Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » footswitch?
|
|
|
|
| Re: footswitch? [message #60457 is a reply to message #60453] |
Sun, 20 November 2005 07:34   |
Edna Sloan
Messages: 304
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
; my giga box has started spontaneously rebooting from HEAT ISSUES!!!
>
> The end
>
> ChuckMy experience exactly. More than mixing it like a record, we like to play it
like a record. That means playing to the sound, of compression, of EQ, of
FX, etc. It's how it was done back when folks made good music, back in the
day....and hey! what do you know? It still works. So far, anyway....
Jimmy
"Gary Flanigan" <gary_flanigan@ce9.uscourts.gov> wrote in message
news:43a2f458$1@linux...
> I started out recording trying to do all my compression in the box, for
reasons
> of cost and flexibility. However, the tradeoff is not really that simple.
> I have found that the performer often "plays" to the compression,
especial
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: footswitch? [message #60475 is a reply to message #60460] |
Sun, 20 November 2005 15:38 |
Edna Sloan
Messages: 304
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Deej
>
>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>I was down an the local Mac store here yesterday. I played around with a
new
>monster G5. I must say that *elegant in every way* was my
>impression..........but that's my impression of Pro Tool HD system too.
>IMO, with both of them, the purchaser becomes the *screwee* whenever the
>moneymonkey needs a new injection of cash. Thing is, with a little tweaking,
>I can achieve at least an equal, if not better result with alternative
>platforms and not become one with the Borg.
>
>;o)
>
Ouch! That has to hurt.
We all need to admit that the things we love and hate about or tools are
generally arbitrary and often emotional rather than practical.
That said, it good to see you can appreciate the G5 for its beauty and elegance…even
if it is “overpriced.”
I still like both platforms, but more and more I think I use PCs just to
prove to myself that I can build them and keep them running. (When I write
it down it look silly.)
Gene
P.S. I’ve said this before…
As a shoebox style organizer, and a self-proclaimed searching fanatic, I
love Spotlight.
I can now find anything on all my drives (both mounted and stored away) plus
all my removable media and backups covering almost 30 years, in less than
10 seconds. (Well over 2 TB), and Spotlight searches can include finding
content inside files, not just the title and metadata.
A friend with a $20,000 IBM SAN at work recently complained to me that searches
across his 2TB SAN can take 15 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: footswitch? [message #60657 is a reply to message #60479] |
Sat, 26 November 2005 10:25 |
Edna Sloan
Messages: 304
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ONT 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>"Deadmeat" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:scott@postmodernblues.com">scott@postmodernblues.com</A>&g=
t;=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:43a6d87f$1@linux">news:43a6d87f$1@linux</A>...</DIV><BR>Well=
,=20
like I said, the system works as is (MECs on A and B)<BR>with the =
older 2.2=20
software, and has been running like that<BR>for a couple of years - =
all=20
inputs and outputs producing<BR>sound without problems. So, I know =
my clock=20
is good, the<BR>cards are good, the MECs and interfaces are good. I=20
just<BR>brought up V2.2 to double check, and recorded using=20
the<BR>interfaces that don't work with 3.0, so it's definatley<BR>a =
3.0=20
issue.<BR><BR>When you had to have your MECs on A and C (or E), was=20
that<BR>with Version 2.2 and 3.0, or just with 3.0? I could try=20
moving<BR>the MEC to C and see if that fixes it, but I dread making=20
any<BR>changes at all to a functional (under 2.2) PARIS=20
system......<BR><BR><BR>"Tom Bruhl" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:arpegio@comcast.net">arpegio@comcast.net</A>>=20
wrote:<BR>><BR>><BR>>Dead,<BR>>What Aaron says is =
true. =20
When my system was three cards with two Mecs<BR>>I had card A and =
C=20
attached to the Mecs. Now with five cards it's A =
and<BR>=3D<BR>>E.=20
=3D20<BR>>My ASUS boards like the first and last card when using =
two=20
Mecs.<BR>>Tom<BR>> "Aaron Allen" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:nospam@not_here.dude">nospam@not_here.dude</A>> =
wrote in=20
message =3D<BR>>news:43a5b0b4$1@linux...<BR>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: footswitch? [message #60667 is a reply to message #60666] |
Sat, 26 November 2005 18:36 |
Edna Sloan
Messages: 304
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
d one Sync on MEC A, 1 8-input on MEC=20
>> B.<BR>><BR>> Can record fine with MIX A, MEC A. Getting no sound =
>>at=20
>> all<BR>> on any inputs for MEC B, Mix B. Tried to load V2.2, and=20
>> all<BR>> is fine - can record on MEC B inputs all day long. When=20
>> using<BR>> V3, see input lights on module, but have no meters in=20
>> mixer<BR>> and no sound - MEC B syncing to WC fine - plays sound=20
>> accross<BR>> all submixes just fine from projects recorded on=20
>> V2.<BR>><BR>> Any Thoughts? <BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>>
>>
>....here!!!!.....gimme that thing and stand back!!!!!
;oD
"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
news:43a77690$1@linux...
> Trust me dude, just try it. It won't mess anything up and it's just a
> movement of the SCSI cable from Card B to Card C.
> AA
>
>
> "Deadmeat" <scott@postmodernblues.com> wrote in message
> news:43a6d87f$1@linux...
> >
> > Well, like I said, the system works as is (MECs on A and B)
> > with the older 2.2 software, and has been running like that
> > for a couple of years - all inputs and outputs producing
> > sound without problems. So, I know my clock is good, the
> > cards are good, the MECs and interfaces are good. I just
> > brought up V2.2 to double check, and recorded using the
> > interfaces that don't work with 3.0, so it's definatley
> > a 3.0 issue.
> >
> > When you had to have your MECs on A and C (or E), was that
> > with Version 2.2 and 3.0, or just with 3.0? I could try moving
> > the MEC to C and see if that fixes it, but I dread making any
> > changes at all to a functional (under 2.2) PARIS system......
> >
> >
> > "Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>Dead,
> >>What Aaron says is true. When my system was three cards with two Mecs
> >>I had card A and C attached to the Mecs. Now with five cards it's A and
> > =
> >>E. =20
> >>My ASUS boards like the first and last card when using two Mecs.
> >>Tom
> >> "Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote in message =
> >>news:43a5b0b4$1@linux...
> >> Are you sure you have the two 'correct' EDS cards chosen for your =
> >>system? I=20
> >> know that it gets sketchy pinning down which one, but on my system I =
> >>have to=20
> >> use card A and C and skip putting a MEC on card B or wierd stuff like
> > =
> >>this=20
> >> happens (another hidden Paris 'feature'). The other thing to check is
> > =
> >>that=20
> >> you have a good wordclock BNC cable running from MEC #1 to MEC #2.
> >>
> >> AA
> >>
> >>
> >> "Deadmeat" <scott@postmodernblues.com> wrote in message=20
> >> news:43a59445$1@linux...
> >> >
> >> > Hi all -
> >> > Been messing with V3 for a bit and noticed a real problem.
> &g
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 06 05:52:52 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02630 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
