he 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" <<a href="mailto:excelsm@hotmail.com" target="_blank"
>excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>Liquid Mix is now available for the PC! >>>> >>>>http://sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=3786 >>> >> >"Neil" <OIUIU@OIU.com> wrote: > >Ali Rocks. > >Now we'll see if a fresh install works. OK, that worked... I have all the modules now - will see if I can configure it properly. NeilLol!! Man.. Neil, I saw your post last night, and I was like "Neil'spissed off!! :) I hope all is well in CreamWare land? "Neil" <IOUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > >Lamont... I can't BELIEVE you have such venom for a piece of >HARDWARE!!! > >(Unless, of course, it's a Pulsar card :D ) > >Neil > > >"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote: >> >>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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >You think he was pissed off last night????........ you ought to talk to him now. Give him a call....I dare you. ;o) "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:4564da7c$1@linux... > > Lol!! Man.. Neil, I saw your post last night, and I was like "Neil'spissed > off!! :) > > I hope all is well in CreamWare land? > > "Neil" <IOUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > > > >Lamont... I can't BELIEVE you have such venom for a piece of > >HARDWARE!!! > > > >(Unless, of course, it's a Pulsar card :D ) > > > >Neil > > > > > >"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote: > >> > >>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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >"Neil" <iUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > >"Neil" <OIUIU@OIU.com> wrote: >> >>Ali Rocks. >> >>Now we'll see if a fresh install works. > >OK, that worked... I have all the modules now - will see if I >can configure it properly. Alright, I figured some of it out & Deej helped me with the rest over the phone, as far as which modules to start off with & how the connections are made, etc.; BUT... Pulsar apparently doesn't have 88.2k as a samplerate option, so I can't use it on ANY of my projects! Now, it does have a "slave" option, and I could clock it in a couple of different ways, but IT DOESN'T HAVE A WORD CLOCK ON THE CARD!!! Deej said I would need the Pulsar "Sync Plate" for that... hmm... if Deej knew that, why didn't the guy who sold it to me, considering I went into explicit detail about what I was trying to accomplish and asked him if it would work with my setup? Fuck. Neilvery creative in my opinion.... never seen anything quite like it.I really love Roxette.. "John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:45645a8a$1@linux... > > Anyone heard the beautiful song? The vocal is really haunting of Karen > Carpenter > and Shania Twain all in one. Really nice !!Nothing wrong with Macs or PCs. Pros and cons both ways. I do miss having fruit on mine, so I usually bring a pear, tangerine or *gasp* an apple for lunch to balance things out. ;-) FWIW, Lamont, I write product reviews for Audiomidi.com and use a PC for every review (including writing it). But I've been known to use a Mac to finish writing or editing it though.... I've read user reviews on Liquid Mix saying it isn't as good as UAD-1 quality, but for $800 street, it's worth it for the flexibility. Dedric "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 >> > >truly some next level shit"j to the c r o n" <fu@hydrorecords.com> wrote: >truly some next level shit I caught some of it while I was waiting for yet another reconfiguration of my PC to happen - it's not bad, but what makes you say "next level"? The graphics & stuff like that? NeilTotally useless for what I wanted it to be able to do. End of story. NeilNeil, Man, that's drag but without the sync plate, you will not be able to use it on the same machine as your Multiface cards. The only suggestion I have is to load the Pulsar into that other computer (it's got it's own DSP so CPU horsepower won't be an issue) and then stream the Cubase tracks over ADAT from the Multiface units on the native DAW and slave the Pulsar on the other DAW to ADAT sync from the Multiface units running at 88.2. With 16 ADAT inputs you would have 8 x channels at 88.2 summing via SMUX.. That would get you up and running until the sync plate arrived: http://www.jrrshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=1562 Damn!!!......sorry this ended up being such a clusterfuck. Deej "Neil" <IOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4564f256$1@linux... > > "Neil" <iUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > > > >"Neil" <OIUIU@OIU.com> wrote: > >> > >>Ali Rocks. > >> > >>Now we'll see if a fresh install works. > > > >OK, that worked... I have all the modules now - will see if I > >can configure it properly. > > Alright, I figured some of it out & Deej helped me with the > rest over the phone, as far as which modules to start off with > & how the connections are made, etc.; BUT... Pulsar apparently > doesn't have 88.2k as a samplerate option, so I can't use it > on ANY of my projects! Now, it does have a "slave" option, and > I could clock it in a couple of different ways, but IT DOESN'T > HAVE A WORD CLOCK ON THE CARD!!! Deej said I would need the > Pulsar "Sync Plate" for that... hmm... if Deej knew that, why > didn't the guy who sold it to me, considering I went into > explicit detail about what I was trying to accomplish and asked > him if it would work with my setup? > > Fuck. > > NeilHey Neil, One other thing that I've just gotta say here since I referred you to the person you bought this from is that after working with him pretty intensively over the last month, I feel I can vouch for his integrity. This guy knows his way around the studio and has gone above and beyond for me, taking calls from me at home on Sundays even and I really think something must have slipped between the cracks. I know how frustrating this stuff is. I've been dealing with the same kind of thing for over a year with my RME hardware and you and I have been friends here for years and I sorta' feel personally responsible for your woes right now, but certainly don't think for one second that Gary would intentionally misrepresent the system or it's capabilities to make a sale. Deej "Neil" <IOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4564f256$1@linux... > > "Neil" <iUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: > > > >"Neil" <OIUIU@OIU.com> wrote: > >> > >>Ali Rocks. > >> > >>Now we'll see if a fresh install works. > > > >OK, that worked... I have all the modules now - will see if I > >can configure it properly. > > Alright, I figured some of it out & Deej helped me with the > rest over the phone, as far as which modules to start off with > & how the connections are made, etc.; BUT... Pulsar apparently > doesn't have 88.2k as a samplerate option, so I can't use it > on ANY of my projects! Now, it does have a "slave" option, and > I could clock it in a couple of different ways, but IT DOESN'T > HAVE A WORD CLOCK ON THE CARD!!! Deej said I would need the > Pulsar "Sync Plate" for that... hmm... if Deej knew that, why > didn't the guy who sold it to me, considering I went into > explicit detail about what I was trying to accomplish and asked > him if it would work with my setup? > > Fuck. > > NeilHassle factor, bad sounds, interface issues? Where's the beef bro? AA "Neil" <OIUOIU@OU.com> wrote in message news:4565111b$1@linux... > > Totally useless for what I wanted it to be able to do. > > End of story. > > NeilHey Dedric..What gives with thses Pompus ass Mac -only reviewers?? It's like they get a new product to review, yet the (Reviewer) drags out their old trusty G4 to review a product. !! Then, the next sentence usually goes, "I think my old er G4 Dual 867 is not up to the task that this sofware is begging for"!! No Shit!!! Time after time, review after review..Are these pompus Mac only reviewers.. This does nothing fore the product being reviewed. Due to Mr Mac reviewer has think of some cretive way to test he product!!! Then you see the disclaimer 'I think if I had a fast PC these problems would occured"!!@#$ My Point: If you are a reviewer for a pro audio magazine, you owe to your-self, the reader and the manufactuer to give this product is fairest shake..Most of those "less-than stellar Mac only reviews leaves the reader feeling like the product is less than advertised, when in fact, it was that MAc only reviewer.. If you are a reveiwer, you should have both: -A current Mac & a current PC period!!.. Rant off ..:) Happy Thanksgiving "Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote: >Nothing wrong with Macs or PCs. Pros and cons both ways. I do miss having >fruit on mine, so I usually bring a pear, tangerine or *gasp* an apple >for lunch to balance things out. ;-) > >FWIW, Lamont, I write product reviews for Audiomidi.com and use a PC for >every review (including writing it). But I've been known to use a Mac to >finish writing or editing it though.... > >I've read user reviews on Liquid Mix saying it isn't as good as UAD-1 >quality, but for $800 street, it's worth it for the flexibility. > >Dedric > > >"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 >>> >> >> > >Hi James.. 1)the 5 instances came from a review I just read from Pro audio news . That reviewer had the Dual 867 G4. This negates the product claim of 'Taking the strain" off off the host cpu'. That's the one of the reasons you want a 'DSP -Firewire" product. My experience at GC was pretty cool wih Liquid Mix. I called up 18 on their Dual g5. That was all the song needed that I was tesing. I was impressed..However, i came away thinking and feeling that : I think a Dual G5 could render 18 native plugs anyway. I knwo a PC can runnning any DAW can.. So, why the need for the Dongle??? "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: > >As far as reviewers go, I've seen it both ways. However, I'm not saying your >wrong. Maybe you should send the magazines your credentials and your resume, >and start freelance writing reviews. > > As far as the Liquid Mix, think about it! Your talking about an experience >at GC! They have no idea what they are doing, much less setting up a Mac >with a new piece of equipment. I'm surprised it worked at all. It's a firewire >DSP box like the TC box. They probably corrupted the system or drivers, >I don't think it had anything to do with the Macs G5 horsepower. I believe >there were problems with the initial drivers. The reviewers may have had >bad drivers, I'm not really sure, but to blame it on the Mac is lame. I >think there are other factors at play. > >Macs of the past may have been the fastest machines for a moment in time. > Apple never stayed on top for vary long. Usually with in 45 days or so, >the PC world would surpass the Mac in speed. They all leapfrog each other >in speed at times. > >If Apple made false claims, why didn't anybody like AMD, Intel or Dell sue >them for false advertising? Why didn't some end user find some law firm >to start a class action suit against Apple? If you think you got lied to >about performance maybe you should file a suit against Apple. It's an option. > > >I think Apple is past G4s and G5s, but many people here still use them every >day. They work so well for some people here that they are passionate about >them. There is so much unfair, untruth, and misleading things said about >Macs everyday, that it's hard to take sometimes. I find it hard to believe >that a dual 2.5 GHz machine couldn't run a DSP box. The Liquid Mix has less >instances at 24bit 192Khz, but 5 seams a little low. Again, I'm thinking >bad drivers or operator error. > >Anyways, lets get past the Mac vs. PC speed thing, new Macs are on par for >the moment. > >James > > >"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote: >> >>Hey 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 >>>> >>> >> >Already!! Wha'ts not working for you.?? The sound, the plugins?? Hey, Neil, you can always get a Paris rig to mix on.. I still do. My XP /Paris rig is so stable, and with the URS and Waves SSL plugins.. It's mixing dream for ITBB mixing.. "Neil" <OIUOIU@OU.com> wrote: > >Totally useless for what I wanted it to be able to do. > >End of story. > >Neil"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote: >Hassle factor, bad sounds, interface issues? >Where's the beef bro? Hassle factor had me pissed from the beginning, but ultimaely it comes down to this: 1.) You can't use the Pulsar plugins in your Native app... this was one of two big things I wanted to do... take some load off my CPU resources. You have to route a particular channel through the Pulsar mixer to insert one of their DSP-powered plugins. 