OT Ron Paul Interviewed by Bill Moyers of PBS
CYNJOz0IlJvQiCCzvleO4 [binary]
Re: OT Ron Paul Interviewed by Bill Moyers of PBS
O5gOwxTQdC602xs8jvzwaeZ0ZeoLEc8 [binary]
jbon5Vh3qLUdOjubc3tgFaM8yRj [binary] NtL
KXC9CT2qrdrtvJVGPlY9K6aaT1OTEvW [binary]
/> = >He pays for the hookers with his bribe money." --David Letterman=20 > >"Well now more problems with this Vitter guy. You gotta go on his = >website, he's l
;"And this madam says that Vitter was not only having sex with the = >prostitutes -- this is unbelievable -- he would also pay them to dress = >him up in a diaper. See, that's what you call a pampered politician. And = >she also said today in an interview that he sometimes paid $300 an hour = >just to have the hookers talk to him because his wife didn't listen to = >him. Well, I bet she's all ears now." --Jay Leno > >"Republican Senator and family values conservative -- that's what he = >calls himself -- Senator David Vitter of Louisiana admitted he was a = >client of the so called DC Madam in Washington. See, this is so wrong. = >At least use a hooker from your own state. I mean they're gonna pump = >money into the economy, make it your own." --Jay Leno > >"Family values conservative Republican Senator from Louisiana David = >Vitter admitted he has had sex with prostitutes. Apparently years ago = >this Senator Vitter guy had been seeing one of the DC Madam's escorts. = >You think the Senator's embarrassed? How about the hooker? Now the whole = >world knows she had sex with a politician, eww." --Jay Leno > >"But he says he's not going to talk about it out of respect for his = >wife, that's what he said today. It's all these guys getting caught with = >hookers, they have this newfound respect for their wife. Ya know = >something, when his pants were down around his ankles leaving the motel, = >I don't see him going 'you know, I love my wife.' Well you know what = >makes it especially hypocritical: apparently Vitter has been a strong = >opponent of same-sex marriage, but today he explained that too. = >Apparently he's against having sex with the person you're married to." = >--Jay Leno=20 > >"They have prostitutes in Washington D.C., and it now turns out that = >senators and congressmen and important, powerful people are dating the = >prostitutes. ... And there's a senator from Louisiana, David Vitter, = >admitted he's been dating prostitutes. And he was very generous with o
powered politicians going to visit = >prostitutes. The call girl agency had a slogan. The slogan was 'We take = >care of you below the beltway'" --David Letterman > >"The Washington, D.C., madam has threatened to release more names of = >Washington politicians who were her customers. ... She says another = >member of the White House will be named very soon. This proves once = >again that members of the Bush administration don't know when it's time = >to pull out." --Jay Leno > >"Politicians having sex with prostitutes? What's the matter? All of a = >sudden, congressional pages aren't good enough anymore?" --David = >Letterman=20 > >"There's a big scandal going on down in Washington, DC, with a = >prostitution ring. ... Politicians were actually paying for sex. One = >girl got paid with a military base in her home state." --David = >Letterman. > > >Will Client #9 get equal time? > > > > charset=3Diso-8859-1"> > > > > > It will be interesting to see = >if the governor=20 >of New York gets equal time. Here are the late night barbs that = >were thrown=20 >at the Republican who got busted doing the same thingface=3DArial=20 >size=3D2>- note the charming political spins: "Louisiana Senator = >David=20 >Vitter held a press conference this week, where he admitted yes, he was = >a client=20 >of the DC madam, but he said those stories of hookers dressing him in = >diapers=20 >were not true. Boy, what do you do there? Are you supposed to take the = >word of a=20 >politician over a hooker? It's a tough decision for people." --Jay=20 >Leno "Vitter's wife was by his side when he made the = >announcement. She=20 >called the senator her 'best friend.' Unfortunately, his best friend is = >someone=20 >named Thumper." --Jay Leno "At his press conference yesterday, = >where he=20 >admitted being involved with prostitutes, Louisiana Senator David Vitter = > >apologized to his longtime supporters -- the working men and the working = >girls=20 >of Louisiana." --Jay Leno "Last night, down in Washington, DC, = >they had=20 >the all-night Senate session. The senators were there all night. It was = >the DC=20 >madam's slowest night ever." --David Letterman "The darling of = >the=20 >religious right, conservative Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, not = >only=20 >admitted to having sex with prostitutes, he would pay them $300 to make = >him wear=20 >diapers. And today that crazy astronaut called him 'my dream guy, he's = >got my=20 >vote!" --Jay Leno "Vitter put out a statement saying he only = >started=20 >cheating on his wife after he started hanging out with the wrong crowd, = >you=20 >know, Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, the mayor of LA." --Jay = >Leno "David Vitter=20 >has admitted he dates hookers in Washington, D.C., and also in = >Louisiana. He=20 >said in his defense he always selected the girl who made the lowest bid, = >so he's=20 >fiscally prudent." --David Letterman "There's another one of = >those=20 >prostitution scandals down there in Washington, DC. Louisiana Senator = >David=20 >Vitter admitted that he's been visiting Washington area prostitutes. And = >I=20 >thought about this, 'Whoa, wait a minute, a politician, paying for a = >hooker? I=20 >didn't see that comin.'" --David Letterman "But good for Vitter, = >he said=20 >that it did not cost the taxpayers a cent. He pays for the hookers with = >his=20 >bribe money." --David Letterman "Well now more problems with = >this Vitter=20 >guy. You gotta go on his website, he's like Mr. Religious, Mr. Family = >Values.=20 >Well now a second madam has come forward and told the Associated Press = >that he=20 >was also a customer at her brothel. This guy was cheating on his hooker = >with=20 >another hooker." --Jay Leno "And this madam says that Vitter was = >not only=20 >having sex with the prostitutes -- this is unbelievable -- he would also = >pay=20 >them to dress him up in a diaper. See, that's what you call a pampered=20 >politician. And she also said today in an interview that he sometimes = >paid $300=20 >an hour just to have the hookers talk to him because his wife didn't = >listen to=20 >him. Well, I bet she's all ears now." --Jay Leno "Republican = >Senator and=20 >family values conservative -- that's what he calls himself -- Senator = >David=20 >Vitter of Louisiana admitted he was a client of the so called DC Madam = >in=20 >Washington. See, this is so wrong. At least use a hooker from your own = >state. I=20 >mean they're gonna pump money into the economy, make it your own." --Jay = > >Leno "Family values conservative Republican Senator from = >Louisiana David=20 >Vitter admitted he has had sex with prostitutes. Apparently years ago = >this=20 >Senator Vitter guy had been seeing one of the DC Madam's escorts. You = >think the=20 >Senator's embarrassed? How about the hooker? Now the whole world knows = >she had=20 >sex with a politician, eww." --Jay Leno "But he says he's not = >going to=20 >talk about it out of respect for his wife, that's what he said today. = >It's all=20 >these guys getting caught with hookers, they have this newfound respect = >for=20 >their wife. Ya know something, when his pants were down around his = >ankles=20 >leaving the motel, I don't see him going 'you know, I love my wife.' = >Well you=20 >know what makes it especially hypocritical: apparently Vitter has been a = >strong=20 >opponent of same-sex marriage, but today he explained that too. = >Apparently he's=20 >against having sex with the person you're married to." --Jay Leno = > "They=20 >have prostitutes in Washington D.C., and it now turns out that senators = >and=20 >congressmen and important, powerful people are dating the prostitutes. = >... And=20 >there's a senator from Louisiana, David Vitter, admitted he's been = >dating=20 >prostitutes. And he was very generous with one girl, he paid her with a = >new=20 >highway project in her home state. ... One thing I'll say for this guy = >from=20 >Louisiana, this David Vitter, at least he went to a professional and = >left the=20 >congressional pages alone." --David Letterman "Right now, = >Washington, DC,=20 >is in the grips and throws of a big prostitution ring sex scandal. = >High-powered=20 >politicians going to visit prostitutes. The call girl agency had a = >slogan. The=20 >slogan was 'We take care of you below the beltway'" --David=20 >Letterman "The Washington, D.C., madam has threatened to release = >more=20 >names of Washington politicians who were her customers. ... She says = >another=20 >member of the White House will be named very soon. This proves once = >again that=20 >members of the Bush administration don't know when it's time to pull = >out." --Jay=20 >Leno "Politicians having sex with prostitutes? What's the matter? = >All of=20 >a sudden, congressional pages aren't good enough anymore?" --David = >Letterman=20 > "There's a big scandal going on down in Washington, DC, with a=20 >prostitution ring. ... Politicians were actually paying for sex. One = >girl got=20 >paid with a military base in her home state." --David = >Letterman. > > > Will Client #9 get equal=20 >time? > >pretty cool. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDZbfGOdufo&feature=relat edthat's just cool man. Fretboard looks well played "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47dbcb9e$1@linux... > > Hey all, > > I was walking from the Asok skytrain station to the subway yesterday and > heard some really interesting music. It was two guys from Issan (one of > the > poorer areas of a generally very poor country) playing music. One was on > some makeshift drums (still, he had a cowbell!) and this is the other guy. > Check out the guitar-like instrument, which is basically a board, a > pickup, > and three strings with some frets placed in places them very odd to our > well-tempered > selves. > > He could really flippin play as well. I dropped 50 baht into their tip jar > and recorded about five minutes of music. > > TCBIf I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this is probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software relationship together. AA "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote in message news:47dc0212@linux... > pretty cool. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDZbfGOdufo&feature=relat ed >I hope the RIAA loses this one. http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080315/D8VDKJ7O0.html"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message news:47dc19b7$1@linux... > If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this is > probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software > relationship together. > > AA > > After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o mind that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to the audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released, the question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the point of really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated DSP hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency to serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if enough CPU horsepower is available .......which sorta' begs the following questions: 1. Does this mean that Steinberg has decided to back burner the software rewrite that they say is happening for Cubase that will allow it to more efficiently use multiple cores in order to move users toward buying their hardware? 2. Will this work with Nuendo, or will Steinberg just integrate the code rewrite in Nuendo, thus selectively crippling Cubase and requiring Cubase users to crossgrade to Nuendo, plus their ripoff Cubase addon which gives it the same functionality as Cubase at a considerable expense, in order to take advantage of 3rd party controllers and multiple core CPU's? 3. Where do they come up with the convenient fantasy that mix engineers only use a single fader at a time? That engineer would not be me. 4. Will future rewrites scuttle the functionality of my Houston controller (which does a lot of what their controller does already)?<b
o:1@linux..." target="_blank">1@linux... >> If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this is >> probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software >> relationship together. >> >> AA >> >> >After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o mind >that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to the >audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released, the >question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the point of >really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving >at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated DSP >hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency to >serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if en
me disappointed (but not surprised) that they are moving toward the Digidesign model......unless, of course, they are still moving forward with the software rewrites that will allow native CPU's and 3rd party hardware/drivers to eclipse the performance of their own hardware that they have just announced. The reason I haven't built a system with 8 cores is because it would be relatively worthless with Steiny software which is what I have chosen to use. Cubase can barely utilize a single socket system with 4 x cores or a dual socket system with 2 x dual cores. Steinberg has been saying that they are working to correct this. I'm just wondering if the new hardware will provide them a convenient excuse to market hardware rather than correct their antiquated software. Maybe I'm paranoid. We've seen DAW manufacturers do an about face and blatantly lie to their user base.......the EMU acquisition of Ensoniq and the subsequent killing off of the stepchild Paris system, even as they rebranded the proprietary hardware and sold it to us at a premium while assuring this heavily invested user base that they were moving forward with development and upgrades is a classic example. ;o)Hi Aaron, Sonar is getting a hardware via ROland (Roland Purchased Cakewalk last year). They have this really cool Digital Mixer that really tied into Sonar. Have a Look. http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=5308 Called the V-mixer M400.. Really Sweet!! "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote: >If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this is >probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software >relationship together. > >AA > > >"Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote in message news:47dc0212@linux... >> pretty cool. >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDZbfGOdufo&feature=relat ed >> > >Hey DJ, Well my friend, I think you are Right on point with your post. The Naive solution is at a cross-road of sorts. Here we have powerful multi core cpus, and crippling operating systems.. Then, you have the Euro vs USA mind set of working.. The Euro way of DAW workflow is to go small (think yammy N12, the new Steing Stuff, 1 fader conrollers). The US DAW users are into 16,24, 32 fader controllers. Big difference in working styles. Just my Opinion: It seems that ALL of the DAW manufacturers are moving towards a DSP based solution..My my .. So, like my post a few months ago about Native vs DSP. You can see that for those users who need over 16 channels of i/o, it's going to cost. However, for those of you who are not familiar with Yamaha's Pres and I/o units, all I have to say is WOW!! Their now discontinued I88x & 01x as well as their digital workhorses DM2000 and 02r96 have some of the best on board Pres in the buisness. These babys can compete with the best. So, those who doe get into these new Yammy/Stienberg units have got a real winner on their hands. "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote: > >"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message >news:47dc19b7$<a href="mailt
Mw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_yiaQ2BqMw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svl1t4b1RD4 Not the best Babys song, but I always liked Tony Brock's sound. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRiSo2WHEjg&feature=relat ed Queen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45gRQOBrEFkWrong links. Check out the kick on this version, right in the sweat spot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtFuZSf7Q9E&feature=relat ed "James McCloskey&quot
; <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: > >I liked some of those old drum productions > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_yiaQ2BqMw > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_yiaQ2BqMw > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svl1t4b1RD4 > >Not the best Babys song, but I always liked Tony Brock's sound. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRiSo2WHEjg&feature=relat ed > >Queen >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45gRQOBrEFkSpeaking of kicking kick, how do you get that sound? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHFiXEpo5OE "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Wrong links. Check out the kick on this version, right in the sweat spot. > ><a href="http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtFuZSf7Q9E&feature=related" target="_blank"> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtFuZSf7Q9E&feature=relat ed > >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>I liked some of those old drum productions >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_yiaQ2BqMw >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_yiaQ2BqMw >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svl1t4b1RD4 >> >>Not the best Babys song, but I always liked Tony Brock's sound. >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRiSo2WHEjg&feature=relat ed >> >>Queen >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45gRQOBrEFk >Hi Andrea, I just emailed you the latest build. Let me know what you think! All the best, Mike "bees" <timeforeaction@interfree.it> wrote: >Hi, Mike > >Strangely enough, i can't now find the download button for your latest plug, >even if i've already downloaded before all the other plugs... this could be >maybe because i recently turned to win xp on this pc, before it run win 98.. >Could you gently send the installation file to me? (I've >just donated, you'll see) > >Th
ank You, Andrea, Italy > >"Mike Audet" <mike@..> ha scritto nel messaggio news:47daee52$1@linux... >> >> Hi All, >> >> I've updated the PARIS amp. It now has an input gain, which turned out to >> be much more involved than I had thought. >> >> Anyway, here it is. Enjoy. >> >> www.ensoniq.ca >> >> If it's useful to you, send me some $. >> >> All the best, >> >> Mike >> > >DJ and others - the multicore scaling issue has already been pretty much nailed down by Vin at Dawbench - a bios update to some motherboards (a microcode fix from Intel it seems) significantly improved scaling for Nuendo and Cubase (Sonar still suffers though). It may not be 1:1 as you add cores, but remember that this isn't the same as simply multiplying processing power since there are still some bottlenecks in the system that are common to all cores. Steinberg is still working to improve Cubase and Nuendo, but with the bios fix, there is only a small margin of room for improvement compared to Reaper, which we assume is currently scaling the best of any audio app - it may also be giving up something that Nuendo and Cubase have in exchange - that is as yet unknown. I may have posted this before, but there it is again. There isn't a big rewrite to be done, but they are still working on improving some aspect of this issue, or so has been reported - maybe it will be even faster next rev. Steinberg hasn't abandoned improving Nuendo and Cubase to build hardware. I'm pretty sure this is Steinberg-branded, Yamaha hardware, esp. since the firewire interface has Yamaha pres and looks like a Yamaha design. To my knowledge, Steinberg doesn't even have hardware engineers on staff - everything so far has been rebadged and built elsewhere (Midex, Houston, Nuendo I/O, etc). Dedric On 3/15/08 1:46 PM, in article 47dc2a91$1@linux, "Mr. Simplicity" <<a href="mailto:noway@jose.net" target="_
