PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

It's been over a year since this was last discussed.

I was just wondering if things are any different out there in virtual analog land. The synths from Rob Papen, U-he, and FabFilter are all fairly new and all look very interesting to me. Just curious what people were thinking about software now.

I've never taken the plunge on a Scope card before but I've been reading about them alot. I've never had a computer fast enough to really run softsynths, so I've never had much experience with them, just playing around. I'm finally working (been going to school) and able to afford a new computer. I'm trying to decide whether to get a higher end system and some vsti's or scale back on the computer and also get a Scope Professional card along with the computer. I know it's maybe a strange choice, but that's the direction I'm leaning. Just FYI about why I'm asking. I'll be building the system myself whichever way I go.

I'm a guitarist and sort-of pianist. I've been wanting to learn synth programming and try my hand at dance music production among other things. A Scope card seems like a good route to take for starting out.

well, considering the 'guitarist' hint the choice is easy: Scope
the tone is simply more smooth and fuller than with any native plugins (at least with all demos of guitar related stuff I tried).
This is particularily strange with NI's guitar rig2.
As their FM8 is really a milestone regarding CPU based synths, I would have expected more. The latter sounds different, but is on par with Scope synths, while the 'Zebra' for example is not - imho.

Anway, aside from the 'tone', Scope's architecture makes it very easy to record a clean guitar plus various stages of it's processing in one go, as you can fork out any intermediate stage into a track effortlessly via the onscreen routing.

Makes it also easy to integrate your favourite outboard gear.
As FX plugins I' d like to mention Celmo's Tape Echo, Amp and Cabinet Simulator, SpaceF's Echo3 (probably bundled today with SilverDisk, a ton of synth/fx processing), STW's P100/CD100 (plate and thechorus delay) and of course the Dynatube series by SonicCore themselves.

As I just recently found out - sometimes it's stupid to not properly read a manual... ... Scope has a great 'jam-record-looper' included in form of VDAT (afaik it's bundled today...).
It's not a thing like the Roland Loopstation, as jump from end to start isn't gapless, but it's exactly what you need to capture one of those ingeneous moments that usually pass by, because you had no chance to press the record button in time - and if you considered the button the idea or flow was gone...

Chose a number of tracks and time (say 8 tracks - 15 minutes), set all (record, play, restart) to auto, push the button and forget about it. It will capture 15 minutes over and over again. Press stop when you think 'wow, that was great...', copy the track you wish to keep to another disk and continue
VDAT saves exactly what you hear in ultimate quality.

to come back to the afforementioned U-He synth...
with stuff like that you'll never learn how to program synths it's just too tempting to pick one out of a 1000 presets and modify it a bit here and there.
It's got in fact an impressive collection on board - and some are really interesting - btw it's the closest thing to some Casios I have, in particular the HT700. This is no disrespect, as I'm a Casio collector

But the Zebra is constantly aliasing and overdriving in a very unpleasant way, most likely a victim of the underlying math models.
People are usually fooled by the impressive range of numbers one can cover with floating point math (and become careless as programmers) - the range is indeed impressive, but it's not continuous...

The DSP math on Scope is much more reliable, it's simply one league above.
And if you really want to learn synth programming, then it's the Modular and Flexor plus some additional modules from John Bowen and SpaceF.
Build your custom guitar multi fx with sounds that noone else has

cheers, Tom

soundwise the Scope synths are still superior compared to native stuff.. (IMO)

its not too difficult to build synths in modular that sound as good or greater than most commercial VSTis....
for sure that is my subjective opinion.

I wouldn`t want to live without my cards. But others may be happy with just the native stuff too.

my personal recommendation: for audio stuff scope is superior to native, not only the synths but also the effects.

But it never hurts to have a powerful computer system as platform to run the host sequencer and other instruments....

Imo the main reason most VSTi users prefer native isn't breakpoint envelopes or other UI concerns, it's largely because they want an 'all in one' solution where they don't have to learn something aside from their chosen sequencer. The Scope variant of this user will go to great lengths to figure out how to get various Scope devices working in XTC mode that were never created to.

Workflow is a personal thing, personally I'd sooner cut myself down to the stock Logic plugins and keep my scope cards than I would trade my scope cards for a library of VSTi's. Scope is so much more than just a synth platform...