2.) It won't do 88.2k - at least not of its own volition. It has 44.1, 48, and 96... now it CAN be slaved, but will the slaving work at that samplerate? I dunno, because YOU NEED ANOTHER CARD in order to do this - the guy who sold it to me didn't tell me that I would need the Pulsar Sync Plate in order to do what I wanted to accomplish - and I was VERY explicit with him in terms of samplerates & everything, yet he assured me this would work. This was really the deal-breaker in my case... you guys using 44.1 or 48 all the time might be fine using this (or another Pulsar) card. 3.) Even the Professional card (the one with 14 DSP chips, which is the one I got) doens't seem to have the DSP power to really "get there" for what I wanted... I played back an 88.2k project at the 96k samplerate just to see how the Pulsar EFX sounded & I set it up for summing through the big Pulsar mixer (which is, IIRC, 48 channels); after whipping out with one of the Pulsar Reverbs & a couple of their compressors, I got a prompt saying that I was out of DSP resources and would I like to go fuck off? (ok, not really - it asked me something else, which I don't recall right now, but it's pretty much the same end result: "Go fuck off, you can't add any more EFX!"). So, if I kept the Pulsar card I would have to either: 1.) Buy this Sync Plate thing... screw it - not interested in spending any more $$$; especially since the guy told me this would work as-is. 2.) Downconvert everything to 44.1k... screw it, not even CLOSE to what I am trying to accomplish, plus if I wanted to do that I could just sum in Paris via analog & still be able to work the individual tracks at the higher 88.2k resolution in SX. 3.) Upconvert everything to 96k... virtually impossible at my track counts; for those of you who haven't messed with these higher sample rates, you should know that there is indeed a big difference in the amount of resources consumed by 40 tracks worth of 96k files vs 40 tracks worth of 88.2k - my computer will run 40+ tracks of 88.2k with a goodly amount of plugins... that many tracks of 96k & plugins = lockup city. 4.) Live with mixing in the Pulsar environment, since you can't insert their pluigins in your Native app. Again, not what I wanted (and either was told it could do, or perhaps misunderstood - not sure about that particular aspect) in that regard. Irrespective of that, why do I want to do this? Why would I want to have to toggle back & forth all the time between the Pulsar & the SX environment? So, there you have it in a nutshell. NeilI can't speak for SOS reviewers specifically, but I would say it really depends on what the reviewer has available. Remember "pros only use Macs" has been the mantra in this biz for a long time. Regardless, it isn't uncommon for a reviewer to be an average ordinary guy with a modest rig and only one good comp to choose from - or at least only time to test on one. I doubt they are being intentionally pompus or arrogant - just saying what they think is relevant (e.g. the SOS review you are referring to could be rephrased to read "my review is subjective since my comp isn't state of the art, so take this with a grain of salt"). To some degree reviews are designed to give people enough info to make their own decision and not unduly sway them with personal opinion, but you'll get both in different degrees depending on the writer's style. That said SOS reviews seem to me to throw in a bit more candor, but again, these are mostly average guys, not necessarily multi-platinum producers. If they were, I doubt they would either have the time or interest in writing reviews (some do - Mix and some feature articles in SOS, etc). I guess that blows my cover as SuperMegaMusicMan... Regards, Clark Kent uh...sorry..right..just me... Dedric On 11/22/06 10:59 PM, in article 45652aa7$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.ne> wrote: > > Hey Dedric..What gives with thses Pompus ass Mac -only reviewers?? > > It's like they get a new product to review, yet the (Reviewer) drags out > their old trusty G4 to review a product. !! > > Then, the next sentence usually goes, "I think my old er G4 Dual 867 is not > up to the task that this sofware is begging for"!! No Shit!!! Time after > time, review after review..Are these pompus Mac only reviewers.. > > This does nothing fore the product being reviewed. Due to Mr Mac reviewer > has think of some cretive way to test he product!!! > > Then you see the disclaimer 'I think if I had a fast PC these problems would > occured"!!@#$ > > My Point: > If you are a reviewer for a pro audio magazine, you owe to your-self, the > reader and the manufactuer to give this product is fairest shake..Most of > those "less-than stellar Mac only reviews leaves the reader feeling like > the product is less than advertised, when in fact, it was that MAc only > reviewer.. > > If you are a reveiwer, you should have both: > > -A current Mac & a current PC period!!.. > Rant off ..:) > Happy Thanksgiving > > > > > "Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote: >> Nothing wrong with Macs or PCs. Pros and cons both ways. I do miss having > >> fruit on mine, so I usually bring a pear, tangerine or *gasp* an apple >> for lunch to balance things out. ;-) >> >> FWIW, Lamont, I write product reviews for Audiomidi.com and use a PC for > >> every review (including writing it). But I've been known to use a Mac to > >> finish writing or editing it though.... >> >> I've read user reviews on Liquid Mix saying it isn't as good as UAD-1 >> quality, but for $800 street, it's worth it for the flexibility. >> >> Dedric >> >> >> "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 >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote: > >Already!! Wha'ts not working for you.?? The sound, the >plugins?? See my response to Aaron, which I was most likely finishing up typing as you posted this. >Hey, Neil, you can always get a Paris rig to mix on.. I still >do. My XP /Paris rig is so stable, and with the URS and Waves >SSL plugins.. It's mixing dream for ITBB mixing. I Have a Paris rig again - I got it from John (not "J-Diddy", the "other" John :D ) I may just pick up another 8-in card so I can sum 8x stereo submixes via analog (right now I can do just 4x at 22 bits A/D-in with the one 8-in card I have). Neil"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: >Neil, > >Man, that's drag but without the sync plate, you will not be able to use it >on the same machine as your Multiface cards. The only suggestion I have is >to load the Pulsar into that other computer (it's got it's own DSP so CPU >horsepower won't be an issue) and then stream the Cubase tracks over ADAT >from the Multiface units on the native DAW and slave the Pulsar on the other >DAW to ADAT sync from the Multiface units running at 88.2. With 16 ADAT >inputs you would have 8 x channels at 88.2 summing via SMUX.. That would get >you up and running until the sync plate arrived: But why? If all I wanted was 8-channel summing I would just use the Paris rig & go in analog. My whole point (in my hopes & dreams) for the Pulsar card was to have ONE ITB solution. >Damn!!!......sorry this ended up being such a clusterfuck. Not your fault, and I appreciate the help with the modules & internal routing/connections. Neil"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: >Hey Neil, > >One other thing that I've just gotta say here since I referred you to the >person you bought this from is that after working with him pretty >intensively over the last month, I feel I can vouch for his integrity. This >guy knows his way around the studio and has gone above and beyond for me, >taking calls from me at home on Sundays even and I really think something >must have slipped between the cracks. I know how frustrating this stuff is. >I've been dealing with the same kind of thing for over a year with my RME >hardware Which is ironic in a way, since for me the RME stuff is reasonably inuitive & extremely stable and sounds so fucking pristine that I don't wanna part with it. >and you and I have been friends here for years and I sorta' >feel personally responsible for your woes right now You are not repsonsible in any way for my woes, and my woes with regard to this particular piece of hardware will be over as soon as I get reimbursement for the card & shipping both ways (yes BOTH ways - he should've never sold it to me in the first place if it couldn't do what I explained I was looking for it to do, so he's going to have to eat shit on the return charges as well). >but certainly don't think for one second that Gary would >intentionally misrepresent the system or it's capabilities to >make a sale. I don't know that he intentionally misrepresented anything, but rather I think that he was just too busy lecturing me on his views of why I shouldn't be using anything higher than 44.1 or MAYBE IF YOU HAVE TO, 48k in the first place, so he probably wasn't really listening to what I was saying. Some people just don't listen to their customers. NeilHey Neil, "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:45652e17$1@linux... > > "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote: > >Hassle factor, bad sounds, interface issues? > >Where's the beef bro? > > Hassle factor had me pissed from the beginning, but ultimaely it comes down > to this: > > 1.) You can't use the Pulsar plugins in your Native app... this > was one of two big things I wanted to do... take some load off > my CPU resources. You have to route a particular channel > through the Pulsar mixer to insert one of their DSP-powered > plugins. There is actually a way to do this. It is called XTC mode. I haven't paid any attention to it really because using Pulsar plugins in cubase wasn't one of my priorities I don't see much in the way of successes with it on the Pulsar forum. It seems to be viewed by Pulsar geeks as an anachronistic mode of working, but every platform's aficianados have their preferences. Since you brought this up, I decided to have a look around and I have found the location wherin the "XTC" mode can be launched and saved as the default project. I'm going to explore this and, FWIW, see if I can get it working. If you want to hang on to that card until Monday, I should be able to tell you if it's worth fooling with. > 2.) It won't do 88.2k - at least not of its own volition. It > has 44.1, 48, and 96... now it CAN be slaved, but will the > slaving work at that samplerate? I dunno, because YOU NEED > ANOTHER CARD in order to do this - the guy who sold it to me > didn't tell me that I would need the Pulsar Sync Plate in order > to do what I wanted to accomplish - and I was VERY explicit > with him in terms of samplerates & everything, yet he assured > me this would work. This was really the deal-breaker in my > case... you guys using 44.1 or 48 all the time might be fine > using this (or another Pulsar) card. Cant do anything for you there and it will cost additional $$ to achieve this functionality. No way around it. > > 3.) Even the Professional card (the one with 14 DSP chips, > which is the one I got) doens't seem to have the DSP power to > really "get there" for what I wanted... I played back an 88.2k > project at the 96k samplerate just to see how the Pulsar EFX > sounded & I set it up for summing through the big Pulsar mixer > (which is, IIRC, 48 channels); after whipping out with one of > the Pulsar Reverbs & a couple of their compressors, I got a > prompt saying that I was out of DSP resources and would I like > to go fuck off? (ok, not really - it asked me something else, > which I don't recall right now, but it's pretty much the same > end result: "Go fuck off, you can't add any more EFX!"). Hmmmmm....don't work at these sample rates so this might be the biggest deal breaker of all. The reverbs are the DSP suckers. No doubt about that. You're basically halving your resources when you work at 88.2. > > So, if I kept the Pulsar card I would have to either: > > 1.) Buy this Sync Plate thing... screw it - not interested in > spending any more $$$; especially since the guy told me this > would work as-is. > > 2.) Downconvert everything to 44.1k... screw it, not even CLOSE > to what I am trying to accomplish, plus if I wanted to do that > I could just sum in Paris via analog & still be able to work > the individual tracks at the higher 88.2k resolution in SX. > > 3.) Upconvert everything to 96k... virtually impossible at my > track counts; for those of you who haven't messed with these > higher sample rates, you should know that there is indeed a > big difference in the amount of resources consumed by 40 > tracks worth of 96k files vs 40 tracks worth of 88.2k - my > computer will run 40+ tracks of 88.2k with a goodly amount of > plugins... that many tracks of 96k & plugins = lockup city. > > 4.) Live with mixing in the Pulsar environment, since you can't > insert their pluigins in your Native app. Again, not what I > wanted (and either was told it could do, or perhaps > misunderstood - not sure about that particular aspect) in that > regard. Irrespective of that, why do I want to do this? Why > would I want to have to toggle back & forth all the time > between the Pulsar & the SX environment? I think this was a big misunderstanding. Doing the fader moves and panning in the Pulsar environment seems to be the preferred MO on their forum. I prefer the summing in the Pulsar environment when I'm not summing in Paris, even when doing the fader automation and panning in Cubase, but more DSP based advantages are available when mono tracks are streamed from the native app and the fader moves and panning are done in the Scope mixer. If you want automated faders, panning, etc., you will need to do some midi mapping in the sequencer to automate the mixer moves in Pulsar. It's a deep application and needs some time to get one's head around in order to access it's most powerful features. It's not an overnight read, though to get it working the way I wanted it to work was an absolute breeze and it remains rock solid. Yesterday, I looped a 40 track project for 12 hours and it didn't crash once. The way you work and I work are somewhat different though..........especially the sample rate situation and the DSP limitations on the card at those sample rates are disappointing, I'm sure. > > So, there you have it in a nutshell. > > Neil All three of my cards only total 18 DSP's and lots of that power is occupied by my huge routing matrix in order to interface with Paris I/O, but I'm gonna try to get my head around the XTC mode and see if it's viable. Summing in Pulsar instead of Paris should free up about 60% of the resources I'm using and allow them to be used for XTC plugins in Cubase SX. Who knows???.this might be the ****! I'm really curious now. Had I known that was a priority for you, I would have looked into it sooner. Cheers, DJI think you are making an assumption about it just being a dongle. They are advertising it as a DSP box that will not use up CPU resources. The firewire technology Focusrite is using comes from a division of TC. Some of the TC technology is used in another Focusrite product, the Saffire 26 I/O, it's the same chip set used in the Alesis 26 I/O and the new Presonus 26I/O product. I believe the technology used in the Liquid Mix is the same or similar to the TC Powercore firewire DSP. Anyways, I believe that this is the case. James "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote: > >Hi James.. >1)the 5 instances came from a review I just read from Pro audio news . That >reviewer had the Dual 867 G4. This negates the product claim of 'Taking the >strain" off off the host cpu'. > >That's the one of the reasons you want a 'DSP -Firewire" product. > >My experience at GC was pretty cool wih Liquid Mix. I called up 18 on their >Dual g5. That was all the song needed that I was tesing. I was impressed..However, >i came away thinking and feeling that : I think a Dual G5 could render 18 >native plugs anyway. I knwo a PC can runnning any DAW can.. So, why the need >for the Dongle??? > > > >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>As far as reviewers go, I've seen it both ways. However, I'm not saying >your >>wrong. Maybe you should send the magazines your credentials and your resume, >>and start freelance writing reviews. >> >> As far as the Liquid Mix, think about it! Your talking about an experience >>at GC! They have no idea what they are doing, much less setting up a Mac >>with a new piece of equipment. I'm surprised it worked at all. It's a >firewire >>DSP box like the TC box. They probably corrupted the system or drivers, >>I don't think it had anything to do with the Macs G5 horsepower. I believe >>there were problems with the initial drivers. The reviewers may have had >>bad drivers, I'm not really sure, but to blame it on the Mac is lame. I >>think there are other factors at play. >> >>Macs of the past may have been the fastest machines for a moment in time. >> Apple never stayed on top for vary long. Usually with in 45 days or so, >>the PC world would surpass the Mac in speed. They all leapfrog each other >>in speed at times. >> >>If Apple made false claims, why didn't anybody like AMD, Intel or Dell sue >>them for false advertising? Why didn't some end user find some law firm >>to start a class action suit against Apple? If you think you got lied to >>about performance maybe you should file a suit against Apple. It's an option. >> >> >>I think Apple is past G4s and G5s, but many people here still use them every >>day. They work so well for some people here that they are passionate about >>them. There is so much unfair, untruth, and misleading things said about >>Macs everyday, that it's hard to take sometimes. I find it hard to believe >>that a dual 2.5 GHz machine couldn't run a DSP box. The Liquid Mix has >less >>instances at 24bit 192Khz, but 5 seams a little low. Again, I'm thinking >>bad drivers or operator error. >> >>Anyways, lets get past the Mac vs. PC speed thing, new Macs are on par for >>the moment. >> >>James >> >> >>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote: >>> >>>Hey 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >You may or may not find this amusing and helpful. http://www.badmuckingfastard.com/sound/slipperman.html#roomThis is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_03BB_01C70EB0.D06AED90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am thinking about adding a couple of 19"-20" LCD monitors to my pair = of 21" CRTs. I want to use 1280x1024 in a four monitor setup. I'm looking in the = $250 or less range. Here's a few questions for those that know the answers. Is there any benefit with Paris using ' widescreen ' format monitors? What parameters are most important for quality using Paris and Cubase? Maximum resolution Pixel pitch Response time Brightness=20 Contrast ratio Viewing angles (Mine will be no more than 90 degrees = horizontal.) Color support Scan range Native resolution (How does this play into my 1280x1024 usage?) Any brands to stay away from or go to? A few I'm looking at: This seems the best price/stats wise: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpN= o=3D1870817&CatId=3D170=20 These are all okay I guess: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpN= o=3D2323225&Sku=3DA179-2008 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpN= o=3D2606497&sku=3DS197-2016 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpN= o=3D2418924&CatId=3D170 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682401 4111&CMP=3DAF= C-Dealnews&ATT=3D24-014-111 http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=3D 320-5003&cs=3D= 19&c=3Dus&l=3Den#reviews Thanks for all the help as always and happy turkey day to all. Tom the Turkey I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you? http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html ------=_NextPart_000_03BB_01C70EB0.D06AED90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am thinking about adding a couple of = 19"-20" LCD=20 monitors to my pair of 21" CRTs. I want to use 1280x1024 in a four = monitor=20 setup. I'm looking in the $250 or less range. Here's a few questions for those that know the answers. Is there any benefit with Paris = using '=20 widescreen ' format monitors? What parameters are most = important for=20 quality using Paris and Cubase? Maximum = resolution Pixel pitch Response time Brightness Contrast = ratio Viewing=20 angles &amp ;nbsp; (Mine will be no more = than 90=20 degrees horizontal.) Color support Scan range =20 Native resolution &amp ;nbsp; (How does = this play=20 into my 1280x1024 usage?) Any brands to stay away from or go = to? A few I'm looking at: This seems the best price/stats = wise: <A=20 href=3D" http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.= asp?EdpNo=3D1870817&CatId=3D170">http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati= ons/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3D1870817&Cat Id=3D170 &nbsp= ; These are all okay I = guess: <A=20 href=3D" http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.= asp?EdpNo=3D2323225&Sku=3DA179-2008">http://www.tigerdirect.com/appli= cations/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3D2323225&amp ;Sku=3DA179-2008 <= /A> <A=20 href=3D" http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.= asp?EdpNo=3D2606497&sku=3DS197-2016">http://www.tigerdirect.com/appli= cations/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3D2606497&amp ;sku=3DS197-2016 <= /A> <A=20 href=3D" http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.