PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

I couldn't agree more, Jimmy. The XITE has SO much more power than has been made available as of yet. It has been over 3 years since it's release? I can't complain about what it can do (I'm only frustrated about what I KNOW it COULD do). I do hope that SCOPE 6 helps release a bit more of that latent muscle.

The upside potential is still HUGE.

We're only 3 years into this, and SC is probably still scrubbing out some of the old DSP coding .

Having worked with many DSP engineers over the years, these guys are really NEVER finished refining functionality.
This is their equivalent craft.

Greg

I had to shelve the idea of using the scope as a mixer live. The STM2496 doesn't provide enough MIDI controls to use live, and the modular mixer, at the moment, is choking up scope with too many SAT errors. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Totally depends on SCOPE, the initial load scheme, and what it can do with optimizations after that. I never get the same results twice. And I'm not interested in sometimes at the moment.

Maybe SCOPE 6 will provide more simultaneous control, or hopefully Spacef can get an XITE and get the modular mixer optimize for that. I really love the features of the mixer, and hope to make full use of it on a large scale someday. It's completely unique in it's potential, and the only thing with the potential of assigning hundreds of MIDI CC's. For now, I'll have to refocus my attention on the Modular IV again, which is why I originally bought the XITE to begin with.

jksuperstar wrote:I had to shelve the idea of using the scope as a mixer live. The STM2496 doesn't provide enough MIDI controls to use live, and the modular mixer, at the moment, is choking up scope with too many SAT errors. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Totally depends on SCOPE, the initial load scheme, and what it can do with optimizations after that. I never get the same results twice. And I'm not interested in sometimes at the moment.

Maybe SCOPE 6 will provide more simultaneous control, or hopefully Spacef can get an XITE and get the modular mixer optimize for that. I really love the features of the mixer, and hope to make full use of it on a large scale someday. It's completely unique in it's potential, and the only thing with the potential of assigning hundreds of MIDI CC's. For now, I'll have to refocus my attention on the Modular IV again, which is why I originally bought the XITE to begin with.

I ran into the same problems w/ ~ 60% DSP usage w/ XITE-1 and SCOPE 5.1 32Bit.
Too many SAT errors and I also don´t get the same results twice.
In addition, working w/ a project for 3 days feeling extremely satisfied because I was able to setup a Kurzweil MIDI controller successfully w/ the big synths,- yesterday the project refused to load at all,- w/ only 60% DSP load.
Lots of DSP warnings and some warning like "hardware revision3 detected - needs update" ...
This after weeks of usage ...

MIDI controllers broke completely after loading the backup "1" of the project, MIDI notes weren´t received from XITE-1 MIDI input (not MIDI OX) !
MIDI monitor showed nothing too.

Quitting Scope and re-load the backup ...
Suddenly MIDI works again,- check MIDI CC entries in controller lists of devices,- some exist some not.
Clicking on empty entries pops up w/ the completed list again and all MIDI CC for B-2003 work again,- except rotary speed controller ...

Heavy load on DSP#18 after reloading projects where the DSP load on DSP#18 was 7 -10% before and when saving.

All random behaviour ...

We need Scope 6 ... ASAP !!!

Bud

P.S.:

I don´t wanted to be the 1st one posting this here, but now YOU did and here´s my confirmation.

that's disapointing...
What needs to be done is to pre-set the dsp where such and such device will have to load, without or with limited possibility of user changes. This is at developper level. This means that, to keep it modular, some of the module may have to exist in several versions (versions that load on different dsp). User setting to change the dsp on which a deice loads may have to be forbidden in exchange of stability. It is possible that I have to use less inserts in "large board" channel devices :-/ I am just imagining, not xite-enabled yet... (waiting...). That's why I will have to count on user inputs and screeshots to make it faster, to give in priority the devices that people use (I will not be able to test everything myself in less that a 10 month period of time if i do it alone....).... I just hope the task is manageable... Why do you guys think Scope 6 will improve things ? not to question what you say, but i had the impression that scope 6 served a different purpose to make open source ? i could be wrong, i'm using scope pci (and being fed up of it due to recent computers because they don't handle pci channels the way it was before)....

