UAD/2 arrived at resellers today in Europe

[chriskorff]

Perhaps someone at Sharc has recently employed a very good salesman?

[kylie]

...the DSP mafia conspiracy...

[Sounddesigner]

I see TC Electronix is about to release Powercore 6000 wich is said to use the same dsp's and Ram as there System 6000. I wonder exactly how powerfull are the System 6000 dsp's, The new powercore is advertised as being their most powerfullest version. Looks like several dsp platforms are strenghthening up for war, i would'nt be surprised if SSL and their Soundscape platform will bring forth a surprise or two in the future.

Below is a quote:

"PowerCore 6000: System 6000 plug-ins for your DAW
The 7 pristine algorithms included with PowerCore 6000 are ported 1:1 from System 6000. Due to the fact that PowerCore 6000 and System 6000 share DSP/Ram hardware design, the algorithms are not emulations: they are the real thing."

suggested retail price is EUR 2650 wich is around the same price as XITE-1..


http://www.tcelectronic.com/powercore6000.asp

http://www.tcelectronic.com/press_relea ... mntId=9877

[Warp69]

They use FreeScale DSP which is a Motorola DSP also found on PowerCore X8 - so nothing new there. Its only a PowerCore X8 with bundle plugins - the VSS3 reverb, MD3, DVR2 etc. No new plugins, since The Tap Factory was announced at the Musik Messe.

[Sounddesigner]

Yea after further investigating i realized its the same old dsp's and only a larger amount of the same old. I'm also a bit stunned and disappointed TC is using the same plugins they already had available. I feel their advertisement seems a bit misleading, 6000 also does'nt seem like the right name for the new Powercore especially since it's not truly equal to System 6000 or even bring anything new to the table. This all seems a bit weird to me.

[HUROLURA]

In fact, it is the PowerCore x8 bundled with more plug-ins ... so just "marketing" rather than real new thing.
It is just similar to Scope v3.1, v4.0 to v4.5: more plug-in bundled with the same device...

UAD 2 is a new thing (migration to DSP rather than Graphic Accelerator).

Xite-1 is also a new thing (DSP power increase).

So the PowerCore 6000 looks like a way to try to prevent people from changing to UAD (I do not thing they really fear the Xite-1).

It does not make this Powercore 6000 a bad solution... but I would prefer to stay on Scope platform (I/O integration + synth plugs).

My 2 cents

[Fluxpod]

They still use the old algos on the Powercore....They should use the V4 algos for that price imo.Not a bad product at all but a tad misleading.

[Shroomz~>]

Xite-1 is also a new thing (DSP power increase).

I think it's more than just a dsp power increase. All dsp atoms which would benefit from it have probably been re-coded. That might actually be a very large percentage of the atom library & could ultimately mean higher quality in some or even many areas of the processing.

cheers,
Mark

[HUROLURA]

I also expect some other improvements due to DSP recoding ...
The DSP increase would be the most obvious progress though, as you can get more power than 3 PC filled-in with 3 Scope Pro boards each ... for the price of 2 Scope Pro board.

The other thing is that it allows to set up a mobile system.

Finally using an external unit with PCIe/express card interface is more future proof than the PCI interface of scope boards.
Even in case of a major PC technology evolution (no more PCIe or ExpressCard) SonicCore just have to redesign a new more up to date interface but do not need to redesign the DSP system (a wise choice then).
The 1st generation Scope cards are more than 10 years old now they worked good in most case untill last year on a PC (PCI port disappearing and Windows Vista).

So yes, Xite would be more than "just" more DSP power (somehow equivalent to 3 UAD2 quad).

CheerZ

[dawman]

I have had HDD's deteriorate, PSU's fail, and keyboards stop functioning.
Since everything is in well built ATA cases w/ shockmounting, the issue of damage from moving is moot.
Cheap products, or just excessive abuse in my case, as the only time these cards are powered down is when I go on a vacation or sleep.
Scope cards have outlasted everything including a new controller.

It's gonna be a greatly appredciated product, and will last for decades. I believe that it will be one of my last peices of kit to survive the punishment I put them through.

[dawman]

http://forum.dawbench.com/showthread.php?t=1326

No mention of latency but still very impressive.
More and more guys over there are seeing the benefits of DSP for audio work.

