Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Pro tools summing bus revealed?
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62380 is a reply to message #62356] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 10:20   |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>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 it less.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But version 7 was a good step toward cleaning up the GUI. As it works
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.??? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62383 is a reply to message #62320] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 10:24 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
(MEC on card A, 442 on B.)
> >
> > I now have the MEC on card A (master), 442 on B, BNC out from MEC to in
on
> > 442. When it initializes, everything is cool, but I'm vapor locked on
how
> > to record to the 442. In the patchbay, the MEC sucks up all the inputs
> and
> > the 442 will not patch across EDS cards.
> >
> > How do I get the 442 inputs/outputs active so I can record? And don't
> > laugh, I know this is probably simple for the Paris intelligentsia.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kent
> >
> >
>
>errrr............you can also route digital connections between EDS cards,
but you can't cross patch in the Paris virtual patchbay...........yeah, this
sux, I know.
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:43cfd51b$1@linux...
> You cannot patch across EDS cards without physically routing analog
> connections between them. Do you have the ribbon cables connected between
> the two EDS cards?
>
>
> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfd2bf@linux...
> > 1 card with MEC works great (98SE). Decided to complicate my life and
add
> > another card and introduce my ol' 442 in the mix. What I want to do is
> use
> > card A for global effects (no limit, etc) and record to card B.
> Otherwords,
> > put the MEC on Card A and the 442 on card B (with inputs and outputs.)
Or
> > the other way around (MEC on card A, 442 on B.)
> >
> > I now have the MEC on card A (master), 442 on B, BNC out from MEC to in
on
> > 442. When it initializes, everything is cool, but I'm vapor locked on
how
> > to record to the 442. In the patchbay, the MEC sucks up all the inputs
> and
> > the 442 will not patch across EDS cards.
> >
> > How do I get the 442 inputs/outputs active so I can record? And don't
> > laugh, I know this is probably simple for the Paris intelligentsia.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kent
> >
> >
>
>Yes the spdif in the MEC is 24 bit. the Spdif in the 442 is 20 bit
"Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfc8d8$1@linux...
>
>http://www.steinberg.de/ProductPage_sb_wl6_eu.html
Sweet!
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK Pro Audio
(859) 635-5762
www.adkproaudio.com
chrisl@adkproaudio.comhttp://www.solid-state-logic.com/resources/lmc1plugin.html
now for PC, apart ifo that it for XP,work on Windows ME tooKent,
You can always switch the card assignment in the master output window during
mixing. Just make Card A's submix a virtual mix temporarily. Switch Card B
to Card A. Then Switch Card A's virtual mix to Card B. Basically, just
assign your open submix to card A when you're ready to mix.
Tony
"Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfd8fc@linux...
> Yeah. EDS cards are connected. With the two cards, I can swap back and
> forth and use the MEC on both submixes. But I want to be able to record
> to
> card B, keeping card A open for heavy global inserts (since I run out of
> resources using a couple compressors and no limit on the global insert.)
>
> Kent
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:43cfd51b$1@linux...
>> You cannot patch across EDS cards without physically routing analog
>> connections between them. Do you have the ribbon cables connected between
>> the two EDS cards?
>>
>>
>> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfd2bf@linux...
>> > 1 card with MEC works great (98SE). Decided to complicate my life and
> add
>> > another card and introduce my ol' 442 in the mix. What I want to do is
>> use
>> > card A for global effects (no limit, etc) and record to card B.
>> Otherwords,
>> > put the MEC on Card A and the 442 on card B (with inputs and outputs.)
> Or
>> > the other way around (MEC on card A, 442 on B.)
>> >
>> > I now have the MEC on card A (master), 442 on B, BNC out from MEC to in
> on
>> > 442. When it initializes, everything is cool, but I'm vapor locked on
> how
>> > to record to the 442. In the patchbay, the MEC sucks up all the inputs
>> and
>> > the 442 will not patch across EDS cards.
>> >
>> > How do I get the 442 inputs/outputs active so I can record? And don't
>> > laugh, I know this is probably simple for the Paris intelligentsia.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Kent
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>got it, thanks.
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:43cfde04@linux...
> Yes the spdif in the MEC is 24 bit. the Spdif in the 442 is 20 bit
>
> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfc8d8$1@linux...
> >
> >
>
>That's what I was doing, but everytime I switch submixes, I lose my global
inserts. Not that big of deal, I guess, pretty easy to throw them back in.
I was just hoping I could add my 442, then record on either the MEC or 442.
Guess not. Welcome to ParisWorld.
Thanks Tony,
Kent
"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
news:43cfe284@linux...
> Kent,
>
> You can always switch the card assignment in the master output window
during
> mixing. Just make Card A's submix a virtual mix temporarily. Switch Card B
> to Card A. Then Switch Card A's virtual mix to Card B. Basically, just
> assign your open submix to card A when you're ready to mix.
>
> Tony
>
> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfd8fc@linux...
> > Yeah. EDS cards are connected. With the two cards, I can swap back and
> > forth and use the MEC on both submixes. But I want to be able to record
> > to
> > card B, keeping card A open for heavy global inserts (since I run out of
> > resources using a couple compressors and no limit on the global insert.)
> >
> > Kent
> >
> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> > news:43cfd51b$1@linux...
> >> You cannot patch across EDS cards without physically routing analog
> >> connections between them. Do you have the ribbon cables connected
between
> >> the two EDS cards?
> >>
> >>
> >> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfd2bf@linux...
> >> > 1 card with MEC works great (98SE). Decided to complicate my life
and
> > add
> >> > another card and introduce my ol' 442 in the mix. What I want to do
is
> >> use
> >> > card A for global effects (no limit, etc) and record to card B.
> >> Otherwords,
> >> > put the MEC on Card A and the 442 on card B (with inputs and
outputs.)
> > Or
> >> > the other way around (MEC on card A, 442 on B.)
> >> >
> >> > I now have the MEC on card A (master), 442 on B, BNC out from MEC to
in
> > on
> >> > 442. When it initializes, everything is cool, but I'm vapor locked
on
> > how
> >> > to record to the 442. In the patchbay, the MEC sucks up all the
inputs
> >> and
> >> > the 442 will not patch across EDS cards.
> >> >
> >> > How do I get the 442 inputs/outputs active so I can record? And
don't
> >> > laugh, I know this is probably simple for the Paris intelligentsia.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Kent
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>Does the 442 interface show up in the patch bay? I'm not sure since I only
use one interface. However, if it does, shouldn't you be able to pull down
the 442 interface and patch to mixer B?
"Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yeah. EDS cards are connected. With the two cards, I can swap back and
>forth and use the MEC on both su
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62385 is a reply to message #62380] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 09:24 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ospam.com" target="_blank">pn@nospam.com> wrote in message news:43cfe6f3$1@linux...
>
> Does the 442 interface show up in the patch bay? I'm not sure since I only
> use one interface. However, if it does, shouldn't you be able to pull down
> the 442 interface and patch to mixer B?
>
>
> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Yeah. EDS cards are connected. With the two cards, I can swap back and
> >forth and use the MEC on both submixes. But I want to be able to record
> to
> >card B, keeping card A open for heavy global inserts (since I run out of
> >resources using a couple compressors and no limit on the global insert.)
> >
> >Kent
> >
> >"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> >news:43cfd51b$1@linux...
> >> You cannot patch across EDS cards without physically routing analog
> >> connections between them. Do you have the ribbon cables connected
between
> >> the two EDS cards?
> >>
> >>
> >> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfd2bf@linux...
> >> > 1 card with MEC works great (98SE). Decided to complicate my life
and
> >add
> >> > another card and introduce my ol' 442 in the mix. What I want to do
> is
> >> use
> >> > card A for global effects (no limit, etc) and record to card B.
> >> Otherwords,
> >> > put the MEC on Card A and the 442 on card B (with inputs and
outputs.)
> >Or
> >> > the other way around (MEC on card A, 442 on B.)
> >> >
> >> > I now have the MEC on card A (master), 442 on B, BNC out from MEC to
> in
> >on
> >> > 442. When it initializes, everything is cool, but I'm vapor locked
> on
> >how
> >> > to record to the 442. In the patchbay, the MEC sucks up all the
inputs
> >> and
> >> > the 442 will not patch across EDS cards.
> >> >
> >> > How do I get the 442 inputs/outputs active so I can record? And
don't
> >> > laugh, I know this is probably simple for the Paris intelligentsia.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Kent
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>Yes, the physical connection to cards A & B can't be changed in the
software. What I would do is connect your 442 to card A and monitor from
that either analog or spdif out. Connect your MEC to card B and record to
that. That way card A and the 442 is always open for the global EDS inserts.
I have a three card system and change the card assignments around all the
time. I just wait until I'm ready to mix before adding the global inserts to
the submix with the most open resources.
Tony
"Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfe3aa@linux...
> That's what I was doing, but everytime I switch submixes, I lose my global
> inserts. Not that big of deal, I guess, pretty easy to throw them back
> in.
> I was just hoping I could add my 442, then record on either the MEC or
> 442.
> Guess not. Welcome to ParisWorld.
>
> Thanks Tony,
>
> Kent
> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
> news:43cfe284@linux...
>> Kent,
>>
>> You can always switch the card assignment in the master output window
> during
>> mixing. Just make Card A's submix a virtual mix temporarily. Switch Card
>> B
>> to Card A. Then Switch Card A's virtual mix to Card B. Basically, just
>> assign your open submix to card A when you're ready to mix.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfd8fc@linux...
>> > Yeah. EDS cards are connected. With the two cards, I can swap back
>> > and
>> > forth and use the MEC on both submixes. But I want to be able to
>> > record
>> > to
>> > card B, keeping card A open for heavy global inserts (since I run out
>> > of
>> > resources using a couple compressors and no limit on the global
>> > insert.)
>> >
>> > Kent
>> >
>> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>> > news:43cfd51b$1@linux...
>> >> You cannot patch across EDS cards without physically routing analog
>> >> connections between them. Do you have the ribbon cables connected
> between
>> >> the two EDS cards?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:43cfd2bf@linux...
>> >> > 1 card with MEC works great (98SE). Decided to complicate my life
> and
>> > add
>> >> > another card and introduce my ol' 442 in the mix. What I want to do
> is
>> >> use
>> >> > card A for global effects (no limit, etc) and record to card B.
>> >> Otherwords,
>> >> > put the MEC on Card A and the 442 on card B (with inputs and
> outputs.)
>> > Or
>> >> > the other way around (MEC on card A, 442 on B.)
>> >> >
>> >> > I now have the MEC on card A (master), 442 on B, BNC out from MEC to
> in
>> > on
>> >> > 442. When it initializes, everything is cool, but I'm vapor locked
> on
>> > how
>> >> > to record to the 442. In the patchbay, the MEC sucks up all the
> inputs
>> >> and
>> >> > the 442 will not patch across EDS cards.
>> >> >
>> >> > How do I get the 442 inputs/outputs active so I can record? And
> don't
>> >> > laugh, I know this is probably simple for the Paris intelligentsia.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Kent
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>Toontrack music proudly unveils the all new acoustic drum sampler, dfh
EZdrummer at NAMM 2006 at the booth of Toontrack Music US distributor East
West Communications.
dfh EZdrummer is a state of the art acoustic drum sampler combining unique
features inspired from the Toontrack pro software engine Superior Drummer
with an all new interface and sounds recorded at Avatar studios in New York
by Pat Thrall, Neil Dorfsman and Nir Zidkyahu.
