OT: These are few of my favorite (free) things...
>Destination = input Yah, i got that part, but I think the install STILL didn't go correctly.. I can't find some of the modules (Mixer, THAT one would be nice, if one of my main missions is to sum with this thing! lol) >It's really easy once you get your head around a couple of >very simple principles. Like I said, give me a call and I'll >fire up my system and take you for a walk. I'll take you up on that later... right now my brain is melting. NeilThis will provide little solace at this point, but 'counter-intuitive' at first blush often becomes 'very powerful' at later date. This isn't a particularly 'Paris-like' attitude, as it was designed from the ground up to have a gentle learning curve to anyone familiar with a mixing desk and tape. It's a little like Notepad vs. Emacs. Anyone who has ever used a typewriter can create and print a grocery list with Notepad. But that's pretty much all it's good for. It won't let you insert a chart, change much in the way of colors, auto-indent lists, do any real print formatting, and it certainly won't automatically color code xml, run perl scripts in a shell, keep track of how many curly braces you have open, or replace every 'MakeRegexLater' with '/^[0-9][a-Z]{5,36}.$/' This might seem pointless, and I can hear you screaming that you just want to make a grocery list, but I distinctly remember thinking the SCOPE environment qualified to be described as 'tricky to learn but easy to use once it's learned' instead of just 'hard to use.' Also, it was designed by Germans. So give it a little time, and be glad you don't have to learn Emacs, TCB "Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote: > >Further observations: > >Without a doubt, THE SINGULAR most counter-intuitve application >of any variety that I have ever come across... I now have it >installed, but still not "working" - in the sense that I can't >figure out how to internally route anything to anything. >The manual is no help whatsoever in this regard. > >More to come, I'm sure. > >Neil > > > > >"Neil" <IOUOIU@IO.com> wrote: >> >>"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: >>>...and how is the carnage so far???? >> >>Pretty fuckin carniverous... see my response to Lamont. >> >>How long did it take you to get the goddamn authorizatyion/registration >login >>info e-mailed to you? >> >>Neil >SO should I pick one up, or is there a better resource for picking up on SX3? JH TCB wrote: > A very out of date book on SX 2. I wrote it and I think I sent Deej a copy, > or he bought one. Some things have changed, but a lot hasn't. > > TCB > > Jeff hoover <jkhoover@excite.com> wrote: > >>Thad, >> >>What book? Found thread on it but it showing "expired". >> >>Thanks, >> >>Jeff (aka Hoov) >> >>TCB wrote: >> >>>Do you still have my book? I think I put that in there, but it's been > > a while. > >>> >>>TCB >>> >>>"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I've got a bunch of songs to mix here. They are Cubase SX 3 projects with >>>>audio files that have lots of edits/fades, etc. these sessions also have >>>>external instrument and FX inserted in the inserts/sends and Device manager. >>>>In order for me to work with them on my system I've got two choices as > > I > >>>see >>> >>> >>>>it: >>>> >>>>1. Render these files as individual .wav's to lose the edits and import >>> >>>them >>> >>> >>>>into a new mix template that is set up to work on my system. >>>> >>>>2. Reconfigure each project to my ASIO configuration and go to each track >>>>and lose the insert and send FX and reconfigure/delete everything that > > is > >>>>set up in the device manager of the old SX project. this will be very > > time > >>>>consuming. >>>> >>>>I've never used OMS, but this might also be an option. I just don't want >>> >>>any >>> >>> >>>>of the automation info that is written to these projects to be present. >>> >>>I'd >>> >>> >>>>much rather have them as contiguous .wav files, import them into my new >>> >>>mix >>> >>> >>>>template and start mixing each song from scratch. >>>> >>>>I always track in Paris and then render the files to import into Cubase >>> >>>and >>> >>> >>>>I always bounce my mixes to Parisrather than rendering them in cubase >>>>because they always have external processors on the inserts and sends > > so > >>>I'm >>> >>> >>>>not just super familiar with the ITB rendering process in Cubase cause > > I > >>>>never use it. >>>> >>>>Is there a quick way to do this? >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>> >>>>Deej >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote: >Also, it was designed by Germans. My current car is a BMW, my last one was a Mercedes... I just want to drive them well, I don't want to learn how to build them. Likewise, I don't want to feel like I have to become a fargin' computer programmer just to use this bitch. It's got until the weekend to: 1.) Get me a fucking authorization code that will let me log in & download the key code file (i'm pretty sure I'm missing some modules, because I was having to guess at what some of the subapplications were, since the nomenclature is different from the documentation to the software). 2.) Reinstall fully & correctly once I have that & be able to route between SX & Pulsar without a hitch. 3.) Work flawlessy & glitchlessly with my RME cards active at the same time for tracking needs... this was GOING to be an option that I was willing to find a workaround for, but since it's now pissed me off from the get-go, it's an option no longer... it's a mandate. If it doesn't do all this by that time, it's going back. I have no fucking sense of humor for expensive esoteric shit that doesn't make my life easier & allow me to be more musically productive. If I wanted to be Rube Fucking Goldberg about this shit, I may as well start building my own discrete console from scratch. Had it. NeilLiquid Mix is now available for the PC! http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: >> Deej, what'd you do when you installed yours? > >Did Ali send you an allkey file? You should have received one by e-mail. All >you do is jut point your install query to this file and it loads everything >at once in one simple step. NO! Nothing yet! So, I guess I just sit & wait until I get this now & try a re-install. Neil >"Neil" <OIUOI@OI.com> wrote in message news:4563b277$1@linux... >> >> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >Neil.. Pleas ekeep us updated with your creamware experience.. Good >Luck.. >> >> Well, I can tellya this much: I'm muthafucking pissed already - apparently >> they don't use one copy protection key code, they use one copy protection >> key code for each MUTHAFUCKING INDIVIDUAL SUBAPPLICATION/EFX PACKAGE! >Goddammit... >> there are twenty-fucking-six of them in this package, and I can either >enter >> them all manually, or wait til I can download the individualized file for >> this card once I can log onto their website registration section & use >that >> file (which supposedly takes care of this in in fell swoop). Problem is, >> it's been like 30 minutes since I sent the e-mail requesting authorization >> & still nothing... so I assume that it is NOT an automated system, so do >> I now need to stop everything & wait til those bastards wake up over there >> in Europe? >> >> The secondary problem is, the names on the reg key section (if I want to >> manually enter them) don't match the names on the key number info I was >provided. >> For example: the installation software says: "Effects Package", and >"Effects >> Extension", but the key info I have says "Effects Package I" & "Effects >Package >> II"... do I assume that Effects Package II is the same as Effects Package >> Extension, or if it's something I don't even have, and I'll fuck up the >installation >> if I try that to see if it works? >> >> For Fourteen-Hundred-Mutha-Fuckin Dollars, you would think you'd get >better >> support & clearer documentation than this. >> >> FUCK!!!! >> >> Deej, what'd you do when you installed yours? >> >> Neil > >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote: > >This will provide little solace at this point, but 'counter-intuitive' at >first blush often becomes 'very powerful' at later date. This isn't a particularly >'Paris-like' attitude, as it was designed from the ground up to have a gentle >learning curve to anyone familiar with a mixing desk and tape. > >It's a little like Notepad vs. Emacs. Anyone who has ever used a typewriter >can create and print a grocery list with Notepad. But that's pretty much >all it's good for. It won't let you insert a chart, change much in the way >of colors, auto-indent lists, do any real print formatting, and it certainly >won't automatically color code xml, run perl scripts in a shell, keep track >of how many curly braces you have open, or replace every 'MakeRegexLater' >with '/^[0-9][a-Z]{5,36}.$/' > >This might seem pointless, and I can hear you screaming that you just want >to make a grocery list, but I distinctly remember thinking the SCOPE environment >qualified to be described as 'tricky to learn but easy to use once it's learned' >instead of just 'hard to use.' Also, it was designed by Germans. > >So give it a little time, and be glad you don't have to learn Emacs, Scope is very to use once you get a little time on it. Neil doesnt seem to have much patience at this point though."Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote: >Scope is very to use once you get a little time on it. Neil >doesnt seem to have much patience at this point though. You're right, I don't... BTW, it's now about twelve hours from when I first sent the e-mails requesting the login info.... and... ....you guessed it, still no response. BTW, Thad, another example of German-engineered product that doesn't take a degree in quantum physics to operate is CubaseSX... everyone said that had a steep learning curve, but I didn't have any problems getting that app configured & operating it fro the get-go. This thing is like some bizzarre "M.-Night-Shamalyan-meets-the-DaVinci-Code" version of a music application. NeilI'm thinking it's almost break time over in there neck of the planet...maybe your email had to go through translation..I know that'll hold things up here in Canada ;-) Don "Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:45645479$1@linux... > > "Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Scope is very to use once you get a little time on it. Neil >>doesnt seem to have much patience at this point though. > > You're right, I don't... BTW, it's now about twelve hours from > when I first sent the e-mails requesting the login info.... > and... > > ...you guessed it, still no response. > > BTW, Thad, another example of German-engineered product that > doesn't take a degree in quantum physics to operate is > CubaseSX... everyone said that had a steep learning curve, but > I didn't have any problems getting that app configured & > operating it fro the get-go. This thing is like some > bizzarre "M.-Night-Shamalyan-meets-the-DaVinci-Code" version of > a music application. > > Neil"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote: >I'm thinking it's almost break time over in there neck of the planet...maybe >your email had to go through translation..I know that'll hold things up here >in Canada So you think it went to Canada, not Germany? Shit, then I should've included a few "eh's", and "hosers" in there & they would've known what I was talking about? :DAnyone heard the beautiful song? The vocal is really haunting of Karen Carpenter and Shania Twain all in one. Really nice !!Dj, if I recall you know Ed S? Anyw
