I am thinking of getting a Creamware A16 ultra for it's 16 channels and good price/quality ratio.
I am trying to decide what to interface it with. I am considering RME hammerfalls in addition to the Scope Project card.
What I would like to know is roughly how much power I might expect from a 6 DSP scope card. Obviously native CPU processing and DSP processing are very different things. BUT I need to quantify this somehow.
Can anyone give me a very rough idea of how much work a single SHARC DSP can do as compared to a modern CPU like an AMD 64 doing native processing? Could it take off, say 40% of the load or more even?
scope DSP processing power
It depends on what you want the DSP to do. Are you looking for synths or effects possibilities? and what kind?
Tell us more about what you plan to use the DSP's for - A direct comparisson to a CPU doesn't make sense, but we can tell something about synth capabilities and effect capabilities and quality.
Hope this helps a bit.
Tell us more about what you plan to use the DSP's for - A direct comparisson to a CPU doesn't make sense, but we can tell something about synth capabilities and effect capabilities and quality.
Hope this helps a bit.
It can not take off any load from your CPU. As you very likely know, it can not run your native plug-ins. So it will only take of some CPU load, if you decide that the CWA stuff sounds better. Therefor it is more a question of, wether you like the CWA stuff more or less than your native stuff.
I know, it is an anoying answer, but it is a very hard question too. You will very likely not do full productions with 6DSPs without bouncing.
I know, it is an anoying answer, but it is a very hard question too. You will very likely not do full productions with 6DSPs without bouncing.
If I remember correctly, a 14/15 DSP card will do 2.7 GFLOPS, an AMD 64 working in 32-bit will probably do roughly twice that with SSE2/3/whatnot optimizations enabled.
The only difference is one is dedicated processing and the other isn't. I have an AMD64 3000+ and an 15DSP+3DSP cards setup, and I do all the mixing/effects on the DSP card, without really using any native/VST (except Inspector XL and the odd smartelectronix/destroyfx plugin once in a while.) I rarely ever max out my DSP use, but most of my projects stay under 16 stereo channels.
The only difference is one is dedicated processing and the other isn't. I have an AMD64 3000+ and an 15DSP+3DSP cards setup, and I do all the mixing/effects on the DSP card, without really using any native/VST (except Inspector XL and the odd smartelectronix/destroyfx plugin once in a while.) I rarely ever max out my DSP use, but most of my projects stay under 16 stereo channels.
well, that's not the only difference... 
if you consider ONLY the processing inside the CPU core, those figures above are correct.
But since that's rarely the case with real time audio processing you can SAFELY assume that the native CPU will be able to make use of just 20% of it's (theoretical) capabilities, probably 10% is even more likely due to non-optimzed code (who has that time today ?)
the (benchmark) code that determines the floating point performance executes entirely on chip (huges caches today), so it's useful to compare members of the same CPU family only.
I admit it's boring, but I can't resist posting <a href=http://www.bittware.com/documents/TSvsP ... II.pdf>the link to this pdf</a> one more time.
It's an excellent comparison of native versus a dsp processing by a company who sells boards with both cpu types - so a balanced presentation can be expected. It's very techy tho
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-09-12 13:52 ]</font>
if you consider ONLY the processing inside the CPU core, those figures above are correct.
But since that's rarely the case with real time audio processing you can SAFELY assume that the native CPU will be able to make use of just 20% of it's (theoretical) capabilities, probably 10% is even more likely due to non-optimzed code (who has that time today ?)
the (benchmark) code that determines the floating point performance executes entirely on chip (huges caches today), so it's useful to compare members of the same CPU family only.
I admit it's boring, but I can't resist posting <a href=http://www.bittware.com/documents/TSvsP ... II.pdf>the link to this pdf</a> one more time.
It's an excellent comparison of native versus a dsp processing by a company who sells boards with both cpu types - so a balanced presentation can be expected. It's very techy tho
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-09-12 13:52 ]</font>
-
love_tempo
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:00 pm
thanks for the useful responses. To give you a picture of my current working methods. I use Ableton Live 4 typically with an instance or two of reaktor, one instance of waldorf attack, one instance of FM7, one instance of kontakt.
Typically, I use about 8 VST instances with outputs routed to 12-16 channels. One most of these channels I run the excellent Sonalksis compressor and EQ plugs.
I also sometimes use some an instance or two from the voxengo analog flux suite, PSP Nitro, OhmForce suite and the PSP VintageWarmer.
On the effects returns I usually use one instance of a convolving reverb and one conventional. At the moment my CPU (AMD 3200) is not upto this task. I would need it to be at least twice as fast to avoid bouncing down.
With SCOPE I would hope to replace the CPU intensive Reaktor with a voice or two of Minimax and SCOPE Modular. I also will probably discontinue using FM7. I plan to keep Waldorf Attack and Kontakt but they are CPU light anyway.
