Another thread about summing in scope

[garyb]

my opinion is that, except for a few specialty plugins, waves and psp have nothing, nothing on Scope. sonalksis may, but at a significant resource hit.

Scope plugins are a bargain. they will be good for years to come, even in an obsolete computer connected via adat or A16 as a multi i/o effects box, just as though you bought some actual hardware. the rest of the computer world is just fashion, even though there are other excellent tools.

otherwise, just keep using what you have if you are getting good results and are not in the position to be buying stuff.

[maky325]

Mike, your thread is valid and your points are valid. All host really sound same just as scope system summing is that same summing used everywhere. It is SUMMING. As long as you stay from red all host and platforms will phase cancel. EACH TIME. I tested this within SCOPE, Cubase and FL Studio. Every time with same result!

There is really nothing special in scope summing (and i am scope fan) and whoever talk opposite clearly dont know what he is talking and what is all behind... Well if someone is still arguing you can do blind test with at least 10 examples. I am 100% sure that subject wont spot a difference if test is done properly. Then this "trust your ears" wont be so strong i believe...

It is so easy to do such test that i am simply shocked that people still think some host/platform is better sounding then other. Or that there is some conspiracy in null test

Difference may come later when using panning (some host have different pan laws), on using sotck FX that came with your host/platform, some host handle clip different to other (just look at nuendo forum, so far cubase and nuendo does have error if you are using busses which goes to red), but as long as you are away from red clip it is just very same summing. Keep in mind that even there are those different things in various programs(fader resolution tied to PPQ resolution settings) YOU CAN STILL phase cancel them with a lot of work. That said for example if host a do pan law different then host b you can still make host b phase cancel with host a just with little effort in compensating these things..

There is also on hand experience. Some user will get better result faster in scope mixer then in cubase mixer or vice versa. But that does not mean something is better/worse. It is just different. Of course we are still talking about digital summing.

While at the same time you just can not compare for example Scope synths with VST synths. Scope synths are very obviously better sounding as some reverbs are still unmatched in VST world (p-100 or a-100). Not because they are running on magical processor it is due some limitation in programming world, knowledge, experience and algorithm behind...

But summing is summing and whenever some people trying to convince you otherwise believe me it is waste of time to tell them that summing is just 1+1 in digital world.

Sometimes some things are way to simple to understand LOL
Also some people still like to pull things up to religious and magic proportion when there is no obvious reason to do so...LOL

[garyb]

yes, that may indeed be so. still, in ACTUAL use, there is quite a difference in sound between sequencers, soundcards and platforms. summing is summing yet cubase sounds nothing like an ssl or euphonix console even with no processing. cubase alone sounds different than run through the Scope mixer. this is ALSO undeniable. there is a missing factor here, and i'll admit, something more than just "summing" involved when one speaks of how much better summing on a is over b.

[Mike Goodwin]

If there has been one thing that has come to light in this thread it is that straight summing in scope is exactly the same as summing in any other host. And each host is the same when doing straight summing from software host to software host. I do not have a digital SSL desk here at home so I can not prove to myself or anyone elt's for that matter if it is the same there.

As for in use results the outcome may indeed yeald a better or worse result due to design or quality of other factors.

It has been agreed that things change when you start going into the red, adding fx, panning as well as in come cases creating busses and aux sends and return loops. But when it is only straight summing it is all the same as long as the bit depth and sample rates are all the same.

At this point I am totally satisfied to know that there are people here that see my point and even agree. If people do not want to believe in math and proof than that is there decision to make.

[maky325]

yes, that may indeed be so. still, in ACTUAL use, there is quite a difference in sound between sequencers, soundcards and platforms. summing is summing yet cubase sounds nothing like an ssl or euphonix console even with no processing. cubase alone sounds different than run through the Scope mixer. this is ALSO undeniable. there is a missing factor here, and i'll admit, something more than just "summing" involved when one speaks of how much better summing on a is over b.

Gary i am surprised (since i know you for a long time and i know you have some experience) you are comparing cubase (or similar) to ssl or euphonix in this kind of thread. They are different worlds even if ssl is digital desk. Totally different world. There are much more factors in ssl digital desk, really way more factors (whole signal path have different technical layout for example) and it is totally different platform. But we are talking about digital summing in our DAWs not in SSL desk. You can be sure that SSL digital desk is doing very same type of digital summing like in your host/platform but there are more things involved there which gives ssl desk ssl sound.

