PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

quantummastering wrote:

Mr Arkadin wrote:btw I am basing my observations on mixing inside Scope - the DAW is just a glorified tape recorder. I very much doubt that one DAW records warmer than another.

I'm just saying that source playback sounds different between DAWs. And therefore mixing will as well. There's a reason good sounding DAWs cost a lot. Yesterday I tested Presonus Studio One 2 by making a simple 4x4 beat without any FX. The sound was very edgy while all samples lost their color. Today I made the same beat in Samplitude Producer 11.5 and every sample had its own character and just sounded warm in general. So to me Samplitude wins so far in sound quality.

The only difference in sound I´ve found when testing Samplitude vs. other DAW software was caused by different pan law used in Samplitude by default.
That ruled for Cubase SX3 in the past as well as Reaper and Studio One Pro.
I also use Reason 6.53 rewired into a VST host (Studio One Pro 2.5 or Reaper 4.x) then streaming into SCOPE 5.1 w/ XITE-1 hardware.
DAW apps don´t sound different when adjusted to same settings in preferences and when streaming ASIO into SCOPE track by track, the native host´s mixer levels set to 0dB and pan law set to -3dB.
When using SCOPE, the summing algorithms in the native host software become obsolete, except you group tracks in the native DAW software and stream group´s (or folder track´s) outputs into SCOPE.

Bud

Mr Arkadin wrote:Are you bussing to Scope? I really don't see the point of using Scope unless you're doing this.

Try that and see how each DAW sounds because then you are bypassing the native summing engine.

So to do bussing you would have several ASIO2 channels going into STM1632 and then just assign the DAW mixer channels to ASIO2 channels? If that's the way to do it, then bouncing would have to happen in realtime because when you export the project, it's gonna use the native DAW mixing engine.

bouncing?

for anything other than a scratch mix, when has bouncing ever been more efficient. if you bounce, you must wait for the track to be exported, then listen to it and find your errors, clicks and pops, whatever. you want to RECORD the mix like any other audio signal. that way, you know what you are getting while it happens. this means less redos and better use of your time and ears. or something...

you can record the final mix back into the sequencer on a new stereo track or even into another app, or hardware recorder. this also allows the easy integration of hardware into the mix, should you ever want to do that. why eat microwave food if you can eat real food in the same time for the same price? bouncing forever limits you to the sequencer itself and it's environment. it cuts off the real world and stifles audio artistry. there's nothing wrong with what can be done with a sequencer like samplitude or cubase, i love it! i just want the sequencer to augment my (audio)world, not close it off. an answer might be a realtime bounce, but if it's a realtime bounce, why not just record it, especially when i have an actual realtime sytem with real studio tools? how am i saving time with the bounce? if i used the Scope mixer and recorded it, it takes as long as a realtime bounce but it sounds better. i always want to use my best stuff.

++side rant++this is definitely not aimed at quantummastering, but when people tell me that it's just easier to use the sequencer's mixer and stay only in the sequencer, i fear for music! how can someone be mixing audio and they can't even follow simple signal flow? using a mixer is using a mixer. one rarely needs to move more than one knob at a time, it's not that hard, if one knows how to use the gear. so many people today arrogantly have no idea of the real use of audio gear, it's astonishing. if one doesn't know how to use the gear, it's not the gear's fault.

sure, i bounce stuff sometimes. of course it depends on what i'm doing. i never would bounce a final mix. i just wouldn't feel right, knowing i can do much better.

quantummastering wrote:So to do bussing you would have several ASIO2 channels going into STM1632 and then just assign the DAW mixer channels to ASIO2 channels? If that's the way to do it, then bouncing would have to happen in realtime because when you export the project, it's gonna use the native DAW mixing engine.