I plan to make extensive use of SCOPE's digital mixer as I am ditching my Mackie VLZ in favour of the A16 + interface approach.
I'm undecided about the FX yet as I am very happy with Sonalksis, Voxengo and PSP plugs. But if there was some good SCOPE stuff I would use that, especially dynamics, EQ and reverbs. It seems that SCOPE excels more in the synths and digital mixing than the fx. Is that correct?
So would 6 DSPs be able to handle mixing/routing duties, 2 voices of minimax and a moderately complex modular patch? Would there be any power left over for effects/processing?
Typically, I use about 8 VST instances with outputs routed to 12-16 channels. One most of these channels I run the excellent Sonalksis compressor and EQ plugs.
I also sometimes use some an instance or two from the voxengo analog flux suite, PSP Nitro, OhmForce suite and the PSP VintageWarmer.
On the effects returns I usually use one instance of a convolving reverb and one conventional. At the moment my CPU (AMD 3200) is not upto this task. I would need it to be at least twice as fast to avoid bouncing down.
With SCOPE I would hope to replace the CPU intensive Reaktor with a voice or two of Minimax and SCOPE Modular. I also will probably discontinue using FM7. I plan to keep Waldorf Attack and Kontakt but they are CPU light anyway.
I plan to make extensive use of SCOPE's digital mixer as I am ditching my Mackie VLZ in favour of the A16 + interface approach.
I'm undecided about the FX yet as I am very happy with Sonalksis, Voxengo and PSP plugs. But if there was some good SCOPE stuff I would use that, especially dynamics, EQ and reverbs. It seems that SCOPE excels more in the synths and digital mixing than the fx. Is that correct?
So would 6 DSPs be able to handle mixing/routing duties, 2 voices of minimax and a moderately complex modular patch? Would there be any power left over for effects/processing?
the nice thing about scope cards is that they're very fluid in form. you will likely change some of your workflow to take advantage of the cards strengths.
you will have enough horsepower to record those synths and then mix everything down. you will likely, after finding out how good scope devices sound, want to use more of them and then you'll want more dsp. the scope effects are VERY good. all the stuff in the mix and master pack is stuff you'll want . i like optimaster and vinco especially. the stm2448 mixer sounds great and you'll definitely want to, when all your recording is done, send all your sequencer's audio tracks out individually(using whatever vsts you feel you need) into the scope mixer and sum the signals there(for your more serious productions). the clarity, body and depth of your production's sound will benefit. the stock effects are solid devices that all studios need. together with your vsts you will have a lot of nice choices.
the synths ARE really good and you'll be able to use a couple at a time maybe. just record them. the fact is, scope devices ARE hardware. hardware uses dsp chips to do what it does, so your chips ARE the device they are configured to be. just like with hardware, you might want to record your external synth before mixing down. you can save the patch as a preset and you can save the midi track, so you can change things if you need to. you could think of it as track freezing.
the card is a real bargain for what you get, and you'l definitely be able to make use of it if you understand what it is. that said, if you can afford the bigger card, it's not a waste. the thing is, it's not a sound blaster, it's a real studio(virtual reality). you will need to change your thinking compared to what you have been doing a bit...
the asio modules in the routing window are like the jacks on a hardware recorder(your sequencer) you can add wav modules and interface with another program in real time(like to do a quick realtime mixdown into another app or to mix in audio from another app). by connecting them to a scope mixer, you can monitor everything in realtime. your overdubs will have no latency problems. you can use the a16 as a realtime patchbay on the computer, so you can use any external effect that you wish to(with no latency problems) or set up headphone feed(s). you can connect any audio in to ANY audio out and vice versa, likewise with midi. basically, you'll have a serious piece of kit and your computer will ALWAYS be usefull and be a professional production piece even if you never update it. good gear never goes out of style, so with the a16, even if the card is put into an old p3 500mhz, it'd still be usefull as a 20i/o synth, effect and mixing box.
so...a 6 chip card is very worthwile, but the 14 chip card is more fun. personally, i have a pulsar1(first generation card), which has 4 chips, a pulsar1 srb, another 4 chips and a power pulsar with 15 chips, for a total of 23 chips. most of the time, i don't use more than about 15 chips, but serious mixes.....