blank">noway@jose.net> wrote: > > "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message > news:47dc19b7$1@linux... >> If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this is >> probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software >> relationship together. >> >> AA >> >> > After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o mind > that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to the > audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released, the > question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the point of > really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving > at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated DSP > hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency to > serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if enough CPU horsepower > is available .......which sorta' begs the following questions: > > 1. Does this mean that Steinberg has decided to back burner the software > rewrite that they say is happening for Cubase that will allow it to more > efficiently use multiple cores in order to move users toward buying their > hardware? > > 2. Will this work with Nuendo, or will Steinberg just integrate the code > rewrite in Nuendo, thus selectively crippling Cubase and requiring Cubase > users to crossgrade to Nuendo, plus their ripoff Cubase addon which gives it > the same functionality as Cubase at a considerable expense, in order to take > advantage of 3rd party controllers and multiple core CPU's? > > 3. Where do they come up with the convenient fantasy that mix engineers only > use a single fader at a time? That engineer would not be me. > > 4. Will future rewrites scuttle the functionality of my Houston controller > (which does a lot of what their controller does already)? > > 5. Why do they assume I'm going to want to pay for 8 x Yamaha preamps per > interface? This is one reason I don't already own an 02R 96 or > DM1000/2000??........wait......sorry.......this isn't about me. I'm just a > consumer. > > Color me disappointed (but not surprised) that they are moving toward the > Digidesign model......unless, of course, they are still moving forward with > the software rewrites that will allow native CPU's and 3rd party > hardware/drivers to eclipse the performance of their own hardware that they > have just announced. > > The reason I haven't built a system with 8 cores is because it would be > relatively worthless with Steiny software which is what I have chosen to > use. Cubase can barely utilize a single socket system with 4 x cores or
acturers do an about face and > blatantly lie to their user base.......the EMU acquisition of Ensoniq and > the subsequent killing off of the stepchild Paris system, even as they > rebranded the proprietary hardware and sold it to us at a premium while > assuring this heavily invested user base that they were moving forward with > development and upgrades is a classic example. > > ;o) > >Uh.... dsp based solutions? You mean a firewire interface with EQ, comps and a reverb? We've had Totalmix and Cuemix for years. MOTU added the same to their new interface as well - just another marketing feature. Fader units? Did you forget Presonus (Baton Rouge, LA) and Frontier Design (Lebanon, NH) - these are US companies, and they pretty much started the 1-fader idea. Also, Euphonix - 4 fader MC Control anyone? There's no US vs. Europe mindset here - just marketing different approaches to different users. The new Cubase controller's ad blurb even says its designed for people with minimal desk space.... Dedric On 3/15/08 3:12 PM, in article 47dc2da5$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey DJ, > Well my friend, I think you are Right on point with your post. > The Naive solution is at a cross-road of sorts. Here we have powerful multi > core cpus, and crippling operating systems.. > > Then, you have the Euro vs USA mind set of working.. The Euro way of DAW > workflow is to go small (think yammy N12, the new Steing Stuff, 1 fader > conrollers). > The US DAW users are into 16,24, 32 fader controllers. Big differ
ence in > working styles. > > Just my Opinion: It seems that ALL of the DAW manufacturers are moving towards > a DSP based solution..My my .. > > So, like my post a few months ago about Native vs DSP. You can see that for > those users who need over 16 channels of i/o, it's going to cost. > > However, for those of you who are not familiar with Yamaha's Pres and I/o > units, all I have to say is WOW!! Their now discontinued I88x & 01x as well > as their digital workhorses DM2000 and 02r96 have some of the best on board > Pres in the buisness. These babys can compete with the best. So, those who > doe get into these new Yammy/Stienberg units have got a real winner on their > hands. > > "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote: >> >> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message >> news:47dc19b7$1@linux... >>> If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this is > >>> probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software > >>> relationship together. >>> >>> AA >>> >>> >> After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o mind > >> that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to the > >> audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released, the > >> question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the point > of >> really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving > >> at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated DSP > >> hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency > to >> serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if enough CPU horsepower > >> is available .......which sorta' begs the following questions: >> >> 1. Does this mean that Steinberg has decided to back burner the software > >> rewrite that they say is happening for Cubase that will allow it to more > >> efficiently use multiple cores in order to move users toward buying their > >> hardware? >> >> 2. Will this work with Nuendo, or will Steinberg j
r to > take >> advantage of 3rd party controllers and multiple core CPU's? >> >> 3. Where do they come up with the convenient fantasy that mix engineers > only >> use a single fader at a time? That engineer would not be me. >> >> 4. Will future rewrites scuttle the functionality of my Houston controller > >> (which does a lot of what their controller does already)? >> >> 5. Why do they assume I'm going to want to pay for 8 x Yamaha preamps per > >> interface? This is one reason I don't already own an 02R 96 or >> DM1000/2000??........wait......sorry.......this isn't about me. I'm just > a >> consumer. >> >> Color me disappointed (but not surprised) that they are moving toward the > >> Digidesign model......unless, of course, they are still moving forward with > >> the software rewrites that will allow native CPU's and 3rd party >> hardware/drivers to eclipse the performance of their own hardware that they > >> have just announced. >> >> The reason I haven't built a system with 8 cores is because it would be > >> relatively worthless with Steiny software which is what I have chosen to > >> use. Cubase can barely utilize a single socket system with 4 x cores or > a >> dual socket system with 2 x dual cores. Steinberg has been saying that they > >> are working to correct this. I'm just wondering if the new hardware will > >> provide them a convenient excuse to market hardware rather than correct > >> their antiquated software. >> >> Maybe I'm paranoid. We've seen DAW manufacturers do an about face and >> blatantly lie to their user base.......the EMU acquisition of Ensoniq and > >> the subsequent killing off of the stepchild Paris system, even as they >> rebranded the proprietary hardware and sold it to us at a premium while > >> assuring this heavily invested user base that they were moving forward with > >> development and upgrades is a classic example. >> >> ;o) >> >> >why the release in October? looks ready now to me. "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message news:C3FCBBE9.12E73%dterry@keyofd.net... > Wow. That's pretty cool. Remixing just took on a new meaning.... > > "yeah, you want the Vladimir Horowitz performance of a Mozart Piano Sonata > in C major converted to Hungarian minor? no prob..." > > On 3/11/08 7:53 PM, in article 47d73aa9@linux, "Mr. Simplicity" > <noway@jose.net> wrote: > >> This is unbelievably cool on one level and sorta' >> .........errrrrr.........I'm not really sure....scary maybe???.....on >> another level. It is however, very amazing and I will have to have it or >> I >> will die. I believe this will be a part of the every mix engineer's >> toolkit, >> since the impossible is now possible, and we will be required to fix >> entire >> clambeds......at no extra charge of course. Is overdubbing now dead? >> >> "Steve Helm" <shelm@radford.edu> wrote in message >> news:47d7319a$1@linux... >>> >>> This is truly amazing! >>> >>> http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=dna >>> >>> Direct Note Access is a technology that makes the impossible possible: >>> for >>> the first time in audio recording history you can identify and edit >>> individual >>> notes within polyphonic audio material. The unique access that Melodyne >>> affords >>> to pitch, timing, note lengths and other parameters of melodic notes >>> will >>> now also be afforded to individual notes within chords. >> >> >Hey Mike! Money is tight right now, but I will send you some money when I can. I will also send you Code Worrier for Mac when I find it. It is too bad so many have left Paris. it might be a whole new ball game if EP released new versions of Paris. Oh well. Mike, I really appreciate you efforts! James "Mike Audet" <mike@..> wrote: > >Hi All, > >I want to thank everyone who has supported my efforts with the PARIS plugins. > 20 People have donated over 10 plugins. My plan is to do at least 3 more >before turning my attention to the driver. > >I also hope top start releasing Mac plugins as soon as possible. With any >luck, that will be within a month. > >I really hope these have meant something to people. I've had a great time >working on them, and they reall
