scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

A space for learning and studying the Scope environment and music-making in general.
Post Reply
bebecrystal
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:57 pm

scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by bebecrystal » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:14 am

hi, ive been using scope for effects n synths, but as far as mixers goes, i set all my levels in the sequencer mixer , would there be any point to routing all my channels out into different channels on the stm mixer regarding sound? like would there be an advantage summing wise, increased seperation 3d,clarity... like on outboard mixers?
thanks

User avatar
garyb
Posts: 21189
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by garyb » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:37 am

that's how i hear it.

User avatar
dante
Posts: 3702
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by dante » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:43 am

Theres another option : Submix in native then main mix in Scope.

For Example : I have 32 tracks of 'choral' harmony vocals. I use the Steinberg mixer to mix those to one stereo channel, and then route that to Scope for the u-bewt Scope processors (stm w/ C350 eq, RMX160 verb etc)

Way to go.

User avatar
garyb
Posts: 21189
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by garyb » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:56 am

of course, it's not all or nothing....

bosone
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by bosone » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:45 am

i usually set up drum (separating kik, snare, hat, toms, cymbals, ambient), bass, guitar, lead gtr, clean gtr, (etc), strings, brass, woodwinds, synths, etc on separate tracks on scope mixer.
i always felt that was sounding better than mix everyhing in the seq.

User avatar
siriusbliss
Posts: 3110
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Cupertino, California US
Contact:

Re: scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by siriusbliss » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:19 pm

I use a hybrid approach doing tracking through Scope into/through Samplitude, and have often summed out through Scope again during final mix.

WAY more depth-of-field and 'mass' using Scope than just using doing everything through Samplitude (and Samp. is pretty damn good at summing).

It's a modern day equivalent of the studio guys running through external hardware and summing boxes.

Greg

bebecrystal
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:57 pm

Re: scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by bebecrystal » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:29 pm

awesome! looks like time to change things up, everyday i learn more about scope it gets better :)
thanks

User avatar
the19thbear
Posts: 1331
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:00 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by the19thbear » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:47 pm

@siriusbliss. Are you talking about summing alone? Or mixin as well.. I can understand differences in mix, native vs scope, but not really summing.
Might have to try it myself:)

User avatar
siriusbliss
Posts: 3110
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Cupertino, California US
Contact:

Re: scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by siriusbliss » Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:22 pm

Yeah, one test is to run your mix out of your DAW, through Scope i.e. 4896 mixer to a stereo mix, and RECORD this back into a separate channel in your DAW host.

Check the quality of sound compared to rendering a stereo mix directly out of your DAW.

It may surprise you. :wink:

Greg

Merkury
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Italy

Re: scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by Merkury » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:15 pm

siriusbliss wrote:Yeah, one test is to run your mix out of your DAW, through Scope i.e. 4896 mixer to a stereo mix, and RECORD this back into a separate channel in your DAW host.

Check the quality of sound compared to rendering a stereo mix directly out of your DAW.

It may surprise you. :wink:

Greg
Greg you're the man,thanks for confirming my long-time opinion that some DAWS mixer "fucks up" the sound. I've ALWAYS had this problem with cubase,example : open a vst into an external host = bright and "punchy sound",no clipping on SFP MIXER.Instead if I open the same vst inside cubase THERE IS A DIFFERENCE,especially in terms of dynamic.....there's something going on into that master bus,i swear it...plus it goes to red with NOTHING ! I've just tried your method ,instead of exporting from cubase i re-record cubase output (on SCOPE ASIO 2 OUTPUT) in real time inside the DAW....and the sound is PUNCHY and ..i don't know how to explain,it's more ALIVE to me. When I say this on other forum people get mad at me,because of the sacred law "daws are all the same". Heck,even Fruity Loops sounds better than Cubase ! There's clearly something goin' on into that fucker ,but people don't notice it.If only I had a sequencer into SCOPE :( :(

User avatar
Mr Arkadin
Posts: 3192
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by Mr Arkadin » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:22 pm

Merkury wrote:If only I had a sequencer into SCOPE :( :(
With Open Scope and ParSeq, we may very well have that soon.

http://www.the-new-world-of-music.net/f ... a92988c8fa
Last edited by Mr Arkadin on Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
garyb
Posts: 21189
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by garyb » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:24 pm

yes.

but even if Cubase's mixer does mess things up, Scope users don't need to mix there, so no problem.

Merkury
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Italy

Re: scope vs sequencer mixer regarding sound

Post by Merkury » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:41 pm

Mr Arkadin wrote:
Merkury wrote:If only I had a sequencer into SCOPE :( :(
With Open Scope and ParSeq, we may very well have that soon.

:o that looks promising !!

Post Reply