Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Apple..Dominating the Market ..atl east now..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apple..Dominating the Market ..atl east now.. [message #89945 is a reply to message #89943] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 16:15   |
|
|
http://www.behringer.com/SRC2496/index.cfm?lang=eng
It's one of the most useful pieces of kit that I've run across for SRC and
format conversion (and the AD/DA's aren't bad either). when interfacing
digitally, there is no color/distortion, etc. added to the signal. I can be
clocked from an external source and and it's internal clock is very stable
as well. A real Swiss (errr.German) army knife of a box. I have owned 7 of
these and only one has died......so far.
Deej
"DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote in message
news:471b9244$1@linux...
> All of my outboard processors are 24 bit capable if interfacing digitally
> via AES/EBU except maybe the R-880...and I'm pretty sure it is too.
>
>
> "Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:471b8865$1@linux...
>>
>> "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apple..Dominating the Market ..atl east now.. [message #89947 is a reply to message #89942] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 16:18 |
|
|
onverters
>>
>>>in that old R-880,the PCM-91 and the Sony can add some flavor to a track
>> or
>>>a group. The reason I'm doiing it is primarily because I integrate so
>>>many
>>
>>>other outboard devices into my mixes that don't have digital options and
>>
>>>keeping as much of my signal path digital as possible (especially
>>>parallel
>>
>>>send FX that will process multiple tracks) when integrating 8-10 (or
>>>more)
>>
>>>analog processors and the AD/DA conversions this involves give be a bit
>> more
>>>openness when the entire mix is summed. There is a bit of apparent
>>>veiling,
>>
>>>especially using the AD/DA's of the Lexi PCM-91.
>>
>>
>> OK, so you've got the samplerate issue covered with the (ahem!)
>> Behringer convertors, but what about bitstream rate? If you're
>> recording at 24 bits, and some of the older convertors on your
>> outboard gear are 12 or 16 bits, does that make any difference?
>> From a technical point of view, I mean.
>><
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apple..Dominating the Market ..atl east now.. [message #89948 is a reply to message #89944] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 17:17 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
br />
>> Neil
>
>Ditto! Running Cubase 4 on both DAWs. Using a slave really saves the day
when working at 88.2 with VSTi's.
"Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:471ac538@linux...
> The only solution for latency of VSTis I have found, and which works
> really well for me is to run 2 machines. One (my general purpose admin and
> internet machine) is just for monitoring and has just the one VSTi loaded,
> while the main one with the whole song on it is actually recording the
> take, but has the track muted. After the take, you unmute the channel and
> play back from the main machine.
>
> The only drawback with this is that now a lot of DAWs come with their own
> VSTis, so you have to own 2 copies of the program to access the same
> synths on both machines. If you use only standalone/third party VSTis you
> don't have that problem.
>
> Maybe it is possible to find a crack of Cubase 4 or whatever for the
> second machine. I've been using an old copy of Cubase VST for the
> monitoring machine.
>
> Dedric Terry wrote:
>> It's really mainly a VSTi performance issue for me, more than monitoring.
>> I
>> can deal with monitoring in the usual ways (Totalmix, outboard mixer,
>> whatever), but a few ms of latency gets sloppy when playing a loa
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apple..Dominating the Market ..atl east now.. [message #89949 is a reply to message #89944] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 17:38 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
d of
>> VSTi's.
>>
>> Why 0.003ms at 192k? Why climb Mt. Everest? Why eat sushi or Thai when
>> McDonalds is cheaper? (Okay the last two just because they are better...
>> ;-))
>>
>> Nah, I'm not big on moving to 96k at near 0 latency at all costs -
>> eventually, but not just yet. It's a workflow and convenience issue more
>> than anything for me. It also isn't so much about pushing the lowest
>> latency as low as possible as it is supporting larger loads at nearer the
>> lowest latency supported. The lower the min latency, the lower the
>> working
>> latency under load (if you can run 32 samples, you might get 128 under
>> decent load; if 128 is the lowest, you might never go below 512 for a
>> normal
>> work load).
>>
>> As far as Symphony - no real option to integrate it into an existing
>> system
>> other than buying Apogee converters (which are great, but if you already
>> have converters, it's an unnecessary expense).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 10/20/07 7:36 PM, in article 471aad23$1@linux, "LaMont"
>> <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Dedric, I concur on your points. I have a question to you and many
>>> others.
>>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apple..Dominating the Market ..atl east now.. [message #89950 is a reply to message #89948] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 17:41 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>> Why is so important to have zero latency or a native based rig? When,
>>> just
>>> adding a mixer for monitoring will take care of it. Now, you have zero
>>> latency/
>>> with fx (via verb fx) when tracking.