y are a dream come true for me - both having >them and making them. > >The Amp was the hardest one yet. took probably around 75 hours to finish, >and it built on countless hours learning about the plugins before. It's >still got me wondering why a MOV command from main memory into a register >done by the logic unit is 4 times as loud (2 bits offset) as compared to >the same MOV command by the Math unit. That lead to a mean bug that took >forever to track down. > >Anyway, it just doesn't feel right spending that kind of time and watching >dozens and dozens of copies get downloaded when only 6 people cared enough >to pay anything for it. And of those 6, one person doesn't own PARIS anymore, >and another is waiting for a Mac version. So, of all the people who downloaded >and hopefully used the code, only 4 people gave anything for it. > >Anyway, the download links are gone. You can still pay anything you want >- there are no set prices. But, access to the code will require sending >"something." If this upsets anyone, I apologize. I probably set myself >up for this. I can be a bit naive. > >All the best, > >Mike > > http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?andID=8154 66&songID=6365672 I think this should play. Any and all feedback welcome. I'm still in tweak mode. Thanks all. MRHi James, Thanks for posting. Thanks also for the Code Warrior. I corresponded with Chuck today, so I think we'll be in business with Mac plugins really soon. That is, if in compiling them isn't a huge learning curve. I don't mean to get pissy about things, and it's not really just about the money. It's that I slave over a hot computer for days, and the vast majority of people who take the software don't even say thank you. On the other hand, others have been very generous and encouraging. I appreciate them very much. As for our numbers, I think there are almost as many of us as there have always been. It's just different people all the time. Someone jumps ship, and someone new buys their old rig. If how my web traffic spikes when I release a new plugin is any indication, there are lots of us. Anyway, I'm sure I'll feel better about things in the morning. I'm pretty stoked about getting the DP/Pro reverbs finished. I just want to hear them. All the best, Mike "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Hey Mike! Money is tight right now, but I will send you some money when I >can. I will also send you Code Worrier for Mac when I find it. > >It is too bad so many have left Paris. it might be a whole new ball game >if EP released new versions of Paris. Oh well. > >Mike, I really appreciate you efforts! > >
James >"Mike Audet" <mike@..> w
her and higher powered plugins, eating more cpu. It's the speed race - faster systems mean more cpu intensive plugins and user demands on the software. If we backtrack to 5 years ago and only use plugins and expectations of the time, a dual quad core would be plenty of power to keep latency low. Regarding who's on first.... the answer is "yes". ;-) My .02 at least. Dedric On 3/15/08 11:49 PM, in article 47dca6c6$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't know Dedric. There seems to be this trend to adhere to the smaller > foot-print studio from the DAW manufactuers. And this trned is coming from > the EU DAW users. DAW users in the states want 24, 32 fader controllers and > at least 16 channels of i/o. > > Also, he trend to add DSP to the hardware i/o units negates the promise > of Native's claim. > > Just my Opinion: I don't think Steingberg is close to cracking the Multi-core > puzzle. I think a Total Re-write would be required. But, I think they > (Steingberg) > will duck-tape a solution much like Digidesign has with Pro Tools to keep > it going,even tho the market has all this CPU power.. > > Even More: These day, I don't know where Steingberg strategic direction is > heading. Like,who's on first? > &g
br /> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47dc2a9a$1@linux... > > Hi Aaron, Sonar is getting a hardware via ROland (Roland Purchased > Cakewalk > last year). They have this really cool Digital Mixer that really tied into > Sonar. Have a Look. > > http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=5308 Called the V-mixer > M400.. Really Sweet!! > > "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote: >>If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this is >>probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software >>relationship together. >> >>AA >> >> >>"Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote in message news:47dc0212@linux... >>> pretty cool. >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDZbfGOdufo&feature=relat ed >>> >> >> >nope, couldn't get to it even after I signed in man. however, you might get a kick out of some stuff I posted years ago on soundclick, since you're a member. I haven't seen my page in years (well, since building it in 2002), thanks for the return trip, heh...... http://www.soundclick.com/RiversideStation AA "Mike R" <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:47dc7c23$1@linux... > > http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?andID=8154 66&songID=6365672 > > I think this should play. > Any and all feedback welcome. I'm still in tweak mode. > Thanks all. > MRWell, I don't think it's close to accurate to nationalize the trend since most companies building it are either in the US or Japan. :-) There are a bazillion more people doing music as a hobby than a profession, and the US is pretty heavy in that mark
et, so that's where most music gear companies pay the bills for higher priced hardware/software development (except for the SSLs, Neves, Harrisons, and Fairlights of the world). Imho, there are probably only a few apps that really run full tilt on multiple cores, and they aren't in the audio industry (graphics would be my guess, or even more likely, science/computational apps). If you've seen the numbers on performance, Nuendo is slightly behind Reaper, and Sonar sucks wind way behind either of those. There is way more to the scaling puzzle for audio than just adding 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x and 8x the plugin count. Audio is a streaming data format with timing and sync requirements that may not translate 1:1 to the way multiple cores split processing, and then split that across multiple cpus. Nuendo/Cubase might need a rewrite, but at what cost? If you look at Vin's graph of Reaper vs. Nuendo 4.1 you'll see a very consistent percentage difference at all latency levels, dual quad and single quad. To me that says there is an overhead in Nuendo that limits the total plugin count slightly below Reaper (average of about 10%), *not* a scaling difference. Reaper doesn't have a control room, no score editor (probably not a factor), a custom GUI (it's a windows vector based graphic system, that's butt-ugly imho), etc. That's not scaling. That's overhead. Within that overhead (Reaper has it's own as well) they both scale equally from what I can tell. Anything more than that may be a hardware issue (and who truly knows what the limits are??) - e.g. perhaps Intel hasn't cracked the multicore load sharing nut in hardware such that it translates to software. That's not in defense of Steinberg - just looking at the numbers and what my intuition of hardware/software development,interaction, and progress of the current computer architecture tells me - it's a single cpu system with multiple cpus tacked on. I would be willing to bet that the original parallel processing and/or transprocessing models are far different and more efficient from what personal computers are using. The trend to add dsp to I/O units may well be motivated by the lack of movement for lower latency with hardware, but that may well be a stalling of actual lower level access both in cpu designs, memory, buss architecture, and OSs that are getting more and more bloated (Vista and OSX). There is also the draw to push mixer addicts into solving monitoring issues or preferences with built in dsp. Also remember that users are also to blame - I can easily run a pretty serious session at 64 samples and monitor internally, but we are also using hig
t; > > Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote: >> Uh.... dsp based solutions? You mean a firewire interface with EQ, comps >> and a reverb? We've had Totalmix and Cuemix for years. MOTU added the > same >> to their new interface as well - just another marketing feature. >> >> Fader units? Did you forget Presonus (Baton Rouge, LA) and Frontier Design >> (Lebanon, NH) - these are US companies, and they pretty much started the >> 1-fader idea. Also, Euphonix - 4 fader MC Control anyone? >> >> There's no US vs. Europe mindset here - just marketing different approaches >> to different users. The new Cubase controller's ad blurb even says its >> designed for people with minimal desk space.... >> >> Dedric >> >> On 3/15/08 3:12 PM, in article 47dc2da5$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hey DJ, >>> Well my friend, I think you are Right on point with your post. >>> The Naive solution is at a cross-road of sorts. Here we have powerful > multi >>> core cpus, and crippling operating systems.. >>> >>> Then, you have the Euro vs USA mind set of working.. The Euro way of DAW >>> workflow is to go small (think yammy N12, the new Steing Stuff, 1 fader >>> conrollers). >>> The US DAW users are into 16,24, 32 fader controllers. Big difference > in >>> working styles. >>> >>> Just my Opinion: It seems that ALL of the DAW manufacturers are moving > towards >>> a DSP based solution..My my .. >>> >>> So, like my post a few months ago about Native vs DSP. You can see that > for >>> those users who need over 16 channels of i/o, it's going to cost. >>> >>> However, for those of you who are not familiar with Yamaha's Pres and > I/o >>> units, all I have to say is WOW!! Their now discontinued I88x & 01x as > well >>> as their digital workhorses DM2000 and 02r96 have some of the best on > board >>> Pres in the buisness. These babys can compete with the best. So, those > who >>> doe get into these new Yammy/Stienberg units have got a real winner on > their >>> hands. >>> >>> "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message >>>> news:47dc19b7$1@linux... >>>>> If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this > is >>> >>>>> probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software >>> >>>>> relationship together. >>>>> >>>>> AA >>>>> >>>>> >>>> After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o mind >>> >>>> that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to the >>> >>>> audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released, > the >>> >>>> question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the point >>> of >>>> really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving >>> >>>> at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated > DSP >>> >>>> hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency >>> to >>>> serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if enough CPU horsepower >>> >>>> is available .......which sorta' begs the following questions: >>>> >>>> 1. Does this mean that Steinber
