Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC

PC Configurations, motherboards, etc, etc

Moderators: valis, garyb

Post Reply
User avatar
Stevil
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: palm desert, ca
Contact:

Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC

Post by Stevil »

I'm very happy with my current Scope system but am not excited about leaving it at the rehearsal garage for my current music project or hauling it back & forth. So i'm looking at building a cheap PC around my second project card to capture via my A16 Ultra. I know 1156 and 775 processor systems are recommended, I'm seeing old Dell's for $50, just wondering if anyone has a hot tip of a solid inexpensive box that will work for this.

Thanks!
Steve
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23248
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC

Post by garyb »

any 1156 or 775 box should work fine. i've been using HP XW4400s. i would be fine with a cheap 775 Dell, personally.

1366 and 1150 motherboards also have been good, almost every one....
User avatar
Bud Weiser
Posts: 2684
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
Location: nowhere land

Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC

Post by Bud Weiser »

garyb wrote:any 1156 or 775 box should work fine. i've been using HP XW4400s. i would be fine with a cheap 775 Dell, personally.

1366 and 1150 motherboards also have been good, almost every one....
Gary,- I use socket 775 boards which work well, but their PCIe interface standard is 1.5.
Just a question ...

XW4400s are PCIe standard 1.5 or 2.0 ?

I wonder if we could get more data throughput w/ XITE stock PCIe card when the mobo´s interface standard is 2.0.

I´m also in contact w/ developers using SDK by nature.
There´s the guess XITE PCIe x1 card, or better, the PCIe x1 interface itself is a bottleneck when it comes to SAT connections.

I wonder if there came a XITE PCIe card upgrade to PCIe x4, that might be an improvement.
Must have been supported by SCOPE software though,- so it´s just only a idea.
Dunno if the box itself or a HDMI cable would be on par though ...

Bud
S|C Scope/XITE-1 & S|C A16U, Scope PCI & CW A16U
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23248
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC

Post by garyb »

afaik, sat connections are chip to chip, so no, the PCIe card shouldn't affect that. there are only so many connections available on each chip.
fra77x2
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 3:23 pm

Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC

Post by fra77x2 »

I have figured this wrong, thanks for the info.
Anyhow i think the connections and the possibilities are plenty in its current incarnation.
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23248
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC

Post by garyb »

:lol:
i'm pretty sure that the info is correct. i agree, a good developer can make it work, no problem.

thanks for your efforts! :)
User avatar
Bud Weiser
Posts: 2684
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
Location: nowhere land

Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC

Post by Bud Weiser »

garyb wrote:afaik, sat connections are chip to chip, so no, the PCIe card shouldn't affect that. there are only so many connections available on each chip.
How comes I get DSP limit warnings in regards to missing connectivity between DSP #5 and #9 when there is evidently nothing assigned to any DSP in DSP slot 3 ?
DSP #5 is the "communication" DSP for slot 3 and DSP #9 is chip No. 1 in slot 3.

Mixer device was manually assigned to DSP #10, which is chip No. 1 in slot 4.
Shroomz´ Can Control was manually assigned to DSP#2 serving XITE Phones Dest..
HPM Control Pack was assigned to DSP #7 being chip No.1 in slot 1.

No FX (insert or aux),- no synths, nothing and the mixer doesn´t spread across DSPs...
Only ASIO connected to 27 stereo channels of the mixer inputs and mixer main outs to HPM Control Pack, XITE analog outs and Shroomz´ CanControl connected to XITE Phones destination.

I´m testing CWM DAWmix32_1DSP on XITE-1.
Device not released yet.

:)

Bud
S|C Scope/XITE-1 & S|C A16U, Scope PCI & CW A16U
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23248
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC

Post by garyb »

why?
i don't know. there are many possibilities including the fact that those free devices weren't made on XITEs afaik.
User avatar
Bud Weiser
Posts: 2684
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
Location: nowhere land

Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC

Post by Bud Weiser »

garyb wrote:why?
i don't know.
Who knows ?
garyb wrote:
there are many possibilities including the fact that those free devices weren't made on XITEs afaik.
What´s the difference between SDK 4 and 5 and when developing on PCI cards vs XITE ?

I´m learning ...

Forgot to mention, on XITE-1, the device designed to run on 1 (333MHz) DSP only, provides 1 stereo channel ASIO more vs. running on PCI card(s) even using SDK 4 for the design.

That´s a good result while OTOH, the intention is usage of 32 channels.
I get 27 stereo channels ASIO wired to the mixer on XITE, using a single chip only,- vs. 26 on PCI.
According to CWM, number of PCI cards might or doesn´t count w/ that mixer.

Now, when not forcing more ASIO but try to assign any ADAT channels to mixer channels 28-32, I get exactly the same DSP warning (no connections from DSP #5 to #9). No go.

Still weird because nothing´s assigned to DSP #9 (slot 3).

Bud
S|C Scope/XITE-1 & S|C A16U, Scope PCI & CW A16U
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23248
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC

Post by garyb »

not necessarily a difference, but checking a device on XITE is a good way to be sure that it loads optimally.

who knows?
well....i don't....


the problem might be with a specific plugin, or a combination of plugins. analog devices doesn't even think that this many DSPs are even possible...
w_ellis
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: London, U.K.

Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC

Post by w_ellis »

Bud Weiser wrote:What´s the difference between SDK 4 and 5 and when developing on PCI cards vs XITE ?
One major difference is that you can't actually use SDK4 with XITE :)

You can use the devices created using SDK4, but that makes testing a bit of a faff, as you'll need to switch Windows instances, as the SDK versions are driver-dependent. Plus you'd need to have PCI cards installed as well as the XITE.

All a bit of a shame given that SDK5 is a bit buggier than SDK4 from what I've been told by other devs. It's certainly plenty buggy in my experience anyway ;)
Post Reply