= asp?EdpNo=3D2418924&CatId=3D170">http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati= ons/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3D2418924&Cat Id=3D170 </FON= T> <A=20 href=3D" http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682401 4111&= amp;CMP=3DAFC-Dealnews&ATT=3D24-014-111">http://www.newegg.com/Produc= t/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E16824014111&CMP=3DAFC-Dealn ews&ATT=3D24-= 014-111 <A=20 href=3D" http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=3D 320-5= 003&cs=3D19&c=3Dus&l=3Den#reviews">http://accessories.us.dell= ..com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=3D320-5003&cs=3D19& amp;amp;c=3Dus&l=3D= en#reviews Thanks for all the help as always and = happy turkey=20 day to all. Tom the Turkey I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, = and=20 you? <A=20 href=3D"http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html">http://www.polesoft.com/refer= ..html ------=_NextPart_000_03BB_01C70EB0.D06AED90--This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_03E1_01C70EB2.C9910340 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Neil, BTW I LITFM and didn't find anything useful on this topic! That's why Thad wrote his book! It's great and made Cubase an easier mountain to climb for me. Also, give Scope another chance. I'm ready to dig in but don't need what you are looking for (88.2k). I'd bet the = XTC mode will help your situation. It's never easy. Tom "Neil" <IOUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:455b809c$1@linux... Thad, don't worry about it... the gal is going to re-do the part = tonite - I was jsut wondering for possible furture reference. BTW I LITFM and didn't find anything useful on this topic! Neil "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote: > >It would take me eons to explain it, so I'll give you a RTFM but if = that doesn't >work let me know and I'll try to find the stuff I wrote about it.=20 > >TCB > >"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >> >>Thad, I did attempt the drawing mode in the Tempo track... >>TOTALLY impractical (for me, anyway - I couldn't manage to draw >>on the fly very well at ALL). >> >>Tempo calculator - I'm not sure about that, that might've been >>one I missed... how do you use that? >> >>Neil >> >>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote: >>> >>>You can use the SX tempo map in a kind of free form visual mode and = drag >>tempo >>>track markers to the beginning of each measure. You can also use = the SX >>tempo >>>calculator in much the same way, but it's a laborious, unpleasant = process. >>>There's a tutorial in the book I wrote about it, I think, and if = there >is >>>I can send that chapter to you.=20 >>> >>>That said, having done this previously trying to match a MIDI = performance >>>the parts where time drifted sounded awful if locked to tempo and = any loops >>>I synced up to it lurched around like me after my fourth Patron = gimlet. >>So >>>I would up hiring someone to play to a loop.=20 >>> >>>TCB=20 >>> >>>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>Hopefully someone here knows MIDI better than I do - I work with >>>>MIDI a lot, I haven't really had to do a whole lot of editing in >>>>it, so this one's got me stumped: >>>> >>>>I have a Piano track that someone recorded in MIDI, and they >>>>approximated the Tempo, but didn't use a click a as a guide >>>>(just used it to count off at the beginning), so it drifts a LOT. >>>> >>>>Now she's changed her mind & wants it locked to the grid, so we >>>>can do some controlled tempo changes in various sections (using >>>>the Tempo Track in SX - that part I get). Problem is, if I start >>>>snapping this thing to grid that it drifted away from so badly >>>>that we'll have phrases overlapping here & there and other >>>>sections that are too far apart in other places... if I edit it >>>>more specifically manually, then it would: a.) take forever, and >>>>b.) still probably have the same spacing issues. >>>> >>>>What else can be done? Is there a way to snap the grid to the >>>>notes (Then maybe do SOME manual edits afterwards)? IOW, is >>>>there a way that the MIDI app can extract the tempo from the >>>>phrasing & adjust the grid accordingly? >>>> >>>>Neil >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you? http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html ------=_NextPart_000_03E1_01C70EB2.C9910340 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Neil, BTW I LITFM and didn't find anything useful on this = topic! That's why Thad wrote his book! = It's great=20 and made Cubase an easier mountain to climb for me. Also, = give Scope=20 another chance. I'm ready to dig in but don't need what you are = looking for=20 (88.2k). I'd bet the XTC mode will help your situation. It's = never=20 easy. Tom <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> "Neil" <IOUOIU@OIU.com> wrote=20 in message <A=20 = href=3D"news:455b809c$1@linux">news:455b809c$1@linux... Thad= , don't=20 worry about it... the gal is going to re-do the part tonite - I was = jsut=20 wondering for possible furture reference. BTW I LITFM and = didn't find=20 anything useful on this topic! Neil "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com>=20 wrote: > >It would take me eons to explain it, so I'll = give you a=20 RTFM but if that doesn't >work let me know and I'll try to = find the=20 stuff I wrote about it. > >TCB > >"Neil " = <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:IUOIU@OIU.com">IUOIU@OIU.com>=20 wrote: >> >>Thad, I did attempt the drawing mode in = the=20 Tempo track... >>TOTALLY impractical (for me, anyway - I = couldn't=20 manage to draw >>on the fly very well at=20 ALL). >> >>Tempo calculator - I'm not sure about = that, that=20 might've been >>one I missed... how do you use=20 that? >> >>Neil >> >>"TCB" <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:nobody@ishere.com">nobody@ishere.com>=20 wrote: >>> >>>You can use the SX tempo map in = a kind=20 of free form visual mode and = drag >>tempo >>>track=20 markers to the beginning of each measure. You can also use the=20 SX >>tempo >>>calculator in much the same way, = but it's a=20 laborious, unpleasant process. >>>There's a tutorial in = the book I=20 wrote about it, I think, and if there >is >>>I can = send that=20 chapter to you. >>> >>>That said, having done = this=20 previously trying to match a MIDI performance >>>the parts = where=20 time drifted sounded awful if locked to tempo and=20 any loops >>>I synced up to it lurched around like me = after my=20 fourth Patron gimlet. >>So >>>I would up hiring = someone=20 to play to a loop. >>> >>>TCB=20 >>> >>>"Neil " <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:OIUOIU@OIU.com">OIUOIU@OIU.com>=20 wrote: >>>> >>>>Hopefully someone here = knows=20 MIDI better than I do - I work with >>>>MIDI a lot, I = haven't=20 really had to do a whole lot of editing in >>>>it, so = this=20 one's got me stumped: >>>> >>>>I have a = Piano=20 track that someone recorded in MIDI, and = they >>>>approximated=20 the Tempo, but didn't use a click a as a = guide >>>>(just used=20 it to count off at the beginning), so it drifts a=20 LOT. >>>> >>>>Now she's changed her mind = &=20 wants it locked to the grid, so we >>>>can do some = controlled=20 tempo changes in various sections (using >>>>the Tempo = Track in=20 SX - that part I get). Problem is, if I = start >>>>snapping this=20 thing to grid that it drifted away from so = badly >>>>that we'll=20 have phrases overlapping here & there and=20 other >>>>sections that are too far apart in other = places... if=20 I edit it >>>>more specifically manually, then it = would: a.)=20 take forever, and >>>>b.) still probably have the same = spacing=20 issues. >>>> >>>>What else can be done? = Is there=20 a way to snap the grid to the >>>>notes (Then maybe do = SOME=20 manual edits afterwards)? IOW, is >>>>there a way that = the MIDI=20 app can extract the tempo from the >>>>phrasing & = adjust=20 the grid=20 = accordingly? >>>> >>>>Neil >>>&= gt; >>>> >>>> >>> >><B= R>> I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, = and=20 you? <A=20 href=3D"http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html">http://www.polesoft.com/refer= ..html ------=_NextPart_000_03E1_01C70EB2.C9910340--Tom, If sticking with the 1280X1024 resolution is a priority, go for 19". Most 20's are higher resolution. LCD's just look best at their "optimal resolution". On the LCD's I've used, downgrading from the optimal resolution makes you feel like you're in the pre truetype days (aka the jaggies). Personally, I like the extra real estate of a 20". Can see a whole lot of mixer in Paris at 1600X1200. :-) Hoov Tom Bruhl wrote: > I am thinking about adding a couple of 19"-20" LCD monitors to my pair of 21" CRTs. > I want to use 1280x1024 in a four monitor setup. I'm looking in the $250 or less range. > Here's a few questions for those that know the answers. > > Is there any benefit with Paris using ' widescreen ' format monitors? > > What parameters are most important for quality using Paris and Cubase? > > Maximum resolution > Pixel pitch > Response time > Brightness > Contrast ratio > Viewing angles (Mine will be no more than 90 degrees horizontal.) > Color support > Scan range > Native resolution (How does this play into my 1280x1024 usage?) > > Any brands to stay away from or go to? > > A few I'm looking at: > > This seems the best price/stats wise: > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=1870817&CatId=170 > > These are all okay I guess: > > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2323225&Sku=A179-2008 > > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2606497&sku=S197-2016 > > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2418924&CatId=170 > > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E168240141 11&CMP=AFC-Dealnews&ATT=24-014-111 > > http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=32 0-5003&cs=19&c=us&l=en#reviews > > Thanks for all the help as always and happy turkey day to all. > Tom the Turkey > > > > > > > > I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you? > http://www.polesoft.com/refer.htmland stay safe.In case anyone else is interested There are also streaming narratives that Slipperman has been doing for a while on the new Mixerman site http://womb.mixerman.net/index.php At the top of the page is a little AM radio, click on it, then click the link button, and then again on the "slipperman distored guitar " link, Inside are around 20 narratives covering drums, bass and guitar with a vocals narrative being added later today I believe. Highlight one of the topics and click on the play knob...the only downside is there's no pause button and many of these are at least 45 minutess long (there working on that as we speak I believe) Don "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45654e90$1@linux... > > You may or may not find this amusing and helpful. > > http://www.badmuckingfastard.com/sound/slipperman.html#roomHey Jeff Are you saying you can't load all of the mixer and if so how much? Any chance of a screen shot of a maxed out mixer so I can see what's not showing...would be appreciated Don "Jeff hoover" <jkhoover@excite.com> wrote in message news:4565603f@linux... > Tom, > > If sticking with the 1280X1024 resolution is a priority, go for 19". Most > 20's are higher resolution. LCD's just look best at their "optimal > resolution". On the LCD's I've used, downgrading from the optimal > resolution makes you feel like you're in the pre truetype days (aka the > jaggies). > > Personally, I like the extra real estate of a 20". Can see a whole lot of > mixer in Paris at 1600X1200. > > :-) > > Hoov > > Tom Bruhl wrote: >> I am thinking about adding a couple of 19"-20" LCD monitors to my pair of >> 21" CRTs. >> I want to use 1280x1024 in a four monitor setup. I'm looking in the $250 >> or less range. >> Here's a few questions for those that know the answers. >> >> Is there any benefit with Paris using ' widescreen ' format monitors? >> >> What parameters are most important for quality using Paris and Cubase? >> >> Maximum resolution >> Pixel pitch >> Response time >> Brightness Contrast ratio >> Viewing angles (Mine will be no more than 90 degrees >> horizontal.) >> Color