Toontrack Percussive Compression, TPC, now in its second generation, cuts
further disc space and RAM requirements while still giving the user a full
on multiple microphone control through the internal mixer featuring stereo
and multitrack capabilities through one single plug-in.
Added to this is an extensive midi library accessible through the main
interface with drag and drop capabilities.
dfh EZdrummer will be complemented with expansion packs, EZXs, covering
different genres recorded by the best musicians and producers in each style.
Toontrack Music would like to thank the fantastic producers, musicians,
users, distributors and developers involved in and giving inspiration to the
making of dfh EZdrummer.
dfh EZdrummer will be shown at NAMM, Soundsexpo London and Frankfurt
Musikmesse and should hit the stores in April 2006. Release for EZXs TBA.
Further product details and pre-order information is now available at the
EZdrummer portal www.ezdrummer.com. Please bookmark this page for up-to-date
information in the coming weeks.
See you at NAMM!A small suggestion.
http://www.techrack.com/catalog/EnclosureRacks.asp
Always here to help. Now go install Debian on one of your Intel boxes.
TCB
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>Not Wormhole...........the other one.
>
>thanks,
>
>Deej
>
>Little confused how to monitor from the 442. In the patchbay, if I set the
442 as A, I have no connections to either the 442 or the MEC (default saved
with MEC as A.) Can I make the monitor connections for the 442 and the
input connections for the MEC in the patch bay? If not, how do I make the
connections? Thanks.
Kent
"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
news:43c
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62395 is a reply to message #62383] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 09:56 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
; during
>> >> mixing. Just make Card A's submix a virtual mix temporarily. Switch
> Card
>> >> B
>> >> to Card A. Then Switch Card A's virtual mix to Card B. Basically, just
>> >> assign your open submix to card A when you're ready to mix.
>> >>
>> >> Tony
>> >>
>> >> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:43cfd8fc@linux...
>> >> > Yeah. EDS cards are connected. With the two cards, I can swap back
>> >> > and
>> >> > forth and use the MEC on both submixes. But I want to be able to
>> >> > record
>> >> > to
>> >> > card B, keeping card A open for heavy global inserts (since I run
>> >> > out
>> >> > of
>> >> > resources using a couple compressors and no limit on the global
>> >> > insert.)
>> >> >
>> >> > Kent
>> >> >
>> >> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:43cfd51b$1@linux...
>> >> >> You cannot patch across EDS cards without physically routing analog
>> >> >> connections between them. Do you have the ribbon cables connected
>> > between
>> >> >> the two EDS cards?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:43cfd2bf@linux...
>> >> >> > 1 card with MEC works great (98SE). Decided to complicate my
>> >> >> > life
>> > and
>> >> > add
>> >> >> > another card and introduce my ol' 442 in the mix. What I want to
> do
>> > is
>> >> >> use
>> >> >> > card A for global effects (no limit, etc) and record to card B.
>> >> >> Otherwords,
>> >> >> > put the MEC on Card A and the 442 on card B (with inputs and
>> > outputs.)
>> >> > Or
>> >> >> > the other way around (MEC on card A, 442 on B.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I now have the MEC on card A (master), 442 on B, BNC out from MEC
> to
>> > in
>> >> > on
>> >> >> > 442. When it initializes, everything is cool, but I'm vapor
> locked
>> > on
>> >> > how
>> >> >> > to record to the 442. In the patchbay, the MEC sucks up all the
>> > inputs
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> > the 442 will not patch across EDS cards.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > How do I get the 442 inputs/outputs active so I can record? And
>> > don't
>> >> >> > laugh, I know this is probably simple for the Paris
> intelligentsia.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >> > Kent
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>I'll be back at the Paris rig in a few, so I'll try those. If it doesn't
work, I'll send you a message later. Thanks for the help.
Kent
"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
news:43cff0cf@linux...
> Also, if you want to use the 442 to have more inputs available during
> record, just go ahead and record to submix A, then delete the tracks from
> the playing field, then add them back in submix B from the audio tab.
>
> Tony
>
>
> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfe3aa@linux...
> > That's what I was doing, but everytime I switch submixes, I lose my
global
> > inserts. Not that big of deal, I guess, pretty easy to throw them back
> > in.
> > I was just hoping I could add my 442, then record on either the MEC or
> > 442.
> > Guess not. Welcome to ParisWorld.
> >
> > Thanks Tony,
> >
> > Kent
> > "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
> > news:43cfe284@linux...
> >> Kent,
> >>
> >> You can always switch the card assignment in the master output window
> > during
> >> mixing. Just make Card A's submix a virtual mix temporarily. Switch
Card
> >> B
> >> to Card A. Then Switch Card A's virtual mix to Card B. Basically, just
> >> assign your open submix to card A when you're ready to mix.
> >>
> >> Tony
> >>
> >> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfd8fc@linux...
> >> > Yeah. EDS cards are connected. With the two cards, I can swap back
> >> > and
> >> > forth and use the MEC on both submixes. But I want to be able to
> >> > record
> >> > to
> >> > card B, keeping card A open for heavy global inserts (since I run out
> >> > of
> >> > resources using a couple compressors and no limit on the global
> >> > insert.)
> >> >
> >> > Kent
> >> >
> >> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:43cfd51b$1@linux...
> >> >> You cannot patch across EDS cards without physically routing analog
> >> >> connections between them. Do you have the ribbon cables connected
> > between
> >> >> the two EDS cards?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:43cfd2bf@linux...
> >> >> > 1 card with MEC works great (98SE). Decided to complicate my life
> > and
> >> > add
> >> >> > another card and introduce my ol' 442 in the mix. What I want to
do
> > is
> >> >> use
> >> >> > card A for global effects (no limit, etc) and record to card B.
> >> >> Otherwords,
> >> >> > put the MEC on Card A and the 442 on card B (with inputs and
> > outputs.)
> >> > Or
> >> >> > the other way around (MEC on card A, 442 on B.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I now have the MEC on card A (master), 442 on B, BNC out from MEC
to
> > in
> >> > on
> >> >> > 442. When it initializes, everything is cool, but I'm vapor
locked
> > on
> >> > how
> >> >> > to record to the 442. In the patchbay, the MEC sucks up all the
> > inputs
> >> >> and
> >> >> > the 442 will not patch across EDS cards.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How do I get the 442 inputs/outputs active so I can record? And
> > don't
> >> >> > laugh, I know this is probably simple for the Paris
intelligentsia.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Kent
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>Only if you can sequence his parts! ;>)
Tony
"Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cff067@linux...
> Will this replace the drummer I fired tomorrow? ('Scuse me if I mix my
> tenses.)
>
> Kent
>
> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
> news:43cfec3e@linux...
>> Toontrack music proudly unveils the all new acoustic drum sampler, dfh
>> EZdrummer at NAMM 2006 at the booth of Toontrack Music US distributor
>> East
>> West Communications.
>>
>> dfh EZdrummer is a state of the art acoustic drum sampler combining
>> unique
>> features inspired from the Toontrack pro software engine Superior Drummer
>> with an all new interface and sounds recorded at Avatar studios in New
> York
>> by Pat Thrall, Neil Dorfsman and Nir Zidkyahu.
>>
>> Toontrack Percussive Compression, TPC, now in its second generation, cuts
>> further disc space and RAM requirements while still giving the user a
>> full
>> on multiple microphone control through the internal mixer featuring
>> stereo
>> and multitrack capabilities through one single plug-in.
>>
>> Added to this is an extensive midi library accessible through the main
>> interface with drag and drop capabilities.
>>
>> dfh EZdrummer will be complemented with expansion packs, EZXs, covering
>> different genres recorded by the best musicians and producers in each
> style.
>>
>> Toontrack Music would like to thank the fantastic producers, musicians,
>> users, distributors and developers involved in and giving inspiration to
> the
>> making of dfh EZdrummer.
>>
>> dfh EZdrummer will be shown at NAMM, Soundsexpo London and Frankfurt
>> Musikmesse and should hit the stores in April 2006. Release for EZXs TBA.
>>
>> Further product details and pre-order information is now available at the
>> EZdrummer portal www.ezdrummer.com. Please bookmark this page for
> up-to-date
>> information in the coming weeks.
>>
>> See you at NAMM!
>>
>>
>
>Oops! I guess I should have read a little further. Built-in midi patterns!
Maybe it could replace your drummer. ?
Tony
"Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62397 is a reply to message #62385] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 10:06 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ould like to thank the fantastic producers, musicians,
>> users, distributors and developers involved in and giving inspiration to
> the
>> making of dfh EZdrummer.
>>
>> dfh EZdrummer will be shown at NAMM, Soundsexpo London and Frankfurt
>> Musikmesse and should hit the stores in April 2006. Release for EZXs TBA.
>>
>> Further product details and pre-order information is now available at the
>> EZdrummer portal www.ezdrummer.com. Please bookmark this page for
> up-to-date
>> information in the coming weeks.
>>
>> See you at NAMM!
>>
>>
>
>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
>>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.
>>>
>>>Apple is moving to the Intel processor to put some much needed juice behind
>>>their DAW. That's cool, except they apple have really let down a lot of
>>users
>>>who were conviced that their (our) G5 were the king of the hill.. You
would
>>>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
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62401 is a reply to message #62395] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 10:21 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ment, 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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>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" <5244310@yrtyr.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Well Well, its seems that apogee and & have been playing together..
This
>>>>look
>>>>>svery cool..
>>>>>http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/ensemble.php
>>>>
>>>>I just read this on another NG.................
>>>>
>>>>NAMM: Classic Neve Effects, Soon in Computer Form
>>>>
>>>>I'd already heard that Universal Audio, makers of fine DSP hardware for
>>>computers
>>>>as well as vintage analog reproductions and other DSP tech, was going
to
>>>>be pairing up with someone big at NAMM. That "someone big" has turned
out
>>>>to be AMS Neve Limited, who have made some of the most famous signal
processors
>>>>in history. You'll be seeing those running in emulated form on Universal's
>>>>UAD-1 system, a DSP card that sits inside your PC or Mac. Universal says
>>>>the first will be the Neve 1073 Equalizer.
>>>>
>>>>Looks like it's going to be an interesting year
>>>>
>>>>;o)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>"Deej" <hosedisp@po'ed.com> wrote:
>
>I never could understand the concept behind lite beer.........I mean, you
>gonna' drink some beer or you gonna' just fuck around?
ROTFL!!! Well that's just it isn't it. Personally I don't mind a mid strength.
They still taste like beer, and actually do have an effect, but light beer
really is just pointless IMO. It tastes bad and does nothing. I mean softdrink
is fine, really, at what it does. Let softdrink do it's job and let beer
do it's job... beer is not softdrink.
Cheers,
Kim.I would think anyone who has used Logic 7.1 on a dual G5, (and who has
used the current version of Logic enough to know and take advantage of
its clever shortcuts and design strengths to get around its remaining
shortcomings), could easily see that the system more than reasonably fast.
Altivec, whatever, the system is amazing. I won't say perfect. But
amazing, absolutely.
