PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

i am used to mix in cubase but tried for some other reason than quality to mix the same song in scope. surprisingly i recognized that the mix sounds much better which means mainly much more transparent. there was no change of plugins or something else, only the mixing platform. so my question is: is there really a difference between those mixers (cubase/scope) or is it just a psychological effect? normally, mixing is only a simple digital addition of floating point numbers, so my brain says that there can't be a difference.

some say there is a difference and some say there isn't. I prefer to mix in scope because of the plug ins, I never did a comparison of just scope versus cubase. If you go back a little bit in this same forum you'll find a lengthy discussion of it, goes on for pages.

My ears are very pychological.
They tell me the AUX's in Spubase and Weaper pale in comparison.
I think Cubase has many better strengths than their mixer or the metallic Reverb.
Spubase has years of maturity w/ it's MIDI, and the new Expression Maps are great for articulations on audio or MIDI tracks.
However.....as the infamous Detective Callahan said..........

A Sequencers' otta' know it's limitations.........

Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry...1971.

It has been mentioned before that scope quality seems to be better than Cubase, but those verdicts were based on SX3 which has a inferior mixing algo's than Cubase 4/5, at least I read that several times on the net. It's also been mentioned that the problem could be that the ASIO modules within Scope degrades the actual ASIO soundquality of Cubase or any other Sequencer app.
Maybe Cubase 5 mixer has been improved in the meanwhile, maybe soundqualitywise it's virtually equal compared to scope. I haven't A/B'ed it yet. I still mix in Scope by the way.

here scope mixer sounds better than sonar. though i dont have faith in native plug-ins. and just cant forget about that fake russian wrapper wish vst can be imported to sfp mixer....

Hey the idea he had it on display is probably because it's something they're testing @ S|C.
I must admit, Cubase/Nuendo are way ahead of everyone in terms of VST 3.0 tricks, 64bit and solid MIDI.
Someday I will watch the video and learn how to use it.
Until then it will remain my MIDI drum track creator for Multitracking.

this is somewhat relevant to me asking about why I should go from XTC to standard scope!

I read somwhere on an expired post that its because of the 32 bit floating point processing of the mixer of scope...but doesn't cubase do that too? Honestly I don't know but I have tried mixing in scope and it didn't really sound much different to me. Soundwise maybe it ISNT different but mixwise maybe its more functional because there is more headroom with higher floating points and its easier to level, compress, eq etc. I am sure there is some of an advantage to the synergy that comes out of a scope mixer or it really is just our heads. Maybe someone should ask the coders of the mixers of scope XD

stardust wrote: So back on topic. I doubt that scope is so extraordinary better sounding.
The VST engine of C5/Nuendo4 is now version 2.3 and marketed as award winning.

Which brings up the point that you see on KVR so often - "it's all maths (or math if you're American)", "it's just adding digits", "all hosts sound the same". These arguments have been had since before C4/C5. Now apparently Cubase's audio engine sounds better, but it was always just maths so how is this possible? Are we now saying VST5 and SX1-3 didn't sound as good. So who's right? In that light Scope could sound better because it's not just a case of adding bits together.

that said, this was a call for opinions. mine is that Scope sounds much better.

you guys make good points because honestly. If you have something coded for standard processing like a synth and then recode it and optimize it for sharc dsps I know by my own ears the filters and oscs sound way more natural. The compressors and effects alone are witness to this fact not just the synths...so of course a mixer being run on a dsp system WILL SOUND BETTER! its an obvious logic.. because synths are just ones and zeros too right?! WRONG its all about the algorithmic function of the code and of course the genuine process of the sharc. I am going to give the mixers another shot and really do a side by side of my results.... we shall see, I am now intrigued.

party pooper!
party pooper!

