PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:49 pm**

garyb wrote:astro, it's shocking, but scope won't lock to 88.2k. actually, it will, but the clock is reported as 96k.

OK, so if it WILL lock to 88.2, as you say; then why do I get the error in Cubase: "samplerate cannot be set" & the project fails to play back? It "plays", but no audio comes out - not at 88.2k, and not at 96k. Also, why in the Project Setup window do I no longer see 88.2k as an option once I select the SCOPE driver as the master ASIO driver in Cubase?

I'm setting the master ASIO driver to SCOPE, then I'm opening up a project, and the above is what happens... if I do the reverse (open up the project first, THEN reset the master ASIO driver to the SCOPE driver), the project will play back, but at the wrong samplerate, and any segmented files - like punches or just short parts that don't run the whole length of the song - play back out of time, as well. Finally if I run XTC mode 'on' & try inserting a Pulsar plugin in Cubase, then it passes audio, but full of jittery artifacts, again confirming that it's not lockng to 88.2k.

Again, if I'm doing something wrong here, any input to correct it would be appreciated.

Neil

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:53 pm**

boken up as i am by this(it's literally ruined my weekend

), i still prefer scope at 44.1k to rme at 88.2. there's nothing in the vst world that is comparable to hardware(scope is hardware and it allows the use of external hardware in real time), with the exception (maybe) of synalksis. of course, you won't be using any 40 channels of synalksis eqs and/or compressors or even anything close to that with any pc that currently exists. quite simply, native blows as an all in one solution even if there are some great native apps. if sound quality is of primary importance, vst is right out at any samplerate. period.

edit: Neil, just saw your last post..first you will get the error message, then you should get a message saying samplerate has been changed to 96k. i have spent plenty of time messing with sx3 and 88.2k last night and this morning, and there definitely is playback, but at the wrong speed. samplerate is locking, but reported improperly. i'm not surprised that it doesn't work right as you have reported. also, 88.2k is not available as an option in cubase, telling me that the issue may be driver related(only 32, 44.1, 48 and 96k are supported, period). that gives me hope that the new driver due in feb can have this (re)implemented and maybe a fix can be written sooner.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 4:13 pm**

garyb wrote:boken up as i am by this(it's literally ruined my weekend ), i still prefer scope at 44.1k to rme at 88.2. there's nothing in the vst world that is comparable to hardware(scope is hardware and it allows the use of external hardware in real time), with the exception (maybe) of synalksis. of course, you won't be using any 40 channels of synalksis eqs and/or compressors or even anything close to that with any pc that currently exists. quite simply, native blows as an all in one solution even if there are some great native apps. if sound quality is of primary importance, vst is right out at any samplerate. period.

Oh fuck, why do I even bother... how do I get to 5th Avenue again?

So what do you use as your DAW app? PT?

edit: Neil, just saw your last post..first you will get the error message, then you should get a message saying samplerate has been changed to 96k. i have spent plenty of time messing with sx3 and 88.2k last night and this morning, and there definitely is playback, but at the wrong speed. samplerate is locking, but reported improperly. i'm not surprised that it doesn't work right as you have reported. also, 88.2k is not available as an option in cubase, telling me that the issue may be driver related(only 32, 44.1, 48 and 96k are supported, period). that gives me hope that the new driver due in feb can have this (re)implemented and maybe a fix can be written sooner.

That would be great... (the "sooner" part, not the "February" part).

OK, anyway, here's an update to this... I don't know what I did differently, but it now seems to be playing back at the proper pitch... one thing I did notice that was different is that the driver "clock settings" now say "Sync to CW DSP Hardware (which if it's word-clocked at 88.2, should be fine).

HOWEVER... now we have another problem... all the files are playing back WAAY out of time with each other it's a real clusterfuck[ - don't know if I cn correct that somehow /b]

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 4:52 pm**

i use cubase.
i mix in scope and i use as few vsts as possible. i get a great sound. however you get a great sound is ok by me...

as to the fix, i'll put in my 2cents and i'll put in 4cents for you and 4 for DJ....

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 7:06 pm**

garyb wrote:
i use cubase.
i mix in scope and i use as few vsts as possible. i get a great sound. however you get a great sound is ok by me...

as to the fix, i'll put in my 2cents and i'll put in 4cents for you and 4 for DJ....

Neil hosted this little snippet for me today. It's streamed from Cubase SX through the Scope system with direct outs summed in Paris. There are Scope, UAD-1 and Paris DSP plugins all over this. It's 44.1k all the way.

http://saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/animixsugar1.mp3

I'm not bitching about audio quality.........at all.

I've been mixing on this system for two weeks now and I've only had one crash......and considering all of the **** that digitally interfaced with this monstrosity, that's just downright amazing so I'm certainly not bitching about stability and if your $0.02, Neil's $0.04 and my $0.04 will get us down the road to a fix for the 88.2k limitation then that's fine by me. In the meantime, this platform is gonna have to do a lot worse before I start thinking about swapping it out for something else..........sorry man, you can't have it back.