Also what do you mean when you say "cubase alone sounds different than run through the Scope mixer. this is ALSO undeniable." This one is really confusing. By reading this one can believe that cubase mixer is coloring sound while in reality it is not doing this. I believe you did something wrong if you tested this once back in time, though with your experience i doubt.

Any chance you can give some example on how to set up test to reveal this? I am really interested.

[maky325]

If there has been one thing that has come to light in this thread it is that straight summing in scope is exactly the same as summing in any other host. And each host is the same when doing straight summing from software host to software host. I do not have a digital SSL desk here at home so I can not prove to myself or anyone elt's for that matter if it is the same there.

As for in use results the outcome may indeed yeald a better or worse result due to design or quality of other factors.

It has been agreed that things change when you start going into the red, adding fx, panning as well as in come cases creating busses and aux sends and return loops. But when it is only straight summing it is all the same as long as the bit depth and sample rates are all the same.

At this point I am totally satisfied to know that there are people here that see my point and even agree. If people do not want to believe in math and proof than that is there decision to make.

Yes and IMHO people should not care about this so much but at the same time they must stay away from marketing crap. If host xy is doing great things for you, just use it and make some music. If you are not satisfied just pass to another. Simple as that. There are really nice option to choose from. If nothing can satisfy you at this point of time (it is 2008 and we have A LOT of great things to choose) then you should try to consider another job or hobby...

[astroman]

...Gary i am surprised (since i know you for a long time and i know you have some experience) ...
Also what do you mean when you say "cubase alone sounds different than run through the Scope mixer. this is ALSO undeniable." This one is really confusing. By reading this one can believe that cubase mixer is coloring sound while in reality it is not doing this. I believe you did something wrong if you tested this once back in time, though with your experience i doubt.
Any chance you can give some example on how to set up test to reveal this? I am really interested.

well, just do it
but to confuse you even more... I record a couple of tracks, some from internal sources, some over Adat from an old A16
it's just a plain simple 16-bit(!) recording written to disk by VDAT

if I open the .wav files with any native Windows app (monitored in the same software mixer in Scope via Asio) , it does sound different - it looses definition - at 16bit
Of course it's not terribly much (doesn't throw you back to Soundblaster), but still too much to be ignored - and it's not level related (that trick would be too cheap).

monitor some analog source, write it to file, monitor the playback of the file opened in sequencer
I couldn't believe my ears when I noticed it the first time - and still lack an explanation...

cheers, Tom

ps - can't resist to mention the dude from gearslutz (?) talking about SSL consoles.
according to him they were never famous for any particular sound - they were just extremely nice to operate...

[garyb]

yes, that may indeed be so. still, in ACTUAL use, there is quite a difference in sound between sequencers, soundcards and platforms. summing is summing yet cubase sounds nothing like an ssl or euphonix console even with no processing. cubase alone sounds different than run through the Scope mixer. this is ALSO undeniable. there is a missing factor here, and i'll admit, something more than just "summing" involved when one speaks of how much better summing on a is over b.

Gary i am surprised (since i know you for a long time and i know you have some experience) you are comparing cubase (or similar) to ssl or euphonix in this kind of thread. They are different worlds even if ssl is digital desk. Totally different world. There are much more factors in ssl digital desk, really way more factors (whole signal path have different technical layout for example) and it is totally different platform. But we are talking about digital summing in our DAWs not in SSL desk. You can be sure that SSL digital desk is doing very same type of digital summing like in your host/platform but there are more things involved there which gives ssl desk ssl sound.

Also what do you mean when you say "cubase alone sounds different than run through the Scope mixer. this is ALSO undeniable." This one is really confusing. By reading this one can believe that cubase mixer is coloring sound while in reality it is not doing this. I believe you did something wrong if you tested this once back in time, though with your experience i doubt.

