I mean, ASIO latency, ASIO latency... no escaping... that's for me ( Does make you appreciate the old analog tapes decks with record head adjacent to playback head though... )

Hi

I use direct monitoring with Cubase SX and XTC here. It work fine! In fact your direct monitoring output is the one where your cubase mixer channel is directed to (I mean your standard channel should be directed to a cubase output bus directly). By standard channel I mean the one which is associated to a track in the project, not the input channel. So you should have:
An input bus going to a track channel (the one over which you can press the monitoring button), this channel going to an output bus.

Merry Christmas to all

Michel

Hallo Hubyrd!

I know what you want to say. But: it's exactly the other way round. I don't want to send signal I hear to ASIO, I want to hear the signals I sent to ASIO.

I your case, how do you route the recorded signals into your mixer for playback.

I seldom use any creamware-FX for recording.
And then the sonic timeworks-EQs.
Normally I route the signal from the ADAT-sources directly into ASIO-dest.
And I route the signals from ASIO-src into the mixer just like a mixing session. Indeed there is no difference between a recording and mixing session, execpt I allow longer Ulli-Latency.

On 2005-12-23 05:17, ThomasT wrote:
how do you route the recorded signals into your mixer for playback.

I don't
I mute the recording channel to avoid feedback, that's all.

But I understand your point, you wanne hear the VST effects that you imply on the recording tracks...
Can't help you then

Hallo!

No effects, just routing, sometimes Level.
Until now I thought it is a normaly way to record. Because it'S similar to the working flow with analog machines or ADATs.

My suggestion of listening to VST's while recording was nonsense anyway I think.
And you're right, it was the usual way.
It's up to you, there's no need for it anymore these days, so...

Hallo Hubird!

Don't know why its so complicated to explain.
I simply don't want any difference in signal routing (for monitoring) for playback and recording. Except in the first case the signal comes from Cubase and in the second case from outside. (by using "direct monitoring" also from cubase, just like the played tracks)
I don't want to hear any switch when I punch-in. So I can hear in realtime if the punch-ins has worked.

Am I the only one who use Creamware as a recording plattform for traditional drums, git, bass and relatively less Keys ans samples? Just wondering.

ah, punch-in, yeah, that's long time ago, now I see your problem

Hope you get DM sorted