Haha Dante has a 3000e hardware that permits latencies for all signal path of all effects down to 1ms from 2001, but he is strugling with latency inducing effects and wants to disable them... He uses 2 daws and 3 different mixers because one mixer says it is a i don'tremember one the other has nice graphics and the third provides some unique capabilities like control of channel volume panorama and inserting fx...
He likes hardware with great names in it like MOOG, Neve and Telefunken that also offer real Analog summing (of course it is digital) but it has a great picture of a real analog console on the cover and it looks very good.
Great!
Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
Re: Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
This isn't about personal attacks, so let's perhaps de-escalate that side of the discussion. We're all here out of shared interests and by our own recognizance.
The AU plugins are clearly disabled so that there are no round-trips back & forth across the system bus, which is sort of what dante is saying about how he would use XTC mode. He's also pointed out the multi-fx workflow used before to do this, and suggested making it standard. The issue here as I see it is that we'd then have a million threads like this with people complaining about them not working just like normal plugins, so it's unlikely you'll satisfy everyone with a single workflow integration.
The XTC mode project, if I recall, could be customized to a certain degree anyway. I don't recall the particulars, but it also seemed at the time that the launcher/menu tool for creating & removing i/o's came from this same software workflow. When you add devices here, the connections are made automatically, and removed as well. Forgive me for the incorrect Scope nomenclature, it's the section you expand under the file/settings/etc menu area.
Realistically, when it comes to gear that isn't made to pander to the mass appeal sales, it's encumbant upon the engineer and/or musician to learn the particulars of a workflow and adapt tools to their chosen ways of doing things once you have a grasp on the fundamentals (and perhaps some mastery, eh?). So, we have each been able to point out our chosen workflows here, and what we understand about this tool (Scope) and the other tools that exist around it in the overall marketplace.
It's also worth noting that what we're covering here is completely consistent with what I outlined above in support of Gary's assertion that such tools are inefficient. The things that UAD is doing to adapt their software to their hardware indicates how they're currently having to overcome workflow issues that are faced in other DAWs, and that should suggest why XTC mode was frustrating for the developers and for users who were capable of managing things manually at the time (again, I recall and was there). I know for a fact that when every CPU cycle was precious (20 years ago), that I achieved more stability by creating all routing intentionally, by hand, and managing latencies that way. So I moved on and never used XTC mode again. We have resources to spare now, so I'm sure many of those things won't crop up with the frequency they did in the past, but those same issues are still present under the hood event today, as has been illustrated by the last few pages of this conversation. When you get to the point where the DSP meter is full, PCI limit is near capacity, and CPU load is high, it's going to be even more of a balancing act with XTC mode running. Probably less of an issue for PCIe users and Xite, but I have as of yet no experience there.
We're still well in the weeds here though, and since UAD+Luna already exists, it's quite possible that someone who wants an M1 Mac might do well to look at whether the workflow available there would suit them better. Or perhaps Sonic|Core will announce this new tool and it will also have some bearing on this discussion. Only time will tell.
The AU plugins are clearly disabled so that there are no round-trips back & forth across the system bus, which is sort of what dante is saying about how he would use XTC mode. He's also pointed out the multi-fx workflow used before to do this, and suggested making it standard. The issue here as I see it is that we'd then have a million threads like this with people complaining about them not working just like normal plugins, so it's unlikely you'll satisfy everyone with a single workflow integration.
The XTC mode project, if I recall, could be customized to a certain degree anyway. I don't recall the particulars, but it also seemed at the time that the launcher/menu tool for creating & removing i/o's came from this same software workflow. When you add devices here, the connections are made automatically, and removed as well. Forgive me for the incorrect Scope nomenclature, it's the section you expand under the file/settings/etc menu area.
Realistically, when it comes to gear that isn't made to pander to the mass appeal sales, it's encumbant upon the engineer and/or musician to learn the particulars of a workflow and adapt tools to their chosen ways of doing things once you have a grasp on the fundamentals (and perhaps some mastery, eh?). So, we have each been able to point out our chosen workflows here, and what we understand about this tool (Scope) and the other tools that exist around it in the overall marketplace.