>>>
>>> yes, Asio is nice, but it seems that folks are hell bent on cracking
>>> .003
>>> ms latency at 88.2/96k sampling rates or even 192.
>>>
>>> Even with the fastest computers, they all struggle to get to utopia zero
>>> latency.. Jsut add any mixer and the problem is solved..
>>>
>>> BTW: Those Apogee symphony test are real world numbers. You gotta admit,
>>> thosse ms nuembers are impressive..
>>>
>>> And, although kind of expensive, those current macs can be used as dsp
>>> devices..aka
>>> like farm dsp cards..
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> Hey Lamont - for sure OSX is the most commercially viable Unix based
>>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>> My biggest concerns about that route at the moment are the lack of
>>>> hardware
>>>> options in a broader price range (e.g. can't buy a single-quad core,
>>>> which
>>>> would be great for a farm system); solid proof that core audio can run
>>>> at
>>>> comparable low latencies under comparable loading as ASIO can currently
>>> -
>>>> from what I hear, it really doesn't quite match up to ASIO's
>>>> performance
>>>> level at the moment (that can be a big deal); and that core audio
>>>> doesn't
>>>&
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apple..Dominating the Market ..atl east now.. [message #89951 is a reply to message #89949] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 21:06 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt; yet support direct monitoring (Leopard?) - not a big deal with faster
>>>> systems, or really even for my work in general, but a minor
>>>> consideration
>>> at
>>>> least.
>>>>
>>>> As far as running WinXP Pro dual boot - nice to have for some, but not
>>>> really necessary for me - no need to spend more for hardware to have
>>>> what
>>> I
>>>> already have. My only reason for considering a Mac would be to avoid
>>>> Vista
>>>> and run OSX as a way to move to 64-bit and higher memory access.
>>>>
>>>> I am with DJ (and you it seems) on this point though - Vista just
>>>> doesn't
>>>> look like an audio solution... heck... it's not much of any solution.
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I'm about to downgrade my laptop to WinXP from Vista, which is actually
>>> a
>>>> bit of an upgrade since I can't get the stupid thing to see any USB
>>>> thumb
>>>> drives, my Logitech cam, and overall it seems a little slow for a core
>>>> 2.
>>>> WinXP and OSX have no problem with any of these devices.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/20/07 5:57 PM, in article 471a9601$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey Dedric, I think OSX Lepoard is a pretty good version of Unix imho.
>>>>> Even,with
>>>>> Panther, with the right hardware, this seems to be the best for Pro
>>>>> Audio
>>>>> apps. Then, when when you factor in the fact that this same Box (Mac)
>>> can
>>>>> run Win Xp-pro and run it really well. As I have witnessed Cuabse SX
>>>>> running
>>>>> on the Windows partion. It was flying!! ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not giving up on Windows, but it seems th
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apple..Dominating the Market ..atl east now.. [message #89956 is a reply to message #89944] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 22:25 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
br />
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:05:58 -0600, "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _
net> wrote:
>Ditto! Running Cubase 4 on both DAWs. Using a slave really saves the day
>when working at 88.2 with VSTi's.
>
>
>"Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:471ac538@linux...
>> The only solution for latency of VSTis I have found, and which works
>> really well for me is to run 2 machines. One (my general purpose admin and
>> internet machine) is just for monitoring and has just the one VSTi loaded,
>> while the main one with the whole song on it is actually recording the
>> take, but has the track muted. After the take, you unmute the channel and
>> play back from the main machine.
>>
>> The only drawback with this is that now a lot of DAWs come with their own
>> VSTis, so you have to own 2 copies of the program to access the same
>> synths on both machines. If you use only standalone/third party VSTis you
>> don't have that problem.
>>
>> Maybe it is possible to find a crack of Cubase 4 or whatever for the
>> second machine. I've been using an old copy of Cubase VST for the
>> monitoring machine.
>>
>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>> It's really mainly a VSTi performance issue for me, more than monitoring.
>>> I
>>> can deal with monitoring in the usual ways (Totalmix, outboard mixer,
>>> whatever), but a few ms of latency gets sloppy when playing a load of
>>> VSTi's.
>>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apple..Dominating the Market ..atl east now.. [message #89957 is a reply to message #89953] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 22:41 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>> Why 0.003ms at 192k? Why climb Mt. Everest? Why eat sushi or Thai when
>>> McDonalds is cheaper? (Okay the last two just because they are better...
>>> ;-))
>>>
>>> Nah, I'm not big on moving to 96k at near 0 latency at all costs -
>>> eventually, but not just yet. It's a workflow and convenience issue more
>>> than anything for me. It also isn't so much about pushing the lowest
>>> latency as low as possible as it is supporting larger loads at nearer the
>>> lowest latency supported. The lower the min latency, the lower the
>>> working
>>> latency under load (if you can run 32 samples, you might get 128 under
>>> decent load; if 128 is the lowest, you might never go below 512 for a
>>> normal
>>> work load).