g has decided to back burner the software >>> >>>> rewrite that they say is happening for Cubase that will allow it to more >>> >>>> efficiently use multiple cores in order to move users toward buying their >>> >>>> hardware? >>>> >>>> 2. Will this work with Nuendo, or will Steinberg just integrate the code >>> >>>> rewrite in Nuendo, thus selectively crippling Cubase and requiring Cubase >>> >>>> users to crossgrade to Nuendo, plus their ripoff Cubase addon which gives >>> it >>>> the same functionality as Cubase at a considerable expense, in order > to >>> take >>>> advantage of 3rd party controllers and multiple core CPU's? >>>> >>>> 3. Where do they come up with the convenient fantasy that mix engineers >>> only >>>> use a single fader at a time? That engineer would not be me. >>>> >>>> 4. Will future rewrites scuttle the functionality of my Houston controller >>> >>>> (which does a lot of what their controller does already)? >>>> >>>> 5. Why do they assume I'm going to want to pay for 8 x Yamaha preamps > per >>> >>>> interface? This is one reason I don't already own an 02R 96 or >>>&gt
essing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands. Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do anything more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion a few times already. ;-) DedricGood Post.. With all those factors that you named (OS,buss,Cpu designs, memeory access), it will be interetsing to see what get's worked out first. I'm staying pat for awhile, until all of this get sorted out. It's too expensive to try and keep up .. Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote: >Well, I don't think it's close to accurate to nationalize the trend since >most companies building it are either in the US or Japan. :-) > >There are a bazillion more people doing music as a hobby than a profession, >and the US is pretty heavy in that market, so that's where most music gear >companies pay the bills for higher priced hardware/software development >(except for the SSLs, Neves, Harrisons, and Fairlights of the world). > >Imho, there are probably only a few apps that really run full tilt on >multiple cores, and they aren't in the audio industry (graphics would be my >guess, or even more likely, science/computational apps). If you've seen the >numbers on performance, Nuendo is slightly behind Reaper, and Sonar sucks >wind way behind either of those. There is way more to the scaling puzzle >for audio than just adding 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x and 8x the plugin count. > >Audio is a streaming data format with timing and sync requirements that may >not translate 1:1 to the way multiple cores split processing, and then split >that across multiple cpus. > >Nuendo/Cubase might need a rewrite, but at what cost? If you look at Vin's >graph of Reaper vs. Nuendo 4.1 you'll see a very consistent percentage >difference at all latency levels, dual quad and single quad. To me that >says there is an overhead in Nuendo that limits the total plugin count >slightly below Reaper (average of about 10%), *not* a scaling difference. >Reaper doesn't have a control room, no score editor (probably not a factor), >a custom GUI (it's a windows vector based graphic system, that's butt-ugly >imho), etc. > >That's not scaling. That's overhead. Within that overhead (Reaper has it's >own as well) they both scale equally from what I can tell. Anything more >than that may be a hardware issue (and who truly knows what the limits >are??) - e.g. perhaps Intel hasn't cracked the multicore load sharing nut in >hardware such that it translates to software. That's not in defense of >Steinberg - just looking at the numbers and what my intuition of >hardware/software development,interaction, and progress of the current >computer architecture tells me - it's a single cpu system with multiple cpus >tacked on. I would be willing to bet that the original parallel processing >and/or transprocessing models are far different and more efficient from what >personal computers are using. > >The trend to add dsp to I/O units may well be motivated by the lack of >movement for lower latency with hardware, but that may well be a stalling of >actual lower level access both in cpu designs, memory, buss architecture, >and OSs that are getting more and more bloated (Vista and OSX). There is >also the draw to push mixer addicts into solving monitoring issues or >preferences with built in dsp. Also remember that users are also to blame - >I can easily run a pretty serious session at 64 samples and monitor >internally, but we are also using higher and higher powered plugins, eating >more cpu. It's the speed race - faster systems mean more cpu intensive >plugins and user demands on the software. If we backtrack to 5 years ago >and only use plugins and expectations of the time, a dual quad core would be >plenty of power to keep latency low. > >Regarding who's on first.... the answer is "yes". ;-) > >My .02 at least. > >Dedric > >On 3/15/08 11:49 PM, in article 47dca6c6$1@linux, "LaMont" ><jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I don't know Dedric. There seems to be this trend to adhere to the smaller >> foot-print studio from the DAW manufactuers. And this trned is coming from >> the EU DAW users. DAW users in the states want 24, 32 fader controllers and >> at least 16 channels of i/o. >> >> Also, he trend to add DSP to the hardware i/o units negates the promise >> of Native's claim. >> >> Just my Opinion: I don't think Steingberg is close to cracking the Multi-core >> puzzle. I think a Total Re-write would be required. But, I think they >> (Steingberg) >> will duck-tape a solution much like Digidesign has with Pro Tools to keep >> it going,even tho the market has all this CPU power.. >> >> Even More: These day, I don't know where Steingberg strategic direction is >> heading. Like,who's on first? >> >> >> >> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote: >>> Uh.... dsp based solutions? You mean a firewire interface with EQ, comps >>> and a reverb? We've had Totalmix and Cuemix for years. MOTU added the >> same >>> to their new interface as well - just another marketing feature. >>> >>> Fader units? Did you forget Presonus (Baton Rouge, LA) and Frontier Design >>> (Lebanon, NH) - these are US companies, and they pretty muc
uming this box doesn't sound crappy, this >> is >>>> >>>>>> probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software >>>> >>>>>> relationship together. >>>>>> >>>>>> AA >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o mind >>>> >>>>> that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to the >>>> >>>>> audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released, >> the >>>> >>>>> question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the point >>>> of >>>>> really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving >>>> >>>>> at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated >> DSP >>>> >>>>> hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency >>>> to >>>>> serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if enough CPU horsepower >>>> >>>>> is available .......which sorta' begs the following questions: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Does this mean that Steinberg has decided to back burner the software >>>> >>>>> rewrite that they say is happening for Cubase that will allow it to more >>>> >>>>> efficiently use multiple cores in order to move users toward buying their >>>> >>>>> hardware? >>>>> >>>>> 2. Will this work with Nuendo, or will Steinberg just integrate the code >>>> >>>>> rewrite in Nuendo, thus selectively crippling Cubase and requiring Cubase >>>> >>>>> users to crossgrade to Nuendo, plus their ripoff Cubase addon which gives >>>> it >>>>> the same functionality as Cubase at a considerable expense, in order >> to >>>> take >>>>> advantage of 3rd party controllers and multiple core CPU's? >>>>> >>>>> 3. Where do they come up with the convenient fantasy that mix engineers >>>> only >>>>> use a single fader at a time?
orts. Here we have powerful >> multi >>>> core cpus, and crippling operating systems.. >>>> >>>> Then, you have the Euro vs USA mind set of working.. The Euro way of DAW >>>> workflow is to go small (think yammy N12, the new Steing Stuff, 1 fader >>>> conrollers). >>>> The US DAW users are into 16,24, 32 fader controllers. Big difference >> in >>>> working styles. >>>> >>>> Just my Opinion: It seems that ALL of the DAW manufacturers are moving >> towards >>>> a DSP based solution..My my .. >>>> >>>> So, like my post a few months ago about Native vs DSP. You can see that >> for >>>> those users who need over 16 channels of i/o, it's going to cost. >>>> >>>> However, for those of you who are not familiar with Yamaha's Pres and >> I/o >>>> units, all I have to say is WOW!! Their now discontinued I88x & 01x as >> well >>>> as their digital workhorses DM2000 and 02r96 have some of the best on >> board >>>> Pres in the buisness. These babys can compete with the best. So, those >> who >>>> doe get into these new Yammy/Stienberg units have got a real winner on >> their >>>> hands. >>>> >>>> "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message >>>>> news:47dc19b7$1@linux... >>>>>> If I was losing PARIS, ass
