Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Paris-Using external converters with different latencies-Important
| Paris-Using external converters with different latencies-Important [message #83617] |
Mon, 23 April 2007 23:44  |
Dimitrios
Messages: 1056
Registered: August 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t and if one CPU will run at 2.8GHZ and the other at 2.6
GHz.
Just curious....
DeejI agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. VMWare is probably the best option in terms
of features and quality, it works with damn near anything. If they made a
.deb for it that worked I'd probably buy it for my linux box. Virtual box
is also very good, though it's only truly open source if you build it from
source, the binaries are under a different license. In practice this means
absolutely nothing. Of course I haven't tried the MSoft option as I'm avoiding
their software whenever possible.
Ubuntu Feisty installs easily into both Virtual Box and VMWare, as does Debian
Etch. I haven't tried a Debian testing or unstable netinstall but my guess
is they'd work fine. SuSE as well, but at this point for me running SuSE
is practically as offensive as running XP.
Good luck, and if you have any questions related to Debian (if you go that
route) or (to a lesser extent) Ubuntu feel free to post here or email me
off list.
TCB
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>It's the only way I work now. As I posted in the past, my physical machine
>has absolutely nothing installed on it. I install and run everything in
>a series of VMs. There are a couple of options for XP.
>
>1. Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Free download. Highly optimized for windows.
> Tight integration with physical PC (file copy, drag and drop, cut and paste,
>display resolutions).
>
>2. Virtual Box. Open Source. Free download. Cool.
>
>3. VMWare. Cost$. Probably the best there is, if only because of the expansive
>feature set.
>
>There's nothing inherently dangerous about a VM, and I run a bunch of linux
>distros just fine. In fact, the physical machine is 100% isolated from
anything
>the VM may do.
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>What's the go hear?
>>
>>I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on my
work
>>laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
>>
>>What's the popular option software wise?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Kim.
>What's the advantage of running a virtual machine? I don't get
that sort of thing at all - how does it differ from a regular
PC setup?
Neil
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. VMWare is probably the best option
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paris-Using external converters with different latencies-Important [message #83618 is a reply to message #83617] |
Tue, 24 April 2007 00:42  |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
in
terms
>of features and quality, it works with damn near anything. If they made
a
>deb for it that worked I'd probably buy it for my linux box. Virtual box
>is also very good, though it's only truly open source if you build it from
>source, the binaries are under a different license. In practice this means
>absolutely nothing. Of course I haven't tried the MSoft option as I'm avoiding
>their software whenever possible.
>
>Ubuntu Feisty installs easily into both Virtual Box and VMWare, as does
Debian
>Etch. I haven't tried a Debian testing or unstable netinstall but my guess
>is they'd work fine. SuSE as well, but at this point for me running SuSE
>is practically as offensive as running XP.
>
>Good luck, and if you have any questions related to Debian (if you go that
>route) or (to a lesser extent) Ubuntu feel free to post here or email me
>off list.
>
>TCB
>
>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>
>>It's the only way I work now. As I posted in the past, my physical machine
>>has absolutely nothing installed on it. I install and run everything in
>>a series of VMs. There are a couple of options for XP.
>>
>>1. Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Free download. Highly optimized for windows.
>> Tight integration with physical PC (file copy, drag and drop, cut and
paste,
>>display resolutions).
>>
>>2. Virtual Box. Open Source. Free download. Cool.
>>
>>3. VMWare. Cost$. Probably the best there is, if only because of the expansive
>>feature set.
>>
>>There's nothing inherently dangerous about a VM, and I run a bunch of linux
>>distros just fine. In fact, the physical machine is 100% isolated from
>anything
>>the VM may do.
>>
>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>What's the go hear?
>>>
>>>I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on my
>work
>>>laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
>>>
>>>What's the popular option software wise?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Kim.
>>
>Nevermind.........ain't gonna fly...........although I do think someone
should try this ............just because
(it won't be me, however)
;o)
..
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:464b28e9@linux...
> Can two CPU's that are rated differently work in the same dual socket
> mobo?
>
> I've got a possibility of buying an Opteron 2220 Socket F which is rated
> at 2.8GHz for an extremely good price, but there is only one. Myt mobo
> uses dual CPU's and I was wondering if I can use an Opteron 2218rated at
> 2.6 GHz in the other socket and if one CPU will run at 2.8GHZ and the
> other at 2.6 GHz.
>
> Just curious....
>
> Deej
>A dual socket server mobo running dualcore CPU's will not allow square pegs
to be hammered into round holes......picky, picky, picky as far as what
can/can't be used. I just got off the phone with Tyan tech support. I glad I
called them. I would suggest that anyone who is contemplating going down
this road do their homework and be especially careful of matching things
like CPU revisions......this is absolutely necessary........two AMD Opteron
Socket "F" CPU
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paris-Using external converters with different latencies-Important [message #83625 is a reply to message #83618] |
Tue, 24 April 2007 05:28 |
Dimitrios
Messages: 1056
Registered: August 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
f time due to family and day job add to that!
And thanks for all the info your always providing....Hi Neil,
Here are some practical examples of why I use a VM exclusively for all desktop
apps.
The entire file system of the virtual machine is contained in a virtual hard
disk, which is a single physical disk file. All of my corporate applications,
including Office, Email, etc are installed on this VM. This file can be
moved freely from physical machine to machine. Software is installed only
once. Software is authorized only once. This brings several advantages:
1. I can back up my entire machine by simply copying this file to an external
hard drive, an operation that takes 7 minutes on my machine. I copy the
VM from my primary work laptop to my home desktop machine every night. If
anything were to happen to my laptop, I could be back up and running on a
new laptop by simply copying the file.
2. I can move this file to any of my other machines. For example... I have
an ultralight laptop that I use for travel. It weighs 4 lbs and is very
small. I move the virtual hard disk file to this machine, and my complete
desktop environment including all applications and files is ready for action.
I have a kick ass multi-monitor desktop at home at my desk. When I want
to use that machine - same thing, copy over a file.
3. Testing software... I backup the virtual machine, then am free to install
and test anything I want, including virus infected malware without any risk.
If the wheels come off I simply shut down the virtual machine and restart
from the backup.
etc. etc. :-)
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>What's the advantage of running a virtual machine? I don't get
>that sort of thing at all - how does it differ from a regular
>PC setup?
>
>Neil
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck. VMWare is probably the best option in
>terms
>>of features and quality, it works with damn near anything. If they made
>a
>>deb for it that worked I'd probably buy it for my linux box. Virtual box
>>is also very good, though it's only truly open source if you build it from
>>source, the binaries are under a different license. In practice this means
>>absolutely nothing. Of course I haven't tried the MSoft option as I'm avoiding
>>their software whenever possible.
>>
>>Ubuntu Feisty installs easily into both Virtual Box and VMWare, as does
>Debian
>>Etch. I haven't tried a Debian testing or unstable netinstall but my guess
>>is they'd work fine. SuSE as well, but at this point for me running SuSE
>>is practically as offensive as running XP.
>>
>>Good luck, and if you have any questions related to Debian (if you go that
>>route) or (to a lesser extent) Ubuntu feel free to post here or email me
>>off list.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It's the only way I work now. As I posted in the past, my physical machine
>>>has absolutely nothing installed on it. I install and run everything
in
>>>a series of VMs. There are a couple of options for XP.
>>>
>>>1. Microsoft Virtual PC 2007. Free download. Highly optimized for windows.
>>> Tight integration with physical PC (file copy, drag and drop, cut and
>paste,
>>>display resolutions).
>>>
>>>2. Virtual Box. Open Source. Free download. Cool.
>>>
>>>3. VMWare. Cost$. Probably the best there is, if only because of the expansive
>>>feature set.
>>>
>>>There's nothing inherently dangerous about a VM, and I run a bunch of
linux
>>>distros just fine. In fact, the physical machine is 100% isolated from
>>anything
>>>the VM may do.
>>>
>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's the go hear?
>>>>
>>>>I want to get an isolated copy of Linux running under Windows XP on my
>>work
>>>>laptop here. What's the go? Is it dangerous at all?
>>>>
>>>>What's the popular option software wise?
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Kim.
>>>
>>
>In addition to what Chuck said, you also can have all of your 'dirty' apps
web browsers, games, flash players, development suites, and all of that crap,
on your audio box. It's completely segmented.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Paris-Using external converters with different latencies-Important [message #83639 is a reply to message #83625] |
Tue, 24 April 2007 08:31 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
0v?<BR>> =
> =20
Tom<BR> > =2 0
><BR> > =2 0
><BR>> =
> I=20
choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and=20
you?<BR>> =
> <A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html">http://www.polesoft.com/refer=
..html</A></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00E1_01C797CD.E22B5910--Paul..