support >> Scan range >> Native resolution (How does this play into my 1280x1024 usage?) >> >> Any brands to stay away from or go to? >> >> A few I'm looking at: >> >> This seems the best price/stats wise: >> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=1870817&CatId=170 >> These are all okay I guess: >> >> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2323225&Sku=A179-2008 >> >> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2606497&sku=S197-2016 >> >> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2418924&CatId=170 >> >> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E168240141 11&CMP=AFC-Dealnews&ATT=24-014-111 >> >> http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=32 0-5003&cs=19&c=us&l=en#reviews >> >> Thanks for all the help as always and happy turkey day to all. >> Tom the Turkey >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you? >> http://www.polesoft.com/refer.htmlHappy Thanksgiving to all our Yankee Parasites... "rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:g93bm25qonl775uc9ojaaghebjscs5nkao@4ax.com... > and stay safe.Amen! I just want to say "Thanks!" to everyone on this newsgroup who's helped me with one thing or another concerning Paris, recording and life in general. I may not post much, but I'm here reading every day. You people rock! Gantt rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote: >and stay safe.Absolutely, much to be thankful for, Paris for one. Say no to Tofurkey! Rich "rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:g93bm25qonl775uc9ojaaghebjscs5nkao@4ax.com... > and stay safe."Neil" <oiuOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:456510d3$1@linux... > > "j to the c r o n" <fu@hydrorecords.com> wrote: >>truly some next level shit > > I caught some of it while I was waiting for yet another > reconfiguration of my PC to happen - it's not bad, but what > makes you say "next level"? The graphics & stuff like that? Dunno, maybe you caught the only crappy part.Interesting. Very interesting. A real hoot at times, but some very useful information as well. Thanks for the post James. MR "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45654e90$1@linux... > > You may or may not find this amusing and helpful. > > http://www.badmuckingfastard.com/sound/slipperman.html#roomHey rick -and a happy thanksgiving to you too. Before the company comes, and after I vac the house, I'm headin' out to do a little thanksgiving mixing. :-)MR "rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:g93bm25qonl775uc9ojaaghebjscs5nkao@4ax.com... > and stay safe."DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: >> 1.) You can't use the Pulsar plugins in your Native app... this >> was one of two big things I wanted to do... take some load off >> my CPU resources. You have to route a particular channel >> through the Pulsar mixer to insert one of their DSP-powered >> plugins. > >There is actually a way to do this. It is called XTC mode. >I haven't paid any attention to it really because using Pulsar >plugins in cubase wasn't one of my priorities I don't see >much in the way of successes with it on the >Pulsar forum. Egggzactly - sounds like one giant clusterfuck of a workaround to me. >It seems to be viewed by Pulsar geeks as an >anachronistic mode of working, And if the Pulsar geek power-users think this, then what of us mere neophytes? Shouldn't this tell you that it could be an ass- puckering experience? Not interested... looking for something that's going to increase productivity, not add 10 steps to what ought to be a simple process, like inserting a plugin, or force me to do the constant window-toggle between SX & any Pulsar plugin's I might want to use, but would then have to do so in the Pulsar matrix (in fact, isn't that why they're called plugin's? Otherwise, shouldn't they be called plugOUTS? :D ) >I played back an 88.2k project at the 96k samplerate just to see how the Pulsar EFX >> sounded & I set it up for summing through the big Pulsar mixer >> (which is, IIRC, 48 channels); after whipping out with one of >> the Pulsar Reverbs & a couple of their compressors, I got a >> prompt saying that I was out of DSP resources and would I like >> to go fuck off? (ok, not really - it asked me something else, >> which I don't recall right now, but it's pretty much the same >> end result: "Go fuck off, you can't add any more EFX!"). > >Hmmmmm....don't work at these sample rates so this might be the biggest deal >breaker of all. The reverbs are the DSP suckers. No doubt about that. You're >basically halving your resources when you work at 88.2. I was actually VERY surpised that the 14-chip card didn't have the horsepower to do this... of course, I was having to use the big mixer in this instance, because I was trying to see how the whole plugin insertion thing would go, so I could evaluate whether I wanted to even consider this as an (unexpected) option, and as you yourself pointed out, the big mixer consumes up a whole lot of DSP resources in & of itself. What I had originally hoped to do - and what I specifically asked Gary if I would be able to do, and to which he replied affirmatively that I indeed could do - was to be able to sum using the Pulsar mixer, insert a few Pulsar plugins on individual Cubase channels, and maybe replace a couple of 'verbs - all geared around the key point of "can the DSP handle this at the 88.2k sample rate?" In fact I had originally ordered the Project card, and then I e-mailed him back & asked him if I should get the Professional card just to be safe... he said that I probably should, that he wasn't sure if the Project card would be able to handle it (yet he was going to go ahead & sell me one of those anyway???). So yeah, I was pretty shocked when it waved the white flag on DSP resources so early in the game. >> Irrespective of that, why do I want to do this? Why >> would I want to have to toggle back & forth all the time >> between the Pulsar & the SX environment? > >I think this was a big misunderstanding. Doing the fader moves and panning >in the Pulsar environment seems to be the preferred MO on their forum. Still, even if I wanted to do this, it crapped out after a reverb, the Vinco & one other thing was inserted - again, considering having to use the big mixer & summing 40+ channels of 88.2k... at lower samplerates you're probably fine. >Yesterday, I looped a 40 track project for 12 hours and it >didn't crash once. And I'm sure my system will loop a 40+ track project with a metric buttload of plugins at 88.2k for that long... at least I have to assume it would loop it, because a much more acidic of a test is: "Can you WORK on the project for many hours straight - tracking, punching, rewinding, punching again, editing, scrolling, inserting & trying out plugins on the fly, etceteraaah, etceteraaah?", and the answer is resoundingly: "YEPPERS!", So, I assume it would sit there & peacefully loop all day if I asked it to. Now, I understand why you're doing this, because you've had some stability problems with the RME cards in your setup... I don't know why, though - I have found them to be rock-solid stable, and the only time I've had a card-related stability issue with the Multifaces was when I had that older PCI card (pre v1.7), that they found would sometimes develop an intermittent power- up issue... RME upgraded it free of charge, even though the warranty had expired long, long ago, and when I installed XP Service Pack 2 I had to reload the RME drivers, as I recall, because something changed in the registry file & that was causing an issue of one kind or another; so that was a PITA until I figured it out, but I dunno if that's RME's fault, or just Windoze trying to reconfigure everything you've done, as it seems to enjoy attempting from time to time. NeilYes, Happy Thanksgiving to all of you (OK, well, at least all of you who happen to celebrate that holiday). Neil rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote: >and stay safe.Don, I have tried to get an entire Paris mixer on a normal 19" LCD. No can do. I think this would probably be the case on a 20 or 21" LCD as well. If the monitor was a wide screen configuration then it *might* work. The resolution I'm using for 21" CRT's right now is 1600 x 1200, but like I said, a wide screen might work at lower settings. Deej "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:45659e73@linux... > Hey Jeff > > Are you saying you can't load all of the mixer and if so how much? > > Any chance of a screen shot of a maxed out mixer so I can see what's not > showing...would be appreciated > > Don > > > "Jeff hoover" <jkhoover@excite.com> wrote in message news:4565603f@linux... > > Tom, > > > > If sticking with the 1280X1024 resolution is a priority, go for 19". Most > > 20's are higher resolution. LCD's just look best at their "optimal > > resolution". On the LCD's I've used, downgrading from the optimal > > resolution makes you feel like you're in the pre truetype days (aka the > > jaggies). > > > > Personally, I like the extra real estate of a 20". Can see a whole lot of > > mixer in Paris at 1600X1200. > > > > :-) > > > > Hoov > > > > Tom Bruhl wrote: > >> I am thinking about adding a couple of 19"-20" LCD monitors to my pair of > >> 21" CRTs. > >> I want to use 1280x1024 in a four monitor setup. I'm looking in the $250 > >> or less range. > >> Here's a few questions for those that know the answers. > >> > >> Is there any benefit with Paris using ' widescreen ' format monitors? > >> > >> What parameters are most important for quality using Paris and Cubase? > >> > >> Maximum resolution > >> Pixel pitch > >> Response time > >> Brightness Contrast ratio > >> Viewing angles (Mine will be no more than 90 degrees > >> horizontal.) > >> Color support > >> Scan range > >> Native resolution (How does this play into my 1280x1024 usage?) > >> > >> Any brands to stay away from or go to? > >> > >> A few I'm looking at: > >> > >> This seems the best price/stats wise: > >> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=1 870817&CatId=170 > >> These are all okay I guess: > >> > >> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2 323225&Sku=A179-2008 > >> > >> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2 606497&sku=S197-2016 > >> > >> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2 418924&CatId=170 > >> > >> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E168240141 11&CMP=AFC-Dealn ews&ATT=24-014-111 > >> > >> http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=32 0-5003&cs=19&c=u s&l=en#reviews > >> > >> Thanks for all the help as always and happy turkey day to all. > >> Tom the Turkey > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you? > >> http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html > >Well my problem is - to keep my monitors out of my speaker's line of fire (which is quite low and well in front of me) I need 1024 X 768 just to see the mixer...I was hoping a larger LCD would alow me to keep the same resolution but add a few more tracks to my visible mixer...sounds like that's not going to happen unless I increase the resolution which may make the mixer too small. Don "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:4565d47d$1@linux... > Don, > > I have tried to get an entire Paris mixer on a normal 19" LCD. No can do. > I > think this would probably be the case on a 20 or 21" LCD as well. If the > monitor was a wide screen configuration then it *might* work. The > resolution > I'm using for 21" CRT's right now is 1600 x 1200, but like I said, a wide > screen might work at lower settings. > > Deej > > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:45659e73@linux... >> Hey