I think I hear echos of obsolete info from the Logic 5, OS9, Wi95 days,
or learning curve problems. It does take a few weeks to get on top of
Logic and to know how to drive it for speed. For that reason and for the
soft synth forgetfullness bug I don't always recommend Logic to newbies.
But for anyone who wants incredible performance and features for the $$
and is willing to spend some time learning it, I recommend checking it out.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
James McCloskey 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
>>>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.
>
>
>>>>Apple is moving to the Intel processor to put some much needed juice behind
>>>>their DAW. That's cool, except they apple have really let down a lot of
>>>
>>>users
>>>
>>>>who were conviced that their (our) G5 were the king of the hill.. You
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62402 is a reply to message #62397] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 10:23 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> would
>
>>>>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 it less.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But version 7 was a good step toward cleaning up the GUI. As it works
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62406 is a reply to message #62401] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 10:40 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
formance 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
>>>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.
>
>>>>
>>>>Apple is moving to the Intel processor to put some much needed juice
behind
>>>>their DAW. That's cool, except they apple have really let down a lot
of
>>>users
>>>>who were conviced that their (our) G5 were the king of the hill.. You
>would
>>>>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 it less.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But version 7 was a good step toward cleaning up the GUI. As it works
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62409 is a reply to message #62395] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 12:04 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
he 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>OH NO! What have I done?!?
Mind you, it's nice to know the newsgroup is accessible from afterworld.
I was wondering what I would do with all my time once I move upstairs...
;o) ...tell me, how are gear prices up there? And is version 4 out yet?
Cheers,
Kim.
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>I was crushed by your response so I slit my wrists. I'm now
>dead.........however, more gear is scheduled to arrive today,
>
>;o)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Lazarus
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cf6bbc$1@linux...
>>
>> rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >kim, with your compassion you would be great model of support at AA
>> >meetings. ;o)
>>
>> OK, so perhaps that wasn't the world's best demonstration of my caring
>side...
>>
>> ...but I'll have you know I'm very caring at the AA meetings. I'm always
>> buying people a beer when they need it most! :o)
>>
>> PS. Moment of morbid seriousness. Sorry Deej if I was a little uncaring.
>> I do know how infuriating lack of internet service can be...
>>
>> Now, where'd I put that beer...
>>
>> >
>> >On 19 Jan 2006 19:25:20 +1000, "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Well...
>> >>
>> >>...better your ISP than mine. ;o)
>> >>
>> >>Cheers,
>> >>Kim.
>> >>
>> >>"Deej" <animixnosrapamus@animas.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>I've been carrying on a few offline conversations with folks here and
>> I'm
>> >>>not sure if I've received any PM's or if you (and you know who *you*
>are
>> >>>;o) got the last ones I sent. My ISP has been torpedoed somehow and
>they
>> >>>have been scrambling to get backup servers working for the entire day.
>> They
>> >>>say that all incoming e-mail should show up once things are back on
>track,
>> >>>but for now, the whole of animas.net is toast......if anyone has been
>> trying
>> >>>to ping me, I've been unpingable and have been incapable of
>establishing
>> >>>contact with the rest of the known universe.
>> >>>
>> >>>Deej
>> >
>>
>
>I used Logic on PC until moving to Nuendo. I never thought it was hard to
learn, but maybe I'm weird that way.
I agree with Lamont - it is probably the best sequencer out there. Audio,
not as nice as Nuendo, but certainly
workable. I still have a soft spot for Logic even though I don't use it
much.
Did I read right in this thread that it still doesn't have sample accurate
editing for audio?
As far as the new Macs go, I hope they are as fast as comparable PCs, and
priced competitively. Perhaps
then both companies would have level competition to force better operating
systems, hardware, apps, etc..
....okay, I'm dreaming now...
I can't see moving back to Logic just for the new Apogee hardware, but I
like the concept and claims of tight
integration with Logic. I guess Apple really is serious about pro audio
(either that or Apogee is hoping they are).
Regards,
Dedric
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:43d0087b@linux...
>
> I would think anyone who has used Logic 7.1 on a dual G5, (and who has
> used the current version of Logic enough to know and take advantage of its
> clever shortcuts and design strengths to get around its remaining
> shortcomings), could easily see that the system more than reasonably fast.
>
> Altivec, whatever, the system is amazing. I won't say perfect. But
> amazing, absolutely.
>
> I think I hear echos of obsolete info from the Logic 5, OS9, Wi95 days, or
> learning curve problems. It does take a few weeks to get on top of Logic
> and to know how to drive it for speed. For that reason and for the soft
> synth forgetfullness bug I don't always recommend Logic to newbies. But
> for anyone who wants incredible performance and features for the $$ and is
> willing to spend some time learning it, I recommend checking it out.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> James McCloskey 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
>>>>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 th
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62410 is a reply to message #62409] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 11:13 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
at 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.
>>
>>
>>>>>Apple is moving to the Intel processor to put some much needed juice
>>>>>behind
>>>>>their DAW. That's cool, except they apple have really let down a lot of
>>>>
>>>>users
>>>>
>>>>>who were conviced that their (our) G5 were the king of the hill.. You
>>
>> would
>>
>>>>>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 it less.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But version 7 was a good step toward cleaning up the GUI. As it
>>>>>>>>>works
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>&g
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? Mix it like A Record [message #62411 is a reply to message #62397] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 12:26 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t;>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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>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
>>>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.
>
>>>>
>>>>Apple is moving to the Intel processor to put some much needed juice
behind
>>>>their DAW. That's cool, except they apple have really let down a lot
of
>>>users
>>>>who were conviced that their (our) G5 were the king of the hill.. You
>would
>>>>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
>>&g
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? Mix it like A Record [message #62413 is a reply to message #62411] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 11:42 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;>>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 it less.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But version 7 was a good step toward cleaning up the GUI. As it works
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>Dedric Terry wrote:
> I used Logic on PC until moving to Nuendo. I never thought it was hard to
> learn, but maybe I'm weird that way.
> I agree with Lamont - it is probably the best sequencer out there. Audio,
> not as nice as Nuendo, but certainly
> workable. I still have a soft spot for Logic even though I don't use it
> much.
> Did I read right in this thread that it still doesn't have sample accurate
> editing for audio?
Hey Dedric, yep you read it but it was wrong...Logic 7.1 does have
sample accurate editing.
I continue to hear good things about Nuendo. What audio features do you
think it has that Logic lacks?
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
> As far as the new Macs go, I hope they are as fast as comparable PCs, and
> priced competitively. Perhaps
> then both companies would have level competition to force better operating
> systems, hardware, apps, etc..
> ...okay, I'm dreaming now...
>
> I can't see moving back to Logic just for the new Apogee hardware, but I
> like the concept and claims of tight
> integration with Logic. I guess Apple really is serious about pro audio
> (either that or Apogee is hoping they are).
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:43d0087b@linux...
>
>>I would think anyone who has used Logic 7.1 on a dual G5, (and who has
>>used the current version of Logic enough to know and take advantage of its
>>clever shortcuts and design strengths to get around its remaining
>>shortcomings), could easily see that the system more than reasonably fast.
>>
>>Altivec, whatever, the system is amazing. I won't say perfect. But
>>amazing, absolutely.
>>
>>I think I hear echos of obsolete info from the Logic 5, OS9, Wi95 days, or
>>learning curve problems. It does take a few weeks to get on top of Logic
>>and to know how to drive it for speed. For that reason and for the soft
>>synth forgetfullness bug I don't always recommend Logic to newbies. But
>>for anyone who wants incredible performance and features for the $$ and is
>>willing to spend some time learning it, I recommend checking it out.
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>James McCloskey 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,
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62453 is a reply to message #62395] |
Wed, 04 January 2006 20:27 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t;>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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>I just installed XP on my computer from ME. I downloaded the drivers and
PARIS appeared to be functioning correctly. Everytime I close PARIS, I get
a Driver error and then the A BLUE SCREEN. I read earlier post about this
subject, but it refers you to a link that no longer works. Can anyone detail
out how to solve this error? It mentioned something about the registery.
Ken SmithDoug,
I speak for many lurkers when I shout, "THANK YOU for your work"!
Edric
Mike R. <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:43cd7f7c@linux...
> Hey Doug,
> HaPPy anniversary! And, thank you for this resource. I've used it many
> times over the past two years. Its gotten me out of a jam each time.
> MR
>
> "Doug Wellington" <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote in message
> news:43cd2a15$1@linux...
> > After seeing requests for XP install instructions and ASIO drivers, I'd
> just
> > like to point out that they've been posted at http://www.parisfaqs.com
for
> > some time. If you're looking for something about Paris and it's not on
> the
> > site, send me an email and I'll see what I can do...
> >
> > As a matter of fact, I created the site two years ago on January 17th!
> >
> > --
> > -Doug
> >
> > http://www.parisfaqs.com
> >
> >
>
>Ok, I'm assuming you still have the 442 attached to card B on your computer.
Right? Go into the patchbay, grab mixer B and drag it to the patch area. Now
you can route the 442's inputs to whatever channels on Mixer-B you want.
Don't worry about the Mixer-B left and right outputs as they are
automatically routed to the card A masters.
Now, If I were you, I'd switch my MEC and 442 SCSI cables. That would put
the 442 on card A. Now Mixer-A in the patchbay will connect to the 442.
Route the Mixer-A outputs to whatever outputs you want on the 442. Route
the inputs from your MEC to Mixer-B. Now you can record using the MEC inputs
to whatever submix you have assigned to card B and also record from the 442
to the submix assigned to card A. So for example, in my case I have a MEC
with an eight input card and a 442. So from the Mec I can record 12 inputs,
plus from the 442 I can record 4 inputs (this isn't counting the spdif
in's). So now I have 16 tracks recorded, 12 on one submix, and 4 on another
for a total of 16. Now I go into the submix 1 editor window and remove the
four tracks from the playing field. Then go into submix 2 and drag those
same four tracks out of the Audio Bin to the playing field. So I've used all
the analog inputs to record 16 tracks simulataneously, then moved 4 so
they'd all be in one submix. Submix 2 which is assigned to card B. Now card
A which is assigned to submix 1 is open for global inserts. You can also use
submix 1 for any tracks you won't need EDS FX on and you won't take up any
DSP from card A.
I'm not great at explaining stuff, so I hope this helps at least a bit. The
best thing would be for you to read the patchbay section of the PARIS
manual. The concept is a little hard to understand until you mess around a
bit in there. If you're like me, a light bulb will pop on after a while and
everything will be clear. Let me know if you need more help and I'll give
you my phone number. If we were both sitting in front of PARIS, I could have
you running in two minutes.
Tony
On 1/19/06 6:38 PM, in article 43d03167@linux, "Kent"
<kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I can drag the 442 to the patchbay, but I can't hook it up to anything.
>
> Kent
>
> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
> news:43cff0d0@linux...
>> Kent,
>>
>> You should be able to drag the 442 to the patch window in the patchbay.
> I'm
>> not in front of my PARIS rig, so I can't walk you through this right now.
>> Mostly cause my brain is too small to remember the steps! If no one else
>> helps you out, I'll try to get back to you tonight.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfee84@linux...