Re: OT: These are few of my favorite (free) things...
ay you could find out what he was doing with his guitars on The Ramones song "questioningly'? Lovely stuff on a great stax inspired song. That harmony guitar is the shit."Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4564575d$1@linux... > > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote: >>I'm thinking it's almost break time over in there neck of the >>planet...maybe > >>your email had to go through translation..I know that'll hold things up > here >>in Canada > > So you think it went to Canada, not Germany? Shit, then I > should've included a few "eh's", and "hosers" in there & they > would've known what I was talking about? > > :D Most definitely, especially in EK's neck of the woods :-)Alrighty then. My apologies for offering a few words of encouragement. TCB "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote: > >>Also, it was designed by Germans. > >want to drive them well, I don't want to learn how to build >them. > >Likewise, I don't want to feel like I have to become a fargin' >computer programmer just to use this bitch. > >It's got until the weekend to: > >1.) Get me a fucking authorization code that will let me log in >& download the key code file (i'm pretty sure I'm missing some >modules, because I was having to guess at what some of the >subapplications were, since the nomenclature is different from >the documentation to the software). > >2.) Reinstall fully & correctly once I have that & be able to >route between SX & Pulsar without a hitch. > >3.) Work flawlessy & glitchlessly with my RME cards active at >the same time for tracking needs... this was GOING to be an >option that I was willing to find a workaround for, but since >it's now pissed me off from the get-go, it's an option no >longer... it's a mandate. > >If it doesn't do all this by that time, it's going back. I have >no fucking sense of humor for expensive esoteric shit that >doesn't make my life easier & allow me to be more musically >productive. If I wanted to be Rube Fucking Goldberg about this >shit, I may as well start building my own discrete console from >scratch. > >Had it. > >NeilI have a copy of that ASIO driver if its not on already on one of the sites. If it's not, maybe Kim or someone else will host it. Just let me know and I'll send it to whomever will host it. -Paul "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: >There was a rudimentary ASIO driver written for the EDS card a few years >back. If your software will work with ASIO, then there's a chance you could >use this if you can find it, otherwise you're SOL. No MME or WDM drivers >exist for the EDS card. > >Deej > >"harry epstein" <sarahgirl.harry@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:45636652@linux... >> >> hi- >> don't know if this is even possible, but if it is, and somebody knows how >> to do it, i'd very much appreciate to know how to set things up, so that >> I can get my windows system (xp pro), to recognize my EDS1000 card as a >general >> system audio card, so I can use it for windows media player, and other 3rd >> party software--- in other words, is there any way I can get it to also >> function like a basic soundblaster type of general system audio card, as >> well as the paris recording system card? >> will very much appreciate anyone who can tell me how to do this--- >> thanks very much--- >> most sincerely, harry e. > >Neil, Call Ali Fawaz: Creamware Audio USA & Canada Office: 604-435-0540 support: 604-435-5158 He will get your allkey code situation straightened out and can answer your questions. Once that's received, call me and I'll walk you through the install and get you up and running.with the mixer. Also, probably the best source for info is the guy you bought this card from. He's all over this system and can tell you everything...and*will* tell you everything. My install went well, but I had the allkey file. Give Gary a call. He's Creamware's *unofficial* US tech support. Ali is the *official* tech support. Both of them helped me out and were glad to do it. Gary is a recording engineer, knows this system inside, out and backwards and is very good at explaining it.expecially to someone who wants to use it *normally*, but to his credit, he even understood what I was wanting to do with the Paris interfacing. He knows his stuff. Deej "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4563e25c$1@linux... > > "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote: > > >Also, it was designed by Germans. > > My current car is a BMW, my last one was a Mercedes... I just > want to drive them well, I don't want to learn how to build > them. > > Likewise, I don't want to feel like I have to become a fargin' > computer programmer just to use this bitch. > > It's got until the weekend to: > > 1.) Get me a fucking authorization code that will let me log in > & download the key code file (i'm pretty sure I'm missing some > modules, because I was having to guess at what some of the > subapplications were, since the nomenclature is different from > the documentation to the software). > > 2.) Reinstall fully & correctly once I have that & be able to > route between SX & Pulsar without a hitch. > > 3.) Work flawlessy & glitchlessly with my RME cards active at > the same time for tracking needs... this was GOING to be an > option that I was willing to find a workaround for, but since > it's now pissed me off from the get-go, it's an option no > longer... it's a mandate. > > If it doesn't do all this by that time, it's going back. I have > no fucking sense of humor for expensive esoteric shit that > doesn't make my life easier & allow me to be more musically > productive. If I wanted to be Rube Fucking Goldberg about this > shit, I may as well start building my own discrete console from > scratch. > > Had it. > > Neileh? David. Don Nafe wrote: > "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4564575d$1@linux... > >>"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote: >> >>>I'm thinking it's almost break time over in there neck of the >>>planet...maybe >> >>>your email had to go through translation..I know that'll hold things up >> >>here >> >>>in Canada >> >>So you think it went to Canada, not Germany? Shit, then I >>should've included a few "eh's", and "hosers" in there & they >>would've known what I was talking about? >> >>:D > > > Most definitely, especially in EK's neck of the woods > > :-) > >Neil, Think of the Scope routing window as being very much like the Paris virtual patchbay but with the ability to configure it to talk to different drivers and to configure itself to different mixers. In order for Cubase to interface with the Scope system, the ASIO configuration you want Cubase to *see* needs to be set up first. that's why Scope launches automatically at Windows startup.to load these drivers so that when you laujnch cubase SX, your ASIO drivers are available. Scope "is" launching when you boot your computer....right? "Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:45645479$1@linux... > > "Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Scope is very to use once you get a little time on it. Neil > >doesnt seem to have much patience at this point though. > > You're right, I don't... BTW, it's now about twelve hours from > when I first sent the e-mails requesting the login info.... > and... > > ...you guessed it, still no response. > > BTW, Thad, another example of German-engineered product that > doesn't take a degree in quantum physics to operate is > CubaseSX... everyone said that had a steep learning curve, but > I didn't have any problems getting that app configured & > operating it fro the get-go. This thing is like some > bizzarre "M.-Night-Shamalyan-meets-the-DaVinci-Code" version of > a music application. > > NeilI'll give him a call today and ask him. ;o) "Cujo" <chris@nospamapplemanstudio.com> wrote in message news:45645bb6$1@linux... > > > Dj, if I recall you know Ed S? > Anyway you could find out what he was doing with his guitars on > The Ramones song "questioningly'? Lovely stuff on a great stax inspired song. > That harmony guitar is the shit.I've played around with Liquid mix at my local GC and I was impressed. The plugs definitely has character. And the interface is is nice.. However, like most Mac Firewire imlementations, is not very robust even on Dual G5's 2.5 processors..Which kinda negates the whole DSP powered thing. On the G5, I'd have to say all any of those DSP based units are no more than DONGLES. Yes, I know a lot of Mac users are not aware of the fact that to get the most out of such units, you have to purchase a Separate Fire-wire card. But, unfortunately, most Mac user's go righ into the on-board firewire slot. Which does not yield max performance of any of the DSP plugin units.. My point is this. I feel bad for mac users when they spring for such products. You see performance complaints on user boards that frankly , PC DAW user don't see. Even worse is when your So -called pro magazines review such units witha Mac!!! Yikes... You already know that the review being the ( TC Powercore, UAD, Liquid mix) is not going to go well. As if these reviewers (All Mac users) are on going to "will" the manufactuers to make their dsp product perform like they do on a PC.. Not gonna happen.. Frankly, it's really starting to piss me off big time. All of these Mac only Magazine reviews need to be fire !!If only for the reason that they can;t get they head out of their Ass long enough to Realize that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non dual anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from Focusrite. The Mac review on this unit we're tested on Dual 867's G5's..And all of the Mac reviews, the reviewer could get the 32 plugin that it's supposed to do.. I said what a @#$ing IDOT... Get a -Fbomb PC..Or wait till the PC version comes out , then review it..!!! So many good product get's canned becuase of the yahoo Mac only reviewer 's Mac is the 4k piece of @@it !! and then expects it perform like a startof the freaking art DAW!!!! I'm sorry to all of you Mac users..But, You're just asking for it.!!! with these new products. Rant off :) "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! > >http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786..errr..........sooooo.........maybe I shouln't run this on a Mac? Damn!!! ;oD "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:456478c1$1@linux... > > I've played around with Liquid mix at my local GC and I was impressed. The > plugs definitely has character. And the interface is is nice.. > > However, like most Mac