PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Hi,

Recently I've been wondering if the way I have configured the CW setup and Cubase is sensible...

The way it is set up now, is as follows :

* External synths, mic etc., coming in from an AD converter through ADAT or straight from the synth through SPDIF, are routed to the CW Mixer
* A couple of ASIO Sources (Cubase Out busses) from Cubase are also routed to the CW Mixer
* When I want to record anything to Audio, I connect some CW Mixer Outs to the ASIO Dest of Cubase (In busses)
* Monitoring is done by connecting the main Outs of the CW Mixer to the Pulsar Analog Dest, where my monitors are.
* Cubase is used primarily to drive the external & CW synths through MIDI, and for straight audio.

I always use the routing window etc., I don't use XTC.

I just recently realized that this costs me some flexibility - I could route the ADAT & SPDIF Ins straight into the Cubase ASIO Dest (In busses). That would allow me to mix entirely in Cubase, and I wouldn't even need the CW Mixer any more if I sent the main Out bus from Cubase straight to the monitors.

Also, that would allow me to easily apply any non-CW effects (VST etc) to each track.

Of course, I wouldn't be able to use the CW FX anymore, so it might be more sensible to create an ASIO Src for each ASIO Dest I have in Cubase, and put all these through to the CW Mixer where I can insert effects per track...

The disadvantage I see with this whole idea is that Cubase would be a source of latency - since routing of all the signals will now be affected by the load on the PC. Would that be noticeable, or only a minor tradeoff compared to the flexibility I gain by having more control through Cubase (which is for instance much better integrated with my MIDI Controllers etc.) ?

So, can anyone advise me as to what makes most sense ? Or maybe there's even an entirely different setup which is better, and I just missed the point in a major way

Thanx a lot !
Philip

The way you use it now is the best and most flexible - it's similar to how i do it (except i route sources direct into ASIO rather than via mixer, my mixer out only goes to Analog Dest like you).

i thinkany perceived added flexibilty using Cubase to mix would be lost in the quality of your mixes - SCOPE mixers do sound better than Cubase's summing - that's why most here go into SCOPE mixers. Also it is easy to use Cubase effects (if you really want - i never bother) using ASIO busses. Personally i'd stick as you are.

Or use a combination, most tracks straight to SFP. Then you are free to use effects both in Cubase and Scope. Use groups for bigger prosject or similar tracks.
Also there are switches (not shure, but they where probably included with SpaceF Blackbox2) between ADAT ans ASIO (8, 16 or 24 channels) - verry handy.

your setup is right, monitor the scope mixer. everything inside and outside the computer can be heard in real time that way(no annoying latency on overdubs or when using an external reverb or compressor in the mix). if you have 6 or more dsps, i'd use the stm2448 mixer and it's control room out for monitoring. that way you won't change the levels on your mixdowns when you want to turn down(or up) the volume in the room. that mixer also has a dedicated headphone monitor output in addition to 4 auxes and eq on every channel. other nice things about that mixer are the 8 bus outs and the fact that when mixer features are not being used, they don't load to dsps....

I do it the same way....

Hi,
I´m using Scope for monitoring, cubase for mixing

The "new" external synths and efx withing cubase are good to use scope plug and fx inside the cubase mixier together with scope-routing
..So I can mix up native/ssl duende and scope plugs but I don´t loose flexibility

Best,
Andre