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:26 pm**

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:37 pm**

DJ wrote: Neil hosted this little snippet for me today. It's streamed from Cubase SX through the Scope system with direct outs summed in Paris. There are Scope, UAD-1 and Paris DSP plugins all over this. It's 44.1k all the way.

http://saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/animixsugar1.mp3

I'm not bitching about audio quality.........at all.

OK, check this one out - what do u think?

http://saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/Nei ... ixfest.mp3

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:54 pm**

do i get one too?

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:58 pm**

garyb wrote:do i get one too?

The files are here... DO YER WORST!

http://www.chrisbanning.net/3db.htm

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:46 am**

so after the laker game and after my wife went to bed i had an hour or so to spend and then spent two. thanks for the practice, i need it.

i know i can't compete with the horsepower you other two guys bring to bear, so i tried to do something a little bit different. just another point of veiw, not anything meaningful.

oh yeah, mixed in scope with 2 eq bands used in cubase.

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:41 am**

Nice job(s) guy(s).

Interesting use of delays Neil and is that the Dynatube on the electric guitar Gary? I've got that here somewhere still but haven't installed it yet. On the keyboard track of my mix I copied the file, panned them a bit wider and then used a UAD-1 Nigel plugin on the copied track with a rotary speaker emulation. Made it sound less like a synth and more like an accordian than a B3 tho.

Welcome to hell.......here's your accordian

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:25 am**

garyb wrote: i know i can't compete with the horsepower you other two guys bring to bear, so i tried to do something a little bit different. just another point of veiw, not anything meaningful.

oh yeah, mixed in scope with 2 eq bands used in cubase.

"Horsepower"? Heck, mine was a simple Native 2-buss mix, ITB, no stems or summing in Paris or anything like that (with that small of a track count, there's no need, IME); no powered plugins or anything ike that... it's pure VST, baby! lol

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:29 am**

DJ wrote: Welcome to hell.......here's your accordian

Your instructors, Al Yankovic Sr. and Jr., will be expecting you to be *WARMED UP* in 15 minutes. *insane cackling* GET IT, WARMED UP...

--

I should probably be ashamed of that, but for some reason enough caffeine makes it seem surrealy funny.

My 2c on the topic. I'd definitely like to see 88.2 syncing, but until/unless I have somebody else's stuff on my system, I'm pretty much sticking to 44.1 (which is the speed the A16u is syncing over adat anyway). Even if the card / adda could sync to 88.2, the A16u would only be able to do so in SMUX mode over ADAT right?

I think it would definitely help the platform overall in the eyes of professionals who got sold the bill of goods on super high sampling rates fixing the "problem" of the 44.1 sound. I agree with the earlier post, however, that 60khz would probably be a very happy medium. So maybe we should ask for that.

If we really want to fix the problem, we need to all order the new CW dubplate lathe for the final mastering.

ums

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:48 am**

UsedManateeSalesman wrote: Even if the card / adda could sync to 88.2, the A16u would only be able to do so in SMUX mode over ADAT right?

Though I don't know the A16U, since I don't have one, the ADAT protocol's bandwidth limitations means that at 88.2k you'd be able to get four channels per lightpipe... you can get 8 at up to 48k (acutally it's really 8 channels up to like 53k or 57k or some weird number like that, but of course those samplerates don't exist).

Neil

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:50 am**

UsedManateeSalesman wrote:... I agree with the earlier post, however, that 60khz would probably be a very happy medium. So maybe we should ask for that. ...

'Standards' are defined by sales figures, not practical considerations...

considering Neil's (if I remember right) statement about his system load increasing tremendously when switching from 88.2 to 96 there must be something seriously wrong.
A proper samplerate conversion is independant from the numeric figures of source and destination (the additional data volume is neglictible in this case).

Of course there may be (smart) optimization tricks (I'm no math wizz for details in this domain), but the most infamous one is to simply duplicate the samples and generate an arithmetically intermediate value to 'upsample' ...

cheers, Tom

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:48 am**

thanks DJ. yes that's a dynatube. p100 reverb too.

Neil-horsepower, yes. i not speaking only about gear, but also about skill. i don't mind giving it up. i still like my mix.

there can't seriously be a right or wrong can there? it all sounds competent.....

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:05 am**

garyb wrote: there can't seriously be a right or wrong can there?

No, that's quite obviously true (unless I wanted to do it at 88.2k - then THAT would be wrong)

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:16 pm**

Neil wrote:
garyb wrote: there can't seriously be a right or wrong can there?
No, that's quite obviously true (unless I wanted to do it at 88.2k - then THAT would be wrong)

Posted: **Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:36 pm**

garyb wrote: .... that gives me hope that the new driver due in feb can have this (re)implemented and maybe a fix can be written sooner.

Are creamware working on new drivers for scope?

Posted: **Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:42 pm**

unofficially? yes.

PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Sample rates.....what's up with 88.2?