Latency

[Insty]

I'm new to the Creamware card and have been reading about it. I have some doubts about lantency, regarding the use of the card with software like Live, Cubase and Reason 3.0.

From what I've read, the old Pulsar card, offers a overall latency of 13ms when used with this software. I also read about doing some tweaking on files or adding a new Luna card to reduce the lantecy.
I am concerned with this, because I have been thinking about buying an old Plusar I card, for a reduced price, to use in this mode, but I already get as little as 12ms latency, using any of my old PCI card or onboard Nvidia nf2 soundcard (A-bit mobo). I would like some feedback on this.

Another thing is the Scope Software itself. Not having used it yet, from what I've seen and read so far, it very much reminds me of using Reason, which has its on hardware-looking devices like a studio rack, that you can tweak and connect with rear cables, allowing for virtually any possible combination of FX and sounds.
I was wondering if anyone else here knows/uses Reason along with Scope, that can tell me the similarities/differences.

Overall, I'm trying to find out if an old Pulsar card along with Scope will add advantages to my setup.Thanks for your time.

[hubird]

The Latency of 13 ms of the type I cards is a given fact.
You can add a type II card and overrule the old latency tho.

Reason is software, Luna is hardware with physical ins and outs, to connect to external gear, isn't it?
It's also 'universal applyable', as it uses ASIO and Midi instead of 'Rewire' to connect to sequencers.

The Luna is a DSP card, it's hardware, which is sounding better than native, as most of us are convinced of.

Reason is used by 'everybody', SonicCore cards are not

You won't loose much (mony) if you try and buy, you can sell the card again if you don't like it

[Insty]

I spoke with a guy selling a pulsar I card, and I was told the latency was the cause of the selling. Are 13ms that noticeable? I mean, I only know there is latency because the software tells me about it, and how much it is...

One other thing was, he asked me why did I need a DSP card, and that got me thinking "I have absolutely no idea" .
I guess I just heard about the card, and thought it was an unconditional asset to add to my setup, wich atm is still starting to grow. But as I only use software and a midi controller, I'm not sure about this. He also said that the Scope software is far from being trivial, and requires alot of dedication/time to give results. Reason already gives alot of tweaking too, so I'm a bit skeptical about this time requirement. Any thoughts on this?

[garyb]

scope is very easy and straight-forward for those who have any clue how hardware works(for those with no clue, time to get a clue, if music making is the prime motive). there's certainly a learning curve but it's not as great as with the sequencer.

13ms latency is only a problem when playing vst instruments, in which case it's a big delay, very obvious. for most audio purposes, scope is zero latency, as long as you monitor on the card's mixer and not the sequencer's(live or reason). of course all the sequencer's mixer functions and plugins can still be used for mixes.

the main advantage to a dsp card is that the plugins that run on it are actually hardware. rack mounted effects and external synths, as well as digital mixers are powered by dsp chips. the plugins that run on the scope card are extremely high quality and very inexpensive, allowing you a high quality studio for the price of consumer gear. the real benefits of scope are something that will become more and more apparent as your ability to find uses for it increases, but the good news is that real, high quality gear need never be thrown away just because it's old, so your investment stays valuable and useful.

the pulsar1 card can be combined with a newer card and then you would get the beter performance of the current cards(3ms latency) and add more dsp for more and better devices and also add i/o to the already healthy 20 plus midi. if you get more into music production, you'll appreciate the generous i/o, which is as good as soundcards get in sound quality.

still, scope's not for everyone. if you aren't really into making music, then it'll be no good use to you....

[Insty]

I see. that seems to hurt. I do have around 21ms atm with my onboard card, though I recall having less in the past, don't know why, maybe different drivers.
So how does it work normal/other soundcards with or without DSP, what is the audio/midi routing, as to seem where latencies matter. Can someone illustrate that?

I do recall that, I can't really notice a 20ms latency when playing, maybe it's my sloppyness or bad ears (or maybe thats why the results are crappy).
I also read about doing some tweaking to files in another thread. Is that possible? If so how, or did I misunderstand.The adding of yet another Scope Luna card, to reduce the latency would be great, except in the fact that they cost at least double then a old Pulsar I, and I'm on a budget, hence trying to figure out to either buy or not.