I punish VSTi rigs, even guys w/ 2 x Muse Receptors, and Reaktor. They all use their rig exactly like Brotha' Man Valis described. Convenience.

My rig is inconvenient, but will punish all challengers. Funny, but only a high priced hardware rig could compare. If I ever tour again i will still use this but add the mighty Oberheim pair. But all other instruments have been replaced by DSP based solutions, with some hardware. My B3 model w/ rotary is so much more versatile than the real thing, which I have played for years. I can add phase / delay per preset, MIDI controlled multiple drawbar moves, and the rotary has much more control over tube pre, and speed adjustments, that the B3 really looks like a dinosaur. What use to take both feet and both hands to play, has been replaced by one foot and one hand. Leaving me to play both manuals ( Keyboards ) that sounds like 2 x B3's due to the separation of vibrato C3, and other controlling aspects. This has actually surpassed what it was suppose to emulate. Thank Creamware, and SpaceF 4 that move.

Just Face It, We Got The Meat And Potatoes, They Got The Salad, And Desert,

Thanks all for the info so far.

RE astroman - I already have a Sansamp to do some direct recording with. About the only amp plugin I'm insterested in is Line6's new Gearbox vst. I'd actually like to get Gearbox or a Pod xt eventually.

stardust wrote: Dont expect 'modern' aspects like spectral modifications, beat synchronized and flexible envelopes, sample and waveset tricks.

That's alright with me. About the only thing Scope doesn't have that I seem to think I'll need is basic wave editing, Autotune, and sequencing.

What about the FabFilter stuff? They have an endorsement on their website right now by Klayton, who's last Circle of Dust album is one of my favorites. Not that it means anything, but it is of some interest for me.

Any recommendations for a case that will support full length pci cards? Should I just get a rackmount? Antec makes some good looking 4u cases as well as some interesting quiet cases.

In regards to using vst's & vsti's like the fabfilter stuff, there's no reason you can't. As you noticed (and was said above) you'll get the most mileage out of Scope by using a sequencer hooked into scope Via it's ASIO driver. There are some Sonar users, plenty of Cubase users I'm sure, and still a handful of Logic PC users hanging on for dear...something. All midi & audio is typically handled there, aside from the surgical things you might choose to accomplish in Wavelab/Soundforge/Audition etc. I'm using a PC bias here because I suspect you're on PC btw.

azrix wrote:... I already have a Sansamp to do some direct recording with. About the only amp plugin I'm insterested in is Line6's new Gearbox vst. I'd actually like to get Gearbox or a Pod xt eventually...

The Sansamp was my original choice, but then I ended with a Radial box as it was directly available in the local shop - and I could test it over the weekend
I agree that the 'real' music plays before the converter and actually use ampsim plugins (now) most in an eq and leveling way, since my 'front end' improved.

Nevertheless I consider Scope's modulation and delay/room FX first class for guitar, not to forget the filters - Moog, SSM, Curtis on the 'classic' side and Adern's and SpaceF's as the creative follow-ups...
A comparison to the 'expert' Line6 gear would be an interesting challenge.
Imho L6 would have a very hard stand against the flexibility of Scope .

As an illustrative example: Echo3 is similiar (from it's context) to a SpaceEcho - it can call (another instance of) itself in the feedback chain - or any group of filters.
The Korg MS20 Low/Highpass combi could be replaced by say 2Hi 3Lo filters, synchronized, displaced, detuned, envelope or whatever modulated, with or without distortion.
You can pass the signal from device to device in the Scope routing with absolutely no noticable latency.
An FX chain doesn't need to be complex, the afforementioned examples are just a hint about the range from which to choose. You might miss something...

I'm in no way biased against Line 6 products. I trust in Mr. Arkardin's (a member here) opinion, who has a Scope system and one of the Pods for a long time.

cheers, Tom
(not the 3rd party ad department - though the impression may come up from tome to time...)

Softsynths rarely impress me as much as Scope does. It requires time and patience, but working with scope synths and especially Modular lets you sculpt sounds that most softsynths can't hope to match.

It's true that Scope has some limitations as noted above, but even with these limitations there is an infinite world of sound possibilities with modular.

