I have the best luck when I use a mixer that I can stick on DSP 7 and pack it until it hits around 6500. Then Assign it.
STM1632-X is a good mixer, as well as Micro-X & Dynamic-X too.
My beef is they don't have true stereo AUX channels. I thought I could use these and then stick the Stereo Expander in the Master Effects slot as a work around, but it just isn't as good.
Since the latest upgrade I have been able to see lower numbers in the DSP Meters' left column so I tried a few SpaceF mixers. They will load easily but once I start packing on effects they spill over to other DSP chips which in turn causes lower polyphony on un-optimized synths.
The good news is that SpaceF's older MixSat C has the same stereo AUX's I crave and uses DSP resources like an optimized STM mixer would.
So I decided to pack it w/ effects and see how much I could get.
I loaded all of the important ones, and thankfully my synths all have Flanger/Chorus effects, so I decided to use the synths modulation effects instead.
I have my true stereo AUX's now, and I am a happy camper because I have mixed like this forever and do not wish to change.
But SpaceF's MixSat is a great 6 x Mono, 8 x Stereo, Dual AUX mixer, and I can still stick a couple of FAT-S plugs in it for the FB5/V82 sound.
All of the stock synths and Modular can also be used like this too.
B2003 only uses half of a chip. Which actually is equal to 3 of the old chips. I needed 3 DSP's for each instance of B2003 before.
This means with the latest optimization we seem to have 5-6 times the power.
If we ever get the 10 x power that we heard about I will be seriously impressed.
As it stands right now, I have plenty of power, but once we get everything optimized I am sure there will be few barriers.
Single Chip Assignments
Re: Single Chip Assignments
WoWee Zowee.
No sooner did I go to thank Mehdi for this gem and he directed me to the newest revision which using 238 CC's and 2 channel MIDI control.
Tons of Modulations and external satellites too.
Coolness.
http://www.spacef-devices.com/index.php ... at-C2.html
No sooner did I go to thank Mehdi for this gem and he directed me to the newest revision which using 238 CC's and 2 channel MIDI control.
Tons of Modulations and external satellites too.
Coolness.
http://www.spacef-devices.com/index.php ... at-C2.html
Re: Single Chip Assignments
I think Mixsat is the way to go right now. I used the FP106 in my initial project for xite, but with the X verbs inserted in the AUXes it is a little too much when assigning it to a certain chip.
Id like to use 2 mixers. One for synths and second for drums/asio channels. Using 2x Mixsats I can use my PCM91 in the first AUX of Mixsat and then route it also to my second mixsat's AUX 1. I dont think that will be possible with the STM mixers right now.
Im very happy with the upgrade from august 10th! I experience some major improvements regarding polyphony of John Bowen's synths. I made a similar project like Jimmy did, with some heavy synths loaded. I had some great luck loading and reloading projects without being asked for optimisation showing 65/70% on the dsp meter. It seems like distribution between the dsp's runs much smoother now.
I cant wait for the other 3rd party stuff to be optimised. So there's an improved version for Mixsat ? I couldnt find it anywhere in the user area.
Id like to use 2 mixers. One for synths and second for drums/asio channels. Using 2x Mixsats I can use my PCM91 in the first AUX of Mixsat and then route it also to my second mixsat's AUX 1. I dont think that will be possible with the STM mixers right now.
Im very happy with the upgrade from august 10th! I experience some major improvements regarding polyphony of John Bowen's synths. I made a similar project like Jimmy did, with some heavy synths loaded. I had some great luck loading and reloading projects without being asked for optimisation showing 65/70% on the dsp meter. It seems like distribution between the dsp's runs much smoother now.
I cant wait for the other 3rd party stuff to be optimised. So there's an improved version for Mixsat ? I couldnt find it anywhere in the user area.
Re: Single Chip Assignments
I had the old one before 2007.
I had a version w/ no direct outs, single AUX instead of the stacked 2 slot versions, and only 1 MIDI channel.
If I had a Mackie or Behringer I would definately be using it as a surface.
I had a version w/ no direct outs, single AUX instead of the stacked 2 slot versions, and only 1 MIDI channel.
If I had a Mackie or Behringer I would definately be using it as a surface.
-
FrancisHarmany
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Haarmania
Re: Single Chip Assignments
Why not have 2 or 3 mixers ? on different chips ? Whats this single chip business.... Can you guys actually hear latency when mixing through differnent chips ???