[kylie]

I wont register to see a benchmark

.oO( ah, so it's not just me... )

[nightscope]

I wont register to see a benchmark

“Benchmarks? We ain’t got no benchmarks. We don’t need no benchmarks. I don’t have to show you any stinking benchmarks.”



ns

[dawman]

, Badges?......We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badges.

That was the original line from the movie that is so famous and typical of Mexican bandits. For my European brethren, it was a description of the border from 120 years ago. John Wayne types would chase Gringos down into Mexico, and when they ran into a large gang of bandits, shit would happen. In the movie John Wayne was explaining himself to the group of bandits and said I need to speak with the Mexican authorities........the Bandit said we are the authority and JW says let me see your Badges,....Badges?..................We don't need no stinkin' Badges.

Nevada keyboard buddys back in the DX7 days were always asking for patches......we use to say this phrase but used the word patches.

From my friend Jose's party last week I have face burn from so many kisses from happy relatives who are now legal citizens. I now know why they have those strings to flip their Sombrero's on to their backs....As soon as they see women and children they start kissing and don't stop. They are worse than my Sicilian Grandmother who always did 4 big sloppy kisses.....Yeccchh!! I was always wiping my face as a child.

[garyb]

John Wayne?

isn't that the treasure of the sierra madre? that movie is a humphrey bogart flick!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3YpdMxrIXg

of course there's this version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lj056ao6GE&NR=1

[Warp69]

Does anyone here have an UAD2 card?

I believe that UA have combined the Sharc DSP and Native CPU for processing - that could explain the new buffering/latency system and load on CPU for each plugin instance.

The Duende PCIe uses 4 ADSP-21363 (333MHz) and UAD2 Quad uses 4 ADSP-21369 (400MHz) and according to AD the performance difference is more or less only the difference in clock speed - i.e. 20%. The Neve 88RS channel strip is roughly equivalent to the SSL strip but you can have 112 instance of the 88RS compared to the 32 of the SSL strip. How so? And why does the UAD2 use considerable amount of CPU compared to UAD1 and Duende PCIe at any latency?

At 64 samples latency the UAD2 use roughly 1% of an Intel e8400 (3GHz, 6MB cache, Dual Core) which is around 150MFLOPS (SSE2) for each plugin loaded.

I would appreciate if someone with an UAD2 and a Duende PCIe could verify/shoot down my theory.

[Sounddesigner]

I do feel that if UA uses both dsp and computer to power the plugins it takes away from some of the beauty of having the dsp card. I did read posts stating that the zero-latency mode of uad-2 is very taxing on the computer. Large taxing is not good. But i do not own either uad-2 or duende to verify anything.

[Mr Arkadin]

The new Sound On Sound has a review and they do mention the latency as an issue, plus you get less plugs the lower latency you go. With Scope and now XITE (to paraphrase), "Latency? We never had no stinkin' latency."

[Ben Walker]

One thing I didn't understand about the review was some new feature called 'Load Lock'. As described in the article:

A number of the UAD plug-ins can have sections disabled to conserve processing power, but if you use too many of these, you can find yourself in a position where enabling previously unused plug-in features pushes you over your hardware DSP usage limit. If you find this annoying (as I do), enabling Load Lock forces the cards to ring-fence the maximum DSP power that your active plug-ins might need, irrespective of whether you're currently using them to their full potential, so you don't find yourself running out of power just as you're putting the finishing touches to your mix. Naturally, this will normally give you fewer plug-ins, as each plug-in always hogs its maximum DSP quota.

If Load Lock counteracts the effect of switching turning sections of a plug-in off to conserve DSP, then what would be the point of switching off the section in the first place? Maybe you'd turn off features of a plug-in for some other reason, but not to conserve DSP with Load Lock enabled.

[Mr Arkadin]

If Load Lock counteracts the effect of switching turning sections of a plug-in off to conserve DSP, then what would be the point of switching off the section in the first place? Maybe you'd turn off features of a plug-in for some other reason, but not to conserve DSP with Load Lock enabled.

Sounds to me like loading a default project with say Minimax set to ten note polyphony and then not using it. It uses up the available DSP and you use whatever's left. When you then come to use Minimax all is fine. Well that doesn't sound like much of a feature.