Jeff >> >> Are you saying you can't load all of the mixer and if so how much? >> >> Any chance of a screen shot of a maxed out mixer so I can see what's not >> showing...would be appreciated >> >> Don >> >> >> "Jeff hoover" <jkhoover@excite.com> wrote in message > news:4565603f@linux... >> > Tom, >> > >> > If sticking with the 1280X1024 resolution is a priority, go for 19". > Most >> > 20's are higher resolution. LCD's just look best at their "optimal >> > resolution". On the LCD's I've used, downgrading from the optimal >> > resolution makes you feel like you're in the pre truetype days (aka the >> > jaggies). >> > >> > Personally, I like the extra real estate of a 20". Can see a whole lot > of >> > mixer in Paris at 1600X1200. >> > >> > :-) >> > >> > Hoov >> > >> > Tom Bruhl wrote: >> >> I am thinking about adding a couple of 19"-20" LCD monitors to my pair > of >> >> 21" CRTs. >> >> I want to use 1280x1024 in a four monitor setup. I'm looking in the > $250 >> >> or less range. >> >> Here's a few questions for those that know the answers. >> >> >> >> Is there any benefit with Paris using ' widescreen ' format monitors? >> >> >> >> What parameters are most important for quality using Paris and >> >> Cubase? >> >> >> >> Maximum resolution >> >> Pixel pitch >> >> Response time >> >> Brightness Contrast ratio >> >> Viewing angles (Mine will be no more than 90 degrees >> >> horizontal.) >> >> Color support >> >> Scan range >> >> Native resolution (How does this play into my 1280x1024 > usage?) >> >> >> >> Any brands to stay away from or go to? >> >> >> >> A few I'm looking at: >> >> >> >> This seems the best price/stats wise: >> >> > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=1 > 870817&CatId=170 >> >> These are all okay I guess: >> >> >> >> > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2 > 323225&Sku=A179-2008 >> >> >> >> > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2 > 606497&sku=S197-2016 >> >> >> >> > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpNo=2 > 418924&CatId=170 >> >> >> >> > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E168240141 11&CMP=AFC-Dealn > ews&ATT=24-014-111 >> >> >> >> > http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=32 0-5003&cs=19&c=u > s&l=en#reviews >> >> >> >> Thanks for all the help as always and happy turkey day to all. >> >> Tom the Turkey >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you? >> >> http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html >> >> > >Likewise. I used to literally live here everyday. I still check in every once in a while, expecially when I run into some problem or other. This is a great ongoing resource of very bright folk. Thanks for being there. -steve "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote: > >Amen! > >I just want to say "Thanks!" to everyone on this newsgroup who's helped me >with one thing or another concerning Paris, recording and life in general. > I may not post much, but I'm here reading every day. > >You people rock! > >Gantt > >rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote: >>and stay safe. >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_03A2_01C70EF4.B45D9730 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yeah..I understand. In my situation I had to basically custom = design/build my monitor platform and desk with the idea in mind of being = able to work at 1600 x 1200 on CRT's and have the monitors close enough = to me to where I could see what's going on while keeping them below the = reference monitor plane. It's just *barely* adequate, but it works in my = situation. Someitmes there is some eyestrain with seeing some of the = smaller icons on the screen at 1600 x 1200 due to the distance between = the sweet spot and the screen. That's why I think it might be a better = scenario to use a wide screen LCD. That way I could *possibly* work at = 1280 x 1024 and still be able to have the width to see all 16 channels = at once. The top and bottom real estate isn't nearly as important. These are going to be on sale at Staples tomorrow morning fromn 6-10AM = for $179.00. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682400 1081&CMP=3DKN= C-GoogleAdwords The snowfalls have started in this region and since the roads are mere = goat trails and the mountain passes are covered with snow at this time = of year. To get to a Staples, I have to get my sherpas to help me hitch = a team of horses to a wagon, and then we arm ourselves with spears, = bows, arrows and make enough torches dipped in pitch that they will last = the 10 days it takes to get to the front range of the Rockies where the = legendary settlement called Denver is supposed to exist while fighting = off hordes of ravenous wolves who lie in wait. If I'm lucky and get past = the wolves, then there are the yetis and avalanches............. ;o) "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:4565e420@linux... > Well my problem is - to keep my monitors out of my speaker's line of = fire=20 > (which is quite low and well in front of me) I need 1024 X 768 just to = see=20 > the mixer...I was hoping a larger LCD would alow me to keep the same=20 > resolution but add a few more tracks to my visible mixer...sounds like = > that's not going to happen unless I increase the resolution which may = make=20 > the mixer too small. >=20 > Don >=20 >=20 > "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:4565d47d$1@linux... > > Don, > > > > I have tried to get an entire Paris mixer on a normal 19" LCD. No = can do.=20 > > I > > think this would probably be the case on a 20 or 21" LCD as well. If = the > > monitor was a wide screen configuration then it *might* work. The=20 > > resolution > > I'm using for 21" CRT's right now is 1600 x 1200, but like I said, a = wide > > screen might work at lower settings. > > > > Deej > > > > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:45659e73@linux... > >> Hey Jeff > >> > >> Are you saying you can't load all of the mixer and if so how much? > >> > >> Any chance of a screen shot of a maxed out mixer so I can see = what's not > >> showing...would be appreciated > >> > >> Don > >> > >> > >> "Jeff hoover" <jkhoover@excite.com> wrote in message > > news:4565603f@linux... > >> > Tom, > >> > > >> > If sticking with the 1280X1024 resolution is a priority, go for = 19". > > Most > >> > 20's are higher resolution. LCD's just look best at their = "optimal > >> > resolution". On the LCD's I've used, downgrading from the = optimal > >> > resolution makes you feel like you're in the pre truetype days = (aka the > >> > jaggies). > >> > > >> > Personally, I like the extra real estate of a 20". Can see a = whole lot > > of > >> > mixer in Paris at 1600X1200. > >> > > >> > :-) > >> > > >> > Hoov > >> > > >> > Tom Bruhl wrote: > >> >> I am thinking about adding a couple of 19"-20" LCD monitors to = my pair > > of > >> >> 21" CRTs. > >> >> I want to use 1280x1024 in a four monitor setup. I'm looking in = the > > $250 > >> >> or less range. > >> >> Here's a few questions for those that know the answers. > >> >> > >> >> Is there any benefit with Paris using ' widescreen ' format = monitors? > >> >> > >> >> What parameters are most important for quality using Paris and=20 > >> >> Cubase? > >> >> > >> >> Maximum resolution > >> >> Pixel pitch > >> >> Response time > >> >> Brightness Contrast ratio > >> >> Viewing angles (Mine will be no more than 90 degrees > >> >> horizontal.) > >> >> Color support > >> >> Scan range > >> >> Native resolution (How does this play into my 1280x1024 > > usage?) > >> >> > >> >> Any brands to stay away from or go to? > >> >> > >> >> A few I'm looking at: > >> >> > >> >> This seems the best price/stats wise: > >> >> > > = http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpN= o=3D1 > > 870817&CatId=3D170 > >> >> These are all okay I guess: > >> >> > >> >> > > = http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpN= o=3D2 > > 323225&Sku=3DA179-2008 > >> >> > >> >> > > = http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpN= o=3D2 > > 606497&sku=3DS197-2016 > >> >> > >> >> > > = http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpN= o=3D2 > > 418924&CatId=3D170 > >> >> > >> >> > > = http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682401 4111&CMP=3DAF= C-Dealn > > ews&ATT=3D24-014-111 > >> >> > >> >> > > = http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=3D 320-5003&cs=3D= 19&c=3Du > > s&l=3Den#reviews > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for all the help as always and happy turkey day to all. > >> >> Tom the Turkey > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you? > >> >> http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html > >> > >> > > > >=20 >=20 >=20 ------=_NextPart_000_03A2_01C70EF4.B45D9730 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yeah..I understand. In my situation I = had to=20 basically custom design/build my monitor platform and desk with the idea = in mind=20 of being able to work at 1600 x 1200 on CRT's and have the monitors = close enough=20 to me to where I could see what's going on while keeping them below the=20 reference monitor plane. It's just *barely* adequate, but it works = in my=20 situation. Someitmes there is some eyestrain with seeing some of the = smaller=20 icons on the screen at 1600 x 1200 due to the distance between the sweet = spot=20 and the screen. That's why I think it might be a better scenario to use = a wide=20 screen LCD. That way I could *possibly* work at 1280 x 1024 and still be = able to=20 have the width to see all 16 channels at once. The top and bottom real = estate=20 isn't nearly as important. These are going to be on sale at = Staples tomorrow=20 morning fromn 6-10AM for $179.00. <A=20 href=3D" http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682400 1081&= amp;CMP=3DKNC-GoogleAdwords"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682400 1081= &CMP=3DKNC-GoogleAdwords The snowfalls have started in this = region and since=20 the roads are mere goat trails and the mountain passes are covered with = snow at=20 this time of year. To get to a Staples, I have to get my sherpas to help = me=20 hitch a team of horses to a wagon, and then we arm ourselves with = spears, bows,=20 arrows and make enough torches dipped in pitch that they will last = the 10=20 days it takes to get to the front range of the Rockies where the = legendary=20 settlement called Denver is supposed to exist while fighting = off=20 hordes of ravenous wolves who lie in wait. If I'm lucky and get past the = wolves,=20 then there are the yetis and avalanches............. ;o) "Don Nafe" <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:dnafe@magma.ca">dnafe@magma.ca> wrote = in message=20 news:4565e420@linux... > Well my = problem is - to keep=20 my monitors out of my speaker's line of fire > (which is quite = low and=20 well in front of me) I need 1024 X 768 just to see > the = mixer...I was=20 hoping a larger LCD would alow me to keep the same > resolution = but add a=20 few more tracks to my visible mixer...sounds like > that's not = going to=20 happen unless I increase the resolution which may make > the = mixer too=20 small. > > Don > > > "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> = wrote in=20 message news:4565d47d$1@linux... > >=20 Don, > > > > I have tried to get an entire Paris mixer = on a=20 normal 19" LCD. No can do. > > I > > think this would = probably be the case on a 20 or 21" LCD as well. If the > > = monitor was=20 a wide screen configuration then it *might* work. The > >=20 resolution > > I'm using for 21" CRT's right now is 1600 x = 1200, but=20 like I said, a wide > > screen might