PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

I know that this XTC seems realy interesting and all , as I have just aquired my scope creamware project I am very overwhelmed by everything it can do.A big thing i am seeing is the pages and pages of issues with XTC>I use sonic 4 producer and am happy with what my internal plugins can do , but am more happy that i have abilities in SFP to route , send , monitor and bus my signals / effects to my DAW anyways.SO the big question is.......is it worth pulling your hair out to get XTC to run , or is it better to take a more traditional approach and mix down through the mixer and aux like it still is being done today?To me, i have more fun working in the routing view than i do freaking out everytime XTC decides its gonna have a bad day.Just an open discussion , I would like to know what people think.

Cheers

the traditional way inside scope is best imho.

I feel XTC is unbeatable when working. That way I feel I get more use of my DSP's than without. Also I have the luxury of streamlined automation or other DAW feature..

Well you can only pull out your hair once
Which is also all you need - when you have it up and running, well, then it's up and running, it's not unstable or anything.
Just read this thread through beofre you start:

http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... 66&forum=3

Cheers!
Thomas

sure, try it and use it if you like. you do make your card less effective, but that might not matter at all....

couldnt remove the post

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: steffensen on 2005-11-02 04:14 ]</font>

Sorry, for the cop-out, but it depends on you.

As primarily a Cubase user, I'm not interested in having to learn another set of tools to do mostly the same thing. Plus, I use other DSP cards (a UAD-1 and PowerCore), and inside my DAW they all work together (along with any native plugs I want) pretty well.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RichElam on 2005-11-02 18:56 ]</font>

if you're a computer user, probably xtc, but if you have experience with gear, probably scope. as i said, more is possible with scope, but that might not matter...

There have been several reports about that the summing of signals in the CW mixer sounds a lot better (more transperant) than the summing in the Cubase Mixer.
Using Asio ins and outs it is possible to route everything out of Cubase through the CW Mixer and back again. I havn't tried this yes, so I don't know if this is just a matter of learning a few new tricks. To me it all depends on what the purpose is. If I were mixing and finalizing CD's I would definitely try this out, but for the work I do now the possible extra quality doesn't seem worth the effort.

On 2005-11-03 03:34, petal wrote:
There have been several reports about that the summing of signals in the CW mixer sounds a lot better (more transperant) than the summing in the Cubase Mixer.
Using Asio ins and outs it is possible to route everything out of Cubase through the CW Mixer and back again. I havn't tried this yes, so I don't know if this is just a matter of learning a few new tricks. To me it all depends on what the purpose is. If I were mixing and finalizing CD's I would definitely try this out, but for the work I do now the possible extra quality doesn't seem worth the effort.

It is definitely an effort, and not to mention automation.
This is why I prefere XTC-mode these days - I can keep my work within a single application, use CW DSP effects AND buss out through a hidden signal-mixer via multiple ASIO outs.
So I am doing all my stem-mixing in DSP.

but in XTC u cant use Modular, so whats the fun in that then?

On 2005-11-05 01:46, steffensen wrote:
but in XTC u cant use Modular, so whats the fun in that then?

You supposedly can with the ddl-trick. But you have to use regular SFP to modify a patch.

Anyway, it is more to these cards than the modular imo.

im actually not against XTC mode, its just that modular is such an important piece of SCOPE for me, that i just cant cope without it.
the DLL trick wont really suite my needs tho, as i tend to build stuff along the way and like to be able to edit stuff along the way as well.. wich imo is the whole purpose with modular.

but yea, there is tons of other just as important stuff as well!

i am _still_ discovering new ways of using SCOPE, its redicilous.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: steffensen on 2005-11-05 15:55 ]</font>

Hi Brokenhalo, dunno if it does matter, but on mac XTC never was implemented...everything is relative

On 2005-11-05 15:52, steffensen wrote:
im actually not against XTC mode, its just that modular is such an important piece of SCOPE for me, that i just cant cope without it.
the DLL trick wont really suite my needs tho, as i tend to build stuff along the way and like to be able to edit stuff along the way as well.. wich imo is the whole purpose with modular.

but yea, there is tons of other just as important stuff as well!

i am _still_ discovering new ways of using SCOPE, its redicilous.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: steffensen on 2005-11-05 15:55 ]</font>

Oh, I understand .

Indeed. Once I really discovered XTC my hardware got it's whole new renessaince .

On 2005-11-03 03:34, petal wrote:
There have been several reports about that the summing of signals in the CW mixer sounds a lot better (more transperant) than the summing in the Cubase Mixer.

There have been reports alright, but they are nonsense

On 2006-01-28 10:24, thomashenrydavies wrote:

On 2005-11-03 03:34, petal wrote:
There have been several reports about that the summing of signals in the CW mixer sounds a lot better (more transperant) than the summing in the Cubase Mixer.

There have been reports alright, but they are nonsense

You obviously haven't tried it =P

I have tried it. Anyone who thinks one method is better thanthe other is imagining things - the results phase cancel with each other....

I have tried it alright.

What have you tried it with exactly? I tested it out with Logic PC 5.5.1 and STM2448, and the phase sure didn't cancel out. I mix exclusively in STM2448 now. Samplitude might have good enough mixing routines to compete, but Logic and Cubase, while having more than decent mixing engines, sure don't compete.