How many XITE-1s?

[Bud Weiser]

An optimized Scope 6 system to further expand the DSP flow would be a good next step, and then some simple RME-type expansion interface hub would be more practical at this point IMO.

Greg

Yep !
I think, exactly this will happen because it´s the easier task and I assume they are already working on that.

Bud

[Bud Weiser]

Further scope Xite optimization would probably imply loosing old scope PCI compatibility or managing a different code depending on the target used (scope PCI or xite).

Even I own a old Creamware 15DSP card and hope for support,- I know these are discontinued meanwhile and officially not supported anymore.
That´s what the S|C website reports.
Actually, I could buy a SCOPE 5.1 upgrade form SCOPE v4.0 for my card,- but I´m waiting for SCOPE 6 and see what happens then.
With luck, SCOPE 6 will be for the old PCI cards too, but it can also be, it will not.

I think there is room for enhancement in the Xite but SC shouldn't forget the old Scope PCI user base which is probably still more important than the Xite user base. Unless they offer a new lower cost hardware to provide a more entry level access to Scope to allow a cheaper crossgrade from 21065 to 21369 DSP ...

Well, we´ll see if they come up w/ a new PCIe card product in future and up to now it also isn´t sure whether ParseQ will allow access to combinations of old and new hardware (old DSP card and XITE) in one machine or not.
Maybe we´ll get more trusty info during this year.

Bud

[Bud Weiser]

I guess the dual Xite-1 I imagined would cost slightly more than 2 Xite-1 units (2 Xite-1 boards + addtionnal communication interface between them) and shouldn't bother much the Xite-1/1D sales (similar to A16U XLR vs A16U).

I have no idea how well A16U and A16U XLR sold during the relatively short period of time these were offered.
Because I searched for these, my impression is there are not many of these out there.

SonicCore would "only" have to use Xite-1 board (already available) to offer such thing.

Well,- "only" ...

In real world, it means manufacturing a 2HU box and a new PSU powering 2 XITE-1 boards, but using 1 PCIe / PCIexpress connector only for both (if that doesn´t require an additional modification !).
And,- 2 boards in 1 case doesn´t mean it operates better or faster because these 2 boards would have to be connected internaly the same way as connecting 2 XITE-1 machines by using the XTDM bus.
So, the only benefit is having ´em in one box.

But I wouldn't expect SC to design a new dual Xite-1 board.
This would only have sense if it is possible from the original board design to insert an XTDM internal bridge but keep on using a 99% standard Xite-1 board (similar to Xite-1D vs Xite-1: same board just underpopulated).

I don´t expect that too and actually, I don´t see many customers needing a XITE-1 w/ twice the power.
Maybe some power users do, but these are the minority for sure.

Regarding Solaris and Xite-1 optimization, my assumption is that Xite-1 is already more "optimized" than the Solaris is because Scope allows to unload DSP with unused modules.

In fact, both are different systems and are made for different usage.
I know that, but they also have something in common.

The current SOLARIS software is just set to worse case use, thus limiting the polyphony to 2 notes per DSP.

That would be 12 voices, but I´ve read it´s limited to 10 actually,- and they want to increase polyphony up to 20 voices and 4-part MIDI multi mode this year.
So,- if they have that in mind and probably already know it will work in future, to me, that means there´s room for optimizations using these SHARC processors and basic OS design.

Doesn´t mean, SCOPE will run on a Solaris or Solaris hardware synth will run on a XITE, but progress in programming technology possibly will help both units.

I hope it will,- because I want Solaris in addition to XITE-1.

Bud

[HUROLURA]

That would be 12 voices, but I´ve read it´s limited to 10 actually,- and they want to increase polyphony up to 20 voices and 4-part MIDI multi mode this year.
So,- if they have that in mind and probably already know it will work in future, to me, that means there´s room for optimizations using these SHARC processors and basic OS design.

Bud

As I wrote the 6th DSP is used for I/O and FX.

Regarding the 20 voices: if a new Solaris software update would allow to re-use the DSP power not used in case you have a patch running 2 Osc + 2 Mixers + 2 Filters instead of 4 Osc + 4 Mixers + 4 Filter, that would be a first solution without any need for further DSP code optimization.