work at lower = settings. >=20 > > > Deej > > > > "Don Nafe" = <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:dnafe@magma.ca">dnafe@magma.ca> wrote = in message=20 news:45659e73@linux... >=20 >> Hey Jeff > >> > >> Are you saying you = can't=20 load all of the mixer and if so how much? > >> > = >> Any=20 chance of a screen shot of a maxed out mixer so I can see what's = not >=20 >> showing...would be appreciated > >> > = >>=20 Don > >> > >> > >> "Jeff hoover"=20 <jkhoover@excite.com> = wrote in=20 message > > news:4565603f@linux... >=20 >> > Tom, > >> > > >> > If = sticking with=20 the 1280X1024 resolution is a priority, go for 19". > > = Most >=20 >> > 20's are higher resolution. LCD's just look best at = their=20 "optimal > >> > resolution". On the LCD's I've = used,=20 downgrading from the optimal > >> > resolution makes you = feel=20 like you're in the pre truetype days (aka the > >> >=20 jaggies). > >> > > >> > Personally, I like = the=20 extra real estate of a 20". Can see a whole lot > > = of >=20 >> > mixer in Paris at 1600X1200. > >> > > = >> > :-) > >> > > >> > = Hoov >=20 >> > > >> > Tom Bruhl wrote: > >> = >> I=20 am thinking about adding a couple of 19"-20" LCD monitors to my = pair >=20 > of > >> >> 21" CRTs. > >> >> I = want to=20 use 1280x1024 in a four monitor setup. I'm looking in the > = >=20 $250 > >> >> or less range. > >> >> = Here's a=20 few questions for those that know the answers. > >> = >> >=20 >> >> Is there any benefit with Paris using ' = widescreen '=20 format monitors? > >> >> > >> = >> What=20 parameters are most important for quality using Paris and > = >>=20 >> Cubase? > >> >> > >>=20 >> Maximum resolution > >>=20 >> Pixel pitch > >>=20 >> Response time > >>=20 >> Brightness Contrast ratio > >>=20 >> Viewing=20 angles &amp ;nbsp; (Mine will be no more = than 90=20 degrees > >> >> horizontal.) > >>=20 >> Color support > >>=20 >> Scan range > >>=20 >> Native = resolution =20 (How does this play into my 1280x1024 > > usage?) > = >>=20 >> > >> >> Any brands to stay away from or go=20 to? > >> >> > >> >> A few I'm = looking=20 at: > >> >> > >> >> This seems the = best=20 price/stats wise: > >> >> > > <A=20 href=3D" http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.= asp?EdpNo=3D1"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails= ..asp?EdpNo=3D1 <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> > 870817&CatId=3D170 > >> = >> These=20 are all okay I guess: > >> >> > >>=20 >> > > <A=20 href=3D" http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.= asp?EdpNo=3D2"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails= ..asp?EdpNo=3D2 <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> > 323225&Sku=3DA179-2008 > = >>=20 >> > >> >> > > <A=20 href=3D" http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.= asp?EdpNo=3D2"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails= ..asp?EdpNo=3D2 <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> > 606497&sku=3DS197-2016 > = >>=20 >> > >> >> > > <A=20 href=3D" http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.= asp?EdpNo=3D2"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails= ..asp?EdpNo=3D2 <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> > 418924&CatId=3D170 > >>=20 >> > >> >> > > <A=20 href=3D" http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682401 4111&= amp;CMP=3DAFC-Dealn"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682401 4111= &CMP=3DAFC-Dealn <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> > ews&ATT=3D24-014-111 > = >>=20 >> > >> >> > > <A=20 href=3D" http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=3D 320-5= 003&cs=3D19&c=3Du"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=3D 320-= 5003&cs=3D19&c=3Du <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> > s&l=3Den#reviews > >> = >> >=20 >> >> Thanks for all the help as always and happy turkey day = to=20 all. > >> >> Tom the Turkey > >> = >> >=20 >> >> > >> >> > >> = >> >=20 >> >> > >> >> > >> = >> >=20 >> >> I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and = you? >=20 >> >> <FONT=20 face=3DArial = size=3D2>http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> >> > >> > = > > >=20 > > ------=_NextPart_000_03A2_01C70EF4.B45D9730--rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote: >and stay safe. Thanks rick and thanks to all! Have a happy turkey day! JamesThis is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C70F0C.EB23E1D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Damn DJ here in Ottawa it's a balmy 45 F outside...absolutely gorgeous = for this time of year...I don't usually have to hook up the huskies = until mid January Don "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:4565e97c@linux... Yeah..I understand. In my situation I had to basically custom = design/build my monitor platform and desk with the idea in mind of being = able to work at 1600 x 1200 on CRT's and have the monitors close enough = to me to where I could see what's going on while keeping them below the = reference monitor plane. It's just *barely* adequate, but it works in my = situation. Someitmes there is some eyestrain with seeing some of the = smaller icons on the screen at 1600 x 1200 due to the distance between = the sweet spot and the screen. That's why I think it might be a better = scenario to use a wide screen LCD. That way I could *possibly* work at = 1280 x 1024 and still be able to have the width to see all 16 channels = at once. The top and bottom real estate isn't nearly as important. These are going to be on sale at Staples tomorrow morning fromn 6-10AM = for $179.00. = http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682400 1081&CMP=3DKN= C-GoogleAdwords The snowfalls have started in this region and since the roads are mere = goat trails and the mountain passes are covered with snow at this time = of year. To get to a Staples, I have to get my sherpas to help me hitch = a team of horses to a wagon, and then we arm ourselves with spears, = bows, arrows and make enough torches dipped in pitch that they will last = the 10 days it takes to get to the front range of the Rockies where the = legendary settlement called Denver is supposed to exist while fighting = off hordes of ravenous wolves who lie in wait. If I'm lucky and get past = the wolves, then there are the yetis and avalanches............. ;o) "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:4565e420@linux... > Well my problem is - to keep my monitors out of my speaker's line of = fire=20 > (which is quite low and well in front of me) I need 1024 X 768 just = to see=20 > the mixer...I was hoping a larger LCD would alow me to keep the same = > resolution but add a few more tracks to my visible mixer...sounds = like=20 > that's not going to happen unless I increase the resolution which = may make=20 > the mixer too small. >=20 > Don >=20 >=20 > "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:4565d47d$1@linux... > > Don, > > > > I have tried to get an entire Paris mixer on a normal 19" LCD. No = can do.=20 > > I > > think this would probably be the case on a 20 or 21" LCD as well. = If the > > monitor was a wide screen configuration then it *might* work. The=20 > > resolution > > I'm using for 21" CRT's right now is 1600 x 1200, but like I said, = a wide > > screen might work at lower settings. > > > > Deej > > > > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message = news:45659e73@linux... > >> Hey Jeff > >> > >> Are you saying you can't load all of the mixer and if so how = much? > >> > >> Any chance of a screen shot of a maxed out mixer so I can see = what's not > >> showing...would be appreciated > >> > >> Don > >> > >> > >> "Jeff hoover" <jkhoover@excite.com> wrote in message > > news:4565603f@linux... > >> > Tom, > >> > > >> > If sticking with the 1280X1024 resolution is a priority, go for = 19". > > Most > >> > 20's are higher resolution. LCD's just look best at their = "optimal > >> > resolution". On the LCD's I've used, downgrading from the = optimal > >> > resolution makes you feel like you're in the pre truetype days = (aka the > >> > jaggies). > >> > > >> > Personally, I like the extra real estate of a 20". Can see a = whole lot > > of > >> > mixer in Paris at 1600X1200. > >> > > >> > :-) > >> > > >> > Hoov > >> > > >> > Tom Bruhl wrote: > >> >> I am thinking about adding a couple of 19"-20" LCD monitors to = my pair > > of > >> >> 21" CRTs. > >> >> I want to use 1280x1024 in a four monitor setup. I'm looking = in the > > $250 > >> >> or less range. > >> >> Here's a few questions for those that know the answers. > >> >> > >> >> Is there any benefit with Paris using ' widescreen ' format = monitors? > >> >> > >> >> What parameters are most important for quality using Paris = and=20 > >> >> Cubase? > >> >> > >> >> Maximum resolution > >> >> Pixel pitch > >> >> Response time > >> >> Brightness Contrast ratio > >> >> Viewing angles (Mine will be no more than 90 degrees > >> >> horizontal.) > >> >> Color support > >> >> Scan range > >> >> Native resolution (How does this play into my = 1280x1024 > > usage?) > >> >> > >> >> Any brands to stay away from or go to? > >> >> > >> >> A few I'm looking at: > >> >> > >> >> This seems the best price/stats wise: > >> >> > > = http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpN= o=3D1 > > 870817&CatId=3D170 > >> >> These are all okay I guess: > >> >> > >> >> > > = http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpN= o=3D2 > > 323225&Sku=3DA179-2008 > >> >> > >> >> > > = http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpN= o=3D2 > > 606497&sku=3DS197-2016 > >> >> > >> >> > > = http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.asp?EdpN= o=3D2 > > 418924&CatId=3D170 > >> >> > >> >> > > = http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682401 4111&CMP=3DAF= C-Dealn > > ews&ATT=3D24-014-111 > >> >> > >> >> > > = http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=3D 320-5003&cs=3D= 19&c=3Du > > s&l=3Den#reviews > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for all the help as always and happy turkey day to all. > >> >> Tom the Turkey > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you? > >> >> http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html > >> > >> > > > >=20 >=20 > ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C70F0C.EB23E1D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Damn DJ here in Ottawa it's a = balmy 45 F=20 outside...absolutely gorgeous for this time of year...I don't usually = have to=20 hook up the huskies until mid January Don <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net>=20 wrote in message <A=20 href=3D"news:4565e97c@linux">news:4565e97c@linux... Yeah..I understand. In my situation I = had to=20 basically custom design/build my monitor platform and desk with the = idea in=20 mind of being able to work at 1600 x 1200 on CRT's and have the = monitors close=20 enough to me to where I could see what's going on while keeping them = below the=20 reference monitor plane. It's just *barely* adequate, but it = works in my=20 situation. Someitmes there is some eyestrain with seeing some of the = smaller=20 icons on the screen at 1600 x 1200 due to the distance between the = sweet spot=20 and the screen. That's why I think it might be a better scenario to = use a wide=20 screen LCD. That way I could *possibly* work at 1280 x 1024 and still = be able=20 to have the width to see all 16 channels at once. The top and bottom = real=20 estate isn't nearly as important. These are going to be on sale at = Staples tomorrow=20 morning fromn 6-10AM for $179.00. <A=20 = href=3D" http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682400 