Page 1 of 2
Vst vs dsp
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2025 5:59 am
by ARCADIOS
Why dsp plugins are better than amy vst i have heard?
Is it because of the good plugins itself or is it because of different architecture?
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2025 6:30 am
by the19thbear
I don't think DSP plugins sound better or worse. UAD for instance can be run on both DSP and native cpu. They sound identical.
So this implies that it is simply the plugin that sounds good (or bad). No matter what is running the zeros and ones.
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2025 6:38 am
by ARCADIOS
Is it the same with scope synths? Why scope synths for instance are always fat and full in sound compared to vsts I have heard?
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:28 am
by garyb
POTENTIALLY, there aren't any differences.
PRACTICALLY, dsp has many advantages.
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:55 am
by ARCADIOS
What advantages?
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:30 am
by bosone
I gave up using fx and synths on scope because, with VST, I can render the audio offline and save a lot of time when exporting the songs...
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2025 11:17 am
by nebelfuerst
I use mostly scope synths and scope fx. Only on mastering, some vst effects are used.
As my songs are shorter than 5min and finding the best parameters takes hours, exporting time isn't really an issue.
Usability, a good set of default parameters and clear sound are the main reasons to choose a certain plugin.
As some DAWs incl. plugins enforce perodical updates, sometimes a change in sound of an fx occurs, due to an "improvement". Scope allows to obtain the same results, even for projects I made years ago.
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:17 pm
by garyb
dsps are dedicated processors. a cpu has to balance a number of jobs. dsps are better for realtime processes, cpus for offline.
yes, a cpu can do it all, i know. hardware is still better.
it's what you value.
rendering is often not faster than recording, especially since you still have to listen to the render, and then adjust, something that could have been done in realtime. well, i guess that's why almost everything is a deconstruction these days. who cares about something like audio anyway? most are more interested in technology, not audio.
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2025 11:32 am
by Gordon Gekko
Construction I think
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2025 11:57 am
by garyb
audio
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2025 4:28 pm
by LunaMan
There should be no reason not to have it all. Audio quality, great gui's, great integrated workflow and regular updates.
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2025 10:36 pm
by valis
From a market perspective, go to where you think you have it all.
From a Scoper's perspective, stay tuned. Holger is communicative. I'm the one delaying what we have an opportunity to do right now, and for that I would apologize but it's simply how life is from time to time for us all.
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2025 4:26 am
by Gordon Gekko
There I’m drooling damn you
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2025 6:05 am
by garyb
there should be no reason that i'm not the most wanted person in the world with an astounding fortune.
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:16 am
by Gordon Gekko
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2025 2:54 pm
by LunaMan
bosone wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:30 am
I gave up using fx and synths on scope because, with VST, I can render the audio offline and save a lot of time when exporting the songs...
+1
Lack of VST is the #1 reason I'm not using Scope these days.
Outboard vs. Inboard Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2025 11:04 pm
by Spielraum
The comparison is incorrect.
VST is a child concept of a DAW.
Scope is hardware! Therefore, a comparison must be made with outboard hardware! Hardware will never come close to VST in terms of workflow, but Scope is X times better than outboard hardware when it comes to connections, controllability, signal-to-noise ratio, and dynamics. Outboard hardware cannot be integrated into a computer DAW better than Scope. \o/
Solaris, for example, only has one stereo digital output as a connection to the DAW.
Analog connections only really make sense with purely analog equipment. And here, the conversion process with all its advantages and disadvantages must be taken into account. Ground loops/galactic background noise, etc. P.S.: unless you want to use the charm as sound material
- Outboard vs. Inboard (dsp)
- #John Bowen Solaris.png (987.48 KiB) Viewed 11876 times
Source: https://www.amazona.de/test-john-bowen-solaris-synthesizer/
Re: Outboard vs. Inboard Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2025 12:44 am
by Liquid EDGE
Totally this.
Spielraum wrote: Mon Mar 17, 2025 11:04 pm
The comparison is incorrect.
VST is a child concept of a DAW.
Scope is hardware! Therefore, a comparison must be made with outboard hardware! Hardware will never come close to VST in terms of workflow, but Scope is X times better than outboard hardware when it comes to connections, controllability, signal-to-noise ratio, and dynamics. Outboard hardware cannot be integrated into a computer DAW better than Scope. \o/
Solaris, for example, only has one stereo digital output as a connection to the DAW.
Analog connections only really make sense with purely analog equipment. And here, the conversion process with all its advantages and disadvantages must be taken into account. Ground loops/galactic background noise, etc. P.S.: unless you want to use the charm as sound material
#John Bowen Solaris.png
Source: https://www.amazona.de/test-john-bowen-solaris-synthesizer/
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2025 10:04 am
by Liquid EDGE
garyb wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 6:05 am
there should be no reason that i'm not the most wanted person in the world with an astounding fortune.
Re: Vst vs dsp
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2025 10:23 am
by Liquid EDGE
ARCADIOS wrote: Mon Mar 03, 2025 5:59 am
Why dsp plugins are better than amy vst i have heard?
Is it because of the good plugins itself or is it because of different architecture?
It quite simply could just be power amount. Maybe not so much the case now. But a plug in on the chips just wouldn’t run or crush the cpu. Because the chips in total were ridiculously more powerful than CPU’s.. stuff made can be more complicated under the bonnet etc.
