18 months later with scope as a standalone

[valis]

Yes. The benefits are all of the above. The GUI performance will vary depending on the DAW and other software, if on the same machine, but that's not an issue at all on a separate PC.

I am able to use hosts like Bidule (currently, versions that have an older implementation of portaudio. 0.9760 and before, 32bit) without issue. I have little need to use plugins that my primary DAW machine(s) can host.

With Scope as my 'hub' I have 4 machines using RME soundcards all wired to Scope via adat/midi/etc, and only one is my primary DAW (another is VCV rack, etc). This works exactly as you would expect when using any external hardware with your DAW, and you can easily handle bus processing, monitor mixing and more via Scope.

The benefits are really endless, and many of the midi issues I see others have (at least with varying midi timing) I never experience.

[Bud Weiser]

What Valis said.
I´ve just acquired a "used" RME RayDat in great condition for a good price for doing the same.
I run SCOPE standalone since a long time and I´m now using 2 PCI systems, Noah EX and XITE-1.
RME RayDat is perfect to connect everything to a DAW machine running all the native software.

[st1]

With Scope as my 'hub' I have 4 machines using RME soundcards all wired to Scope via adat/midi/etc, and only one is my primary DAW (another is VCV rack, etc). This works exactly as you would expect when using any external hardware with your DAW, and you can easily handle bus processing, monitor mixing and more via Scope.

Thanks for elaborating.

But just trying to get my head around this - am I correct in understanding that you use a Scope-machine as the central mixing and monitoring platform ("hub"), while you use a non-scope machine for the DAW software (sequencer, audio recording etc), and another non-scope machine for software synths etc (sequencer, VSTs etc)?

Does this mean that you use the ADAT connectors of the Scope system for in/out, and connect those to the RME ADAT interfaces of the non-Scope machines?

I am asking because for my HW-inventory/machine-park, my initial reaction would be to use a central non-Scope DAW/Softsynth-machine ("hub") with the RME-card, mixing and monitoring there, and then connecting the Scope machines as ADAT connected devices to the hub (RME-based machine).
In other words - almost the opposite configuration...(?)

[st1]

I run SCOPE standalone since a long time and I´m now using 2 PCI systems, Noah EX and XITE-1.
RME RayDat is perfect to connect everything to a DAW machine running all the native software.

Ok - sounds more like the setup I was thinking of.

I currently have this:
- DAW machine (Ableton, Reason, softsynths) - Pulsar II (6 DSP)
- Scope synth machine (synths, modular IV) - 3 x Pulsar II (18 DSP)
- Scope effects machine (effects) - 2 x Pulsar II + Luna II (15 DSP)

The Pulsar II of the DAW machine is providing 2xADAT I/O connections to the two other machines.
But I don't actually need the 6 DSPs - I could mostly do with the ADAT I/O.
Scope just as an interface is a little cumbersome - I would consider a pure ADAT solution like the Raydat favourably if it actually made the experience of running the DAW better (no loading of configs/fiddling with connections etc at start-up).
So I am wondering if freeing myself from the PCI-cord of the Pulsar II would give best of old and new worlds, bridged via ADAT.

[Chilliman]

PCI isn't a thing any more. There's no way you can run the latest i9 13900k or Ryzen 9, Mac M2 Max etc, with a bunch of PCI cards. There's no Mac option of any sort.
I've was thinking about a RME digiface to get more channels between scope and my pc. Don't think it's needed though. Not a bad option, RME drivers are some of the best, rock solid and top latency numbers.
But 10 digital links works for me and I can always use the 6 analogue connections too if I want.
I don't know what DAW you use, but I love cubase, and especially the latest versions on a fast modern PC. I can have 100 tracks plus, full of FX and instruments and it just does it. No endless freezing, bouncing etc and all on a 32 or 64 sample buffer.
Trying to keep scope as an audio interface was millstone. Scope as scope without asio duties, it's a thing of beauty.

[doodyrh]

...

It definitely does not take a lot of DSP Power to have your Mixes benifit greatly from the great sound of SCOPE. The good thing about computers being so powerfull is that it means DSP's don't have to be extremely powerfull anymore. In your situation a second dsp-card should be significantly benificial, especially with Modular 4.

IMO, Modular 4 has no equal, not in hardware world not ITB. None can match its soundquality, flexibility, ITB-convienance, Realtime-capability Ratio. Native does'nt sound as good and hardware lacks the ITB-convienances. You don't need Mega-dsp-power to benifit well from Modular 4, but certainly is good to get enough power to accomplish your wishes. Another 6-dsp card might go a long way twards satisfying you!