I do think there is room for some more optimization on both Xite-1 and Solaris but this would require a lot of work as a large amount of DSP atoms should be re-coded to use the new 21369 DSP more advanced feature which were not available on the older 21065L DSP.

[HUROLURA]

Well,- "only" ...

In real world, it means manufacturing a 2HU box and a new PSU powering 2 XITE-1 boards, but using 1 PCIe / PCIexpress connector only for both (if that doesn´t require an additional modification !).
And,- 2 boards in 1 case doesn´t mean it operates better or faster because these 2 boards would have to be connected internaly the same way as connecting 2 XITE-1 machines by using the XTDM bus.
So, the only benefit is having ´em in one box.

Bud

You are right. The benefit I would have seen there would be to have a place to integrate the electronics necessary to achieve the Xite-1 to Xite-1 trhough XTDM dialog.
But maybe a software upgrade could also be possible with what is already available on board.
Then, the dual Xite-1 idea would be just nonsense ...

[Bud Weiser]

As I wrote the 6th DSP is used for I/O and FX.

Arrghh, sorry, I´ve overread that !

Regarding the 20 voices: if a new Solaris software update would allow to re-use the DSP power not used in case you have a patch running 2 Osc + 2 Mixers + 2 Filters instead of 4 Osc + 4 Mixers + 4 Filter, that would be a first solution without any need for further DSP code optimization.

I do think there is room for some more optimization on both Xite-1 and Solaris but this would require a lot of work as a large amount of DSP atoms should be re-coded to use the new 21369 DSP more advanced feature which were not available on the older 21065L DSP.

So, you think we won´t see these optimizations because of too much effort and too much work necessary ?

B.t.w.,- do you own and use a Solaris ?

Bud

[HUROLURA]

I think these optimization should be done to get the whole power out of the Xite and Solaris but this would take time.
Maybe this can be achieved atom by atom which would mean all the job would not necessary be done in one run. Then we could see step by step improvement.

And no, sadly, I do not own a Solaris, I just spent a few hours with the one shown at last Musikmesse and now thinking about the way I could afford one ... But I already bought an Xite-1 last year.

[Warp69]

So, you think we won´t see these optimizations because of too much effort and too much work necessary ?

Bowen have used a lot of resources on the DSP work (better modules and optimization), but if that's transferable to the Scope (SC) system - I don't know.

Let us assume for a moment that SC lacks resources - would the optimization of current atoms be the best approach forward regarding new customers?

[jksuperstar]

Open~Atoms is a logical step. But that is also a disaster unless a good librarian system is in place, that could calculate dependencies, OR a device contains ALL needed atoms within.

[next to nothing]

The logical step would be for SC to calrify what the hell they decide to do, as they have put both existing customers and developers in an unnececary "limbo". Right now, i understand if big developers doesnt invest, as the last say 3 years have proven that they are pretty happy with doing "nothing" ("nothing" as in them releasing beta software as final, then charging extra for 5.1 from earlier revisions, spending 3 years without even fixing wave drivers (on one side, you should use onboard sound as for wave, on the other side you should disable onboard sound for performance) and not even taking 5 minutes worth of time to make the modular 4 installable on 64bit systems).

I am happy with what i have, but only an existing customer would not be let down by purchasing an xite-1. Scope 6, they say. but will it actually be working before 2015?

[garyb]

that's a lot of charges you've made without much actual knowledge.

charging for v5.1 for pci cards? yep. S|C is not responsible for pre v5 software or hardware. the fee is what it costs to have any custom software for obsolete hardware.

the other things? well, it's either run around doing bugfixes but never getting to the real root of the problem of making the whole system viable for the forseeable future, or do everybody a favor and bring ALL of Scope into the present software paradigm. unfortunately, there just aren't resources to do any more.

