PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Since a long time I merge native plugins (in cubase) and scope plugins. For example a comp insert in the vox track of the STM1632.
But this way means that the comp works after cubase's plugins reverb and others ... , last in work-flow.
Without XTC mode how could I insert a compressor before or into the cubase processes ? do an external hardware loop in cubase connections ?
How do you make that ?

reverbs really should be run 100% wet and bussed in an aux, not inserted into each channel. if you do that, you can send the reverb out it's own ASIO port into Scope.

Feed the direct out of a channel into an asio input to cubase!!??

But the habit I've got into is to have a stereo channel exclusively for the cubase sends fx. So basically the first default master out from cubase to scope will only ever have the fx and all actual channels in cubase I route to asio 2 and above.

garyb wrote:reverbs really should be run 100% wet and bussed in an aux, not inserted into each channel. if you do that, you can send the reverb out it's own ASIO port into Scope.

Not inserted, I told reverb into cubase's aux. but the output of cubase in a insert of the STM track in scope.

But the habit I've got into is to have a stereo channel exclusively for the cubase sends fx

With a multi-FX in the loop ?

Yes you're right for a send it's a good solution : I/O scope into cubase and reverb / delays in the aux bus.
But for a compressor which must be inserted ? (send 100% of the cubase track in the aux bus with a comp ?)

babaorum wrote:

garyb wrote:reverbs really should be run 100% wet and bussed in an aux, not inserted into each channel. if you do that, you can send the reverb out it's own ASIO port into Scope.

Not inserted, I told reverb into cubase's aux. but the output of cubase in a insert of the STM track in scope.

But the habit I've got into is to have a stereo channel exclusively for the cubase sends fx

With a multi-FX in the loop ?

Yes you're right for a send it's a good solution : I/O scope into cubase and reverb / delays in the aux bus.
But for a compressor which must be inserted ? (send 100% of the cubase track in the aux bus with a comp ?)

Its hard to re articulate what I mean. I'll draw a picture or something and post it up.

I begin to believe that XTC mode would be better for my needs, but doesn't work in v5.1 64 ... arf
Scope 6 will include XTC mode , don't you know ?

Do you use 'external hardware effect' in cubase ? (in the VST connections : external effects)
[edit] YES it works, in cubase you define an external effect and affect the I/O scope and it appears in the sub-menu 'external plugin' in the insert effect-list of cubase !!!

If you want more details, tell me !

But, it consumes a lot of CPU

Looks like you have cracked it. Totally overlooked cubase own ability to have "external" inserts.

I was just saying I'm in the habit of having the first master buss of cubase for the return signals of send fx in cubase and route all instrument channels to scope using asio master outs 2 and above.

So my way of working I never have a scope processing happening before a cubase process, but you have highlighted how.

As, for me xtc mode just misses out too much of what scope offers.

Liquid EDGE wrote:Looks like you have cracked it.

If you tell about cubase no I purchased it

But insert mode is too consumer ... I will continue to save my CPU and only apply effects in scope. Another way is to record the track with an effect insert into cubase, it's not very comfortable but ... I don't have a 12 cores and a XITE1 ...

babaorum wrote:

Liquid EDGE wrote:Looks like you have cracked it.

If you tell about cubase no I purchased it

babaorum wrote:Scope 6 will include XTC mode , don't you know ?

I'd guess not. Since there is a ParseQ sequencer proposed with tight integration to Scope DSP and the ability to run VST's, adding XTC would be only for those sequencer users choosing to stay outside the Scope paradigm and stick with native sequencers. That would absorb a fair bit of R&D I'd think, enough to deduct features from ParseQ itself.

In addition, I'd guess ParseQ would allow a fair bit of freedom in regards the sequence of FX chaining - eg native before DSP or vice versa. Ideally you'd be able to insert either native or DSP plug-ins wherever you wanted them and thats what I'm expecting of ParseQ.

actually, there's a good chance that XTC mode will be included. if it is, there probably won't be much improvement.