Any chance you can give some example on how to set up test to reveal this? I am really interested.

as astro said, send individual tracks out of cubase and combine them in the stdm2448. listen
playback stereo mix from cubase mixer. listen.
don't do any level changes(well, the stereo mix can be adjusted to be sure of identical listening volumes) and use a good pair of monitors in a reasonably well tamed room. the difference is pretty substantial. i have multiple confirmations. if YOU don't hear the difference, that's fine too. in that case, don't mix in Scope.

actually, Scope, SSL and Euphonix are all based around the same basic Analog Devices algos, afaik. they aren't different worlds at all. that's the point. people using those digital desks may very well be using Cubase...

[valis]

Well to be honest it seems to me that you understand this topic better than I do. I can see what you are getting at though. It is not though summing where one might find the difference. This being said I am not sure that the software that I own in the Scope environment stacks up well against the software that I own in the native world. I am not saying that this is the case against all the software in the Scope world as I have only started to look around. It also makes little sense for me to start automating the scope mixer when automation within my host is so simple and well integrated.
When you mix though Scope do you do all your volume and pan automations with the scope mixers in stead of your native host? If so do you find that you gain depth in your mixes?

Thanks for your well informed feedback.

Sorry for checking back so late, holidays & all that. I'm not sure that I understand this topic better, so much as I have the ability to expound at great length and sound like I know a great deal. A fast typing rate coupled with the ability to refrain from involving myself in discussions where I know nothing at all or am still recovering from the night before helps a great deal.

I think the summing debate comes from 2 places... It's a very appropriate discussion when dealing with analog desks of varying levels of quality produced over the years, and so a cancellation test there can reveal how well gear handles frequency ranges, transient response/slew rate, THD figures, how long the gear has been turned on, how much booze & soda the studio has been exposed to and so on.

Sometime in the last decade discussions on various internet forums & mailing lists started focusing on applying the 'summing test' methodologies to their sequencer/DAW applications. In some cases this revealed serious flaws, but these have been largely corrected years ago now and there's not much to see now when checking to see if a modern digital platform can produce a proper 'sum'. Aside from memory errors caused by cosmic rays and the like, I just don't thing there's enough that's going to vary to produce any real differences in 'summing' in the digital realm (accounting for pan law differences of course), assuming of course all that's being done is producing a sum.

Secondly in this 'modern' era, people who mix in the digital realm (especially PT HD 'mixers') are looking for the 'analog vibe', and so refer to 'summing bus' gear from botique and high profile audio gear makers. But to be sure what people are looking for here is NOT mathematical purity, they're looking for an added sense of 'definition', 'wieght' 'space' (phase differences? crosstalk?) and 'color' and so on. Things that require more than a simple fader in the digital realm and are not 'mathematical' descriptions that can be easily quantified, although engineers can of course measure the impact this gear has on sound and try to correlate that with what people are describing in more prosaic terms.

[Mike Goodwin]

as astro said, send individual tracks out of cubase and combine them in the stdm2448. listen
playback stereo mix from cubase mixer. listen.
don't do any level changes(well, the stereo mix can be adjusted to be sure of identical listening volumes) and use a good pair of monitors in a reasonably well tamed room. the difference is pretty substantial. i have multiple confirmations. if YOU don't hear the difference, that's fine too. in that case, don't mix in Scope.

actually, Scope, SSL and Euphonix are all based around the same basic Analog Devices algos, afaik. they aren't different worlds at all. that's the point. people using those digital desks may very well be using Cubase...

OK so let me get this straight. You feel that Scope sounds "substantially" better than what I will call native summing. And you are also saying that SSL desks are using the same summing math as "Cubase". So if I am understanding things correctly here you think that mixing in the scope mixers sounds "substantially" better than mixing on a digital SSL mixer.

As for straight up summing in scope as opposed to straight up summing in native mixers. We will just have to disagree.

My monitors are just fine and my room is well tuned. My phase cancellation tests also show a complete null. I can use my ears, my Adam monitors and math to have total peace of mind.

