Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Lead vox standout, how?
|
|
| Re: Lead vox standout, how? [message #62437 is a reply to message #62433] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 18:17   |
Tom Bruhl
Messages: 1368
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
e a moot point.
>>
>>http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/audio/issue57.html
>>
>>James
>>
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi James..
>>>You wrote: "Altivec is a definite factor
>>>in how a G4 and G5 perform. I think that is why they went with dual core
>>>Intel chips, to make up some of the performance loss".
>>>
>>>I have to disagree here. There were only a hand full of vendors that were
>>>actually taking advantage of the Altivec engine(Audio ease-Altiverb), and
>>>Adobe PhotoShop. A lot of third party developers did not jump onthe Altivec
>>>wagon. Even our Edmund Parelli, stated that "recoding an App to use the
>>
>>velocity
>>
>>>engine was a major task that many , including himself was not willing to
>>>do"..
>>>
>>>So, where di that leave Appple?? Well, if left them with having to "fabricate"
>>>speed test and other outlandish performance statments. All while, trying
>>>to convince IMB to make a better faster PPC CPU. Well, as you know, a year
>>>pasted on the Dual G5, which was still using 7 year cpu technology, Apple
>>>was was lsoing badly in the performance race. Even worse, they were counting
>>>on IBM to boost performace of the ongoing OSX developments. When OSX came
>>>out we had a Siler/ G4 Dual 1gig machine. And that Mac could barely hang
>>>with a P4 1.8 or AMD Athlon 1.5 PC..
>>>
>>>OSX was and is a Hog.. My point is: Apple needs AMD/Intel badly. They (Mr
>>>Jobs) can no longer spew the performance lies with a stright face any longer.
>>>The trurth is the truth. With a dual core Intel, Mc user's will see their
>>>machines perform like they never have. No one will miss the Velocity engine..Becuase
>>>that same high-end floating point technology cane be bought on most graphics
>>>cards today,and that's exactly why there are companies tlike UAD and the
>>>others that will be announce at this years Namm..
>>>
>>>My only worry for the Intel/Macs is that while the machines gain significant
>>>performance, will Apple streamline OSX so thatit won;t bog down the CPU..??
>>>LaMont
>>>
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hey LaMont! On this G5 thing, your reading too much in to the latest
>
> news.
>
>>>>Go back to the Apple Key note speech and listen to what Steve Jobs said.
>>>>You can scroll through the QT file quickly to get to the info on the
>
> new
>
>>>>machines performance compared to the G5s. First, the iMac is a consumer
>>>>product with a single G5. It is being compared to a new intel dual processor
>>>>machine, and I believe it has faster bussing. Jobs stated that the tests
>>>>do not show all, but in at least the two test, floating point and integer,
>>>>it show to be twice as fast. I would hope so, it has two processors!
>
>
>>In
>>
>>>>this case, this is Apple spin. Their just trying to put their products
>>>
>>>in
>>>
>>>>a good light, and give Mac users reason to buy.
>>>>
>>>>As for the G5 tower, I think you should take a good look at the performance
>>>>specs of the quad towers! There no dogs! The architecture of the iMac
>>>
>>>is
>>>
>>>>different than that of the G5 towers. The G5 was built for pro multi
>
> media
>
>>>>work. The other thing is the towers have the Altivec technology for multi
>>>>media work. That is something that is going to change the whole equation
>>>>when Apple jumps their software over to intel. Altivec is a definite
>
> factor
>
>>>>in how a G4 and G5 perform. I think that is why they went with dual core
>>>>Intel chips, to make up some of the performance loss. My guess is one
>>
>>processor
>>
>>>>is handling what Altivec was handling, but I don't know for sure. Time
>>>
>>>will
>>>
>>>>tell on all this.
>>>>
>>>>I'm just saying look in to all of it more closely. I think if you do,
>>
>>and
>>
>>>>your honest with yourself, you'll see what I'm talking about.
>>>>
>>>>James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@amerietch.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jamie,
>>>>>
>>>>>Logic use to be my main sequencer, it still is,if I'm using a computer.
>>>>
>>>>But,
>>>>
>>>>>I'm not comparis Logic with Paris, rather Cubase SX/Nuendo, Pro Tools
>>
>>LE
>>
>>>>>AKA The Natives.