Firewire imlementations, is not very robust even on > Dual G5's 2.5 processors..Which kinda negates the whole DSP powered thing. > On the G5, I'd have to say all any of those DSP based units are no more than > DONGLES. > > Yes, I know a lot of Mac users are not aware of the fact that to get the > most out of such units, you have to purchase a Separate Fire-wire card. But, > unfortunately, most Mac user's go righ into the on-board firewire slot. Which > does not yield max performance of any of the DSP plugin units.. > > My point is this. I feel bad for mac users when they spring for such products. > You see performance complaints on user boards that frankly , PC DAW user > don't see. Even worse is when your So -called pro magazines review such units > witha Mac!!! Yikes... You already know that the review being the ( TC Powercore, > UAD, Liquid mix) is not going to go well. > > As if these reviewers (All Mac users) are on going to "will" the manufactuers > to make their dsp product perform like they do on a PC.. Not gonna happen.. > Frankly, it's really starting to piss me off big time. > All of these Mac only Magazine reviews need to be fire !!If only for the > reason that they can;t get they head out of their Ass long enough to Realize > that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. > I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non dual > anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from Focusrite. The > Mac review on this unit we're tested on Dual 867's G5's..And all of the Mac > reviews, the reviewer could get the 32 plugin that it's supposed to do.. > I said what a @#$ing IDOT... Get a -Fbomb PC..Or wait till the PC version > comes out , then review it..!!! > So many good product get's canned becuase of the yahoo Mac only reviewer > 's Mac is the 4k piece of @@it !! and then expects it perform like a startof > the freaking art DAW!!!! > > I'm sorry to all of you Mac users..But, You're just asking for it.!!! with > these new products. > Rant off :) > > "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! > > > >http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786 >On "Road to Ruin" isn't it? Great song. Saw the Ramones documentary the other day, very good. The sad story of a great band. You americans have given us a lot :-) Bjorn R "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:456473d9@linux... > I'll give him a call today and ask him. > > ;o) > > "Cujo" <chris@nospamapplemanstudio.com> wrote in message > news:45645bb6$1@linux... > > > > > > Dj, if I recall you know Ed S? > > Anyway you could find out what he was doing with his guitars on > > The Ramones song "questioningly'? Lovely stuff on a great stax inspired > song. > > That harmony guitar is the shit. > >Thad, He's as frustrated with the Scope situation as I was the first time I saw RME's Totalmix. To my thinkiing, the Totalmix should be called "Totalcrap"....but Neil probably understands it completely and it made perfect sense to him the minute h saw it........sorta like the Scope outing window did to me (sigh). I can relate to his frustration in that regard. Sometimes I don't want to even get into anything new because I've been up and down so many learning curves that I feel too burned out. The "jack of all trades, master of none" thing starts to rear it's ugly head late at night when you'r sitting in the control room trying to figure out some niggling thing that is holding you up from what you want to accomplish, then you need to get the manual out for some other thing to get this to happen and suddenly you are looking at a stack of user's guides and manuals three feet high and realizing how little you know, or how much you've forgotten about each one.Thank goodness for newsgroups like this. I hope you have a good holiday wherein tomorrow we shall slaughter millions of fowl who have been so severly inbred that they can no longer function as viable living things in a natural environment whil'st we watch football and gluttonously celebrate the usury of our native bretheren and the abuse of their land, culture, spirituality and hospitality. ;o) "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:456467c6$1@linux... > > Alrighty then. My apologies for offering a few words of encouragement. > > TCB > > "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > > > >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote: > > > >>Also, it was designed by Germans. > > > >want to drive them well, I don't want to learn how to build > >them. > > > >Likewise, I don't want to feel like I have to become a fargin' > >computer programmer just to use this bitch. > > > >It's got until the weekend to: > > > >1.) Get me a fucking authorization code that will let me log in > >& download the key code file (i'm pretty sure I'm missing some > >modules, because I was having to guess at what some of the > >subapplications were, since the nomenclature is different from > >the documentation to the software). > > > >2.) Reinstall fully & correctly once I have that & be able to > >route between SX & Pulsar without a hitch. > > > >3.) Work flawlessy & glitchlessly with my RME cards active at > >the same time for tracking needs... this was GOING to be an > >option that I was willing to find a workaround for, but since > >it's now pissed me off from the get-go, it's an option no > >longer... it's a mandate. > > > >If it doesn't do all this by that time, it's going back. I have > >no fucking sense of humor for expensive esoteric shit that > >doesn't make my life easier & allow me to be more musically > >productive. If I wanted to be Rube Fucking Goldberg about this > >shit, I may as well start building my own discrete console from > >scratch. > > > >Had it. > > > >Neil >No need to feel sorry for me LaMont. My Macs do everything I ask of them with about one percent of the "geek tweaking" my PC's require just to stay running. Granted, my needs aren't very taxing, but the difference in ease of use is well worth the extra money. Quite frankly, when I read your "Mac" tirades, I usually just shake my head in disbelief at the incoherent rambling. The general "anti-Mac" sentiment is actually one of the reasons I spend less and less time here. I mean now you're saying PC's do better with Firewire than Macs? That goes against everything I've read or heard anywhere. Bash on LaMont, right or wrong. Tony "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:456478c1$1@linux... > > I've played around with Liquid mix at my local GC and I was impressed. The > plugs definitely has character. And the interface is is nice.. > > However, like most Mac Firewire imlementations, is not very robust even on > Dual G5's 2.5 processors..Which kinda negates the whole DSP powered thing. > On the G5, I'd have to say all any of those DSP based units are no more > than > DONGLES. > > Yes, I know a lot of Mac users are not aware of the fact that to get the > most out of such units, you have to purchase a Separate Fire-wire card. > But, > unfortunately, most Mac user's go righ into the on-board firewire slot. > Which > does not yield max performance of any of the DSP plugin units.. > > My point is this. I feel bad for mac users when they spring for such > products. > You see performance complaints on user boards that frankly , PC DAW user > don't see. Even worse is when your So -called pro magazines review such > units > witha Mac!!! Yikes... You already know that the review being the ( TC > Powercore, > UAD, Liquid mix) is not going to go well. > > As if these reviewers (All Mac users) are on going to "will" the > manufactuers > to make their dsp product perform like they do on a PC.. Not gonna > happen.. > Frankly, it's really starting to piss me off big time. > All of these Mac only Magazine reviews need to be fire !!If only for the > reason that they can;t get they head out of their Ass long enough to > Realize > that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. > I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non dual > anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from Focusrite. > The > Mac review on this unit we're tested on Dual 867's G5's..And all of the > Mac > reviews, the reviewer could get the 32 plugin that it's supposed to do.. > I said what a @#$ing IDOT... Get a -Fbomb PC..Or wait till the PC version > comes out , then review it..!!! > So many good product get's canned becuase of the yahoo Mac only reviewer > 's Mac is the 4k piece of @@it !! and then expects it perform like a > startof > the freaking art DAW!!!! > > I'm sorry to all of you Mac users..But, You're just asking for it.!!! with > these new products. > Rant off :) > > "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! >> >>http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786 >The bad reviews were because people expected the liquid mix to sound exactly like the hardware piece that it is supposed to be emulating, and it doesn't. Audio snobs were disappointed, big deal, what's new??? My advice, use your ears. I haven't seen any thing on Mac firewire sucking, maybe you can point us dumb Mac users to some articles, so we can slit our wrists. 867 Mhz G5? Maybe you mean a G4? That's an old machine either way, how about running it on something new??? G4 800 Mhz is the minimum system requirement on Focusrite's web page. On a PC they are calling for a 1.4Ghz, hmmmmmmm! Explain that one. Oh here we go again, the G4 and the G5 sucked, the Mac .vs/viruses PC war. Come on LaMont! We're on Intel now, the new argument is Intel verses AMD! I was just letting you guys that use PCs know that the Liquid Mix was released, that's all. By the way, I've never had a problem with Firewire on a Mac! James "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote: > >I've played around with Liquid mix at my local GC and I was impressed. The >plugs definitely has character. And the interface is is nice.. > >However, like most Mac Firewire imlementations, is not very robust even on >Dual G5's 2.5 processors..Which kinda negates the whole DSP powered thing. >On the G5, I'd have to say all any of those DSP based units are no more than >DONGLES. > >Yes, I know a lot of Mac users are not aware of the fact that to get the >most out of such units, you have to purchase a Separate Fire-wire card. But, >unfortunately, most Mac user's go righ into the on-board firewire slot. Which >does not yield max performance of any of the DSP plugin units.. > >My point is this. I feel bad for mac users when they spring for such products. >You see performance complaints on user boards that frankly , PC DAW user >don't see. Even worse is when your So -called pro magazines review such units >witha Mac!!! Yikes... You already know that the review being the ( TC Powercore, >UAD, Liquid mix) is not going to go well. > >As if these reviewers (All Mac users) are on going to "will" the manufactuers >to make their dsp product perform like they do on a PC.. Not gonna happen.. >Frankly, it's really starting to piss me off big time. >All of these Mac only Magazine reviews need to be fire !!If only for the >reason that they can;t get they head out of their Ass long enough to Realize >that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. >I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non dual >anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from Focusrite. The >Mac review on this unit we're tested on Dual 867's G5's..And all of the Mac >reviews, the reviewer could get the 32 plugin that it's supposed to do.. >I said what a @#$ing IDOT... Get a -Fbomb PC..Or wait till the PC version >comes out , then review it..!!! >So many good product get's canned becuase of the yahoo Mac only reviewer >'s Mac is the 4k piece of @@it !! and then expects it perform like a startof >the freaking art DAW!!!! > >I'm sorry to all of you Mac users..But, You're just asking for it.!!! with >these new products. >Rant off :) > >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! >> >>http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786 >One more thing. Why is it whenever anyone posts anything Mac related, at least two or three here have to go off on a tangent and start the bashing. I don't see any Mac users here bashing PC's every other thread. This post was even PC related and the bashing had to start. That's what pisses me off big time. But what do I know. I guess I'm just "asking for it" by preferring to use a Mac. What a crock of shit! Tony "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message news:45648876@linux... > No need to feel sorry for me LaMont. My Macs do everything I ask of them > with about one percent of the "geek tweaking" my PC's require just to stay > running. Granted, my needs aren't very taxing, but the difference in ease > of use is well worth the extra money. Quite frankly, when I read your > "Mac" tirades, I usually just shake my head in disbelief at the incoherent > rambling. The general "anti-Mac" sentiment is actually one of the reasons > I spend less and less time here. I mean now you're saying PC's do better > with Firewire than Macs? That goes against everything I've read or heard > anywhere. Bash on LaMont, right or wrong. > > Tony > > > "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:456478c1$1@linux... >> >> I've played around with Liquid mix at my local GC and I was impressed. >> The >> plugs definitely has character. And the interface is is nice.. >> >> However, like most Mac Firewire imlementations, is not very robust even >> on >> Dual G5's 2.5 processors..Which kinda negates the whole DSP powered >> thing. >> On the G5, I'd have to say all any of those DSP based units are no more >> than >> DONGLES. >> >> Yes, I know a lot of Mac users are not aware of the fact that to get the >> most out of such units, you have to purchase a Separate Fire-wire card. >> But, >> unfortunately, most Mac user's go righ into the on-board firewire slot. >> Which >> does not yield max performance of any of the DSP plugin units.. >> >> My point is this. I feel bad for mac users when they spring for such >> products. >> You see performance complaints on user boards that frankly , PC DAW user >> don't see. Even worse is when your So -called pro magazines review such >> units >> witha Mac!!! Yikes... You already know that the review being the ( TC >> Powercore, >> UAD, Liquid mix) is not going to go well. >> >> As if these reviewers (All Mac users) are on going to "will" the >> manufactuers >> to make their dsp product perform like they do on a PC.. Not gonna >> happen.. >> Frankly, it's really starting to piss me off big time. >> All of these Mac only Magazine reviews need to be fire !!If only for the >> reason that they can;t get they head out of their Ass long enough to >> Realize >> that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. >> I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non dual >> anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from Focusrite. >> The >> Mac review on this unit we're tested on Dual 867's G5's..And all of the >> Mac >> reviews, the reviewer could get the 32 plugin that it's supposed to do.. >> I said what a @#$ing IDOT... Get a -Fbomb PC..Or wait till the PC version >> comes out , then review it..!!! >> So many good product get's canned becuase of the yahoo Mac only reviewer >> 's Mac is the 4k piece of @@it !! and then expects it perform like a >> startof >> the freaking art DAW!!!! >> >> I'm sorry to all of you Mac users..But, You're just asking for it.!!! >> with >> these new products. >> Rant off :) >> >> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! >>> >>>http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786 >> > >My point or rant was maily about Magazine reviewers zeal for using Macs. case in point..Sound on sound reviewed Cubase sx a while back. Now, any revieer worth thir salt knows the Neundo/Sx saga..It started out of the SGi platform, then re-writtren from scratch in windows..Tey even stated that the Mac version was a port-over..Not a fresh re-write.. So, do you think Sound on sound used a PC to review Cubase SX?? No, they used a Mac!! Which yields a totally different performance, stability factor. That was my point.. "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote: >One more thing. Why is it whenever anyone posts anything Mac related, at >least two or three here have to go off on a tangent and start the bashing. I >don't see any Mac users here bashing PC's every other thread. This post was >even PC related and the bashing had to start. That's what pisses me off big >time. But what do I know. I guess I'm just "asking for it" by preferring to >use a Mac. What a crock of shit! > >Tony > > >"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message >news:45648876@linux... >> No need to feel sorry for me LaMont. My Macs do everything I ask of them >> with about one percent of the "geek tweaking" my PC's require just to stay >> running. Granted, my needs aren't very taxing, but the difference in ease >> of use is well worth the extra money. Quite frankly, when I read your >> "Mac" tirades, I usually just shake my head in disbelief at the incoherent >> rambling. The general "anti-Mac" sentiment is actually one of the reasons >> I spend less and less time here. I mean now you're saying PC's do better >> with Firewire than Macs? That goes against everything I've read or heard >> anywhere. Bash on LaMont, right or wrong. >> >> Tony >> >> >> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:456478c1$1@linux... >>> >>> I've played around with Liquid mix at my local GC and I was impressed. >>> The >>> plugs definitely has character. And the interface is is nice.. >>> >>> However, like most Mac Firewire imlementations, is not very robust even >>> on >>> Dual G5's 2.5 processors..Which kinda negates the whole DSP powered >>> thing. >>> On the G5, I'd have to say all any of those DSP based units are no more >>> than >>> DONGLES. >>> >>> Yes, I know a lot of Mac users are not aware of the fact that to get the >>> most out of such units, you have to purchase a Separate Fire-wire card. >>> But, >>> unfortunately, most Mac user's go righ into the on-board firewire slot. >>> Which >>> does not yield max performance of any of the DSP plugin units.. >>> >>> My point is this. I feel bad for mac users when they spring for such >>> products. >>> You see performance complaints on user boards that frankly , PC DAW user >>> don't see. Even worse is when your So -called pro magazines review such >>> units >>> witha Mac!!! Yikes... You already know that the review being the ( TC >>> Powercore, >>> UAD, Liquid mix) is not going to go well. >>> >>> As if these reviewers (All Mac users) are on going to "will" the >>> manufactuers >>> to make their dsp product perform like they do on a PC.. Not gonna >>> happen.. >>> Frankly, it's really starting to piss me off big time. >>> All of these Mac only Magazine reviews need to be fire !!If only for the >>> reason that they can;t get they head out of their Ass long enough to >>> Realize >>> that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. >>> I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non dual >>> anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from Focusrite. >>> The >>> Mac review on this unit we're tested on Dual 867's G5's..And all of the >>> Mac >>> reviews, the reviewer could get the 32 plugin that it's supposed to do.. >>> I said what a @#$ing IDOT... Get a -Fbomb PC..Or wait till the PC version >>> comes out , then review it..!!! >>> So many good product get's canned becuase of the yahoo Mac only reviewer >>> 's Mac is the 4k piece of @@it !! and then expects it perform like a >>> startof >>> the freaking art DAW!!!! >>> >>> I'm sorry to all of you Mac users..But, You're just asking for it.!!! >>> with >>> these new products. >>> Rant off :) >>> >>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! >>>> >>>>http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786 >>> >> >> > >Get em while they are hot ! http://www.salescircular.com/ I got to this site year round. It rocks !Sorry Tony, I know I'm one of the worst at this. I've been trying to do better. My "Macphobia" is a 9 year old hangover that has abated quite a bit. I went to the local Mac store (yeah, they actually have one in this little town) and test drove a 20" Intel based iMac the other day. Damn nice machine for $1400.00. The overpricing bitch I always had about Macs seems to be going away. The proprietary/overpriced hardware situation will probably become less obvious as well. ;o) "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message news:45648edf@linux... > One more thing. Why is it whenever anyone posts anything Mac related, at > least two or three here have to go off on a tangent and start the bashing. I > don't see any Mac users here bashing PC's every other thread. This post was > even PC related and the bashing had to start. That's what pisses me off big > time. But what do I know. I guess I'm just "asking for it" by preferring to > use a Mac. What a crock of shit! > > Tony > > > "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message > news:45648876@linux... > > No need to feel sorry for me LaMont. My Macs do everything I ask of them > > with about one percent of the "geek tweaking" my PC's require just to stay > > running. Granted, my needs aren't very taxing, but the difference in ease > > of use is well worth the extra money. Quite frankly, when I read your > > "Mac" tirades, I usually just shake my head in disbelief at the incoherent > > rambling. The general "anti-Mac" sentiment is actually one of the reasons > > I spend less and less time here. I mean now you're saying PC's do better > > with Firewire than Macs? That goes against everything I've read or heard > > anywhere. Bash on LaMont, right or wrong. > > > > Tony > > > > > > "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:456478c1$1@linux... > >> > >> I've played around with Liquid mix at my local GC and I was impressed. > >> The > >> plugs definitely has character. And the interface is is nice.. > >> > >> However, like most Mac Firewire imlementations, is not very robust even > >> on > >> Dual G5's 2.5 processors..Which kinda negates the whole DSP powered > >> thing. > >> On the G5, I'd have to say all any of those DSP based units are no more > >> than > >> DONGLES. > >> > >> Yes, I know a lot of Mac users are not aware of the fact that to get the > >> most out of such units, you have to purchase a Separate Fire-wire card. > >> But, > >> unfortunately, most Mac user's go righ into the on-board firewire slot. > >> Which > >> does not yield max performance of any of the DSP plugin units.. > >> > >> My point is this. I feel bad for mac users when they spring for such > >> products. > >> You see performance complaints on user boards that frankly , PC DAW user > >> don't see. Even worse is when your So -called pro magazines review such > >> units > >> witha Mac!!! Yikes... You already know that the review being the ( TC > >> Powercore, > >> UAD, Liquid mix) is not going to go well. > >> > >> As if these reviewers (All Mac users) are on going to "will" the > >> manufactuers > >> to make their dsp product perform like they do on a PC.. Not gonna > >> happen.. > >> Frankly, it's really starting to piss me off big time. > >> All of these Mac only Magazine reviews need to be fire !!If only for the > >> reason that they can;t get they head out of their Ass long enough to > >> Realize > >> that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. > >> I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non dual > >> anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from Focusrite. > >> The > >> Mac review on this unit we're tested on Dual 867's G5's..And all of the > >> Mac > >> reviews, the reviewer could get the 32 plugin that it's supposed to do.. > >> I said what a @#$ing IDOT... Get a -Fbomb PC..Or wait till the PC version > >> comes out , then review it..!!! > >> So many good product get's canned becuase of the yahoo Mac only reviewer > >> 's Mac is the 4k piece of @@it !! and then expects it perform like a > >> startof > >> the freaking art DAW!!!! > >> > >> I'm sorry to all of you Mac users..But, You're just asking for it.!!! > >> with > >> these new products. > >> Rant off :) > >> > >> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! > >>> > >>>http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786 > >> > > > > > >Thad, don't take my comments as though I don't appreciate your words of encouragement, I'm just fed up with things like: a.) Overzealous copy protection (a separate code for each of 26 applets? C'MON!!!!). b.) Installation software that doesn't install things correctly c.) User interfaces that are so confusing as to cause my synapses to short-circuit... ....and this thing has all three of those. Deej, BTW, I did call that support #, and the guy a I talked to (I assume it was Ali... he "sounded like an Ali" - if I can say that without being accused of accent-profiling), and he said that the reason I hadn't gotten a reply yet is that Creamware has a big Christmas special going on & that their mailboxes were full (yet another fortuitous sign - a company that's not prepared to handle a large volume of support services... what's going to happen when all those users who're buying all the stuff they're moving out the door right now need THEIR keyfiles or other suport?), but he said he'd try to see if he could get the keyfile for my card & e-mail it to me. Will keep you posted.... the carnage continues. Neil "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: >Thad, > >He's as frustrated with the Scope situation as I was the first time I saw >RME's Totalmix. To my thinkiing, the Totalmix should be called >"Totalcrap"....but Neil probably understands it completely and it made >perfect sense to him the minute h saw it........sorta like the Scope outing >window did to me (sigh). I can relate to his frustration in that regard. >Sometimes I don't want to even get into anything new because I've been up >and down so many learning curves that I feel too burned out. The "jack of >all trades, master of none" thing starts to rear it's ugly head late at >night when you'r sitting in the control room trying to figure out some >niggling thing that is holding you up from what you want to accomplish, then >you need to get the manual out for some other thing to get this to happen >and suddenly you are looking at a stack of user's guides and manuals three >feet high and realizing how little you know, or how much you've forgotten >about each one.Thank goodness for newsgroups like this. > >I hope you have a good holiday wherein tomorrow we shall slaughter millions >of fowl who have been so severly inbred that they can no longer function as >viable living things in a natural environment whil'st we watch football and >gluttonously celebrate the usury of our native bretheren and the abuse of >their land, culture, spirituality and hospitality. > >;o) > > >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:456467c6$1@linux... >> >> Alrighty then. My apologies for offering a few words of encouragement. >> >> TCB >> >> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >> > >> >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote: >> > >> >>Also, it was designed by Germans. >> > >> >want to drive them well, I don't want to learn how to build >> >them. >> > >> >Likewise, I don't want to feel like I have to become a fargin' >> >computer programmer just to use this bitch. >> > >> >It's got until the weekend to: >> > >> >1.) Get me a fucking authorization code that will let me log in >> >& download the key code file (i'm pretty sure I'm missing some >> >modules, because I was having to guess at what some of the >> >subapplications were, since the nomenclature is different from >> >the documentation to the software). >> > >> >2.) Reinstall fully & correctly once I have that & be able to >> >route between SX & Pulsar without a hitch. >> > >> >3.) Work flawlessy & glitchlessly with my RME cards active at >> >the same time for tracking needs... this was GOING to be an >> >option that I was willing to find a workaround for, but since >> >it's now pissed me off from the get-go, it's an option no >> >longer... it's a mandate. >> > >> >If it doesn't do all this by that time, it's going back. I have >> >no fucking sense of humor for expensive esoteric shit that >> >doesn't make my life easier & allow me to be more musically >> >productive. If I wanted to be Rube Fucking Goldberg about this >> >shit, I may as well start building my own discrete console from >> >scratch. >> > >> >Had it. >> > >> >Neil >> > >Hi Guys, I have a couple of question re: UAD-1 and PARIS 3.0. 1. The PARIS 3.0 manual states that VST is supported on both Mac and Windows OS. Why do I need to use a VST-DX wrapper on WinXP? If I do, which one should I use and where is it purchased? Will the meters and presets work only with the VST-DX wrapped plugs? 2. Is there any way to use the UAD plugs in PARIS while tracking? For instance, Nigel seems pretty cool but is far less useful if I can only use it on an already recorded track. Yes, I have searched the NG for UAD-related posts as well as parisfaqs (thanks Doug!) but haven't found clear answers to these questions. Thanks for your help and happy holidays to all! MarkHey James . Man, I'm not getting on you..I welcome your new product announcements. My point was : I just read a few reviews on the Liquid Mix and I spent a few house playing with one at my local GC on a Dual 2.5 G5. Non of the reviewers could call up no more than 5 liquid plugs and attributed to the Mac CPU power. Man!!! Give me a break.. We have 3 Macs (Dual867, 2-G5 Dual 2.5s)at the Church studio. We were told that they were better ,faster than any PC onthe market..and we bought into the hype.. So when I see reviewers review products other than DP, Logic(mac only) , I just put my head down..Knowning they are getting ready to lambast that manufacture's product becuase said given product does not perform as advertised.. "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: > >The bad reviews were because people expected the liquid mix to sound exactly >like the hardware piece that it is supposed to be emulating, and it doesn't. > Audio snobs were disappointed, big deal, what's new??? My advice, use >your ears. I haven't seen any thing on Mac firewire sucking, maybe you can >point us dumb Mac users to some articles, so we can slit our wrists. > >867 Mhz G5? Maybe you mean a G4? That's an old machine either way, how >about running it on something new??? G4 800 Mhz is the minimum system requirement >on Focusrite's web page. On a PC they are calling for a 1.4Ghz, hmmmmmmm! > Explain that one. Oh here we go again, the G4 and the G5 sucked, the Mac >vs/viruses PC war. Come on LaMont! We're on Intel now, the new argument >is Intel verses AMD! > >I was just letting you guys that use PCs know that the Liquid Mix was released, >that's all. By the way, I've never had a problem with Firewire on a Mac! > >James > > >"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote: >> >>I've played around with Liquid mix at my local GC and I was impressed. The >>plugs definitely has character. And the interface is is nice.. >> >>However, like most Mac Firewire imlementations, is not very robust even >on >>Dual G5's 2.5 processors..Which kinda negates the whole DSP powered thing. >>On the G5, I'd have to say all any of those DSP based units are no more >than >>DONGLES. >> >>Yes, I know a lot of Mac users are not aware of the fact that to get the >>most out of such units, you have to purchase a Separate Fire-wire card. >But, >>unfortunately, most Mac user's go righ into the on-board firewire slot. >Which >>does not yield max performance of any of the DSP plugin units.. >> >>My point is this. I feel bad for mac users when they spring for such products. >>You see performance complaints on user boards that frankly , PC DAW user >>don't see. Even worse is when your So -called pro magazines review such >units >>witha Mac!!! Yikes... You already know that the review being the ( TC Powercore, >>UAD, Liquid mix) is not going to go well. >> >>As if these reviewers (All Mac users) are on going to "will" the manufactuers >>to make their dsp product perform like they do on a PC.. Not gonna happen.. >>Frankly, it's really starting to piss me off big time. >>All of these Mac only Magazine reviews need to be fire !!If only for the >>reason that they can;t get they head out of their Ass long enough to Realize >>that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. >>I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non dual >>anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from Focusrite. >The >>Mac review on this unit we're tested on Dual 867's G5's..And all of the >Mac >>reviews, the reviewer could get the 32 plugin that it's supposed to do.. >>I said what a @#$ing IDOT... Get a -Fbomb PC..Or wait till the PC version >>comes out , then review it..!!! >>So many good product get's canned becuase of the yahoo Mac only reviewer >>'s Mac is the 4k piece of @@it !! and then expects it perform like a startof >>the freaking art DAW!!!! >> >>I'm sorry to all of you Mac users..But, You're just asking for it.!!! with >>these new products. >>Rant off :) >> >>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! >>> >>>http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786 >> >Hey ..I know