Considering Xite or UAD Apollo - cons and pros please?

[endre70]

Hi.

After trying god damn hard to find a suitable computer for my PulsarII and Luna w/expansion plate to connect with my 2xA16 Ultra I have started to loose hope..

So i am considering a new setup.

I use my system purely as I/O and has ,up til now, seldom used any of the synths or FX in scope enviroment. I find it tedious to set up and not incorporated it into my workflow (probably because my previous system never was stable enough to begin with) I would really like to just insert FXs in my DAW as vsts. I guess scope fx/synths still need to be routed, triggered and recorded?!

Could I use my A16 Ultras and get 32 inns and outs via 1 xite? (z link and adat?) without any problems, hickups, extras?

From one of the xite threads I see that Sonic Core/scope system STILL got issues with certain mobos. Can someone give a short description on what to look out for?

Any other things I havent considered?

Thank you very much for your time!

Endre

[Bud Weiser]

Hi.

After trying god damn hard to find a suitable computer for my PulsarII and Luna w/expansion plate to connect with my 2xA16 Ultra I have started to loose hope..

Buy a (cheap) used and older HP server from ebay.
Cheapest = Intel Core2Duo
Best and more expensive = Intel XEON
IIRC,- the HP 4000 - 6000 model range is what to look for.

So i am considering a new setup.

Also a good idea.

I use my system purely as I/O and has ,up til now, seldom used any of the synths or FX in scope enviroment. I find it tedious to set up and not incorporated it into my workflow (probably because my previous system never was stable enough to begin with) I would really like to just insert FXs in my DAW as vsts. I guess scope fx/synths still need to be routed, triggered and recorded?!

Sounds to me you tried using XTC mode.
SCOPE is better in standalone mode.
Yes, you trigger the synths via MIDI when operating SCOPE in standalone mode and SCOPE is your "summing box" for your DAW application which transfers audio from and to SCOPE via ASIO.

Could I use my A16 Ultras and get 32 inns and outs via 1 xite? (z link and adat?) without any problems, hickups, extras?

16 I/O via ADAT and 16 I/O via Z-Link.
Total 32 I/O @24Bit/48K and for the 2 converters alone.
Card/ XITE analog and SPDIF or AES/EBU I/Os in addition.

From one of the xite threads I see that Sonic Core/scope system STILL got issues with certain mobos. Can someone give a short description on what to look out for?

XITE-1 and 1D are both PCIe card based and have much, much less problems w/ todays mobos compared to the cards.

Actually I use a old ASUS P5WD2 premium socket 775 mobo for XITE-1/SCOPE 5.1,- but my next machine for XITE-1 (I own XITE-1 since march 2012) will be a socket 2011 mobo because I think XITE-1 will profit from quad-channel RAM support and much more (and, depending on mobo design, shorter) PCIe lanes than you find on the cheaper consumer boards.
On socket 2011 mobos you also work w/ ECC RAM.

Socket 2011 is the most data throughput and that´s what XITE-1 needs IMO.
Because of less SHARC chips in the XITE-1 D, where you load less devices,- that might be a different story.

But I believe,-
"more data throughput = less SAT connection errors".

With socket 2011 mobos you also use the fastest processors w/ largest possible cache (Intel Sandy- & Ivy Bridge-E),- so it´s most excellent for your simultaneously running native software too.

Any other things I havent considered?

Be prepared for about 30-40% more investment for the build of a socket 2011 computer.

I cannot comment much on UA Apollo because I don´t own it.
AFAIK it just only delivers FX plugins and works w/ 4 of the newer SHARC chips,- so it´s "somewhat" comparable w/ XITE-1D (which has 6 old SHARC in addition).
I don´t know if Apollo uses other co-processors in addition,- like ARM or such.

I see, a 19" UA Apollo Quad or Apollo 16 (both = SHARC quad core processing) w/ all the available plugins but w/o Thunderbold connection (that´s ~EUR 500.- extra) is more expensive than a XITE-1D is incl. latest SCOPE software and incl. all stock FX and most synth devices.
You get more mic inputs w/ Apollo.

When I looked for the UA Apollo 16 by interest the last time and looked for the price for all of the available UA plugins,- that was over EUR 5K and therefore also more expensive than a XITE-1 (not D).

Are you on Mac ?
If yes,- there´s the new UA Apollo single or duo (single is about EUR 600.- and duo about 800.-),- and it has an ADAT (optical) input (= 8ch audio in) but no ADAT out,- 2x stereo analog I/O, HiZ Ins and a Thunderbold connector.
A very few plugins included at these prices and "single" means 1 SHARC chip while "duo" means two ...
Apollo single & duo are for MAC only (Mac OS X 10.8 or higher).

