scope professional versus muse receptor, which has more powe

binez0r · Post by **binez0r** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:42 pm

I am looking to extend my DAW and am horribly tied between purchasing a couple receptors or a scope professional with the possibility of expansions. Both are flexible it seems, with certain gains and limitations (PCI bandwidth seems a worry)... however... I will try to explain what it is I am doing and what it is I am looking for.

My main applications are Max/MSP and Fruity Loops. I consider myself to be an experimental musician and I think at this moment I am looking for quanity as opposed to quality.. IE, I don't need fidelity and static plugins so much as I am looking for small module plugins to automate heavily (IE, plugins without a large computational overhead)..

I am lost in a sea of hardware. Weeks on end I have contemplated the best route to see my ideal compositional environment realized and its boiled down to these 2 options. Scope versus Muse. Whose it going to be. I want to know which of the two options (being as they priced about the same).. would offer me more power all around... IE, which machine will grant more power with respect to algorithms of similar nature. I need power, power, power. Right now I am destroying my a64 3800 with things I am doing in max/msp and vst plugins...

If anyone owns BOTH systems, a comparison of the two platforms would be most useful. I also found it hard to get a benchmark overview of how many of each plugin one could run on each card type before maxing out the system.... if anyone could post that...

[ This Message was edited by: binez0r on 2006-06-19 01:24 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:20 am

On 2006-06-17 15:42, binez0r wrote:
...My main applications are Max/MSP and Fruity Loops. I consider myself to be an experimental musician and I think at this moment I am looking for quanity as opposed to quality.. IE, I don't need fidelity and static plugins so much as I am looking for small module plugins to automate heavily (IE, plugins without a large computational overhead)...

afaik know the main advantage of a Muse Receptor is convenience in running native VSTI plugins without the OS and sequencer overhead.

A stripped down Windows (XPLite etc) and a lightweight VST host like Tobybear's or energyXT are (at least in technical figures) almost identical.

That makes Scope the more interesting (and versatile) choice, in particular for an experimental musician who's most likely after new horizons

Your question somehow reminds me at my very own choice of Scope years ago. I read a lot about it and found it convincing, yet all the reviews mentioned demand for a 'powerful PC/Mac' to host it.
8 years ago it was quite a distance to the 3 GHZ barrier plus multi-gigabytes of local Ram...

anyway, I didn't consider my Celeron 333 a valid choice in this context.
All the 'figures' seemed to vote against it.

Then a dude from the local shop said: ...try the Pulsar over the weekend and return it on monday if it doesn't work...

Well, what can I say ?
It was a breeze to install (it IS simple on a simple PC)
and then there opened the window which I knew from the mag photos, but what a difference it makes to be able to use this thing according to own ideas

OMG I thought, why didn't I pick this earlier ?
It was THE perfect solution as I could interconnect everything with everything, inside and outside of the PC. Needless to mention the performance concerns of the reviews, those 'figures', weren't even remotely an issue...

It has been mentioned countless times that whatever one thinks about Scope's performance, sound quality or whatever - there is no doubt about it's latency free routing capabilities, which are still unique on the market.
And that's not reflected in benchmarks

Recently I added 2 FX pedals to the Scope environment by connecting the guitar via a clean preamp, routed an output to the pedal's in and the pedal's output back to Scope (I have a 16 channel Adat converter for external connections)
Setup in a couple of minutes, I now have a Nobels SpecialDistortion and an Ibanez Echomachine available for ANY soundsource in the PC - I just repatch the virtual cable

The guitar mentioned goes to a Scope Ampsim on a mixerchannel (standard). I could as well route it via Asio into a native Granular app (CrusherX), full or parallel and return what Crusher sends back via Asio into the virtual Leslie of Creamware's B2003...
In my case the Asio roundtrip will be 2x25ms because I have an old card, the current ones will be happy at 2x3ms - Asio buffering is a natural matter of fact.

the content of the example may not be very interesting for you, but it shows the range of process control in Scope:
from external hardware to DSP and native processing and back

if you want a 100 lighweight processes in Scope or 1 really heavy synth is just up to your choice.
Synths like the Zarg Solaris allow a single voice to have > 10 different(!) oscillators and as much different(!) filters simultaneously

you could as well setup a synth in Modular with literally hundreds of very purist 'basic engines'.

Needless to mention you can send your Fruity stuff through Modular or any Scope FX chaines as well...

cheers, Tom

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:34 am

Hi!
I made some experimental music some time ago when studying arts. That time I dreamt of buying a (15dsp) Scope system with the developement package, but that was too expensive for me.
Now you get a Scope professional card and you may get the SDK (developement kit) for free!!!! I'm still waiting for my copy (finally I fullfilled my dream and bought a used Scope professional 2 weeks ago), signed it two weeks ago and am very curious about it.
As far as I can see: SDK is THE perfect audio tool for an experimental musician. I don't think that you will ever have problems with power. For experimental stuff a scope professional should suit gigantic projects. Think of unlimited & automated synth-stuff through 16 speakers (as I did years ago with a 4dsp Pulsar Card), selfcontrolling, controlled via extern mikes, MIDI... all you want and with SDK you can build your own stuff!!
You'll get controll possibilities which extend the possibilities of VSTs by far!

