Hi Protoculture, and thanks for the interest.
I pop-in just to remind that the demos are good to hear the sound and test dsp usage, but they generally don't include the latest updates or optimizations (which make the panels and vus much faster: the interface feels very light compared to previous versions or demos - that's because demos are devices that have to be built as demos, ie, modification of circuits and so on... very long job when the developpers prefer to make updates or new devices).
Also, if you have xite, I cannot promiss that they behave like on scope (there is the need of optimized modules for xite, for now it will work on compatibility mode which uses some ressources just for compatibility, which is ok, but it can be better - some gigantic devices of mine such as the FB5 are not something people like to use on xite). So I cannot promiss that this mixer will be exactly the same on xite (for this i will need xite+optimized modules... and testing that i can't do right now). So, if you are on xite, I generally advise people who contact me to wait until I am on xite too, or to request other xite users for advices... that's the best i can do for now for everybody peace of mind.
If you are on Scope, it will take 7 dsp with all channels and "fat" activated. So it is a big mixer. I advise a single scope board for it, because if you use pulsars for example, 1 dsp will have to be loaded on another board. I am not a fan of multiple boards personnally, but other people had better experience than me (I use "generation 1" board for backward compatibility reasons, and those early boards are known to not like cascading of multiple cards).
I have cubase 5 and subjectively or objectively, the sound of Scope is superior: more presence, more definition, more dimension. This is true for the Valve and FP mixers too. What I do is that I create groups in Cubase, where I group various tracks, or single audio channels, and send those groups to Scope. That way, you can use the best of both words (Eqs on Cubase, and dynamics, more eqs and levels on Scope).
If you mix stereo tracks in majority, then the FP Mixers is probably a better choice. You can add the FAT as inserts effects (they are sold seperately and come with "LimFat"which has limiting too). So it is more flexible in terms of ressources eventhough the real deal in term of sound of the FAT are the Valve mixers (I personally use the FP mixers for my works, but I have "only" 14 dsp, wich is a bit limited for people like me who like to use as many synths as possible in scope...
Try them (Fat Inserts or Valve mixers) on any analog or digital source or master of any music style (I mainly do rock and reggae, pop stuff, my friends do trance or hip hop, i do pre-master checks and re-recording using just a stereo fat insert in the project...)...
The name "Valve" mixer is not exact; it was not made to simulate valve distortion, but the impression you get with hardware equipment of a better sound with bigger dimension. So if it can simulate valve, the simulation stops when you begin to hear distortion.
The Fat - in terms of how it affects the sound - is close to what you get with a Waves L2 if you used this plugin, it is the closest comparison. Especially when you push the limiter on the L2, but without the limiting and with much less low end at the settings that i advise - i advise people to be subtle and to stop adding fat as soon as they begin to hear it (around 50% of the FAT at a *1 rate) . Fat is more a question of "rounding the sound to make it sound like it comes from hardware", and with frequencies that I prefer (less boring to me, in the bass spectrum, with this detail that FAT also acts on the mediums - if you run a movie-dvd into a channel with FAT, you will watch a better movie... same with a commercial CD, ie all kind of stuff that have been mastered already). I compare with Waves L2 because since i made the Fats, I don't use this plugin anymore and have sucessfully replaced it with FATs and LimFat. and L2 was an essential tool for me, in the past... My own valve equipment ranges from guitar amps (Marshall 4210 with electro harmonics tube if i remember) , valve microphone and preamps, tubetech compresors that i used in studios,. I also like some transistor preamp that have eqs that sound big, and other non valve stuff such as the Ensoniq EPS16+ which has this thick sound that exists nowhere else...
FAT are not made to simulate all those equipments of course, but they add ingredient in the sound that make the sound rather equivalent to what you get with such equipment in terms of body and analog impression etc... compared to not using them...
Let your ears be the the only judge and don't be influenced by all i said above which is "just me" (the guy who made them so... )
...
I hope it helps.
Mehdi