PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

hi, ive been using scope for effects n synths, but as far as mixers goes, i set all my levels in the sequencer mixer , would there be any point to routing all my channels out into different channels on the stm mixer regarding sound? like would there be an advantage summing wise, increased seperation 3d,clarity... like on outboard mixers?
thanks

that's how i hear it.

Theres another option : Submix in native then main mix in Scope.

For Example : I have 32 tracks of 'choral' harmony vocals. I use the Steinberg mixer to mix those to one stereo channel, and then route that to Scope for the u-bewt Scope processors (stm w/ C350 eq, RMX160 verb etc)

Way to go.

of course, it's not all or nothing....

i usually set up drum (separating kik, snare, hat, toms, cymbals, ambient), bass, guitar, lead gtr, clean gtr, (etc), strings, brass, woodwinds, synths, etc on separate tracks on scope mixer.
i always felt that was sounding better than mix everyhing in the seq.

I use a hybrid approach doing tracking through Scope into/through Samplitude, and have often summed out through Scope again during final mix.

WAY more depth-of-field and 'mass' using Scope than just using doing everything through Samplitude (and Samp. is pretty damn good at summing).

It's a modern day equivalent of the studio guys running through external hardware and summing boxes.

Greg

awesome! looks like time to change things up, everyday i learn more about scope it gets better
thanks

@siriusbliss. Are you talking about summing alone? Or mixin as well.. I can understand differences in mix, native vs scope, but not really summing.
Might have to try it myself:)

Yeah, one test is to run your mix out of your DAW, through Scope i.e. 4896 mixer to a stereo mix, and RECORD this back into a separate channel in your DAW host.

Check the quality of sound compared to rendering a stereo mix directly out of your DAW.

It may surprise you.

Greg

siriusbliss wrote:Yeah, one test is to run your mix out of your DAW, through Scope i.e. 4896 mixer to a stereo mix, and RECORD this back into a separate channel in your DAW host.

Check the quality of sound compared to rendering a stereo mix directly out of your DAW.

It may surprise you.

Greg

Greg you're the man,thanks for confirming my long-time opinion that some DAWS mixer "fucks up" the sound. I've ALWAYS had this problem with cubase,example : open a vst into an external host = bright and "punchy sound",no clipping on SFP MIXER.Instead if I open the same vst inside cubase THERE IS A DIFFERENCE,especially in terms of dynamic.....there's something going on into that master bus,i swear it...plus it goes to red with NOTHING ! I've just tried your method ,instead of exporting from cubase i re-record cubase output (on SCOPE ASIO 2 OUTPUT) in real time inside the DAW....and the sound is PUNCHY and ..i don't know how to explain,it's more ALIVE to me. When I say this on other forum people get mad at me,because of the sacred law "daws are all the same". Heck,even Fruity Loops sounds better than Cubase ! There's clearly something goin' on into that fucker ,but people don't notice it.If only I had a sequencer into SCOPE

Merkury wrote:If only I had a sequencer into SCOPE

With Open Scope and ParSeq, we may very well have that soon.

http://www.the-new-world-of-music.net/f ... a92988c8fa

yes.

but even if Cubase's mixer does mess things up, Scope users don't need to mix there, so no problem.

Mr Arkadin wrote:

Merkury wrote:If only I had a sequencer into SCOPE

With Open Scope and ParSeq, we may very well have that soon.

that looks promising !!