Re: Single Chip Assignments
Hi All,
Thanks for this post.
I am not sure this is relevant to you but you might want to give a test.
- There is a test going on on the site for an optimized version of 106 and 104 "C" series:
- I found a bad uncompatibility between device optimizations (for scope,) and the multi midi of inserts channels and the Mod-to-CC: it blocked midi, and midi would never reach the insert slots.
- So I solved this by removing the mod-to-CC, which is not a big loss as it is a bit outdated and external devices can be used easily now with the 4 midi mergers on 106/104.
- I have uploaded the latest RC today (5 minutes ago). it is in the download pages of the site , "user area" section. Requires access to user area.
What is of interest to you is that
- the addition of optimizations and removal of Mod-to CC allowed to save almost 1 dsp on the 106. Now it is 3 dsp!! ie, less than the first release of the mixers and with more functions.
- the 104 takes a bit less than the 106.
- there is a new more energetic surface too.... (just a bit brighter)...
- So may be you want to try it out in xite. eventhough, be aware that: MixSat C2=1.5 dsp, FP mixers=3 dsp (scope's sharc dsp, not xite).
- Anyway, there will be need to optimize for xite in the future apparently.... but the scope optimisation already allow to save both PC ressources and DSP so may be you want to give them a chance.
Oh, and, I take this opportunity to thank very much the two users who pointed me to that bug, which would have gone unoticed for while without them, as I am more into a stakanovist process of optimisation in scope DP rather than actually playing music and every little functions of the device... So many thanks again !!
NB: if you want to discuss the latest FP mixers, please use my forum or PM, i think it is more appropriate
well, just in case it works for you (eventhough we must all be aware that there are still xite optims to do on some of my devices).......
MixSat C2 is quite good though, it is just the same core as all my mixers with less features....
Thanks for this post.
I am not sure this is relevant to you but you might want to give a test.
- There is a test going on on the site for an optimized version of 106 and 104 "C" series:
- I found a bad uncompatibility between device optimizations (for scope,) and the multi midi of inserts channels and the Mod-to-CC: it blocked midi, and midi would never reach the insert slots.
- So I solved this by removing the mod-to-CC, which is not a big loss as it is a bit outdated and external devices can be used easily now with the 4 midi mergers on 106/104.
- I have uploaded the latest RC today (5 minutes ago). it is in the download pages of the site , "user area" section. Requires access to user area.
What is of interest to you is that
- the addition of optimizations and removal of Mod-to CC allowed to save almost 1 dsp on the 106. Now it is 3 dsp!! ie, less than the first release of the mixers and with more functions.
- the 104 takes a bit less than the 106.
- there is a new more energetic surface too.... (just a bit brighter)...
- So may be you want to try it out in xite. eventhough, be aware that: MixSat C2=1.5 dsp, FP mixers=3 dsp (scope's sharc dsp, not xite).
- Anyway, there will be need to optimize for xite in the future apparently.... but the scope optimisation already allow to save both PC ressources and DSP so may be you want to give them a chance.
Oh, and, I take this opportunity to thank very much the two users who pointed me to that bug, which would have gone unoticed for while without them, as I am more into a stakanovist process of optimisation in scope DP rather than actually playing music and every little functions of the device... So many thanks again !!
NB: if you want to discuss the latest FP mixers, please use my forum or PM, i think it is more appropriate
well, just in case it works for you (eventhough we must all be aware that there are still xite optims to do on some of my devices).......
MixSat C2 is quite good though, it is just the same core as all my mixers with less features....
Re: Single Chip Assignments
I can actually use this. I can load all of the AUX's and Master Effects, and 4 x SC-Chorus, and 3 x SC-EQ-S's.
4 x Mono channels get 2 x XOR's, stereo 1 & 2 get the B2003 & Prowave, the BUS gets my Analog SE-1, then 8 x channels ( stereo ) fro the Kontakt/GVI instruments.
AUX delay, SC Ambience and DAS 224 in the AUX's.
I use to get 3600-4200 in the SYnc column when loading FP104 & FP106, so this is perfect for single chip assignment...............ANkyu..
Mixing Saxes & Brass in Bidule from 6 x stereo channels down to 2 x stereo channels, and 4 x stereo String channels down to 2 x stereo works just as well.
Damn I sure love my rig...
4 x Mono channels get 2 x XOR's, stereo 1 & 2 get the B2003 & Prowave, the BUS gets my Analog SE-1, then 8 x channels ( stereo ) fro the Kontakt/GVI instruments.
