PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Has anyone here ever tried bypassing the Scope mixers, and sending direct outs to a hardware mixer?

I was testing out some old monitors doing this and was shocked at the difference in sound. So I took my new 8 Operator FM Modular patch, that has zero effects, and put an MV Pro, and Flu-Liq 8.0 into the path directly out to the Destination Module, to the A16 Ultra, then to my hardware mixer and was shocked at the sound quality? So I recorded an mp3 using VDAT and was once again shocked when I converted in GoldWave at the quality. I could be wrong, but are Scope mixers compressing the sound somehow at the input stage, and causing the degradation I am hearing? I know my PL2404 is comparable to the Crest mixers in terms of quality, but the mp3's sound so much more detailed. A real night and day difference. And I don't mean in volume, just plain old definition and quality.

I just might need some sleep, but could someone try this out, and report back.

Just take a synth and add the effects in the project window in serial fashion, and then take those outputs into a Scope mixer. There's a huge difference to my ears.

I hope I ain't rufflin' anyone's feathers here, but this came as a shock to me.


JV

i wouldn't be surprised if an analog mixer sounded better. i don't think your A/B was very scientific. depending on the time and place and what you had to accomplish, results may vary...

Yeah but I used the Modules described, and simply added a mixer prior to the Destination Module for my A/B, and still unconvinced I recorded into VDAT and did the best sounding conversion I have made to date.

I will try one of my high end mixers out insted of Dyna or the STS stuff and see what happens. I am limited to a 14DSP Pro so I will just try this w/ the ASIO outs and the MV Pro w/ a Rhodes or something that won't require much DSP.

It's not that the hardware mixer is some divine piece of kit, but just taking the Scope mixers out of the equation sounds so much better. I was using the hardware mixer to send the sums of the Scope mixers to my Rotary and powered cabinets all along. Just bypassing the mixer was all I did. The A/B test was immediate, so it's reference time was the time it took to cable ( virtual ) it up.

Try it and let me know what you think.

I think it's a matter of headroom a digital mixer has to keep for summing, if you monitor/record a device directly you get always the best results. I usually connect the sounds I'm recording to the 2448 mixer to monitor their levels and to have a look at what's happening, but in parallel I send the sound to the ASIO ports directly. I might also add reverb or whatever needed to get a good sound in the headphones for a vocal, or lower the monitoring of a guitar if I want to hear more the rhythm tracks when overdubbing, but I always go straight to ASIO for recording, provided that the direct sound, as shown in the monitoring channel with the fader at 0db, is at an optimal level.

If i want to add effects to the recording I always add them to the recorded track, maybe re-routing it to the mixer channel where I already have inserted them previously for monitoring.

When you have many sounds the mixers are indispensable, but if you have the patience to route the most out of them, like dynamic effects directly after the ASIO sources before the mixer inputs, I also have the impression of a better result. I prefer the summing of an stm 2448 to that of the Cubase SX3 mixer any day, though.

Turns out it was a sleep related issue afterall. I was loading the 2 little Scopers from the routing window, and Dyna and 1632 always load with the stereo channels disabled. So all of the pretty psuedo panning that was accomplished in Modular was going to 2 mono channels out of phase and unpanned, But I did discover the hardware mixers quality of taking the direct signals which are seperate from the Scope mixers direct outs to the rotary cabinet was a much stronger signal, and recording a stereo track w/ effects to VDAT firectly out to the ASIO guves a higher quality of sound, probably due to placement of FX not being used as inserts.

I apologise for being a Pendajo. But I was rolling for 16+ hours, and strung out ( stupid ). But the two little mistakes did cause me to discover a couple of new better ways of routing directly ro hardware.

I woke up in a daze a while ago and immediately went over and tried the experiment again w/ SpaceF's MixSat C and realise how valuable sleep is for wannabe producers. As soon as I kicked on the GUI of Dyna I suddenly remembered the load state of the 2 Scope mixers. and instead of deleting my embarrassing post I thought I'd pull a Barack Obama.......................... I simply have " refined " my position.

Good thing you didnt do a John McCain and say you never posted it even though the evidence was 5 posts above. ..oh wait he cant even use a computer

Don't drink and drive (or scope) [tm].