my stuff definitely has a better sound than my area's other small studios. clients always comment on it.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2005-09-13 02:35 ]</font>
you will have enough horsepower to record those synths and then mix everything down. you will likely, after finding out how good scope devices sound, want to use more of them and then you'll want more dsp. the scope effects are VERY good. all the stuff in the mix and master pack is stuff you'll want
. i like optimaster and vinco especially. the stm2448 mixer sounds great and you'll definitely want to, when all your recording is done, send all your sequencer's audio tracks out individually(using whatever vsts you feel you need) into the scope mixer and sum the signals there(for your more serious productions). the clarity, body and depth of your production's sound will benefit. the stock effects are solid devices that all studios need. together with your vsts you will have a lot of nice choices.the synths ARE really good and you'll be able to use a couple at a time maybe. just record them. the fact is, scope devices ARE hardware. hardware uses dsp chips to do what it does, so your chips ARE the device they are configured to be. just like with hardware, you might want to record your external synth before mixing down. you can save the patch as a preset and you can save the midi track, so you can change things if you need to. you could think of it as track freezing.
the card is a real bargain for what you get, and you'l definitely be able to make use of it if you understand what it is. that said, if you can afford the bigger card, it's not a waste. the thing is, it's not a sound blaster, it's a real studio(virtual reality). you will need to change your thinking compared to what you have been doing a bit...
the asio modules in the routing window are like the jacks on a hardware recorder(your sequencer) you can add wav modules and interface with another program in real time(like to do a quick realtime mixdown into another app or to mix in audio from another app). by connecting them to a scope mixer, you can monitor everything in realtime. your overdubs will have no latency problems. you can use the a16 as a realtime patchbay on the computer, so you can use any external effect that you wish to(with no latency problems) or set up headphone feed(s). you can connect any audio in to ANY audio out and vice versa, likewise with midi. basically, you'll have a serious piece of kit and your computer will ALWAYS be usefull and be a professional production piece even if you never update it. good gear never goes out of style, so with the a16, even if the card is put into an old p3 500mhz, it'd still be usefull as a 20i/o synth, effect and mixing box.
so...a 6 chip card is very worthwile, but the 14 chip card is more fun. personally, i have a pulsar1(first generation card), which has 4 chips, a pulsar1 srb, another 4 chips and a power pulsar with 15 chips, for a total of 23 chips. most of the time, i don't use more than about 15 chips, but serious mixes.....
my stuff definitely has a better sound than my area's other small studios. clients always comment on it.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2005-09-13 02:35 ]</font>
Yep, same experience here. I'd say the Scope platform absolutely utterly overrules in terms of synthesis (Modular, Minimax, Protone, Profit, Adern Flexor, John Bowen synths, Wavelength synths, Spacef synths etc etc.) The effects go from perfectly fine to amazing (Sonic Timeworks A100/P100, Optimaster, Vinco, Celmo stuff, D-Comp, etc etc etc.) It's pretty easy to use the Modular/Flexor modules in an effects/processing context too.
The stock EQ/compressor are totally usable and are by far the devices I use the most in a typical track. I also get constant comments and compliments about how incredibly clear my mixes sound. I test them out on random sound systems (car, house, etc) and I'm still completely blown away by how it sounds, even months after the mix.
I'd also definitely suggest to save up and get the 15DSP card. I have 15+3, and most of my mixes will fit onto the 15 DSP card, the extra 3 I mostly use for that extra little experimental bits, to load a few extra devices and test things out. I can't say I've maxed out my DSP use in the last 2 years, except during tests.
You won't be able to push all your effects onto the DSP, as there is no convolution reverb on the Scope platform, but it's still pretty trivial to use any VST/native effect.
The stock EQ/compressor are totally usable and are by far the devices I use the most in a typical track. I also get constant comments and compliments about how incredibly clear my mixes sound. I test them out on random sound systems (car, house, etc) and I'm still completely blown away by how it sounds, even months after the mix.
I'd also definitely suggest to save up and get the 15DSP card. I have 15+3, and most of my mixes will fit onto the 15 DSP card, the extra 3 I mostly use for that extra little experimental bits, to load a few extra devices and test things out. I can't say I've maxed out my DSP use in the last 2 years, except during tests.
You won't be able to push all your effects onto the DSP, as there is no convolution reverb on the Scope platform, but it's still pretty trivial to use any VST/native effect.
... not to forget that the 14/15 DSP cards come with the full software package, which makes it an even better overall value 
I'm on 8 DSPs and I definetely max them out regularily, though I don't even bother to have a lot of voices.
but it should also be noticed that the sound quality (or creative possibilities) are in no way restricted to 'high power' devices.
even fairly simple designs can achieve outstanding results - but they just sum up, a synth here, an electronic drum set there, a few fx channels, a synth abused as a special fx unit, plus the bread and butter stuff...
if budget allows, the bigger card is the better choice, but finally the system is upgradeable at any given time - just plug in another board and the software automatically integrates it
cheers, Tom
I'm on 8 DSPs and I definetely max them out regularily, though I don't even bother to have a lot of voices.
but it should also be noticed that the sound quality (or creative possibilities) are in no way restricted to 'high power' devices.
even fairly simple designs can achieve outstanding results - but they just sum up, a synth here, an electronic drum set there, a few fx channels, a synth abused as a special fx unit, plus the bread and butter stuff...
if budget allows, the bigger card is the better choice, but finally the system is upgradeable at any given time - just plug in another board and the software automatically integrates it
cheers, Tom
Yes, you just need more, More, MORE and
M
O
R
E
!