I'm right..period "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote: >One more thing. Why is it whenever anyone posts anything Mac related, at >least two or three here have to go off on a tangent and start the bashing. I >don't see any Mac users here bashing PC's every other thread. This post was >even PC related and the bashing had to start. That's what pisses me off big >time. But what do I know. I guess I'm just "asking for it" by preferring to >use a Mac. What a crock of shit! > >Tony > > >"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message >news:45648876@linux... >> No need to feel sorry for me LaMont. My Macs do everything I ask of them >> with about one percent of the "geek tweaking" my PC's require just to stay >> running. Granted, my needs aren't very taxing, but the difference in ease >> of use is well worth the extra money. Quite frankly, when I read your >> "Mac" tirades, I usually just shake my head in disbelief at the incoherent >> rambling. The general "anti-Mac" sentiment is actually one of the reasons >> I spend less and less time here. I mean now you're saying PC's do better >> with Firewire than Macs? That goes against everything I've read or heard >> anywhere. Bash on LaMont, right or wrong. >> >> Tony >> >> >> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:456478c1$1@linux... >>> >>> I've played around with Liquid mix at my local GC and I was impressed. >>> The >>> plugs definitely has character. And the interface is is nice.. >>> >>> However, like most Mac Firewire imlementations, is not very robust even >>> on >>> Dual G5's 2.5 processors..Which kinda negates the whole DSP powered >>> thing. >>> On the G5, I'd have to say all any of those DSP based units are no more >>> than >>> DONGLES. >>> >>> Yes, I know a lot of Mac users are not aware of the fact that to get the >>> most out of such units, you have to purchase a Separate Fire-wire card. >>> But, >>> unfortunately, most Mac user's go righ into the on-board firewire slot. >>> Which >>> does not yield max performance of any of the DSP plugin units.. >>> >>> My point is this. I feel bad for mac users when they spring for such >>> products. >>> You see performance complaints on user boards that frankly , PC DAW user >>> don't see. Even worse is when your So -called pro magazines review such >>> units >>> witha Mac!!! Yikes... You already know that the review being the ( TC >>> Powercore, >>> UAD, Liquid mix) is not going to go well. >>> >>> As if these reviewers (All Mac users) are on going to "will" the >>> manufactuers >>> to make their dsp product perform like they do on a PC.. Not gonna >>> happen.. >>> Frankly, it's really starting to piss me off big time. >>> All of these Mac only Magazine reviews need to be fire !!If only for the >>> reason that they can;t get they head out of their Ass long enough to >>> Realize >>> that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. >>> I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non dual >>> anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from Focusrite. >>> The >>> Mac review on this unit we're tested on Dual 867's G5's..And all of the >>> Mac >>> reviews, the reviewer could get the 32 plugin that it's supposed to do.. >>> I said what a @#$ing IDOT... Get a -Fbomb PC..Or wait till the PC version >>> comes out , then review it..!!! >>> So many good product get's canned becuase of the yahoo Mac only reviewer >>> 's Mac is the 4k piece of @@it !! and then expects it perform like a >>> startof >>> the freaking art DAW!!!! >>> >>> I'm sorry to all of you Mac users..But, You're just asking for it.!!! >>> with >>> these new products. >>> Rant off :) >>> >>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! >>>> >>>>http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786 >>> >> >> > >"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: >Neil, > >Think of the Scope routing window as being very much like the Paris virtual >patchbay but with the ability to configure it to talk to different drivers >and to configure itself to different mixers. Yes, I noticed that aspect of it right away, but as I mentioned, I don't think all the modules got installed, because I can't even find some of them in order to "virtually patch" them. >In order for Cubase to interface with the Scope system, the >ASIO configuration you want Cubase to *see* needs to be set up >first. that's why Scope launches automatically at Windows >startup.to load these drivers so that when you laujnch cubase >SX, your ASIO drivers are available. Scope "is" launching when >you boot your computer....right? NOPE! That's another thing that seems to not have gone right with the install... I can manually launch it now that I physically moved certain files from the "app/bin" folder from the CD/DVD drive to the same folder on the HD, but something's still not right... SX certainly doesn't see any of the Pulsar plugins or I/o's (if I'm supposed to be able to see the ASIO i/o's from within SX - dunno about that one), and Pulsar doesn't appear to see any of the SX ASIO i/o's. I can see the plugin dll's & whatnot if I open up the appropriate folders on the HD, so I have no clue why they wouldn't be showing up in SX (ok just ONE of them is... some "XLT Recorder" thing - which makes it even more strange - why one & none of the others? Neil > > >"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:45645479$1@linux... >> >> "Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Scope is very to use once you get a little time on it. Neil >> >doesnt seem to have much patience at this point though. >> >> You're right, I don't... BTW, it's now about twelve hours from >> when I first sent the e-mails requesting the login info.... >> and... >> >> ...you guessed it, still no response. >> >> BTW, Thad, another example of German-engineered product that >> doesn't take a degree in quantum physics to operate is >> CubaseSX... everyone said that had a steep learning curve, but >> I didn't have any problems getting that app configured & >> operating it fro the get-go. This thing is like some >> bizzarre "M.-Night-Shamalyan-meets-the-DaVinci-Code" version of >> a music application. >> >> Neil > >Well Neil, as you informed us your current car is a beamer and you last car a Mercedes so you must have the knotroll to hire someone in the lowly profession of computer programming to help you out. Or not, of course. But if interface simplicity is the primary concern Creamware gear might not be the best for you. TCB "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > >Thad, don't take my comments as though I don't appreciate your >words of encouragement, I'm just fed up with things like: > >a.) Overzealous copy protection (a separate code for each of 26 >applets? C'MON!!!!). > >b.) Installation software that doesn't install things correctly > >c.) User interfaces that are so confusing as to cause my >synapses to short-circuit... > >...and this thing has all three of those. > >Deej, BTW, I did call that support #, and the guy a I talked to >(I assume it was Ali... he "sounded like an Ali" - if I can say >that without being accused of accent-profiling), and he said >that the reason I hadn't gotten a reply yet is that Creamware >has a big Christmas special going on & that their mailboxes were >full (yet another fortuitous sign - a company that's not >prepared to handle a large volume of support services... what's >going to happen when all those users who're buying all the stuff >they're moving out the door right now need THEIR keyfiles or >other suport?), but he said he'd try to see if he could get the >keyfile for my card & e-mail it to me. > >Will keep you posted.... the carnage continues. > >Neil > > >"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: >>Thad, >> >>He's as frustrated with the Scope situation as I was the first time I saw >>RME's Totalmix. To my thinkiing, the Totalmix should be called >>"Totalcrap"....but Neil probably understands it completely and it made >>perfect sense to him the minute h saw it........sorta like the Scope outing >>window did to me (sigh). I can relate to his frustration in that regard. >>Sometimes I don't want to even get into anything new because I've been up >>and down so many learning curves that I feel too burned out. The "jack of >>all trades, master of none" thing starts to rear it's ugly head late at >>night when you'r sitting in the control room trying to figure out some >>niggling thing that is holding you up from what you want to accomplish, >then >>you need to get the manual out for some other thing to get this to happen >>and suddenly you are looking at a stack of user's guides and manuals three >>feet high and realizing how little you know, or how much you've forgotten >>about each one.Thank goodness for newsgroups like this. >> >>I hope you have a good holiday wherein tomorrow we shall slaughter millions >>of fowl who have been so severly inbred that they can no longer function >as >>viable living things in a natural environment whil'st we watch football >and >>gluttonously celebrate the usury of our native bretheren and the abuse of >>their land, culture, spirituality and hospitality. >> >>;o) >> >> >>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:456467c6$1@linux... >>> >>> Alrighty then. My apologies for offering a few words of encouragement. >>> >>> TCB >>> >>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >>Also, it was designed by Germans. >>> > >>> >want to drive them well, I don't want to learn how to build >>> >them. >>> > >>> >Likewise, I don't want to feel like I have to become a fargin' >>> >computer programmer just to use this bitch. >>> > >>> >It's got until the weekend to: >>> > >>> >1.) Get me a fucking authorization code that will let me log in >>> >& download the key code file (i'm pretty sure I'm missing some >>> >modules, because I was having to guess at what some of the >>> >subapplications were, since the nomenclature is different from >>> >the documentation to the software). >>> > >>> >2.) Reinstall fully & correctly once I have that & be able to >>> >route between SX & Pulsar without a hitch. >>> > >>> >3.) Work flawlessy & glitchlessly with my RME cards active at >>> >the same time for tracking needs... this was GOING to be an >>> >option that I was willing to find a workaround for, but since >>> >it's now pissed me off from the get-go, it's an option no >>> >longer... it's a mandate. >>> > >>> >If it doesn't do all this by that time, it's going back. I have >>> >no fucking sense of humor for expensive esoteric shit that >>> >doesn't make my life easier & allow me to be more musically >>> >productive. If I wanted to be Rube Fucking Goldberg about this >>> >shit, I may as well start building my own discrete console from >>> >scratch. >>> > >>> >Had it. >>> > >>> >Neil >>> >> >> >Deej, I don't mind if people have a specific gripe with a specific experience with a Mac. I know Macs aren't perfect and I've had troubles through the years, just like PC users have. I think the price gap has gotten much better and the proprietary hardware is almost a thing of the past. I just get tired of the blanket statements and "stoopid Mac user" attitude sometimes. Maybe I'm just in a "sensitive" mood today. Sorry if I seem like a poop head. Tony "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:456493b1@linux... > Sorry Tony, > > I know I'm one of the worst at this. I've been trying to do better. My > "Macphobia" is a 9 year old hangover that has abated quite a bit. I went > to > the local Mac store (yeah, they actually have one in this little town) and > test drove a 20" Intel based iMac the other day. Damn nice machine for > $1400.00. The overpricing bitch I always had about Macs seems to be going > away. The proprietary/overpriced hardware situation will probably become > less obvious as well. > > ;o) > > "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message > news:45648edf@linux... >> One more thing. Why is it whenever anyone posts anything Mac related, at >> least two or three here have to go off on a tangent and start the >> bashing. > I >> don't see any Mac users here bashing PC's every other thread. This post > was >> even PC related and the bashing had to start. That's what pisses me off > big >> time. But what do I know. I guess I'm just "asking for it" by preferring > to >> use a Mac. What a crock of shit! >> >> Tony >> >> >> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message >> news:45648876@linux... >> > No need to feel sorry for me LaMont. My Macs do everything I ask of >> > them >> > with about one percent of the "geek tweaking" my PC's require just to > stay >> > running. Granted, my needs aren't very taxing, but the difference in > ease >> > of use is well worth the extra money. Quite frankly, when I read your >> > "Mac" tirades, I usually just shake my head in disbelief at the > incoherent >> > rambling. The general "anti-Mac" sentiment is actually one of the > reasons >> > I spend less and less time here. I mean now you're saying PC's do >> > better >> > with Firewire than Macs? That goes against everything I've read or >> > heard >> > anywhere. Bash on LaMont, right or wrong. >> > >> > Tony >> > >> > >> > "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message > news:456478c1$1@linux... >> >> >> >> I've played around with Liquid mix at my local GC and I was impressed. >> >> The >> >> plugs definitely has character. And the interface is is nice.. >> >> >> >> However, like most Mac Firewire imlementations, is not very robust >> >> even >> >> on >> >> Dual G5's 2.5 processors..Which kinda negates the whole DSP powered >> >> thing. >> >> On the G5, I'd have to say all any of those DSP based units are no >> >> more >> >> than >> >> DONGLES. >> >> >> >> Yes, I know a lot of Mac users are not aware of the fact that to get > the >> >> most out of such units, you have to purchase a Separate Fire-wire >> >> card. >> >> But, >> >> unfortunately, most Mac user's go righ into the on-board firewire >> >> slot. >> >> Which >> >> does not yield max performance of any of the DSP plugin units.. >> >> >> >> My point is this. I feel bad for mac users when they spring for such >> >> products. >> >> You see performance complaints on user boards that frankly , PC DAW > user >> >> don't see. Even worse is when your So -called pro magazines review >> >> such >> >> units >> >> witha Mac!!! Yikes... You already know that the review being the ( TC >> >> Powercore, >> >> UAD, Liquid mix) is not going to go well. >> >> >> >> As if these reviewers (All Mac users) are on going to "will" the >> >> manufactuers >> >> to make their dsp product perform like they do on a PC.. Not gonna >> >> happen.. >> >> Frankly, it's really starting to piss me off big time. >> >> All of these Mac only Magazine reviews need to be fire !!If only for > the >> >> reason that they can;t get they head out of their Ass long enough to >> >> Realize >> >> that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. >> >> I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non > dual >> >> anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from >> >> Focusrite. >> >> The >> >> Mac review on this unit we're tested on Dual 867's G5's..And all of >> >> the >> >> Mac >> >> reviews, the reviewer could get the 32 plugin that it's supposed to > do.. >> >> I said what a @#$ing IDOT... Get a -Fbomb PC..Or wait till the PC > version >> >> comes out , then review it..!!! >> >> So many good product get's canned becuase of the yahoo Mac only > reviewer >> >> 's Mac is the 4k piece of @@it !! and then expects it perform like a >> >> startof >> >> the freaking art DAW!!!! >> >> >> >> I'm sorry to all of you Mac users..But, You're just asking for it.!!! >> >> with >> >> these new products. >> >> Rant off :) >> >> >> >> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! >> >>> >> >>>http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786 >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > >Woo, LaMont put a "period" on it! End of discussion. Nice attitude. Tony "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:4564967e$1@linux... > > Hey ..I know I'm right..period > > "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote: >>One more thing. Why is it whenever anyone posts anything Mac related, at > >>least two or three here have to go off on a tangent and start the bashing. > I >>don't see any Mac users here bashing PC's every other thread. This post > was >>even PC related and the bashing had to start. That's what pisses me off > big >>time. But what do I know. I guess I'm just "asking for it" by preferring > to >>use a Mac. What a crock of shit! >> >>Tony >> >> >>"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message >>news:45648876@linux... >>> No need to feel sorry for me LaMont. My Macs do everything I ask of them > >>> with about one percent of the "geek tweaking" my PC's require just to > stay >>> running. Granted, my needs aren't very taxing, but the difference in >>> ease > >>> of use is well worth the extra money. Quite frankly, when I read your > >>> "Mac" tirades, I usually just shake my head in disbelief at the >>> incoherent > >>> rambling. The general "anti-Mac" sentiment is actually one of the >>> reasons > >>> I spend less and less time here. I mean now you're saying PC's do better > >>> with Firewire than Macs? That goes against everything I've read or heard > >>> anywhere. Bash on LaMont, right or wrong. >>> >>> Tony >>> >>> >>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message >>> news:456478c1$1@linux... >>>> >>>> I've played around with Liquid mix at my local GC and I was impressed. > >>>> The >>>> plugs definitely has character. And the interface is is nice.. >>>> >>>> However, like most Mac Firewire imlementations, is not very robust even > >>>> on >>>> Dual G5's 2.5 processors..Which kinda negates the whole DSP powered >>>> thing. >>>> On the G5, I'd have to say all any of those DSP based units are no more > >>>> than >>>> DONGLES. >>>> >>>> Yes, I know a lot of Mac users are not aware of the fact that to get > the >>>> most out of such units, you have to purchase a Separate Fire-wire card. > >>>> But, >>>> unfortunately, most Mac user's go righ into the on-board firewire slot. > >>>> Which >>>> does not yield max performance of any of the DSP plugin units.. >>>> >>>> My point is this. I feel bad for mac users when they spring for such > >>>> products. >>>> You see performance complaints on user boards that frankly , PC DAW >>>> user >>>> don't see. Even worse is when your So -called pro magazines review such > >>>> units >>>> witha Mac!!! Yikes... You already know that the review being the ( TC > >>>> Powercore, >>>> UAD, Liquid mix) is not going to go well. >>>> >>>> As if these reviewers (All Mac users) are on going to "will" the >>>> manufactuers >>>> to make their dsp product perform like they do on a PC.. Not gonna >>>> happen.. >>>> Frankly, it's really starting to piss me off big time. >>>> All of these Mac only Magazine reviews need to be fire !!If only for > the >>>> reason that they can;t get they head out of their Ass long enough to > >>>> Realize >>>> that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. >>>> I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non > dual >>>> anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from Focusrite. > >>>> The >>>> Mac review on this unit we're tested on Dual 867's G5's..And all of the > >>>> Mac >>>> reviews, the reviewer could get the 32 plugin that it's supposed to >>>> do.. >>>> I said what a @#$ing IDOT... Get a -Fbomb PC..Or wait till the PC >>>> version >>>> comes out , then review it..!!! >>>> So many good product get's canned becuase of the yahoo Mac only >>>> reviewer >>>> 's Mac is the 4k piece of @@it !! and then expects it perform like a > >>>> startof >>>> the freaking art DAW!!!! >>>> >>>> I'm sorry to all of you Mac users..But, You're just asking for it.!!! > >>>> with >>>> these new products. >>>> Rant off :) >>>> >>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! >>>>> >>>>>http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786 >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >Neil, Uninstall Scope using the uninstall utillity in the windows Program menu. Then go shopping, do some other things and wait for your *allkey* file. when that arrives, give me a call and I'll boot my machine and walk you through the install. It's a little confusing, but not bad. ..but the *allkey* file is necessary to kep from losing your mind completely. I left you amessage at the house about an hour ago. ;o) "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:456498e7$1@linux... > > "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: > >Neil, > > > >Think of the Scope routing window as being very much like the Paris virtual > >patchbay but with the ability to configure it to talk to different drivers > >and to configure itself to different mixers. > > Yes, I noticed that aspect of it right away, but as I mentioned, > I don't think all the modules got installed, because I can't > even find some of them in order to "virtually patch" them. > > >In order for Cubase to interface with the Scope system, the >ASIO configuration > you want Cubase to *see* needs to be set up > >first. that's why Scope launches automatically at Windows > >startup.to load these drivers so that when you laujnch cubase > >SX, your ASIO drivers are available. Scope "is" launching when > >you boot your computer....right? > > NOPE! That's another thing that seems to not have gone right > with the install... I can manually launch it now that I > physically moved certain files from the "app/bin" folder from > the CD/DVD drive to the same folder on the HD, but something's > still not right... SX certainly doesn't see any of the Pulsar > plugins or I/o's (if I'm supposed to be able to see the ASIO > i/o's from within SX - dunno about that one), and Pulsar doesn't > appear to see any of the SX ASIO i/o's. I can see the plugin > dll's & whatnot if I open up the appropriate folders on the HD, > so I have no clue why they wouldn't be showing up in SX (ok just > ONE of them is... some "XLT Recorder" thing - which makes it > even more strange - why one & none of the others? > > Neil > > > > > > > >"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:45645479$1@linux... > >> > >> "Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Scope is very to use once you get a little time on it. Neil > >> >doesnt seem to have much patience at this point though. > >> > >> You're right, I don't... BTW, it's now about twelve hours from > >> when I first sent the e-mails requesting the login info.... > >> and... > >> > >> ...you guessed it, still no response. > >> > >> BTW, Thad, another example of German-engineered product that > >> doesn't take a degree in quantum physics to operate is > >> CubaseSX... everyone said that had a steep learning curve, but > >> I didn't have any problems getting that app configured & > >> operating it fro the get-go. This thing is like some > >> bizzarre "M.