Big Jimm
olso try direct from scope to amp or monitors,great respond

XITE-1/4LIVE wrote:Has anyone here ever tried bypassing the Scope mixers, and sending direct outs to a hardware mixer?

I was testing out some old monitors doing this and was shocked at the difference in sound. So I took my new 8 Operator FM Modular patch, that has zero effects, and put an MV Pro, and Flu-Liq 8.0 into the path directly out to the Destination Module, to the A16 Ultra, then to my hardware mixer and was shocked at the sound quality? So I recorded an mp3 using VDAT and was once again shocked when I converted in GoldWave at the quality. I could be wrong, but are Scope mixers compressing the sound somehow at the input stage, and causing the degradation I am hearing? I know my PL2404 is comparable to the Crest mixers in terms of quality, but the mp3's sound so much more detailed. A real night and day difference. And I don't mean in volume, just plain old definition and quality.

I just might need some sleep, but could someone try this out, and report back.

Just take a synth and add the effects in the project window in serial fashion, and then take those outputs into a Scope mixer. There's a huge difference to my ears.

I hope I ain't rufflin' anyone's feathers here, but this came as a shock to me.


JV

If you serialize your effects, then yes, it will sound different (i.e. 'better') than when summed through a mixer because for one, there is more information reaching your ears at the same time. Problem is you have to consider phase and compression issues that trick your mind into hearing it as 'better'.

You can try routing your audio through effects and then out through the Scope mixer, and out your SPDIF output, while also sending your direct serialized effects out the analog output and do an a/b comparison, and you may find that you will have different preferences to both 'mixes'.

Greg

I tried your suggestion and tend to agree. I never knew serialzing the effects would yeild that kind of difference.

I wasn't sure why I always preferred the effects in the AUX's instead of the Channel inserts, but now I am starting to understand how the slightest sample delays can have such an impact. When I use the AES/EBU I/O's tp bring in my hardware effects, I was only using reverb and delay. I prefer most Scope based delays over hardware delays because they are more advanced and add more control. But I tried my PCM81 as a Chorusing effect, because it had a few 5 tap presets that were very lush, but it just didn't sound as good to me, even w/ the AES/EBU. But for reverbs, because of the slight pre delays that give the Lexi that wrap around non coloring sound it is a perfect choice.

Another example is the great effect called Flu-Liq from MCCY. I can't get it to blend the way I like it unless it is serialized or placed in an AUX. I first noticed that I didn't like the AUX quality of the STM1632 when I got my first SpaceF mixer made for live control. It sounded fine to me, but once I got a true stereo AUX design I could barely stand the sound of it.

A while back I had a couple of analog hardware effects that used the analog I/O's and thought they too sucked. But if I serialzed it from an output of the A16 Ultra it sounded good. I never thought a 1U would be a great stompbox effect, but there ya' go.

I only stumbled upon these ideas from having several different monitors now. The wireless 3 way ear monitors are really defined, the Blue Sky's are a dream, and my Barbetta's for mixing are O.K. but work much better for live use. I used those to make all of my mixes which I am finding out in the last few months, was the wrong approach. Can't believe I never noticed these things until recently.

yet still it is one of my plans to use an outboard analog mixer utilizising an a16 for final mixdown....

I think the analog summing and also a single analog chain has an effect on the sound... even if its just a bit of noise on a a very dry bass kick....

or a sligthly overdriven chain....

+ smooth and analog "EQ"ing, which sounds more natural.

and the good thing is : in scope you can use all the great fx in realtime on an external mixer without bigger latencies....
so you can add f.e. a scope reverb via a16 on an aux channel...

I`ll definitly check this out in the future.

to be honest, I once found that an interesting idea, too...
until I noticed how many stages the signal would have to pass after DA conversion
there's for sure a bit more involved that just a few dBs of white noise

I've listened to sound clips from a big 'analog versus digital summing shootout' which were all too obviously faked (to promote a certain device imho), so I don't buy into that hype anymore
Scope summing is just excellent (to my ears), in fact I seem to loose significantly more clarity when passing stuff over into the native domain - for encoding mp3s etc.