I've been using Scope, mainly Modular and Flexor for many years now, and I never feel like I'm hitting creative walls anywhere. If I kept this same computer with no additional software or hardware changes for the next 5-10 years I don't think I'd ever get bored since there are still so many ideas I haven't realized yet in Modular. With the upcoming Flexor 3, there will be so many fresh twists and new areas that it would take a lifetime to fully explore it all.

In my music I use about 60% scope synths, 30% hardware synths, and 10% softsynths (often no softsynths at all). If I lost all my hardware and only had a midi keyboard, I'm sure I'd find enough material in scope to continue making electronic music (except for sampled instruments etc).. but I'd really hate to be stuck with no scope but a bunch of high-end VST Instruments. Too limiting.

Scope gives us the potential to use both worlds together.
Sure DSP based units sounds better than actual native thingies.

Many innovative things are developing on both sides.
It is just great to use both sides together so why all the comparisons?

I like beaf, potatos plus salad and desert.

well i would say that if you can buy hardware stuff go for it but you will then need money and room ! Otherwise a mix up of dynatube with the best effects pedals is excellent (do not forget a good DI) for bass guitar or guitar... As i am not a synth addict i would just say that except form 1/2 vsti (mainly for drums), i am really happy with all the synth available thanks to scope (i really love prodyssey, minimax and B2003). Flexor seems to be a must-have too !

Jo

bill3107 wrote:... a mix up of dynatube with the best effects pedals is excellent (do not forget a good DI) for bass guitar or guitar...

in fact it is essential - but don't even think because something is labelled 'DI' it's supposed to fulfill your expectations...

better try it with your instrument - otherwise it's more or less like gambling
eventually one proper unit is more rewarding than replacing a cheapo again and again because you just don't get 'that' tone.
a good sound is not necessarily related to a big amount of cash - but to quality engineering.

cheers, Tom

The first and second generation of Scope synths/FX weren't that great IMO (I NEVER use BlueSynth, MiniScope, etc. anymore). However, I guess they were better than the VSTi's of the day, though I never tried most of them. The plugs that came out of Noah were far superior to anything else, however, and it is most of the post-2002 plugs on Scope that sound really good. However, there are some things that haven't been updated on Scope since the quality leaped forward, namely samplers and wavetables. The STS samplers had some good features but were extremely unreliable, and I'm now moving much of my sample library over to Reason's NN-XT. Vectron is nice if you like cheesy-sounding mush-water, but for wavetables these days I use Cakewalk's Rapture (which is just as good-sounding as anything on Scope). But for VA and some other things, Scope is much better than native. So both platforms have their strengths and weaknesses.

It's good to have both! I wish more people knew about Scope and had access to its great plugs.

Shayne

Shayne White wrote:The first and second generation of Scope synths/FX weren't that great IMO (I NEVER use BlueSynth, MiniScope, etc. anymore). Shayne

For "poor" native VSTi and first/second Scope synth generation, just use my LE-1 for a "new life" sound palette
i.e. Saturn (not CW synth) is a beast with this...
Or use the Wavelength re-issues (bluesynth hummel, etc.) that are good to.

there are bad synths and plugins??


imo even the cheezy scope synths(a real cool class of sounds regardless of the platform) have a little more zing to them than their vst counterparts. it really depends on what you want to do though. a musicain will take a sound, any sound and say, "cool", and make music. sometimes though, you want a particular sound. then there might be a "best" choice.

as i say, the "best" sound is usually the original source. well, not always, but usually, so if you are asking about the minimoog, for example, then yes, scope sounds better than vstis(more like a real, "fat" hardware mini). generally, a scope synth will sit by it's self in a mix better compared to it's vst counterpart. for unique vst synths, the vst being the original source, well, vst would be the best(and most likely, only) version.

if you are really into synthesis, the scope modular with flexor has no vsti counterpart. a computer's cpu would not be able to even think about running something like that and a sequencer full of tracks and plugins!

scope is more like buying a bunch of hardware analog synths and a modular(that would take up half a room if it wasn't on the card). scope is virtually the original because dsp chips are what run most modern synths! it's not really comparable to most vstis. most vstis that are comparable in sound quality to the more powerful scope synths(is there a vsti equivalent to solaris or prowave?) are the more expensive emulations and also are very heavy resource eaters, so in this way, scope is actually a very good buy, a bargain. it's like buying actual gear. it will extend the capabilities of your computer. it's a dynamite soundcard as a bonus.

