Hi All,
I am Currently on the road to getting a Scope Project Card and just need some opinions where I am heading.
I have been Producing with DAW's (Cubase mainly) for 4 years and use "waves" Vst's for mixing / fx etc etc and other various Vsti's for synths and a crapload of sample cd's for kicks and perc. My point being I have never Delved into the Hardware / Dsp domain (Besides pluging in a Virus Ti).( I dont count myself as a Noob or a Pro, just somewhere in between but coser to noob.lol)
From the Info I have got from these forums and sales Staff at my local music shop this is why I think I will benifit from this card.
1.Scope Plugins work in a "similar" way to High End Hardware Racks, mabye not as good , but far better than Vst.
2.Works In a "Similar" way to how Pro tools HD cards do, Without forking out 10 Grand.
3.Good For a Live , no latency setup
4.When I get My Virus Ti I can use the S/Pdif port to keep everything in the Digital Domain.
(Am I Right In saying all of the Above)
I was thinking of Getting an MBOX 2 with an External FX rack and going down the pro tools path ,until I was Informed of the SCOPE. My main intrest in this is That I dont have to Change From Cubase.
I have been reading these forums for a while and am Aware that there is some intense Config needed to blend well with Cubase, But that Just makes me want it more cause Im a Tweakhead by nature.
I know It all Comes down to the User in the end but I guess tis is my main question.
"Does the SCOPE environment give a better quality output than a purely Software VST environment??"
e.g Is the SCOPE Panametric EQ Better than Waves Q10 vst in terms of sound quality output??
e.g Is the SCOPE Distortion Plugin Better than IZoTOPE TRASH vst ?? ( I know my Boss MT-2 Metal Zone pedal is better sounding than TRASH)
As you Can See I am on that Neverending Newbie mission to Find Quality.
I have seen lots of replies on other forums to questions like these reguarding sound Quality, and most of them are useless Replies because they say " It all comes back to your knowledge, you need to know what your doing, dance music is experimental" blah Blah. Im just looking for as straight an answer i can get.
Lets just pretend Im a Pro for the sake of the Above questions. Thanks in Advance For your input and I look forward to my SCOPE experience If it so turns out to be my weapon of choice.
Calling All Dance Music Freaks
yes, the scope environment is superior in sound quality.
as to particular plugs, well, use what you like. no reason not to use a vst if you like it, same with hardware. there's no reason not to use a vst. you won't need to to get a good result, though. there are a lot of scope plugins. there is certainly going to be something useful, that does what you need it to, but there are exceptions and variety is the spice of life. add to this, that there is no such thing as the "best" eq, reverb or anything. personally, i think waves plugins make everything sound small and sterile, i hate 'em, but i could do a good mix with them. scope's vinco(except for UA dsp 1176), bxdigital(one of the "best" mastering eqs that can be bought for any turnkey system, a list that includes DAS's mastering eq and Wolf's eq), optimaster, STW's P100 and A100, SPL's attacker and transient designer(yes, the same as the SPL hardware devices) have no analog in the vst world.
scope will make everything sound better if you mix and monitor there, including the vsts you use. you will be able to mix scope, vst and realworld devices in realtime. that alone makes it a no brainer.
this is my personal opinion, and that's backed up by those whom i've done work for in my studio, and clients whom i've built and/or maintained DAWs for and people who've heard the work that comes out of those DAWs...
how's the sales pitch?
here's another one.
what you really want is a machine that does the job. what they want to sell you is a toy that always needs to be rebought and refreshed. good gear never goes out of style, like a minimoog or a fender twin or a pbass. scope stuff is hardware. it is dsp chips that run most of the hardware in racks. even if you never update cubase, with scope you have a system that is the real thing, real gear. that machine will always be able to produce top quality work, if you are a top quality engineer. gladiator was mixed on scope, batman begins' synth tracks were our own John Bowen's quantum wave. two CW users have been nominated for grammys for best instrumental with tracks mixed in scope. a home studio can't do better, and that'll really always be the same even if there is a new product that's more price effective or convienient. good sound is always good sound.
ok, so much for the polemics, i hope that i have not been too general.
if it's too much hot air, please remember, you asked for it.