>>> Little confused how to monitor from the 442. In the patchbay, if I set
>>> the
>>> 442 as A, I have no connections to either the 442 or the MEC (default
>>> saved
>>> with MEC as A.) Can I make the monitor connections for the 442 and the
>>> input connections for the MEC in the patch bay? If not, how do I make
> the
>>> connections? Thanks.
>>>
>>> Kent
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
>>> news:43cfeb8c@linux...
>>>> Yes, the physical connection to cards A & B can't be changed in the
>>>> software. What I would do is connect your 442 to card A and monitor
> from
>>>> that either analog or spdif out. Connect your MEC to card B and record
> to
>>>> that. That way card A and the 442 is always open for the global EDS
>>> inserts.
>>>> I have a three card system and change the card assignments around all
> the
>>>> time. I just wait until I'm ready to mix before adding the global
> inserts
>>> to
>>>> the submix with the most open resources.
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Kent" <kent510745@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43cfe3aa@linux...
>>>>> That's what I was doing, but everytime I switch submixes, I lose my
>>> global
>>>>> inserts. Not that big of deal, I guess, pretty easy to throw them
> back
>>>>> in.
>>>>> I was just hoping I could add my 442, then record on either the MEC
> or
>>>>> 442.
>>>>> Guess not. Welcome to ParisWorld.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Tony,
>>>>>
>>>>> Kent
>>>>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:43cfe284@linux...
>>>>>> Kent,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can always switch the card assignment in the master output
> window
>>>>> during
>>>>>> mixing. Just make Card A's submix a virtual mix temporarily. Switch
>>> Card
>>>>>> B
>>>>>> to Card A. Then Switch Card A's virtual mix to Card B.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62474 is a reply to message #62383] |
Thu, 05 January 2006 02:50 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
NAMM.
>> >
>> >Saffire Pro 26i/o
>>
>> http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM06/Content/Focusrite/PR /Saffire-Pro-26
>i-o.html
>> >
>> >http://mackie.com/comingsoon06.html
>> >
>> >U-Control, phono amp, and USB mixers
>> >http://behringer.com/
>> >
>> >Alesis IO 14 & 26
>> >
>> >alesis.com
>> >
>> >Tascam Guitar AMP, also Tascam GVI
>> >
>> >http://tascam.com/Products/ga100cd.html
>> >
>> >
>> >I hope we can get some good show reports from Dave and others!
>> >
>> >James
>>
>
>I use this Jammer Pro 6.
http://www.soundtrek.com/content/index.php
I rough the songs out, using my Ensoniq MR 76 as the sound engine, save them
as midi files, import the midi file into Cubase SX and drop VSTi's on the
midi tracks, then layer my audio tracks in Paris, timeline locked to SX (I
guess someone could actually *record* directly to SX too ;o)
In Jammer, I enter the chord progression in the style that most closely
suits the song directly into the application, tweak it as needed, then I
can print out a chord chart for a *real* session player for the final
tracking if midi isn't getting it.
Very flexible, powerful. and fast once you get your head around it. I used
to be a wizard with this program. I just upgraded it and there are tons of
new features I haven't gotten my head around yet so that's the next learning
curve.
No loops though. It's all midi. With VSTi's and especially BFD for drums,
midi will never be the same.
Deej
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43d158bb$1@linux...
>
> Is there an inexpensive software program for song writing, music
production
> for the PC? Something like GarageBand, that incorporates, loops, sample
> player, multi track record DAW, with Acid kind of features?
>
> The only think I can think of is Steinberg's Studio Case, but that cost
about
> $250.00. The entire iLife suit with GarageBand cost $79.00, $59.00
academic.
>
>
> Any ideas would be appreciated.
>
>
> JamesI agree with the guys, acid ain't too bad. I have it on a laptop with
fruity loops and between the two you can really crank out some cool stuff.
James McCloskey wrote:
>Hey LaMont! I think Acid might be the ticket. I have older versions of Acid
>and Live. I think I'll try out the new Demos.
>
>James
>
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Acid.. You can record audio & midi as well as loops..it comes with a few
>>
>>
>cool
>
>
>>virtual instruments or you can use your own vstis.
>>
>>The other Reasons..Great app for composing and writing..
>>
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Is there an inexpensive software program for song writing, music production
>>>for the PC? Something like GarageBand, that incorporates, loops, sample
>>>player, multi track record DAW, with Acid kind of features?
>>>
>>>The only think I can think of is Steinberg's Studio Case, but that cost
>>>
>>>
>>about
>>
>>
>>>$250.00. The entire iLife suit with GarageBand cost $79.00, $59.00 academic.
>>>
>>>
>>>Any ideas would be appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>>James
>>>
>>>
>
>
>Indeed. Well, and simply, said.
One of my heroes. A great, great voice, one of the guiding lights of
20th-centruy music. The fact that he worked with the greatest studio band of
the rock era didn't hurt....
Jimmy
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8kc2t1d505ikdtvjddhgp2hl6idjocomr2@4ax.com...
> the old greats are starting to go...can't say i'm thrilled with what
> has taken their places...a sad day.
>HI James,
If need something that can record audio and midi seq and such I would
suggest Mackie Traktion. Cheap and has some kick ass features.
Chris
James McCloskey wrote:
> Hey LaMont! I think Acid might be the ticket. I have older versions of Acid
> and Live. I think I'll try out the new Demos.
>
> James
>
>
> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>Acid.. You can record audio & midi as well as loops..it comes with a few
>
> cool
>
>>virtual instruments or you can use your own vstis.
>>
>>The other Reasons..Great app for composing and writing..
>>
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Is there an inexpensive software program for song writing, music production
>>>for the PC? Something like GarageBand, that incorporates, loops, sample
>>>player, multi track record DAW, with Acid kind of features?
>>>
>>>The only think I can think of is Steinberg's Studio Case, but that cost
>>
>>about
>>
>>>$250.00. The entire iLife suit with GarageBand cost $79.00, $59.00 academic.
>>>
>>>
>>>Any ideas would be appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>>James
>>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762Hi Jamie,
Haven't tested the pre's yet. I was trying to today but ran into a routing problem with Pro Tools. After many attempts I finally called M-audio.
Apparently with PT you can't output adat optical to your interface, so I needed to use the spdif outputs (can't even use optical spdif), which only gives a stereo out. This is a limitation that really sucks. My primary use is as a control surface, but I'll try the pre's again when I can get a longer spdif cable. Right now it's too far away to make the connection. I had a nice 10 foot toslink cable that I assumed would work, but I guess not.
I hope they fix this in a software update. It's a bit of a joke considering Digi now owns M-Audio.
As far as the Variax, I am going to give it another shot when I have time. It does need a proper setup, and maybe a string change. I do like the sound, it just seems a more compressed sounding than the Seagull, even with the compressor turned all the way down.
Cheers,
TC
Jamie K wrote:
> TC wrote:
>
>> The Project Mix I/O is also pretty cool, although the master fader is
>> completely useless in protools. Haven't completely put it to the test
>> yet but so far so good.
>
>
> What do you think of the mic pres?
>
>
> Could be luck of the draw. Mine plays great. As far as the sound goes,
> be sure to play with the mic placement control on each model to fine
> tune the sound.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> TCHi James,
Best thing about the Open labs thing is the Firebox...:)
The Muse Research thing is neat but I've never it do anything a PC can't
already do just as well or better for less money. The box is neat
looking. The boxes main problem is that it is a way under powered P4. I
can run more plug ins on my machine than this can already.
If the UNiwire works like FX Teleport then it should work fine with Paris.
I think a PC or now mac laptop with that new KORE thing from NI might
have some very cool potential.
The Roland VP-550 looks like it might be fun.
Chris
James McCloskey wrote:
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>
>>>wonder if this would work with Paris XP in real time???
>>
>> http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM06/Content/MuseResearch /PR/UniWire.html
>>
>>Does the Muse Receptor have a PCI slot wht would accept a hast card from
>
> a
>
>>Magma loaded with UAD-1's and POCO's ?
>
>
> The short answer is, no PCI slots, but you might want to watch the hardware
> video, it may give you some ideas.
>
> http://www.museresearch.com/movies/Receptor_Part_2.mov
>
> James
>
>
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:43d14b04$1@linux...
>>
>>>More stuff!
>>>
>>>I wonder if this would work with Paris XP in real time???
>>>
>>
>> http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM06/Content/MuseResearch /PR/UniWire.html
>>
>>>Yamaha USB mixing studio
>>> http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM06/Content/Yamaha/PR/MW 10-MW12.html
>>>
>>>Violet Audio ADP61" 24bit 192kHz Studio AV Preamp Decoder
>>> http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM06/Content/VioletAudio/ PR/ADP61.html
>>>
>>>Talk back, headphone
>>>
>>
>> http://na
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62512 is a reply to message #62385] |
Thu, 05 January 2006 11:56 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
com> wrote:
>
>Celemony Software Announces Support For Intel Macs
>
> http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM06/Content/Celemony/PR/ Intel-Mac-Melodyne-Support.html
>
>Roland Adds Support For New Intel-Driven Apple Macs
>
> http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM06/Content/Roland/PR/In tel-Mac-Drivers.html
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>More development and support for Intel based Macs
>>
>> http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM06/Content/Ableton/PR/L ive-5.2.html
>>
>> http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM06/Content/Steinberg/PR /Intel-Mac-Develpment.html
>>
>>http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/01/19/finale/index.php
>>
>>http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/01/19/native/index.php
>>
>>http://www.nativeinstruments.de/index.php?id=intelmac_us
>>
>> http://www.motu.com/newsitems/atnewsitem.2006-01-10.68061887 08
>when do you think they'll drop support for the non intel macs?
seriously, if it's being rewritten for new hardware how long will they
dual platform it.
On 21 Jan 2006 15:15:28 +1000, "LaMont" jjdpro2ameritech.net wrote:
>
>To all logic audio fans, here a link that talks about the new version of Logic
>Audio.
>http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1483Hey James,
Just thought you might want to have a look at PG Music's software.
I've been using "Band-in-a-Box" (terrible name for a great program that's
been around since 1992!!) for years and love it. They have a sequencing
program called Power Tracks that looks good too.
http://www.pgmusic.com/powertracks.htm
GB
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Is there an inexpensive software program for song writing, music production
>for the PC? Something like GarageBand, that incorporates, loops, sample
>player, multi track record DAW, with Acid kind of features?
>
>The only think I can think of is Steinberg's Studio Case, but that cost
about
>$250.00. The entire iLife suit with GarageBand cost $79.00, $59.00 academic.
>
>
>Any ideas would be appreciated.
>
>
>JamesIs this good for both win98se and xp?
*** PARIS Configuration ***
*** ENGINE configuration parameters ***
* Cache Size in MB
CacheSize=128
* Overview cache size in KB
OvwCacheSize=8192
* I/O configuration
IOSize=256
* SubMix Cache Size in KB
SubMixCacheSize=256
ManualRecDelay=4096
RecXFadeLen=20
Use32BitWinMTC=0
DisableDirectX=0
MasterOutputCard=0
ScrubMaxRate=1
WheelSensitivity=20
WheelInertia=68
CSProVersion=ABCDEFGH
VSTDirectory=C:\Program Files\steinberg\vstplugins\
MIDIPlayDisabled=1Tom, adding the extension should work, so there's something else going on
here. Are you adding the .sd2 in windows, before paris sees it? Are the data
disks being burned in ISO 9660?
