Scope on ARM (Apple M1)

[valis]

UAD's 'baked in' approach was to offer only a single buffer size if I recall. I'm not sure how that really solves the hurdles of bus contention for resources though, it just simplifies their handling of PDC as I outlined above. It looks like a fine tool for tracking and mixing, don't get me wrong.

Now I suppose you could handle ALL processing on the DSP, and eliminate the system bus aside from delivering disk data and returning a final output, but doesn't that seem like we've gone totally back in time now? Intel was keen on integrating FPGA's for a reason, the utility of being able to do discrete signal processing extends well beyond us music mavens, and having those resources be as local as possible seems like it likely solves a lot of these issues.

[dante]

It looks like a fine tool for tracking and mixing, don't get me wrong.

One of the biggies is that each insert is no longer its own trip back and forth from the DAW. With LUNA it's one trip to the DSP for ALL inserts on a track. That's how it reaches beyond my Reason scenario above.

But beyond tracking/mixing : Summing - thats the bit Im keen to try out.

As for the DAW itself, its not mature enough to be an all in one solution. Many are using thier fave tracking/arrangement native DAWS (S1, Logic, Live etc) then stemming to LUNA for final mix/neve or API summing - because of its sound. Similar to what myself and others are doing now w/- Harrison as the finaliser.

[robinette]

I don´t find the post a.t.m,- but some time ago, someone talked to S|C support and reported here in the forum, S|C is working on something which might need about 1 year until release and working on Mac.
He also reported it won´t be SCOPE and SCOPE, as we know it, will never be available for Mac.
When I read, I said to myself "they´re juming on the ARM (M1) train now, but w/ a new and different software product".

Interesting what you say. Like you I have not found anything about that publication. If someone finds her to pass the link through this thread please.

As for the original theme of the thread and what it is deriving from, it is logical. It is closely related.
I am learning quite a bit from some interventions and I am grateful for it.

I think what Dante has been explaining about its use with UAD is similar to what I have referred to in previous posts. UAD has managed to develop a DSP platform that is fully coordinated with the native environment. It can be said that UAD is able to be used with its "XTC mode" and "Classic mode" simultaneously.
That is what makes the platform useful to work entirely ITB, without having to carry physical or virtual cables. It is transparent to the user. And it has shown that it is possible to perform with the Shark.
It can be said that this operation would also be positive for Scope, although I know that Scope is more complex. Just thinking about the variety of devices that gives life to Scope, it can be deduced that it is very difficult for it to be able to operate as UAD

I'm also left with Gary's response regarding Holger's expectations and wishes for Scope. Glad to hear that Holger is "more motivated than depressed" when it comes to pulling the car. It's good news.

Thank you.

[dante]

Scope can already achieve effects in series all being processed on DSP without round trip to DAW, but only in Scope mode. In XTC mode it wont be able to achieve that because of the native DAW (unless that MultiFX thing can do it). Thats where Julian's ParseQ would have been awesome - to have full control of how many round trips chaining would use per track. The other trick Luna does is that all PDC calculations take place on the DSP - even co-ordinating latency with native plugs.

[fra77x2]

https://help.uaudio.com/hc/en-us/articl ... in-my-DAW-

[robinette]

https://help.uaudio.com/hc/en-us/articl ... in-my-DAW-

This article basically confirms that the UAD-2 cards work as if they were the "XTC mode" while the Apollo DSP's can be used ALSO similar to the "classic mode".
That's why I mentioned earlier that if the Apollo DSPs can be used in "XTC mode" and "classic mode" simultaneously, Scope should be able to do it too (although this includes some kind of limitation).
In XTC mode, the Scope Fusion Platform should remain off and unable to interact with it. However, in Console 2 you can interact at the same time that you can use UAD plugins in mix ("XTC mode" to call it that).
The limitation would be maybe (I don't know if it would be like that, I just digress) not being able to switch mixers in Scope's XTC mode. However, it should be possible to insert FX into the mixer to monitor recordings for example (similar to how Console 2 does in Apollo).
Now, I know that this would not solve the use of synths and MIDI in real time unless you can interact directly in the Scope Routing Window, since inserting them in XTC mode would add latency (as with the UAD-2s).

A greeting.

[fra77x2]

This article confirms that most of you continue to talk BS all these days and denying to understand simple english.