I've dug into the SDK 5.0 for XITE enough that I know that placement to DSPs is possible. That includes specific DSPs, and even relative DSPs (if root is place in X, then place this other stuff in X+1 type of thing, maybe even X+1,Y+1). And I think that just scratches the surface. It's possible to do this within a device, where algorithms can be placed differently. I take this to mean you can make an algorithm for a single channel, then for a 24-channel device you can have 8 placed on one DSP, and the next 8 on the next DSP, and so on. Or whatever works. I'd guess inserts could be configured off DSP as well then. I think this is why S|C recommends to place the mixers first in a project, and NOT to reassign the big mixers like the STM2448. They are placed already, and phase is also accounted for too.

I'm guessing this was a large part of the SDK5.0...even if SCOPE doesn't automatically optimize pre-existing devices, devices *can* be created in an optimum manner from within the SDK now specifically for the XITE.

So everything we need, really, is already here. If you want to do an experiment, I can take a basic SDK device project, and *try* to push it through the SDK. I don't have any solid experience with the SDK though, but I'm more than willing to learn it, and put in my own time & effort. Learning the SDK is my summer project, anyways

spacef wrote:that's disapointing...

What needs to be done is to pre-set the dsp where such and such device will have to load, without or with limited possibility of user changes. This is at developper level. This means that, to keep it modular, some of the module may have to exist in several versions (versions that load on different dsp).

Well, up to now, on the user level and if you assign devices to dedicated DSPs manually,- p.ex. because it´s best to load a big synth, immediatedly assign to a DSP which actually shows minimal percentage of load, then max out the voices,- that is working only while creating a project and it also works w/ several more devices you throw into the project one by one.
You´re able to work w/ this project the day you create it, sometimes 2 or 3 days and by whatever random bahaviour it craps out one of the next days.

If you remove something from a project you created and replace the device by another one, your manual DSP assignment isn´t worth a penny anymore.

1st, I thought it happens because I checked out some freebies and 3rd party modules and removed these, then building new w/ S|C Scope devices only, but it came back and now I assume it´s not caused by freebies or 3rd party stuff.

I checked out Cwm 16-16c mixer and I load mixers very early, exactly after all the XITE hardware-, ADAT- WAVE-, MIDI- and ASIO modules are into the project, then I load 4 AUX FX,- Masterverb Classic, S|C Plate X, S|C Chorus S, S|C LCR Delay S and do the connections.
At that piont, I wasn´t able activating the AUX busses 3 & 4 on/off buttons without getting the DSP SAT connection warning.

Using STM2448 instead fixed it, so I loaded STS4000 to DSP#9 which showed low DSP usage even I maxed out voices to 32 and made connection for sample inputs, sample monitoring, the stereo outs and 4 single outputs.

I saved at that point and re-loaded,- all fine.

Then I started w/ synths,- B-2003 1st,- no prob because is low on DSP anyway, Minimax monophonic,- no issue and they both work on DSP#11 ...
Prodyssey was the 1st one I assigned to a separate DSP#12 ... maxed out voices to 6 ... DSP warning "cannot load ring modulator... not enough SAT connection DSP 6 to DSP 9,- oops,- see above DSP 9 (STS4000).

Prodyssey 5 voices, same story,- 4 voices work at max. on DSP#12 being a 333MHz SHARC.
Just only examples.

In the end, I got it running because I left Prodyssey w/ the 4 voices and the next ones, Lightwave v5, Vectron Player made 8 voices, Profit-5 was fine for me w/ 5 voices like the original and Uknow7 worked w/ 8 voices,- all on separate DSPs and nothing loaded on DSP#18.

Not to forget to mention I switch off all compressors and EQs in STM2448X I don´t need for keys and I don´t have any insert FX loaded in channels except a S|C overdrive for Minimax.

I saved that project and it loaded for 3 days, hurray !
Started creating presets for synths, setting up MIDI CCs, saved everything.
Next day, game over.
I´ve seen the devices loading in the progress bar and at the very end,- DSP warning and heavy load on DSP#18.

