I'm very happy with my current Scope system but am not excited about leaving it at the rehearsal garage for my current music project or hauling it back & forth. So i'm looking at building a cheap PC around my second project card to capture via my A16 Ultra. I know 1156 and 775 processor systems are recommended, I'm seeing old Dell's for $50, just wondering if anyone has a hot tip of a solid inexpensive box that will work for this.
Thanks!
Steve
Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC
Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC
any 1156 or 775 box should work fine. i've been using HP XW4400s. i would be fine with a cheap 775 Dell, personally.
1366 and 1150 motherboards also have been good, almost every one....
1366 and 1150 motherboards also have been good, almost every one....
- Bud Weiser
- Posts: 2709
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
- Location: nowhere land
Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC
Gary,- I use socket 775 boards which work well, but their PCIe interface standard is 1.5.garyb wrote:any 1156 or 775 box should work fine. i've been using HP XW4400s. i would be fine with a cheap 775 Dell, personally.
1366 and 1150 motherboards also have been good, almost every one....
Just a question ...
XW4400s are PCIe standard 1.5 or 2.0 ?
I wonder if we could get more data throughput w/ XITE stock PCIe card when the mobo´s interface standard is 2.0.
I´m also in contact w/ developers using SDK by nature.
There´s the guess XITE PCIe x1 card, or better, the PCIe x1 interface itself is a bottleneck when it comes to SAT connections.
I wonder if there came a XITE PCIe card upgrade to PCIe x4, that might be an improvement.
Must have been supported by SCOPE software though,- so it´s just only a idea.
Dunno if the box itself or a HDMI cable would be on par though ...
Bud
S|C Scope/XITE-1 & S|C A16U, Scope PCI & CW A16U
Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC
afaik, sat connections are chip to chip, so no, the PCIe card shouldn't affect that. there are only so many connections available on each chip.
Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC
I have figured this wrong, thanks for the info.
Anyhow i think the connections and the possibilities are plenty in its current incarnation.
Anyhow i think the connections and the possibilities are plenty in its current incarnation.
Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC
i'm pretty sure that the info is correct. i agree, a good developer can make it work, no problem.
thanks for your efforts!
- Bud Weiser
- Posts: 2709
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
- Location: nowhere land
Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC
How comes I get DSP limit warnings in regards to missing connectivity between DSP #5 and #9 when there is evidently nothing assigned to any DSP in DSP slot 3 ?garyb wrote:afaik, sat connections are chip to chip, so no, the PCIe card shouldn't affect that. there are only so many connections available on each chip.
DSP #5 is the "communication" DSP for slot 3 and DSP #9 is chip No. 1 in slot 3.
Mixer device was manually assigned to DSP #10, which is chip No. 1 in slot 4.
Shroomz´ Can Control was manually assigned to DSP#2 serving XITE Phones Dest..
HPM Control Pack was assigned to DSP #7 being chip No.1 in slot 1.
No FX (insert or aux),- no synths, nothing and the mixer doesn´t spread across DSPs...
Only ASIO connected to 27 stereo channels of the mixer inputs and mixer main outs to HPM Control Pack, XITE analog outs and Shroomz´ CanControl connected to XITE Phones destination.
I´m testing CWM DAWmix32_1DSP on XITE-1.
Device not released yet.
Bud
S|C Scope/XITE-1 & S|C A16U, Scope PCI & CW A16U
Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC
why?
i don't know. there are many possibilities including the fact that those free devices weren't made on XITEs afaik.
i don't know. there are many possibilities including the fact that those free devices weren't made on XITEs afaik.
- Bud Weiser
- Posts: 2709
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
- Location: nowhere land
Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC
Who knows ?garyb wrote:why?
i don't know.
What´s the difference between SDK 4 and 5 and when developing on PCI cards vs XITE ?garyb wrote:
there are many possibilities including the fact that those free devices weren't made on XITEs afaik.
I´m learning ...
Forgot to mention, on XITE-1, the device designed to run on 1 (333MHz) DSP only, provides 1 stereo channel ASIO more vs. running on PCI card(s) even using SDK 4 for the design.
That´s a good result while OTOH, the intention is usage of 32 channels.
I get 27 stereo channels ASIO wired to the mixer on XITE, using a single chip only,- vs. 26 on PCI.
According to CWM, number of PCI cards might or doesn´t count w/ that mixer.
Now, when not forcing more ASIO but try to assign any ADAT channels to mixer channels 28-32, I get exactly the same DSP warning (no connections from DSP #5 to #9). No go.
Still weird because nothing´s assigned to DSP #9 (slot 3).
Bud
S|C Scope/XITE-1 & S|C A16U, Scope PCI & CW A16U
Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC
not necessarily a difference, but checking a device on XITE is a good way to be sure that it loads optimally.
who knows?
well....i don't....
the problem might be with a specific plugin, or a combination of plugins. analog devices doesn't even think that this many DSPs are even possible...
who knows?
well....i don't....
the problem might be with a specific plugin, or a combination of plugins. analog devices doesn't even think that this many DSPs are even possible...
Re: Cheap Scope compatible Garage PC
One major difference is that you can't actually use SDK4 with XITEBud Weiser wrote:What´s the difference between SDK 4 and 5 and when developing on PCI cards vs XITE ?
You can use the devices created using SDK4, but that makes testing a bit of a faff, as you'll need to switch Windows instances, as the SDK versions are driver-dependent. Plus you'd need to have PCI cards installed as well as the XITE.
All a bit of a shame given that SDK5 is a bit buggier than SDK4 from what I've been told by other devs. It's certainly plenty buggy in my experience anyway