as to particular plugs, well, use what you like. no reason not to use a vst if you like it, same with hardware. there's no reason not to use a vst. you won't need to to get a good result, though. there are a lot of scope plugins. there is certainly going to be something useful, that does what you need it to, but there are exceptions and variety is the spice of life. add to this, that there is no such thing as the "best" eq, reverb or anything. personally, i think waves plugins make everything sound small and sterile, i hate 'em, but i could do a good mix with them. scope's vinco(except for UA dsp 1176), bxdigital(one of the "best" mastering eqs that can be bought for any turnkey system, a list that includes DAS's mastering eq and Wolf's eq), optimaster, STW's P100 and A100, SPL's attacker and transient designer(yes, the same as the SPL hardware devices) have no analog in the vst world.
scope will make everything sound better if you mix and monitor there, including the vsts you use. you will be able to mix scope, vst and realworld devices in realtime. that alone makes it a no brainer.
this is my personal opinion, and that's backed up by those whom i've done work for in my studio, and clients whom i've built and/or maintained DAWs for and people who've heard the work that comes out of those DAWs...
how's the sales pitch?
here's another one.
what you really want is a machine that does the job. what they want to sell you is a toy that always needs to be rebought and refreshed. good gear never goes out of style, like a minimoog or a fender twin or a pbass. scope stuff is hardware. it is dsp chips that run most of the hardware in racks. even if you never update cubase, with scope you have a system that is the real thing, real gear. that machine will always be able to produce top quality work, if you are a top quality engineer. gladiator was mixed on scope, batman begins' synth tracks were our own John Bowen's quantum wave. two CW users have been nominated for grammys for best instrumental with tracks mixed in scope. a home studio can't do better, and that'll really always be the same even if there is a new product that's more price effective or convienient. good sound is always good sound.
ok, so much for the polemics, i hope that i have not been too general.
if it's too much hot air, please remember, you asked for it.
I'll throw in my two cents.
The Creamware "PEQ-4" EQ is a standard digital EQ which has no character of its own really. It will benefit from higher samplerates.
There are however plenty of available EQs for the platform which will add its own sonic imprint. The De-vice' ISON EQ is highly recomended.
The Creamware standard distortion won't sound like your MT-2. I take it you are into metal distortion since you own this piece of filth, but I presume it will work great with the Dynatube (http://dynatube.creamware.com/) Mesa Rectifier as a booster/EQ pedal; distortion at min and EQ and level to your liking, as popularized by members of Cannibal Corpse.
If you'll provide a DI recording of your pedal I'll be glad to process them for you using Dynatube, or any plug-in really, to give you a better idea of the platforms sound.
Anyway, I.M.O. Scope has a superior sound to any native path I've tried and I do almost all my processing via DSP almost religiously.
The Creamware "PEQ-4" EQ is a standard digital EQ which has no character of its own really. It will benefit from higher samplerates.
There are however plenty of available EQs for the platform which will add its own sonic imprint. The De-vice' ISON EQ is highly recomended.
The Creamware standard distortion won't sound like your MT-2. I take it you are into metal distortion since you own this piece of filth
, but I presume it will work great with the Dynatube (http://dynatube.creamware.com/) Mesa Rectifier as a booster/EQ pedal; distortion at min and EQ and level to your liking, as popularized by members of Cannibal Corpse.If you'll provide a DI recording of your pedal I'll be glad to process them for you using Dynatube, or any plug-in really, to give you a better idea of the platforms sound.
Anyway, I.M.O. Scope has a superior sound to any native path I've tried and I do almost all my processing via DSP almost religiously.
Thanks for all the Awesome Feed back!! exactly what i was looking for.
All my questions are answered now its time to take Aim at my bank account with my SCOPE!! lol
Yeah the MT-2 is a leftover from my Death metal days lol... traded the guitar(bc rich WARLOCK
) in for a mixer and turntables and started dj'ing hardcore / hardstyle. Now im here and so is the MT-2 still. Works great for processing kick drums for these styles. Just looking for a bit more "Hardware" distortion to play with, so thats really a thing i would experiment with scope
I agree with the Comment on the Waves Vst's , so my main focus for the scope will be the eqing and mixing i would usually do with Waves vsts. Not to say that the Waves plugins are no good, I do think they have been the best ones that I have tried. By best I mean , output quality sounds best to me, does what i need it to do.
So thanks again For the info and Im sure I will be popping questions in the XTC section and reading these forums inside out
All my questions are answered now its time to take Aim at my bank account with my SCOPE!! lol
Yeah the MT-2 is a leftover from my Death metal days lol... traded the guitar(bc rich WARLOCK
) in for a mixer and turntables and started dj'ing hardcore / hardstyle. Now im here and so is the MT-2 still. Works great for processing kick drums for these styles. Just looking for a bit more "Hardware" distortion to play with, so thats really a thing i would experiment with scopeI agree with the Comment on the Waves Vst's , so my main focus for the scope will be the eqing and mixing i would usually do with Waves vsts. Not to say that the Waves plugins are no good, I do think they have been the best ones that I have tried. By best I mean , output quality sounds best to me, does what i need it to do.