In fact, devices load in exactly the order you used ´em creating the project,- but if you remove/exchange a device later, the new device loads latest when you re-load the project next day.
That might be as it should, but it also changes the DSP assignment you made.

Once, I threw in a simple Mic-DI source module in a given project.
I think that should be possible if I decide I want to record a voice ...
But no,- DSP limit warning.

To me that means, once a project runs,- don´t change anything anymore,- but that´s not how to work w/ audio.
I have to change something always here and there.

spacef wrote: User setting to change the dsp on which a deice loads may have to be forbidden in exchange of stability.

As long there is no perfect working routine for the DSP load,- no.
OTOH, I´d prefer not thinking about any DSP load at all and throw in what I want at any time and it works.
When I saved my project described above,- it had a overall DSP load of maybe 51 or 52%.
When it crapped out while loading,- it was 60%,- that´s weird !

spacef wrote: It is possible that I have to use less inserts in "large board" channel devices :-/

No inserts or direct outs used in my project,- just only what you read above.

spacef wrote: Why do you guys think Scope 6 will improve things ?

I hope for improvements w/ any major update,- and version 5 to 6 should be one.
I hope for improved MIDI because it drives me nuts I have 1 MIDI In only and have to use crappy MIDI OX which puts high CPU loads on my PC w/ only 2 virtual MIDI cables which are nothing else than drivers in real world.

Sorry for the long post, but I think it´s necessary to describe what happens because my assumption is there are issues w/ saving projects or the way saving works up to now.
I don´t have any idea why for dedicated virtual instruments saved MIDI controller settings are in the nirvana when I re-load a project or load the synth in another project,- some synth´s MIDI CC assignment settings disappeared completely,- others partially.

I also had lost AUX send or return connections using STM1632X ...

Now think, there are clients in the room, you load a project and it hangs and/or you start rebuilding projects.
I had all kinds of warning messages meanwhile beginning w/ "driver not properly installed", especially after harddrive defragmentation and being fixed by rebooting the machine up to "hardware revision needs update" thingys and in between the SAT connection DSP limit dialogues.

spacef wrote: not to question what you say, but i had the impression that scope 6 served a different purpose to make open source ?

Whatever featuritis will come,- the basics have to be covered 1st IMO.

Projects being created by users as templates and being saved without getting any warnings should load the same all day and if the user decides for removing/exchanging plugins or throwing in something new while the DSP meter shows 50% load,- it must work the same it works w/ VST plugins and a VST host while watching the task managers infos.

Bud

I figured Scope 6 would be a re-write of the host-side of things. And since the host loads the DSPs, there is room for improvement there. I'm not expecting giant leaps on the DSPs yet, but I also don't think that's where the trouble really is. Once something is on the DSP...it works. Figuring out where to put it, and getting there, is the big leap I see.

Bud, you might be on to something with the problems in saving. I wonder if only newer devices DSP location is saved in the project, hence the lack of ability to reload them as they were. Just extra info in the project file could save us these problems? If you can load a device manually, and place it manually (and it *is* placed in the request location), then loading a project file should be able to do the same. There's no magic in the newer devices to allow them to be remembered where they are placed. Hence, my theory it's a host-side issue.

spacef wrote:Why do you guys think Scope 6 will improve things ?

Because if Scope6 doesnt improve things then why build it ? Maybe it wont address hardware utilisation in particular, but I'd be disappointed if no ground at all was made. Other than that, I'm looking for pooling of same host PCI and XITE DSP power (this is something that was stated to be looked at for ParseQ). That alone would make me decide to do next DAW build in at least 3U.

jksuperstar wrote: Once something is on the DSP...it works.

In most cases yes, but not always !

P.ex.,- in XITE-1 slot 1 there are 3 new SHARC DSPs,- #8, #12 & #16.
The SHARC DSPs # 3-6 communicate w/ these slots,- right ?