Thanks. There's currently a discount so was considering Scope 5 to 7 upgrade. Nothing stands out to me except possible Win 10 optimisation?
If I had to chose one thing perhaps Modular IV is greater bang for buck. Assuming it runs on Scope 5.
The Scope 7 webpage says Modular III in the list of tools but cheekily links to Modular IV.
https://sonic-core.de/scope-software/

[st1]

Thanks. There's currently a discount so was considering Scope 5 to 7 upgrade. Nothing stands out to me except possible Win 10 optimisation?
If I had to chose one thing perhaps Modular IV is greater bang for buck. Assuming it runs on Scope 5.
The Scope 7 webpage says Modular III in the list of tools but cheekily links to Modular IV.
https://sonic-core.de/scope-software/

That's a very good issue to discuss.
I have modular IV running on 5, but it's not clear if the licenses transfer across versions.
But that's a different topic, so I have allowed myself to fork off a new thread for this here: viewtopic.php?t=37443

[st1]

PCI isn't a thing any more. There's no way you can run the latest i9 13900k or Ryzen 9, Mac M2 Max etc, with a bunch of PCI cards. There's no Mac option of any sort.
<snip>
I don't know what DAW you use, but I love cubase, and especially the latest versions on a fast modern PC. I can have 100 tracks plus, full of FX and instruments and it just does it. No endless freezing, bouncing etc and all on a 32 or 64 sample buffer.
Trying to keep scope as an audio interface was millstone. Scope as scope without asio duties, it's a thing of beauty.

I hear you.
I would also love a 28 core Xeon w. 128 GB RAM and use ADAT I/O via a RayDAT or similar.
But I have these well-funcitoning HP and DELL workstations with one or more PCI slots.
Was just wondering if taking out Scope entirely from the DAW machine would make a difference.
From what you're writing, it sounds like it could actually.

[garyb]

yes, device licenses from v5 work in v7.

[Chilliman]

I hear you.
I would also love a 28 core Xeon w. 128 GB RAM and use ADAT I/O via a RayDAT or similar.
But I have these well-funcitoning HP and DELL workstations with one or more PCI slots.
Was just wondering if taking out Scope entirely from the DAW machine would make a difference.
From what you're writing, it sounds like it could actually.

It won't be scope that's the issue if you're having them. The ability of 10th gen intel and above is just miles ahead of say, a i7-6700k. And the latest gen 13 and Ryzen 9 and Apple silicon, they're like a different product. You can have massive templates, masses of tracks with multiple inserts on each track, more vst's than ever before.
If you're having issues, it will be you're old CPU on old slower memory with sata drives.

As soon as a upgraded my pc, it changed my workflow.
Xite is the product for modern PCs, I've never used one so can't comment on their functionality. But 32 bit PCI cards and the latest and greatest, isn't a possibility.
Your money may vary, but I'll never try and use scope as an audio interface anymore. I wouldn't want to go back to an old pc that can handle it.

[nebelfuerst]

RME cards come with asio drivers, which are more tolerant, than scope asio. (But this will be fixed in Scope 8, doesn't it ?
But RME drops support faster then scope. So I was forced to buy a (expensive) later card, which took me weeks to track down incompatibilities with my DAW. (The VST clicks were initially suspected due to CPU-load (Ryzen 2700x at 10% , but it ended to be an unexpected behaviour of some double buffering on driver level.)

I'm using a dedicated DAW-PC, which gets the permanent upgrades required to keep DAWs happy and which sometimes gives troubles, when M$ changed something. On the other side, there is my Xite-PC, which runs stable for many years and which is the heart of the studio.

You could buy industrial mainboards with PCI or even ISA still today with the latest Xeon on it. (In industry, there are pretty exotic, very expensive legacy PCI-cards still around, so there will be a market for years.)

Due to the permanent update troubles required for Win10/11 DAWs, I better go for 2 PCs instead of buying the "one fits all machine" it.

[astroman]

To each his/her own...
I couldn‘t be happier with my Asus 5 slot Pentium4 mobile running 3 Pulsar-2 on their own interrupt.
(at a humble 2 ghz, Win 7/32 with no internet connection, no updates).
Even lower specs on my G4/800, MacOS 9, with it’s 1GB system drive (an industrial SSD plugged into the IDE connector)
That drive contains an OS and a full Pro Tools TDM installation plus Sounddiver for Midi stuff and still has 300 MB free. LoL.