But I think it´s cool when working w/ a iMac or PowerMac & Apple Logic X.

I don´t ...

Bud

[garyb]

the cards work in the latest socket 1150 machines very well.

i won't chime in in the XITE vs. Apollo argument except to say that the Apollo offers very little compared to the XITE as far as price goes.

[dante]

Even if you could compare UAD and XITE on the DSP's and use Apollo's faster clock speed as an argument, you'll still loose on the plugs financially - big time. Less plug range ( eg mainly only classic emu's and no synths ), less bundled w/ the h/w and a lot more expensive to boot.

The closest UAD have to a synth is a standalone MOOG filter

[Marco]

If you really want to save a lot of Money, buy a tc powercore x8. Very good effects, and 8 sharc dsps. Get them used for only 500 Euros.

Dont believe that the native effect bündle has the same Quality!

Everyone believes the powercore is dead, but you can use it with win7 for a Long Long lifetime.
The qualitiy of effects is the same like the UAD. UAD is most wanted today, but is it really better?

With powercore you have latency, but the xite is in realtime!!!!!!!!!!!

[jhulk]

tc use 586xxx motorola dsp symphony chips as use in the virus keyboards

no support no more plugs

[Marco]

I do not have Support for my DX7II for 30 years.......still good to make Music....no reason for me

the tc is an Option - but not a pulsar

[endre70]

the cards work in the latest socket 1150 machines very well.

Even with the asm1085 bridge chip? Cos I am currently trying this Supermicro Board, but saw it had a bridged connection and wanted to return it (Yes - before installing programs, and stress testing - cos I already used weeks installing software on another Supermicro board before noticing that it had 3 volt PCI slots )

http://www.supermicro.nl/products/mothe ... 0SLA-F.cfm

Skjermbilde 2014-01-29 kl. 14.48.25.png (121.62 KiB) Viewed 5590 times

And thank you all for your comments!

[jhulk]

yep definitely uses a pci-e to pci bridge for 5 slots

i was going to buy that board my self to try

but being a bridge and not direct pci support then there could be sat connection errors due to 5 pci cards on the bandwidth of the pci-e connection plus there bound to be latency because it is another bridging interface rather than direct port

the only way to find out is by testing 1

i at the moment am using a hw6200 which has direct pci interface and its rock solid and with win732bit you can assign 4gb to more than 1 program so you can have the 8 to 16 gb ram fitted

[endre70]

Yeah i got this sent to my from the norwegian Supermicro dealer. He forgot that I specifically needed native PCI connection. And this after the first board was 3 volt , not 5. Well any who..

It got a 3.6 Haswell and 32 gb ram - if it would work it would be awesome.

I would be using 2 pci slots, but i am skeptical cos all the usb´s and stuff goes thru the same PCH.. Wonder if Gary or anyone else has some experience with this board…

[garyb]

ALL motherboards since socket 1155 have the bridge. NONE have native PCI support. PCI is obsolete!
why did S|C go with PCIe for the XITE otherwise?

[endre70]

ALL motherboards since socket 1155 have the bridge. NONE have native PCI support. PCI is obsolete!
why did S|C go with PCIe for the XITE otherwise?

Half truth..I got a 2011 socket board without a bridge but with wrong volt..

Skjermbilde 2014-01-29 kl. 20.33.47.png (43.72 KiB) Viewed 5557 times

the cards work in the latest socket 1150 machines very well.

Ok thanks Garyb!!!! I take from your answer that the board Im talking about might work. Have you got any experience with this specific board?

Cheers!
Endre

[Sounddesigner]

I think you're making the right call by trying to get more use out of your old SCOPE pci cards. If your old cards still work then you might as well find a new home for them. You should explore SCOPE's plugins more before venturing off especially the newer ones like Modular 4 (no other platform has a good replacement for SCOPE Modular imv, It's the best.) and try the new dNa plugins wich are digital-analog-style hybrid plugins, I doubt you'll be disappointed with these amazing effects plugins and they can easily make UAD redundant.

SCOPE can do everything UAD does and more but the reverse is far from true. UAD has been playing catch-up and are copying SCOPE's paradigm more and more as that platform grows (the uad platform only recently got into Realtime dsp interfaces and SDK for 3rd party developers and guitar amp sims but SCOPE has been doing these things for over a decade). Why buy something that is SLOWLY starting to look more like SCOPE as time passes when you can use SCOPE wich looks like SCOPE NOW and is already a complete and mature platform? Why wait for something that's playing catch-up when you can already be there?