So,- if I load a basic (I have my own) "New Project", consisting all hardware modules, WAVE, MIDI and ASIO, then load the 4 AUX FX of my choice and do the connections, save and re-load,- works.
Then load STS4000 on DSP#7 or #9 depending on what I see in the DSP % window, max out voices to 32 and save,- that works when re-loading.
After I´ve done B-2003 and Minimax monophonic on DSP#11 which works too and together w/ all the stuff above,- I go and load Prodyssey which works monophonic and manual DSP assignment on DSP#12.

As soon I max out voices to more than 4,- the project craps out,- so it seems, voices needing more DSP don´t spill over to DSP#16.
This, even there´s nothing assigned to all the other DSPs which show the entry loads of ~7 -10% !

I don´t believe it´s the host (SCOPE) software only,- it´s also the code of the synth which might be not optimized for XITE-1.

Another assumption is, it can be, XITE-1D owners might not run into these probs because there are less new SHARCs in the box.
The DSPs #3-6, responsible for communication w/ the slots of new SHARC chips, don´t have to deal w/ as many new chips compared to a XITE-1.
It´s 4 vs 12,- you know.

Any XITE-1D owner won´t ever recognize a random high load on DSP#18 because it doesn´t exist.

IN addition, most developers use 14/15 DSP cards for development of devices and don´t own/use a XITE-1.
They will never be aware of the upcoming probs when testing thir devices.
The PCI DSP cards seem to work much more efficient compared to XITE-1.

Comparing the load I can put on a 15 DSP card w/ XITE-1 is different worlds.
85% PCIcard project as a Startup w/ SCOPEv4.0 in the machines autostart folder vs. crashing 60% XITE-1 projects, manual DSP assignment and after -launch corrections,- not even thinking about Startup-Project or autostart of SCOPE 5.1.

Only ONE slot array of new 333MHz Shjarc chips, theoretically delivers the power of a 14/15 DSP PCI card (14x66MHz),- and is unable to play Prodyssey w/ more than 4 voices, then not being able to load Prodyssey´s ring modulator software component ?
Well,- don´t tell that´s the host only.

Minimax, even working here monophonic because I need it only monophonic like the real thing, has the old bug(s) from v.4.0.
Look at behaviour of OSC#1 octave range pot !!!
Switch between 16' and 8', compare w/ OSC#2 and you know what I mean.
There´s nothing updated for the old devices IMO.

jksuperstar wrote: Bud, you might be on to something with the problems in saving.

I think so !

jksuperstar wrote: Hence, my theory it's a host-side issue.

This !

Bud

Bud Weiser wrote:

jksuperstar wrote: Once something is on the DSP...it works.

In most cases yes, but not always !
...
As soon I max out voices to more than 4,- the project craps out,-

I still think when you increase voices, it's the host side that decides where to load that voice onto which DSP, and then route appropriate signals back to the core of the synth for mixing/other. The DSPs don't make that decision for themselves, especially when it comes to spilling over into another DSP.

dante wrote:

spacef wrote:Why do you guys think Scope 6 will improve things ?

Because if Scope6 doesnt improve things then why build it ? Maybe it wont address hardware utilisation in particular, but I'd be disappointed if no ground at all was made. Other than that, I'm looking for pooling of same host PCI and XITE DSP power (this is something that was stated to be looked at for ParseQ). That alone would make me decide to do next DAW build in at least 3U.

Hi Paul !

Because of your PM I mailed some more screenshots from todays XITE-1/ SCOPE 5.1 crapout as also the earlier ones w/ Cwm 16_16c and more.
Please read my private reply and look at all the shots which are in different folders and numbered in a sequential order of the workflow.

If Gary wants to see the pics and read the mail,- feel free forwarding to him.

It´s all too big and too much work to put it in this thread and it cost me the complete day meanwhile to make all the stuff evident.

Defragmentation of HD craps out SCOPE !
SCOPE loads after machine reboot only then.
I also get the hardware revision warning again and after defragmentation of harddrive,- after re-boot all is fine,- until I start assigning a big synth (Prodyssey) on separate DSP#12 and max out voices.