Arturia is not superior. that is my opinion. yours is that it is. use what you like, but there's no need to denigrate Scope lovers in a Scope lover's message board. non Scope lovers on a Scope lover's board eventually just become trolls.

ive used arturias. basically you can remake any patch and process it the same as the arturia version. it just has built in whistles and what not. Honestly of all emulations I like the gmedia minimonsta the best. They just add stuff to it but nothing beats the filters on scope, and thats what matters to me. But of all minimoogs I use the creamware the most, it has a fatness to it the others can't match, just takes more work to get there. I spend a few days just designing and saving presets and channel presets to layer and process sounds for my use and creamware synths are the only reason I still keep the pro card.

But on the other hand....
fxpansion dcam beats everything tho sorry


The compressors on scope are punchier than anything i've used too and I did a side by side mixdown of a track, the sound was pretty close but the ease of the mix was MUCH easier. I usually spend so much time leveling in cubase but in the creamware mixer it was a 3 minute process much more accurate response... Plus nothing beats the plain built in eq comp of the creamware mixers. But I digress, to each his own.

According to a developer/engineer friend - behind the scenes the past couple years, the 'audio engines' in Live 8, Cubase 5, Sonar 8, in particular have been upgraded as supposedly part of their 64-bit implementation and beefy multi-core implementation. Samplitude has had the 'hybrid engine' for years now, and even Reaper and FL have apparently done upgrades.

Nevertheless, it will come down to your ears how things sound in Scope vs. staying native (with some other interface such as RME or whatever).

I personally still prefer Scope's 'overhead' (for lack of a better word) and hardware-like 'air' that makes it easy to get a good mix. This is just my preference over the years. Mixing ITB using RME and CPU's WILL sound different than what is possible going through Scope.

You can always mix out of your host-of-choice, through Scope, and out to some external master source (I still have a DAT machine - hehe) and compare it to what you get staying ITB.

Now, the other endless debate over sound quality of synths, filters, eq's, etc. are totally subjective, since many have been listening to mp3's and overcompressed (i.e. loudness wars) over the past years (depending on preferred style of music also), so methinks our hearing has become skewed.

Greg

I agree with you Greg. That's the word I was looking for btw, the "overhead" or "air" of the mixer is what makes it better in all honestly. I learned this just going from Reason to Cubase and that difference was tenfold. The difference from Cubase to Scope is still noticable especially with mixes I have that are orchestral and have 20-30 tracks playing at once.

siriusbliss wrote:
You can always mix out of your host-of-choice, through Scope, and out to some external master source (I still have a DAT machine - hehe) and compare it to what you get staying ITB.

I still have a DAT machine too and believe it or not...I sometimes slam some hardware synth tracks on it (I like the headroom ), just to get a different flavor from the ADs in it, and then, SPDIF them to Scope...ultimately...it all goes through the Scope mixers in the end...imo

stardust wrote:Now we are talking.
Thanks guys for discussing seriously without the fanboy bias.

Only gary seems in a real bad mood
Come on gary, life is beautyful.

life IS beautiful, and you're still a party pooper

Greg

stardust wrote:I stand corrected. Both of you are in bad moods. But life will go on, also if you dont like it.

I'm in a great mood actually (like most of the time)
Your perception however.....hmmmmmm

I'm actually in the middle a mix session and really enjoying Scope here in the heat of production.
Then I'm off to a 'working vacation' gig in Arizona this weekend, so I'm in the zone...

G

no ill will here...

the one rule i`ve learned in my audio-life is the only thing you should trust is YOUR EAR.

I`m a logical person, but I do trust my ears that scope mixing sounds way better than f.e. cubase mixing. Whatever it is, it is there and one can hear it.

don`t think it is a psychological thing. and when it come to fx that do exponential amount of calculations like reverbs use (add and multiply) it seems for me even more obvious. I can build an unrealistic reverb tail with 100 seconds and more and that tail is that "clear that you can look through like glass", where most native verbs fall into noise characteristics with longer tails. (=muddy)

- a fact -

scope is a superior system

but you can still force yourself to believe that your native system does deliver the same quality and use it. thats up to you