I see your point, though - a lot of high quality Scope sources may end in overfatiguing sound beauty
a common phenomenon of many 'modern' productions, not restricted to Scope in any way
I'd rather prevent that by source selection, than in the summing stage - for example by analog pedals or stuff like the DX7, analog or lofi drumbox etc.
On the other hand if all that's required for 'analog summing' is a resistor network - why not build your own one ?

cheers, Tom

Most people who are into analog summing believe it's more about the active transformers than passive resistors. I think if you're really going to go that direction be willing to walk down a spendy path, no mixer under $3500 (USD) new is going to be an improvement over scope. And assuming you are able to find a nice used desk that doesn't have electrical issues, it's really only the beginning of the game as using an analog board just begs for more outboard gear.

valis wrote:Most people who are into analog summing believe it's more about the active transformers than passive resistors. ...

yeah, that thought crossed my mind too - but I choose the 'resistor' for the more drastic price/performance ratio
if it's all about precise leveling, then the resistor should do a perfect job - please correct me if I overlooked some crucial physics here...
on the transformer side it's probably similiar to the 'guitar pickup effect', that a certain way of winding the wire will result in a specific 'character'.
A narrow path between keeping perfect signal integrity and adding a tiny bit of gloss
again I'd say provocativly it's hocus-pocus and mostly intended to brag with exclusive gear
nothing you couldn't do before the summing stage...

cheers, Tom

Definitely agree with Valis that you should get a good analog mixer to see any real benefit. I got a used DDA Interface and couldn't be happier - a different world to Mackie/Soundcraft etc and can be found very cheap, I got mine for around the same price as an Onyx. I spent some time with an Onyx recently and couldn't believe how noisy it was. I'm not convinced about the passive summing mixers.. getting a good active mixer was the only option for me. Seems the passive summers are VERY expensive for what you get and IMHO they are too clean. If I was buying something new I'd look at the Trident/Oram 8T series. Good DACs help too, the A16U is unbeatable for the price but I since getting some Apogees I'm only using it for a few unbalanced inputs going into Scope.

astroman wrote: yeah, that thought crossed my mind too - but I choose the 'resistor' for the more drastic price/performance ratio
if it's all about precise leveling, then the resistor should do a perfect job - please correct me if I overlooked some crucial physics here...
on the transformer side it's probably similiar to the 'guitar pickup effect', that a certain way of winding the wire will result in a specific 'character'.
A narrow path between keeping perfect signal integrity and adding a tiny bit of gloss
again I'd say provocativly it's hocus-pocus and mostly intended to brag with exclusive gear
nothing you couldn't do before the summing stage...

cheers, Tom

I don't disagree actually, and adding color before the summing stage gives you the option of using different 'color' palettes on different instruments/parts (instead of varying degrees of the same color). Of course even so some devices (such as a certain valve goodie from Pendulum Audio) are known for their ability to enhance even full mixes in a very musically pleasing way.

Most of us that have been around a while know the downsides to external mixers are heat, power consumption, lack of recall facilities, possible noise & grounding issues, possible component failure (the used alternatives to spending the $ on a toft/oram/tl audio 16 channel desk may need periodic servicing due to age) and a sudden lust for additional outboard rack gear (hardware preamps to do better than your mixer can, compressors, effects processors etc).

Personally I moved to an external mixer because I had tried to do the bit where you plug all your gear right to your ADC's, I found that even my moderate amount of hardware was a pain in the butt. Ie, using the mixer is a method of getting sounds into the mix quickly and without a lot of fuss--I found routing a lot of external sources through several stages of inputs & mixers to be overly complicated when I just needed to be able to pull stuff up fast. Seems to me there's a parallel with musicians who prefer instruments that have the immediacy of dedicated controls for performance & editing. Also having multiple analog channels gives more options for send/return loops, feedback loops, no lack of mic pre's if you need those, and so on. So I don't personally use a mixer strictly for summing as much as it's a sort of useful toolbox for all kinds of things.

Sometimes I do sum externally, usually because I don't need to do more engineering than what's already available there and it's convenient. And it may be just summing of stems or a stem or the full mix. Comparing mixes done on my board I can tell there's a moderate 'levelling' effect compared to the spikiness of digital mixes I've done, but Scope mixes often have a lot more transient detail (crisp!) and depth to the soundstage, while my Logic mixes are very very controlled due to the automation features & clinical nature of mixing with plugins.

