PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

If you want to run mastering plugins 'live' then scope is an ideal way to do that...ASIO out of FL, into the scope envrionment where you can run scope plugins and then out through your monitors. Just like running out of a 'normal' soundcard in a rack of mastering gear...

husker wrote:If you want to run mastering plugins 'live' then scope is an ideal way to do that...ASIO out of FL, into the scope envrionment where you can run scope plugins and then out through your monitors. Just like running out of a 'normal' soundcard in a rack of mastering gear...

Yeah but then I'd have to record the output back in somehow. That's an extra step. I was hoping it would integrate well enough that one render in FL would encompass everything. Not that it's a huge deal... but it would be nice if I could set it up to do that.

route the master out to a Fl stereo in?

Er, that would create a feedback loop, right?

Internal FL audio -> FL master track
FL master track -> Creamware plugs
Back into FL stereo track
All stereo tracks go to -> FL master track...

i don't know about the asio implimentaion in fruity, but the best way to mix(not record) for me is to take multiple outs from my sequencer, one for every track. you'll get the best sound using the scope mixer.

regardless whether recording or mixing, i like to monitor the scope mixer, not the sequencer. to do that, everything connects to the scope mixer and the card's output is connected to the mixers output. monitoring in this way(mics also go into the scope mixer), makes overdubs and external effects happen in real time with no audible latency.

when recording a midi track as audio, before opening fruity, be sure to have at least 4 channels of asio source in the routing window. that way, you can monitor the main output from fruity and send the track you want to record out the other output, through the mixer(or even directly) to the asio dest which is fruuity's input. no feedback loop that way...

if fruity doesn't allow multiple i/o which is assignable on every track, fruity isn't what you want as a main sequencer(it could still be a beat box!).

Just so you know you cannot render via Scope - it's like a hardware unit - you wouldn't expect to be able to render a Minimoog or 1176, you can't with Scope. i know you want everything realtime, but surely there comes a point where you record everything (what we oldies call putting to tape)? What most of us do is buss all the outputs from our sequencer into Scope, that way you can use the summing in Scope which most feel is a) easier and b) - more importantly- sounds better than most DAW's internal summing. i do this and i use Cubase SX, i doubt FL has better summing tha Cubase. i'm afraid this means *gasp* you'll have to listen to your track one more time while you record it to stereo.

Michu wrote:Just be mindful, that older cards (Pulsar 1) don't go below 13 ms of latency because of hardware limitations. Newer ones do

If these first generation cards are paired with the second generation cards then they can afaia.

garyb wrote:i don't know about the asio implimentaion in fruity, but the best way to mix(not record) for me is to take multiple outs from my sequencer, one for every track. you'll get the best sound using the scope mixer.

regardless whether recording or mixing, i like to monitor the scope mixer, not the sequencer. to do that, everything connects to the scope mixer and the card's output is connected to the mixers output. monitoring in this way(mics also go into the scope mixer), makes overdubs and external effects happen in real time with no audible latency.

when recording a midi track as audio, before opening fruity, be sure to have at least 4 channels of asio source in the routing window. that way, you can monitor the main output from fruity and send the track you want to record out the other output, through the mixer(or even directly) to the asio dest which is fruuity's input. no feedback loop that way...

if fruity doesn't allow multiple i/o which is assignable on every track, fruity isn't what you want as a main sequencer(it could still be a beat box!).

I don`t know, I dont use FL...

But in Cubase it works like a charm...

Run all VSTs through seperate channels out to scope -> mix all together -> and then digitally record it back on another Cubase channel....

I then move out the final audio file from temp directory for further mastering and processing in an audio editor....

If you prefer to use the MONO IN option in the new FL 7 mixer, you have to load the 32-bit ASIO driver. All other will give blue screen!

FL does allow for individual i/o assignment per track, so, I guess I could make it work.

Mr Arkadin wrote:Just so you know you cannot render via Scope - it's like a hardware unit - you wouldn't expect to be able to render a Minimoog or 1176, you can't with Scope. i know you want everything realtime, but surely there comes a point where you record everything (what we oldies call putting to tape)? What most of us do is buss all the outputs from our sequencer into Scope, that way you can use the summing in Scope which most feel is a) easier and b) - more importantly- sounds better than most DAW's internal summing. i do this and i use Cubase SX, i doubt FL has betting summing tha Cubase. i'm afraid this means *gasp* you'll have to listen to your track one more time while you record it to stereo.

A big reason I don't use hardware whatosever I don't like that extra step of recording everything. I render within my sequencer, and that's all I have to do. Again, I like doing *everything* in one environment. It's unbelievably convenient. However, PSY-Q sounds so good that I guess it wouldn't be terrible to render twice.

For the record, differences in digital summing among DAWs are pretty much mythical. It's a common topic that trolls bring up at the FL forum, until people set up the exact same projects in Pro Tools (or whatever) and in FL, render, and get the exact same file.

I undertsnad what you mean zircon,

but it really doesn`t make a big difference between clicking a render button and a record button....

The only difference is that render sometimes is lightly faster because it doesn`t have to be done in realtime.....

If you get much nicer mixes and better sounds, you will easily accept a minute more time you loose when you record back...

However, PSY-Q sounds so good that I guess it wouldn't be terrible to render twice.

Don't forget, you're not rendering, you're recording - two distinctly different processes. Also how terrible that would be to you depends on how much you like your own track . Just trying to be honest with you, i don't want to buying a system thinking it does something that it doesn't.

i think most of us here have come from a very different background to you: oldies that have used hardware so the 'hardship' of recording is a non-issue. And those of us recording guitars, vocals and suchlike can't render our performances (if only). Also a lot of hardware (and i include Scope here) still sounds better, so convenience is also a non-issue - it's what sounds best.

Plus the flexibility of the routing far outweighs any software system (in hardware it would be a jackbay with everything available - but even that doesn't come close because you can have multiple outputs of one signal going to various destinations).

rendering sucks.
it seems like a time saver, but more than once when i was recording, i heard a problem i missed, stopped and fixed it and then rerecorded. if i was rendering, i'd have to wait for the render, then listen to the track to see if it was good. then find my mistake, rerender and then relisten. what seemed to be a time saver now becomes a time sump. realtime is where it's at.

just an opinion.

true!

yeah and what is 1 or 2 min. you save by rendering, when you have worked about an day or so on a project?

Well, maybe...

Regardless, I think I'll just use XTC.

whatever works for you is good.

hi all, this is my 1st msg here, i've just purchased (my first) scope project and i'm also trying to integrate it with fl studio,

someone had this problem:

Er, that would create a feedback loop, right?

Internal FL audio -> FL master track
FL master track -> Creamware plugs
Back into FL stereo track
All stereo tracks go to -> FL master track...

fix:
in fl-studio, just select the track with the asio-in routing and disable sending to master track, you can record it, but it won't feed

have you guys had any success with the xtc mode in fl,
i can't get it work i mean the plugins load ok but the sound from them comes with cracks and distortion... latency settings won't fix the problem.

fl and scope work very nice together.

Scope & FL Studio work great together. Been using it for years now!