AUX delay, SC Ambience and DAS 224 in the AUX's.
I use to get 3600-4200 in the SYnc column when loading FP104 & FP106, so this is perfect for single chip assignment...............ANkyu..
Mixing Saxes & Brass in Bidule from 6 x stereo channels down to 2 x stereo channels, and 4 x stereo String channels down to 2 x stereo works just as well.
Damn I sure love my rig...
-
netguyjoel
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:34 am
- Location: The Land of Cheese, Beer & Fat Chicks
Re: Single Chip Assignments
Yepp..................Sho' Nuff..
I have the new version which is really sweet.
The dual slotted AUX channels are where it's at for me.
Stack an EQ on the Reverb for precision control.
Stack a Chorus on the Delay for those sweet tails.
Yeah this is definately the Mixer for me.
I wish they'd send Mehdi the SDK so we can wage war again.....
Well what's the use of talkin' 'bout how good it is if you don't post a snippett, so here's the reverb w/ the EQ.
I have the new version which is really sweet.
The dual slotted AUX channels are where it's at for me.
Stack an EQ on the Reverb for precision control.
Stack a Chorus on the Delay for those sweet tails.
Yeah this is definately the Mixer for me.
I wish they'd send Mehdi the SDK so we can wage war again.....
Well what's the use of talkin' 'bout how good it is if you don't post a snippett, so here's the reverb w/ the EQ.
Re: Single Chip Assignments
Here's an even better use of a single chip mixer.
I use the heavy DSP reverbs and delays ourside of the mixer with the external AUX routings.
This allows even larger mixer loads.
But what is especially my favorite trick is making my DSP reverbs sound like hardware.
DSP reverbs do sound very good as long as the tails are long used to hide the artifacts that become noticable at the end of the decays. Warp69 has spent consider time obviously with his designs as this isn't very noticable.
Some reverbs just have that sound you want and even if they aren't realistically re creating space they just sound lush and warm, etc.
Paul Tanti's reverbs have a georgeous sound, but once you try to get realistic, and create a small authentic room or space, you must use shorter decays. That's where the metallic rings become noticable, unless you have a decent gate. SC has a nice generic stock gate.
But if you really want some control over the sound and frequencies the DAS Gate is exactly like a quality hardware gate, and can be unlinked, linked, sidechained left/right or stereo linked, and frequency controlled gating is perfect for sticking in an AUX to use with a reverb.
I always use a Gate on vocals and their effects because you need to heavier/deeper amount but those tails will muddy up the mix unless you clip and sidechain them.
All of these Master Effects aren't necessary simultaneously so I can mute unmute via MIDI CC's and Bypass LED's.
I use the heavy DSP reverbs and delays ourside of the mixer with the external AUX routings.
This allows even larger mixer loads.
But what is especially my favorite trick is making my DSP reverbs sound like hardware.
DSP reverbs do sound very good as long as the tails are long used to hide the artifacts that become noticable at the end of the decays. Warp69 has spent consider time obviously with his designs as this isn't very noticable.
Some reverbs just have that sound you want and even if they aren't realistically re creating space they just sound lush and warm, etc.
Paul Tanti's reverbs have a georgeous sound, but once you try to get realistic, and create a small authentic room or space, you must use shorter decays. That's where the metallic rings become noticable, unless you have a decent gate. SC has a nice generic stock gate.
But if you really want some control over the sound and frequencies the DAS Gate is exactly like a quality hardware gate, and can be unlinked, linked, sidechained left/right or stereo linked, and frequency controlled gating is perfect for sticking in an AUX to use with a reverb.
I always use a Gate on vocals and their effects because you need to heavier/deeper amount but those tails will muddy up the mix unless you clip and sidechain them.
All of these Master Effects aren't necessary simultaneously so I can mute unmute via MIDI CC's and Bypass LED's.
Re: Single Chip Assignments
Good observation. Thats correct - you can quickly create nice sounding reverbs with long tails, but if you have a short decay then all the artifacts gets very obvious.XITE-1/4LIVE wrote:DSP reverbs do sound very good as long as the tails are long used to hide the artifacts that become noticable at the end of the decays.
Re: Single Chip Assignments
Some gate on top of reverb's tail then... That's great tip 4 me guys. I take it!