>>>
>>> As far as Symphony - no real option to integrate it into an existing
>>> system
>>> other than buying Apogee converters (which are great, but if you already
>>> have converters, it's an unnecessary expense).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 10/20/07 7:36 PM, in article 471aad23$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Dedric, I concur on your points. I have a question to you and many
>>>> others.
>>>>
>>>> Why is so important to have zero latency or a native based rig? W
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apple..Dominating the Market ..atl east now.. [message #89958 is a reply to message #89944] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 23:40 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hen,
>>>> just
>>>> adding a mixer for monitoring will take care of it. Now, you have zero
>>>> latency/
>>>> with fx (via verb fx) when tracking.
>>>>
>>>> yes, Asio is nice, but it seems that folks are hell bent on cracking
>>>> .003
>>>> ms latency at 88.2/96k sampling rates or even 192.
>>>>
>>>> Even with the fastest computers, they all struggle to get to utopia zero
>>>> latency.. Jsut add any mixer and the problem is solved..
>>>>
>>>> BTW: Those Apogee symphony test are real world numbers. You gotta admit,
>>>> thosse ms nuembers are impressive..
>>>>
>>>> And, although kind of expensive, those current macs can be used as dsp
>>>> devices..aka
>>>> like farm dsp cards..
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Lamont - for sure OSX is the most commercially viable Unix based
>>>>> solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> My biggest concerns about that route at the moment are the lack of
>>>>> hardware
>>>>> options in a broader price range (e.g. can't buy a single-quad core,
>>>>> which
>>>>> would be great for a farm system); solid proof that core audio can run
>>>>> at
>>>>> comparable low latencies under comparable loading as ASIO can currently
>>>> -
>>>>> from what I hear, it really doesn't quite match up to ASIO's
>>>>> performance
>>>>> level at the moment (that can be a big deal); and that core audio
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> yet support direct monitoring (Leopard?) - not a big deal with faster
>>>>> systems, or really even for my work in general, but a minor
>>>>> consideration
>>>> at
>>>>> least.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as running WinXP Pro dual boot - nice to have for some, but not
>>>>> really necessary for me - no need to spend more for hardware to have
>>>>> what
>>>> I
>>>>> already have. My only reason for considering a Mac would be to avoid
>>>>> Vista
>>>>> and run OSX as a way to move to 64-bit and higher memory access.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am with DJ (and you it seems) on this point though - Vista just
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> look like an audio solution... heck... it's not much of any solution.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm about to downgrade my laptop to WinXP from Vista, which is actually
>>>> a
>>>>> bit of an upgrade since I can't get the stupid thing to see any USB
>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apple..Dominating the Market ..atl east now.. [message #89965 is a reply to message #89951] |
Wed, 19 September 2007 06:23 |
Nappy
Messages: 198
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>> iMacs..These
>>>>>>>>>> are not your fathers imacs.. Completly different guts.. FAster
>>>>>>>>>> buss,
>>>>>>>>>> Separate
>>>>>>>>>> Nvidia Graphics card.. Sata 3.0 drive..800 mgz firewire..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Logic Studio is (99 percent) of what I wanted to see changed(I
>>>>>>>>>> wanted
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> real world looking faders)..
>>>>>>>>>> That being stated, the program (@1.0) is a dream for me.. I'm an
>>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>>> head and got dismayed with apps lagging audio editing and
>>>>>>>>>> recording
>>>>>>>>>> functionality..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apple has answered the bell.. At first , i didnot think i'd like
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>> screen thing..But, I'm a fan.. You can still run muti monitors in
>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>> 8,
>>>>>>>>>> but the one screen thing is very cool..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The editing is very fast..quicker than Pro Tools..2 clicks away
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> Nuendo/Cubase..
>>>>>>>>>> Somehow, apple has managed to keep intact it's (Still) Best Midi
>>>>>>>>>> Sequencer
>>>>>>>>>> in the world feel, and tightness that only an Akai MPC can come
>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>> 2..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sound: I have to agree with most logic 8 reviews..The Sound has
>>>>>>>>>> improved.
>>>>>>>>>> More, dare I say Pro Tool(ish)...SBut, still a tight bottom...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that when I plumped down to test this rig, it was already
>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>> a dvd(School Of Rock) and several safarie web pages.. Its still
>>>>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>> I'm typing this post..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Back to Logic 8..They also, keep the tight integration with Digi
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> you can use your TDM hardware and use logic as a front
>>>>>>>>>> end..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 05 19:23:26 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.13914 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