Martin

[ This Message was edited by: MCCYRANO on 2006-06-18 02:36 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:53 am

Comparing Scope to the Muse is pretty ludicrous imo. They are completely different platforms in terms of both hard & software and they are targetted at different markets.

Buy a Scope Professional & leave the Muse thingiemajigger sitting on the shelf. Tell the guy trying to sell you the muse that they're a pile of dog poo.

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:55 am

http://cwmodular.org/
http://www.modularsynth.co.uk/

Post by **hubird** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:59 am

http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... &forum=5&1

dawman · Post by **dawman** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:00 am

I think that you should listen to each, as that was the same choice I faced last summer. In case you didn't notice my posts here at the Z, I am now an addict working on finishing my 2nd 45 DSP box. If you wish to sound like the " Guy Next Door", by all means grab the Muse and start playing. But Scope will allow you the sound and freedom that Muse could only hope 2 achieve. I'm sure that if you play keyboards you will make the right choice. Welcome to the Z BTW, where no opinions are suppressed.

binez0r · Post by **binez0r** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:17 pm

Well, its not the platform that grants the creativity, its the way you interact with that platform and you're ability to see into its possibilities that makes it useable in any respect. Maybe I was misleading, I can do something creativie with either platform, it doesn't matter. Maybe the best bet is to get both, try them out, and find out for myself.

I use max/msp pretty extensively. Max itself offers quite a versatile setup for manipulating controlable devices, which would be the case for either SCOPE or the receptor, so creativity within the platform isn't as essential as pure computational number crunching power. I have already built my own software for manipulating vsts over a network and don't really care too much for another modular host, albeit I would defintely explore SCOPEs routing possibilities.

So, yes computational number crunching power is what I'm after... So, being as the Receptor and SCOPE are the same price, I just wanted to know, since my FX are all onboard, (and my synths are all hardware)..

thanks,
james

binez0r · Post by **binez0r** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:21 pm

On 2006-06-18 08:00, scope4live wrote:
I think that you should listen to each, as that was the same choice I faced last summer. In case you didn't notice my posts here at the Z, I am now an addict working on finishing my 2nd 45 DSP box. If you wish to sound like the " Guy Next Door", by all means grab the Muse and start playing. But Scope will allow you the sound and freedom that Muse could only hope 2 achieve. I'm sure that if you play keyboards you will make the right choice. Welcome to the Z BTW, where no opinions are suppressed.

I really can't agree that owning a scope prevents you from sounding like the guy next door. Music for me doesn't have a physical [hardware] manifestation of creativity. It all exists within oneself. I could probably make something insane on 8 oberheim matrix 1000s or with an ensemble of wood block touting eskimos, it doesn't matter.

[ This Message was edited by: binez0r on 2006-06-18 21:23 ]

Post by **garyb** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:34 pm

well, S4L gave his opinion and you have yours. he does make ALL his money making music with synths....as you said the interface is very important and the scope interface is the best in the business imho, if you want to be creative. you seem to already have made up your mind, but the receptor and the scope aren't even comparable products. you might even use receptor WITH scope. as far as hardware or whatever, what most don't understand is that scope IS hardware(dsp chips are what makes 99.999% of the hardware synths and effects on the market in the last 10 years. scope just doesn't have individual boxes and knobs for each device).....
as far as raw power goes, scope is a very good buy, but the better the algo, the less instances, so it's impossible to say how much you'll be able to run. it really depends on what devices you use. with the better synths using 10 voices, you'll have to record them first before loading a different one just like with hardware. of course a 10 voice minimoog is like 10 minimoogs which would be about $15,000 and less functional(the scope synth is vintage hardware quality, unlike vsts). also the 10 real minis won't do anything else when you are done where the scope card can then be compressors or a completely different synth(or whatever). the receptor can be flexible like that, but not at the same level of sound quality or flexability(for the most part).

the scope card will definitely be usable in ways you haven't even considered if you are willing to give it the chance. the receptor will never be able to do many of the things that the scope card can, but the scope card can do what the receptor does.

these are my opinions, offered because you posted questions. if you have already decided what to do and don't agree with/need them, just ignore them please.

binez0r · Post by **binez0r** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:11 pm

these are my opinions, offered because you posted questions. if you have already decided what to do and don't agree with/need them, just ignore them please.

Hehe, fat chance. What you're saying just isn't true. With the receptor you can use a plugin building application like max/msp to send UDP packets to control automation on the devices using custom built software. So far, I fail to see SCOPE picking up on the opensoundprotocol as part of their implementation or even the ability to receive network data.

I haven't made up my decision at all. I've received some good advice so far, albeit I've had to sift through quite a lot to find that.

In that respect, a receptor in the proper hands can be just as if not more versatile than the scope platform if you know how to build udp-enabled vst plugins.