Scope is SPECIAL. you like and need it or you don't. if you like it and or need it, then you'll have to deal with a few warts as well as the great part. look, speaking strictly from a business standpoint, there's no reason to do anything but shut the whole thing down forever and then everyone can say what they will, but there will be no Scope at all. the people at S|C are doing the thankless task of building something that they may never truly profit from, just because of those who love it.

who really loves Scope and wants to use it even if there are a few issues? well, only some really top-notch musicians and producers like Tom Keane(Anita Baker), Bill Goldstein(Fame, the Miracle worker), Kevin Walker(Justin Timberlake, but he's hating the loss of STS in 64bit, although Scope is valuable enough for him to get over it) and Hans Zimmer. oh, add guys like Craig Anderton too. it's only guys in their bedrooms who know everything about music production but produce nothing for humanity, and computer geeks who care more about the computer than any audio gear who really, really have a problem.

no direction? hardly, the direction is to eliminate all the points of weakness that make updating these niggling problems a pain in the ass. that IS the correct direction. it's awfully easy to say what they should or shouldn't do, when one has no idea about what really goes on behind the scenes. i understand that since the customer really can't know what's really up that misunderstandings and speculation are normal and expected, but still...

Scope is not the McDonalds of audio and it really shouldn't be. it's a very complex system that does take a person who is reasonably capable of running a studio and all that entails. there's plenty of fast food garbage out there(which can be used to great effect by a skilled musician and engineer) for those that just want a simple toy.

the current "limbo" isn't "unecessary". it just an unfortunate reality of a tiny company with a handfull of people working their asses off. the fact is, however, that the functionality that is in the current Scope system is MORE than the cost of the system is worth, by a huge number. if an XTE or even an 18 year old Scope card isn't useful to it's owner, with it's limitations, then that is a real indictment of the user, not the hard or software. the only BETTER audio tools available involve 1000's of feet of wiring and REAL HARDWARE costing many, many times what Scope costs. aside from the difference in cost and ease of editing in a sequencer, there is NOTHING that is inside a computer that will compete with top quality professional hardware.

[HUROLURA]

And I can confirm that S|C team was also quite busy during the Musikmesse ...

Optimization is for me a long term target.
Getting more users with a more entry level solutions would be the best way to get the ressources necessary for the optimization process ...
The fact is that Scope is just like an addiction. Xite-1 owners probably all started with much less powerfull system before.
The Scope Luna/Home was this entry level solution but this is now what the platform miss: an entry level solution to get new users joining the platform.

I started with a Scope Home in 2006 and bought my Xite-1 last year.
Making clear what Scope is is not that easy ...

[garyb]

yes, that should have been made first, most likely.
if all goes well, that will be addressed as well.

[Bud Weiser]

So, you think we won´t see these optimizations because of too much effort and too much work necessary ?

Bowen have used a lot of resources on the DSP work (better modules and optimization), but if that's transferable to the Scope (SC) system - I don't know.

Well, that was not the point.

I don´t think Solaris works better or more optimized than XITE-1, I KNOW both are different machines and I don´t complain on XITE and SCOPE 5.x at all.
I never had the occasion to play a Solaris up to now, so I´m not in the position to compare performance of Solais and XITE-1.

I´m very satisfied w/ my XITE-1 which I buyed because I got a SCOPE v4.0/PCIcard system some years ago and learned the basics w/ SCOPE that way.

I just only investigated in J.B.Solaris because I´m much more a keyboard player than a recording/mixing or mastering engineer and because liked the synths J.Bowen created in the past.
When I learned Solaris is manufactured in germany and there are former Creamware- and/or Sonic Core developers in the boat, it became more attractive to me and I read everything about that DSP technology inside Solaris and XITE machines, watched every video about XITE, SCOPE and Solaris and that´s why I mentioned Solaris in this thread.

I assume,- if Solaris ever will profit from "optimizations", resulting in more polyphony and MIDI multi-mode,- that might have an effect for the Sonic Core hardware/software products too because these teams work together in some way and both machines have something in common.

The intention in general is squeezing more out of the hardware by using the software.
For XITE-1, that means,- the more I can load (without too much manual DSP assignment) the more outboard gear I own will be replaced by XITE-1, but that doesn´t mean it doesn´t work for me as it is,- the opposite is the case.