I know a couple of great engineers that have installed different switches and buttons in to there large format desks that do absolutely nothing except light up. When clients ask for "more space" or "more depth" they could just simply flick that switch and the customer would hear the difference every time. I know one guy that went as far as to put in different colored lights for different switches so when customers asked for a "blue" tone he could say hey check it out this is a custom module. And add some more "blue" to the mix. The scary thing is that these technique's work for them. It satisfies the customer and keeps the sessions on track in the end giving the client a good product. It was done not to laugh at customers but only with the best intension in mind. This way they would not get "forced" into making changes that please the customer but damage a good mix. Funny world.
I have had the same effect. In fact the first few times I summed my mixes in Scope I did hear a improvement. I completely believed that the mix sounded better though the scope mixer because the math being done on the shark dsp's was more stable and that there would be less rounding errors. I was doing straight summing via asio and it was all in my head. I just wanted to hear it so bad after spending money on it that I did. After a while I started to question my logic and did this simple little test. I found out where my flaws might be in my test and also found out from others that my thinking was sound. Straight up modern digital summing is all the same. I am hearing if from mixers and programers the same.

Also as for all the plugins in the scope environment sounding better than than the evil Waves empire (I truly do not like the waves company) I can say that the included compressor and limiter in Scope do not sound better than the high end native compressors that I own. JJP Fairchild, Sonnox Dynamics, or even the Cocos compressor. As for limiters the included limiter simply sounds bad to my ears. This is subjective and just my opinion. Have you listened to these? The waves SSL buss compressor, the API compressor and EQ's, eiosis Air EQ. Sonnox dynamics. They do sound very good indeed.

[Mike Goodwin]

Difference may come later when using panning (some host have different pan laws), on using sotck FX that came with your host/platform, some host handle clip different to other (just look at nuendo forum, so far cubase and nuendo does have error if you are using busses which goes to red), but as long as you are away from red clip it is just very same summing. Keep in mind that even there are those different things in various programs(fader resolution tied to PPQ resolution settings) YOU CAN STILL phase cancel them with a lot of work. That said for example if host a do pan law different then host b you can still make host b phase cancel with host a just with little effort in compensating these things..

I find this part of the equation very interesting. Do you about what happens when things go into the red in the digital domain? I would figure that different summing engines might deal with this problem differently. This being said I have no idea as to what goes on.

[astroman]

... OK so let me get this straight. You feel that Scope sounds "substantially" better than what I will call native summing. And you are also saying that SSL desks are using the same summing math as "Cubase". So if I am understanding things correctly here you think that mixing in the scope mixers sounds "substantially" better than mixing on a digital SSL mixer.

As for straight up summing in scope as opposed to straight up summing in native mixers. We will just have to disagree. ...

well, according to Gary the digital SSLs (and a few others) are also based on Sharc DSPs, so they are performing essentially the same math as Scope, while Cubase uses the native CPU libs.
But whatever math execution - it's not really the point here, and also 'summing' isn't the point.

In my example above (Gary refers to the same proc) there isn't even real 'summing' going on - it will work equally reliable on one single track.
In my case I could hear the difference even though I didn't want to at all - in fact it was extremely inconvenient... let me tell you a few details...
of course I wanted to brag a bit with my system and show to someone that my (Scope) Eqs were 'better' than his hardware unit. He had sent me the track with and without Eq.
So I used the dry track to mimick his settings and ended with a result that definetely sounded better to my ears than his processed track. All in the Scope environment.

To return the track I (obviously) had to encode it in some other app, so I opened it in Reaper to perform the necessary cuts etc.
But wtf - just playing it back via an Asio channel through the same Scope project, there was a significant loss in what you'd call transparency - rendering all my work down the drain.
I certainly did not expect this, let alone appreciate it
I even posted (before this happened) that if you don't change anything there cannot be a difference.

But it just was: playing the .wav through VDAT was more detailed than the same .wav through Reaper via Asio. I have no idea about the source of the phenomenon, but it has been reported by quite some folks meanwhile - no urban legend imho.
But for sure it's not related to 'summing', as there wasn't much to sum...

cheers, Tom

[siriusbliss]

Again, not all software hosts handle data throughput in a pristine way, so the summing equation is moot.

Even ASIO vs. MME engines may sound different within the same host/sequencer. Nowadays this issue has been mostly resolved by the different company's developers. (SOMETHING must be going on there for them to 'fix' the problem)

It comes down to what passes THROUGH uneffected that matters.

The so-called 'air', 'space', 'blue', etc. that people talk about is present in the sound by what's NOT present in an uneffected signal path.