Are they really sd2 files? (I've had DP guys send aiff files to me and swore
they were sd2's) You could open it in wavelab and check out the properties.
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>Tony,
>I'm on PC for Paris. All files are 16bit up to this point.
>I know BFD is eating his G4 for lunch so 16bit is all
>he can afford to use. It's R&R so it's fine that way.
>Tom
>
> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message =
>news:43d16d16@linux...
> Does the .paf/.wav utility for PC work for this? Duh, are you running
=
>PARIS=20
> on a PC or a Mac would be a better first question! I transfer files =
>from DP=20
> to PARIS (24 bits at that) all the time using Sonicworx to convert =
>.wav to=20
> .paf, but I'm Mac on both programs.
>
> Tony
>
>
> "Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message =
>news:43d14599@linux...
> I've done this before but it's been a while. What I
> recall working was just changing the extension
> from the SDII from DP Mac files to SD2 for Paris.
> The files I'm getting are not working now though.
> Something has changed in his print method.
>
> The client has been burning CDRs for me using Toast.
> He has tried burning data disks, music disks,
> .wav, .SDII to no avail. All files have been 16bit.
>
> Tips?
> Tom=20
>
>
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
><STYLE></STYLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tony,</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm on PC for Paris. All files =
>are 16bit up=20
>to this point.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I know BFD is eating his G4 for lunch =
>so 16bit is=20
>all</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>he can afford to use. It's =
>R&R so it's=20
>fine that way.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tom</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><BLOCKQUOTE=20
>style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
>BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV>"Tony Benson" <<A=20
> =
>href=3D"mailto:tony@standinghampton.com">tony@standinghampton.com</A>>=
> wrote=20
> in message <A =
>href=3D"news:43d16d16@linux">news:43d16d16@linux</A>...</DIV>Does=20
> the .paf/.wav utility for PC work for this? Duh, are you running PARIS
=
><BR>on=20
> a PC or a Mac would be a better first question! I transfer files from
=
>DP=20
> <BR>to PARIS (24 bits at that) all the time using Sonicworx to convert
=
>.wav to=20
> <BR>.paf, but I'm Mac on both programs.<BR><BR>Tony<BR><BR><BR>"Tom =
>Bruhl"=20
> <<A href=3D"mailto:arpegio@comcast.net">arpegio@comcast.net</A>> =
>wrote in=20
> message <A =
>href=3D"news:43d14599@linux">news:43d14599@linux</A>...<BR>I've done=20
> this before but it's been a while. What I<BR>recall working was =
>just=20
> changing the extension<BR>from the SDII from DP Mac files to SD2 for=20
> Paris.<BR>The files I'm getting are not working now =
>though.<BR>Something has=20
> changed in his print method.<BR><BR>The client has been burning CDRs =
>for me=20
> using Toast.<BR>He has tried burning data disks, music disks,<BR>.wav,
=
>.SDII=20
> to no avail. All files have been 16bit.<BR><BR>Tips?<BR>Tom=20
><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>
>"Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote:
>I'm surprised that it sounds so much better than the Avalon. How much was
>the Portico?
>
>Bill
In my estimation it does sound significantly better than the Avalon. They
also have a model a 5032 which is a mono pre with EQ(the 5012 is a dual sided
pre).
When I purchased the 5012 it was $1,440.00 ($700.00 per pre if you will).
I was told the price would change to somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,640.00.
I've also read good reviews about the 5042 "True Tape" emulator.
http://www.rupertneve.com/
TyroneI had the pleasure of playing with Wilson many years ago. Great guy and a
great talent.
Mike
Paul Braun <cygnus_nospam@ctgonline.org> wrote:
>On 20 Jan 2006 09:42:32 +1000, "Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote:
>
>>
>>I know we've all had to play "Mustang Sally" WAAAY too many
>>times, but man, I loved this guy's voice. He just had "it".
>>
>>I don't know where he's been since 1970, but just thought I would
>>acknowledge his passing today...
>>
>
>I was at Buddy Guy's Legends last night (Thursday) to see Buddy play.
>He acknowledged Pickett's passing, and later on in the set, he invited
>Jim Peterik (who's a good friend of his) to come up and jam with him
>and the band on "Mustang Sally". It was Jim's idea, but oddly enough
>Jim had come up with it a couple of days earlier, before Pickett died.
>
>The whole house was rockin' to that one.
>
>Ya know, for a 69-year-old dude, Guy still smokes. And I mean that in
>a musical sense.
>
>pabHey James,
I think we al pretty much expected this due to the both Intel's and AmD's
Operton dual cores are much more costly even to PC builders than a single
core processor.
Personaly, I would like to see Apple build a single core Intel P4 macine
for everyday buisness and or low end music video machine. great work still
can be done on single core processors. This way, they can gain even more
market share.
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>http://cestockblog.com/article/5966I think the brain trust at a Apple and Emagic coulld support the current version
without any problems. rick <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote:
>when do
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62513 is a reply to message #62397] |
Thu, 05 January 2006 12:00 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
you think they'll drop support for the non intel macs?
>seriously, if it's being rewritten for new hardware how long will they
>dual platform it.
>
>On 21 Jan 2006 15:15:28 +1000, "LaMont" jjdpro2ameritech.net wrote:
>
>>
>>To all logic audio fans, here a link that talks about the new version of
Logic
>>Audio.
>>http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1483
>You know it's kind of wierd if you can even SEE file extensions coming from
a Mac, if it's been burned to a CD. Are you sure that "SDII" is actually
the extension, and not something he added to the name. What I'm saying is,
are you actually changing the extension, or just part of the file name that
looks like the file extension. Just a thought.
Rod
"Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Tom, adding the extension should work, so there's something else going on
>here. Are you adding the .sd2 in windows, before paris sees it? Are the
data
>disks being burned in ISO 9660?
>Are they really sd2 files? (I've had DP guys send aiff files to me and swore
>they were sd2's) You could open it in wavelab and check out the properties.
>"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Tony,
>>I'm on PC for Paris. All files are 16bit up to this point.
>>I know BFD is eating his G4 for lunch so 16bit is all
>>he can afford to use. It's R&R so it's fine that way.
>>Tom
>>
>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message =
>>news:43d16d16@linux...
>> Does the .paf/.wav utility for PC work for this? Duh, are you running
>=
>>PARIS=20
>> on a PC or a Mac would be a better first question! I transfer files =
>>from DP=20
>> to PARIS (24 bits at that) all the time using Sonicworx to convert =
>>.wav to=20
>> .paf, but I'm Mac on both programs.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>> "Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message =
>>news:43d14599@linux...
>> I've done this before but it's been a while. What I
>> recall working was just changing the extension
>> from the SDII from DP Mac files to SD2 for Paris.
>> The files I'm getting are not working now though.
>> Something has changed in his print method.
>>
>> The client has been burning CDRs for me using Toast.
>> He has tried burning data disks, music disks,
>> .wav, .SDII to no avail. All files have been 16bit.
>>
>> Tips?
>> Tom=20
>>
>>
>>
>><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>><HTML><HEAD>
>><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
>><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
>><STYLE></STYLE>
>></HEAD>
>><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tony,</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm on PC for Paris. All files =
>>are 16bit up=20
>>to this point.</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I know BFD is eating his G4 for lunch
=
>>so 16bit is=20
>>all</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>he can afford to use. It's =
>>R&R so it's=20
>>fine that way.</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tom</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>><BLOCKQUOTE=20
>>style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
>>BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
>> <DIV>"Tony Benson" <<A=20
>> =
>>href=3D"mailto:tony@standinghampton.com">tony@standinghampton.com</A>>=
>> wrote=20
>> in message <A =
>>href=3D"news:43d16d16@linux">news:43d16d16@linux</A>...</DIV>Does=20
>> the .paf/.wav utility for PC work for this? Duh, are you running PARIS
>=
>><BR>on=20
>> a PC or a Mac would be a better first question! I transfer files from
>=
>>DP=20
>> <BR>to PARIS (24 bits at that) all the time using Sonicworx to convert
>=
>>.wav to=20
>> <BR>.paf, but I'm Mac on both programs.<BR><BR>Tony<BR><BR><BR>"Tom =
>>Bruhl"=20
>> <<A href=3D"mailto:arpegio@comcast.net">arpegio@comcast.net</A>> =
>>wrote in=20
>> message <A =
>>href=3D"news:43d14599@linux">news:43d14599@linux</A>...<BR>I've done=20
>> this before but it's been a while. What I<BR>recall working was =
>>just=20
>> changing the extension<BR>from the SDII from DP Mac files to SD2 for=20
>> Paris.<BR>The files I'm getting are not working now =
>>though.<BR>Something has=20
>> changed in his print method.<BR><BR>The client has been burning CDRs
=
>>for me=20
>> using Toast.<BR>He has tried burning data disks, music disks,<BR>.wav,
>=
>>.SDII=20
>> to no avail. All files have been 16bit.<BR><BR>Tips?<BR>Tom=20
>><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>>
>>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C61E89.429A5040
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey Tom,
I used my Atari 1040st and Dr. T's for about ten years. The midi timing =
was excellent, and the latency was non existent. I swear that on my =
version of Logic (4.0) there is some minute lag between midi key press =
and tone. I probably would have stuck with the good doctor had I been =
able to afford access to more midi channels sooner. I keep thinking =
about moving over to Cubase for audio, but Paris continues to serve my =
purposes well, as does Logic four point frekin O.
Cheers,
MR
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message =
news:43d1b2e8@linux...
Mike,
I've had a 100 Meg drive on my Amiga and I'm still kicking booty
over here. Been using it since 1990. I do have to delete
about 5-10 Meg every six months or so because it gets full.
Midi and word processing files/OS etc. are all it's responsible for
these days. I've been really trying to get my Cubase chops
up to snuff so I can get into this millennium once and for all.
Tom
"Mike R." <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:43d19fab@linux...
That is one big a** drive.
I remember when my studio guru got his first Mac. It had a one meg =
hard
drive and we both thought he'd never be able to fill it. Of course =
it was
1985 and midi was just starting to happen. Ah, the good 'ol days... =
NOT.
MR
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43d0782a$1@linux...
>
> Thought I'd mention this. I haven't checked HD prices lately, but =
this
looked
> reasonable. WD 400GB Serial ATA for $187.50 shipped.