So thanks again For the info and Im sure I will be popping questions in the XTC section and reading these forums inside out
Ahh Yes I see. I will be sure to experiment with everything I can do with this card and am now clawing my walls because I know My scope is sitting in the Shop that is 1.5 km from where i live.
Might go set up a tent out front to be there first in the morning cause theres only one left there
How long would I expect to wait to have one shipped to Australia ???
p.s Hubrid ... going to listen to your tracks now, looking forward to hearing them.
Might go set up a tent out front to be there first in the morning cause theres only one left there
How long would I expect to wait to have one shipped to Australia ???
p.s Hubrid ... going to listen to your tracks now, looking forward to hearing them.
"Does the SCOPE environment give a better quality output than a purely Software VST environment??"
Yes, especially, if you keep some effects (like compressors, but probably also verbs and other effects) in your Scope Mix, until you make the final stereo track, then the sound is perfect: as you hear it in scope, and as "big" and "fat"...
This cures the artefacts you get on attacks when recording compressed sounds in a vst sequencer working at 44.1/16 bit (it has less "resolution" than Scope's 44.1/32 bit, and the difference is more than ovious).
e.g Is the SCOPE Panametric EQ Better than Waves Q10 vst in terms of sound quality output??
I think it is different. I use both. I use Q10 when the track is already in an audio track in the vst sequencer. PEQ4 is very powerful and has a sweet sound: it is in scope, and sounds better, I especially like the "notch" filter ( a basic band reject filter). The Q10 is more "clinical" (and much more useful than cubase Eq's, so it is good to have).. (in fact i never use Q10, I often use 1 or 2 Q3 ).
e.g Is the SCOPE Distortion Plugin Better than IZoTOPE TRASH vst ?? ( I know my Boss MT-2 Metal Zone pedal is better sounding than TRASH)
.. don't know...
Yes, especially, if you keep some effects (like compressors, but probably also verbs and other effects) in your Scope Mix, until you make the final stereo track, then the sound is perfect: as you hear it in scope, and as "big" and "fat"...
This cures the artefacts you get on attacks when recording compressed sounds in a vst sequencer working at 44.1/16 bit (it has less "resolution" than Scope's 44.1/32 bit, and the difference is more than ovious).
e.g Is the SCOPE Panametric EQ Better than Waves Q10 vst in terms of sound quality output??
I think it is different. I use both. I use Q10 when the track is already in an audio track in the vst sequencer. PEQ4 is very powerful and has a sweet sound: it is in scope, and sounds better, I especially like the "notch" filter ( a basic band reject filter). The Q10 is more "clinical" (and much more useful than cubase Eq's, so it is good to have).. (in fact i never use Q10, I often use 1 or 2 Q3 ).
e.g Is the SCOPE Distortion Plugin Better than IZoTOPE TRASH vst ?? ( I know my Boss MT-2 Metal Zone pedal is better sounding than TRASH)
.. don't know...
Last edited by spacef on Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
yes, that's really easy with Scope - just add some Adat IO box like the A16, Fostex or Behringer 8000 etc. If you're on the lo-fi side you don'rt even need to invest a fortune.Stompa81 wrote:... Now im here and so is the MT-2 still. Works great for processing kick drums for these styles. Just looking for a bit more "Hardware" distortion to play with, so thats really a thing i would experiment with scope
...
I'm using an old A16 for that purpose, specially with trashy reverbs like bucket brigades and 12 bit things, whatever comes along...
It's one of the biggest advantages of Scope that the integration of outboard stuff is so intuitive. Pick an Adat channel for output, name it MT-2 send, pick another one for input, name it MT-2 return, and you can route whatever is in your project to the pedal (the names are just to keep things neat...)
Imho such gear really has it's own sound character and adds to the overall 'picture'
cheers, Tom
Then you will be wanting to run SFP mode.Stompa81 wrote:
.... so my main focus for the scope will be the eqing and mixing i would usually do with Waves vsts. .....
Once you get your shiny new Scope project card, keep an eye out for a second (second hand) project/pulsar2 (they are the same) or Scope pro/power pulsar (15DSP boards) to expand your DSP's as you may find that 6DSP's may be limiting once you get the hang of the system. The good thing is you should be able to get second hand cards relatively cheaply. Just avoid the old 4DSP cards.
