scary808 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:59 pm
For the record I do not own this device (yet) I'm simply doing some research for my requirements. I think some of the ideas thrown around in this thread are very helpful.
Thank all of you for your insights. This is why Scope is so great!
It looks like there are some dynamics plugins that have wet/dry mix that can achieve parallel processing so there are a lot of ways to approach this. I was just curious if I could do parallel compression with Vinco and not cause problems. Maybe a dummy Vinco in parallel set to not compress?
I'm excited to add MM2 to my workflow
I don't think there is a difference between types of plugins, as long as they are inserts. That's because you want to use the dry channel and no effect parameters. The inserts functions places the effect in "another dimension", I believe it uses the PC ram too, hence a little bit of latency/micro-latency.
But the "Use Vinco with parameters that do nothing" is a good idea, because it goes through the same sound path, and it has an output volume knob.
For phase issues, at designer level, there are not a lot of solutions:
- first it concerns big modules that need more than 1 DSP. Keeping plugins simple and small avoids phase issues in 99.999% of the cases.
- designer places the plugin or a part of the internal circuit in a group with attribute flag "load on same DSP=Yes" . This is the method used in Scope since old days. That's how Red Muze's modular modules are made. The limit of this method is that the particular module is supposed to be loadable on a single DSP, so only small modules can do this. This is one of the reasons why BB3 oscillators are monophonic. I have done a mixer (FP104) which attempts to load the whole device on same dsp as well as internal parts (there are multiple levels of "OnSameDSP", but we know the mixer itself cannot load on a single Scope-PCI DSP). Nobody knows why, but it works in terms of compact loading. Not certain in terms of phase.
- Manual alignment: Use micro-delays: manually adding small DSP delays on each channel, and let user the delay time that he thinks fit, manually, on every channel, with or without linking functions etc. This is very DSP hungry, and not very practical because it is done manually by ear.
- Automatic phase align: like on STM mixer(s). This is a script that is not extractable from the STM mixers and not useable by designers. Does not fix any latency due to inserts, only channel latencies. I am not fond of this method, and personally do not like the sound of it. That's one of the many reasons why I began doing mixers, because I needed alternatives (other reasons are: I like doing mixers, needed other effect methods, there are better mixer to do for scope that simulation of hardware etc etc
- Send the device to Sonic Core for the ultimate phase fix dsp align placement. This is how it is done ultimately, for any device, and it could be done for modular mixer. This fixes internal channel latencies and phase across multiple DSPs, but (if I am correct) it does not allow user to place on different DSP. It is kind of "hard-wired" as placement is forced. It would not help for "insert latencies" though, so it would not change a lot for parallel FXs. Note that Holger proposed to me to do it once, but in that time, the Modular Mixer was far from finished. Then I forgot, but at the same time, I do not know if it could change something with big modules like the S12. It could be nice for smaller modules such as 4 channels, routers etc. A said, it does not change anything for inserts latency.
- The way the mixer is built changes a lot. For example, you could build a single channel module , and then import that channel into your mixer. So internally, the channels are grouped together and a single channel can be instructed to load on same DSP. or smaller parts of that channel. I've done this, but also built mixers where the groups are the horizontal sections: all mutes, all inserts, all volume faders, all those are in a large groups that are inserted one after the other inside the mixer. There is no "channel" visible in the circuit, just a succession of modules which are each line of the mixer. It means that you can flag OnSameDSP "all mutes", all insert 1" "all insert 2" , "all solo switches" etc. You could also mix both method. None is better that the other, at the end, it all depends on how big is the device. All my FP mixers are build in that "serial" way and it works very well, could even save a little bit of DSP in comparison the parallel building. May change phase too but not necessarily. I have not used this method in Xite/Modular Mixers which are classic "channel-per-channel" builds (otherwise it would be hell to make).
- Choice of internal modules is important too. For example, the summing of all channels could use dynamic "Add32" module, the Normalized adders, or a network of "mix2" modules (makes use of dozens of mix stages). Soundwise, it is all the same, but in terms of DSP resources, placement, etc , it is not the same. I used the micro-mix method in the routers of Modular Mixer v1, and it takes a lot of DSP. In modular Mixer v2, I reverted to 32Adders and it is much better in terms of DSP resource, and indirectly it makes phase issues less likely to happen, as modules are more compact and more likely to be loadable on a single DSP.
Mixing all these possibilities is how you make a mixer that is also "new inside" and it has a direct or indirect influence on phase.
May be others do it differently, but I think that the only possibilities available in scope.