16 simultaneous tracks

[Strictly East]

After 5 months with my xite 1 and scope 7, I've just about mastered the beast, and despite the differences with the scope 5.1, it's running well .
I've been looking for a solution on my own (I was afraid of getting caught by the horrible bud weiser ).
But I can't find a solution, I've got an A16 ultra, on scope 5.1 I could do 16 simultaneous tracks, but my scope project didn't work at all on scope 7, so I use the stm buses, but I'm limited to 8, which didn't cause me any problems until now, but now I have to increase the number of tracks.

[garyb]

use direct outs on the stm 2448/4896....
busses are great, but you don't need to bus all inputs...

[Strictly East]

Yes, my scope 5.1 project was like that, but on the 7, I get a "capacity limit reached" when I connect the last output.
But if I connect the last output to a bus, I don't get an error message.

[Bud Weiser]

I've been looking for a solution on my own (I was afraid of getting caught by the horrible bud weiser ).

thank you !

Bud

[yayajohn]

yeah 96khz kind of sucks the life out of Scope. (and your DAW) 48 is a lot better if you can swing it.

[Strictly East]

OK, thanks, I've always worked in 48 khz, but I said to myself the Xite is a beast, let's go crazy, let's go in 96...

[nebelfuerst]

Although I also stay in 44/48, you might try DSP allocation to get it working.
But this might become pretty complicated when loading much more devices into scope, as the project grows.

[garyb]

96k uses double resources, and some of the dsp resources(connections between dsps especially), are quite limited. this has nothing to do with the number of dsps. the order devices are loaded in =can make a big difference, as there can be quite a bit of dsp sharing with bigger devices.

it will be unpopular for me to say this, but if you cannot make a great-sounding production with 44.1k, then 96k won't make it into a hit.

if you will end in 44.1k for a standard wav file, then 48k does not help. in fact, dounsampling from 48 to 44.1 will do damage to the file(probably inaudibally). it's worse if you go from 96k to 48 or 44.1k. if you end up in an mp3, then high samplerates are a complete waste, unless you use a lot of very bad plugins that have poorly designed filters.

[valis]

Scope devices also oversample internally where needed (filters, oscs) with the exception of VERY old devices (2.x era and some 3rd party), as do almost all native plugins in the last decade or so. You have to go back to prior to 2002 for this to not be the case (in terms of plugin release dates etc) so 96Khz is not necessary, even for audio that will wind up played back at that rate 48khz is sufficient.

The only other reason people record at higher samplerates is when using mic arrays for things like orchestras it can make a difference. This is because the filter 'sound' of 128 mic channels running at 48khz may actually create enough cumulative ringing to be objectionable while mixing (it can still be corrected). 300+ mics are especially a concern. 16 channels should not be a concern at all for this.

[Bud Weiser]

it will be unpopular for me to say this, but if you cannot make a great-sounding production with 44.1k, then 96k won't make it into a hit.

if you will end in 44.1k for a standard wav file, then 48k does not help. in fact, dounsampling from 48 to 44.1 will do damage to the file(probably inaudibally). it's worse if you go from 96k to 48 or 44.1k. if you end up in an mp3, then high samplerates are a complete waste, unless you use a lot of very bad plugins that have poorly designed filters.

I can only agree !
With the native DAW applications, for me, the best results were 44.1K / 32Bit float.
That´s what I use(d) w/ SCOPE, Reaper, Studio One and Reason.



Bud

[Strictly East]

It's a guy thing, having the biggest Khz , indeed, my old ears can't tell the difference between 48 and 96.
Thank you all...