Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Random Thoughts
| Random Thoughts [message #91799] |
Mon, 22 October 2007 22:45  |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I need to start using
>it. I've spent quite a bit of time and effort getting all my hardware DSP
>processors to function at 88.2 and I wanted to try to offload as much CPU
>load to outboard hardware and DSP cards as possible. Since my UAD-1
>resources will be cut in half, the extra POCO's will be there to pick up
the
>slack. I've got a couple of 750GB SATA Barracudas to handle the
>recording/playback and backup so here goes.
>
>Upsampling existing projects in Cubase is pretty easy to accomplish and
>perhaps the OD's and final DSP processing at 88.2 will add a bit of extra
>mojo to the mixes..............before they get hosed by the MP3 codec.
>
>Just in case someone wants to go down this road, the compatibile slots in
>the Magma are as follows:
>
>1, 5, 7 and 11 share IRQ 17
>2 and 6 share IRQ 18
>If you are adding a second Magma, use 1, 5, 7 or 11 for any audio cards
or
>DSP cards. They will all probably populate IRQ 19, or some other compatible
>IRQ that doesn't share with the AGP, or the devices in the other Magma.
If
>you've got two PCI slots that don't share with the AGP or each other this
>should work.
>
>OK....I'm off to give this thing a hard test drive. I'll let you know if
>anything catches on fire.
>
>;o)
>
>
>No in Co. Springs at least - there is probably something similar in Denver.
We have the normal local computer shops, but all are expensive, and hit or
miss on what you'll find - usually
it's dated gear.
"Lamont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:475b161b$1@linux...
>
> Dedric, are their any
> Fyrys or MicroCenters?
>
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/07/technology/compusa.ap/index. htm?postversi=
>>on=3D2007120719
>>
>>Looks like the end for CompUSA. Dang. Now there's nowhere local here =
>>to buy anything computer related besides Best Buy,
>>which is limited in some parts areas, and Staples which is even more =
>>limited. Guess it's all online ordering from here on out.
>>
>>Also sucks since I have a 2 year replacement/service contract on my 24"
> =
>>display through CompUSA.
>>
>><!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 6.00.6000.16546" name=3DGENERATOR>
>><STYLE></STYLE>
>></HEAD>
>><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
>>href=3D" http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/07/technology/compusa.ap/index. htm?p=
>>ostversion=3D2007120719">http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/07/technology/compu=
>>sa.ap/index.htm?postversion=3D2007120719</A></FONT></DIV ><FONT=20
>>face=3DArial size=3D2>
>><DIV><BR>Looks like the end for CompUSA. Dang. Now there's =
>>nowhere=20
>>local here to buy anything computer related besides Best Buy,</DIV>
>><DIV>which is limited in some parts areas, and Staples which is even =
>>more=20
>>limited. Guess it's all online ordering from here on =
>>out.</DIV>
>><DIV> </DIV>
>><DIV>Also sucks since I have a 2 year replacement/service contract on my
> =
>>24"=20
>>display through CompUSA.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>>
>>
>OK Neil.
Thanks for the pointers. these higher sample rates are something new to me.
I read an article by a heavy hitter engineer a while back where he said that
he upsamples everything to 88.2 for mixing, just to get some benefit from
the plugin resolutions.
Both POCO's are behaving nicely with the UAD-1's. I'll bet I could even get
another one working. Might be worth a try. The older MK1 cards are dirt
cheap on EBay these days. The higher rates really do suck the resources on
a UAD-1 card....big time. I would venture to say that 88.2 may take a bit
more than twice the bandwidth of 44.1 on these cards. A single La-2A takes
7% or the resources across 4 x cards. that's a pretty hefty chunk 'O DSP.
"Neil" <OIUOI@OIU.com> wrote in message news:475b173b$1@linux...
>
> FWIW, I don't believe you'll get much benefit from
> upconverting a 44.1 song to 88.2 - the plugin's will
> process with the higher resolution, but there's
> not going to be anything better about the files that were
> originally tracked at 44.1, so unless you've got a lot of
> overdubs to do on each of those songs, you're probably better
> off staying at 44.1 for the rest of the tracking, but then when
> you mixdown, go ahead & render to an 88.2k/.24-bit stereo file
> for mastering purposes.
>
> Neil
>
>
> "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>> I've got two Powercore cards and 4 x UAD-1 cards working in a single 13
>
>>slot Magma with the POCO's sharing IRQ 18 and the UAD-1's sharing IRQ 17.
> My
>>3 x RME cards are in a second Magma all sharing IRQ 19 so pending a
>>serious
>
>>torture test to test the PCI bandwidth, it appears that this may play
>>nice.
>>
>>I'm using an older gigabyte GA-K8NS Ultrra 939 (AGP based board) and the
> AGP
>>is on IRQ 16 so since there is no IRQ sharing, unless my PCI bandwidth is
>
>>all used up, I'm not expecting any problems.
>>
>>I'm currently converting everything I'm working on to 88.2KHz. I don't
>>know
>
>>if this is going to end up being a waste of time or not, but I figure,
>>since
>
>>I made the decision to move to an 88.2 capable system, I need to start
>>using
>
>>it. I've spent quite a bit of time and effort getting all my hardware DSP
>
>>processors to function at 88.2 and I wanted to try to offload as much CPU
>
>>load to outboard hardware and DSP cards as possible. Since my UAD-1
>>resources will be cut in half, the extra POCO's will be there to pick up
> the
>>slack. I've got a couple of 750GB SATA Barracudas to handle the
>>recording/playback and backup so here goes.
>>
>>Upsampling existing projects in Cubase is pretty easy to accomplish and
>
>>perhaps the OD's and final DSP processing at 88.2 will add a bit of extra
>
>>mojo to the mixes..............before they get hosed by the MP3 codec.
>>
>>Just in case someone wants to go down this road, the compatibile slots in
>
>>the Magma are as follows:
>>
>>1, 5, 7 and 11 share IRQ 17
>>2 and 6 share IRQ 18
>>If you are adding a second Magma, use 1, 5, 7 or 11 for any audio cards
> or
>>DSP cards. They will all probably populate IRQ 19, or some other
>>compatible
>
>>IRQ that doesn't share with the AGP, or the devices in the other Magma.
> If
>&
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Random Thoughts [message #91803 is a reply to message #91799] |
Mon, 22 October 2007 23:05  |
Tom Bruhl
Messages: 1368
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt; here's a link to a new tune: http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~nq4nay
>>>> Just finished this mix, its a rough master. Mr. Lincoln did the drums:
>>
>>>> very
>>>> very fine. I'd be interested in any and all feedback on the mix, or
>any
>>>> other aspect of the song. I'm pretty tough skinned. Its about a 3.6mb
>>
>>>> file,
>>>> encoded at 192.
>>>> Thanks for the listen.
>>>> MR
>>>
>>>
>>
>Hey Neil, Upon further review. I just checked ou the anress web site and I
am correct in saying that mos of these plugins have been coded for 'Color"To a degree, yes, opinions are based on usage, but not always. Imho, there
are few vintage emulations that really impart a nice, usable character, but
when they do, application is limited. I don't use UAD-1s on everything -
only the newer plugins really seem to be coming into their own imho.