>>>>>
>>>>>Logic does not handle audio, in both recording, editing and mixng the
>>
>>way
>>
>>>>>these apps do. Logic is a fine music creation DAW and yes you can mix
>>
>>fairly
>>
>>>>>well on it.. But, I would not say that it's audio engine is as sleek,
>>
>>fast
>>
>>>>>as Cubase SX/Nuendo or PT LE. It's still that same old mixer/arrange
>
> setup
>
>>>>>that been there since version 4. We have Logic 7.1 on a dual G5 (2.5)
>>
>>and
>>
>>>>>with all the new add-ons, it just seems to get clunkier and clunkier.
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lead vox standout, how? [message #62439 is a reply to message #62437] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 18:22 |
RK
Messages: 51
Registered: December 2005
|
Member |
|
|
>not believe how many friends of mine who jumped on the Dual G5 and upgraded
>>>>>Logic as well, figuring that "finaly" we can really see this app(Logic)
>>>>
>>>>burn
>>>>
>>>>>rubber..Well, we were all fooled.. Even more, it seem that certain version
>>>>>of OSX slowed not only Logic down, but other apps as well. sadly, today
>>>>
>>>>most
>>>>
>>>>>of htose users now run PT on their G5's.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you check most online forums, you'd noyice thatthe most requested
>
> upgrade
>
>>>>>users want from emagic is: Rewrite, re0code the audio engine and thus
>>
>>make
>>
>>>>>Logic Audio an 'first rate audio app with same midi engine. Instead of
>>>
>>>it
>>>
>>>>>being a Midi app with add on audio capabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>>The folks over at Emagic have balked to make the much needed comsmetic
>>>
>>>changes,
>>>
>>>>>as well as, have the slick, cool editing found on the top DAWs.
>>>>>I'm not putting down the product,rather just stating as a long-time user
>>>>>some of it's shortcomings and changes I and a lotof others like to see.
>>>>
>>>>>At this pont, I don't know if Emagic can make it happen. It seems that
>>>
>>>Apple
>>>
>>>>>is goin full bore with SOundTrack Pro/Final Cut Pro.. Soundtrack Pro's
>>>
>>>layout
>>>
>>>>>and audio engine is where Logic should be. So, maybe we are seeing the
>>>
>>>future
>>>
>>>>>of Logic..Ihope so, because until they some wholesale changes, I'm not
>>>
>>>spening
>>>
>>>>>another dime on any apple product.
>>>>>
>>>>>Take care..LaMont
>>>>>
>>>>>Other users have voice thee same concerns
>>>>>
>>>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>So really, you guys are just complaining about parts of Logic's
>>>>>>interface - specifically the environment window? Is that correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But not the sound, right LaMont? Or do you think there is a problem
>
> with
>
>>>>>>the way Logic records and plays audio? If so, what steps do you suggest
>>>>>
>>>>>>to demonstrate a sound problem with Logic 7.1? I'm seriously interested
>>>>>
>>>>>>in the basis of your criticism of the current Logic 7.1 audio engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As far as the interface goes, I found that once I got enough of a handle
>>>>>
>>>>>>on the environment stuff, the rest of the program is reasonably well
>>
>>>>>>laid out and easy to work with. But as I alluded to earlier, they could
>>>>>
>>>>>>knock down the learning curve a bit with some thoughtful design
>>>>>>decisions to get some functions out of the environment window, and they
>>>>>
>>>>>>could improve the visual feedback and layout of the environment window
>>>>
>>>>>>itself. I think the environment window trips up a lot of people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>7.1 did improve things somewhat but there's improvement left to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The mixer and arrange windows are very similar to PARIS, for audio,
>
> but
>
>>>>>>without the 16 track per window limitation and with the ability to
>>>>>>automate everything. And with very nice integration of included and
>
> 3rd
>
>>>>>>party FX plugins and soft synths.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're right that the soft synths are useful but I think it's
>>>>>>overstating things to dismiss the rest of the program. The audio
>>>>>>recording is straightforward and the fx include a fairly complete set
>>>
>>>of
>>>
>>>>>>very useful tools right out of the box.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is a learning curve with the environment which they could indeed
>>>>
>>>>>>improve. But once you get past that, and get hip to the long-click
>>>>>>thing, for me Logic hasn't been any slower to get around than PARIS.
