| Creamware first impressions [message #77368] |
Sat, 23 December 2006 14:01  |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
s from Babcock
>and Wilcox's, Westinghouse and GE (All US firms).
>
>"Desert Storm" followed by a US trade embargo, including no food or medicine.
>
>The first and second Bush administration!!
>Gene/Dimitrios:
Would it even be necessary to "pick from a list" or "assign" total
delay? Seems like the total delay would simply be as low (or as high)
as needed to compensate for the plugins used. (Unless I'm missing
something, which is always a possibility...)
As for me -- I'm still on 98, 512 ram -- could I run this thing right
now, just to compensate for EDS fx offsets, submix offsets, etc.?
-- interested in how this turns out -- thanks -- chas.
On 23 Jan 2007 02:54:04 +1000, "Gene Lennon"
<glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>"Dimitrios" <musurgio@otenet.gr> wrote:
>>
>>Here is what the author wrote about his latency addon for vertex..!!
>>Track 1 has a latency of 16384 samples. The same is true for track 2. As
>>track 1 and track 2 have the same latency they are already in sync, but
>all
>>other tracks (the remaining 46 tracks) have to be delayed by 16384 samples,
>>not 32768.
>>
>>Take another example: Track 1 has a plug-in with 16384 samples of latency.
>>Track 2 has a plug-in with a latency of 8192 samples. What FaderWorks will
>>do is: Tracks 1 will pass through as it is, track 2 will be delayed by 8192
>>samples and all other tracks will be delayed by 16384 samples.
>>
>>What counts for the overall latency is the largest latency of any track.
>>You calculate the sum of latencies only for individual tracks when you e.g.
>>put several uad1 behind on the same track.
>>
>>ISN'T that WHAT WE WANT ? !!!
>>If we don't buy this vertex we have to jump off Paris !! :)
>>Regards,
>>Dimitrios
>>
>>"Dimitrios" <musurgio@otenet.gr> wrote:
>>>
>
>
>That is what we want, but extremely high playback latencies will probably
>cause a delay between fader and mute actions and audible execution (and also
>delay meters). I need to make automation decisions with effects in place,
>so extremely long delays could be problematic.
>Any chance we could pick from a list or assign a total delay?
>Gene
>This is exciting.The Vertex site lists "Win 2000 or XP" as minimum requirements -- do
we know whether or not it runs on 98?
-- I guess maybe I'll email him myself. Just thought I'd mention this
in case others are considering.
thanks -- chas.
On 22 Jan 2007 18:37:44 +1000, "Dimitrios" <musur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Creamware first impressions [message #77403 is a reply to message #77377] |
Sun, 24 December 2006 13:53  |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
tor output.
> Can this control room contribute in a way that it doesn't allow enouph
> bass
> to be heard ?
> I know the opposite and how you can solve that but lack of bass ?
> Any tips ?
> Regards,
> DimitriosI've _never_ had a virus, unless you count 7.5.3 as a virus, which I do.
That page isn't by 'PC zealots,' it's by people who are sick of Mac users
claiming the _relative_ lack of viruses for OS X is somehow because it's
better or can't get viruses. Any BSD exploit is, in effect, a potential OS
X virus. And since BSD runs on a lot of heavy iron that would be lucrative
to hack into those BSD exploits are found. Note also that a lot of the 'viruses'
on that page are really poorly designed software that allows root escalation.
And, let us note, you were the one who decided to chime in with useless information
for someone asking for recommendations of Windows software.
TCB
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, clearly an effort by PC zealots to try to damage the Mac Platform.
I
>wonder how much was created by these people. I've been virus free since
>1994 when I started using Macs. There is no doubt that PC zealot hackers
>are gunning for the Mac, that web site is proof. It's really not a problem
>at this time for Mac users. What is there now, like a 150,000 viruses for
>the PC? The Mac has maybe 150 known viruses, and only a few are actually
>harmful. Mac vs. PC it's no contest! O/S 9 was even more secure, that's
>why are military would switch to Mac OS9 every time they got hacked.
>
>James
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Security by obscurity, James.
>>
>>http://projects.info-pull.com/moab/
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Ok, my turn. Now I can't resist! The best antivirus software I've found
>>>is Mac OSX!!!!!!!!! And you think I'm kidding; )
>>>
>>>"Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote:
>>>>This came up a while back, but I can't find the thread in searches.