>
>
=
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode= 3D101254&affi=
liate=3Ddealnews
>
> James
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C61E89.429A5040
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1522" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hey Tom,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I used my Atari 1040st and Dr. T's for =
about ten=20
years. The midi timing was excellent, and the latency was non=20
existent. I swear that on my version of Logic (4.0) there is some =
minute=20
lag between midi key press and tone. I probably would have stuck =
with the=20
good doctor had I been able to afford access to more midi channels =
sooner. =20
I keep thinking about moving over to Cubase for audio, but Paris =
continues to=20
serve my purposes well, as does Logic four point frekin O.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Cheers,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>MR</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Tom Bruhl" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:arpegio@comcast.net">arpegio@comcast.net</A>> wrote =
in message=20
<A href=3D"news:43d1b2e8@linux">news:43d1b2e8@linux</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Mike,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I've had a 100 Meg drive on my Amiga =
and I'm=20
still kicking booty</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>over here. Been using it since =
1990. =20
I do have to delete</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>about 5-10 Meg every six months or so =
because it=20
gets full.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Midi and word processing files/OS =
etc. are=20
all it's responsible for</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>these days. I've been really =
trying to get=20
my Cubase chops</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>up to snuff so I can get into this =
millennium=20
once and for all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tom</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Mike R." <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:emarenot@yahoo.com">emarenot@yahoo.com</A>> wrote =
in message=20
<A href=3D"news:43d19fab@linux">news:43d19fab@linux</A>...</DIV>That =
is one=20
big a** drive.<BR>I remember when my studio guru got his first =
Mac. It=20
had a one meg hard<BR>drive and we both thought he'd never be able =
to fill=20
it. Of course it was<BR>1985 and midi was just starti
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62548 is a reply to message #62274] |
Thu, 05 January 2006 21:31 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C61F59.E3C7A460--Aaron, how the heck do you know all this stuff!!?? Amazing man.
Thanks again.
MR
"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
news:43d3c7f9$1@linux...
> Mike, for max performance out of that card, you should be running the KX
> project drivers.
> http://kxproject.lugosoft.com/index.php?skip=1
>
> AA
>
>
> "Mike R." <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:43d3af1e@linux...
> > Since I've been having such a good time playing with these free little
> > softsynth beasties, I thought I'd throw out some of my impressions for
> > anybody that's interested.
> >
> > First off, there's ALOT of free synths out there. I think I've got
about
> > twenty now. I'm running them in a simple version of Orion. Many of the
> > synths seem to be made with a program called "SynthEdit." This probably
> > (partly) explains why many seem to sound the similar. So far I've got a
> > few
> > favorites: Evol, two synths by a guy named HG Fortune (STS-21, and
> > Protoplasm), and another called Synth 1. I just downloaded Crystal,
which
> > may be pretty cool too, we'll see. I'm amazed at how responsive even my
> > SBLive card is. I haven't gotten more than a couple instances yet, but
> > the
> > card is hangin' in there at 10-13ms. Kind of surprising for such dated
> > technology.
> >
> > Well, just wanted to pass along some good gear vibes. I imagine most of
> > you
> > folks are probably already hip to all this. The first synth I messed
with
> > was an OB1 with four SEM modules, now I've got almost a score of synths
in
> > one Athlon based SEM -and their all free! Killer.
> > MR
> >
> >
>
>Damn, can you get that for a 160 these days? I guess I sold mine a few years
too early. What is the new amp?
Bill
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.org> wrote in message news:43d3b0c1$1@linux...
>
> Hi all,
>
> I found a guitar amp I really must have at NAMM, so the old
> compressors and 9 old mics have to go.
>
> My Paris buddies get free shipping and handling
>
> http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZtoasterdonQQhtZ-1
>
> best,
>
> DCJust curious. I'm doing most of my fader moves in Sx when I mix but with so
many instruments going, I'm needing to duck certain fders when others are
raised. This is one of the coolest things about Paris. Now I've got
automation going on both comps. It's pretty cool to see all of this
movement, but it would be much, much simpler if it were possible to do this
on just one app.......in my particular case, Cubase SX..........yeah, I
know, there are workarounds. I just like how Paris does it and I want SX to
do it the same way.
;o)"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>I've been reading you posts about this.Looks like you're really happy with
>it. Guess I'll have to check one out ..........soon.
>
>;o)
Deej, you mean you haven't gotten one yet???....sacrilege ;-). I do like
it allot. I think it's definitely worth your while to check it out!
TyroneKing Crimson, and tons of session work. I got to hang with him a little around
the height of MM. Cool guy.
Rod
"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>Pat ROCKS man. Go On is a masterpiece in a lot of ways.
>Any ide
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62551 is a reply to message #62548] |
Thu, 05 January 2006 23:50 |
lamont jjdproamerietc
Messages: 1
Registered: January 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
br />
>If they are .wav files, use them as is. You might have to run them through
stripwave.
Rod
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>Rod,
>I am adding the sd2 in Windows by retyping sd2 over SDII (or was it =
>wav?) then adding files
>in Paris. I recall this working 6 months ago with the same client. I =
>will be
>sure to have him make ISO 9660 disks too. Toast asks if you want to =
>burn
>a disk for MAC, PC-MAC or another level that says ISO 9660. I think he
>usually uses the PC-MAC setting. Once we tried ISO 9660 but there was
>still something wrong. Most often the files come up but won't play and
=
>have no overview.
>
>Thanks for the help,
>Tom
> "Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote in message =
>news:43d2708f$1@linux...
>
> You know it's kind of wierd if you can even SEE file extensions coming
=
>from
> a Mac, if it's been burned to a CD. Are you sure that "SDII" is =
>actually
> the extension, and not something he added to the name. What I'm saying
=
>is,
> are you actually changing the extension, or just part of the file name
=
>that
> looks like the file extension. Just a thought.
> Rod
> "Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >Tom, adding the extension should work, so there's something else =
>going on
> >here. Are you adding the .sd2 in windows, before paris sees it? Are =
>the
> data
> >disks being burned in ISO 9660?
> >Are they really sd2 files? (I've had DP guys send aiff files to me =
>and swore
> >they were sd2's) You could open it in wavelab and check out the =
>properties.
> >"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>Tony,
> >>I'm on PC for Paris. All files are 16bit up to this point.
> >>I know BFD is eating his G4 for lunch so 16bit is all
> >>he can afford to use. It's R&R so it's fine that way.
> >>Tom
> >>
> >> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message =3D
> >>news:43d16d16@linux...
> >> Does the .paf/.wav utility for PC work for this? Duh, are you =
>running
> >=3D
> >>PARIS=3D20
> >> on a PC or a Mac would be a better first question! I transfer =
>files =3D
> >>from DP=3D20
> >> to PARIS (24 bits at that) all the time using Sonicworx to convert
=
>=3D
> >>.wav to=3D20
> >> .paf, but I'm Mac on both programs.
> >>
> >> Tony
> >>
> >>
> >> "Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message =3D
> >>news:43d14599@linux...
> >> I've done this before but it's been a while. What I
> >> recall working was just changing the extension
> >> from the SDII from DP Mac files to SD2 for Paris.
> >> The files I'm getting are not working now though.
> >> Something has changed in his print method.
> >>
> >> The client has been burning CDRs for me using Toast.
> >> He has tried burning data disks, music disks,
> >> .wav, .SDII to no avail. All files have been 16bit.
> >>
> >> Tips?
> >> Tom=3D20
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> >><HTML><HEAD>
> >><META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; =3D
> >>charset=3D3Diso-8859-1">
> >><META content=3D3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3D3DGENERATOR>
> >><STYLE></STYLE>
> >></HEAD>
> >><BODY bgColor=3D3D#ffffff>
> >><DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>Tony,</FONT></DIV>
> >><DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>I'm on PC for Paris. All files
=
>=3D
> >>are 16bit up=3D20
> >>to this point.</FONT></DIV>
> >><DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>I know BFD is eating his G4 for
=
>lunch
> =3D
> >>so 16bit is=3D20
> >>all</FONT></DIV>
> >><DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>he can afford to use. It's =3D
> >>R&R so it's=3D20
> >>fine that way.</FONT></DIV>
> >><DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>Tom</FONT></DIV>
> >><DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> >><BLOCKQUOTE=3D20
> >>style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEF
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62574 is a reply to message #62551] |
Fri, 06 January 2006 08:57 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
have to go.
>>
>> My Paris buddies get free shipping and handling
>>
>> http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZtoasterdonQQhtZ-1
>>
>> best,
>>
>> DC
>
>Yeh sorry about that. It was 43C yesterday in Melbourne. I went to a freinds
house with air conditioning and a swimming pool. Meanwhile, when the whole
city turned on the air conditioner at the same time the power went out in
my suburb for long enough to drain the UPS...
At least we're headed for a more mild 26 today.
Cheers,
Kim.what amp ????
DC wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I found a guitar amp I really must have at NAMM, so the old
> compressors and 9 old mics have to go.
>
> My Paris buddies get free shipping and handling
>
> http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZtoasterdonQQhtZ-1
>
> best,
>
> DCI found today that if I added a new plugin and opened it up before
pressing play that I got a stream error but if I left it closed, pressed
play and opened it while playing there was no problem. Anyone else seen
this behaviour? The plug was waves Rvox.
JohnCan anyone recommend a killer preamp for bass guitar. I want something
cheap that sounds fantastic. Shouldn't be a problem right? Ideally it
would do Chris Squire distorted, drop octave stuff but hey, I'll be
thrilled just to get a good bass sound.
I currently have a sans amp for bass but I think it sounds like crap, no
round bottom, weak output, what could be worse? My hero Scott Ambush
plays an Eden Navigator preamp, fed into a QSC 3500 power amp, driving
an Eden 4x10 cabinet but I won't be able to afford that any time soon.
Anything cheap and good?
JohnJohn wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a killer preamp for bass guitar. I want something
> cheap that sounds fantastic. Shouldn't be a problem right? Ideally it
> would do Chris Squire distorted, drop octave stuff but hey, I'll be
> thrilled just to get a good bass sound.
>
> I currently have a sans amp for bass but I think it sounds like crap, no
> round bottom, weak output, what could be worse? My hero Scott Ambush
> plays an Eden Navigator preamp, fed into a QSC 3500 power amp, driving
> an Eden 4x10 cabinet but I won't be able to afford that any time soon.
>
> Anything cheap and good?
>
> John
What bass are you using? That's hands down the biggest factor.
I've tracked my Warwick Thumb 5 through a Sans Amp Bass Driver DI direct into Paris and it sounded amazing, big fat round and aggressive..
Cheers,
TC"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:43d40cbf@linux...
>I found today that if I added a new plugin and opened it up before pressing
>play that I got a stream error but if I left it closed, pressed play and
>opened it while playing there was no problem. Anyone else seen this
>behaviour? The plug was waves Rvox.
>
> John
Not here
DonThe bass is fine. It's a 5 string Ibanez attack bass and I've played it
through many other amps and it sounds great. Maybe this sansamp I have
is a dud because I notice many people are very happy with theirs. How
much clean output can you get (meaning without pushing drive to
distort). I can barely get -10db out of this one.
TC wrote:
> John wrote:
>
>> Can anyone recommend a killer preamp for bass guitar. I want
>> something cheap that sounds fantastic. Shouldn't be a problem right?
>> Ideally it would do Chris Squire distorted, drop octave stuff but hey,
>> I'll be thrilled just to get a good bass sound.
>>
>> I currently have a sans amp for bass but I think it sounds like crap,
>> no round bottom, weak output, what could be worse? My hero Scott
>> Ambush plays an Eden Navigator preamp, fed into a QSC 3500 power amp,
>> driving an Eden 4x10 cabinet but I won't be able to afford that any
>> time soon.
>>
>> Anything cheap and good?
>>
>> John
>
>
>
> What bass are you using? That's hands down the biggest factor.
>
> I've tracked my Warwick Thumb 5 through a Sans Amp Bass Driver DI direct
> into Paris and it sounded amazing, big fat round and aggressive..