>>
>>Get
>>
>>>>>>down with your bad self on some keyboard commands, Shuttle Pro or a
>
>
>>>>>>remote fader/shuttle setup and it's probably faster than PARIS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>IOW not slow at all, IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi Bill,
>>>>>>>You nailed my thoughts exactly about Logic..Great Virtual instruments..LAD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I used Logic a bit last year and found it to be very slow in some
>
> areas
>
>>>>>>>like
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>the mixer/environment. Making adjustments to the GUI takes a lot of
>>>
>>>time
>>>
>>>>>>>But
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>it has great synths!
>>>>>>>>Bill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:43ceeea7$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You might find this useful: Sample accurate editing is there in Logic's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>waveform editor, including "show as sample and hold" to see the individual
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>bit values represented. Not sure when that was added.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What do you mean by "sleek and fast"? Do you mean the interface design?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>seems reasonably CPU efficient already.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Do you have any complaints about the sound?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I think the interface could be improved in some areas. Long-clicking
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>instead of right-clicking is old baggage. The environment window
>
> needs
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>attention, and Logic could require
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lead vox standout, how? [message #62441 is a reply to message #62439] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 19:10 |
Tom Bruhl
Messages: 1368
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;>>>>
>>>>>>>now,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>many parts of the interface are very fast and put useful info where
>>>>
>>>>you
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>need to see and interact with it. They finally added the ability
>
> to
>
>>>>drag
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>or copy plugins from track to track - very PARIS like. :^)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I can edit audio with Logic in comparable ways to PARIS, moving regions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>around and adding crossfades within the same track. Again, very fast.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Logic's automation is more comprehensive and quick to edit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>-Jamie
>>>>>>>>>http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hi Jamie as a current owner of Logic 7 and 5.3 Win, I have been
>
> excited
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>about
>>>>>>>>>>Logic's audio recording performance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The app is stil the same as when I purchased it back in 1997. Yes,
>>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>instruments
>>>>>>>>>>are very good, and I still think that Logic's sequencer is in league
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>it's
>>>>>>>>>>own. However, while Steingberge re-wrote the entire audio engine
>>
>>in
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Cubase
>>>>>>>>>>SX, Logic and DP is esentially the same app. The audio engine is
>>
>>not
>>
>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>sleek and fast as is SX/Nuendo PT,or even Paris..No
>>>>>>>>>>sample accurate editing. The Logic look is dated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It seems that Apple's Sountrack Pro is going inthe right direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>I
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>only
>>>>>>>>>>hope that tey manage to integrate that killer Logic sequencer..
>
> Then,
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Appple
>>>>>>>>>>will have a killer DAW. Note: Logic's Audio Instruments are steller..
>>>>>>>>>>Take care.LAD
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>LaMont, what are your complaints with Logic's audio engine? And
>>
>>are
>>
>>>>>you
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>talking about Logic Pro 7.1 or an earlier version.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>-Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>jef knight wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Apple only? fascists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>lol
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/symphony.php
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wow, jsut when I was making fuss about the Mid-Level DSP(PCI)
>>
>>range
>>
>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>non-existence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>of this market segment, they anouce this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Logic Audio is nice, but a little dated. Still one of the best
>>>
>>>midi
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>sequencers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>it audio engine leaves a lot to be desired.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>That said, Aplle has new Macs, maybe just maybe they already
>
> have
>
>>>>>a
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>kill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>new version of Logic or Sountrack Pro.??? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>If so, thsi could send shock waves thru out the industry. And,
>>>
>>>I
>>>
>>>>>must
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that Dedric's & Thad's theories were right on "Point" about the
>>>>
>>>>"State
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>New Native DAWS"!! This product proves it big time..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess we'll have to wait and see how this namm show goes..
>
> So
>
>>>>far,so
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>LaMont
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>James, try this:
1. Power down your PC while holding <capslock>/<shift>
2. Move your NIC card to the first slot under the AGP slot.
3. Put all your primary drives on the secondary bus, secondary drives on
the primary bus.
4. Take the PC out to your back yard.
5. Dig a big hole under the nearest oak tree.
6. Stick your PC in the hole and take a big crap on it.
7. Cover the hole with dirt.
8. Absorb the essence of the experience, file it in a safe place, and promise
never to talk about computers on the internet, ever again.