For Solaris,- I hope for more voices and 4-part MIDI Multi Mode to replace some vintage synths because I´m not a instrument collector.
If Solaris replaces my Oberheim Xpander (which has MIDI Multi Mode) and something else,- well, great trade-off for me.

Let us assume for a moment that SC lacks resources - would the optimization of current atoms be the best approach forward regarding new customers?

Complex question IMO,- preconditioned, potential "new customers" have a idea what "optimization of current atoms" means,- maybe yes ...

In real world, I´d say no,- because the average customer wants to see continuous progress over relatively short periods of time.
OTOH, I don´t think, the masses of average customers will buy a XITE-1 and SCOPE-X at all.
They buy a cheap computer and VST, don´t care on timing, latency, jitter and sonic quality and want everything for under 100 bucks.

But SCOPE users and VST users have something in common too,- they want to use every device available in and for SCOPE and (or) their VST recording software in 64Bit systems.
ParseQ is a nice idea, but no one knows when it will be available and on par w/ already existing DAW software.

IMO, bug free 64Bit support, optimized plugin integration in existing DAW hosts and advanced MIDI integration is the short-term objective and opens doors.

I´m on 32Bit b.t.w., but maybe I want to upgrade this year too.

Bud

[Bud Weiser]

I started with a Scope Home in 2006 and bought my Xite-1 last year.
Making clear what Scope is is not that easy ...

I started in 2009 w/ a 15DSP/SCOPE 4 wondering why I had overseen this stuff before.
XITE-1 here now since march.
Most people don´t know anything about DSP systems except Protools TDM, TC Powercore or UAD.

Bud

[Sounddesigner]

And I can confirm that S|C team was also quite busy during the Musikmesse ...

Optimization is for me a long term target.
Getting more users with a more entry level solutions would be the best way to get the ressources necessary for the optimization process ...
The fact is that Scope is just like an addiction. Xite-1 owners probably all started with much less powerfull system before.
The Scope Luna/Home was this entry level solution but this is now what the platform miss: an entry level solution to get new users joining the platform.

I started with a Scope Home in 2006 and bought my Xite-1 last year.
Making clear what Scope is is not that easy ...

Making it clear what SCOPE is is very difficult and a wordy and expensive thing to do. But some solution does need to be 'figured out'.

Regarding development: Even UA who has way more resources then S|C is very slow to give the UAD platform more of the functionality of SCOPE simply because it has a heavy development cost and maintanaince (bugfixes, etc) and often sophisticated functionality (routing, zero-latency, chainer plugin, multi-client drivers, plugins spanning multiple dsp's, Sidechaining, etc) don't bring in the big bucks like a shiny new compressor (even when people have a thousand plugins already; and those users in many cases often overlook very limited workflow and true power). When the UAD-2 goes 64bit the support for uad-1 is dropped, maybe S|C should've done the same thing with SCOPE PCI? Supporting old hardware often is'nt that profitable and prevents progress for the new. It's possible S|C had to support the old pci to some extent for some profit but at some point soon i think old pci has to be completely abandoned and devices that fully take advantage of XITE-1's hardware need to be created. To focus solely on the new may bring in much more profit imo. SCOPE is a platform with ALOT of functionality and the consequence of offering all that functionality is having to develope many fronts and maintain them in a timely manner wich is probably impossible for Sonic Core atm. Focusing on opening the platform up for others to develope it (like Audiobisquit) is their best focal point imo and not being bogged down with every minor issue the platform has. After Open-SCOPE/SCOPE 6 then new plugins, Entry-hardware, and further development of Parseq have to come cause that stuff is largely what sells a platform IMV. I'm sure all will come and i assume more optimizations and more bugfixes will be apart of SCOPE 6's release.

Its hard for me to complain about what SCOPE can't do cause i look around the market and see it does more than any other interface and is a 'complete platform'. Its hard for me to complain about what Sonic Core has'nt done when i look at all they have done and are trying to do, and also the difficult/impossible situation they are in. Holger has professed his love for SCOPE and in my eyes that old saying applies "love covers a multitude of sins". I know we are in good hands cause despite SCOPE not being highly profitable or a obviouse future gold mine S|C took on the job cause they believe in the SCOPE concept and they are passionate and love it, that speaks volumes with me. I won't be the spoiled rich kid with loving parents who throws a temper-tantrum or threatens to run away cause i could'nt get my favorite food for dinner, where am i gonna go? Where is better?