I still don't understand too well what SCOPE can do, its obvious this isn't really leading anywhere so I'll just buy one of each, test them out, and figure it out for myself. I do understand that scope IS hardware, I was looking into a Capybara for quite some time, albeit some interoperability between Kyma and Max/PD left me feeling like Symbolic Sounds was too isolated a company to work for what I was looking for. I have a way of working.

Anyways, I appreciate your comments, no need to be defensive. They're just questions and observations. I haven't made my mind up at all, I just know that SCOPE is a few years old and I am all for owning the platform but many concerns naturally arise, most recently I have posted on a pci-e topic about the advent of that and scope. I read on tests that old pci outperformed firewire and usb2.0 (RME forum I think) and it seems logical that SCOPE would see an upgrade to that, but when and how and where is really bugging me. I am working on an album right now and could use an immediate solution for solving some issues I'm having with bouncing down my tracks, whether that be dynamic hardware, static hardware, or an all together new computer, I don't know yet.

Its hard as hell deciding on these things. That's the only conclusion I have to date. I don't need to be sold on SCOPE, I really like what i've read and have thought about blowing 4.5 grand on a 45 DSP setup or what not, but its all so confusing. So many possibilities, not enough time to research.

[ This Message was edited by: binez0r on 2006-06-19 00:20 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:20 pm

On 2006-06-18 21:21, binez0r wrote:
...I really can't agree that owning a scope prevents you from sounding like the guy next door. Music for me doesn't have a physical [hardware] manifestation of creativity. It all exists within oneself. ...

with regard to 'sound' it does infact, as that 'guy' stands for the (most common today) VSTI only approach

Of course that's not related to creativity directly, but the result is limited in it's audible range, which you circumvented elegantly ...since my FX are all onboard, (and my synths are all hardware)...

cheers, Tom

binez0r · Post by **binez0r** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:22 pm

Well, that same line, sounding like the guy next door.. It's got a ring to it that reminds me of Apple marketing, like.. when you buy a mac you buy individuality or something silly. I dunno, I just thought it was a bad parallel to make

No hard feelings though, I am still all ears and willing to listen. Just wish I could try one out already...

Tom, you certainly don't think all onboard fx are vst (or even directX)? I don't quite follow what you're saying. There are plenty of modular environments out there, have you used, for example.. Max/Pure data/Bidule/Reaktor/Audiomulch????? [on the PC that is]

[ This Message was edited by: binez0r on 2006-06-19 00:26 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:32 pm

you write THAT in response to an ex-Apple sales rep...

kidding

it's really not about dogma, I have DSP and native processing and external hardware and for my personal taste any single sound source may become boring, even SFP only

it's also not about 'Scope sounds better' - (for my ears) it just has a more complete representation of the spectrum, which becomes obvious when A/B ing similiar stuff.

cheers, Tom

I remember Audiomulch, but that was very long ago, Reaktor (it's predecessor) brought me into electronic music on the PC

it has it's own sound aesthetics, so to say, but it's THE example for what I mean with 'less sound'.
It's thin and kind of harsh on it's own, as were all devices I demoed from NI - and I have NI's B4 and CWA's B2003, a TX7 and a TX802 versus FM7 (demo)...
but that does NOT make the NI devices unusable, the opposite is the case

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-06-19 00:48 ]

binez0r · Post by **binez0r** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:13 am

Yeah, I personally hate all things native instruments and refuse to own anything by them. So, I'm not really in that pool of people. But to NOT buy a receptor just because I want to be an individual is just as bad as the reverse. I want to keep my head on straight here

I've always loved modular environments, so Scope appeals to me in that respect. When I had logic I built huge networks of stuff. After that I moved onto max which is like a logic environment on P.C.P.

I have a yamaha tx816 which I'd take anyday over that shitty Fm7

I dunno, I'm all mixed up lately

Need to figure this out so I can get back to composing. Drooling over gear has caused permanent water damage to my carpeting.

Post by **garyb** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:53 am

it just depends on what you want. whatever fits your point of veiw or workflow best and chances are you might want both...

i just don't think that the idea of camparing "power" is relevant. the number of instances of devices on either system depends on how well written the plugin is and what quality is desired.

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-06-19 02:57 ]

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:45 am

Agreed - if you were to run a decent VST synth on the Receptor, like Gmedia Minimonsta or something, I reckon you'd get a lot less voices than a Scope Project (6 dsps). You won't find the Receptor's power to be anywhere near that of your Athlon64.

Maybe you should look into a used Noah fully expanded - a lot of excellent bundled synths and decent poly. They can be had pretty cheap.

[ This Message was edited by: darkrezin on 2006-06-19 04:47 ]

binez0r · Post by **binez0r** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:52 am

Ok, that'll do. If anyone has a Noah for sale write to me at maxmaster11[at]comcast[dot]net or binez0r on AIM. Thanks

Post by **irrelevance** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:51 am

Hold on a minute! Noah does not offer the same flexibility found in scope. Noah is less about patching in a modular environment and more instant gratification with the synth plugins offered.
I thin kyou could have the best of both native and dsp worlds if you put together a nice spec pc for your native apps + a scope card for all your dsp jones'

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:19 am

Yep. I just recommended it because it is functionally more close to Receptor than Scope is. And therefore more comparable.