[dante]

Getting my head around UAD ARM (not to be confused with Apple ARM). Might be useful in taking a step back from comparisons to Scope modes.

https://help.uaudio.com/hc/en-us/articl ... Monitoring

[robinette]

Getting my head around UAD ARM (not to be confused with Apple ARM). Might be useful in taking a step back from comparisons to Scope modes.

https://help.uaudio.com/hc/en-us/articl ... Monitoring

ARM UAD mode is a Luna-only feature. Basically it embeds the Console 2 functionalities inside Luna. But only with Luna.
However, in any other DAW, an Apollo interface can work by inserting FX into the tracks of a mixing session (similar to "XTC mode"), or it can work by monitoring a "zero latency" recording through Console 2 ( similar to how "classic mode" works). ALL AT THE SAME TIME, without selecting a button (ARM) and without distinguishing and interleaving between one mode and another.
So I think if Apollo can, Scope should also be able to do it simultaneously.

This article confirms that most of you continue to talk BS all these days and denying to understand simple english.

That article means that you are making the same argument and putting the same example that some of us are talking about here. However, even if you are following the same argument, you are not really talking about the same thing.
You are in your own conversation. And worst of all, is that instead of trying to put yourself in a situation and show empathy, you dedicate yourself to spilling hints, trying to make a fool of whoever you are interested in in front of everyone else.
It seems to me an ungracious behavior on your part.
Let us try to respect others. Please.
If you have something to clarify, do it without going around. Be direct. I will appreciate it (my English is too simple).

A greeting.

[valis]

He's being curt with you because there hasn't been anyone claiming this was an impossibility with A.D. chips. I can provide links to software that do amazing things with the GPU, and ask SonicCore to give me those same features. Does that mean it will be simple?

Surprising hint here, there are visual features that exist in the codebase (check the SDK) that are relatively untapped with most of our devices and Scope UI's. That doesn't however mean that porting GSGL or FFGl shaders to function within Scope is something that will be simple.

Also the Luna software's (currently) fixed i/o buffer simplified implementing things like the ARM feature. Also Luna isn't (yet?) a full DAW, which again simplifies this situation.

VDAT is and was a great tool, and having something similar now would benefit some users so this subject comes up from time to time. People have also mentioned how nice it would be for Scope to have a DAW as well. You'll note that Luna's limited featureset is a byproduct of their core focus having been the DSP software & hardware they make, and focusing on getting certain things working as a priority.

I'm at risk of again enabling a loop we've already been through a few times. Expanding a business model & codebase are great to think about, but they need to have some degree of success to make it worthwhile versus other things that compete for time/energy/money, and be done in a mageable, sensible manner. Some here have surmised that SonicCore might have other commitments besides just us, and I tend to think this might be the case as well. I do hope the people waiting on XTC mode get their request, and if Frank is able to integrate it again in a way that solves some of these issues, great. None of this has anything to do with Arm M1 at this point though.

[Bud Weiser]

I do hope the people waiting on XTC mode get their request, and if Frank is able to integrate it again in a way that solves some of these issues, great.

Frank ???
Frank who ?

None of this has anything to do with Arm M1 at this point though.

^^^^^
THIS !



Bud

[valis]

Hah! What a slip, I meant Holger of course

My diction was otherwise surprisingly still ok considering I had 2 children running around distracting me every half sentence.

[fra77x2]

In this forum there are a lot of non-experts posing as ones. They get their education from advertisment leaflets.
I am out of here... Also the T-shirt shucks... who designed it? Who is the one with the beer belly?

[Bud Weiser]

That´s what social media lives from and is not urgently related to PlanetZ !
Go to the other forums or facebook and have a look what they type there ...

When everyone w/ a computer in his bedroom can be a composer, producer and artist,- even a star,- just because uploading enough mediocre music and youtube vids while waiting for enough clicks,- he can also be an expert.
Leaves the question what kind of expert ...
I can also imagine there might be some being unable reading advertisement leafets at all.
And they possibly don´ have to because they already make their income w/ advertisements, respectively "clicks".
At least for me a strange way making cash as a musician going that long way round.

Times changed !

Anyway,- PlanetZ is a good place still.
I got lots of useful info and help here !



Bud

[robinette]

In this forum there are a lot of non-experts posing as ones. They get their education from advertisment leaflets.
I am out of here... Also the T-shirt shucks... who designed it? Who is the one with the beer belly?

Indeed... as far as I am concerned I am not an expert (far from it), so I invite you again to give us light with your extensive knowledge, since so far the only thing that you have proven to be a true expert is trying to ridicule other users.

Expanding a business model & codebase are great to think about, but they need to have some degree of success to make it worthwhile versus other things that compete for time/energy/money, and be done in a mageable, sensible manner. Some here have surmised that SonicCore might have other commitments besides just us, and I tend to think this might be the case as well.