>>>>
>>>>What is the most recommended, least intrusive antivirus software for
PC?
>>>>I hate Norton and want to replace it with something better for my net
>
>>>>laptop.
>>>>
>>>>Grisoft's AVG Pro a good option?
>>>>
>>>>I notice PCMag still rates Norton as one of the best, but my laptop runs
>>>
>>>>noticeably slower with it
>>>>(email takes forever to open, etc).
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Dedric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>DJ 132000 samples as maximum is enouph for you ?
Yes. That is more than enough for me personally. Money is now in same
vicinity as mouth. The software has been purchased.
Thanks,
;o)
<Dimitrios musurgio#otenet.gr> wrote in message news:45b4f522@linux...
>
> Great DJ,
> This is the best answer to his kind efforts to even hear our cries for
> support
> !
> He is laready planning the vertex update without even knowing if Paris
> people
> will support him and his plugin.
> I am very excited that a clever "manual" latency compensator will be
> usable
> for parisians.
> We just have to make a big latency table accessible to everyone where
> every
> know plugin must be listed .
> I will contribute for sure in this list.
> DJ 132000 samples as maximum is enouph for you ?
> It needs to be configured from the beginning of the writting of vertex
> update.
> Regards,
> Dimitrios
>
> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>I will buy this later this afternoon. No kidding.
>>
>>"Dimitrios" <musurgio@otenet.gr> wrote in message news:45b4e025$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Dear Gene,
>>> The latency is determined on the plugins we put...
>>> It does not matter if the highest possible will be 120000 samples when
> we
>>> use maximum of two uad1 plugins per track, meaning you can use 2 uad1
>
>>> plugins
>>> across all your audiotracks if you have many uad cards for a total of
>
>>> 32768
>>> samples if you use FXpansion wrapper or 8192 if you use Chainer wrapper
> !!
>>> Even with chainer if you go up to 4 uad1 plugins in a row on a single
>
>>> track
>>> ,which is mostly unusual the toatl latency of the system with chainer
> will
>>> be 16384 !!!
>>> Well with fxpansion is 4 times 16384.
>>> I am excited ...
>>> Note that for NON UAD1 card users like me (I sold them :)) we can use
> all
>>> these eds compressors with lookahead and nolimit with lookahead and
>>> compensate
>>> across all submixes for latency !
>>> Also note that waves ren series introduces 64 samples.
>>> T-racks great plugins the same 64.
>>> Also we can compensate for the difference beetween eds cards ,14 samples
>>> and 2 for each thereafter in case you have more than 16 phase related
>
>>> audio
>>> tracks when recording...
>>> I really love that.
>>> I opened 64 instances of vertex with no cpyu load !
>>> Very very light !
>>> Regards,
>>> Dimitrios
>>>
>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Dimitrios" <musurgio@otenet.gr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Here is what the author wrote about his latency addon for vertex..!!
>>>>>Track 1 has a latency of 16384 samples. The same is true for track 2.
> As
>>>>>track 1 and track 2 have the same latency they are already in sync, but
>>>>all
>>>>>other tracks (the remaining 46 tracks) have to be delayed by 16384
>>>>>samples,
>>>>>not 32768.
>>>>>
>>>>>Take another example: Track 1 has a plug-in with 16384 samples of
>>>>>latency.
>>>>>Track 2 has a plug-in with a latency of 8192 samples. What FaderWorks
>
>>>>>will
>>>>>do is: Tracks 1 will pass through as it is, track 2 will be delayed by
>>> 8192
>>>>>samples and all other tracks will be delayed by 16384 samples.
>>>>>
>>>>>What counts for the overall latency is the largest latency of any
>>>>>track.
>>>>>You calculate the sum of latencies only for individual tracks when you
>>> e.g.
>>>>>put several uad1 behind on the same track.
>>>>>
>>>>>ISN'T that WHAT WE WANT ? !!!
>>>>>If we don't buy this vertex we have to jump off Paris !! :)
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>Dimitrios
>>>>>
>>>>>"Dimitrios" <musurgio@otenet.gr> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is what we want, but extremely high playback latencies will
>>>>probably
>>>>cause a delay between fader and mute actions and audible execution (and
>>> also
>>>>delay meters). I need to make automation decisions with effects in
>>>>place,
>>>>so extremely long delays could be problematic.
>>>>Any chance we could pick from a list or assign a total delay?
>>>>Gene
>>>>This is exciting.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>Ca
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
