Scope and DSP processing vs other sound cards...

Please remember the terms of your membership agreement.

Moderators: valis, garyb

Post Reply
quantum
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:17 am
Location: Portland, Maine, USA
Contact:

Scope and DSP processing vs other sound cards...

Post by quantum »

So I was at Guitar Center and started talking to the pros. They keep telling me that the PC does not use a sound card for processing, but instead only the CPU and RAM. I thought Scope offloads all DSP processing to its chips. For example, when I was using VSTs in FL Studio with an avg of 3 FX on each channel, about 10 channels total, I noticed a tremendous difference between having the Scope Pulsar in the PC vs not having it in. Most other cards have like one maybe two chips. So I am wondering how many Sharc chips are actually used for general VST processing without using any Scope FX? Or all the Sharc chips are used for Scope FX only?
User avatar
Bud Weiser
Posts: 2709
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
Location: nowhere land

Re: Scope and DSP processing vs other sound cards...

Post by Bud Weiser »

quantum wrote: So I am wondering how many Sharc chips are actually used for general VST processing without using any Scope FX? Or all the Sharc chips are used for Scope FX only?
Creamware/S|C Pulsar/SCOPE hardware doesn´t process native VST software !
It´s stricktly SCOPE environment, FX, synths, MIDI and I/O handling.
In XTC / VSTIM mode, the DLLs are related to the SCOPE devices only.

Bud
S|C Scope/XITE-1 & S|C A16U, Scope PCI & CW A16U
User avatar
valis
Posts: 7351
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: West Coast USA
Contact:

Re: Scope and DSP processing vs other sound cards...

Post by valis »

quantum wrote:So I was at Guitar Center and started talking to the pros. They keep telling me that the PC does not use a sound card for processing, but instead only the CPU and RAM. I thought Scope offloads all DSP processing to its chips. For example, when I was using VSTs in FL Studio with an avg of 3 FX on each channel, about 10 channels total, I noticed a tremendous difference between having the Scope Pulsar in the PC vs not having it in. Most other cards have like one maybe two chips. So I am wondering how many Sharc chips are actually used for general VST processing without using any Scope FX? Or all the Sharc chips are used for Scope FX only?
The difference you noticed was due to having proper ASIO drivers versus the crap onboard sound drivers. Onboard soundcards CAN have properly low latency operation but will still have poor sound quality (s/n ratio & $0.20 components), but in almost all cases there's no attention paid to low latency operation as onboard soundcards are for 'multimedia' and 'gaming' under modern OSes.

Also, sounds like you missed out on using Scope for anything other than ASIO, you should learn to use more of what the cards can do. It's basically like having external hardware right in your PC running ALONGSIDE your DAW (FLStudio or etc). The trick is finding a workflow that works for you to combine external hardware (and Scope) along with your ITB (inthebox) tools.
bosone
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Scope and DSP processing vs other sound cards...

Post by bosone »

beside onboard synth/fx/mix/dsp i would spend a word about scope endless routing possibilities, both in audio and in midi.

i can patch/handle/modify every midi or audio signal from anything to anything, hardware or software. in 15 years, this solved me a lot of problems and permitted me to integrate effortlessly and seamlessly every toy that i bought into my system.

if you have several external midi/audio devices, scope offers solutions that i bet cannot be achieved with any other system.
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23255
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Scope and DSP processing vs other sound cards...

Post by garyb »

a Scope card isn't a sound card. it doesn't have anything to do with processing vsts, as the folks at GC have told you.

a Scope card can function like a sound card, since it does offer wav, midi and ASIO drivers to connect data streams to the os and it's apps. a Scope card is a dedicated piece of audio hardware that is controlled by the computer.

the computer does some things better than the Scope card, mainly running the sequencer and streaming samples. the Scope card tends to be superior in routing, mixing, fx and synths, but ymmv.
quantum
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:17 am
Location: Portland, Maine, USA
Contact:

Re: Scope and DSP processing vs other sound cards...

Post by quantum »

Thank you all for the clarifications!
User avatar
Nestor
Posts: 6676
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!

Re: Scope and DSP processing vs other sound cards...

Post by Nestor »

I have used Scope for many years now, and wow, it really is fantastic, I recomend you to get into this train, you will not regret it. The only problem I can see, is that you will need some time to learn it, the learning curve can be a little bit cumbersome for the first two months, becuase you can do anything with it, and mix it with anything else, so there are so meny variants and posibilities that you get crazy, but hey, this is a good thing after all, more posibilites.

If you are thinking about getting something serious to sound like heaven, get a Scope, and you will be an angel.
*MUSIC* The most Powerful Language in the world! *INDEED*
quantum
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:17 am
Location: Portland, Maine, USA
Contact:

Re: Scope and DSP processing vs other sound cards...

Post by quantum »

Believe me I know what Scope can do. It's just that my setup is freakin complicated because I am using Scope for production and mastering along with FL Studio for MIDI control of hardware synths, and Samplitude as DAW and host for FL Studio. So since I've invested into hardware, Scope Pulsar 1 is used here just for monitoring and routing, which it still does better than most soundcards, if not all. :D
Post Reply