But my main concern: I don‘t need 100 tracks of (supposedly ?) average sound, I want just 12 tracks of outstanding audio character.
Less, but better (quoting designer Dieter Rams once again)

ps: no offense, but consider how much attention span a listener would need to appreciate all the fine details in your 100 track mix... imho it simply doesn‘t work.
Maybe that‘s a lingering side effect from some tracks I listened to yesterday, but that‘s way ot in this section.
ps: viewtopic.php?p=355162#p355162

[Chilliman]

To each his/her own...
I couldn‘t be happier with my Asus 5 slot Pentium4 mobile running 3 Pulsar-2 on their own interrupt.
(at a humble 2 ghz, Win 7/32 with no internet connection, no updates).
Even lower specs on my G4/800, MacOS 9, with it’s 1GB system drive (an industrial SSD plugged into the IDE connector)
That drive contains an OS and a full Pro Tools TDM installation plus Sounddiver for Midi stuff and still has 300 MB free. LoL.

But my main concern: I don‘t need 100 tracks of (supposedly ?) average sound, I want just 12 tracks of outstanding audio character.
Less, but better (quoting designer Dieter Rams once again)

ps: no offense, but consider how much attention span a listener would need to appreciate all the fine details in your 100 track mix... imho it simply doesn‘t work.
Maybe that‘s a lingering side effect from some tracks I listened to yesterday, but that‘s way ot in this section.
ps: viewtopic.php?p=355162#p355162

I usually have 10 to 15 tracks just on my drum bus alone. Kicks, snares, claps, hats, hats, crash, ride, toms toms toms, rim, cowbell, congas, various percussion elements, etc etc.
Vocals can be doubled, quadrupled
Verses, adlibs, choruses, bridge
Bass parts
Synth parts
Hook, lead, miscellaneous riffs
Guitars, piano, chords, arpeg's, risers, FX splashes etc etc etc
Several FX buses, parallel compression, reference tracks, arranger track, chord track, the lost goes on.

Then there's the composer aspect.
Having large kontakt sample libraries loaded.
Spitfire BBC
Choral
Etc.
Can be 100s of tracks in your template.

Even if you're a rock musician, drum mics alone can be 12 channels with overheads, room, 2 on the snare etc etc

If you works with just a few tracks, that's ok, but it's really not a common thing.

[valis]

Many people bounce those individual tracks to stems quickly. Especially in electronic music, there are reasons for this.

[Bud Weiser]

Due to the permanent update troubles required for Win10/11 DAWs, I better go for 2 PCs instead of buying the "one fits all machine" it.

^^^^
THIS

I´ll be on 3 rackmounts (Win7 x64 RME DAW, Win7 x86 - Scope 5.1 32Bit, Win XP SP3 for several old applications), 1 HP server tower- Win7 x86 & Scope 7 32Bit,- and 2 laptops,- one Win10 Pro x64 Scope/XITE-1 and the other Win 11 Pro x64 for everything else.
I own a RME Babyface to use with or it might become the SCOPE 8 laptop once it´s released.

IMO, there will NEVER EVER be the "one fits all" machine.

Scope VDAT and STS samplers run best w/ Win XP/Win7 32Bit, Scope 4.5 or 5.1
Some other devices not running well in Scope 7 x64 run better in Scope 7 x86.

Some applications I use for sample conversion, data/ disk recovery and when I have to connect ext. SCSI drives,- it´s all better on the WinXP rackmount and old Macs (G3 / G4 laptops),- and I run Emagic Sounddiver too on Powerbook G4 800 DVI w/ Emagic MT-4, G4 GBE tower - together w/ Emagic LAP 6.4.3., a old RME Hammerfall 9636 and MOTU Midi Timepiece 2.
Even the Powerbook G3 runs Sounddiver w/ Emagic MT-4 well,- and SCSI Director.
Most of my MIDI interfaces run only w/ 32Bit machines, Emagic, MOTU and MusicQuest (Opcode).
Only Steinberg Midex-8 offers an officially unsupported 64Bit driver,- but LTB support exists only w/ Cubase/Nuendo which I don´t use anymore.
Adaptec SCSI PCI card and Aspi only runs 32Bit XP and I need to convert AKAI and EMU to NI Kontakt and STS,- just only to import samples from ancient SCSI Syndrives (HDD, Syquest, MOD, CDROM), convert and export to PC formatted ext. media.

I cannot imagine running only ONE computer for everything.
The machines don´t run simultaneously all the time here,- I power up what and when I need.