I just found this link to more pictures and names from that AES dinner at
Paul Artola's site. Look here:
http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~artola/aes2003/index.htmlFrom my own personal standpoint, it's hard to compare apples to apples but
these are the tradeoffs as I see them:
Paris had the advantage when tracking due to zero latency
Native can do this in another way with ASIO direct monitoring but you will
needa MADI rig or Furman HDS-16 for large sessions
Native is much better when it comes to integrating plugins like UAD-1
Native requires much more horsepower if you want to run it in low latency
mode like Paris-think dual socket mobo/dual core CPU
Native has higher sample rates available - Paris does not
Native does not have submix issues if you use the proper hardware-if you
don't, it definitely will when tracking (see references to Furman cue
system)
Native integrates VSTi's , but will require a separate computer right now to
run heavy VSTi track counts because of Windows memory limitations so that's
not much different than Paris. The cure for this would be either to use a
monster Mac or wait for the Vista suckage to be resolved...if ever.
Native has control surfaces available with automated faders and cool goodies
like that.
Native has great midi and some incredible flexiility as far as editing and
manipulating of audio tempo, etc.
It's nice being able to integrate everything on one machine for mixing.
There *is* a learning curve, but it's a fun one (for me). I still use the
Neve 5042. I think I would not like the sound of Cubase 4 *for my purposes*,
without it.
I think Paris sounds better right out of the box. Without a monster computer
and a tape emulator, native doesn't = Paris, IMO. With these items, it can,
and does. Cost wise, the more I/O, the greater the cost differential between
the two systems. To recreate my native system with as many I/O as my Paris
system had (as it will be in about 2 weeks), plus the ability to operate at
the same low latencies as Paris you would need:
3 x RME HDSP 9652's and 1 RME Multiface (2 of the HDSP's in the master
computer, the other in a slave box for streaming VSTi's to the master
box)-Appx $1800.00 street
1 x 13 slot Magma for the HDSP's in the Master box-appx $500.00 street
1 computer running an Opteron 185 CPU-could be built for around $1200.00
from scratch
1 computer running 2 x Opteron 2218 CPU's on a server system-could be built
for around $2500.00 from scratch
2 x RME ADI8-DS's-Street on two of these these is around $2400.00 ($1.2k a
piece average)
1 RME ADI4-DD-street is around $600.00
1 x Mytek Stereo 96 A/D-Street at $800.00
1 x Mytek Stereo 96 D/A-Street at $800.00
Lucid GenX6-Street at appx $400.00-to distribute WC from Mytek AD which is
used as a master clock
Neve 5042-$1650.00 (to get Parislike sound)
Furman HDS-16 cue system to cross RME HDSP submixes when tracking - $1500.00
(or an HDSP MADI system plus an HDSP AES 16 plus BOB-instead of using the
Multiface and 2 x HDSP 95652's-add another $2400.00 for this - there is also
a Friend-chip audio digitap patchbay that will accommodate some of this
crosscard routing for around $2k as another option. None of these options
are cheap.
Now add another Magma and 4 x UAD-1 cards-$2000.00
That's roughly $15 ,000.00 to around $18,000.00 + depending on how you go.
At this point, Pro Tools HD starts looking sorta viable if you need a big
system.
Compare the price of this to a 4 x EDS card/4 x MEC system with 4 x ADAT
cards per MEC and an A8it and A8ot and an IF2 in 3 of the 4 x MECs.
Appx prices last I looked-
4 x MEC @ $100.00- $400.00
3 A8iT @ $275.00 - $1650.00
3 x A8oT @ 275.00 -$1650.00
4 EDS @ $250.00= $1000.00
8 x ADAT cards @ 250.00= $2000.00 (not really necessary unless you want to
fully interface with another DAW like I was doing)-$2000.00
GenX6-$400.00
Nice D/A converter for monitoring -$800.00
computer to run Paris: Appx $1,000.00
computer to run VSTi's-Appx $1500.00
RME HDSP 9652 for VSTi box-$450.00
That's around $10,500-------or around $9000.00 with just a couple of ADAT
modules instead of eight of them.
First you should ask............do I need all of this I/O???, because if you
don't, your costs will go wayyyyy down with either system.
Is the difference in capabilities between the two systems worth the extra
money to you?. If you are happy with lots of workarounds to integrate
hardware and software with Paris, 44.1/48k sample rates and great sound once
you get it set up, I'd stay with Paris. You could buy a lot of nice hardware
processors to integrate with Paris with the extra money you would save by
staying away from native.
To go native, you're going to spend a lot more, especially when it comes to
a computer to run the system, but from an integration/workflow standpoint,
you're going to have fewer workarounds, but not eliminate them completely
unless you go with the horsepower that is available to a dual quad Mac
running Logic or Digital Performer. If you go with a Mac and the hardware
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 10 18:29:28 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03485 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