The irony to me is that the vintage craze has people believing that if it's
old, it must be good, and if it's a vintage emulation, it must be better
than a new design, but in reality, some analog gear was a limited attempt at
achieving a clearer more accurate sound, where now we have the capability to
create a clearer sound - record the sound we want (whether pristine and
elegant, or big fat and nasty), and keep it that way. I'm still wondering
where the crosstalk plugin is.... ;-))
A funny business music is.
The Roger N plugins are good. A bit sterile to my ears - missing the depth
and width of other plugins.
Linear phase isn't always the goal - smooth response is - just because a
plugin says linear phase doesn't mean it does a good job (Sonar 7's LP EQ
isn't a great design imho). A bad plugin imparts distortion from poor
design, not analog response emulation.
Regards,
Dedric
On 12/9/07 12:18 PM, in article 475c318a$1@linux, "LaMont"
<jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Dedric, I 'll give those a listen., however I demoed the Roger Nichols
> plugs and those eqs are so flexible. They can be used in a track or mix down.
> They are can add character or just remain solid.
>
> I think there is an ignorace with this Vintage modeling plugin phenom. These
> plugins are not suppose to some clean when pushed. They are suppose to react
> just like the unit it was modeled after. The industry has to do a better
> job in explaining the differences in plugins ..With a little note or two
> about what the manufacturer "sonic" goal was when they coded and modeled
> "said" unit.
>
> Having said the above, I think that why Waves Linear EQ package got a bum
> rap. People like myself and others were trying using them on everything.
> But, they were made for MAstering applications. We all could spend a week
> on this topic(Maybe we sould) to iron out the differences and goal of a said
> plugin.
>
> Many of our opinions about a given plugin is based on the applicaion and
> music genre we're working on. We never take into account that our opinions
> maybe narrowed focused..
>
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> Hi Neil - yes. I tried them a few months ago, then some of the newer ones
>> recently. Imho, they are simple dsp with some EQ for effect, but basic
> at
>> best. Not great sound at all, though at first listen the mids/lows seem
> to
>> impart some character that might seem attractive. However, the tell tale
> of
>> a basic EQ is the top end gets brittle (picks up harmonic distortion/phase
>> non-linearities) when boosting or cutting. UAD-1's EX-1 EQ does this with
>> HPF mode. The comps to me sound muddy with poor handling of high frequency
>> content and stereo image.
>>
>> Imho, the best EQ on the indie market is ElectriQ:
>> http://www.aixcoustic.com/. Put it in linear phase, set the EQ nodes to
>> S-Plane and boost it by 20 db at 10k on a classical recording - with most
>> linear phase EQs, that will sound like crap (grainy, harsh and abrasive),
>> but ElectriQ maintains the smooth clarity of the original recording.
>>
>> I put it up against Algorithmix, Flux, Cambridge, Nuendo's stock EQ, and
>> while there isn't as much difference as one might think, esp. between
>> non-linear phase EQs, and between linear phase. ElectriQ is as good as any
>> linear phase and better than most non-linear phase when in high quality
>> mode.
>>
>> In analog mode, it sounds nice as well, though better suited to tracks than
>> a mix. It doesn't necessarily have the more colored UAD-1 Neve/Helios EQ
>> sound, but it's a great EQ for $100 or so. More modes and filter types
> than
>> any EQ on the market (hold-right click on a node for a dropdown list - quite
>> extensive, and the only one I know of with 4-pole filters as well as
>> multiple phase modes), so you can manipulate different bands of your EQ.
>>
>> It just looks like it isn't a great EQ, but under the freeware looking GUI
>> is some great dsp design.
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 12/9/07 11:00 AM, in article 475c1f43$1@linux, "Neil" <OIU@OIU.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Anyone else noticing something just kinda "funky" about these
>>> things? It's like the more I try them, the more I don't think
>>> I like them very much at all.
>>>
>>> At first I had liked the Neve 1081 EQ knockoff and the Pultec
>>> one, but as I listen to them more, I think i'm hearing
>>> something phasey/distort-y... not sure, just something kinda
>>> weird... I can't put my finger on it.
>>>
>>> Anyone else experiencing this or is it just me?
>>>
>>> Neil
>>
>Yeah, I tried some of 'em and never really dug them.
Have you guys tried the PLParEQ? form Refined Audiometrics? Unbelievably
smooth. It's the only digital EQ I really LOVE. It has 6 quality levels,
and at 6 it is a major CPU hog, but so sweet.
They have a free demo version that does only 3 bands (plenty for me!).
You really should check it out.
Neil wrote:
> Anyone else noticing something just kinda "funky" about these
> things? It's like the more I try them, the more I don't think
> I like them very much at all.
>
> At first I had liked the Neve 1081 EQ knockoff and the Pultec
> one, but as I listen to them more, I think i'm hearing
> something phasey/distort-y... not sure, just something kinda
> weird... I can't put my finger on it.
>
> Anyone else experiencing this or is it just me?
>
> NeilI'll see if I can find the article and post up what he said.
"Neil" <OIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:475c0f7b$1@linux...
>
> "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>>OK Neil.
>>
>>Thanks for the pointers. these higher sample rates are something new to
> me.
>>I read an article by a heavy hitter engineer a while back where he said
> that
>>he upsamples everything to 88.2 for mixing, just to get some benefit from
>
>>the plugin resolutions.
>
> Really? I wonder why he just didn't record at that samplerate
> to begin with, then? Interesting - well maybe I'm wrong about
> the degree of benefit you'll get from upconverting - maybe
> it'll be more than I thought. I was just figuring that since
> all you'd be doing was converting each sample to two samples, as
> opposed to recording twice as many samples per second, you're
> certainly not improving the resolution of what's already been
> recorded; you're also not changing the high-end content, as
> dictated by Nyquist frequency, of what's already been recorded
> at 44.1; AND, if there's any FIR filter noise present on the
> original 44.1 tracks, you're not eliminating it by upconverting
> after they've been recorded. Based on those factors, I figured
> it wouldn't make much of a difference except for the plugin's.
>
> Now, in Bob Katz's "Mastering Audio" book, he says that he
> upconverts 44.1 & 48k projects to higher samplerates for
> mastering for the same reason as your guy mentions - he wants
> all the processing, whether it's going through one of his
> digital outboard pieces or a simple dither plugin, to be done
> at the higher resolutions, so maybe upconverting like you're
> indicating gives the same benefits earier in the life cycle of
> the recording.
>
> NeilOn 9 Dec 2007 11:19:51 +1000, "Kim W." <no@way.com> wrote:
>
>Paul.
>An easy mistake to make is to plug the ribbon connectors incorrectly
>The pins on the EDS cards are bent at right angles to the PCB,
>and are VERY close to board.
>On some EDS's they are too close, and need to be gently bent upwards to accomodate
>the plug.
>Make sure the connector is plugged into both rows of pins, and that
>you haven't missed any.
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!
We have a winner!!!!
Actually, I managed to get ahold of Rod -- he told me the same thing
and I had missed one row of pins on the same cable on both cards.
I hate when that happens.