once again though, it depends on what you want....

garyb wrote:if you are really into synthesis, the scope modular with flexor has no vsti counterpart. a computer's cpu would not be able to even think about running something like that and a sequencer full of tracks and plugins!

scope is more like buying a bunch of hardware analog synths and a modular(that would take up half a room if it wasn't on the card). scope is virtually the original because dsp chips are what run most modern synths! it's not really comparable to most vstis. most vstis that are comparable in sound quality to the more powerful scope synths(is there a vsti equivalent to solaris or prowave?) are the more expensive emulations and also are very heavy resource eaters, so in this way, scope is actually a very good buy, a bargain. it's like buying actual gear. it will extend the capabilities of your computer. it's a dynamite soundcard as a bonus.

Spot on, man!

stardust wrote:The zebra has good sound and is a CPU hog...

not sure about the latter, but at least regarding the sound it seems not as bad as it felt at the first audition.
Strangely (?) there's a significant difference between playing it through Scope Asio compared to Asio4All with the onboard AC97, even though I used s/pdif with the same converters as in the old A16 (via Philips DCC 730 tape).

True, some aliasing remains - but admittedly in fairly extreme positions, and expectable if a control has a wide range. Adjusting to more 'reasonable' values was easy.
The individual filters aren't even close to what Scope offers - yet in combination they do a pretty good job.
The most interesting things (for my taste) were in the FM part, the spectral stuff is nice, but imho not that groundbreaking.

bottomline: even for VST synths Scope is an excellent choice...

but could someone please explain why 2 Asio versions can make such a difference ?
Afaik they just pass on the digital bits the plugin has generated - the actual conversion is done elsewhere.
I've noticed the same with mp3 files - looks like I'm completely missing the point here - unless the clock on the s/pdif line is totally bad (which wouldn't surprise me either)

cheers, Tom

astro, the driver surely can make a difference...

I have an AC97 chip on my board, too....

which I mainly use for Skype and Gaming..

An I noticed differences in sound between the nForce4 driver and the AC97 chip manufacturer's ( ) driver.

ASIO4ALL is a generic driver that may not be perfectly optimised for your onboard chip.

I think the bottom line is also a stylistic thing.. I think lots of VSTis are variations or converts of a basic synth (prophet, etc) that is aimed at a specific crowd.. I'm thiking of refx series. All their presets are heavily trance, and so even if their synths can be used otherwise, the strong trance connotation makes them trance synths. And if you're making trance, they've got the authentic sounds. Much easier that trying to dig around for synth combinations on scope to get that specific sound.

Conversely, it's no mystery that there's been a surge of out of context trance sounds in hiphop.. Just think about the plugins and the presets that are available..

On the other hand, scope synths are a bit more generic. To me, scope synths including the mod platform is very "blank", not having much connotation of their own. They've got character, but not really anything that makes them specific to a style of sound. I don't think I use any presets for scope synths, just because I like starting from scratch. The scope synths sound so good, you'd almost prefer to wander around a bit.

The way I work is that I usually default to a VSTi synth when I know what sound I need. Also, I throw in a VSTi synth when I could care less about that synth sound. When the synth sound needs attention, I use scope synths. For example, I might use a VSTi for a dark bassline, but use a scope synth for a powerful kick that ties the mix together. I think the regulars on this board would be surprised at how little I use scope synths.

Once you learn all the basics of synthesis (and some dsp) it all becomes pretty much the same. You have a source, and you keep hammering it 'till you get the sound you want. For me, I could care less if it was VSTi or scope. It's just a matter of which is faster.

hifiboom wrote:astro, the driver surely can make a difference...
...
ASIO4ALL is a generic driver that may not be perfectly optimised for your onboard chip.

that's what puzzles me... I assume the calculation of the digital waveform of the synth's sound is processed entirely by the plugin and Asio only supplies the vehicle (buffers and control) to shift the bits to the conversion (or recording) stage.
How could Asio then have an influence on the signal quality ? I didn't read the exact specs, tho...

cheers, Tom