Just a suggestion,
Chris
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>my guess is that if you're already missing an arm and a leg you had
>>better look for something else. ;o)
>
>
> Hey Dude, my Mac works fine, it's my PC that's a pain in the ASS!
>
>
>>
>>On 19 Jan 2006 07:29:41 +1000, "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Apple would be smart to keep building the G5 Mac tower, as well as the
>Intel
>>>boxes. In time IBM's technology will catch up. Per processor speed,
and
>>>cooling are the issues, time will take care of all that.
>>>
>>>I wonder what these systems will cost???
>>>
>>>James
>>>
>>>"LaMontt" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Man!!
>>>>
>>>>"Deej" <Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lead vox standout, how? [message #62444 is a reply to message #62441] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 19:35 |
RK
Messages: 51
Registered: December 2005
|
Member |
|
|
featured on Discovery Channel Canada on a program
> called Shannon’s Gadgets. The piece is titled Science of a Rock Star. The
> piece features Jeff Martin of the Tea Party, and Jeff explains how he uses
> it live and for writing. I invite you to view the 6 minute presentation
> at http://www.exn.ca/Stories/2004/04/20/51.asp?t=dp
>
> I invite you to join our mailing list by clicking on the following link.
> As a member of our mailing list you’ll get first hand information on guitars
> for sale, new products, special event information and product updates.
> http://transperformance.com/mailing/index1.php
>
> We recently launched a public ftp site that is loaded with cool stuff. Videos,
> songs, pictures, artist media, chord and scale programs, alternate tuning
> libraries and manuals. I invite you to click the link and take a look.
> www.selftuning.com/files You are welcome to download any or all of the material
> at the ftp site.
>
>
> NEWS MEDIA COVERAGE
>
> C.Net.com
> 1-11-06
> Two Pages, C Net News interviews Neil Skinn
>
> Engadget.com
> 12-22-05
> Paragraph, photo of Peter Frampton’s second Performer and blog
>
> Gizmodo.com
> 12-22-05
> Paragraph, photo of white Telecaster and blog
>
> News.Yahoo.com
> 12-22-05
> Paragraph, photo of white Telecaster and blog
>
> Gizmag.com
> 12-24-05
> One Page article, photo of white Stratocaster
>
> Lenta.ru
> 12-27-05
> Written in a foreign language, photo of Peter Frampton’s second Performer
>
> DiscoveryChannel.ca
> 4-20-04
> Article and video “Science of a Rock Star” featuring Canadian star Jeff
> Martin
>
>
> CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
>
> “I took the leap and bought a Strat with the Performer system without trying
> one first, and trust me, I am totally satisfied. The tuning system does
> what they claim, and of all the guitars I have held in my hands (getting
> goose bumps here) my new TransPerformance Strat is by far the finest instrument
> I have ever played.”
>
> Mike Mahoney 11-17-2005
>
>
>
> “The speed, accuracy and scope of this remarkable invention will not only
> blow your mind, but open new uncharted landscapes of creativity. Thanks for
> making a truly ingenious product. Guitar playing will never be the same again."
>
> Gavin McGowen 11-29-05
>
>
>
> I'm holed up in my studio and I refuse to come out! I haven't slept, eaten,
> taken a shower or even brushed my teeth! My wife and kid are threatening
> to leave, even the dog is concerned. And it’s all because of my new Performer.
> This thing is nuts! Over the edge! Off the radar! Great Job guys!
>
>
> Bill
> Prichard 1-10-06
>
>
>
> I’ve taken the liberty of pasting in our FAQ list below which answers the
> most common questions on the Performer pro model. It also provides information
> that our website has not adequately covered, and reinforces certain issues
> that will help you understand the system.
>
> Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Neil
>
> Neil Skinn, President
> TransPerformance LLC
> 2513 Pinecone Circle
> Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-6619
> PH: (970) 482-9132
> 1-866-826-2402
> neil@transperformance.com
> www.selftuning.com
>
>
> Performer Pro Model - FAQ
>
> Where & what we Build
>
> We manufacture and install the self-tuning system into electric guitars in
> Fort Collins, Colorado. Currently, we support any guitar body that closely
> resembles the Les Paul, Les Paul Special, Telecaster and Stratocaster body
> shapes. Telecaster models generally require a small shim at the neck joint
> and a rear cover plate that is over the back face of the body instead of
> recessed. This is due to the thin body thickness.
>
> How Long does it Take
>
> Installation normally takes 3-4 weeks. Times can be longer depending on
> the number of current orders.
>
> Pricing
>
> The system and installation for a Les Paul, Les Paul Special or Telecaster
> is $3,399.00. The system and installation for a Stratocaster is $3,899.00.
> The purchase includes system and installation, power supply, power cable,
> footswitch, user's manual, 1 year limited warranty and technical support.
> The additional $500 price for the Strat covers a new body that is built
> and painted the color of your choice. We also offer an accessory kit for
> battery operation for an additional $250.00. The Accessory kit includes
> a rechargeable battery, guitar strap battery carrier, cables and charging
> system.
>
> Supplying the Guitar
>
> You can supply the guitar or we can purchase one for you at a great price.
> We have special arrangements with guitar manufacturers and their distributors
> that allow us to pass incredible savings to our customers. Let me know if
> you are interested in a new guitar.
>
> Warranty, Direct Sales, Credibility
>
> The system comes with a one year limited warranty, and we also offer a two
> year extension for an additional $300. Currently we sell only direct to
> the customer to keep the retail price as low as possible. We heavily rely
> on our extremely rich list of customers and endorsers to give the product
> the credibility it needs to convince interested customers that the product
> does what we claim and is worthy of their investment.
>
> Mechanics & String Gage Choice
>
> The Performer is a electro-mechanical tuning system that actually adjusts
> the tensions of the strings. This is accomplished by balancing each string
> with a spring to allow the tiny motors to make the tension adjustments.
> As a result, the customer chooses the string gauge set and manufacturer of
> string from the company’s available options list when placing an order.
> The mechanical device is then set-up at the factory and delivered according
> to those choices. The choice of string gauge is important because the mechanical
> device will only run the string gauge it is set up with. The string gauges
> can be changed, but this requires that the system be returned to the factory
> for mechanical and software upgrades.
>
> Lock Nut & Roller Bridge
>
> In order to achieve tuning reproducibility, the system uses a String Lock
> behind the nut and a Roller Bridge. These are integral parts of the system
> and cannot be removed.
>
> Touch Up & String Replacement
>
> The Touch Up mode has a built-in multi-mode feature. Touch Up is used for
> “touching up” your tuning, replacing broken strings, and replacing full sets.
> Touch Up asks for a strum of the strings and secretly checks to ensure
> the strings are in their proper tension ranges. If they are, the system
> quickly brings each string into tune. If the system determines your strings
> need adjustment, the system invokes the Tension Adjust mode and the LCD prompts
> you to adjust the tension(s) using the machine heads before it brings the
> strings into tune. The Tension Adjust mode ensures your system is properly
> maintained and is made quick and easy with the LCD prompts and On-Screen-Tuner.
>
> Audio Considerations
>
> The installation does not interfere with the existing guitar audio circuits.
> The additional mass of the bridge and tailpiece produce greater sustain and
> have been acclaimed by several of our major endorsers as making it sound
> better.
>
> The Installation
>
> The installation adds about a half pound of weight to the guitar after the
> installation. This is unavoidable given the weight of the mechanical device
> and sub-assemblies.
>
> Motor Noise
>
> There is a very low level of motor noise that comes through the audio pickup.
> The level of noise has been reduced to a low enough level that the system
> is acceptable for use in major recording studios. This problem may be avoided
> by using the rhythm pickup or tuning down the guitar volume while the motors
> are moving. Either option will suppress motor noise entirely.
>
> Payment
>
> We accept Visa, Master Card and American Express, certified checks, money
> orders and personal checks. We accept 50% down when orders are placed with
> the balance paid in full prior to shipping the guitar. The customer is responsible
> for payment of all items purchased as well as fees for custom work, applicable
> taxes, shipping and handling, insurance, imposts and extended limited warranty
> charges. Other arrangements may be acceptable.
>
> Discounts
>
> We offer a $50 discount if payment is made by certified check, money order
> or direct deposit.
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762Hey Jamie,
Do you program? I barely program, I use Perl mostly for systems administration
and web/database stuff. That said, I program more than a lot of people do
and I have spent lots of team studying and learning from other programmers.
Programmers tend to learn to code in one language. It's just human nature
to leverage whatever knowledge one might have to the greatest extent possible.
For example, most CGI web scripting is done in Perl. It's not that Perl is
inherently BEST for taking input from one page and spitting it out another,
but it's a damn fine text parsing language and for accidental historical
reasons it found its way into web servers early on. So most CGI programming
is done in Perl. But a really good friend of mine is a really hotshot C programmer
so his web site has all of the CGI done in C. He just puts a C compiler in
a directory that can be executed by Apache and writes everything that way.
I ooohed and aaahed over this (C has a much
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lead vox standout, how? [message #62445 is a reply to message #62441] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 19:37 |
RK
Messages: 51
Registered: December 2005
|
Member |
|
|
greater geek street cred than
Perl) and he said, "Look, I'm just too damn lazy to learn Perl."
So, let's say I'm a C programmer working on my audio plug-in. If I'm using
a standard C compiler an programming for a Mac or a PC I don't really think
much about which part of the processor is doing what number crunching. The
compiler does that for me. When I have my program do some calculation on
a sample stored as a 32 bit floating point number my compiler says, "Well,
this should obviously be done on the floating point unit in the CPU, let's
send it there." For me, as a Perl programmer, integers are actually converted
to floats automatically, which in some situations can lead to weird stuff
happening so there's an extra switch and module that is used in Perl if someone
is doing important stuff like designing nukulor reactors or modeling the
historic volatility of emerging market debt vs. the treasuries. In any case,
all of this goes on in the background with the compiler doing the work for
me. With Altivec, though, the compilers just never really got there. So,
me as a C programmer would have to know at least one other language (and
the right language) to be able to code for that processor. That's like me
writing a book about Cubase and then doing chapter 15 in Mandarin. Certainly
there are some people who could do that, but the percentage of people in
the world who can write a book at all is pretty small, and the percentage
of those people who know even one foreign language at all is even smaller,
and the percentage of those who can write fluently in that second language
gets even smaller, and then even with five billion people on planet earht
it's going to be damn difficult to find too many people who can do that.
Now then, let's say I AM that C programmer who also happens to know how to
program the Altivec unit. Bully for me. But every single line of code for
the Altivec unit will have to be re-written for an Intel processor. I can't
even stuff it down the drain of my Intel C compiler and get lower performing,
but still working, programs. Nope, I have to write the same routines in C
or using the Intel "vector processor" to do the same job. So now I have to
know three languages, or I have to re-write all of the Altivec code again
in C for the other platform. So, I'm writing along, worrying about my mortgage,
hoping to sell some copies of the TCB Reverb Plug-in to both Mac and Windows
users and I get to a spot where I can use Altivec or not. What do you think
I'm going to do? Would you do the same?
Apple and Adobe, of course, are huge software houses way more than 1000 times
the size of, say, PSP Audio. They can probably afford the time to have some
of the coders work on very specialized areas where vectorization will really
matter. But the primary reason I can't believe the Altivec unit is greatly
exploited is because it is so incrediby powerful. If it *were* used a lot
Macs really would be a lot more powerful than PCs in certain situations.
The places where that does happen are in academic situations where people
code specifically for the processor they're using, stuff like weather research
and wave mechanics and so on.
Lastly, the word I hear is that Windows compilers aren't that much better
than Mac compilers. That is, the SSE units mostly sit around with nothing
to do, which is why the FPU on the chip is still the only meaningful benchmark
when looking at audio/video work. So, yes, people are developing for Altivec,
but that doesn't have much to do with what happens when people start working
with audio on a computer.
TCB
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>For anyone interested here's the wikopedia link:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AltiVec
>
>Poking around on the net, it looks like folks developing for AltiVec
>include Red Hat and Yellowdog Linux.
>
>On the Mac, Apple does, as you say. True, they ONLY make comprehensive
>tools for writing, presenting, recording, editing, animating,
>compositing, etc. So I agree it's a VERY limited universe of merely
>everything you need to produce media content...
>
>Except you might also need Adobe apps, wait, Adobe uses AltiVec, too.
>What about Microsoft. Bet they use AltiVec, too. Are there others?
>Probably a bunch. Google and see.
>
>So it's probably not as dire as all that. I'll betcha Adobe uses the SSE
>stuff on Intel/Athlon, so cross-platform development isn't out of the
>question. SSE is there on the new Macs, BTW.
>
>But forget all the AltiVec/SSE stuff, where OSX gets really cool is the
>core image stuff for real time media stuff running on the GPU. Crazy.
>
>Anyhoo,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>TCB wrote:
>> Pretty much the only apps that use Altivec are written by Apple (and run
only
>> on Macs) or are specially coded apps used written by research labs and
such
>> that write their own code. Anyone trying to support multiple platforms
would
>> be absolutely foolish to code for a (difficult to work with) vector unit
>> only on one platform.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Well LaMont, Logic and DP are supposed to take advantage of Altivec, and
>>>some plugin manufactures use it. Altivec was not necessary for Paris
because
>>>it has hardware DSP for things like low latency and streaming. Anyways,
>>>believe what you want! It is a choice. You believe that if Apple, or
a
>>>test lab that is associated post performance tests it's a lie, but if
anybody
>>>else post performance test about PC performance it's not??? Ok!
>>>
>>>Like I always say, it's funny how some people won't let facts get in the
>>>way of their opinions!!!!!
>>>
>>>Some use of Altivec.
>>>
>>>Emagic Logic: Old article from 1999 that talks about Logic having Altivec.
>>>http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/audio/issue50.html
>>>
>>>Steinberg 2002
>>> http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM02/Content/Steinberg/PR /Cubase-VST-51.html
>>>
>>>http://packages.debian.org/testing/sound/ardour-gtk-altivec
>>>
>>>Article from 2000 on the benefits of Altivec, although with the move to
>>
>> dual
>>
>>>processor Intel systems with SIMD, Intel SSE/SSE2/SSE3 architecture, it
>>
>> may
>>
>>>all be a moot point.
>>>
>>>http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/audio/issue57.html
>>>
>>>James
>>>
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi James..
>>>>You wrote: "Altivec is a definite factor
>>>>in how a G4 and G5 perform. I think that is why they went with dual
core
>>>>Intel chips, to make up some of the performance loss".
>>>>
>>>>I have to disagree here. There were only a hand full of vendors that
were
>>>>actually taking advantage of the Altivec engine(Audio ease-Altiverb),
and
>>>>Adobe PhotoShop. A lot of third party developers did not jump onthe Altivec
>>>>wagon. Even our Edmund Parelli, stated that "recoding an App to use the
>>>
>>>velocity
>>>
>>>>engine was a major task that many , including himself was not willing
to
>>>>do"..
>>>>
>>>>So, where di that leave Appple?? Well, if left them with having to "fabricate"
>>>>speed test and other outlandish performance statments. All while, trying
>>>>to convince IMB to make a better faster PPC CPU. Well, as you know, a
year
>>>>pasted on the Dual G5, which was still using 7 year cpu technology, Apple
>>>>was was lsoing badly in the performance race. Even worse, they were counting
>>>>on IBM to boost performace of the ongoing OSX developments. When OSX
came
>>>>out we had a Siler/ G4 Dual 1gig machine. And that Mac could barely hang
>>>>with a P4 1.8 or AMD Athlon 1.5 PC..
>>>>
>>>>OSX was and is a Hog.. My point is: Apple needs AMD/Intel badly. They
(Mr
>>>>Jobs) can no longer spew the performance lies with a stright face any
longer.
>>>>The trurth is the truth. With a dual core Intel, Mc user's will see their
>>>>machines perform like they never have. No one will miss the Velocity
engine..Becuase
>>>>that same high-end floating point technology cane be bought on most graphics
>>>>cards today,and that's exactly why there are companies tlike UAD and
the
>>>>others that will be announce at this years Namm..
>>>>
>>>>My only worry for the Intel/Macs is that while the machines gain significant
>>>>performance, will Apple streamline OSX so thatit won;t bog down the CPU..??
>>>>LaMont
>>>>
>>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hey LaMont! On this G5 thing, your reading too much in to the latest
>>
>> news.
>>
>>>>>Go back to the Apple Key note speech and listen to what Steve Jobs said.
>>>>>You can scroll through the QT file quickly to get to the info on the
>>
>> new
>>
>>>>>machines performance compared to the G5s. First, the iMac is a consumer
>>>>>product with a single G5. It is being compared to a new intel dual
processor
>>>>>machine, and I believe it has faster bussing. Jobs stated that the
tests
>>>>>do not show all, but in at least the two test, floating point and integer,
>>>>>it show to be twice as fast. I would hope so, it has two processors!
>>
>>
>>>In
>>>
>>>>>this case, this is Apple spin. Their just trying to put their products
>>>>
>>>>in
>>>>
>>>>>a good light, and give Mac users reason to buy.
>>>>>
>>>>>As for the G5 tower, I think you should take a good look at the performance
>>>>>sp
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lead vox standout, how? [message #62518 is a reply to message #62489] |
Thu, 05 January 2006 11:49 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
e warp, etc. are also nice features.
>>>
>>>They added new crossfade options to Logic. Version 6 or 7, I forget
>>>which but I was glad to see it. You can just drag across adjacent
>>>regions and can also edit numerically.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Probably the big missing feature (or so I hear - again, correct if wrong
>>>>here), is plugin delay compensation on busses.
>>>
>>>Added in 7.1: "Full Native Plug-In Delay Compensation
>>>Take advantage of full plug-in delay compensation which now corrects for
>>>latency produced on bus, auxiliary, and output channels in addition to
>>>every other path in the native audio mixer. You'll especially appreciate
>>>this enhancement if you own third party DSP cards like those developed
>>>by Universal Audio and TC Electronics." (From
>>>http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301426)
>>>
>>>I agree that Logic 5.x had limitations but they've been steadily
>>>addressing them.
>>>
>>>Here's an article about version 7 you may find interesting:
>>>
>>>http://www.tweakheadz.com/review_of_logic_pro_7.htm
>>>
>>>Apple's lists of 7 and 7.1 improvements:
>>>http://images.apple.com/logicpro/pdf/LogicPro7_PO.pdf
>>> http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/Improvements_in_Logic_Pro_7 .1.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That said, there are some cool aspects to Logic that Nuendo doesn't have:
>>>>1 - more powerful midi (but to be fair, I haven't found anything I couldn't
>>>>do in Nuendo, other than a complement to Logic's environment).
>>>>2 - dynamic processing allocation - not an official feature that I know
>
> of
>
>>>>but one users have been asking for in Nuendo. The beauty here - start
>
> a
>
>>>>song loaded with plugins and it doesn't max out the cpu until it reaches
>
> the
>
>>>>point in the song it has to load that one last plugin - nice. Nuendo
>
> will
>
>>>>sit there and stutter painfully until you can get a stop key through
>
> it's
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lead vox standout, how? [message #62620 is a reply to message #62489] |
Sat, 07 January 2006 08:24 |
RK
Messages: 51
Registered: December 2005
|
Member |
|
|
;>>>
>> >>>> Not too much info at the moment...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> David.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>
>Boy is my face red! I'm so gul-a-ble. Anyone got a bridge for sale? ;>)
Tony
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:43d55dd2@linux...
> It's a joke guys.
>
> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43d55bb9$1@linux...
>>
>>
>> Hey don't get me wrong, it would be very handy for a lot of things. For
> starters,
>> it would get a lot of the default settings up and running. The bit I hate
>> about doing a mix is the bit where you sit there and go "right, I need to
>> do this to all the drum tracks" and go through one by one putting on the
>> same effect that you always use. With this thing it will get all the
> tracks
>> to your basic favourite default on it's own, and let me only have to deal
>> with the fun stuff...
>>
>> ...but I still see a concerning possibility for young wanna be's to buy
>> this and think they can mix. Mind you by the sound of it it needs you to
>> teach it what to do first anyhow, so if you can't teach it to mix it's
>> not
>> likely to do much from what I'm reading, so maybe this isn't so much of a
>> risk.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kim.
>>
>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >You guys can't see the beauty in this? What a time saver! This is
> perfect
>> >for the client that never pay on time and wants a ruff mix. You just
>> >say
>> >Ok, press a button and you've got a ruff mix. Then you say, when you
> have
>> >the balance I'll give you a real mix; )
>> >
>> >James
>> >
>> >
>> >"Kim" <
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 07 13:58:07 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.91730 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