Once I had that corrected, the error went away. I went from full-on
panic to partial panic.
For my next trick, I had to teach myself in a hurry how to assign
submixes to different C16's, how to turn on the mixer and editor
windows for both submixes -- shit like that.
Again, NEVER wait until the night before a session to try a completely
different hardware configuration, unless you're Deej.
Who, by the way, I also tried to call, but your phone was busy for an
hour. The ponies calling their friends? ;-P
Anywho..... I managed to sort it all out and got it recording just in
time. Lesson #2 -- anywhere from 8 - 20 tracks streaming for four
hours chews up a LOT of drive space -- I ran out just after the final
song of the night ended. Whew.
Neil -- I just took a shot that the number I found at infospace was
you, and apparently it was.
Thanks, guys.
pabOn 10 Dec 2007 01:30:18 +1000, "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net>
wrote:
>
>Hi Sarah,
>
>I've just been poking around on iTunes and did not find any indication that
>it can convert videos. Maybe Quicktime? I'm a Mac guy so I don't know much
>about PC alternatives.
>
iTunes won't. You need QuicktimePro, which is right around $30. I
don't have a video-capable iPod, so I've never dug further. There are
probably some other 3rd-party things floating around, but I'm not
aware of what's out there.
pabPLParEQ is a great EQ - looks ugly, but sounds great.
I have an early version that only went to quality level 5. I really want a
later one that goes to 11 ;-)), but have run into a few instances of it
causing crashes and other oddities with Nuendo so I had to bail on using it
regularly.
On 12/9/07 11:46 AM, in article 475c390b$1@linux, "Bill L"
<bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I tried some of 'em and never really dug them.
>
> Have you guys tried the PLParEQ? form Refined Audiometrics? Unbelievably
> smooth. It's the only digital EQ I really LOVE. It has 6 quality levels,
> and at 6 it is a major CPU hog, but so sweet.
>
> They have a free demo version that does only 3 bands (plenty for me!).
> You really should check it out.
>
>
>
> Neil wrote:
>> Anyone else noticing something just kinda "funky" about these
>> things? It's like the more I try them, the more I don't think
>> I like them very much at all.
>>
>> At first I had liked the Neve 1081 EQ knockoff and the Pultec
>> one, but as I listen to them more, I think i'm hearing
>> something phasey/distort-y... not sure, just something kinda
>> weird... I can't put my finger on it.
>>
>> Anyone else experiencing this or is it just me?
>>
>> NeilOK, but if you're gonna give the poor drummer credits anywhere,
you'd better at LEAST get his name right!
;)
"Mike R." <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Thanks very much Neil, and John and Don, Sarah, and Aaron for all the comments.
> Every bit of what you folks had to say was helpful. I'm taking a brief
>break, but I'm up in the studio making many of the changes folks suggested.
> As to Ron's playing, the drums tracks speak for themselves. Amazing really.
> It feels like I was in the room playing with him. (And I wasn't. I'm up
>in the northeast and he's somewhere in tornado alley.) In the pocket -oh
>yes! Ron's playing elevated my work ten fold. I'll let him go into specifics,
>but by day I'm a lowly social worker and found his rates very reasonable.
> I've got lots of other stuff that I want him to play on -wish I was an
oil
>tycoon! Thanks again all -very much appreciated.
>MR
>
>
>
>"Neil" <OIU@OI.com> wrote:
>>
>>OK, listened to it again & the toms still don't bother me...
>>they just sound nice & full with a little bit of "wool", which
>>becomes pretty apparent during the fills in the chorus
>>sections - I like 'em. IMO, it's just that the vocals need
>>to comme up a bit there, or evened out with compression or
>>something like that. I also checked to see if I could find what
>>Aaron had mentioned about the bass & I think i kinda see what
>>he's saying, but I'm not positive... I don't feel like it's
>>dropping out or that the song's losing its foundation anywhere,
>>in any case. I'm listening on Dynaudio BM5A's, so they
>>don't have a whole lot going on under 40hz that might be more
>>apparent on something with larger woof's, so I wonder if that
>>might be it???
>>
>>I like everything about it except for the couple of items I
>>mentioned before.
>>
>>Rod, how much do you charge for doing tracks?
>>
>>Neil
>>
>>
>>
>>"Neil" <OI@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Actually, I liked the PLAYING of the drums so much, I didn't
>>>really notice anything frequency-wise that bothered me about
>>>them... that doesn't say much about my critical listening
>>>skills if there's something wrong and yet I was distracted by
>>>the taste with which the part was played (because honestly, my
>>>only thought about the drums at the time was something
>>>like: "Wow, that's a great groove, right in the pocket").
>>>
>>>Dammit, Sarah, now I'm gonna have to go back & listen to it
>>>again & see if I can find what you're talking about! lol
>>>
>>>Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>Wow, very nice Mike. I agree with the feedback so far. Definitely would
>>>
>>>>like to hear your nice vocals be more present. I would only add that
>
>>>>there's something annoyingly boomy about the tom bits and they're masking
>>>
>>>>the vocal, too. Neil or someone could probably give you more specific
>>>EQ
>>>>advice there, or maybe it's just my tired ears. Aside from that, drums
>>>
>>>>sound great, the drumming, too . . . very tight, Mr Hot Rod Lincoln.
>>>>
>>>>S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike R." <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:475a2244$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never tried this before -uploading a mix to a hosting service.
>
>>>>> But...
>>>>> here's a link to a new tune: http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~nq4nay
>>>>> Just finished this mix, its a rough master. Mr. Lincoln did the drums:
>>>
>>>>> very
>>>>> very fine. I'd be interested in any and all feedback on the mix, or
>>any
>>>>> other aspect of the song. I'm pretty tough skinned. Its about a 3.6mb
>>>
>>>>> file,
>>>>> encoded at 192.
>>>>> Thanks for the listen.
>>>>> MR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> http://www.koreus.com/video/crazy-enregistrement-studio.html
- Paul Artola
Ellicott City, MarylandHey Lamont - I don't think it's a harmonic ting I'm hearing...
at least that's not what's bothering me. Frankly I was kinda
HOPING for some harmonics & analoguish "smear", but what's most
apparent to me over time with these things is a subtle
distortion closer to something with the characteristics of a
bit-crusher. Not as severe, of course, but you get the idea.
I also really do think there's a phase rotation thang going on
with these plugs, as well... I need to verify this with
something other than just my perception, though... like maybe
do a null test or get a single track up to a hot enough level
where I can get a strong enough signal on the goniometer to see
what it does differently on insert vs bypass on a given
plugin.
I'm experimenting a bit with trying to use the Neve-ish 1081 EQ
just on drums right now, since those are short-lived sounds
compared to guitar or bass line. I'm liking the coloration
it's imparting, and the EQ curves on this thing seem to really
be flattering to a kick drum & snare, but the jury's still out
on the distortocrap.
I guess it would be easy to say "Fuck it, I just don't
like 'em" and simply not use them anymore, but now I'm curious
as to what they're doing & why.
Neil
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>I find that that more I us ethem the more I realize how they really do add
>third order harmonic distortion to a given track. Where as , some of my
other
>Vintage plugins "remain" too clean and is really hard to get to the "dirt"
>of "said" unit.