It's also worth noting that what we're covering here is completely consistent with what I outlined above in support of Gary's assertion that such tools are inefficient. The things that UAD is doing to adapt their software to their hardware indicates how they're currently having to overcome workflow issues that are faced in other DAWs, and that should suggest why XTC mode was frustrating for the developers and for users who were capable of managing things manually at the time (again, I recall and was there). I know for a fact that when every CPU cycle was precious (20 years ago), that I achieved more stability by creating all routing intentionally, by hand, and managing latencies that way. So I moved on and never used XTC mode again. We have resources to spare now, so I'm sure many of those things won't crop up with the frequency they did in the past, but those same issues are still present under the hood event today, as has been illustrated by the last few pages of this conversation. When you get to the point where the DSP meter is full, PCI limit is near capacity, and CPU load is high, it's going to be even more of a balancing act with XTC mode running. Probably less of an issue for PCIe users and Xite, but I have as of yet no experience there.
We're still well in the weeds here though, and since UAD+Luna already exists, it's quite possible that someone who wants an M1 Mac might do well to look at whether the workflow available there would suit them better. Or perhaps Sonic|Core will announce this new tool and it will also have some bearing on this discussion. Only time will tell.
Re: Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
Valis you have missed the whole conversation and you post now this response which is irrevelant. If you like to contribute with something do it but if you don't understand the discussion you are not obliged to respond. we are not kiddies and we don't care for a moderator stepping in.
Re: Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
I don't struggle with latencies at all.
Yep I like great graphics, but the reason I use 2 DAWS is mainly about the sound. Telefunken - don't have any of their plugs. Change volume panorama (?) no clue what you're referring to there.fra77x2 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:48 pm He uses 2 daws and 3 different mixers because one mixer says it is a i don'tremember one the other has nice graphics and the third provides some unique capabilities like control of channel volume panorama and inserting fx...
He likes hardware with great names in it like MOOG, Neve and Telefunken that also offer real Analog summing (of course it is digital) but it has a great picture of a real analog console on the cover and it looks very good.
Re: Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
no clue?
you don't know volume? or panorama? i.e. pan, panning for the clueless
if you don't struggle with latencies then why you reply like this:
you don't know volume? or panorama? i.e. pan, panning for the clueless
if you don't struggle with latencies then why you reply like this:
we have started selling craziness now?confusing workflow - maybe, at least until you learn it. Then no more confusing than manually disabling things that cause latency when you don't need them.
Re: Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
What the **** are you talking about, I have missed the whole conversation?fra77x2 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:04 pm Valis you have missed the whole conversation and you post now this response which is irrevelant. If you like to contribute with something do it but if you don't understand the discussion you are not obliged to respond. we are not kiddies and we don't care for a moderator stepping in.
Re: Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
you have missed the conversation that is what the *.*.*.*. i am talking about. you don't remember who said what. what we are talking and you post irrelevant thoughts.
Re: Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
I saw what robinette said to you several pages back, have read posts back & forth between you & dante including your response about his belly vs. my shirt design. I called noone specifically out with my bold-text 'moderating' input, which was intended to separated that quite clearly from the rest of my text. If you feel slighted by that particular point, perhaps there's a bit of something sticking in your eye?
Beyond that, on the technical merits of M1 vs Intel, XTC vs Luna/UAD so on, please enlighten me as to where I have gaps in my ability to follow this conversation.
And in regards to my ability to participate in conversations where I both have a certain degree of control over the forums (which seems to be resulting in spending exhorbant amounts of time over the last year maintining server attack related issues due to this place, what fun), my moderating decisions, and an active interest in the subjects at hand....I am sure I am free to post as I see fit while also exercising my own discipline.
Beyond that, on the technical merits of M1 vs Intel, XTC vs Luna/UAD so on, please enlighten me as to where I have gaps in my ability to follow this conversation.
And in regards to my ability to participate in conversations where I both have a certain degree of control over the forums (which seems to be resulting in spending exhorbant amounts of time over the last year maintining server attack related issues due to this place, what fun), my moderating decisions, and an active interest in the subjects at hand....I am sure I am free to post as I see fit while also exercising my own discipline.