Bud

jksuperstar wrote: I still think when you increase voices, it's the host side that decides where to load that voice onto which DSP, and then route appropriate signals back to the core of the synth for mixing/other. The DSPs don't make that decision for themselves, especially when it comes to spilling over into another DSP.

Well, but it doesn´t happen w/ other big synths on other DSPs,- Lightwave v5, Vectron Player and Uknow 7 work w/ 8 voices and Profit-5 with 5,- in a project w/ 10 instruments incl. STS4000 w/ 32 voices!

Except STS4000,- all these synths came into the project AFTER B-2003 and Minimax on DSP#11 and Prodyssey on DSP#12 which doesn´t work with more than 4 voices but with 4 voices then.

Finally, that worked for 3 days saving and loading the project and then it was over because suddenly the DSP load was much higher than before, but no additional device loaded,- and there was high load on DSP#18 w/ nothing assigned to!
There´s also nothing assigned to DSP#17.

A powerful machine like XITE-1 MUST run more devices, connections and more voices, otherwise you´r e better done w/ a 14/15DSP PCI card and a 6 DSP booster, all old SHARCs.

Bud

do not defragment a harddrive in win7. that's something that was needed in win98.

the sts are not optimized for XITE. they will likely be redone in v6.

garyb wrote:do not defragment a harddrive in win7. that's something that was needed in win98.

I´m on Win XP SP3 32Bit ...

All my other apps like a defragmented HD and I see no reason why SCOPE 5.1 cannot access it´s hardware when the HD is quick defragmented w/ OO-Defrag´s SPACE strategy which is not different from the Microsoft Windows one,- just only faster.
Because the RME ASIO driver was never picky on defragmentation, I assume this issue is related to the S|C ASIO driver code.

That said,- actually I have my own "New Project" template running,- just only the STM2448X, it´s channels pre configurated for the SCOPE synths which aren´t loaded yet as aren´t any AUX or insert FX, but pre-wireing of all the hardware and ASIO connections done, I need in the basic configuration.

It runs w/ Reaper 4.22, Sonic Project OPX Pro II loaded and Reason 6 rewired to Reaper running Thor synthesizer, both independently controlled w/ my Kurzweil PC3 and Roland/Edirol PCR300 via USB MIDI.

While typing I´m listening to excellent arranged and recorded music, being played back w/ Media Player Classic thru XITE-1 SCOPE 5.1 WAVE module.
It sounds absolutely excellent, so,- XITE-1 is a very excellent audio interface and also works pretty well w/ my RME/Nuendo 8 I/O AD/DA.

I´m pretty sure, I´d now be able to throw in any stock S|C SCOPE 5.1 FX devices without running into problems !

Concusion:

As long I don´t start using all the "old" SCOPE synths and samplers w/ XITE-1,- I don´t get any DSP assignment errors,- maybe because I don´t do any extremely complex STM2448X wireing up to now (I´m not a FOH guy) ...
And,- if I re-boot my machine after defragmentation, no warning messages,- and XITE-1/SCOPE runs ´til the cows come home.
I can live w/ that for the time being because I don´t defrag drives during work.
OTOH, it is and keeps some weird issue for a picky mind.

garyb wrote: the sts are not optimized for XITE. they will likely be redone in v6.

O.k., thx,- that´s a statement,- but it´s sad, because STS-4000 could replace 4 AKAI samplers I own and I could sell,- if STS samplers worked.
I have 300 - 500 AKAI CDs here,- you know ...

Are there more synths not being optimized but belong to the XITE-1/1D SCOPE 5.x package ?

What about Prodyssey which is been sold as a optional plugin ?
Meanwhile I suspect Prodyssey being the culprit, even I downloaded .dev and .dsp modules from S|C ftp server/SCOPE 5 folder.

What about Protone and Six-String I planned to buy when my AKAIs are been sold ?

It would be a great idea, S|C not leaving users in the dust experimenting w/ DSP assignment for days, reporting included devices as not being optimized for XITE-1 up to now and offering some kind of a issue tracker, informing us about to be expected functionality and when.

