The latency is the overall combined latency of all delayed signals in the signal path. If you use Waves L3 (non-LL version) on the master bus or another latent mastering plugin, and an admixture of IR/convolution plugins for things like cab sims on busses or AUXES, it's the same overall delay for your project as XTC mode plugins.
Meaning, individual channels can simply 'read data earlier' to compensate, but the overall signal path matters.
VST 2.0 in Cubase 14
Re: VST 2.0 in Cubase 14
yeah well, i think a bit more or less latency does not matter - realtime in a daw does not happen unless it's pro tools hd, or a "bare" scope platform.
i was referring to xtc issues in general and wanted to pinpoint that response time of xtc plugs is extremely short, that is, talking about roundtrip to a pulsar card... the other thing is how daw's latency compensation engine is implemented as sometimes past some value it gets clicky in Sequoia/Samplitude if XTC is around together with other high latency plugs
i was referring to xtc issues in general and wanted to pinpoint that response time of xtc plugs is extremely short, that is, talking about roundtrip to a pulsar card... the other thing is how daw's latency compensation engine is implemented as sometimes past some value it gets clicky in Sequoia/Samplitude if XTC is around together with other high latency plugs

Re: VST 2.0 in Cubase 14
If you use three XTC plugins in series, what hapoens?
Re: VST 2.0 in Cubase 14
For each round trip the latency doubles.
Of course XTC mode is workable, as I have said I have tested it a lot and COS and VOID runs in XTC mode. Yes each multifx uses one round trip. With conservative usage of effects it works ok as a toy. But is it a good workflow to rely on? To suggest to users? Is it professional and I do not care about UAD or tc powercore which were made to exploit the dsp hype and the "big names" but had to comply with the vst market and this lead to compromising choices. Can you compare the performance of scope itself were you add modules and the latency stays the same? Do you have to think when doing a recording session the latency of each effect when scope itself can provide the best performance if used right?
Low latency is very important and makes the system feel and perform professionally. I get very low latency in everything these days, in windows beneath asio I also use WASAPI with 132 samples latency. In my old android tablet 240 samles latency for my synths and modular.
With scope I make my whole production and I never compensate for latency manually.
Reaper works with 5% cpu, the whole system flies in an 12 years old laptop. This is a system I can rely and feel proud of. XTC is ok because it saves everything inside one project but this leaves the scope in reality unutilised. Personally I use scope for its modular environment that runs on dsps.
The setups I make in this modular fashion are extremely complicated to be programmed in a daw due to complicated ad hoc subgrouping.
So. XTC mode can work but I do not recommend it and I consider it a poor choice for scope owners because the real power of the system is unused. For me it would be better to work straight in a daw. I don't think vst and scope effects have any particular difference. But I don't use vsts except mine devices and only scope effects which I consider ok to work with.
Also please do not try for half an hour to run xtc mode. Please find another way or do something else.
Of course XTC mode is workable, as I have said I have tested it a lot and COS and VOID runs in XTC mode. Yes each multifx uses one round trip. With conservative usage of effects it works ok as a toy. But is it a good workflow to rely on? To suggest to users? Is it professional and I do not care about UAD or tc powercore which were made to exploit the dsp hype and the "big names" but had to comply with the vst market and this lead to compromising choices. Can you compare the performance of scope itself were you add modules and the latency stays the same? Do you have to think when doing a recording session the latency of each effect when scope itself can provide the best performance if used right?
Low latency is very important and makes the system feel and perform professionally. I get very low latency in everything these days, in windows beneath asio I also use WASAPI with 132 samples latency. In my old android tablet 240 samles latency for my synths and modular.
With scope I make my whole production and I never compensate for latency manually.
Reaper works with 5% cpu, the whole system flies in an 12 years old laptop. This is a system I can rely and feel proud of. XTC is ok because it saves everything inside one project but this leaves the scope in reality unutilised. Personally I use scope for its modular environment that runs on dsps.
The setups I make in this modular fashion are extremely complicated to be programmed in a daw due to complicated ad hoc subgrouping.
So. XTC mode can work but I do not recommend it and I consider it a poor choice for scope owners because the real power of the system is unused. For me it would be better to work straight in a daw. I don't think vst and scope effects have any particular difference. But I don't use vsts except mine devices and only scope effects which I consider ok to work with.
Also please do not try for half an hour to run xtc mode. Please find another way or do something else.
Re: VST 2.0 in Cubase 14
Yes this was my point, exactly. PLUS any internal overhead in your mix path within the app.
No software DAW is zero latency internally. There's always something equivalent to a mix buffer, and to ease CPU load and issues most modern DAWs have replicated the mix/live monitoring buffer situation (Cubase, Logic, Studio One, Samplitude--Bitwig and Live are exceptions as they are loop triggering apps as well as DAWs and so intended for live use)
When XTC was first out, it was like TDM. We had to do the latency calculations by hand and insert compensation manually, or adjust the header for a given track to 'push it back' in time (by having it read data forward) to compensate for an overall latency on said track (or mixer channel in TDM). Complex bussing made this a hassle, DAW compensation simplified this but with inserts on sends and master bus (as mentioned) this would often balloon overall compensation up to extremely high values because it just picks the highest even multiple of all compensated delays.
And to add on to what fra77x2 said, using outboard DSP in this way doesn't make sense any longer, as you consume a large amount of your system bus and clock cycles keeping those buffers going across the PCI (or PCIe for Xite) bus. With the speed of modern CPU's native processing is no longer so scarce, but wasting clock cycles feeding i/o buffers is very inefficient compared to inboard use of the same resources.
Translation? Well in Logic I actually have an i/o insert that allows me to route any channel out and back in without using XTC (an in fact I can route that via adat to either of my outboard Scope PC's, PCI and Xite running separately, all just fine). And you can similarly route any outboard (including Scope) to a live monitored track and 'mix' it in your DAW just as with XTC, without wasting all of those cycles round tripping through the system bus.
In practice though what this means is I typicall have a dedicated signal chain (or think of it as a bus) that comes in 'live' as in the previous paragraph, where all external processing is stacked either in Scope or via my hardware synths going through my analog mixer and rack gear. Each signal chain has its own tonality and 'color' and when you mix this way you not only retain the 'fun' and power of the non-software resources, but find that each complex signal chain has a sonic character that stands out in the mix independently, and achieves something that trying to make everything uniformly the same in your DAW doesn't. This is and was always why people preferred different (human) players, different mics and so on...
Re: VST 2.0 in Cubase 14
it is in the installation that it is still there ("do you want to install XTC mode" or something like that), but I did not install it. May be a mistake from the installer, as I knew it was not available anymore anyways.pranza wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2025 12:00 pm spaceF, did you say you had XTC in Scope v7??? i thought it was not present there. is it? that's the reason i didn't go for v7.
.....
I finally used the "Pipeline" insert effect from Studio One eventhough it is hard to set the latency (works perfect automatically in "setup mode" which is a mode that does not allow to listen to the scope plugin (or external hardware effect) but then the latency has to be set manually anyway in the track delay, which is a pain in the butt). This is Studio One's fault (it does not apply the latency it found in automatic mode, you have to set it manually anyway, which is less precise). or, if there is a way, I did not find it.
Anyway, I've used it to insert an equalizer of mine inside a complex mastering chain, where latency does not really matter as it is the final project output.
I also tried to use it in a simple track, but it is more complicated. I finally just sent the track out to asio, recorded the scope plugin, and then addeds the other vst effect to the recorded track. At the end I prefer doing like that, it avoids the stress of having to deal with latency compensation which is not well implemented in Studio One 's Pipeline effect (and the track latency does not allow to set values such as, for example, 99,75 ms so it will always be slightly out of time).
Re: VST 2.0 in Cubase 14
thanks, spacef!
i remember that when v7 was introduced they said they've cut some stuff out to make asio less buggy and xtc might have gone with it too. don't have proof it really did though.
now to other things --
"If you use three XTC plugins in series, what hapoens?"
- if you insert plugins as separate instances, every plugin creates a path to card and back, eating up card's routing resources for each of them
nothing too bad though BUT there is a better solution for that - Scope multiFX xtc plugin in which there are several slots for the scope plugins so you still have just one roundtrip to card. also, you can access any effect that you have in scope - no need for separate vst dlls for all the stuff you have in scope. it also speeds up vst plugin scanning if you have JUST multiFX vst and then load whatever you want from scope in it.