!
!
!
I started out with a Luna (3 DSP), then an XTC-card (6 DSP) 18 months later, and from the looks of it I am picking up a Scope Proffesional (14/15 DSP) tomorrow - Can't say I really have an urgent need, but you never know and I just couldnt help myself....
So come on an join the club of helplessly addicted DSP junkies
M
O
R
E
!
!
!
!
I started out with a Luna (3 DSP), then an XTC-card (6 DSP) 18 months later, and from the looks of it I am picking up a Scope Proffesional (14/15 DSP) tomorrow - Can't say I really have an urgent need, but you never know
and I just couldnt help myself....So come on an join the club of helplessly addicted DSP junkies
Firstly, it really depends on your whole studio setup. If your whole studio is your computer, you won't be needing stacks of I/O modules loaded & will have a cusion of DSP power with 6 DSPs to run synths & FX.On 2005-09-12 12:06, love_tempo wrote:
What I would like to know is roughly how much power I might expect from a 6 DSP scope card. Obviously native CPU processing and DSP processing are very different things. BUT I need to quantify this somehow.
On the other hand, if you've got a real studio around your Scope system (which i presume you have, as you're thinking of an A16u), you'll need increasingly more I/O modules loaded in Scope before you even sniff at a synth.
To try to put this into perspective, i'll give a real example: Our current SFP default project needs the following modules loaded at startup to enable the SFP to be the heart of our growing studio:
2 @ STM 2448 mixers
1 @ ControlRoom
1 @ GraphEQ S
Pulsar2 ADAT A Source
Pulsar2 ADAT B Source
Pulsar2 Analog Source
Pulsar2 SP-DIF Source
Pulsar2 MIDI A Source
Pulsar2 MIDI A Dest
Pulsar2 Analog Dest
Pulsar2 SP-DIF Dest
PS [2] ADAT A Source
PS [2] ADAT B Source
PS [2] MIDI A Source
PS [2] MIDI A Dest
PS [2] Z-Link A Source
PS [2] Z-Link A Dest
ASIO2 24 Bit Source
ASIO2 Dest
Sequencer Midi Source 1
Sequencer Midi Source 2
Sequencer Midi Dest 1
Sequencer Midi Dest 2
Wave Source 1
Wave Dest 1
Wave Source 2
Wave Dest 2
Sorry if that seems a little long-winded, but my point is, that to load these basic modules and have a setup worthy of sitting where it is, takes 6 of our 12 dsps. In otherwords, if you load up this lot on a 6 DSP card you may well cry, as you'll have no DSP power left.
MORE
I should point out the obvious mistake in what i said above. >>>
You wouldn't have quite as many modules loaded with just a 6 DSP card, as you'd be minus the xtra Adat modules etc.
If you're running 2 Powersamplers or Lunas however & they both have the Adat xpansions, you could have very similar modules loaded & would soon discover my point.
I should point out the obvious mistake in what i said above. >>>
You wouldn't have quite as many modules loaded with just a 6 DSP card, as you'd be minus the xtra Adat modules etc.
If you're running 2 Powersamplers or Lunas however & they both have the Adat xpansions, you could have very similar modules loaded & would soon discover my point.
The first mixer deals with 32 channels of Adat. 16 from 2 external digital mixers, 8 from NoahEX & 8 from an Emu sampler. (some channels are Stereo to allow this) Plus Scope synths.
Busses & direct outs go to ASIO destinations.
The second mixer deals with 24 channel multitrack audio playback from cubase via the ASIO2 24 bit Source module.
Control room speaks for itself in this situation ( it's needed if you want flexible monitoring )
Again, a bit long winded, but the point is that we need to work this way. We need the 2 mixers & controlroom unless we want to start switching projects mid recording session. U see
Busses & direct outs go to ASIO destinations.
The second mixer deals with 24 channel multitrack audio playback from cubase via the ASIO2 24 bit Source module.
Control room speaks for itself in this situation ( it's needed if you want flexible monitoring )
Again, a bit long winded, but the point is that we need to work this way. We need the 2 mixers & controlroom unless we want to start switching projects mid recording session. U see
That's irrelevant, I was just pointing out that you included some DSP-heavy mixers in your list of "I/O" modules. The ADAT, ASIO and other modules really don't take much DSPs by themselves if you don't use 2-3 mixers. You could have 1/10th of the I/O modules you list loaded with the same mixers, and you'd have a pretty similar load.