There's no way that I know of to test this, since you can't test what you can't hear - you can only test what you don't don't hear

Greg

[garyb]

OK so let me get this straight. You feel that Scope sounds "substantially" better than what I will call native summing. And you are also saying that SSL desks are using the same summing math as "Cubase". So if I am understanding things correctly here you think that mixing in the scope mixers sounds "substantially" better than mixing on a digital SSL mixer.

what an incredible misquote. you totally misread my post.

[garyb]

Also as for all the plugins in the scope environment sounding better than than the evil Waves empire (I truly do not like the waves company) I can say that the included compressor and limiter in Scope do not sound better than the high end native compressors that I own. JJP Fairchild, Sonnox Dynamics, or even the Cocos compressor. As for limiters the included limiter simply sounds bad to my ears. This is subjective and just my opinion. Have you listened to these? The waves SSL buss compressor, the API compressor and EQ's, eiosis Air EQ. Sonnox dynamics. They do sound very good indeed.

included compressor compared to those? no! who ever suggested such a thing?
besides, i don't compare to native, high end or otherwise, i compare to HARDWARE that i own. that said, what i posted in regards to your internet slander and bad vibes fest, was that the best native stuff tends to be very RESOURCE hungry and that WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS, as good or better is AVAILABLE in the Scope platform.

i also said that if digital is digital, then why buy Sony Oxford? why buy Euphonix? they use the samer basic dsp libs from A/D and the same dsps as Scope. if Scope works no better than Cubase then Cubase is as good as Euphonix(they all sum to null) and all you need is a soundblaster. logic. ridiculous. summing is more than just summing, but that's the word(right or wrong, better or worse) used to describe the event.

i don't doubt your results in the least, and i respect whatever choices you make(short of human sacrifice and that sort of thing) to get a great sound. use what you like.

[nightscope]

I find this part of the equation very interesting. Do you about what happens when things go into the red in the digital domain? I would figure that different summing engines might deal with this problem differently. This being said I have no idea as to what goes on.

Mike, although this is not entirely related to your summing research it is interesting. It's by some guy, Dave Gamble, who is one of the devs at Sonalksis. The bold text relates to digital clipping. Some of the Sonalksis folk worked for Neve so I hazard a guess they know a bit about coding for DSP. In this case Motorola. Same ballpark as AD.

Dedicated DSP VS Native PlugIn Processing

"There is a difference - there are several differences. But they may well not be what you expect them to be.

CPU Performance. Native processors have left all but the most high-end DSPs standing. A deep-pipelined microcoded CPU like an Intel Core chip is at least an order of magnitude faster than, say, a Motorola 56000 class DSP. It's a brutish and inelegant figure with which to make the comparison, but the clock rate of a Core2 can be set at 3GHz, whereas one would expect to see a 56000 DSP running at around 200MHz.

Of course, that comparison is entirely unfair- the DSP can do things that the Core2 cannot. The DSP can fetch two items from memory AND perform a multiply-accumulate in ONE cycle (when coded correctly). That choice of instruction is not arbitrary - the most common DSP task is to multiply-accumulate and fetch two - it's the heart of FIRs, IIRs and all manner of other lovely algorithms. That's either three or four instructions on the Core2, but as for how many clock cycles that would take, it's anyone's guess - somewhere between 1 and 10 seems likely. Anyone care to correct me?

The Core2 is harder to predict the performance because it depends on many things
- whether the numbers to be loaded are in cache or need to be fetched from RAM
- whether the code is in cache or is being fetched from RAM
- what the Core was doing previously
- what the Core is doing next.

Core processors employ what's known as a pipeline. Different parts of the chip handle different types of task, and they do so in parallel as far as is possible. When you write an algorithm for a DSP, at the end, you count the number of lines of assembly, and can state that the code will use N clock cycles. If you have a list of algorithms to run, with a list of how long they will take, it's very easy to schedule them and to know exactly how much processing capacity you need. And it is ENTIRELY reliable and predictable to do so.