-Night-Shamalyan-meets-the-DaVinci-Code" version of > >> a music application. > >> > >> Neil > > > > >Sorry Tony.. Rant was for Mag reviewers not users or the machines.. Have great Thanksgiving.!! "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote: >Woo, LaMont put a "period" on it! End of discussion. Nice attitude. > >Tony > > >"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:4564967e$1@linux... >> >> Hey ..I know I'm right..period >> >> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote: >>>One more thing. Why is it whenever anyone posts anything Mac related, at >> >>>least two or three here have to go off on a tangent and start the bashing. >> I >>>don't see any Mac users here bashing PC's every other thread. This post >> was >>>even PC related and the bashing had to start. That's what pisses me off >> big >>>time. But what do I know. I guess I'm just "asking for it" by preferring >> to >>>use a Mac. What a crock of shit! >>> >>>Tony >>> >>> >>>"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message >>>news:45648876@linux... >>>> No need to feel sorry for me LaMont. My Macs do everything I ask of them >> >>>> with about one percent of the "geek tweaking" my PC's require just to >> stay >>>> running. Granted, my needs aren't very taxing, but the difference in >>>> ease >> >>>> of use is well worth the extra money. Quite frankly, when I read your >> >>>> "Mac" tirades, I usually just shake my head in disbelief at the >>>> incoherent >> >>>> rambling. The general "anti-Mac" sentiment is actually one of the >>>> reasons >> >>>> I spend less and less time here. I mean now you're saying PC's do better >> >>>> with Firewire than Macs? That goes against everything I've read or heard >> >>>> anywhere. Bash on LaMont, right or wrong. >>>> >>>> Tony >>>> >>>> >>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message >>>> news:456478c1$1@linux... >>>>> >>>>> I've played around with Liquid mix at my local GC and I was impressed. >> >>>>> The >>>>> plugs definitely has character. And the interface is is nice.. >>>>> >>>>> However, like most Mac Firewire imlementations, is not very robust even >> >>>>> on >>>>> Dual G5's 2.5 processors..Which kinda negates the whole DSP powered >>>>> thing. >>>>> On the G5, I'd have to say all any of those DSP based units are no more >> >>>>> than >>>>> DONGLES. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I know a lot of Mac users are not aware of the fact that to get >> the >>>>> most out of such units, you have to purchase a Separate Fire-wire card. >> >>>>> But, >>>>> unfortunately, most Mac user's go righ into the on-board firewire slot. >> >>>>> Which >>>>> does not yield max performance of any of the DSP plugin units.. >>>>> >>>>> My point is this. I feel bad for mac users when they spring for such >> >>>>> products. >>>>> You see performance complaints on user boards that frankly , PC DAW >>>>> user >>>>> don't see. Even worse is when your So -called pro magazines review such >> >>>>> units >>>>> witha Mac!!! Yikes... You already know that the review being the ( TC >> >>>>> Powercore, >>>>> UAD, Liquid mix) is not going to go well. >>>>> >>>>> As if these reviewers (All Mac users) are on going to "will" the >>>>> manufactuers >>>>> to make their dsp product perform like they do on a PC.. Not gonna >>>>> happen.. >>>>> Frankly, it's really starting to piss me off big time. >>>>> All of these Mac only Magazine reviews need to be fire !!If only for >> the >>>>> reason that they can;t get they head out of their Ass long enough to >> >>>>> Realize >>>>> that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. >>>>> I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non >> dual >>>>> anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from Focusrite. >> >>>>> The >>>>> Mac review on this unit we're tested on Dual 867's G5's..And all of the >> >>>>> Mac >>>>> reviews, the reviewer could get the 32 plugin that it's supposed to >>>>> do.. >>>>> I said what a @#$ing IDOT... Get a -Fbomb PC..Or wait till the PC >>>>> version >>>>> comes out , then review it..!!! >>>>> So many good product get's canned becuase of the yahoo Mac only >>>>> reviewer >>>>> 's Mac is the 4k piece of @@it !! and then expects it perform like a >> >>>>> startof >>>>> the freaking art DAW!!!! >>>>> >>>>> I'm sorry to all of you Mac users..But, You're just asking for it.!!! >> >>>>> with >>>>> these new products. >>>>> Rant off :) >>>>> >>>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! >>>>>> >>>>>>http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >Trust me Neil if anyone can walk you through shit it's DJ... Wait that doesn't sound right. Don "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:4564a779@linux... > Neil, > > Uninstall Scope using the uninstall utillity in the windows Program menu. > Then go shopping, do some other things and wait for your *allkey* file. > when > that arrives, give me a call and I'll boot my machine and walk you through > the install. It's a little confusing, but not bad. ..but the *allkey* file > is necessary to kep from losing your mind completely. > > I left you amessage at the house about an hour ago. > > ;o) > > "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:456498e7$1@linux... >> >> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: >> >Neil, >> > >> >Think of the Scope routing window as being very much like the Paris > virtual >> >patchbay but with the ability to configure it to talk to different > drivers >> >and to configure itself to different mixers. >> >> Yes, I noticed that aspect of it right away, but as I mentioned, >> I don't think all the modules got installed, because I can't >> even find some of them in order to "virtually patch" them. >> >> >In order for Cubase to interface with the Scope system, the >ASIO > configuration >> you want Cubase to *see* needs to be set up >> >first. that's why Scope launches automatically at Windows >> >startup.to load these drivers so that when you laujnch cubase >> >SX, your ASIO drivers are available. Scope "is" launching when >> >you boot your computer....right? >> >> NOPE! That's another thing that seems to not have gone right >> with the install... I can manually launch it now that I >> physically moved certain files from the "app/bin" folder from >> the CD/DVD drive to the same folder on the HD, but something's >> still not right... SX certainly doesn't see any of the Pulsar >> plugins or I/o's (if I'm supposed to be able to see the ASIO >> i/o's from within SX - dunno about that one), and Pulsar doesn't >> appear to see any of the SX ASIO i/o's. I can see the plugin >> dll's & whatnot if I open up the appropriate folders on the HD, >> so I have no clue why they wouldn't be showing up in SX (ok just >> ONE of them is... some "XLT Recorder" thing - which makes it >> even more strange - why one & none of the others? >> >> Neil >> >> >> > >> > >> >"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:45645479$1@linux... >> >> >> >> "Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Scope is very to use once you get a little time on it. Neil >> >> >doesnt seem to have much patience at this point though. >> >> >> >> You're right, I don't... BTW, it's now about twelve hours from >> >> when I first sent the e-mails requesting the login info.... >> >> and... >> >> >> >> ...you guessed it, still no response. >> >> >> >> BTW, Thad, another example of German-engineered product that >> >> doesn't take a degree in quantum physics to operate is >> >> CubaseSX... everyone said that had a steep learning curve, but >> >> I didn't have any problems getting that app configured & >> >> operating it fro the get-go. This thing is like some >> >> bizzarre "M.-Night-Shamalyan-meets-the-DaVinci-Code" version of >> >> a music application. >> >> >> >> Neil >> > >> > >> > >LOL!!!!!! ;oD "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:4564ac7d$1@linux... > Trust me Neil if anyone can walk you through shit it's DJ... > > Wait that doesn't sound right. > > Don > > > > "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:4564a779@linux... > > Neil, > > > > Uninstall Scope using the uninstall utillity in the windows Program menu. > > Then go shopping, do some other things and wait for your *allkey* file. > > when > > that arrives, give me a call and I'll boot my machine and walk you through > > the install. It's a little confusing, but not bad. ..but the *allkey* file > > is necessary to kep from losing your mind completely. > > > > I left you amessage at the house about an hour ago. > > > > ;o) > > > > "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:456498e7$1@linux... > >> > >> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: > >> >Neil, > >> > > >> >Think of the Scope routing window as being very much like the Paris > > virtual > >> >patchbay but with the ability to configure it to talk to different > > drivers > >> >and to configure itself to different mixers. > >> > >> Yes, I noticed that aspect of it right away, but as I mentioned, > >> I don't think all the modules got installed, because I can't > >> even find some of them in order to "virtually patch" them. > >> > >> >In order for Cubase to interface with the Scope system, the >ASIO > > configuration > >> you want Cubase to *see* needs to be set up > >> >first. that's why Scope launches automatically at Windows > >> >startup.to load these drivers so that when you laujnch cubase > >> >SX, your ASIO drivers are available. Scope "is" launching when > >> >you boot your computer....right? > >> > >> NOPE! That's a
nother thing that seems to not have gone right > >> with the install... I can manually launch it now that I > >> physically moved certain files from the "app/bin" folder from > >> the CD/DVD drive to the same folder on the HD, but something's > >> still not right... SX certainly doesn't see any of the Pulsar > >&
#64;OIU.com" target="_blank">IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:45645479$1@linux... > >> >> > >> >> "Jesse Skeens" <jskeens@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Scope is very to use once you get a little time on it. Neil > >> >> >doesnt
;>>> Realize >>>>>> that the MAc is no longer the defacto standard DAW!!! Period.. >>>>>> I 'l bett the PC version of Liquid channel will (on a modest PC) non >>> dual >>>>>> anything, will garner the full 32 plugs that advertised from Focusrite. >>> >>>>>> The<br /