-
netguyjoel
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:34 am
- Location: The Land of Cheese, Beer & Fat Chicks
Re: Single Chip Assignments
Which of the verb available from S|C and or third party developers that would not need a gate?
thanking you in advance...
thanking you in advance...
Warp69 wrote:Good observation. Thats correct - you can quickly create nice sounding reverbs with long tails, but if you have a short decay then all the artifacts gets very obvious.XITE-1/4LIVE wrote:DSP reverbs do sound very good as long as the tails are long used to hide the artifacts that become noticable at the end of the decays.
Joel
Re: Single Chip Assignments
it really depends on what you need. Warp69's ambient and plate are pretty great and the Masterverb's sound nice too. if it's Wyndham Hill stuff, maybe external might be better, but the Scope verbs are pretty good. the problem is quantizing error on the lowest signals as the tail fades....
Last edited by garyb on Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
netguyjoel
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:34 am
- Location: The Land of Cheese, Beer & Fat Chicks
Re: Single Chip Assignments
That is one of the reasons I keep the DP4 and the Lexicon in the rack. But in all intensive realities and purposes...after rethinking my question, leads me back to what you asked. "What do I need?" To be really honest...my caveman-ish industrial music thing...I probably wouldn't even notice the difference. Just a lot of thumping and crunching boom boom boom is pretty much all I'm capable of producing anyway...so I'll just fold, spindle & mutilate w/ the OEM stuff.... thanx G!
thanx G!Joel
Re: Single Chip Assignments
I also like the DAS224.
I just tweaked Warp69's Live Gate Preset on the P100, and added some extra decay length and it sounds excellent.
It has the same editing features of the PCM91 and is the best tweakabke reverb we have. It's sound is excellent.
Other Reverbs have strengths like the DAS has the best pre Delay and it is a low DSP choice.
PT-Free-96k and PT-2012 have an excellent sound but pale in editing features compared to the P100.
I am happy with the Reverbs we have for Scope. I never thought I would go live without hardware, but Scope has eliminated another key peice of hardware.
My synths, B3 and hardware effects have been replaced with Scope.
My Romplers handle the EPianos, D6 Clavinet and ARP Strings, and 4 x rack mounted samplers.
It took 5 years but success has been achieved..........
I just tweaked Warp69's Live Gate Preset on the P100, and added some extra decay length and it sounds excellent.
It has the same editing features of the PCM91 and is the best tweakabke reverb we have. It's sound is excellent.
Other Reverbs have strengths like the DAS has the best pre Delay and it is a low DSP choice.
PT-Free-96k and PT-2012 have an excellent sound but pale in editing features compared to the P100.
I am happy with the Reverbs we have for Scope. I never thought I would go live without hardware, but Scope has eliminated another key peice of hardware.
My synths, B3 and hardware effects have been replaced with Scope.
My Romplers handle the EPianos, D6 Clavinet and ARP Strings, and 4 x rack mounted samplers.
It took 5 years but success has been achieved..........
Re: Single Chip Assignments
Here's another great mixer for single chip assigning.
I like running the Warp69r's and PT verbs externally. That way I can pack the mixers inserts with plugs.
The usual excessive MIDI controls on dual channels, the 3 x Stereo AUX's and A-H Modulator Channels.
I like running the Warp69r's and PT verbs externally. That way I can pack the mixers inserts with plugs.
The usual excessive MIDI controls on dual channels, the 3 x Stereo AUX's and A-H Modulator Channels.
Re: Single Chip Assignments
what's that crappy graphics you got on the mixer jimmy 
have the latest version from user area ?
EDIT: ah, yes it is my fault, did not remove the litten graphix....
well, might correct this in the future .... for the moment, may be better not to use the lights (unless you don't care which is fine with me, but this pic was like uuuh.. shocking.....now i understand.. all apologies for illumination lovers.... )
have fun with the freeby....
(for others, visitors etc, don't look for that device.. it is an optical illusion, it doesn't exist...)
have the latest version from user area ?
EDIT: ah, yes it is my fault, did not remove the litten graphix....
well, might correct this in the future .... for the moment, may be better not to use the lights (unless you don't care which is fine with me, but this pic was like uuuh.. shocking.....now i understand.. all apologies for illumination lovers.... )
have fun with the freeby....
(for others, visitors etc, don't look for that device.. it is an optical illusion, it doesn't exist...)
- Attachments
-
- FP82C_in_scope.jpg (183.7 KiB) Viewed 2673 times