Bud

[astroman]

The machiones don´t run simultaneously all the time here,- I power up what and when I need.

I‘ve also developed this habit.
When energy prices were 1/3 of current figures (and my revenues significantly higher), I used to run the whole setup (often 24/7).
Now I even consider which rack units are absolutely needed in a certain context and try to group accordingly...

[Bud Weiser]

I‘ve also developed this habit.
When energy prices were 1/3 of current figures (and my revenues significantly higher), I used to run the whole setup (often 24/7).
Now I even consider which rack units are absolutely needed in a certain context and try to group accordingly...

Yeah, we´re really f##ked up w/ energy prices here in germany.
You won´t believe my gas billig for the last winter where I set the room temp to 16°C, which is very uncomfortable.
I saved about 4.800KWh compared to the year before,- and nonetheless,- back pay.
I had relatively cheap electricity because of a 2 yrs deal until this month,- but now, it´s about 3.5x as much.

Ironically, I got an email from long time german friend living in Portugal, incl. a screenshot of electricity offered to him for EUR 0.13 KWh.
WE pay EUR 0.40 in germany !
How can that be ?

This s##t holds me back from buying Scope devices today ´cause I´m waiting for some cash I´ll get sunday earliest and I dunno how much it will really be.

Bad times.
There comes the day we cannot make music anymore here,- just because it´s too expensive running the gear necessary.



Bud

[st1]

Ok, DAW with modern ADAT interface it is, then.
(keeping the SC DATA stuff in the attached synth and FX PCs.)

Which interface to go for, then?
RayDAT is popular, yes. Digiface USB is widely used and well-liked.
But which one?
I.e. which gives the lowest latency: RayDAT vs Digiface USB?

Í see latency (or rather buffer size) claims of 128 or 256 samples for the Digiface.
That's about what I get from audio out on a Behringer UCA200.
Not bad - but I can still tell when using a soft synth with a MIDI keyboard...
My Steinberg UR22mkII does 32 samples on USB 2.0, without clicks or crackle (neither Ableton nor Reason, 2 different PCs).
32 samples is about 3.5 msec - (almost) imperceptible.

Does the PCIe interface + proper drivers give an advantage over USB + proper drivers?
If so, I might reconsider the DAW PC entirely to allow for the PCIe board...

[Bud Weiser]

I.e. which gives the lowest latency: RayDAT vs Digiface USB?

Í see latency (or rather buffer size) claims of 128 or 256 samples for the Digiface.
That's about what I get from audio out on a Behringer UCA200.
Not bad - but I can still tell when using a soft synth with a MIDI keyboard...
My Steinberg UR22mkII does 32 samples on USB 2.0, without clicks or crackle (neither Ableton nor Reason, 2 different PCs).
32 samples is about 3.5 msec - (almost) imperceptible.

These values are only what the ASIO driver reports and is shown in your DAW apps project window and has nothing to do w/ the way more important "round tip" latency.

Does the PCIe interface + proper drivers give an advantage over USB + proper drivers?
If so, I might reconsider the DAW PC entirely to allow for the PCIe board...

In my experience, USB is behind PCIe.
I own ancient RME Hammerfall Digi 9652 and Digi 9636 PCI cards, RME Babyface (USB) and RME Raydat.
I remember RME Baybface was king of the hill of USB interfaces for a long time and until it´s successor Babyface Pro was released.
RME USB works great,- but PCIe based Raydat is better when it comes to round tip latency,- at least on my main DAW machine.

But w/ a modern laptop, you don´t have much alternatives to today´s USB standards,- except,- TRUE Thunderbolt (which is also PCIe).

B.t.w.,- RME TotalmixFX doesn´t work with the FX on Raydat.
You´ll have the full blown mixer,- but no EQ, no Dynamics, no Delay and Reverb for the hardware monitoring.
It´s because Raydat isn´t equipped w/ a DSP powerfull enough for all.
Anyway,-

I just needed a card w/ enough digital I/Os AND MIDI, being able to combine several machines running SCOPE and to connect a dedicated 8-channel AD/DA to the card.
Digiface USB lacks MIDI, AES/EBU and electrical (coax) SPDIF.
Raydat has it all incl. 2 MIDI I/O ports.

You know,- sometimes, the main DAW machine runs alone and slave machines are off.
When using ext. MIDI modules,- that´s the moment when the 2 physical MIDI I/Os on Raydat are welcome.



Bud

[valis]

What era is your host machine for the USB RME?