Anyway, if you are a bit of a tech head, then I think you'll get a lot out of the scope system.
Stuart.
Yeah I was wondering how 6 DSP's would Travel for dance tunes. Because Ive got really No idea How Much "DSP SPACE" (i suppose u would call it) is avaiable when using Scope Eq's Comp's Reverb's etc etc.
Typically @ the end of a Tune I have around 20-30 Tracks all with at least 1 EQ and 1 Comp as a minimun on each.
So combining it With the Lunar or Pulsar will Expand my "DSP SPACE" without stepping up to the PRO model, cool i was wondering this.
As i live in Australia and these Scene here is as big as an ANT, I doubt Im going to Find A Pulsar around here.
So what would be best X-pansion to buy for my "Dance Music" environment if i cant find a pulsar?? (i was thinking a scope FX, or even anoter Scope Project Card??)
Typically @ the end of a Tune I have around 20-30 Tracks all with at least 1 EQ and 1 Comp as a minimun on each.
So combining it With the Lunar or Pulsar will Expand my "DSP SPACE" without stepping up to the PRO model, cool i was wondering this.
As i live in Australia and these Scene here is as big as an ANT, I doubt Im going to Find A Pulsar around here.
So what would be best X-pansion to buy for my "Dance Music" environment if i cant find a pulsar?? (i was thinking a scope FX, or even anoter Scope Project Card??)
-
hubird
More is always better, and 6 is restricting anyway..
But before buying something you could rethink your effects setup.
At least compressors are DSP hungry.
I wouldn't put a (insert) compressor on every track you have to begin with.
You will use compressing in the masterchain anyway, don't you?
A limiter could be more usefull if your tracks tend to have loud sparcs.
And if you really think you need to use effects on every track, you better try 'grouping' channels that use about the same settings of an effect, and load the effect in the group channel's insert.
Sequencers often offer dedicated group tracks, in Scope you can use the project and mixer routing options to create bundled tracks
Ebay or Planetz purchasing will be fine
But before buying something you could rethink your effects setup.
At least compressors are DSP hungry.
I wouldn't put a (insert) compressor on every track you have to begin with.
You will use compressing in the masterchain anyway, don't you?
A limiter could be more usefull if your tracks tend to have loud sparcs.
And if you really think you need to use effects on every track, you better try 'grouping' channels that use about the same settings of an effect, and load the effect in the group channel's insert.
Sequencers often offer dedicated group tracks, in Scope you can use the project and mixer routing options to create bundled tracks
Ebay or Planetz purchasing will be fine
My main use for Compression is For kicks and reverse bass, to get the pumpy characteristic of the hardstyle bassline, to help them sit together nicely in the mix,
Yes I always thought my approach to producing / mixing was a bit, well, not really thought out too well. I used to go with Group FX until some ppl suggest i try seperate fx for every track and i guess thats where my bad habbit of too many FX.
I guess ive never really had to think too hard about that when using VSTS because my system holds up pretty well with lots of tracks and lots of VST's , but i suppose this all changes in the DSP world.
Damn i not going to get anything done @ work now cause ill be thinking about this all day!!
Any more suggestions on my approach to making tunes are greatly appriciated, as i have done no courses, only read books and forums , advice from other producers really helps!!
Thanks for the Tip
Yes I always thought my approach to producing / mixing was a bit, well, not really thought out too well. I used to go with Group FX until some ppl suggest i try seperate fx for every track and i guess thats where my bad habbit of too many FX.
I guess ive never really had to think too hard about that when using VSTS because my system holds up pretty well with lots of tracks and lots of VST's , but i suppose this all changes in the DSP world.
Damn i not going to get anything done @ work now cause ill be thinking about this all day!!
Any more suggestions on my approach to making tunes are greatly appriciated, as i have done no courses, only read books and forums , advice from other producers really helps!!
Thanks for the Tip
Last edited by Stompa81 on Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
hubird
less is more, and you don't loose gripp on everything so soon if you keep things compact.
What if you decide to lower your overall compressor levels because you think you've overdone it?
You easily can destroy your former balances.
A friend of mine always wants totall controll, even every single drumsound has it's own dedicated channel.
He never finishes a song
I often bundle synth tracks to one Vinco insert, to spice the power up, instead of compressing each track apart (in favour of all the nice transients
A mastercompressor compresses the overall level(s), according to the natural level differences and flow of the track.
