PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Shayne White wrote:The first and second generation of Scope synths/FX weren't that great IMO (I NEVER use BlueSynth, MiniScope, etc. anymore). Shayne

For "poor" native VSTi and first/second Scope synth generation, just use my LE-1 for a "new life" sound palette
i.e. Saturn (not CW synth) is a beast with this...
Or use the Wavelength re-issues (bluesynth hummel, etc.) that are good to.

there are bad synths and plugins??


imo even the cheezy scope synths(a real cool class of sounds regardless of the platform) have a little more zing to them than their vst counterparts. it really depends on what you want to do though. a musicain will take a sound, any sound and say, "cool", and make music. sometimes though, you want a particular sound. then there might be a "best" choice.

as i say, the "best" sound is usually the original source. well, not always, but usually, so if you are asking about the minimoog, for example, then yes, scope sounds better than vstis(more like a real, "fat" hardware mini). generally, a scope synth will sit by it's self in a mix better compared to it's vst counterpart. for unique vst synths, the vst being the original source, well, vst would be the best(and most likely, only) version.

if you are really into synthesis, the scope modular with flexor has no vsti counterpart. a computer's cpu would not be able to even think about running something like that and a sequencer full of tracks and plugins!

scope is more like buying a bunch of hardware analog synths and a modular(that would take up half a room if it wasn't on the card). scope is virtually the original because dsp chips are what run most modern synths! it's not really comparable to most vstis. most vstis that are comparable in sound quality to the more powerful scope synths(is there a vsti equivalent to solaris or prowave?) are the more expensive emulations and also are very heavy resource eaters, so in this way, scope is actually a very good buy, a bargain. it's like buying actual gear. it will extend the capabilities of your computer. it's a dynamite soundcard as a bonus.

once again though, it depends on what you want....

garyb wrote:if you are really into synthesis, the scope modular with flexor has no vsti counterpart. a computer's cpu would not be able to even think about running something like that and a sequencer full of tracks and plugins!

scope is more like buying a bunch of hardware analog synths and a modular(that would take up half a room if it wasn't on the card). scope is virtually the original because dsp chips are what run most modern synths! it's not really comparable to most vstis. most vstis that are comparable in sound quality to the more powerful scope synths(is there a vsti equivalent to solaris or prowave?) are the more expensive emulations and also are very heavy resource eaters, so in this way, scope is actually a very good buy, a bargain. it's like buying actual gear. it will extend the capabilities of your computer. it's a dynamite soundcard as a bonus.

Spot on, man!

stardust wrote:The zebra has good sound and is a CPU hog...

not sure about the latter, but at least regarding the sound it seems not as bad as it felt at the first audition.
Strangely (?) there's a significant difference between playing it through Scope Asio compared to Asio4All with the onboard AC97, even though I used s/pdif with the same converters as in the old A16 (via Philips DCC 730 tape).

True, some aliasing remains - but admittedly in fairly extreme positions, and expectable if a control has a wide range. Adjusting to more 'reasonable' values was easy.
The individual filters aren't even close to what Scope offers - yet in combination they do a pretty good job.
The most interesting things (for my taste) were in the FM part, the spectral stuff is nice, but imho not that groundbreaking.

bottomline: even for VST synths Scope is an excellent choice...

but could someone please explain why 2 Asio versions can make such a difference ?
Afaik they just pass on the digital bits the plugin has generated - the actual conversion is done elsewhere.
I've noticed the same with mp3 files - looks like I'm completely missing the point here - unless the clock on the s/pdif line is totally bad (which wouldn't surprise me either)

cheers, Tom

astro, the driver surely can make a difference...

I have an AC97 chip on my board, too....

which I mainly use for Skype and Gaming..

An I noticed differences in sound between the nForce4 driver and the AC97 chip manufacturer's ( ) driver.

ASIO4ALL is a generic driver that may not be perfectly optimised for your onboard chip.

I think the bottom line is also a stylistic thing.. I think lots of VSTis are variations or converts of a basic synth (prophet, etc) that is aimed at a specific crowd.. I'm thiking of refx series. All their presets are heavily trance, and so even if their synths can be used otherwise, the strong trance connotation makes them trance synths. And if you're making trance, they've got the authentic sounds. Much easier that trying to dig around for synth combinations on scope to get that specific sound.

Conversely, it's no mystery that there's been a surge of out of context trance sounds in hiphop.. Just think about the plugins and the presets that are available..

On the other hand, scope synths are a bit more generic. To me, scope synths including the mod platform is very "blank", not having much connotation of their own. They've got character, but not really anything that makes them specific to a style of sound. I don't think I use any presets for scope synths, just because I like starting from scratch. The scope synths sound so good, you'd almost prefer to wander around a bit.

