Scope Environment - Is it possible without a breakout box?

[forumer]

In normal Scope mode your UAD plugs would go on your host tracks. Host tracks go by ASIO to Scope environment & mixer however you want. Via a single stereo buss or up to 64 mono or 32 stereo multi channels[or a selction of mono and stereo]. You can then mix the ASIO host stuff with Scope synths and use the Scope FX, etc, wherever in the mixers.

ns

Does this mean that I can have an additional layer of programming, eg MIDI based synths and automation in scope environment as well as what is going on in the "sequencer" ie Cubase.

If that is true then sounds pretty exciting I reckon as I've never been able to sync more than 1 music sequencer via MTC let alone VST System Link.

[mausmuso]

to be precise if that external hardware happens to be of the digital type, you can even compensate it's tiny amount of latency right from the Scope 2448 mixer.
I have a Rocktron Intellifex routed as an external fx constantly and delay the 'dry' channel of the instrument (bass or guitar) for exactly 60 samples.
To measure the amount required is an easy process: invert the channel an adjust sample delay for minimal loudness, then put it back to normal and save the setting - bingo.

cheers, Tom

Hey Tom,
I am intrigued by the method you describe. Can you elaborate some?
I assume you invert the return path adjust against the send for minimum level?
Where are you adjusting the sample delay? I can't remember the 2448 being capable of that (I am not in fromt of my DAW at the moment).
Ron

[garyb]

yes, you can use the UADs all you want in Scope mode. they will just be inside the sequencer mixer as always. it's a perfectly fine place for them as the compressors might as well be inserted as far up the chain as possible and reverb outputs can have their own ASIO channels out of the sequencer. it's not an all or nothing approach. it's all inclusive.

Thanks garyb and nightscope

I refer to your (and others') prior discussions here regarding the use of scope effects in real-time, ie on recording and seek your kindness in relation to this particular subject, as all I seem to be able to adequately perform is mixing with my current setup.

In relation to your above quoted comment, this idea would seem best used as a kind of mixing environment even withstanding the use of other native &/or dsp branded effects in the sequencer, am I right, as going to something like UAD etc would cause additional latency which may ultimately effect the signal "downstream".

regards

yeah, pretty much. they're vsts and vsts belong in the sequencer.

so, no, your vst stuff will never be realtime, but that doesn't matter in playback, since the sequencer adjusts for the plugs latencies. the greast thing is you don't hear anything until the sound reaches the Scope mixer, so the effect is the same as listening to a tape deck through a hardware mixer. at that point, you can do whatever you you want with that audio.

-btw-the answer to the question about automation is yes. you can record midi events in the sequencer and then play them back to control synths, effects, mixer faders, mutes, whatever. the handicap is that it's midi and you only get some 120something controllers per midi channel/device.

[nightscope]

Does this mean that I can have an additional layer of programming, eg MIDI based synths and automation in scope environment as well as what is going on in the "sequencer" ie Cubase.

Yes. Scope's synths within Scope environment, & FX, can be automated from the host via the Scope MIDI Sequencer Source. So, you'd set up a track in the host sending out automation data to a Sequencer Source module in Scope. Automation data comes out of Seq Source and into whatever you want to automate, say, a certain synth parameter or literally anything. All Scope devices have a midi learn feature which can handle up to 119 CC's. Midi clock can be transmitted as well as other odds and sods, ASIO positioning protocol and wotnot.

MIDI data can be sent from Scope to the host thro the MIDI sequencer modules for whatever reason. I haven't found one yet but I live in hope.

The MIDI routing with Sonicore stuff is quite extensive, to say the least. For example, if you have a controller that's only USB, the MIDI can be sent via USB to the host and then onward to Scope.

ns

[nightscope]

they're vsts and vsts belong in the sequencer.

Quite right too. Heaven forbid they should ever escape!!

ns

[nightscope]

Where are you adjusting the sample delay?

Big mixers have a little delay button above the AUX knobs in the channel strip, where you can set the delay in samples.

ns

[astroman]

right, there it is...
and there's a small button below the amount entry field to patch the delay in or out of the path.
Makes it easy to A/B. No need to bother with most sources, but on percussive stuff (like a bass played with a pick) it gains clarity.

cheers, Tom

[forumer]

they're vsts and vsts belong in the sequencer.

Quite right too. Heaven forbid they should ever escape!!

ns

Maybe true, but even scope mode plugins are based on the VST Specification, as is UA, RTAS and DXi.

[garyb]

no, Scope mode plugins have nothing at all to do with vst. they are identical to external hardware as far as the sequencer is concerned. i'm not sure you're reading me... sorry, bad pun...

[mausmuso]

Big mixers have a little delay button above the AUX knobs in the channel strip, where you can set the delay in samples.

ns

Dam!!
I have been using Scope for 10 odd years now and I still don't know it all.
I use the Nugen 'LineUp' tool inside SAM and Cubase mostly (btw its a great tool and its free) and all this time I might have been able to do this inside the Scope mixer - Dam!!
Sorry to sidetrack your post Forumer
regards
ron

[forumer]

No worries mausmuso .. I like my topics being taken over by intelligent types (and I mean that as you can even learn about general audio principles in this place, which is unique to forum world, hence my name

no, Scope mode plugins have nothing at all to do with vst. they are identical to external hardware as far as the sequencer is concerned. i'm not sure you're reading me... sorry, bad pun...

What I am saying is they are programmed using the same C+ libraries as regular VST's using the same headers but are compiled for SonicCore platform.

The same is so for each and every other type of plug in technology in existence including DXi, which is interesting since the highest version that can be used is VST 2.4, which consequently is the lowest 64 bit compatible version in terms of the plugins themselves.

HTH's

[astroman]

is there any experience or facts that backs up such a bold statement ?
to be honest I don't even know if Scope devices are hard-coded or if they are compiled on the fly...
There is at least some evidence for the latter - it is a rather complex system with meta-programming techniques, that's why it has never been done by another company.
If you're not used to think in such dimensions, you either fail and give up ...or you have a sh*tload to learn, learn, learn...
It's not like filling a VSTi prototype with some custom mods
The native C-part is only used to interface it with the (computer) host.
Like reading samples, writing files, GUI etc - the processing is entirely done in it's own 'universe' (estimated code base equivalent to 150 man years of developement)

cheers, Tom

[forumer]

Hi astroman

My statements were not intended to diminish any one particular technology, all I am saying is that it is the VST specification that uses standard C+ headers and all other technologies are "mere" derivatives as additional headers must have been programmed somewhere and Steinberg have it all under wraps, ie licensing and so on but it is still the same language.

It is not like a prototyping environment where you simply create extensions, then provide a new version and call it something else like .NET or some other technology but at the same time it is not assembler either so therefore needs to be compiled in some way hence the term VST.

This in no way belittles any technology at all (except maybe DXi), rather it is all one and the same and it is the implementation that you and everyone here adore so much and likely the reason I am here asking about it.

Don't get me wrong, SonicCore observes the latest specifications, there will come a time when it becomes more than we can ever dream even now, once VST3 is under the hood.

Best regards

[astroman]

well, I didn't mean you were diminishing anything at all...
I only made the little joke about 'a bold statement' because the distance between the 2 approaches can't be farther...
There is of course some VST technology regarding the Asio driver and the XTC interface wrapper.
How else could it communicate with the sequencer ?
And there's a similiar one towards the computer OS (mme/wma), the so called 'driver'.

But all other stuff is a remote control for a dedicated hardware system (the DSP card) plus a kind of intelligent processor to apply math rules to digitized audio - beyond any standard specs.
It's a 100% custom system, which of course isn't immediately obvious... as a user you don't even notice.

cheers, Tom

[mausmuso]

sorta, Scope is much more comprehensive.

Scope is more akin to ProTools HD in that it actually IS external hardware. the dsps are what make much of the hardware run. totalmix is not really the same, except for having some routing possibilities.

i do all my mixing and processing in Scope. i do recording and editing in Cubase and i do CD editing in Samplitude. there are many different ways to use Scope, though. Jimmy has used Scope for live stage synths and audio mixing for years. Hans Zimmer used it for Academy Awards...

Scope is high-end studio gear, that happens to be a great interface. it's the biggest no-brainer, stupid cheap, most flexible piece of audio gear ever made, no lie. a Scope system is meant to be used for 10, 20, 30 years, mine have been running more than 10 now, and are running better than ever. Scope is not just a piece of computer crap that's meant to be replaced or obsoleted in six months, which may be why more people don't know about it. it's for the hardcore...

actually, Scope is not perfect. there is only midi automation(which is really easy to use and works well, though). it doesn't sync to 88.2khz. there are some bugs(NONE which are show stoppers and it is very stable other than the known bugs). the thing is, that an XITE-1 is more powerful than $40,000 of PTHD, with no real loss in quality, so it's hard to really be mad about the faults(ok, she gets a couple of blemishes when it's that time of the month, no big deal). Scope can replace $100's of thousands of dallors of hardware without bogging down the host cpu.

the good thing is that the owners of the company are among the tops in their field(dsp design and programming), and while they're a bit slow, they do what NO ONE else in the business can do.

real time means that instruments, effects and mixers can be used live. it means that overdubs have no slapback echo. it means that you can go in and out of the computer as many times as you like with no more latency that going through digital hardware effects or an analog mixer.

thanks for providing an outlet for my enthusiasm.

Hey Gary,
A cleaned up version of this together with some other posts here would be really useful over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Core.
You are answering some basic fears that people have before shelling out their hard earn for a SCOPE system.
BTW I agree with everything you say!!
regards
ron

[garyb]

thanks! feel free to use any part that's helpful...

[forumer]

Hey Gary,

You are answering some basic fears that people have before shelling out their hard earn for a SCOPE system.

regards
ron

He is a good writer and advocate for S/C platform isn't he, but I do hope he can touch type.

[garyb]

no, i'm a lousy typist. it's painful.

i'm a good spokesman because i'm that much of a stupidly loyal user.

[meisa]

you don't absolutely need a breakout box, but you do need an i/o plate.