Conversely, it's very easy when writing DSP code to know when you have been inefficient. You are going to use too many clock cycles. Working with external DSPs, you always end up optimising to minimise your cycle count - that means using tricks and shortcuts to get the best approximation to what you want, with as few instructions as possible. That's great fun, in a nerdy way. For instance, a lot of dynamics processing requires you to evaluate the mathematical functions log() and exp(). A Motorola DSP doesn't have a log or exp function - though it does have some instructions that can help approximate it. So when you code a compressor for that DSP, one of the fun things you have to do is build a fast log and exp approximator. There are endless tricks. With work, you can get close to the precision of a standard Native implementation - which are, as near as is meaningful, exact. You'll spend a lot of clock cycles doing that on a DSP though, and somewhere you'll find that you can trade off a bit of accuracy for extra speed.

The biggest difference between Motorola DSPs and Native processors is the fixed-point vs floating-point difference. To make clear the difference, a floating point number CONTAINS a 24bit fixed-point number, PLUS a scale that it can use to increase range. A floating point number = fixed point number * 2^scale - that is, a floating point number is a fixed point number, with a scale that can double or halve it many times.

So how can fixed-point sound better than floating, when floating can do more, is far more accurate, and we have more processing power to throw at it? My controvertial answer is - BECAUSE it doesn't have the range. Open up one of your sessions, right now. Insert a clipper at 0dB after EVERY plugin. What happened? Well, it depends on how hot you run your session - but if in general just a /little/ bit hot, you just got an overall shine added to your mix - a noisefloor of digital clip distortion and aliasing that boosted up your high-frequency energy and made everything a touch noisier. And you did it native!

This is the magic of dedicated DSPs - when your channel goes INTO a DSP plugin, and it's pretty warm but not clipping, and you then add a few dBs of EQ, you clip that band on the EQ's output. Clipping means high frequency energy, plus a touch of aliasing noise. The aliasing noise is likely to be very quiet, but the brain doesn't mind /small/ amounts because within a mix, it's just noise, and we, as humans, like a bit of noise. Boosting the high frequency energy is great though - more "warmth" from the clipped bass, more "openness" from the clipped mid and more "air" from the clipped top. As far as I can tell, and I must state that it is only a theory, this is what lies beneath the "bigger mixdowns" sound from using dedicated DSPs. But this is certainly not the ONLY thing."

ns

[sonolive]

hi guys,
i have read this thread with lots of interest ...
many things to learn ...

and imho, "to get a great sound. use what you like." & i would add : Employ the good musicians with the good instruments ...

any way , finally, at the end of the chain , where a mix (good or bad ) ends its life ?
on a poor radioplayer in your car !!! maybe on a MP3 player via poor and cheap headphones !!!

the only thing that counts is what is played (sung) onto the tracks, what emotion it gives you ! no ?

happy '09 (with xite ) to all
cheerz
olive

[siriusbliss]

any way , finally, at the end of the chain , where a mix (good or bad ) ends its life ?
on a poor radioplayer in your car !!! maybe on a MP3 player via poor and cheap headphones !!!

unless you're working in DVD-A or surround for video post/film

Greg

[Shroomz~>]

To: Jah Servant
I am not sure how I would avoid going through the scope enviroment and have a sample accurate recording to work with. As far as can see off the top of my head it would open up way to much room for debate, converter and so on. Anyone have any ideas how how one could do this?

Mike, I would suggest performing the test in the following way (anyone else can do it too), then reporting the results here.

Ab Live tracks > Scope > Scope mixer > Ab Live - Record incoming stereo mix
Ab Live tracks > Scope > Multi channel Sample delay (must load on 1 dsp) > Ab Live - sum & record mix in Live.

Compare.

If you can't find a multi channel sample delay, you can try summing the tracks in Live 1st before going out to a stereo sample delay in Scope or one of us here will make a multi channel sample delay that loads on 1 dsp.

The essence of this suggested test is that you do it simultaneously & record both the Scope summed stereo mix & the Ab Live summed mix at the same time with the source in both cases being the exact same ASIO channels coming from Live.

If I could do it here myself, I would, but sharc is working on our main Scope rig here & I wouldn't dare ask for access to perform this test, since FWIW I think it's pretty pointless (no offense)

regards,
Mark

[Shroomz~>]

Btw, I wouldn't use the dynamic mixer for performing these tests, since I personally do not think it's 100% reliable.