gt;> >>>>> Color me disappointed (but not surprised) that they are moving toward >> the >>>> >>>>> Digidesign model......unless, of course, they are still moving forward >> with >>>> >>>>> the software rewrites that will allow native CPU's and 3rd party >>>>> hardware/drivers to eclipse the performance of their own hardware that >> they >>>> >>>>> have just announced. >>>>> >>>>> The reason I haven't built a system with 8 cores is because it would >> be >>>> >>>>> relatively worthless with Steiny software which is what I have chosen >> to >>>> >>>>> use. Cubase can barely utilize a single socket system with 4 x cores >> or >>>> a >>>>> dual socket system with 2 x dual cores. Steinberg has been saying that >> they >>>> >>>>> are working to correct this. I'm just wondering if the new hardware will >>>> >>>>> provide them a convenient excuse to market hardware rather than correct >>>> >>>>> their antiquated software. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe I'm paranoid. We've seen DAW manufacturers do an about face and >>>>> blatantly lie to their user base.......the EMU acquisition of Ensoniq >> and >>>> >>>>> the subsequent killing off of the stepchild Paris system, even as they >>>>> rebranded the proprietary hardware and sold it to us at a premium while >>>> >>>>> assuring this heavily invested user base that they were moving forward >> with >>>> >>>>> development and upgrades is a classic example. >>>>> >>>>> ;o) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey mentioned this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of "near zero " latency. Look at the video again. Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote: >On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen" ><know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote: >> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. Steiny >> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface. >> >How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see? > >It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and firewire >is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't see the >new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface, but >if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha. > >So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall wi
th ASIO >drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and get >down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio drivers >(not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples, >unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory >processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands. > >Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do anything >more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion a >few times already. ;-) > >Dedric >I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e. I could tell early on there was nothing new here). Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in and out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system. Nothing different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while it may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really* 0.00000ns. Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel ;-) There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in the converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardl
; <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote: >>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. Steiny >>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface. >>> >> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see? >> >> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and firewire >> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't see > the >> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface, > but >> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha. >> >> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO >> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and > get >> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio drivers >> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples, >> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory >> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands. >> >> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do anything >> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion > a >> few times already. ;-) >> >> Dedric >> >I'm in Denmark right now, without Paris but with Cubase 4. Much easier to transport. Will be here about 3 months, so more donations will follow up when I'm back in Norway. Take care Erling "Mike Audet" <mike@..> skrev i en meddelelse news:47dc2fb5$1@linux... > > Hi All, > > I want to thank everyone who has supported my efforts with the PARIS > plugins. > 20 People have donated over 10 plugins. My plan is to do at least 3 more > before turning my attention to the driver. > > I also hope top start releasing Mac plugins as soon as possible. With any > luck, that will be within a month. > > I really hope these have meant something to people. I've had a great time > working on them, and they really are a dream come true for me - both > having > them and making them. > > The Amp was the hardest one yet. took probably around 75 hours to finish, > and it built on countless hours learning about the plugins before. It's > still got me wondering why a MOV command from main memory into a register > done by the logic unit is 4 times as loud (2 bits offset) as compared to > the same MOV command by the Math unit. That lead to a mean bug that took > forever to track down. > > Anyway, it just doesn't feel right spending that kind of time and watching > dozens and dozens of copies get downloaded when only 6 people cared enough > to pay anything for it. And of those 6, one person doesn't own PARIS > anymore, > and another is waiting for a Mac version. So, of all the people who > downloaded > and hopefully used the code, only 4 people gave anything for it. > > Anyway, the download links are gone. You can still pay anything you want > - there are no set prices. But, access
out the guitar-like instrument, which is basically a board, a > pickup, > and three strings with some frets placed in places them very odd to our > well-tempered > selves. > > He could really flippin play as well. I dropped 50 baht into their tip jar > and recorded about five minutes of music. > > TCB"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message news:C4020B2E.131D0%dterry@keyofd.net... > On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen" > <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote: >> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. Steiny >> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface. >> > How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see? > Yes, it was right up front. No latency. That's the magic bullet. :) > It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and > firewire > is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't see > the > new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface, > but > if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha. > > So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO > drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and > get > down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio drivers > (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples, > unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory > processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands. Which of course has never happened. I've no reason to think it will anytime <br
really* > 0.00000ns. That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units. > > Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel ;-) > There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in > the > converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near > zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about since > it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which > actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e. > systems like Radar, etc). very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end to end. And I have no problems living with that. > > Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on the > planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use different > packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try Steiny/Yamaha. > > Dedric > > On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont" > <jjdpro@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey >> mentioned >> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of "near >> zero " latency. >> >> Look at the video again. >> >> >> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote: >>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen" >>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote: >>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. >>>> Steiny >>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface. >>>> >>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see? >>> >>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and >>> firewire<b
s of what people thought of them and very few donations felt kind > of shitty. I know people are busy and don't have time necessarily to look > at things right away. But I'll be honest, if it weren't for the few people > who have been supportive and given me feedback on things, I probably would > have stopped posting these. > > I did some comparisons between the simalog JCM900 VST plugin, and I actually > prefer the simalog. But, I'll still use this plug at least to have a sou
o RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO >>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and >>> get >>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio >>>> drivers >>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples, >>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory >>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands. >>>> >>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do >>>> anything >>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion >>> a >>>> few times already. ;-) >>>> >>>> Dedric >>>> > >Bill, If you look at the ports on the back, they look like FW. Maybe they are for cascading units? Deej "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux... > Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how exactly > they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How do > they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels stuff > would be no latency. > > If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from > the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most > comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound > good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or '89, > I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too. > > BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not > firewire. > > Aaron Allen wrote: >> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message >> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net... >>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e. >>> I >>> could tell early on there was nothing new here). >>> >>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in >>> and >>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system. >>> Nothing >>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while >>> it >>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really* >>> 0.00000ns. >> >> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video >> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole >> reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear >> though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of >> how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units. >> >>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel >>> ;-) >>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in >>> the >>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near >>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about >>> since >>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which >>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e. >>> systems like Radar, etc). >> >> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor >> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end >> to end. And I have no problems living with that. >> >>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on >>> the >>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use >>> different >>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try >>> Steiny/Yamaha. >>> >>> Dedric >>> >>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont" >>> <jjdpro@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey >>>> mentioned >>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of >>>> "near >>>> zero " latency. >>>> >>>> Look at the video again. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote: >>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen" >>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote: >>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. >>>>>> Steiny >>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface. >>>>>> >>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see? >>>>> >>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and >>>>> firewire >>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't >>>>> see >>>> the >>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the >>>>> Fireface, >>>> but >>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha. >>>>> >>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with
/> >>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands. >>>>> >>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do >>>>> anything >>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that >>>>> discussion >>>> a >>>>> few times already. ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Dedric >>>>> >>Here's a link where you han check out a closeup of the ports: http://messe.harmony-central.com/Musikmesse08/Content/Steinb erg/PR/MR816-FireWire-Interfaces.html Also, I'm listening to the video clip again adn he specifically states that it connects to the computer via firewire. "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux... > Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how exactly > they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How do > they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels stuff > would be no latency. > > If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from > the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most > comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound > good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or '89, > I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too. > > BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not > firewire. > > Aaron Allen wrote: >> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message >> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net... >>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e. >>> I >>> could tell early on there was nothing new here). >>> >>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in >>> and >>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system. >>> Nothing >>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while >>> it >>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really* >>> 0.00000ns. >> >> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video >> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole >> reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear >> though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of >> how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units. >> >>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel >>> ;-) >>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in >>> the >>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near >>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about >>> since >>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which >>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e. >>> systems like Radar, etc). >> >> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor >> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end >> to end. And I have no problems living with that. >> >>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on >>> the >>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use >>> different >>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try >>> Steiny/Yamaha. >>> >>> Dedric >>> >>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont" >>> <jjdpro@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey >>>> mentioned >>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of >>>> "near >>>> zero " latency. >>>> >>>> Look at the video again. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote: >>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen" >>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote: >>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. >>>>>> Steiny >>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface. >>>>>> >>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see? >>>>> >>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and >>>>> firewire >>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't >>>>> see >>>> the >>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the >>>>> Fireface, >>>> but >>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha. >>>>> >>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO >>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war >>>>> and >>>> get >>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio >>>>> drivers >>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 >>>>> samples, >>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory >>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands. >>>>> >>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do >>>>> anything >>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that >>>>> discussion >>>> a >>>>> few times already. ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Dedric >>>>> >>I think it's time to boycott China and their products, there is no sense in supporting this government in any way. http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080316/D8VELU0G0.html http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080316/D8VEM3KG0.htmlHi everyone, Deej posted a while back about these video cards, and I was wondering if anyone was still
end >>> to end. And I have no problems living with that. >>> >>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on >>>> the >>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use >>>> different >>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try >>>> Steiny/Yamaha. >>>> >>>> Dedric >>>> >>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont" >>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey >>>>> mentioned >>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of >>>>> "near >>>>> zero " latency. >>>>> >>>>> Look at the video again. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen" >>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote: >>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. >>>>>>> Steiny >>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface. >>>>>>> >>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see? >>>>>> >>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and >>>>>> firewire >>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't >>>>>> see >>>>> the >>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the >>>>>> Fireface, >>>>> but >>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha. >>>>>> >>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO >>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war >>>>>> and >>>>> get >>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio >>>>>> drivers >>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 >>>>>> samples, >>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory >>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands. >>>>>> >>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do >>>>>> anything >>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that >>>>>> discussion >>>>> a >>>>>> few times already. ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Dedric >>>>>> >>> >Wow. That has to be a joke, right? Those sounds are terrible. How could they get all those fancy folks to say otherwise? Sounds like a drum machine floating in a sea of 12 bit reverb with the mix on 100%. -Al John <no@no.com> wrote: >Not so good. > >James McCloskey wrote: >> Check out these sounds, and let me know what you think. >> >> http://www.stevenslatedrums.com/ >> >> Love the old Zep >> http://www.stevenslatedrums.com/demo2/OLDZEP7.mp3 >> >> "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote: >>> I just really hate the new 2.0. It's absolutely wayyyyy overblown with >>> unnecessary crap that makes it basically scooterfucked IMO. If I buy EZ >> >>> Drummer 2.0 and DFH Superior, will I have a decent sample library with >>> percussion instruments and will I be glad I did or does it suck too? I just >> >>> want something easy to use that sounds good. the only thing I can think >> of >>> that suks worse then the new BFD is the old, original DFH. >>> >>> >>> >>A few questions. Will it work with other software other than Steinberg? Will it have zero latency with other software? What is the cost? "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote: >Here's a link where you han check out a closeup of the ports: > > http://messe.harmony-central.com/Musikmesse08/Content/Steinb erg/PR/MR816-FireWire-Interfaces.html > >Also, I'm listening to the video clip again adn he specifically states that >it connects to the computer via firewire. > > >"Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux... >> Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how exactly >> they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How do >> they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels stuff >> would be no latency. >> >> If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from >> the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most >> comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound >> good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or '89, >> I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too. >> >> BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not >> firewire. >> >> Aaron Allen wrote: >>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message >>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net... >>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e. >>>> I >>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here). >>>> >>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in >>>> and >>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system. >>>> Nothing >>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while >>>> it >>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really* >>>> 0.00000ns. >>> >>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video >>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole >>> reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear >>> though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of >>> how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units. >>> >>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel >>>> ;-) >>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in >>>> the >>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near >>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about >>>> since >>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which >>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e. >>>> systems like Radar, etc). >>> >>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor >>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end >>> to end. And I have no problems living with that. >>> >>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on >>>> the >>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use >>>> different >>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try >>>> Steiny/Yamaha. >>>> >>>> Dedric >>>> >>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont" >>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey >>>>> mentioned >>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of >>>>> "near >>>>> zero " latency. >>>>> >>>>> Look at the video again. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dedric Terry <d
t;bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux... >>> Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how >>> exactly >>> they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How >>> do >>> they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels >>> stuff >>> would be no latency. >>> >>> If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from >>> the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most >>> comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound >>> good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or >>> '89, >>> I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too. >>> >>> BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not >>> firewire. >>> >>> Aaron Allen wrote: >>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message >>>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net... >>>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that >>>>> (i.e. >>>>> I >>>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here). >>>>> >>>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in >>>>> and >>>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system. >>>>> Nothing >>>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while >>>>> it >>>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really* >>>>> 0.00000ns. >>>> >>>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the >>>> video >>>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole >>>> reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear >>>> though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because >>>> of >>>> how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units. >>>> >>>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel >>>>> ;-) >>>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times >>>>> in >>>>> the >>>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or >>>>> "near >>>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about >>>>> since >>>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing >>>>> (which >>>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - >>>>> i.e. >>>>> systems like Radar, etc). >>>> >>>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to >>>> convertor >>>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end >>>> to end. And I have no problems living with that. >>>> >>>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on >>>>> the >>>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use >>>>> different >>>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try >>>>> Steiny/Yamaha. >>>>> >>>>> Dedric >>>>> >>>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont" >>>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. >>>>>> hey >>>>>> mentioned >>>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of >>>>>> "near >>>>>> zero " latency. >>>>>> >>>>>> Look at the video again. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen" >>>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote: >>>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. >>>>>>>> Steiny >>>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and >>>>>>> firewire >>>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't >>>>>>> see >>>>>> the >>>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the >>>>>>> Fireface, >>>>>> but >>>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with >>>>>>> ASIO >>>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war >>>>>>> and >>>>>> get >>>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio >>>>>>> drivers >>>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 >>>>>>> samples, >>>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory >>>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do >>>>>>> anything >>>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that >>>>>>> discussion >>>>>> a >>>>>>> few times already. ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dedric >>>>>>> >>>> >> >iPod stereo recorder. http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=6294"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:47dd8780$1@linux... > > A few questions. Will it work with other software other than Steinberg? > Will it have zero latency with other software? What is the cost? Sounds like they're sort of pooh poohing the use of other software in the video, and the cost is TBA.I did use a PCI and AGP and they worked well as long as the PCI card didn't share IRQ with the Paris card. Use the PCI card in a slot that shares with the AGP and you're good. "Luiz Orsano" <orsano&#
64;nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:47dd6ee5$1@linux... > > Hi everyone, > > Deej posted a while back about these video cards, and I was wondering if > anyone was still using them with Paris. I'm in the process of getting some > new video cards after my Radeon cards started giving me trouble. I'm > looking > for a 2-card configuration (one PCI and one AGP) for four displays. I'm > using > an ASUS A7S333 mobo. Deej seemed to have good experience with them, but > it's > been a while. They are available is 128mb and 256mb versions. Which one > should > be best? Any info would be greatly appreciated! > > LuizRich Lamanna wrote: > Awesome, very nice space created in the mix. Nice song, arrangement and > feel. The drums seem to fade in and out, I like the effect. Overall it's > full of emotion, feeling, lightness and air, but I'm not sure if I would > have used so much reverb, but that's personal. I don't think I could have > created this type of a mix myself. I'd like to hang out in your studio and > get some pointers :-) I agree. That's some hip work. > > Rich > > "Mike R" <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:47dd40b1$1@linux... >> Sorry about the deadlink earlier. >> Any feedback at all is welcome. >> MR > >He may have mis-spoken, but I heard him fo sho say USB. Mr. Simplicity wrote: > Bill, > > If you look at the ports on the back, they look like FW. Maybe they are for > cascading units? > > Deej > > "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux... >> Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how exactly >> they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How do >> they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels stuff >> would be no latency. >> >> If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from >> the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most >> comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound