SCOPE X-ite still VIRTUAL?

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:38 pm

Me too I am sorry not to have been able to post a single picture of the box itself but i realized that i had none

the direct jack inputs on the front side are a very nice addition to quickly plug something, and it has the S|C & XITE logo printed on it which are not photoshop anymore (the printed units were not there when the picture for the website was taken).

next to nothing · Post by **next to nothing** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:50 pm

to be honest, a 12 year old would have done a better photoshop job than that, but who cares, its the inside yhat counts

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:32 pm

let's get ready...
10...9...8...7...6.....

FrancisHarmany · Post by **FrancisHarmany** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:26 am

5..... 4.........

maky325 · Post by **maky325** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:50 am

3............. (cant wait anymore....please stop it

)

Warp69 · Post by **Warp69** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:29 am

lagoausente wrote: I´m safisfied with what the platform gives me, no problem about that............. So even just would be unuseful for already Scope users, I think that the platform is missing comparing with it mains competitor (Native) a modern sampler and the convolution toys..............

I really disagree on this one. I really hope that Sonic Core change their focus from mainstream to high-end which means that UA, TC, SSL are the real competitors and not the native platform. I really dont think we need a convolution plugin (maybe high order volterra) since its no good without very good IR's like Audio Ease and Sony S777. All other IR's on the net are of bad quality. Maybe we represents two different kind of customers - in general the native platform doesn't deliver the quality I want and I have no problems with the price for XITE-1 or high-end plugins with a price point of 500-1000 euros. And Im one of those customers that like MADI (192KHz) interface instead for Z-Link.

Cheers

maky325 · Post by **maky325** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:19 am

Warp69 wrote: I have no problems with the price for XITE-1 or high-end plugins with a price point of 500-1000 euros. And Im one of those customers that like MADI (192KHz) interface instead for Z-Link.
Cheers

Agree ! Now go and prepare some answers

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:52 am

I've always seen the notion of competitor in the scope world as a very relative notion, as it will also depend on use of the system by each user. It is so wide, that for some people who use synths, competition could be vstis or the big workstations, for other it will be something else... For many, it is indeed UAD , TC which are (were?) the other choices at some point in the scope history. For others , the choice of going to scope/XITE could be the choice between this and an ensemble of various gear. I'm pretty much convinced that it really depends on what you want to use the Scope for.... There is a "global picture", but perspective changes according to the angle .

2.9..... 2.8.... 2.7......2.6.....

nightscope · Post by **nightscope** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:47 am

spacef wrote:the notion of competitor......2.9..... 2.8.... 2.7......2.6.....

UAD, TC, SSL aren't really competitors. Scope doen't have any competition. Protools has one synth, I think. I'd have a hard time getting a track mixed with the FATS on my UAD. TC is a grand for FX only. These other products do FX only and that's it.

stardust wrote:I know that this aspect of scope is typically not understood by the average native user. They just hear DSP and do not understand the difference between the high latency VST expanders (TC, UA) and scope as a full featured production system including effects and synths with low latency.

Exactly. I totally glaze over when someone mentions UAD, etc, in the same breath.

2.6666.......2.6665.....2.6664.....

ns

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:35 am

nightscope wrote:
spacef wrote:the notion of competitor......2.9..... 2.8.... 2.7......2.6.....
UAD, TC, SSL aren't really competitors. Scope doen't have any competition. Protools has one synth, I think. I'd have a hard time getting a track mixed with the FATS on my UAD. TC is a grand for FX only. These other products do FX only and that's it.

actually may be you can, but at a much higher cost and more mouse clicks...

stardust wrote:I know that this aspect of scope is typically not understood by the average native user. They just hear DSP and do not understand the difference between the high latency VST expanders (TC, UA) and scope as a full featured production system including effects and synths with low latency.
nightscope wrote: Exactly. I totally glaze over when someone mentions UAD, etc, in the same breath.

2.6666.......2.6665.....2.6664.....

ns

that's because you already have a scope

2.5-(10^-9), 2.5-((10^-9)-(10^-9)).....

Warp69 · Post by **Warp69** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:05 am

nightscope wrote:UAD, TC, SSL aren't really competitors. Scope doen't have any competition. Protools has one synth, I think. I'd have a hard time getting a track mixed with the FATS on my UAD. TC is a grand for FX only. These other products do FX only and that's it.

XITE-1 has competitors. Thinking otherwise would not be a smart move.

Why would I buy the new system? Only because of a realtime environment? Im looking for a single system with high-end plugins and alot of power - thats my first priority. My second priority is the realtime environment. I would imagine that most customers are looking for good quality and UAD, TC, SSL competitors can then be considered as competitors.

petal · Post by **petal** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:12 am

Nobody seem willing to discuss the workflow issues with using a system like Scope, which seem to be the reason why people keep asking about sequencer integration - And they do have a point. Ignoring it is not a good idea.

Sounddesigner · Post by **Sounddesigner** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:00 am

nightscope wrote:
spacef wrote:the notion of competitor......2.9..... 2.8.... 2.7......2.6.....
UAD, TC, SSL aren't really competitors. Scope doen't have any competition. Protools has one synth, I think. I'd have a hard time getting a track mixed with the FATS on my UAD. TC is a grand for FX only. These other products do FX only and that's it.

stardust wrote:I know that this aspect of scope is typically not understood by the average native user. They just hear DSP and do not understand the difference between the high latency VST expanders (TC, UA) and scope as a full featured production system including effects and synths with low latency.
Exactly. I totally glaze over when someone mentions UAD, etc, in the same breath.

2.6666.......2.6665.....2.6664.....

ns

What Spacef was pointing out is that it depends on the individual for what SCOPE is competing against, or what it is not. For me SCOPE is competing against Native and UAD to 'some degree' because i've been lately choosing to put my money into the SCOPE platform when deciding if i want a synth/effect unlike before when i did'nt have SCOPE (very little gets spent elsewhere now), and actually been selling off portions of my other platforms to buy more SCOPE wich means developers from those other platforms are getting less affiliation and little to none of my money anymore and Sonic core is, wich equates to competition since this would not have happened if i would not have discovered SCOPE and considered it better in some way form or fashion, i would've continued investing in those other platforms heavily if not for SCOPE. And i would not have chosen SCOPE if it did not sound more high-end "better" (there are jewels on other platforms to me also but i mainly prefer SCOPE) so i agree with Warp69 on the high-end focus for Sonic Core. I'm actually considering selling my whole UAD collection to buy XITE-1 cause i don't have the money otherwise (for some of us its either or cause we can't afford both or don't want too many plugins for distractional reason's, wich means a choice has to be made wich means some are not chosen for profits in the end). Business world usually is competition to a great degree, and the type of competition if any can vary between each person because of what they want from a product.

nightscope · Post by **nightscope** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:15 am

Warp69 wrote:Why would I buy the new system? Only because of a realtime environment? Im looking for a single system with high-end plugins and alot of power - thats my first priority. My second priority is the realtime environment. I would imagine that most customers are looking for good quality and UAD, TC, SSL competitors can then be considered as competitors.

Hi Warp69,

Love your work BTW!!

One reason Xcites excites me it being able to use your Plate, Room, Chorus/Delays at full power through out all my projects all the time. These FX are the business as far as I'm concerned. I'm hoping I've got it right and you are the guy who creates these little beauties.

Insofar as someone might have a coupla grand to spend elsewhere then, yes, there are other options, I guess. Folks who don't know so much about Scope will view them as such. I was just thinking there is no other integrated solution on the market that comes close to having it all in one package. Yet. My priority is having a realtime environment and hi-end plugs in one package. Scope gives me that. I could get by very nicely without UAD, rather not have to, but not the other way round.

petal wrote:sequencer integration

I personally would love this feature within SFP.

ns

petal · Post by **petal** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 am

Why not scope within the sequencer?

I saw a note about Sonic Core thinking along these lines. I think it's essential if they want to tap into the UAD and TC customer share. I know you can work with scope and any sequencer as it is, but the work flow isn't ideal, at least not to me. The power of usability has been underestimated significantly.

And another point is automation of parameters, this is where integration in the sequencer really comes to its right.
And please, lets get away from the 20 year old Midi-standard - it sounds so ugly when sweeping through 128 steps. I really hope that Sonic Core have a solid plan with a much higher resolution for this essential feature of the platform. OSC would be my choise.

Anyways - good luck to sonic core!
Thomas

nightscope · Post by **nightscope** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:32 am

Sounddesigner wrote:What Spacef was pointing out is that it depends on the individual for what SCOPE is competing against, or what it is not.

Absolutely. And I'm sure Mehdi & Warpo spend a lot more time thinking about this business stuff as developers than I do and have better viewpoints. They are wise. Like you I employ Scopes options rather than native. It's all about the tone, sound. I reckon Scope developers have an easy life with Scope DSP's. I mean these one man businesses turning out stuff on a par and better than companies with much greater manpower and resources.

ns

nightscope · Post by **nightscope** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:35 am

petal wrote:Why not scope within the sequencer?

Isn't that XTC? Never used it so I wouldn't know. Or do you mean Scope within a new SonicCore sequencer?

petal wrote:And please, lets get away from the 20 year old Midi-standard - it sounds so ugly when sweeping through 128 steps. I really hope that Sonic Core have a solid plan with a much higher resolution for this essential feature of the platform. OSC would be my choise.

Anything but the dreaded controller preset bug.

ns

petal · Post by **petal** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:50 am

No, I don't think a scope-sequencer is a good idea, since Sonic-Core needs to keep their eye on the ball which is the scope system itself. Trying to compete with Cubase/Logic/Sonar would be futile.
But I do hope that Sonic-Core will be able to make a deal with leading or maybe even upcomming sequencer-producers and integrate scope in a more complete way than XTC ever was.
Synths was ok implemented, but the effects and the introduced latency was not good. I know there was a workaround using a multifx, but it wasn't "beautiful" and it didn't suit my way of working, which is impulsive, as creative processes often are.

Perhaps one of the upcomming sequencers would be interested in reworking their excisting sequencer around Scope - that might be a cost-effective solution with benefits for both parties.

lagoausente · Post by **lagoausente** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:23 pm

yes, there are other options, I guess. Folks who don't know so much about Scope will view them as such. I was just thinking there is no other integrated solution on the market that comes close to having it all in one package.

All you are right when you tell that not only Native is it´s main competitor. As someone have just told it depends the user needings.
UAD and TC are competitors, but Scope win them because allow realtime, low latency and much more other features like synths, mixing, etc etc.
Native is another competitor. Here Scope win in performance, power, high-end quality, and low latency. Native win maybe in a wider range of soft avaible.
From what I have read from Astroman here http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... 239970a377
it seems that SC runs in the right direction. The hardware allow more posibilities now with such power and onboard RAM, and there will be developed much more high quality devices. As long as the range of soft avaible for Scope will cover more needings, will attract more users, and competitors will be all in disvantage in respect to Scope.
My thoughts.

Warp69 · Post by **Warp69** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:55 pm

nightscope wrote:Absolutely. And I'm sure Mehdi & Warpo spend a lot more time thinking about this business stuff as developers than I do and have better viewpoints.

Thats not correct, NightScope. I might be a developer, but I use my personal preference and have my agenda. Im just a customer like you. I value your (and all the others) opinion.