-
Bud Weiser
- Posts: 2687
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
- Location: nowhere land
Re: Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
Close this damn thread for everything not being related to Scope on ARM (Apple M1).
This is NOT because of Fra77x2´s posts !
It all went south much earlier and I think we ALL know SCOPE won´t run on Apple M1 "soon",- if at all.
All the discussion now belongs to OT because it became a discussion about other hardware- and software products vs. XITE and SCOPE and what else.
Bud
Re: Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
Again, I wasn't holding anyone specific accountable, if it seemed to be the case because I chose to speak up then then take my responses now at their face value.
I don't personally care if the thread OT as long as we're able to remain somewhat civil. But if the rest of you would like this closed, that can be done as well.
I don't personally care if the thread OT as long as we're able to remain somewhat civil. But if the rest of you would like this closed, that can be done as well.
Re: Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
it gets extremely tiring to recapitulate but i will try for the shake of it. after the discussion with robinette the diecussion went to several other "limitations" of scope as Dante put it. to most of these matters you agreed with dante by your responces.
uad offered an xtc like mode that has solved the problems of conjoining cpu and dsp processing without the latencies that xtc mode introduced in scope.
i posted the article of the uad support that informed the users that the introduced latencies were normal and dsp effects were suggested to be used in mxing mode.
after this users affirmed that the luna daw from uad has tigthly intergrated the daw to the dsps bypassing entirelly the point of interest....
another visit to luna guidelines informed thatbthis is npt the case. to aechive low latencies uad disables the au plugins during low latncy recording mode. So at the end all the limitations of scope appeared as a mwunderstanding of some users and scope xtc offered the same functionality one decade back. you continued to affirm that there is a close integration of the daw to the uad dsps while it was a mistake. these for now. during your speeches who are lengthy and verbalistic at times there are several innacuracies.
uad offered an xtc like mode that has solved the problems of conjoining cpu and dsp processing without the latencies that xtc mode introduced in scope.
i posted the article of the uad support that informed the users that the introduced latencies were normal and dsp effects were suggested to be used in mxing mode.
after this users affirmed that the luna daw from uad has tigthly intergrated the daw to the dsps bypassing entirelly the point of interest....
another visit to luna guidelines informed thatbthis is npt the case. to aechive low latencies uad disables the au plugins during low latncy recording mode. So at the end all the limitations of scope appeared as a mwunderstanding of some users and scope xtc offered the same functionality one decade back. you continued to affirm that there is a close integration of the daw to the uad dsps while it was a mistake. these for now. during your speeches who are lengthy and verbalistic at times there are several innacuracies.
Re: Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
i agree with Bud. close it
Re: Scope on ARM (Apple M1)
For the record, I am open to correction on inaccuracies, but other than the situation with M1/etc and stating that Intel's CPU's work similarly to RISC (this was a marketing oversimplification during the P4 era that isn't strictly true, as it's decoded into what are also called 'micro-ops' that are not full operands) I'm not sure where else I'm wildly inaccurate.
If your perception was that I am in 'agreement' with Dante, that's a mistake. I didn't agree nor disagree, though I did thank him for sharing his workflow. I have also pointed out that each tool is likely to work differently and that if we care about system load (like Gary does), we do our best to understand how tools are used and use them appropriately. This seems consistent both with putting Scope to proper use in the normal desktop mode, if one chooses to use XTC mode (in legacy Scope or new versions should that be resurrected as promised) or even Luna, a Metric Halo or what have you.
If your perception was that I am in 'agreement' with Dante, that's a mistake. I didn't agree nor disagree, though I did thank him for sharing his workflow. I have also pointed out that each tool is likely to work differently and that if we care about system load (like Gary does), we do our best to understand how tools are used and use them appropriately. This seems consistent both with putting Scope to proper use in the normal desktop mode, if one chooses to use XTC mode (in legacy Scope or new versions should that be resurrected as promised) or even Luna, a Metric Halo or what have you.