Sorry, I thought you said you had lots of external equipment? I assume you have to record them in real time. You want warmth? Then bus those VST instruments to Scope, stick on a Space F FAT and record back into Cubase, that's what I do. You can also stick on some more interesting effects while you're at it. You can of course still use any VSTi if you want too - there are no limits this way. As garyb suggests, you're limiting yourself to the native world, which I think is sad. Music should be about variety of methods.

garyb wrote:for anything other than a scratch mix, when has bouncing ever been more efficient. if you bounce, you must wait for the track to be exported, then listen to it and find your errors, clicks and pops, whatever. you want to RECORD the mix like any other audio signal. that way, you know what you are getting while it happens. this means less redos and better use of your time and ears. or something...

you can record the final mix back into the sequencer on a new stereo track or even into another app, or hardware recorder. this also allows the easy integration of hardware into the mix, should you ever want to do that. why eat microwave food if you can eat real food in the same time for the same price? bouncing forever limits you to the sequencer itself and it's environment. it cuts off the real world and stifles audio artistry. there's nothing wrong with what can be done with a sequencer like samplitude or cubase, i love it! i just want the sequencer to augment my (audio)world, not close it off. an answer might be a realtime bounce, but if it's a realtime bounce, why not just record it, especially when i have an actual realtime system with real studio tools? how am i saving time with the bounce? if i used the Scope mixer and recorded it, it takes as long as a realtime bounce but it sounds better. i always want to use my best stuff.

I think we sidetracked a bit but ok

Gary, you're saying that realtime bouncing every recorded channel (even if it's a pre-recorded drum sample) through Scope's mixer to a new stereo track mix will result in a better quality mix than using the sequencer's mixing engine and exporting the mix after the first take? If yes, then I have yet to test this. And for bouncing, wouldn't you need a DA for each channel, or would multiple ASIO channels through stereo SPDIF do it.

garyb wrote:++side rant++this is definitely not aimed at quantummastering, but when people tell me that it's just easier to use the sequencer's mixer and stay only in the sequencer, i fear for music! how can someone be mixing audio and they can't even follow simple signal flow? using a mixer is using a mixer. one rarely needs to move more than one knob at a time, it's not that hard, if one knows how to use the gear. so many people today arrogantly have no idea of the real use of audio gear, it's astonishing. if one doesn't know how to use the gear, it's not the gear's fault.

I know exactly what you mean. A lot of arrogance in the audio industry and very little respect for sound quality and the art of music. Everyone's a DJ now, it's ridiculous. Most of these people are suffering from the Dunning Kreuger effect, and very much so that soon I will have to cut my mastering rates by half, just because I'm the new kid on the block. It's like my reputation should be greater than my ears, skills, and gear. Some of these people are even Gearslutz moderators.

Anyways I'm always up for better quality, just sometimes tend to do things backwards, kinda dyslexic. For years I was using XTC mode thinking it was the right way and dealt with many crashes until Gary convinced me not to ever use it all .

Mr Arkadin wrote:

quantummastering wrote:So to do bussing you would have several ASIO2 channels going into STM1632 and then just assign the DAW mixer channels to ASIO2 channels? If that's the way to do it, then bouncing would have to happen in realtime because when you export the project, it's gonna use the native DAW mixing engine.

Sorry, I thought you said you had lots of external equipment? I assume you have to record them in real time. You want warmth? Then bus those VST instruments to Scope, stick on a Space F FAT and record back into Cubase, that's what I do. You can also stick on some more interesting effects while you're at it. You can of course still use any VSTi if you want too - there are no limits this way. As garyb suggests, you're limiting yourself to the native world, which I think is sad. Music should be about variety of methods.

Yea I use with pre-recorded drum samples and external synths going into Mackie 8 Bus and transfered via UA2192 and in FL Studio. So the Mackie 8 bus limits me to only being able to use internal VSTi FX, no Scope FX. And it's a Pulsar 1 so no synths on mine.

So what you and Gary are saying is I should map every mixer output channel, mute the master, and realtime bounce into a new stereo mix track in another DAW? Would I need a separate DAC for each channel or can I just use multiple ASIO2 outs and then out SPDIF to a stereo DA.

The beauty of Scope is you do not have to go outside of it at any time. I do not understand why you say the Mackie limits you to only using VST effects. Scope is hardware, integrates with hardware pronbably better than any other system because it is completely configurable. The thing is a giant routing box, as well as synths, effects and mixers etc.

I do not know your exact set-up but I can guarantee that I could get a Scope set-up and project going that would integrate the Mackie and the DAW very easily. Do you record the synths on individual tracks or mix on the Mackie and record a stereo mix in your DAW? Personally I would track synths individually straight into the UA, using the Mackie for monitoring. I bus BFD2 to Scope for mixing. Everything goes through Scope. There is no bouncing, only recording. I like to listen as I'm recording.