1081&= amp;CMP=3DKNC-GoogleAdwords"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 = size=3D2> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682400 1081= &CMP=3DKNC-GoogleAdwords The snowfalls have started in this = region and=20 since the roads are mere goat trails and the mountain passes are = covered with=20 snow at this time of year. To get to a Staples, I have to get my = sherpas to=20 help me hitch a team of horses to a wagon, and then we arm ourselves = with=20 spears, bows, arrows and make enough torches dipped in pitch that they = will=20 last the 10 days it takes to get to the front range of the = Rockies where=20 the legendary settlement called Denver is supposed to exist = while=20 fighting off hordes of ravenous wolves who lie in wait. If I'm lucky = and get=20 past the wolves, then there are the yetis and=20 avalanches............. ;o) "Don Nafe" <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:dnafe@magma.ca">dnafe@magma.ca> = wrote in message=20 news:4565e420@linux... > Well my = problem is - to=20 keep my monitors out of my speaker's line of fire > (which is = quite low=20 and well in front of me) I need 1024 X 768 just to see > the = mixer...I=20 was hoping a larger LCD would alow me to keep the same > = resolution but=20 add a few more tracks to my visible mixer...sounds like > = that's not=20 going to happen unless I increase the resolution which may make = > the=20 mixer too small. > > Don > > > "DJ"=20 <nowayjose@dude.net> = wrote in=20 message news:4565d47d$1@linux... >=20 > Don, > > > > I have tried to get an entire = Paris mixer=20 on a normal 19" LCD. No can do. > > I > > think = this would=20 probably be the case on a 20 or 21" LCD as well. If the > > = monitor=20 was a wide screen configuration then it *might* work. The > = >=20 resolution > > I'm using for 21" CRT's right now is 1600 x = 1200, but=20 like I said, a wide > > screen might work at lower = settings. >=20 > > > Deej > > > > "Don Nafe" = <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:dnafe@magma.ca">dnafe@magma.ca> = wrote in message=20 news:45659e73@linux... >=20 >> Hey Jeff > >> > >> Are you saying you = can't=20 load all of the mixer and if so how much? > >> > = >>=20 Any chance of a screen shot of a maxed out mixer so I can see what's=20 not > >> showing...would be appreciated > = >> >=20 >> Don > >> > >> > >> "Jeff = hoover"=20 <jkhoover@excite.com> wrote in=20 message > > news:4565603f@linux... >=20 >> > Tom, > >> > > >> > If = sticking=20 with the 1280X1024 resolution is a priority, go for 19". > >=20 Most > >> > 20's are higher resolution. LCD's = just look=20 best at their "optimal > >> > resolution". On the = LCD's=20 I've used, downgrading from the optimal > >> > = resolution makes=20 you feel like you're in the pre truetype days (aka the > = >> >=20 jaggies). > >> > > >> > Personally, I = like the=20 extra real estate of a 20". Can see a whole lot > > = of >=20 >> > mixer in Paris at 1600X1200. > >> = > >=20 >> > :-) > >> > > >> > = Hoov >=20 >> > > >> > Tom Bruhl wrote: > >> = >>=20 I am thinking about adding a couple of 19"-20" LCD monitors to my = pair >=20 > of > >> >> 21" CRTs. > >> >> = I want=20 to use 1280x1024 in a four monitor setup. I'm looking in = the >=20 > $250 > >> >> or less range. > >> = >>=20 Here's a few questions for those that know the answers. > = >>=20 >> > >> >> Is there any benefit with = Paris using=20 ' widescreen ' format monitors? > >> >> > = >>=20 >> What parameters are most important for quality using = Paris and=20 > >> >> Cubase? > >> >> > = >>=20 >> Maximum resolution > >>=20 >> Pixel pitch > >>=20 >> Response time > >>=20 >> Brightness Contrast ratio > >>=20 >> Viewing=20 angles &amp ;nbsp; (Mine will be no more = than 90=20 degrees > >> >> horizontal.) > >>=20 >> Color support > >>=20 >> Scan range > >>=20 >> Native=20 resolution (How does this play = into my=20 1280x1024 > > usage?) > >> >> > = >>=20 >> Any brands to stay away from or go to? > >>=20 >> > >> >> A few I'm looking at: > = >>=20 >> > >> >> This seems the best price/stats=20 wise: > >> >> > > <A=20 = href=3D" http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.= asp?EdpNo=3D1"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 = size=3D2> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails= ..asp?EdpNo=3D1 <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> > 870817&CatId=3D170 > = >> >>=20 These are all okay I guess: > >> >> > >> = >> > > <A=20 = href=3D" http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.= asp?EdpNo=3D2"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 = size=3D2> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails= ..asp?EdpNo=3D2 <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> > 323225&Sku=3DA179-2008 > = >>=20 >> > >> >> > > <A=20 = href=3D" http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.= asp?EdpNo=3D2"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 = size=3D2> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails= ..asp?EdpNo=3D2 <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> > 606497&sku=3DS197-2016 > = >>=20 >> > >> >> > > <A=20 = href=3D" http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails.= asp?EdpNo=3D2"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 = size=3D2> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-det ails= ..asp?EdpNo=3D2 <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> > 418924&CatId=3D170 > = >>=20 >> > >> >> > > <A=20 = href=3D" http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682401 4111&= amp;CMP=3DAFC-Dealn"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 = size=3D2> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682401 4111= &CMP=3DAFC-Dealn <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> > ews&ATT=3D24-014-111 > = >>=20 >> > >> >> > > <A=20 = href=3D" http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=3D 320-5= 003&cs=3D19&c=3Du"><FONT=20 face=3DArial=20 = size=3D2> http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=3D 320-= 5003&cs=3D19&c=3Du <FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>> > s&l=3Den#reviews > >>=20 >> > >> >> Thanks for all the help as always = and happy=20 turkey day to all. > >> >> Tom the Turkey > = >>=20 >> > >> >> > >> >> > = >>=20 >> > >> >> > >> >> > = >>=20 >> > >> >> I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight = spam,=20 and you?
g about how these work. We've got some deleted material here at work which we beleive is hidden in a temp file, which is in Windows\Temp. Only thing is we can't copy the temp file because Cooledit has it open. We don't want to close Cooledit in case it deletes the file. Anybody know how these Cooledit temp files work, and whether we'll be able to get the data back... ....or know which forum I'd be better off to go to? ;o) I know very little about Cooledit... Cheers, Kim."Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Anybody know anything about how these work. > >We've got some deleted material here at work which we beleive is hi
dden in >a temp file, which is in Windows\Temp. Only thing is we can't copy the temp >file because Cooledit has it open. We don't want to close Cooledit in case >it deletes the file. > >Anybody know how these Cooledit temp files work, and whether we'll be able >to get the data back... > >...or know which forum I'd be better off to go to? ;o) I know very little >about Cooledit... > >Cheers, >Kim.....got it sorted...John, So you have a tracking rig and a separate mix rig? I have thought about doing that myself. The mix rig would need to be on win XP since the URS plugs don't work on Win ME. I doubt if the Waves SSL plugs will either. XP on the mix rig shoudn't be too much grief if you only need 1 x ADAT interface per MEC and don't need to interface with ADAT machines. ;o) Deej "John Macy" <spamlessjohn@johnmacy.com> wrote in message news:45661c2e$<a href="m
> >> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote: >> >John, >> > >> >If I may.since I've also thought about this, I think LaMont is running >Paris >> >on Win XP since he would have to in order to get the URS and Waves >plugins >> >working. As far as a PC goes, having as much CPU horsepower as possible >> >would be good though I hear the URS plugs are pretty efficient. >> > >> >I've got 3 xd EDS cards on loan here and now that the dust is settling, >> I'm >> >going to be building an experimental rig using a Gigabyte GA-K8nS Ultra >> 939 >> >mobo and a dualcore AMD CPU, but there have been good reports of using >this >> >mobo with the AMD 64 3500+ CPU. that might be plenty of horsepower for >what >> >you want to do. >> > >> >Happy Thanksgiving, >> > >> >DJ >> > >> >"John Macy" <spamlessjohn@johnmacy.com> wrote in message >> >news:4565f647$1@linux... >> >> >> >> Lamont, >> >> >> >> You mentioned in th
> These are going to be on sale at Staples tomorrow morning fromn 6-10AM = for $179.00. = http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=3DN82E1682400 1081&CMP=3DKN= C-GoogleAdwords The snowfalls have started in this region and since the roads are mere = goat trails and the mountain passes are covered with snow at this time = of year. To get to a Staples, I have to get my sherpas to help me hitch = a team of horses to a wagon, and then we arm ourselves with spears, = bows, arrows and make enough torches dipped in pitch that they will last = the 10 days it takes to get to the front range of the Rockies where the = legendary settlement called Denver is supposed to exist while fighting = off hordes of ravenous wolves who lie in wait. If I'm lucky and get past = the wolves, then there are the yetis and avalanches............. ;o) "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:4565e420@linux... > Well my problem is - to keep my monitors out of my speaker's line of = fire=20 > (which is quite low and well in front of me) I need 1024 X 768 just = to see=20 > the mixer...I was hoping a larger LCD would alow me to keep the same = > resolution but add a few more tracks to my visible mixer...sounds = like=20 >
nse?? :) "Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@kc.rr.com> wrote: > >Hey John, I'd be interested in a detailed description of how you use the IF2's >to get verb sends to the KSP8 across submixes >and get it back in to Paris. Do you use adat spdif, analog, or all 3?? >Rod >"John Macy" <spamlessjohn@johnmacy.com> wrote: >> >>Lamont, >> >>You mentioned in the Pulsar thread: >> >>"My XP /Paris rig is so stable, and with the URS and Waves SSL plugins.. >>It's >>mixing dream for ITBB mixing.." >> >>Would you mind posting your setup, computerswise especially, but >>also Paris hardware. I really don;t want to jump through as many >>hoops as the multi computer thing. I am getting fantastic >>results as is with paris, especially using lots of analog inserts >>and external verbs. I just want to increase my horsepower and go >>to the SSL plugs etc. SOunds like you are doing what I want to do. >> >>I use 3 mecs with 8 analog inserts per mec (8in/8out cards) with a huge >rack >>of outboard. A couple of ADAT cards for returning the verbs like the KSP8, >>spdif i/os for verbs on various cards, and IF2's for multing via analog > >>verb sends across submixes etc. >> >>I have one UAD card and usually get a sound I like and just render it. >> >>I want to go to a 4 mec setup, with more plugin horsepower. Like I said, >>I love my setup, and it brings me all the work I can handle. >> >>My inquiring mind wants to know... :) 'preciate it... >> >Totally...thanks! Rod "John Macy" <spamlessjohn@johnmacy.com> wrote: > >I generally assign auxs 1&2 to the IF2s on all cards, then mult the outputs >of the IF2s