>
> Cheers,
>
> TChttp://www.staramplifiers.com/
The Blues Star
DC
John <no@no.com> wrote:
>what amp ????
>
>DC wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I found a guitar amp I really must have at NAMM, so the old
>> compressors and 9 old mics have to go.
>>
>> My Paris buddies get free shipping and handling
>>
>> http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZtoasterdonQQhtZ-1
>>
>> best,
>>
>> DCI heard a rumor from an old engineer buddy of mine the other day, and I
don't recall having seen anything about it here. He was telling me that
word is Digidesign is considering stopping writing Protools software for Mac
because of their recent acquisition of Logic. He said he spoke with a local
Digidesign rep who said they could neither deny or confirm that rumor.
Last week I put in for a HD rig in my annual budget requests. Maybe I
should research some other options.
Speaking of options, I've been getting some recent emails about Soundscape
packages, and remembering that they offered incentives to Paris users after
the discontinuation, I was wondering did anyone here make that jump and
how's it working out?
Thanks,
ChrisHi John,
Could be a dud, I never had gain problems with mine.. Is it an active bass? Maybe that's part of why my Warwick sounds good with it. I also play with fingers but fairly agressively, so that adds some extra signal. I've also tracked with a SVT Pro 3, but these days I find myself just tracking DI for most stuff through my UA LA-610 and using plugins to tweak the sound.
I noticed they are coming out with an Ampeg bass plugin from IK Multimedia. I'm interested in hearing how that sounds..
You may also want to try the Avalon U5 for bass. Haven't used it but have heard good things.
Cheers,
TC
John wrote:
> The bass is fine. It's a 5 string Ibanez attack bass and I've played it
> through many other amps and it sounds great. Maybe this sansamp I have
> is a dud because I notice many people are very happy with theirs. How
> much clean output can you get (meaning without pushing drive to
> distort). I can barely get -10db out of this one.
>
> TC wrote:
>
>> John wrote:
>>
>>> Can anyone recommend a killer preamp for bass guitar. I want
>>> something cheap that sounds fantastic. Shouldn't be a problem
>>> right? Ideally it would do Chris Squire distorted, drop octave stuff
>>> but hey, I'll be thrilled just to get a good bass sound.
>>>
>>> I currently have a
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62648 is a reply to message #62574] |
Sat, 07 January 2006 19:05 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
could track 32 channels with all the effects going at once that
> >>would be more than anyone could buy hardware for.
> >
> >
> > Well hmmmm...you can pretty much do this in Paris, ..depending on how
many
> > FX your're planning to use you would need a multi card system The Paris
FX
> > work well for this, IMHO. that's what the whole dedicted DSP thing is
all
> > about.
> >
> > Deej
> >
> > "John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:43d7be34$1@linux...
> >
> >>If I could track 32 channels with all the effects going at once that
> >>would be more than anyone could buy hardware for.
> >>
> >>DJ wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't see the point. Hardware
> >>>still sounds better and the ultra high-end computer systems cost as
much
> >>>or more than good audio hardware.
> >>>
> >>>I agree with you. I built a fairly *mooselike* DAW recently to see if I
> >>>could get this happening. My dual core is running at almost 5000MHz (if
> >
> > you
> >
> >>>take both cores into account). Still, it's not ready for this kind of
> >
> > thing
> >
> >>>in any kind of critical scenario.
> >>>
> >>>Another thing I've found is that even with 4 x UAD-1 cards, if I get
> >
> > more
> >
> >>>than 17 UAD-1 plugins happening (with the UAD meter showing only ound
> >
> > 50%) I
> >
> >>>start getting crackling in the audio. I called UA about this yesterday
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>they said to drastically increaswe the buffer settings on my RME cards.
> >>>WTF??? I built this system so I could mix at low latencies (I have my
> >>>reasons for wanting to mix at low latencies) and now if I use even half
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>horsepower available to me with the UAD-1 cards, the whole scenario is
> >
> > in
> >
> >>>the toilet.
> >>>
> >>>Quad dual cores might be the ticket. When I can justify tht kind of
> >
> > expense
> >
> >>>for convenience, I'll probably just buy a Neve Capricorn instead.
> >>>
> >>>;o)
> >>>
> >>>"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:43d7ac51$1@linux...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I actually do this. The scenario outlined above is using a 256-sample
> >>>>>buffer. An RME card can use a 64-sample buffer, using a fast computer
> >
> > (I
> >
> >>>>use
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>an Athlon 3200). This gives 1.5ms latency per pass, or 6ms total
> >
> > latency
> >
> >>>>>with a UAD-1. I If you were to use 96k, you could cut the latency in
> >>>
> >>>half,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>but you would need a very fast computer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Now getting my PC to do this was no easy task. I had to turn off most
> >
> > XP
> >
> >>>>>services, and I have to disable my network card. I get no audible
> >>>
> >>>glitches,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>but who knows if I'm dropping samples, so I only do this when I'm
> >
> > messing
> >
> >>>>>around. For serious recording, I jack the buffer up to 1024 samples
and
> >>>>
> >>>>use
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Zero Latency Monitoring in the RME card.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So for me, at this time, this is not a solution for serious
recording,
> >>>
> >>>but
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>it can be done, and I think with the right system, with the proper
> >>>
> >>>tweaks,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>it can be done reliably.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I've done this as well. Using my G5 at 96, I can get down to 32
buffers
> >>>
> >>>and
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>get the UAD-1 down to 6ms, but it is incredibly taxing on the system.
> >>>
> >>>Perhaps
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>on a Quad, but other than for academic reasons, I don't see the point.
> >>>
> >>>Hardware
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>still sounds better and the ultra high-end computer systems cost as
much
> >>>>or more than good audio hardware.
> >>>>
> >>>>As to Quads..report to follow.
> >>>>Gene
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >Before exporting my DP files I use the "freeze" function. It works basically
like the render function in PARIS, except it actually renders all VST
inserts also. That way, all my DP files start at zero and are contiguous
from beginning to end. No timing problems that way. Make sure your friend
has auto latency compensation turned on in DP also. After the files are
"frozen", he can select them in the soundbites browser and select "export
as", etc.,etc. When you bring the files into PARIS, make sure you use the
time lock tool or pull all the files to the very beginning of the time line.
Should work fine.
Tony
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message news:43d71045@linux...
Tony,
Your technique worked great combined with
Gene's Wavelab batch processing idea. We
are still sussing out the Toast issues to know
just why it created such a problem.
Now we are having timing issues. My client
suggests that he thinks merging files in DP is the
only way to get timing correct. Does that
sound right?
Tom
"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
news:43d659aa$1@linux...
Tom,
Have your friend try to burn a disc directly from the finder. On Panther,
all he needs to do is insert a recordable cd into the internal drive. The
cd
will come up on his desktop. Drag the files to the cd icon (it might take
a
while for the files to copy over to the disc image). When done, double
click
the cd icon and click "Burn" on the upper right of the cd window. Maybe
Toast is doing something screwy? I quit using it because of some troubles,
but that was a few years ago.
Will the files from the disc he burned import back into DP? I mean are the
burned files valid on his Mac? If so, and you can't get this fixed, mail
me
the disc and I'll see if I can batch convert them for you. Let me know if
I
can help.
Tony
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:43d59b80$1@linux...
After every disk (we've burned over ten now) none of them
sounded audio or showed an overview.
I'm still trying everything in my power but I think the
clients software is what's holding us back. He's
using Panther/newest DP and newest Toast programs
on a G4 laptop.
Can someone sus out my Wavelab problem? I have an
original 3.01 disk with a 3.03 patch disk too. Neither
will allow it to start up in XP. Is this version just too old?
When starting Wavelab it gets into the program then stops
instantly with: "This application has failed to start because
HypGui.dll was not found. Reinstalling the application may
fix this problem." Needless to say it didn't.
What is the solution?
I haven't been frustrated in a long time. This is taking the cake.
TIA,
Tomeven after a lot of tweaking i'm not that impressed seriously
DJ wrote:
> If you're talking about the presets, yeah, I would agree.
>
> "John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:43d7c4c0$2@linux...
>
>>oh god, eds efx.. yuck
>>
>>DJ wrote:
>>
>>>>If I could track 32 channels with all the effects going at once that
>>>>would be more than anyone could buy hardware for.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well hmmmm...you can pretty much do this in Paris, ..depending on how
>
> many
>
>>>FX your're planning to use you would need a multi card system T
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62660 is a reply to message #62551] |
Sat, 07 January 2006 21:13 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t; >"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:43d6ab66$1@linux...
> > >>
> > >> My vote these are for the Dynaudio acoustics (BM5A or BM6A)s.
> > >> Very acurate sounding . You can hear "thru" your mixes.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/
> > >> LaMont
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "Rob Arsenault" <mani2@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> > >>>I am seriously close to pickin some up.
> > >>>Anyone have good or bad comments?
> > >>>Thanks a bunch.
> > >>>
> > >>>Rob A
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>I once did a post-production project (I don't master, I'm too deaf for that,
I just do post-pro so people can get CDs to duplication houses) in which
I got every single last bit of volume I could possibly get for a loud, punky
rock band. They wanted more. I said I couldn't do it without making it sound
like hell. They insisted. I agreed to do the work if and only if a) my name
would be nowhere on the CD and b) they would never tell anyone I had done
such horrible things.
TCB
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>Well as long as you guys are in sync, sonically speaking, then forge ahead!
>
>It's when the client, who has no fucking clue as to what they are doing
>insists their $0.02 are absolutely right and as the hired help you are
>obligated to acquiesce...while quietly (but quickly) removing your name
from
>every aspect of this abomination. ARGH!
>
>Don
>
>
>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>news:43d7c3c6$1@linux...
>> The further along this mix gets, the more the client is saying things
like
>> "ya' know", this is sounding so good to me that I think I'm going to get
>> *this or that* song to *so-and-so*. All of these so-and-so's are DJ's
he
>> knows on indy stations/ NPR affiliates.......and one of them is program
>> director on a major commercial station. He's got a lot of connections
and
>> family clout. I don't know if he has *that* much clout
>> or if any of this will happen but if it does, my name is going to be all
>> over this thing...recording, mixing and mastering engineer plus executive
>> co-producer...so I'm sweatin a little here.
>>
>> ;o}
>>
>> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:43d7c0aa$1@linux...
>>> > The verdict, IMO, is to save yourself lots of wailing, gnashing of
>> teeth,
>>> > rending of garments and tearing of hair and make sure your client has
a
>>> > mastering budget.
>>> >
>>> > ;o)
>>> >
>>>
>>> So true...I hate quasi-mastering
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>Hey Rob
You might also consider a pair of Tannoy Reveal (reds) with a sub woofer
(the 10" I think)
I have a friend who has freaking amazing ears and his mixes are truly
spectacular...and that's what he's mixing on. I heard shit on those monitors
that I'd never heard before. Then again he has an amazing front end. He
can't really crank the puppies but that's not his style so if volume is a
major criteria thay might not be suitable.
DOn
"Rob Arsenault" <mani2@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:43d7dce5@linux...
> Opps!!!! Guess this is US pricing......darn.!!!