You can route everything internally in Scope - no AD or DA required. It's all do-able, but you may need to reconsider your working methods slightly.

All you need to do is track everything like you would on a multi-track tape session (remember those?). Then bus it all to Scope on ASIO outputs, add any effects, run those outputs into the Scope mixer and back out to your DAW's ASIO inputs to record (or you can use another recorder if you prefer). The advantage of this is that you can do anything in Scope in terms of patching, effects order etc. and it also means you have recorded all the tracks which you can keep as individual stems if you ever need to go back to remix it.

Mr Arkadin wrote:The beauty of Scope is you do not have to go outside of it at any time. I do not understand why you say the Mackie limits you to only using VST effects. Scope is hardware, integrates with hardware pronbably better than any other system because it is completely configurable. The thing is a giant routing box, as well as synths, effects and mixers etc.

I do not know your exact set-up but I can guarantee that I could get a Scope set-up and project going that would integrate the Mackie and the DAW very easily. Do you record the synths on individual tracks or mix on the Mackie and record a stereo mix in your DAW? Personally I would track synths individually straight into the UA, using the Mackie for monitoring. I bus BFD2 to Scope for mixing. Everything goes through Scope. There is no bouncing, only recording. I like to listen as I'm recording.

You can route everything internally in Scope - no AD or DA required. It's all do-able, but you may need to reconsider your working methods slightly.

All you need to do is track everything like you would on a multi-track tape session (remember those?). Then bus it all to Scope on ASIO outputs, add any effects, run those outputs into the Scope mixer and back out to your DAW's ASIO inputs to record (or you can use another recorder if you prefer). The advantage of this is that you can do anything in Scope in terms of patching, effects order etc. and it also means you have recorded all the tracks which you can keep as individual stems if you ever need to go back to remix it.

Don't get me wrong, I know what Scope is, just haven't been using it as a true mixer so far. You're right, I'm not limited to using VST FX if I route every DAW mixer channel output to Scope's mixer inputs, but then I won't be able to automate Scope's FX, and this is why I primarily use DAW FX. Currently I record tracks individually through SPDIF input from UA2192, then mix and export from the DAW. This way I only record once because I don't like to record samples again. As for realtime recording through Scope's mixer, do you mean route each Scope mixer channel output to each ASIO DEST channel?

quantummastering wrote:This way I only record once because I don't like to record samples again.

Don't really see the benefit of this - once it's digital a sample is the same as a piece of audio, we just arbitrarily give it a different name.

quantummastering wrote:As for realtime recording through Scope's mixer, do you mean route each Scope mixer channel output to each ASIO DEST channel?

This is what I mean:
I am routing from Cubase (ASIO Source) into the Scope mixer and then recording that onto two tracks of Cubase (ASIO Dest) and on track 16 you can see I stuck in a Transient designer before it hits the mixer.

What effects are you automating? There's no reason you can't use Scope effects and VST effects and hardware effects - it's not exclusive, that's the joy of Scope.

I am using a STM1632 mixer that has direct outs. I am wondering if there's more quality gain in sending direct outs to another DAW using ASIO DEST than only using the main out like in your picture.

And for FX, I'm usually using a delay, reverb, and compressor, almost never eq. Sometimes I need to automate the FX MIX.

So you're saying I would be able to create a MIDI automation track in say FL Studio and route it to a Scope effect, using a Sequencer MIDI Source module inside Scope?

he is
the same for synths, like automating the Cut-off of Minimax or whatever.
Or another preset for (a part of) the mixer (me never did that tho).

I always try to avoid Cubase settings and fx before sending the audio to Scope.
But I always end with a lot of volume and fx send automation, for certain for my newly required UAD2 plugs.
Wouldn't like to have to miss all possibilities of Scope tho, the reverbs, the tapecomp. effects etc, and especially not Optimaster and Psy-Q (=SPL Vitalizer) in the master.

The thing that sucks is I have to load two mixers because the STM1632 is limited to only 16 channels. But I guess that's still better than summing in the DAW and using third party FX.

ise the stm2448 or 4896...they're better anyway.

I wish I could but my installation is for Pulsar 1 and those mixers are not included. I only have the basic FXs, no synths or anything. I did see some free plugins on the Soniccore site. Can those work with Scope 4.5 and Pulsar 1?

most probably
cards are cheap today...