Not saying uad doesn't have any strenghths over SCOPE cause it does. VST intergration is better with uad but still not as good as a plugin that is truly Native to the O/S environment. There are problems that occur with uad and various DAW hosts overtime, imv such problems will always occur with dsp based platforms in general because all dsp platform's dsp plugins aren't indigenous to that Native environment so they are more prone to problems e.g. buggy, higher-latency, no bouncing or slower bouncing, etc compared to a plugin that is truly Native to the computer-O/S world. IMV dsp plugins are best used in dsp enviroments unless you build the DAW specifically for the dsp plugins like Pro Tools (and Parseq for SCOPE if it ever gets released). But some dsp platforms do work better as vst plugins in the Native environment than others (uad is much less problematic than SCOPE at this) but none are perfect unless you build the DAW specifically for it.

No matter wich dsp platform you choose you have to be carefull wich motherboard you buy, that's not just a SCOPE problem but a uad, etc problem as well. Compatibility/instability issues can occur with any dsp platform when buying motherboards. PCIe is generally OK tho.

There is a motherboard I read about a year or two ago that's newer and has Native pci support that Pro tools users found and was using but I don't remember the name (you can inquire about it at protools forum or Gearslutz).

SCOPE is better at being a heart of your studio and complete tool set (audio and midi routing, synths, samplers, Modular, meters, variety of Mixers, Sequencers, wider range of effects types, recorders, SDK, etc), and UAD has only a much larger library of specific type plugins (vintage emulation effects), the two platforms can be used together wich can be good but for me the only one that could replace the other is SCOPE, wich is truly capable of being a 'be-all-end-all' due to its more complete nature. Native is a great suppliment to SCOPE and for me fills in the gaps just fine.

I would further explore SCOPE before venturing out if I were you. These are all my own beliefs but I'm just a fanboy on a SCOPE forum. Your mileage may vary. To each their own!



EDITED

[endre70]

Thank you sounddesigner for a informative post!!

I will install and stress test my system, even though its bridged. Gary gave me hope back... If not I will buy a Xite. Ill keep you posted on how my MB works.

Any good stress tests to find out if the bridge is a problem or not? The Masterverb test maybe?

Cheers!!

Endre

[dante]

Thats a good argument against UAD - the fact that its a VST but doesnt work like a proper VST (eg no Freeze, latency etc)

Are the UAD effects able to be MIDI controlled ?

[Sounddesigner]

UAD card plugins can be midi controlled in the DAW if the host supports it. UAD Apollo console and enviroment plugins CANNOT be midi controlled.

UAD plugins can bounce in the DAW, the bouncing process is much slower with uad plugins than without.

[dawman]

I want to buy the QUAD Apollo and run the XITE-1 ADAT outs into it.
Then use the UAD for mic pres, basically for vocal FX and treatment of XITE-1 inputs.

Is this possible to use these 2 x 1Us together on a laptop w/ Express 34 and some Thunderbolt adapter...?

I only say this becuase 2500 USD is a fair price to have that many mic pres and the reverbs are a step above Scopes actually, even a good replacement for my Lexicon hardware.

I just can't tolerate that Native Reverb quality, and only feel that Native should use synths that we don;t have in hardware or Scope, but most importantly sample streaming.

[garyb]

i bet a setup like that is way more troublesome than just connecting a good mic pre to the XITE. in fact, i don't see the advantage. there are better places to spend money imho.

in fact the XITE already has a couple of good pres..

[dante]

How would the routing work ? From UAD mic pre audio would have to travel thru its control panel which probably won't see XITE as a Dest so then has to go via host software then by ASIO to XITE. Maybe not optimal latency wise - that's the whole thang bout UAD there will always be host software handling involved.

Otherwise your left with an ADAT solution whîch might be OK at 48KHz but if your working at 96 then your gonna tie up both XITE adats in order to capture Apollos 8 mic pre isn't it ?

I'm just guessing here since I don't have Apollo / just reflecting what I'd think about before blowing 2 or 3 large - I believe the thunderbolt is extra $$ .

[dawman]

I wish I knew how the routing would work.
I am looking at the Apollo to be a live tool, not for recording.
Drum triggers go to the ASIO Host via the XITE-1 and then those signals sent to the UAD where the vocal mics can be mixed.
I love the UAD effects and see these 2 units being very high quality, very mobile and for 2500 USD no big deal once revenues start coming back instead of leaving...
I am spending way too much money leaving Las Vegas, but there'll a bundle left over when I relocate.
I am seeing a new realtime interface from UAD too, wonder where that will come into play.