If p.ex. a ZARG plugin doesn´t work fine,- o.k., my problem, but ALL S|C devices should work as long these are available in the shop.

For me, as a keyboardplayer and arranger, it´s a bit hard to understand why I have to think about usage of XITE-1 and actually w/ SCOPE versions delivered devices, as also S|C´s optional ones, not working properly w/ this excellent piece of hardware and using VSTi stuff instead.

There are these 18 DSPs which should be workhorses and not a heating IMO.

Please don´t take that personally,- is all not up to you and all your help and input was outstanding, but S|C should think about their politics a bit.
More transparent information helps for buying decisions.
As long a device from the past is been offered, the user wants to work with it and runs into problems.
If devices are been reported as not working properly w/ XITE, a potential customer eventually buys the XITE nontheless and waits for full functionality of these devices.
That would be much better than potential customers would read "XITE and SCOPE not working reliable".

Now,- let´s hope for SCOPE 6 improvements.

I´ll quit usage of STS for the moment and see how it works w/ Prodyssey then.
If Prodyssey still intruduces issues, I´l ditch it too and wait until it works in future.
Maybe that fixes some probs.

best

Bud

HeyBud.
On the B2003, assign your MIDI CC's on the Main Page of the GUI for drawbars, Switches and Knobs.
Then go the Add page of the GUI and assign the Rotarys' MIDI CC there.
It's the only way I ever got it to remember the assignment.
Perhaps, having the 2 places to assign the MIDI CC is what confuses the recall process, I'm not sure, but that's how it worked for before I got the Ventillator from Neo.
What's really sick is having G.O.S.T. Saw with a SpaceF FAT-II in it's insert.
The Volume of whatever frequencies you want enhanced are enhanced and have the FAT-II there for the extra Grease needed.
My B2003 sounds great, might even impress those snobby bitches @ KeyboardCorner that live and breathe Hammond, yet scoff at the fact I can gang Drawbars on an Expression Pedal thanks to SpaceF's CC2x2's.

Scope has weird Ghosts, and it makes me practice more, so these inconveniences are merely turned from a negative whining, into a positive experience....

XITE-1/4LIVE wrote:HeyBud.
On the B2003, assign your MIDI CC's on the Main Page of the GUI for drawbars, Switches and Knobs.
Then go the Add page of the GUI and assign the Rotarys' MIDI CC there.
It's the only way I ever got it to remember the assignment.

Hi Jimmy !

That´s exactly how I did it and it worked for 3 days,- so it remembered everything, except this "rotary speed" controller which got lost during programming the same day for several times because of whatever mouse clicking.
But in the end it worked.

Meanwhile, I think, the SCOPE project corrupted by using any of the old synths (Prodyssey) or by STS4000 being in the project.

I´ll begin all new not using these,- then save to have a backup later,- then throw in Prodyssey to double check if it still introduces issues.
Who knows,- maybe I´m able to use it w/ more polyphony then when STS isn´t in use.

XITE-1/4LIVE wrote: Perhaps, having the 2 places to assign the MIDI CC is what confuses the recall process, I'm not sure, but that's how it worked for before I got the Ventillator from Neo.

So you bypass the B-2003 leslie sim, ignoring these MIDI CCs, playing B-2003 out via DA to the Vent and go back into SCOPE again via AD ?
I could try it w/ my Dynacord DLS300 before deciding for a Vent.
Do you have an audio snippet demonstrating B-2003/Vent combo eventually ?

XITE-1/4LIVE wrote: What's really sick is having G.O.S.T. Saw with a SpaceF FAT-II in it's insert.
The Volume of whatever frequencies you want enhanced are enhanced and have the FAT-II there for the extra Grease needed.

I need an endorsement or to meet the pope ...

XITE-1/4LIVE wrote: My B2003 sounds great, might even impress those snobby bitches @ KeyboardCorner that live and breathe Hammond, yet scoff at the fact I can gang Drawbars on an Expression Pedal thanks to SpaceF's CC2x2's.