That's what I'm referring to. To the possibility of expanding the platform supporting a new OS with a true future projection. There's no more.
It's clear that SonicCore has to weigh the costs / benefits. And what I have come to say here is that I am convinced that the benefit was going to be enormous for SonicCore ... although the previous costs were also expensive.
Life for the PlanetZ niche would remain the same within the same tools and OS, but it would open a huge appendix to which new users would join for the new OS's.
I just think that.

Anyway, I am aware that they are only about wishes. I know there is complexity in all of this. What I wanted to bring here with my wish is to know if within this small great niche of Scope there are users with the same concerns and desires or if the vast majority prefer to continue as before.

Most of my doubts have already been cleared up. Other doubts I think that only Holger would clarify for me by having a coffee together.
As far as I'm concerned, the thread can be closed.

Many thanks to all the participants ... (to all).

Greetings and until next time.

[fra77x2]

ARM UAD mode is a Luna-only feature. Basically it embeds the Console 2 functionalities inside Luna. But only with Luna.
However, in any other DAW, an Apollo interface can work by inserting FX into the tracks of a mixing session (similar to "XTC mode"), or it can work by monitoring a "zero latency" recording through Console 2 ( similar to how "classic mode" works). ALL AT THE SAME TIME, without selecting a button (ARM) and without distinguishing and interleaving between one mode and another.
So I think if Apollo can, Scope should also be able to do it simultaneously.

ALL AT THE SAME TIME,

So I think if Apollo can, Scope should also be able to do it simultaneously.

Yes it can. In "xtc" mode Scope runs at the background -when the DAW is launched- a Scope project named XTCProject.
Currently it is not possible because the two modes are mutually exclusive but the actual hardware and software allows it.
But who needs this? Because another product works this way it does not mean it is something that is good to do. Actually it is wrong because the whole point is to be able to use something with minimal latency. I turn the knob and I hear the result. This during tracking and mixing.

How embarrasing for UAD to make all this new hardware and then obliged to suggest that "use the UAD dsp effects only in a mixing session". For tracking, change mode...

"You get latency because of the round trip, the expensive toy you bought is not broken"

complete BS. Find a methodology that during tracking and mixing we use the same facilities. How often i do tracking while mixing? Well quite often...This is how Scope works from 2001.

In general a small company is an easy target for people to harass. But there are plenty of users that use this hardware and software for what it provides.

[Berny Shoes]

Ok. Just got off the phone. Called their offices. I live in Denmark which is just "on top" of Germany.

The polite guy I talked to said that there will be no support for mac with scope (at least he said that it didnt really make sense).
Bohoooo:(

But I have got some very exiting news!
They are working on a new product. He said that he hoped they would release it within a year or two.
It probably would not be directly compatible with scope, but would be built around the same flexible architecture. Would allow 3rd party developers for plugins etc. The old dsp plugins should generally be compatible, but would need conversion etc.
This unit would be mac compatible.

This was all him just speaking of the top of his head, so expect things to be very different in the end, but it was super nice to hear!
I got all nostalgic talking to a guy from SonicCore. I want to work there now:)

I'm pretty beefed up now! I could go back to Soniccore eventually.
Was great to talk to him.
Weird how a piece of hardware or software can hold so much emotional power. It's like listening to old records I listened to in my youth. Somehow a part of my life is tied up in the scope platform. I'm weird!

Have a great day.

[fra77x2]

And now that I read about UAD Luna

Notes on plug-in processing:

Only UAD plug-ins can be monitored on a record-enabled track when Accelerated Realtime Monitoring is enabled. When you enable ARM, any Audio Unit plug-ins on a record or input-enabled track are disabled.
When you add an Audio Unit plug-in to a record or input-enabled track when ARM is enabled, the plug-in is added in an inactive state, and LUNA displays a notification that the plug-in is disabled.

So are you kidding me?

Close intergration? It is the same thing disguised with different colors. "ARM" activate it, deactivate it...

It supports AU plugins but treats them as opposed. (they disable them).

What to say all this noise for something without any advantage, only a degradation of functionality and a confusing workflow.

Bravo guys you catched the fish again.

[dante]

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. Seems to me all they're trying to do is put a framework around managing latency by handling roundtrips internally and at the user level - 'modes'. No difference for me since already using 1 DAW for tracking / arranging - then another for mix/master. I don't see this duality going away anytime soon.

[fra77x2]

You use two DAWs? Bravo. Very convenient.

Then no more confusing than manually disabling things that cause latency when you don't need them

If you don't need them why are there?

If I put an au effect on my recording bus most probable is that I want to hear it. Otherwise why I put it there?

In general I rest my case. Do as you please. I doubt you can understand what I am talking about anyway.