>
>But, Yes I do hear what you are hearing..I just like what they are giving
>me and that's some Paris MOJO..
>
>
>"Neil" <OIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>
>>Anyone else noticing something just kinda "funky" about these
>>things? It's like the more I try them, the more I don't think
>>I like them very much at all.
>>
>>At first I had liked the Neve 1081 EQ knockoff and the Pultec
>>one, but as I listen to them more, I think i'm hearing
>>something phasey/distort-y... not sure, just something kinda
>>weird... I can't put my finger on it.
>>
>>Anyone else experiencing this or is it just me?
>>
>>Neil
>So that's what "Cookie Monster singing" sounds like!
heh heh
DC
Paul Artola <artola@comcast.net> wrote:
> http://www.koreus.com/video/crazy-enregistrement-studio.html
>
>- Paul Artola
> Ellicott City, Maryland
>Neil, I have to agree with you abouth he Antress Neve Eqs. I own the URS version
and it's more acurate and does not distort.
Maybe the andress are still in it's beta state. But I do hear what you are
hearing and I don;t use that plug for that reason..
"Neil" <OIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Lamont - I don't think it's a harmonic ting I'm hearing...
>at least that's not what's bothering me. Frankly I was kinda
>HOPING for some harmonics & analoguish "smear", but what's most
>apparent to me over time with these things is a subtle
>distortion closer to something with the characteristics of a
>bit-crusher. Not as severe, of course, but you get the idea.
>
>I also really do think there's a phase rotation thang going on
>with these plugs, as well... I need to verify this with
>something other than just my perception, though... like maybe
>do a null test or get a single track up to a hot enough level
>where I can get a strong enough signal on the goniometer to see
>what it does differently on insert vs bypass on a given
>plugin.
>
>I'm experimenting a bit with trying to use the Neve-ish 1081 EQ
>just on drums right now, since those are short-lived sounds
>compared to guitar or bass line. I'm liking the coloration
>it's imparting, and the EQ curves on this thing seem to really
>be flattering to a kick drum & snare, but the jury's still out
>on the distortocrap.
>
>I guess it would be easy to say "Fuck it, I just don't
>like 'em" and simply not use them anymore, but now I'm curious
>as to what they're doing & why.
>
>Neil
>
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>I find that that more I us ethem the more I realize how they really do
add
>>third order harmonic distortion to a given track. Where as , some of my
>other
>>Vintage plugins "remain" too clean and is really hard to get to the "dirt"
>>of "said" unit.
>>
>>But, Yes I do hear what you are hearing..I just like what they are giving
>>me and that's some Paris MOJO..
>>
>>
>>"Neil" <OIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Anyone else noticing something just kinda "funky" about these
>>>things? It's like the more I try them, the more I don't think
>>>I like them very much at all.
>>>
>>>At first I had liked the Neve 1081 EQ knockoff and the Pultec
>>>one, but as I listen to them more, I think i'm hearing
>>>something phasey/distort-y... not sure, just something kinda
>>>weird... I can't put my finger on it.
>>>
>>>Anyone else experiencing this or is it just me?
>>>
>>>Neil
>>
>what a waste of oxygen
"Paul Artola" <artola@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3ohol3d2qg394qc2f30fcihqeqip1dkg2t@4ax.com...
> http://www.koreus.com/video/crazy-enregistrement-studio.html
>
> - Paul Artola
> Ellicott City, Maryland
>OK, just did a couple of null tests with these & here's what I
learned:
1.) Don't ever duplicate/clone a frozen track in Cubase LOL!
It'll cause Cubase to lock up, display an error message &
requires a reboot of the app. DOH!
2.) EVERY Neve simulation and at least a couple of the API ones
(didn't need to try anymore than that, considering the results)
will not null with a track that doesn't have the same plugin
inserted, even when it's set to "default" or
essentially "zero" - no boosts & no cuts anywhere. I did this
on a Bass track & also on a Kick track, and each time I got a
weaker, yet still quite audible signal of perhaps 1k & above,
but m
|
|
|
|
| Re: Random Thoughts [message #91805 is a reply to message #91799] |
Mon, 22 October 2007 23:29 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
since those are short-lived sounds
>>compared to guitar or bass line. I'm liking the coloration
>>it's imparting, and the EQ curves on this thing seem to really
>>be flattering to a kick drum & snare, but the jury's still out
>>on the distortocrap.
>>
>>I guess it would be easy to say "Fuck it, I just don't
>>like 'em" and simply not use them anymore, but now I'm curious
>>as to what they're doing & why.
>>
>>Neil
>>
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I find that that more I us ethem the more I realize how they really do
>add
>>>third order harmonic distortion to a given track. Where as , some of my
>>other
>>>Vintage plugins "remain" too clean and is really hard to get to the "dirt"
>>>of "said" unit.
>>>
>>>But, Yes I do hear what you are hearing..I just like what they are giving
>>>me and that's some Paris MOJO..
>>>
>>>
>>>"Neil" <OIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Anyone else noticing something just kinda "funky" about these
>>>>things? It's like the more I try them, the more I don't think
>>>>I like them very much at all.
>>>>
>>>>At first I had liked the Neve 1081 EQ knockoff and the Pultec
>>>>one, but as I listen to them more, I think i'm hearing
>>>>something phasey/distort-y... not sure, just something kinda
>>>>weird... I can't put my finger on it.
>>>>
>>>>Anyone else experiencing this or is it just me?
>>>>
>>>>Neil
>>>
>>
>SHHHH*****tttt!
forgive me Rod.
i meant Rod.
MR
"Neil" <OIOI@OI.com> wrote:
>
>OK, but if you're gonna give the poor drummer credits anywhere,
>you'd better at LEAST get his name right!
>
>;)
>
>
>
>"Mike R." <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Thanks very much Neil, and John and Don, Sarah, and Aaron for all the comments.
>> Every bit of what you folks had to say was helpful. I'm taking a brief
>>break, but I'm up in the studio making many of the changes folks suggested.
>> As to Ron's playing, the drums tracks speak for themselves. Amazing really.
>> It feels like I was in the room playing with him. (And I wasn't. I'm up
>>in the northeast and he's somewhere in tornado alley.) In the pocket -oh
>>yes! Ron's playing elevated my work ten fold. I'll let him go into specifics,
>>but by day I'm a lowly social worker and found his rates very reasonable.
>> I've got lots of other stuff that I want him to play on -wish I was an
>oil
>>tycoon! Thanks again all -very much appreciated.
>>MR
>>
>>
>>
>>"Neil" <OIU@OI.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>OK, listened to it again & the toms still don't bother me...
>>>they just sound nice & full with a little bit of "wool", which
>>>becomes pretty apparent during the fills in the chorus
>>>sections - I like 'em. IMO, it's just that the vocals need
>>>to comme up a bit there, or evened out with compression or
>>>something like that. I also checked to see if I could find what
>>>Aaron had mentioned about the bass & I think i kinda see what
>>>he's saying, but I'm not positive... I don't feel like it's
>>>dropping out or that the song's losing its foundation anywhere,
>>>in any case. I'm listening on Dynaudio BM5A's, so they
>>>don't have a whole lot going on under 40hz that might be more
>>>apparent on something with larger woof's, so I wonder if that
>>>might be it???