"But is it a good workflow to rely on? To suggest to users? Is it professional and I do not care about UAD or tc powercore which were made to exploit the dsp hype and the "big names" but had to" ---
- yes it is and so most of the studios have UAD and they are not deaf, they don't buy it for fun, they buy it for good plugs that it delivers. there is no hype - uad is good. yes, there is "also something somewhere out there also good" but uad is still good and some emulations are just the nicest out there.
"XTC mode can work but I do not recommend it and I consider it a poor choice for scope owners because the real power of the system is unused."
- i use it not because of some hypothetical power that must be used no matter what, just for sake of it. i use it...well, i used to use it as a router, synth and fx playground, but in commercial background i use it solely for some nice plugs in XTC which are unavailable elsewhere and oh boy they deliver!! also, i use some more of xtc plugs just because i can, not because i can't find equivalents.
"Also please do not try for half an hour to run xtc mode. Please find another way or do something else."
- what else can i do if Holger and co can't deliver a stable driver??? what another way? run adat cables to the kitchen and have a scope patch which follows every project that i do? and also buy an ADAT i/o module for 1700 euros for my main card just to do that? and then, force myself to use scope asio and cut myself of away from the main audio card with 16 i/o? or run two daws and play from one to the other and have like two daws and three projects for every single project that i have to do?
i'd rather bluescreen 10 times and have scope working with xtc...
i used to use scope environment in tandem with daw in 32bit times - would get bluescreens time to time due to loading re-loading multiple projects, it was also inconsistent with phase (one time mix sounds good, the next load it sound no good because phase flipped somewhere - go figure, reload, good luck... time ticking..) long story short i didn't like it, it was more limited than daw mixer, had some neat possibilities which were most often unneeded... latency is completely irrelevant in mixing and mastering too, so benefits were LIMITED. if someone developed a vst capable mixer for scope then it would open many possibilities but still wouldn't make XTC redundant.
did you know that you actually have an XTCProject.pro running while in XTC mode? you can add your stuff in it, save it, it's invisible, yes, but it can be doing routing and what not in the background. that opens some wild possibilities!
i remember that when v7 was introduced they said they've cut some stuff out to make asio less buggy and xtc might have gone with it too. don't have proof it really did though.
now to other things --
"If you use three XTC plugins in series, what hapoens?"
- if you insert plugins as separate instances, every plugin creates a path to card and back, eating up card's routing resources for each of them
nothing too bad though BUT there is a better solution for that - Scope multiFX xtc plugin in which there are several slots for the scope plugins so you still have just one roundtrip to card. also, you can access any effect that you have in scope - no need for separate vst dlls for all the stuff you have in scope. it also speeds up vst plugin scanning if you have JUST multiFX vst and then load whatever you want from scope in it.
"But is it a good workflow to rely on? To suggest to users? Is it professional and I do not care about UAD or tc powercore which were made to exploit the dsp hype and the "big names" but had to" ---
- yes it is and so most of the studios have UAD and they are not deaf, they don't buy it for fun, they buy it for good plugs that it delivers. there is no hype - uad is good. yes, there is "also something somewhere out there also good" but uad is still good and some emulations are just the nicest out there.
"XTC mode can work but I do not recommend it and I consider it a poor choice for scope owners because the real power of the system is unused."
- i use it not because of some hypothetical power that must be used no matter what, just for sake of it. i use it...well, i used to use it as a router, synth and fx playground, but in commercial background i use it solely for some nice plugs in XTC which are unavailable elsewhere and oh boy they deliver!! also, i use some more of xtc plugs just because i can, not because i can't find equivalents.
"Also please do not try for half an hour to run xtc mode. Please find another way or do something else."
