PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

On 2006-04-02 01:40, Mr Arkadin wrote:
Just wondering why you are still use the ASIO1 modules King of Snake?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2006-04-02 01:41 ]</font>

hehe, i never even noticed that. I guess i should really use the ASIO 2 ones

My biggest problem with SFP is the restricted automation/controll.

If CW could do a multiple in/out dll-wrapper for XTC then we could use devices like the STM-mixer inside i.e. energyXT. With full vst-automation. That would be awesome.

Of course, a hacker might be able to do it too

Like most people i just do the automation in Cubase and buss to SCOPE.

Reason why I am in XTC-mode is I want to use all effects in a stream-lined fashion.

Unless I setup some CC-automation won't get the correct gain-staging that should be when in SFP-mode.
Every project would be different to and I am more into composing these days. I need to not have to think to much about patching.

I might do a different approach if I were engineering a recording for a band.

I've been using XTC mode in Live for awhile now. Recently I hooked up two ADA8000s and the S/PDIF to give me 20 total channels into my Pulsar II card. I went back to using SFP mode after hearing the difference between summing in CW vs Live. Now that I see it's possible to use XTC mode and still sum in CW, I'm open to switching back. I have one problem though and one question. The problem is that when I use XTC mode, I get clicks on my S/PDIF channels. I don't have any problems with synching in SFP mode. I have my S/PDIF device set to master and everything else to slave. My Pulsar II gets its clock signal from the S/PDIF input. I'm not sure why I would hear clicks only in XTC mode. My question is if I use XTC mode and bus out all my Live channels to switch it, how do I control panning? This feature seems to be bypassed in Live when I send the channel to an external output. For me, it's all about workflow. Having one app to look at instead of two is a better workflow. I do admit that I really enjoy using the STM 2448. I kinda miss it when working in XTC mode. Actually, I just thought of another question. Is it possible to see switch it from within Live? Or do I need to close Live and open the XTC project in order to make changes?

Thanks,
Chisel

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chisel on 2006-04-03 21:13 ]</font>

Well put Gary. I agree with your ranted opinions. There is no program that can write songs or mix them for you. And sadly (soo sadly), it seems that providing customers with a bank of 256 factory floor presets means that everyone is going to use the EXACT same keyboard sounds (or effect chains), in just about every song you hear.

As for the 'topic', I think the SFP mixers sound better than Cubase (just my opinion) so I use SFP mode with around 40 ASIO output channels. I just send the SFP main mixer back into cubase and record a mixdown 'live' that way. What little automation I do, is acceptable (to me) to do in Cubase. At this point, I'm working on creating songs and mixes that don't need dramatic changes throughout the song, but that's just me. I'm not trying to master anything - and I suppose XTC mode would be easier for someone to use for mastering because you could automate the controls much more easily. To me, that approach to mastering means that you didn't do a good enough job in recording, in the first place (like, if you really need to change something like a mastering limiter's parameters on the fly), but it depends on what is the most important element of the music to you. My SFP window changes a lot during a song's evolution, but it's so easy re-wire things, it's amazing how easy it is to be creative, if you suddenly get an idea, you don't get bogged down with "it just doesn't work that way". You simply re-wire it.

gain staging in the computer isn't exactly the same thing as gain staging in the analog world. the noise floor is not really an issue. true, bit depth is a concern, but not enough to keep one from doing the automation(mutes, volume, auxes) in the sequencer.

yes, chisel. if i understand you correctly, you DO have to close your sequencer, open scope, and open the xtcproject to make changes. learn the routing window, and you'll find it to be surprisingly useful...

On 2006-04-03 21:12, Chisel wrote:
I've been using XTC mode in Live for awhile now. Recently I hooked up two ADA8000s and the S/PDIF to give me 20 total channels into my Pulsar II card. I went back to using SFP mode after hearing the difference between summing in CW vs Live. Now that I see it's possible to use XTC mode and still sum in CW, I'm open to switching back. I have one problem though and one question. The problem is that when I use XTC mode, I get clicks on my S/PDIF channels. I don't have any problems with synching in SFP mode. I have my S/PDIF device set to master and everything else to slave. My Pulsar II gets its clock signal from the S/PDIF input. I'm not sure why I would hear clicks only in XTC mode. My question is if I use XTC mode and bus out all my Live channels to switch it, how do I control panning? This feature seems to be bypassed in Live when I send the channel to an external output. For me, it's all about workflow. Having one app to look at instead of two is a better workflow. I do admit that I really enjoy using the STM 2448. I kinda miss it when working in XTC mode. Actually, I just thought of another question. Is it possible to see switch it from within Live? Or do I need to close Live and open the XTC project in order to make changes?

Thanks,
Chisel

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chisel on 2006-04-03 21:13 ]</font>

Those clicks are definitely a sync issue. I wouldn't know what to do as you basically say you have it hooked up correctly. Maybe XTC-mode works bad as a slave? It's not a concern to me though as I only use ADAT. I mean, I have never tested it.

When mixing on DSP in XTC-mode you have to bus-out in stereo-pairs and essentially controll volume and panning from within the host. It's the same scenario as with RME's TotalMix or analog outboard summing.

IMO it's a better option than a single stereo-output.
Mixing through the STM2448 would be the best alternative of course, but - workflow.

On 2006-04-04 00:56, garyb wrote:
gain staging in the computer isn't exactly the same thing as gain staging in the analog world. the noise floor is not really an issue. true, bit depth is a concern, but not enough to keep one from doing the automation(mutes, volume, auxes) in the sequencer.

What I mean is, if I was to mix in SFP-mode I would send each mono/stereo-track at unity gain into their separate input on a STM2448.

I don't want to automate the output levels in the host as that would ruin the use of any SFP-compressor. That is what I mean with proper gain-staging - levels and panning should eventually be controlled in the STM, and some times I would like to automate them - which technically is no problem - but I find it cumbersome.

Not to mention the STM needs some headroom in DSP. I can afford some extra processors while in XTC-mode that I can't use in SFP-mode.
I have 12 sharcs - which I feel is just about enough for my uses, but I want more. :>

Any modern DSP based digital mixer runs on multiple DSPs. No need to list them all, as the list has grown significantly over the years. The average DSP count on them would probably be about 3 or 4, but that depends on which DSPs are in them. Keeping in mind that the hardware control & automation side of a real external hardware digital mixer is controlled by PICs & a CPU or 2, the conclusion must be that the STM2448 performs admirably in terms of DSP usage given it's enviroment. We've got 12 DSPs in a rig too. It'll run 2 STM2448's on our default 'large' project along with a few plugins like Optimaster, Vinco, VDAT & all the other modules we need (I/Os etc) & only take up roughly 6 of the 12 DSPs.