The way I work is that I usually default to a VSTi synth when I know what sound I need. Also, I throw in a VSTi synth when I could care less about that synth sound. When the synth sound needs attention, I use scope synths. For example, I might use a VSTi for a dark bassline, but use a scope synth for a powerful kick that ties the mix together. I think the regulars on this board would be surprised at how little I use scope synths.

Once you learn all the basics of synthesis (and some dsp) it all becomes pretty much the same. You have a source, and you keep hammering it 'till you get the sound you want. For me, I could care less if it was VSTi or scope. It's just a matter of which is faster.

hifiboom wrote:astro, the driver surely can make a difference...
...
ASIO4ALL is a generic driver that may not be perfectly optimised for your onboard chip.

that's what puzzles me... I assume the calculation of the digital waveform of the synth's sound is processed entirely by the plugin and Asio only supplies the vehicle (buffers and control) to shift the bits to the conversion (or recording) stage.
How could Asio then have an influence on the signal quality ? I didn't read the exact specs, tho...

cheers, Tom

ChrisWerner wrote:Scope gives us the potential to use both worlds together.
Sure DSP based units sounds better than actual native thingies.

Many innovative things are developing on both sides.
It is just great to use both sides together so why all the comparisons?

I like beaf, potatos plus salad and desert.

I know I can use both, but based on what I've read here, it seems to me that Scope synths work best when they're treated more like hardware synths: midi in to audio out, as compared to a plugin in your host. If I'm going to treat Scope synth in a similar manner to hardware, it seems to make more sense to me to expand more into hardware rather than software.

I have nothing for or against software, but to me, the biggest advantage of software is the portability of it. A laptop studio, if you will. That's probably related to scope4live's "convenience" description. But, if you are already tied to a desktop computer with Scope, adding a few hardware pieces doesn't seem to be much more trouble and not really any less portable. I'm thinking more of real analog like an Evolver or SH-101.

I hope that makes sense.

astroman wrote:

hifiboom wrote:astro, the driver surely can make a difference...
...
ASIO4ALL is a generic driver that may not be perfectly optimised for your onboard chip.

that's what puzzles me... I assume the calculation of the digital waveform of the synth's sound is processed entirely by the plugin and Asio only supplies the vehicle (buffers and control) to shift the bits to the conversion (or recording) stage.
How could Asio then have an influence on the signal quality ? I didn't read the exact specs, tho...

cheers, Tom

As with any driver, you don`t know whats going on in behind. That can especially been said about generic drivers.
Unless the developer isn`t a friend of you, we really don`t know.

azrix, scope synths ARE hardware.

Scope synths or VSTi's, the bottom line is not what you use but HOW you use it. If the music being made is total crap, it may just be better sounding crap with Scope synths but that's all. On the other hand, it does mean that you will write better music if you use better sounding synths.

I compose total crap sometimes but I feel it sounds good. It's STILL crap...

I prefer better sounding crap.

I have to say I see it a bit different:

one part in making music is the artistical part, the other one is the technical part, and both are important.

meaning if you play a nice melodie on an atari sound, the melodie may not sound that fine as if it would be played by string soloist.

if you look in the video area, its the same, the movie has to be produced well (technical side) and have a nice storyline ( artistical )

but there are even good movies that rely much more on the technical side than the storyline...

For example "alien"
storyline :An Alien comes to a starship and wants to kill everyone...
If I read this today in local video shop, I`m would think: "this is crap"

But this movie profits so much from its technical area, the subtile sounds, that atmosphere, the scenes and so on... its just f*** great.

So in music context:
crap stays crap
but a simple arrangement can be done technical so well that it gets more and more intersting and a well production.

I even would go further and say the technical side is a part of the artistical side.

And many analog sound lovers are fascinated by the technical side and the sound itsself.

my 2 cent

hifiboom wrote:...So in music context:
crap stays crap
but a simple arrangement can be done technical so well that it gets more and more intersting and a well production.

eventually it's all in the ear of the beholder

I even would go further and say the technical side is a part of the artistical side.

imho it's almost neglectable - checkout some of the Dylan classics from the 60s on YouTube...
yet the essence of his songs inspired some of the biggest scoring hits of all time

the plot of 'Alien' is far from trivial, and it only unwinds slowly during the movie - which adds dramatically to tension. It's technically brilliant, as far as 'cinematography' is concerned, but rather humble in applying movie technology.
It's an excellent example of 'more has been done with less' - I love that movie.
For a time I even tried to get my hands on an old Grid notebook (it's display is featured in the motion detection unit they use to track the beast... )

cheers, Tom