This will give you a more vivid and coherent mix then the other way around imho.
What if you decide to lower your overall compressor levels because you think you've overdone it?
You easily can destroy your former balances.
A friend of mine always wants totall controll, even every single drumsound has it's own dedicated channel.
He never finishes a song
I often bundle synth tracks to one Vinco insert, to spice the power up, instead of compressing each track apart (in favour of all the nice transients
A mastercompressor compresses the overall level(s), according to the natural level differences and flow of the track.
This will give you a more vivid and coherent mix then the other way around imho.
Last edited by hubird on Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm no expert on that particular style you produce, but I'm damn sure this particular synth will be extremely useful... (I just spent an hour or so ..)
check out the OP8 by Wavelenght
it's like the user interface - get it straight, hard and distorted - with some sounds (and modulations) you'd probably never expect from softsynths, light on DSP - heavy in sound
with the right knobs tweaking it can morph a bassline into a drumtrack...
I just mention it here as it's not the most obvious thing to find
cheers, Tom
check out the OP8 by Wavelenght
it's like the user interface - get it straight, hard and distorted - with some sounds (and modulations) you'd probably never expect from softsynths, light on DSP - heavy in sound
with the right knobs tweaking it can morph a bassline into a drumtrack...
I just mention it here as it's not the most obvious thing to find
cheers, Tom
hey there,
i make dance music with scope, vsts, some hardware here and there and anything i can get my hands on...
i do most of my fx editing and synth work with vst and native stuff, but scope is still by far my favorite piece of gear.
i don't use sfp much for "bread and butter" stuff like some here do, but that's the strength of this platform, its just such a complete package, whatever your needs are you will find something in scope to satisfy them.
the modular just never stops amazing me even after making 7384303 patches.
i absolutly love this platform and swear by it
i make dance music with scope, vsts, some hardware here and there and anything i can get my hands on...
i do most of my fx editing and synth work with vst and native stuff, but scope is still by far my favorite piece of gear.
i don't use sfp much for "bread and butter" stuff like some here do, but that's the strength of this platform, its just such a complete package, whatever your needs are you will find something in scope to satisfy them.
the modular just never stops amazing me even after making 7384303 patches.
i absolutly love this platform and swear by it
Scope, Android, Web, PC Plugins and Sounds:
http://www.oceanswift.net
Music
https://faxinadu.bandcamp.com/
http://www.oceanswift.net
Music
https://faxinadu.bandcamp.com/
make sure you get something bigger than 6DSP, if you wanna use some synth stuff. And I swear you will !
as you are into hardcore and hardfloor, the scope synths will fit very will. They all have a very fat and analog rich sound which makes it easy to cut through the mix.
basically in Scope you will find less tools than in the vst domain. But thats a plus point. All the tools are of a very high quality. you are limited to high quality stuff.
Second its better to have a few high class tools than endless "medium quality VST plus"
Mixing in scope is generally sounding much better....
Its cleaner sounding.... comps will have more punch....
for kicks you will be pretty happy I`m sure. The sidechain faeture is also easy to use (much easier than in VST domain)
and don`t forget this nice community here.... friendly, with much skill and experience.
With have a good time over here.
So prepare your weapons and join us....
as you are into hardcore and hardfloor, the scope synths will fit very will. They all have a very fat and analog rich sound which makes it easy to cut through the mix.
basically in Scope you will find less tools than in the vst domain. But thats a plus point. All the tools are of a very high quality. you are limited to high quality stuff.
Second its better to have a few high class tools than endless "medium quality VST plus"
Mixing in scope is generally sounding much better....
Its cleaner sounding.... comps will have more punch....
for kicks you will be pretty happy I`m sure. The sidechain faeture is also easy to use (much easier than in VST domain)
and don`t forget this nice community here.... friendly, with much skill and experience.
With have a good time over here.
So prepare your weapons and join us....
-
hubird
perfect advice, the low-fi (SID) settings make the synth perfectly fit with my MachineDrum and MonoMachine, which offer also the SID 'machine' (Elektron term).astroman wrote:check out the OP8 by Wavelenght
The only thing is, it made me just spend another USD117,- out of the blue
Just on base of the mp3 samples on Stephan's site
Now that John B. has cancled his 8 operators FM project, I think I can let out my second choice for it.
I'm not sure if I was inspired by the OP8 without realizing it, I even forgot when OP8 is released, but this was my 2nd choice:
OPR8R.
But my nr. 1 is really killing