- what else can i do if Holger and co can't deliver a stable driver??? what another way? run adat cables to the kitchen and have a scope patch which follows every project that i do? and also buy an ADAT i/o module for 1700 euros for my main card just to do that? and then, force myself to use scope asio and cut myself of away from the main audio card with 16 i/o? or run two daws and play from one to the other and have like two daws and three projects for every single project that i have to do?
i'd rather bluescreen 10 times and have scope working with xtc...
i used to use scope environment in tandem with daw in 32bit times - would get bluescreens time to time due to loading re-loading multiple projects, it was also inconsistent with phase (one time mix sounds good, the next load it sound no good because phase flipped somewhere - go figure, reload, good luck... time ticking..) long story short i didn't like it, it was more limited than daw mixer, had some neat possibilities which were most often unneeded... latency is completely irrelevant in mixing and mastering too, so benefits were LIMITED. if someone developed a vst capable mixer for scope then it would open many possibilities but still wouldn't make XTC redundant.
did you know that you actually have an XTCProject.pro running while in XTC mode? you can add your stuff in it, save it, it's invisible, yes, but it can be doing routing and what not in the background. that opens some wild possibilities!
Re: VST 2.0 in Cubase 14
XTC mode still uses the Scope driver, does it not? Does XTC mode work when using a different soundcard driver, in a fully 64bit DAW that requires 64bit plugins?
Re: VST 2.0 in Cubase 14
I am not related to soniccore I am just a user
I hope you find a way to solve your problem. Write here or to support I don't know
I hope you find a way to solve your problem. Write here or to support I don't know
Last edited by fra77x2 on Sun Jan 26, 2025 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: VST 2.0 in Cubase 14
dsp farms are working in a similar way to graphic accelerators. The goal is to make the extra processors compute your data. Communication with the main processor should be minimised because it is a bottleneck. Communication requires time. In GPU programming with glsl we program the gpu itself and communicate only with minimised number of variables. This allows utilization of the GPU hardware.
The same applies to scope. Communication with the system is a bottleneck. XTC-mode / uad style farms are a compromise.
Normal scope is great does things the right way allowing to program the dsps (load audio effects and devices ) and minimising communication (connecting only limited amount of channels to asio).
It is only that the technology permits enough communication that the common user may be unaware of these limitations and for audio work and in certain setups it may be like that. But it exists and the problem reappears not only in communication resourses with the system but also in between dsps communication.
The same applies to scope. Communication with the system is a bottleneck. XTC-mode / uad style farms are a compromise.
Normal scope is great does things the right way allowing to program the dsps (load audio effects and devices ) and minimising communication (connecting only limited amount of channels to asio).
It is only that the technology permits enough communication that the common user may be unaware of these limitations and for audio work and in certain setups it may be like that. But it exists and the problem reappears not only in communication resourses with the system but also in between dsps communication.
Re: VST 2.0 in Cubase 14
valis >
yes, i use dante virtual soundcard asio with my apogee card AND have scope plugins in a daw - you don't have to use scope asio for xtc to work.
however, i've heard some stories that people would have issues sometimes and they needed to short some jumper on their scope card for it to be able to work in sync while not using scope asio. i'm clocking my scope via BNC sync from apogee card so perhaps that's why i don't need to do any jumper mods and it's always in sync and proper.
as for 64bit daws - it does work in 64bit Sequoia for me because it can eat 32bit plugins (it has its own 32bit bridge for old vst2 plugins)
for the daws which can't eat 32bit plugins natively, there is a solution called jbridge - really worth the money - it wraps 32bit plugs to become 64bit. what it does not do is converting vst2 to vst3. scope xtc is vst2 only.
yes, i use dante virtual soundcard asio with my apogee card AND have scope plugins in a daw - you don't have to use scope asio for xtc to work.
however, i've heard some stories that people would have issues sometimes and they needed to short some jumper on their scope card for it to be able to work in sync while not using scope asio. i'm clocking my scope via BNC sync from apogee card so perhaps that's why i don't need to do any jumper mods and it's always in sync and proper.
as for 64bit daws - it does work in 64bit Sequoia for me because it can eat 32bit plugins (it has its own 32bit bridge for old vst2 plugins)
for the daws which can't eat 32bit plugins natively, there is a solution called jbridge - really worth the money - it wraps 32bit plugs to become 64bit. what it does not do is converting vst2 to vst3. scope xtc is vst2 only.
Re: VST 2.0 in Cubase 14
Good to know, thanks. I had not tried it since long before I got my own external clock.