Sorry I rant so much in my posts, sometimes I have a hard time encapsulating things into 3 words and a smiley as seems to be the habit in most online chatter.

i think it also depends on the aimed goal.

if its to get the best audioquality in terms of low noise and no sound altering scope is just perfect.
(maybe an orchestral or classic mixdown, etc.)

on the other hand minimalistic music (for example electro) can sound better mixed through a cheaper desk. a bit of noise here and a bit of distortion there.

So an external mix can get a bit more rough and dirty. Even the vinyl noise can be an audible + value.

And the digital replacements i`ve tried so far like "vinyl plug-ins" or "tape emulators" mostly are bad substitutes for the real thing.

So I wouldn`t say its "better", just different.

I really don't see the desk as being superior to Scope (or inferior) as much as I see both being useful for different things, especially due to the flexibility both give me.

As for noise, my board is only a middle grade Soundtracs from 1986 but the noise with all gear connected and faders open to nominal (0db) shows as -78dBf on my RME's metering (varies a bit depending on what is connected). It seems to be somewhat weighted to the 200-300hz range too (there's a bit of a peak there). Self noise with nothing connected is considerably lower (-86 to -88db or so), all channels open. The only major audible difference to Scope is in the transient response, there's some smushing & smearing on the desk from the transformers on each channel. I don't consider this grit (clip or soft clip) as much as a kind of gentle limiting that only kicks in when near the headroom of a given channel. The master/main mix bus has enough headroom that were I to run it hard enough to have 'color' I would be hard-clipping the RME channels that are fed by the master outs long before I reached saturation point of the master bus.

To keep it even cleaner, this desk has tape returns that can be used as inputs instead and be swapped down to the faders/sends & eq's as needed. I really wanted to do away with the worst of the color I can even bypass the eq's and sends entirely.

The things that give me noise on the board are my jd800 and the sblive/onboard sound cards that are connected for non-music work. The noisefloor on the jd800 seems to be -70db right now and sblive/onboard sound cards seem to be -50 to -60db self noise usually. I think I tracked the jd800's problem down to its reverb algorithm, it seems to amplify noise from somewhere else in the circuitry and/or have a fair bit of noise from its internal calculations. I keep meaning to buy an inexpensive TC M-one or something similar (used) so that I can dedicate it to the JD800 and bypass its reverb/delay but haven't gotten around to it yet.

Brotha' Man Astro.....................What Mountain Did You Conquer In That Avatar?


I have already mastered my VDAT tracks so no effects will be needed. So my B2003 will go right to MCCY's Satteq Wide, to the A16U, and VDAT direct to the Destination Module / A16 Ultra. The live vocals will use the AUX's and also Nuetron's ADT for the unison effect on the Chorus and Bridge sections, but will also be serialized. The AUX's can be bled over to an all AUX mix which seems to have no delay this way.

Since we will be recording live for the sake of rehearsals, naturally I want the best I quality I can achieve.

I can use SpaceF's FB5's valve that are built in to each channel, as they seem to add no delay, and the sound is to die for when I use it on synths or my ASIO 2 sends from Bidule.

Serializing the effects is definately the way to go when I get XITE-1, the summing of all sends into my cabinets have a better definition. I am glad I stumbled upon this.

If I were to replace my PL2404 sometime in the future, I will most definately get the Crest or S100 from Oram / Trident. They are the best rack solutions I have seen.

It seems to boil down to less effect, is better, and don't use more than one channel insert effect unless the added delays are to your liking.

If there is an abundance of leftover DSP power, I want my money's worth, so maybe even 96k. Hopefully this won't require re mastering the VDAT drums and vocals.

I must say, even though I have to create a few work arounds to get the quality I want, this live way of using Scope is by far the best sounding option besides thousands of dollars of hardware mixers, and outboard effects. Like around 25 Large !! This is all inside of an 8U SKB rack. Add the back saving work of tearing down a hardware rig every night and listening to whiny singers...................This is the only choice.

XITE-1/4LIVE wrote:Brotha' Man Astro.....................What Mountain Did You Conquer In That Avatar?

looks a bit Red Rockish, doesn't it ?
nothing heroic, just the local quarry, which is out of business for decades
nature's got a good part of it back and it's a real nice place - only 10 minutes from city center
depending on time of visit you can relax on your own or hangout with the youngsters, we have some 'fine trim' here, too

cheers, Tom