>>>
>>>I like everything about it except for the couple of items I
>>>mentioned before.
>>>
>>>Rod, how much do you charge for doing tracks?
>>>
>>>Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Neil" <OI@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Actually, I liked the PLAYING of the drums so much, I didn't
>>>>really notice anything frequency-wise that bothered me about
>>>>them... that doesn't say much about my critical listening
>>>>skills if there's something wrong and yet I was distracted by
>>>>the taste with which the part was played (because honestly, my
>>>>only thought about the drums at the time was something
>>>>like: "Wow, that's a great groove, right in the pocket").
>>>>
>>>>Dammit, Sarah, now I'm gonna have to go back & listen to it
>>>>again & see if I can find what you're talking about! lol
>>>>
>>>>Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>>Wow, very nice Mike. I agree with the feedback so far. Definitely
would
>>>>
>>>>>like to hear your nice vocals be more present. I would only add that
>>
>>>>>there's something annoyingly boomy about the tom bits and they're masking
>>>>
>>>>>the vocal, too. Neil or someone could probably give you more specific
>>>>EQ
>>>>>advice there, or maybe it's just my tired ears. Aside from that, drums
>>>>
>>>>>sound great, the drumming, too . . . very tight, Mr Hot Rod Lincoln.
>>>>>
>>>>>S
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike R." <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:475a2244$1@linux...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never tried this before -uploading a mix to a hosting service.
>>
>>>>>> But...
>>>>>> here's a link to a new tune: http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~nq4nay
>>>>>> Just finished this mix, its a rough master. Mr. Lincoln did the drums:
>>>>
>>>>>> very
>>>>>> very fine. I'd be interested in any and all feedback on the mix,
or
>>>any
>>>>>> other aspect of the song. I'm pretty tough skinned. Its about a 3.6mb
>>>>
>>>>>> file,
>>>>>> encoded at 192.
>>>>>> Thanks for the listen.
>>>>>> MR
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>Sarah,
Generally video work is just slow. I made a video clip of myself, about 4
minutes or whatever... song length... and processing it from the edit
in the app down to wmv format for the web took about an hour as I recall.
Typically converting a DVD on my Athlon 64 3000+ takes somewhere approaching
half the DVD play length. That's not a slow machine of course, so if you're
doing it on that old Paris box you were speaking about, which I assume is
closer to 1 gig, then that sounds like a fairly quick time to me.
Cheers,
Kim.
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>Was thinking I might like to stuff some of my favorite DVDs into my iPod
>once in a while. Anyone know of good software to convert DVD movies to
m4v?
>I tried a shareware thing by Cucusoft today, and the quality seemed fine,
>but it took about 38 minutes to convert a 30 minute clip. Ow. Maybe
>there's something that will do it in less than real time?
>
>Like I said, not terribly important. :)
>
>S
>
>We have an option to buy some gear from a UK resident through Royal Mail
(I'm guessing that's UK mail) - they send the gear, we pay Royal Mail, get
the gear 2 days later, have 5 to review it, then release payment if
satisfied.
I usually go through eBay, PayPal, or other secure purchasing options,
|
|
|
|
| Re: Random Thoughts [message #91811 is a reply to message #91799] |
Tue, 23 October 2007 01:49 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
lish and
> perhaps the OD's and final DSP processing at 88.2 will add a bit of extra
> mojo to the mixes..............before they get hosed by the MP3 codec.
>
> Just in case someone wants to go down this road, the compatibile slots in
> the Magma are as follows:
>
> 1, 5, 7 and 11 share IRQ 17
> 2 and 6 share IRQ 18
> If you are adding a second Magma, use 1, 5, 7 or 11 for any audio cards or
> DSP cards. They will all probably populate IRQ 19, or some other compatible
> IRQ that doesn't share with the AGP, or the devices in the other Magma. If
> you've got two PCI slots that don't share with the AGP or each other this
> should work.
>
> OK....I'm off to give this thing a hard test drive. I'll let you know if
> anything catches on fire.
>
> ;o)
>
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK Pro Audio
(859) 635-5762
www.adkproaudio.com
chrisl@adkproaudio.com"Gary Flanigan" <gary_flanigan@ce9.uscourts.gov> wrote in message
news:475d5901$1@linux...
>
> Doesn't working at 88.2 preclude using the UA 33609?
>
>
Nope. I had two of them running in my torture test.
>
> "DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>> I've got two Powercore cards and 4 x UAD-1 cards working in a single 13
>
>>slot Magma with the POCO's sharing IRQ 18 and the UAD-1's sharing IRQ 17.
> My
>>3 x RME cards are in a second Magma all sharing IRQ 19 so pending a
>>serious
>
>>torture test to test the PCI bandwidth, it appears that this may play
>>nice.
>>
>>I'm using an older gigabyte GA-K8NS Ultrra 939 (AGP based board) and the
> AGP
>>is on IRQ 16 so since there is no IRQ sharing, unless my PCI bandwidth is
>
>>all used up, I'm not expecting any problems.
>>
>>I'm currently converting everything I'm working on to 88.2KHz. I don't
>>know
>
>>if this is going to end up being a waste of time or not, but I figure,
>>since
>
>>I made the decision to move to an 88.2 capable system, I need to start
>>using
>
>>it. I've spent quite a bit of time and effort getting all my hardware DSP
>
>>processors to function at 88.2 and I wanted to try to offload as much CPU
>
>>load to outboard hardware and DSP cards as possible. Since my UAD-1
>>resources will be cut in half, the extra POCO's will be there to pick up
> the
>>slack. I've got a couple of 750GB SATA Barracudas to handle the
>>recording/playback and backup so here goes.
>>
>>Upsampling existing projects in Cubase is pretty easy to accomplish and
>
>>perhaps the OD's and final DSP processing at 88.2 will add a bit of extra
>
>>mojo to the mixes..............before they get hosed by the MP3 codec.
>>
>>Just in case someone wants to go down this road, the compatibile slots in
>
>>the Magma are as follows:
>>
>>1, 5, 7 and 11 share IRQ 17
>>2 and 6 share IRQ 18
>>If you are adding a second Magma, use 1, 5, 7 or 11 for any audio cards
> or
>>DSP cards. They will all probably populate IRQ 19, or some other
>>compatible
>
>>IRQ that doesn't share with the AGP, or the devices in the other Magma.
> If
>>you've got two PCI slots that don't share with the AGP or each other this
>
>>should work.
>>
>>OK....I'm off to give this thing a hard test drive. I'll let you know if
>
>>anything catches on fire.
>>
>>;o)
>>
>>
>>
>"DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>
>"Gary Flanigan" <gary_flanigan@ce9.uscourts.gov> wrote in message
>news:475d5901$1@linux...
>>
>> Doesn't working at 88.2 preclude using the UA 33609?
>>
>>
>Nope. I had two of them running in my torture test.
>
I must be losing it. I could swear that the 33609 only worked at 44.1.thanks for the info DJ. I wonder if this scenario will work with a UAD-1
PCI-E on the MB also.Chris??
"Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
news:475d59fd@linux...
> Hi DJ,
> Your insane.
> So I take it the TC card I sent ya worked. Sure wish it worked on my
> machine.
>
> Chris
>
>
> DJ wrote:
>> I've got two Powercore cards and 4 x UAD-1 cards working in a single 13
>> slot Magma with the POCO's sharing IRQ 18 and the UAD-1's sharing IRQ 17.
>> My 3 x RME cards are in a second Magma all sharing IRQ 19 so pending a
>> serious torture test to test the PCI bandwidth, it appears that this may
>> play nice.
>>
>> I'm using an older gigabyte GA-K8NS Ultrra 939 (AGP based board) and the
>> AGP is on IRQ 16 so since there is no IRQ sharing, unless my PCI
>> bandwidth is all used up, I'm not expecting any problems.
>>
>> I'm currently converting everything I'm working on to 88.2KHz. I don't
>> know if this is going to end up being a waste of time or not, but I
>> figure, since I made the decision to move to an 88.2 capable system, I
>> need to start using it. I've spent quite a bit of time and effort getting
>> all my hardware DSP processors to function at 88.2 and I wanted to try to
>> offload as much CPU load to outboard hardware and DSP cards as possible.
>> Since my UAD-1 resources will be cut in half, the extra POCO's will be
>> there to pick up the slack. I've got a couple of 750GB SATA Barracudas to
>> handle the recording/playback and backup so here goes.
>>
>> Upsampling existing projects in Cubase is pretty easy to accomplish and
>> perhaps the OD's and final DSP processing at 88.2 will add a bit of extra
>> mojo to the mixes..............before they get hosed by the MP3 codec.
>>
>> Just in case someone wants to go down this road, the compatibile slots in
>> the Magma are as follows:
>>
>> 1, 5, 7 and 11 share IRQ 17
>> 2 and 6 share IRQ 18
>> If you are adding a second Magma, use 1, 5, 7 or 11 for any audio cards
>> or DSP cards. They will all probably populate IRQ 19, or some other
>> compatible IRQ that doesn't share with the AGP, or the devices in the
>> other Magma. If you've got two PCI slots that don't share with the AGP or
>> each other this should work.
>>
>> OK....I'm off to give this thing a hard test drive. I'll let you know if
>> anything catches on fire.
>>
>> ;o)
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Chris Ludwig
>
> ADK Pro Audio
> (859) 635-5762
> www.adkproaudio.com
> chrisl@adkproaudio.comHi all,
I've been using EZ drummer for about a year. I noticed they now have a
Nashville kit. I may change apps. Here's why and what do you all think.
1. EZ drummer is easy to use with drag and drop loops but I'm not
thoroughly satisfied with the mixer. Individual kick, hat and toms. But
two mics on the the snare ? (I don't hear all that much significant
difference on the top and bottom) and just overheads for the cymbals and
lastly room ambience. The problem I have with the mixer is that I can't
bring up the ride or crashes without also raising bleed of the kick, hat,
snare and toms on the overhead mics. In the end the mix has too much room
sound. I need more isolation at times. I'm not triggering. I just using
midi drum tracks. I am amazed that these drum programs can even mix
individual parts of a drum kit midi track. No efx's except room ambience.
The humanize feature is decent.
2. The patterns are decent with the EZ software and some loops are down
right funky but only two kit sounds (pop/rock and cocktail). The Nashville
uses an new kit and I was wondering if the loops have a large variety of
country 3/4 and 6/8 grooves.
3. www.xlnaudio.com I looked into XLN Addictive Drums (AD) and it seems
as though each kick, snare, tom, ride, hat, cymbals and cowbell (don't say
it!) has it's own fader and efx/inserts but I'm not sure. I don't mind some
bleed, in fact I like it for ambience, so is the isolation from each
drum/cymbal similar to solo or more like a close mic. Secondly, I am
concerned that the kits are mostly rock/old school/machine based and I do
need a country kit and/or country grooves on about 1/3 to 1/2 of my songs
that I'm editing and mixing. XLN has just one add on pak to date and it's
retro. Does the "acoustic" kit fit the country mode or primarily just soft
acoustic songs. AD does have reverb and I do like to use massive reverb on
the snare on country ballads so is it possible or is it a whole kit reverb.
How are the grooves. XLN states on their website "the grooves, beats and
fills of a good drummer!" Website states no humanize feature but instead
uses recorded alternating strokes for a velocity layer.
Are any of you folks addicted or would you recommend that I stay with EZ?
Thanks,
Wayne Carson
Paris since '97I'd say don't spend another penny on anything until this hits the
shelves........
http://www.fxpansion.com/index.php?page=53
The manual for it was just released for download.
http://www.fxpansion1.com/BFD2_Public/BFD2_Manual.zip
This think looks like the total ****!!!!! I bought BFD years ago and I loved
the kits, but the interface totally sucked. It looks like this is going to
be like EZ Drummer or Addictive ....on some major steroids.
;o)
"Wayne Carson" <carson_wayne@msn.com> wrote in message
news:475dac40@linux...
> Hi all,
>
> I've been using EZ drummer for about a year. I noticed they now have a
> Nashville kit. I may change apps. Here's why and what do you all think.
>
> 1. EZ drummer is easy to use with drag and drop loops but I'm not
> thoroughly satisfied with the mixer. Individual kick, hat and toms. But
> two mics on the the snare ? (I don't hear all that much significant
> difference on the top and bottom) and just overheads for the cymbals and
> lastly room ambience. The problem I have with the mixer is that I can't
> bring up the ride or crashes without also raising bleed of the kick, hat,
> snare and toms on the overhead mics. In the end the mix has too much room
> sound. I need more isolation at times.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Random Thoughts [message #91814 is a reply to message #91799] |
Tue, 23 October 2007 01:52 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ng and mixing. XLN has just one add on pak to date and it's
>retro. Does the "acoustic" kit fit the country mode or primarily just soft
>acoustic songs. AD does have reverb and I do like to use massive reverb
on
>the snare on country ballads so is it possible or is it a whole kit reverb.
>How are the grooves. XLN states on their website "the grooves, beats and
>fills of a good drummer!" Website states no humanize feature but instead
>uses recorded alternating strokes for a velocity layer.
>
>
>Are any of you folks addicted or would you recommend that I stay with EZ?
>
>Thanks,
>Wayne Carson
>Paris since '97
>
>DJ, we are going to have to disagree (Wink-wink) on this one. I'm an BFD.
Ground Breaking, but those drums are very raw. If you are into the tweaking
drums from the bottom up, then these are your drums..
But, if you want killer drums (That requires minimal) tweaking, then Addictive,
then Drum Kits From Hell are the ticket..
As for the BFD2, that interface looks a little too clinical and from what
I heard, the drums are again raw..
I have the 35 gigs of DKFH CV(Custom/Vintage)Those babys great.. Toontrack
(ez drummer & DKFH) new Interface for 2008 is on a whole new level..take
a look.
http://www.toontrack.com/s20.asp
And then there's Battery 3 (Native Intruments) It's 9 gig Lib, and with great
Live Kits with great dynamics covers a lot of ground..
"DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>I'd say don't spend another penny on anything until this hits the
>shelves........
>http://www.fxpansion.com/index.php?page=53
>
>The manual for it was just released for download.
>http://www.fxpansion1.com/BFD2_Public/BFD2_Manual.zip
>
>This think looks like the total ****!!!!! I bought BFD years ago and I loved
>the kits, but the interface totally sucked. It looks like this is going
to
>be like EZ Drummer or Addictive ....on some major steroids.
>
>;o)
>
>
>
>
>"Wayne Carson" <carson_wayne@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:475dac40@linux...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've been using EZ drummer for about a year. I noticed they now have
a
>> Nashville kit. I may change apps. Here's why and what do you all think.
>>
>> 1. EZ drummer is easy to use with drag and drop loops but I'm not
>> thoroughly satisfied with the mixer. Individual kick, hat and toms.
But
>> two mics on the the snare ? (I don't hear all that much significant
>> difference on the top and bottom) and just overheads for the cymbals and
>> lastly room ambience. The problem I have with the mixer is that I can't
>> bring up the ride or crashes without also raising bleed of the kick, hat,
>> snare and toms on the overhead mics. In the end the mix has too much
room
>> sound. I need more isolation at times. I'm not triggering. I just using
>> midi drum tracks. I am amazed that these drum programs can even mix
>> individual parts of a drum kit midi track. No efx's except room ambience.
>> The humanize feature is decent.
>>
>> 2. The patterns are decent with the EZ software and some loops are down
>> right funky but only two kit sounds (pop/rock and cocktail). The
>> Nashville uses an new kit and I was wondering if the loops have a large
>> variety of country 3/4 and 6/8 grooves.
>>
>> 3. www.xlnaudio.com I looked into XLN Addictive Drums (AD) and it
>> seems as though each kick, snare, tom, ride, hat, cymbals and cowbell
>> (don't say it!) has it's own fader and efx/inserts but I'm not sure.
I
>> don't mind some bleed, in fact I like it for ambience, so is the isolation
>> from each drum/cymbal similar to solo or more like a close mic. Secondly,
>> I am concerned that the kits are mostly rock/old school/machine based
and
>> I do need a country kit and/or country grooves on about 1/3 to 1/2 of
my
>> songs that I'm editing and mixing. XLN has just one add on pak to date
>> and it's retro. Does the "acoustic" kit fit the country mode or primarily
>> just soft acoustic songs. AD does have reverb and I do like to use
>> massive reverb on the snare on country ballads so is it possible or is
it
>> a whole kit reverb. How are the grooves. XLN states on their website
"the
>> grooves, beats and fills of a good drummer!" Website states no humanize
>> feature but instead uses recorded alternating strokes for a velocity
>> layer.
>>
>>
>> Are any of you folks addicted or would you recommend that I stay with
EZ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Wayne Carson
>> Paris since '97
>>
>
>Kim -
It's very easy to bounce all of your tracks at once in Cubase.
1 Select all
2 In the Audio menu, select the Events To Parts command
3 Drag the left side of each part to the beginning of the time line (00:00)
4 In the Audio menu, select Bounce to Disk command
Whatever name you have given the track will be the name of the file that is
created.
David LI've been doing what I do full time since around 2000. I'm a little
different from a regular recording studio in that I provide musical services
(bass, guitar, keys, computer based percussion & orchestration),
mixing/engineering, and mastering for my clients. The reason I get my
repeat work is mainly due to the musical services I offer. Except for a
very few years, I've always been a self-employed full-time working musician.
That being said, the main thing on my mind these days is to try and peer a
little into the future to find out how the people who've spent money
recording a project with me can recoup their investment and actually turn a
profit. I feel as long as there is a way for someone to earn their money
back, it can justify the need to spend money with me to create something
new.
David LThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_04F8_01C83C09.F0C406D0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_04F9_01C83C09.F0C406D0"
------=_NextPart_001_04F9_01C83C09.F0C406D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've been putting the finishing touches on testing my DAW setup this =
morning. The whole purpose of going to such extremes was to have a =
system running on a stable motherboard that is extremely compatible with =
the audio DSP cards that I prefer to use and that could integrate all of =
my analog and digital outboard hardware at either 44.1/48kHz or =
88.2/96kHz with the flip of a switch. I wanted to be able to integrate =
the outboard digital processors that were only capable of 44.1/48k =
sample rates at 88.2kHz without going analog or jumping through a bunch =
of hoops. "Functional and fast" with lots of power was the goal here.
I have achieved the "flip of a switch" scenario as closely as possible. =
The "flip" actually has to involve resetting the sample rate of the =
Mytek A/D converter that is feeding the clock signal to a pair of clock =
distributors and a reboot of the computer so that the RME driver =
reconfigures the I/O for the proper sample rate. I know that having to =
reboot the DAW seems a bit of a kludge, but there have been reported =
issues with Mytek and RME hardware playing nice. The Mytek will not =
clock to the RME signal any other way than directly off the master clock =
signal and the MADI will not slave to an external clock with all of the =
crap integrated so I'm having to work within these fixed parameters, but =
it take about 3 minutes (the time it takes to reboot a computer) to =
switch all this stuff to work at any available sample rate without =
having to reconfigure any other hardware settings now and it's working =
flawlessly.
I have 24 analog inputs and outputs working at any sample rate and =
either 24 or 48 digital feeds from my slave DAW running VSTi's depending =
on the sample rate. I am not having any issues wi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Random Thoughts [message #91859 is a reply to message #91799] |
Tue, 23 October 2007 13:12 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
s
> hanging off of their computer, and there's no way I'm loading $10k of
> software on a single $40 piece of plastic
> and hope my insurance company understands the concept.
>
> ....er... sorry... rant off... ;-)
>
> Dedric
>
> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
> news:47616ab0$1@linux...
>> HI Saw this at AES. Seemed to sound very nice and was really low on
>> cpu resources. Hopefully I'll be able to get a full copy soon.
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> LaMont wrote:
>>> Check it out the audio demos..
>>>
>>> http://www.overloud.com/
>>
>> --
>> Chris Ludwig
>>
>> ADK Pro Audio
>> (859) 635-5762
>> www.adkproaudio.com
>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK Pro Audio
(859) 635-5762
www.adkproaudio.com
chrisl@adkproaudio.comHey Chris,
I'm with you on iLok/keys. I currently have 3 Syncrosoft keys, 1 Wibu
(Sequoia), 1 Logic, and 1 Flux (have no idea what this key format is - seems
to be their own generic USB device keying). Since Steinberg and Magix keep
a key number, I'm not so worried about those - esp. since Steinberg has
stated a reasonable "what to do if it dies" policy. Flux? hard to say, but
they've been cool on correspondence. Logic - not necessary if I ever
upgrade to the Mac version (kudos to Apple, and Cakewalk, for achewing keys
for serial number licensing, not without a little faith in software user
humanity I'm sure).
The problem though is downtime waiting for a new key (I've considered buying
a Syncrosoft key for backup but not sure that would work since I think it's
issued on the key number as well). There doesn't seem to be a way to avoid
downtime unless you own a backup copy and key of everything. With CD/DVD
loading and licensing, it's a matter of a few minutes. With USB keys, we
could be talking days or weeks.