[garyb]

scope's effects and synths are zero latency.

other cards, dsp and otherwise, monitor through your other software(sequencer) for the most part("direct monitoring" is a way of getting around that). scope's environment allows free signal routing amd monitoring on the card, so latency is only an issue when using vst or dx instrumnets or when monitoring through vst plugins(for recording only, playback is never an issue).

as to adding another card, you can always do that later. the beauty of the system is that an old card like that still sounds as good as ever and always will.

[Insty]

And about tweaking any files to compensate the lantency, is that possible, or I misread?

Another thing, which is a better card, the Pulsar or the Luna? Or does it depend on the version? I know the Luna only has 3 DSPs but it's of a newer version? Unless the seller got it wrong...
I've found the Luna selling cheaper then the Pulsar in this forum, so I´m confused with all the same-but-not-the-same-but-older-but-better thing!

[garyb]

4 dsps for the pulsar1, 3 for the luna.
the pulsar has better/more i/o, but the luna(luna2) has low latency and the better performance of the second generation cards, so it's a toss up as to which is better. the package of plugins included might be something to consider. either card is a good place to start, but eventually, you'll probably want to expand your system if you hear what some of the better plugins and synths, but for being just a stereo in/out card, the luna would be just fine, and would be the better choice if vst synths and romplers are the main thing you want to use to make music. as i said, you can always add to the system later.

[garyb]

4 dsps for the pulsar1, 3 for the luna.
the pulsar has better/more i/o, but the luna(luna2) has low latency and the better performance of the second generation cards, so it's a toss up as to which is better. the package of plugins included might be something to consider. either card is a good place to start, but eventually, you'll probably want to expand your system if you hear what some of the better plugins and synths, but for being just a stereo in/out card, the luna would be just fine, and would be the better choice if vst synths and romplers are the main thing you want to use to make music. as i said, you can always add to the system later.

[Insty]

4 dsps for the pulsar1, 3 for the luna.
the pulsar has better/more i/o, but the luna(luna2) has low latency and the better performance of the second generation cards, so it's a toss up as to which is better. the package of plugins included might be something to consider. either card is a good place to start, but eventually, you'll probably want to expand your system if you hear what some of the better plugins and synths, but for being just a stereo in/out card, the luna would be just fine, and would be the better choice if vst synths and romplers are the main thing you want to use to make music. as i said, you can always add to the system later.

That really got me confused. Luna is Luna2, or I must check wich Luna it is? Is there old Luna aswell like old Pulsar?

About the software package, I've heard that it can not be copied, and that it needs some serial to be installed (as well as the card software itself). How does this work exactly?
As I'll be buying second hand stuff, how can I get the keys for the card software and any pluggins I mite get? I'm a bit reluctant about this, as I know a pretty CD with any additional software I mite get, will be useless if there is some activation requiered.
The only way I can see this is that the software will need a key that somehow has been authorized and contains information about the hardware card that will be running it. This would be true for the Scope environment and official packs, and maybe optional for the third-party pluggins. If someone can throw some light, I don't wonna buy a "great" useless bundle.

Dont worry so much about it.

It all really depends on what you are doing;
live recording and/or monitoring ?

Composing on the PC ?

Live playing electronic instruments ?

make up your mind and then evaluate the impact and then think what serves you best.

Well, this is the hard part, as I don't really know exactly what I'll need or better the impact of specific tasks. Mostly I use software with instruments like Reason and Live, I guess all those qualify as VST and hence there will be a minimum 2x13ms latency.

I would also like to be able to get outside sounds into the setup, from different sources, to then use in any way possible. I'm not really specific here, but this could be either sampling or live playing instruments, for tracking or just live audio gigs (dream away ) so it leaves me wondering where to go. I don't think 1 DSP cut would be noticeable, for the better latency, but I could be wrong. Any thoughts?

[garyb]

yes, most likely it's a luna2, that's pretty much what's out there. as to what plugins are registered, a keyfile should come with the card. if you don't get the keyfile(which shows exactly what plugins are included), you can get one from SonicCore by emailing Ralf. every dsp is precious, you'll want more in either case.....

of course you can use external gear, that's a big part of what's great about scope, everything inside and outside the computer connects to eachother. for this, the pulsar1 is better, it has more connections that can be easily accessed, the luna has plenty of i/o, however. it's just that a number of themn are z-link instead of adat. z-link is a great digital connection, it's just that adat allows for cheaper ad/da expansion, the z-link expansion is for scope converters only, which although are extremely high quality, are more expensive than say a behringer ada8000 expansion, since you are on a tight budget. either way though, expansion is easy, and, as i said, you'll likely want to add another card eventually, which would have more i/o.......

[valis]

From what I recall, there was only Pulsar1 (and a 15 dsp Developer's board I think) at first, when Pulsar2 came out with some improvements, a 3 dsp version was also marketed as Luna 2. It seemed to me that they called it "Luna 2" in keeping with the "Pulsar 2" naming trend. I don't know of a "Luna 1" personally. If anyone does I'm sure they'll correct me.

Well, this is the hard part, as I don't really know exactly what I'll need or better the impact of specific tasks. Mostly I use software with instruments like Reason and Live, I guess all those qualify as VST and hence there will be a minimum 2x13ms latency.

If you input notes 'live' from a midi keyboard with an accomplished level (ie, not finger poking notes one by one) then the 13ms might be an issue. Also it's only 1x13ms (plus any overhead from any plugins you might be using on that channel) when you are playing softsynths. 7ms is noticeable to an accomplished person playing a complex piece, but 13ms is quite tolerable to someone just needing to input a few ideas.

I would also like to be able to get outside sounds into the setup, from different sources, to then use in any way possible. I'm not really specific here, but this could be either sampling or live playing instruments, for tracking or just live audio gigs (dream away ) so it leaves me wondering where to go. I don't think 1 DSP cut would be noticeable, for the better latency, but I could be wrong. Any thoughts?

I agree with gary, you'll wind up wanting more dsp eventually, we all do! Plus once you have a '2nd generation' card (the Luna2) adding another card is painless and only gives you more of everything you already have. To record external instruments you'll want to invest in some sort of preamp or 'channel strip' (or use the channel strips on a small mixer, etc). When you do get to that route if you purchase anything with eq and/or dynamics (compression) you'll have to learn to use the controls to keep your options open. But that's a story for later...

[Insty]

So the Luna designation is part of 2nd generation boards, having 3 DSP and The middle one being Pulsar 2 with 6 DSP and the third one being Scope professional with 15 DSP?

I can just ask for a new serialfile? But will it have the packages I claim? Or it's just a copy of what is registered on the company for that particular card, meaning I can be told there are registered pluggins but it ending not being any and I'll be ripped off...

So you all suggest to start with the Luna card because of the smaller latency, or the Pulsar I because of more I/O and DSP? And which do you think has better software to start?

[Insty]

So you all suggest to start with the Luna card because of the smaller latency, or the Pulsar I because of more I/O and DSP? And which do you think has better software to start?

No.
The second gen boards , regardless if 3,6 or 14 DSPs have ASIO in HW i.e. low latency feature.
That will boost your 1st gen pulsar to lower latencies when cascading with STDM connector(s).
Certainly also DSP power and I/O add.

Hmm, sooo...what does the "No" refer to exactly? You don't suggest to get a Luna? Having read what I've read, I must say that I like the low latency ASIO in HW. So the issue is to have only 3 DSP and that Z-link instead of ADAT versus 4 DSP with ADAT.

Aparently there is no difference in the software packs, unless it's a new card right? I'm not really thinking about any ADAT or Z-link connections in the forseeable future, so the low latency as a standard does sound more appealing.

I did notice old Pulsar I cards usually have a ton of software packages (noticeable in other threads and the CW site), as they are usually the first bought and they have it all installed.
Is a Luna without any software besides SCOPE 4.0 Software and Scope Fusion Platform (are these two separate things?) a good start? And will it cost me alot to get the equal software the Pulsar I has separately? Someone just posted in another thread how they got a official upgrade for 192€ (Around a second hand Pulsar I price).

[garyb]

it all depends on whaty has been purchased as to what is registered to any particular card. a luna w/4.5 will likely have more than a pulsar1 w/3.1. it's very unlikely, though that it's that simple as you can always buy additional devices and software. ask the owners of the cards what plugins are registered to them. that should help your decision.

there's no absolute best decision here. either way, you will get and give some....

[hubird]

the 'no' was addressed to what card is read by the system (of Scope) as ranking nr. one (zero actually, you can find this in the cset.ini file if you change the extension ini to text, see Scope/Bin/App/).
The zero card determines the latency for all cards then, including the older 'type one' card

[Insty]

But,
the Luna is the lowest cost for you (new or second hand) to add low latency and, as a side effect, more DSPs.

Don't you mean the Pulsar has more DSPs?

[garyb]

no, ne means that a pulsar and a luna together are cool because you get lots of i/o, lower latency AND more dsps....

yes, the pulsar1 has 4 the luna 3.