When Sonic Core made the transition to new dsp's it was'nt perfect but atleast we retained almost all of the platform, the Mighty Pro tools lost most of its platform in terms of plugins available, the new Protools HDX does'nt have much compared to the old and it will take a long time to get to that point again as well as to have them optimized for the new dsp's. Avid is a far bigger company.

I agree a entry level product is needed but to some extent the old pci cards are a entry level, they did lead to some users buying XITE-1. After bedrock functionality new plugins to compliment and attract are needed. No sound no sale (i'm aware SCOPE already has great plugins but market eyes are different).


EDITED

[rafafredd]

WOW, I didn\t expected all this. I just started this post because I think more I/O is needed for XITE.

It was really nice to have many many I/O options with the old Creamware cards!!!

It makes a difference in a professional enviroment, you know.

On the other hand, yes, XITE and now Open Scope is the best thing so far ever to reach the market, IMHO. Congratulations on this!

[HUROLURA]

Including old scope PCI hardware in the Open Scope system would just provide a way to let third party or even kind of open source effort on that one. Just providing the possibility for some users/developpers to maintain it alive without too much effort necessary from S|C. Being able to run Scope PCI under Linux OS would provide an open source legacy maintenance opportunity as long as this hardware last (remember 10 years old board still alive and running is alreeady tremendous).

Maybe new optimized atoms could be made available only for new hardware for example. And plug-ins using such atoms wouldn't work on old hardware.

[garyb]

madi is a very real possible solution. it could be easily(relatively) implimented and it has a natural affinity for Ferrofish's excellent A16 Mk2. buy S|C stuff and request the extra i/o. if enough units are sold and enough people are willing to buy the product, there's no reason it won't be made. likewise, if someone had money they wanted to put up to make it a reality, $50,000 or whatever, it would be a matter of a few months. the technology that would be needed to make 48 or even 64 inputs possible is in place and it exists. the expandability was designed into the XITE already since Juergen is that good, and Holger is that driven. the actual product needs to be designed though. packaging and materials need to be purchased. we'll see.

it's really a shame that good vibes are so out of fashion. it really is the userbase that is the one that can make these great things happen. the company IS willing, but you never get something from nothing in this world.

[Bud Weiser]

madi is a very real possible solution. it could be easily(relatively) implimented and it has a natural affinity for Ferrofish's excellent A16 Mk2. buy S|C stuff and request the extra i/o. if enough units are sold and enough people are willing to buy the product, there's no reason it won't be made.

Well, is not a easy decision to buy a product for a unit which lacks connectivity up to now.
In my case,- I´d need the XITE-1´s ADAT I/Os to connect a 2nd machine´s audio I/Os to XITE-1.
I have the option to do this w/ the Creamware card´s ADAT I/Os and the I/Os of my RME Hammerfall.

So, before I can buy a Ferrofish A16mkII,- MADI has to be there for XITE-1 1st.

likewise, if someone had money they wanted to put up to make it a reality, $50,000 or whatever, it would be a matter of a few months.

Well,- there´s always the BANK ...

the technology that would be needed to make 48 or even 64 inputs possible is in place and it exists. the expandability was designed into the XITE already since Juergen is that good, and Holger is that driven. the actual product needs to be designed though. packaging and materials need to be purchased. we'll see.

I wonder what the fuss is for the hardware.
MADI technology exists and the Ferrofish A16mkII HAS a MADI interface,- so that is existing too.
What about a small box incl. the MADI electronics of the A16mkII on a small circuit board and w/ a D-SUB25 connector to the XTDM bus connector of XITE-1/ 1D ?

The rest is software,- MADI I/O modules for SCOPE and as the ice on the cake, a MADI_MIDI I/O module in SCOPE adressing the Ferrofish A16mkII physical MIDI I/Os.

but you never get something from nothing in this world.

I´d buy 2 A16mkII if it works like described above.

Bud