>
>
> "Rob Arsenault" <mani2@NOSPAMnbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:43d7c4c1@linux...
>> There is a substantial price difference.
>> The 5As are $999.00 Vs 6As $1699.00 CA.
>> Are the 5As plenty loud Neil?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Neil" <IUOI@OIU.com> wrote in message news:43d784ff$1@linux...
>> >
>> > I'll second Lamont's opinion on the Dynaudios... I have a pair
>> > of the BM5A's and I think they're great.
>> >
>> > Neil
>> >
>> >
>> > "Rob Arsenault" <info@studiomanitou.com> wrote:
>> > >Thanks for the heads up on Dyns LaMont, I had heard about em but never
>> > >looked deeper. After a little googlin, I found that these have a
>> > >really
>> > good
>> > >rep online, some say they surpass HRs in many aspects. Gonna get some
>> > >pricing on these. Its tough buying monitors out here, nobody stocks
>> anything
>> >
>> > >so "try before you buy" is not really an option.
>> > >
>> > >Thanks
>> > >Rob
>> > >
>> > >"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:43d6ab66$1@linux...
>> > >>
>> > >> My vote these are for the Dynaudio acoustics (BM5A or BM6A)s.
>> > >> Very acurate sounding . You can hear "thru" your mixes.
>> > >>
>> > >> http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/
>> > >> LaMont
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> "Rob Arsenault" <mani2@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>> > >>>I am seriously close to pickin some up.
>> > >>>Anyone have good or bad comments?
>> > >>>Thanks a bunch.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>Rob A
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>Got any parameter numbers Dave?
Sounds interesting
DOn
"EK Sound" <spamnot.info@eksoundNO.com> wrote in message
news:43d7d56b@linux...
> Try layering a room verb set to stereo input with a plate for lead vocal.
> I have had really good success with this for A/C and Pop stuff.
>
> David.
>
> John wrote:
>
>> well for starters the verbs are lousy compared to IR stuff
>>
>> EK Sound wrote:
>>
>>> Which effects are you having a hard time with?
>>>
>>> David.
>>>
>>> John wrote:
>>>
>>>> even after a lot of tweaking i'm not that impressed seriously
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you're talking about the presets, yeah, I would agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> "John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:43d7c4c0$2@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>>> oh god, eds efx.. yuck
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>IMO The HR824's are not flat enough to mix with. They boost the LF so
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62661 is a reply to message #62648] |
Sun, 08 January 2006 00:04 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
you
end up not putting enough low end in your mix.
If you can afford to look into some Dynaudio BM6A's Ive been
mixing on them for a couple years, very accurate and clear.
If you want to go a step further get a D to A converter in front
of them. Like a Mytek or a Benchmark and SPIDIF out of PARIS.
It will change your whole world at mix down.
Rock On!!!
Dominic
"Rob Arsenault" <mani2@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>I am seriously close to pickin some up.
>Anyone have good or bad comments?
>Thanks a bunch.
>
>Rob A
>
>
>
>http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=2657
Okay, so what does this product mean?
1)Is this a Direct shot over Digidesign's bow?
2) Does this mean Apple and Apogee are going to go head up with the Big kohuna
AKA Digidesign??
3)This Product: Is it just a dedicated DSP Mixer,thus letting the Mac's cpu(s)
handle the recording and plugins?
4)* With all the "whining" I have been doing about the lack of nay DAW manfacturer
"Willing to " to head to toe with Digi. Could this be the Part Native solution/DSP
that you guys (Thad, Dedric,Jaimie,James,Bill, Neil) have been talking about???
If so, then, I stand corrected..AND, Once again, proves that the real forward
thinkers in the DAW world are right here in our little forum..You guys Rock!!!..
Thanks for letting me have my "State of The DAW" tantrum of sorts...:)
Interesting developments..Wow...Hi Rob..This is not true...Like all the Mackie monitor line, the Bass has a
selective roll-off on theback to "tune" the bass...Like I said,I use mine
with a subwoofer crossed over around 50 hz. I get very good mixes with
them... Here again,you are talking about adding converters that cost MORE
that the 824's . A pair of 824's are about $1,000. A pair of the Dynaudios
are $2,000...what is the point of comparison here..? Are we comparing Hondas
to Mercedes ?
"Dominic" <BERTSTUDUIO@aol.com> wrote in message news:43d7fcb2$1@linux...
>
> IMO The HR824's are not flat enough to mix with. They boost the LF so you
> end up not putting enough low end in your mix.
>
> If you can afford to look into some Dynaudio BM6A's Ive been
> mixing on them for a couple years, very accurate and clear.
> If you want to go a step further get a D to A converter in front
> of them. Like a Mytek or a Benchmark and SPIDIF out of PARIS.
>
> It will change your whole world at mix down.
> Rock On!!!
> Dominic
>
>
> "Rob Arsenault" <mani2@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:<
|
|
|
|
| Re: Pro tools summing bus revealed? [message #62665 is a reply to message #62660] |
Sun, 08 January 2006 01:33 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
not possible to my knowlefdge without routing the track from the Paris
> >> >insert sends into a summing device. Using the auxes is just a dead end
> >> >because you would still have to patch the insert sends to L & R Paris
> >auxes
> >> >and since you can't sum patch points on the aux module, what's the use
> in
> >> >that?
> >> >
> >> >Now back to the CR. Big mix to do, lots of acoustic instruments, with
> >track
> >> >counts in low 20's for the most part..........14 songs and needs to be
> >> >finished in two weeks. This wouldn't be a problem except I have a day
> job
> >> >that is very busy these days and some evenings I'm just too fried to
> feel
> >> >like firing up the beast and going to work all night (though that's
> >what's
> >> >happening right now).
> >> >
> >> >If I think of a workaround for this, I'll post it up here.
> >> >Sorry...........false hope sucks........I know.
> >> >
> >> >Deej
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >tonehouse" <zmcleod@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:43c83675$1@linux...
> >> >> Hi DJ...please tell us all how to do this....
> >> >> "> >
> >> >> > >You could use the Paris auxes to create stem mixes if you didn't
> >want
> >> >to
> >> >> > fly
> >> >> > >16 individual tracks to an external mixer..
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >;o)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >"Dominic" <bertstudio@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:43c7bbe7$1@linux...
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Looking for help mixing with PARIS outside the box.
> >> >> > >> How do you have it set up? What I was originally thinking was
> >> >> > >> to "external out" each channel but that would only get me 8
outs.
> >> >> > >> I an running 2 EDS cards so what is was thinking was to 8 out
> on
> >> >> > >> one card and 8 out on the other, but I would think there would
> >> >> > >> be an easier way.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Your advice would be greatly appreciated.
> >> >> > >> Thanx Dominic
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>"tonehouse" <zmcleod@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi Rob..This is not true...Like all the Mackie monitor line, the Bass has
a
>selective roll-off on theback to "tune" the bass...Like I said,I use mine
>with a subwoofer crossed over around 50 hz. I get very good mixes with
>them... Here again,you are talking about adding converters that cost MORE
>that the 824's . A pair of 824's are about $1,000. A pair of the Dynaudios
>are $2,000...what is the point of comparison here..? Are we comparing Hondas
>to Mercedes ?
>"Dominic" <BERTSTUDUIO@aol.com> wrote in message news:43d7fcb2$1@linux...
Tonehouse is correct. I also own the HR824's and my mix's translate quite
well...my room is a little "boomy" to boot! For me it rides on how well you
know your gear/room/etc. Depending on who's in the conversation, the degree
of variance can be quite significant in regards to what each person finds
is workable/tolerable. I know some really talented engineers who categorically
don't like Genelec's. I know others who won't mix on anything but...
I really like my HR824's and also find them to be a reasonably priced product.
Tyroneum.... i think apogee just gave the finger to digi.
jer
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:43d7fd6b$1@linux...
>
> http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=2657
>
> Okay, so what does this product mean?
> 1)Is this a Direct shot over Digidesign's bow?
>
> 2) Does this mean Apple and Apogee are going to go head up with the Big
kohuna
> AKA Digidesign??
>
> 3)This Product: Is it just a dedicated DSP Mixer,thus letting the Mac's
cpu(s)
> handle the recording and plugins?
>
> 4)* With all the "whining" I have been doing about the lack of nay DAW
manfacturer
> "Willing to " to head to toe with Digi. Could this be the Part Native
solution/DSP
> that you guys (Thad, Dedric,Jaimie,James,Bill, Neil) have been talking
about???
>
> If so, then, I stand corrected..AND, Once again, proves that the real
forward
> thinkers in the DAW world are right here in our little forum..You guys
Rock!!!..
> Thanks for letting me have my "State of The DAW" tantrum of sorts...:)
>
> Interesting developments..Wow...Sounds like the Dynaudios are working great for you, Dominic.
One nice feature of the HR824s is that you can adjust low end response
with a three-position switch on the back. And another for high freq
response.
Plus there's another three-position switch to adjust for the position of
the speakers in your studio relative to walls in order to compensate for
low frequency buildup.
So if your HR824s are set up to sound too boomy in your space you can
compensate. Did you have any luck with that?
Overall I've been pretty satisfied with the HR824 monitors for mixing.
In my current space I have them set standard flat (middle position on
the bass switch) and have them positioned away from walls. I use them
near field. When I listen to reference music they have good definition
and they don't sound like they are boosting LF. My mixes have held up
well on other systems.
The HR824s are a much better reference than my other monitors which
lacked good low end response.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Dominic wrote:
> IMO The HR824's are not flat enough to mix with. They boost the LF so you
> end up not putting enough low end in your mix.
>
> If you can afford to look into some Dynaudio BM6A's Ive been
> mixing on them for a couple years, very accurate and clear.
> If you want to go a step further get a D to A converter in front
> of them. Like a Mytek or a Benchmark and SPIDIF out of PARIS.
>
> It will change your whole world at mix down.
> Rock On!!!
> Dominic
>
>
> "Rob Arsenault" <mani2@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>> I am seriously close to pickin some up.
>> Anyone have good or bad comments?
>> Thanks a bunch.
>>
>> Rob A
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Couldn't find a price mentioned ... anyone know?
Mic.
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=2657
>
>Okay, so what does this product mean?
>1)Is this a Direct shot over Digidesign's bow?
>
>2) Does this mean Apple and Apogee are going to go head up with the Big
kohuna
>AKA Digidesign??
>
>3)This Product: Is it just a dedicated DSP Mixer,thus letting the Mac's
cpu(s)
>handle the recording and plugins?
>
>4)* With all the "whining" I have been doing about the lack of nay DAW manfacturer
>"Willing to " to head to toe with Digi. Could this be the Part Native solution/DSP
>that you guys (Thad, Dedric,Jaimie,James,Bill, Neil) have been talking about???
>
>If so, then, I stand corrected..AND, Once again, proves that the real forward
>thinkers in the DAW world are right here in our little forum..You guys Rock!!!..
>Thanks for letting me have my "State of The DAW" tantrum of sorts...:)
>
>Interesting developments..Wow..."LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=2657
>
>Okay, so what does this product mean?
>1)Is this a Direct shot over Digidesign's bow?
>
>2) Does this mean Apple and Apogee are going to go head up with the Big
kohuna
>AKA Digidesign??
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 09 12:41:53 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02254 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