Well, surprisingly, the day it worked, I had a good sound w/ B-2003 here too,- even the rotary control wasn´t working properly,- just because I was after the Brian Auger sound of the tune "Somebody Help Us".
The drawbars worked well w/ the KURZ PC3 sliders as did the CC pedals,- and I nailed the drawbar settings.
Brian A.,- no Leslie !
I checked w/ the S|C overdrives in the insert and the compressor and EQ of STM 2448X channel and it worked, even I wished to have a Dynatube amp or something similar available for that purpose.

The Leslie,- someone in the Kurzweil forums measured the real world ramp-up and ramp-down times of his Leslie 122 for fast and slow rotor w/ a oscilloscope and a stopwatch.
That was very helpfull also for the B-2003 Leslie sim.
I entered these values in seconds in B-2003 sound editor and it worked much, much better than any setings in factory presets, especially setting the mic distance paramenter to a much higher value or to the max.
In fact, it sounded much better than any audio demo I listened to for B-2003 or B4000+, but not perfect in high octave ranges and w/ rotary speed "fast".

All nitpicking anyway,- I´m sure it works in any playback or band context.

I´d wish, NEO Ventilator would be a 19" rack device, but most ideal is not needing any additional outboard devices except the keys.

XITE-1/4LIVE wrote: Scope has weird Ghosts, and it makes me practice more, so these inconveniences are merely turned from a negative whining, into a positive experience....

Well, well,- you´re into it since 2008 or 2009,- so less head scratching for you w/ XITE-1.

I´m at the beginning and have to find out what works and what not, then use it for what it does best.
Some software improvements would be necessary nonetheless IMO,- and maybe we´ll get these w/ SCOPE 6.

We´ll see ...

Bud

there will definitely be fixes and enhancements.

Bud Weiser wrote:Because of your PM I mailed some more screenshots from todays XITE-1/ SCOPE 5.1 crapout as also the earlier ones w/ Cwm 16_16c and more. Please read my private reply and look at all the shots which are in different folders and numbered in a sequential order of the workflow.

Bud, I checked the screenshots, the DSP capacity and SAT ones are common and to me just a matter of trial and error to learn what the system will or wont handle, I did suggest to S|C a DSP meter which also showed SAT, RAM and ASYNC consumption to increase visual feedback. But it may or may not be possible to capture that info from the DSP chips / system back to the host.

The 'Hardware Error 16 or 30' ones are not quite as common, and I've given these some coverage here : http://www.hitfoundry.com/issue_11/tsg_mast.htm under the 'Fatal errors' tab - apparantly some remnants of 4.5 can cause this.

As I mentioned, Im yet to defrag my XP system so no experience there yet.

Other than that, with synths etc, your in good hands with Jimmy, and GaryB/JKSuperstar advice who have gone into territories beyond mine.

Basically, I farm out the synths (ProWave and Prodyssey) to PCI card. I think this will be a great advantage if OpenScope allows one to run PCI and XITE on same DAW because unoptimised 'old' devices that cause issues on XITE could still be run on older platform, leaving the 'X' devices un-encumbered to run on XITE. This really could be an important feature as we lobby S|C, Audio Buscuit with our wishlists etc. IF its at all possible (some may complain about sample accuracy etc if the 2 hardwares are not locked together). I mean, its really just an extension of S|C concept with XITE architecture the way they put 6 old DSP there for compatibility. If OpenScope could run PCI and XITE on same DAW there may be less reason to keep old DSP on the mainboard if there was ever an XITE-1C.

In regards mix/mastering devices, DAS have done a fair bit of work on 'X' optimisation, and with Zarg theres GaryB's recent update on the 64 bit, so there is visible activity.

Problem with having so many AKAI CD's is you wont feel like spending loads on Kontakt libraries without first selling some of the CD's off. I mean, I would replace AKAI string libraries with lush LASS etc etc, and keep some of the more unique STS ones.

Hope things improve down your way.

dante wrote: Hope things improve down your way.

Spent the nite ´til 5:00 a.m. ...



more later ...



Bud