East West has iLok for Play, so I'll have at least 4 of those for Symphonic
Orch Platinum, and I'm thinking of using separate keys for Stormdrum, and
Choirs so I can mix and match which slave PC I run them on (I'm not going to
add up the cost of those plastic nuisances, esp. with USB hubs, and time to
register them all)....
Think I could start charging companies for my time registering their
products and hold them liable for downtime if one fails? I know.... the
honest user is really the one who pays the cost of piracy, not the pirates
or developers. It's just wrong... wrong I say, downright wrong...dagnabbit.
:-(
Dedric
"Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
news:4761a6ba@linux...
> Hi dedric,
> The reverb seems to be more of and effect reverb not he convolution
> realistic type that people has been used to lately. Seems to be more of a
> thing like the TC classicverb or Lexicon type so far.
>
> Don't get m going on how much I-Lok sucks.
> I don't like USB dongles in general but at least with Steinberg they
> pretty much make so that as long as you got the dongle your good. No
> stupid. I must authorize the dongle then authorize the plug ins, etc.
>
> Most all of companies allow for multiple products to b licensed on one key
> as long as they all use the same key.
> Well except for Waves but they suck more than Avid does.
>
> The only USB key so far that has not been completely cracked and bypassed
> is the WUBI Key that Magix uses. The easiest and first to be pirated was
> the I-Lok.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> Dedric Terry wrote:
>> The reviews so far on the Nuendo forum are saying it's average, but
>> nothing to write home about,
>> but I havent' heard it yet. Might have to get an iLok key and demo it,
>> but it annoys me that so many demos
>> are tied to keys now. Bad enough that we're getting USB key overload
>> with licensed products, but imho,
>> by keying demos developers are really pushing their luck with users.
>>
>> At some point, the USB key idea has to end. It's a shortlived concept,
>> imho. One cannot have 25 keys
>> hanging off of their computer, and there's no way I'm loading $10k of
>> software on a single $40 piece of plastic
>> and hope my insurance company understands the concept.
>>
>> ....er... sorry... rant off... ;-)
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
>> news:47616ab0$1@linux...
>>> HI Saw this at AES. Seemed to sound very nice and was really low on cpu
>>> resources. Hopefully I'll be able to get a full copy soon.
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>> Check it out the audio demos..
>>>>
>>>> http://www.overloud.com/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Ludwig
>>>
>>> ADK Pro Audio
>>> (859) 635-5762
>>> www.adkproaudio.com
>>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com
>>
>
> --
> Chris Ludwig
>
> ADK Pro Audio
> (859) 635-5762
> www.adkproaudio.com
> chrisl@adkproaudio.comThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_03BA_01C83D9E.B5C23570
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm getting ready to load it up.
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message =
news:4761a650@linux...
I think I'll to a fresh clone before anything crazy happens!
I might just try it to see.
Is it just you and me with Paris and a UAD these days?
Sheesh it's gettin' lonely around these parts.
Tom
"Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote in message =
news:47619bf0$1@linux...
I havn't tried the demo yet. For some reason the timed demo's don't =
work on
my system. I just buy it...except last time I got burned by the no =
render
bug...so I don't know what I'll do this time.
Rod
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>I have to assume it works and sounds good. Anyone
>tried it with Paris yet? I know Rod said that
>4.7 and up won't render stereo with plugins anymore.
>
>I really want that thing!!! $50 off too with their Christmas deal.
>
>Anyone?
>
>
>I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
>http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html =20
>
><!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>I have to assume it works =3D
>and sounds=3D20
>good. Anyone</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>tried it with Paris yet? I =
know =3D
>Rod said=3D20
>that</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>4.7 and up won't render stereo =
with =3D
>plugins=3D20
>anymore.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>I really want that thing!!! =
$50 =3D
>off too with=3D20
>their Christmas deal.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>Anyone?</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT size=3D3D2><BR><BR>I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight =
spam, =3D
>and=3D20
>you?<BR><A=3D20
=
>href=3D3D"http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html">http://www.polesoft.com/re=<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Random Thoughts [message #91890 is a reply to message #91799] |
Wed, 24 October 2007 03:15 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
mpact. We install these all over the western states.
DC
Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>I've been using the same pair of Yamaha 15" cabs for many years, but
>they're just too damn heavy. I have plastic envy. Have any of you guys
>done comparisons of wood cabs and plastic ones like the Eons?
>
>I'm considering a wide range of brands, including some Carvins that are
>about half what the others cost. Any preferences?I have Pantheon here. My opinion is it's a bit grainy on the tails and not
as smooth as I would like. The Sonitus Reverb in Sonar 7 is a little better
than Pantheon in some respects, and Perfect Space is noticeably better. As
you can tell, I like clarity to reverbs since the concept of reverb is at
the core been about recreating natural ambience, obviously within
significant limits of technology in past decades. However, we've become
accustomed to it as a colorful effect due to what those past limitations led
us to.
To that end, with some EQ or as a short decay verb, Pantheon can work in
many situations.
Just my opinion - ymmv of course.
Dedric
On 12/13/07 10:27 PM, in article 47620625$1@linux, "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com>
wrote:
>
> Has anyone here (besides me) tried the Lexicon Pantheon reverb?
>
> Neil
>
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> Hey Lamont,
>>
>> No, actually I know some of those guys well enough to discern knowledge
> from
>> drivel - I wouldn't assume that just because someone disagrees with you
> they
>> don't know what they are talking about.
>>
>> There are people on every forum that state haphazard opinions and hyperbole.
>> The key is to know the ones to regard, and the ones to take with a big grain
>> of salt. :-)
>>
>> The demos sound good, but imho, a 480, 960, TC or KSP8 impulse convolution
>> sounds clearer and smoother (e.g. more like the real thing). Breverb sounds
>> a bit foggy and smeared to me, even for the marketing hype. Certainly a
>> step up from plugin reverbs in years past, but standards are higher now.
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>> It's in range with SonitusFX reverb - better than most, but against
>>
>> On 12/13/07 9:50 PM, in article 4761fd8c$1@linux, "LaMont"
>> <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yeah I saw those early reviews on Nuendo's forum..I did not believe them.
>>> I listened to the demos on the web site and I think this Verb plug sounds
>>> fabulous!! RIght up with WIzzo Verb and IK's Classics. Like Chris stated,
>>> this is not a convo verb, but a digtal verb replica. Really smooth. Listen
>>> to the vocal demos.. Wow!!
>>>
>>> P.S. Some of those folks on the Nuendo Forum are complete idiots that
> are
>>> more concerned about the latest DAW confifg than music or the art of naking,
>>> mixng daw(nuendo) tricks etc.. They sound like complete idots when talking
>>> about anything other than Nuendo.
>>>
>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> The reviews so far on the Nuendo forum are saying it's average, but nothing
>>>
>>>> to write home about,
>>>> but I havent' heard it yet. Might have to get an iLok key and demo it,
>>> but
>>>> it annoys me that so many demos
>>>> are tied to keys now. Bad enough that we're getting USB key overload
> with
>>>
>>>> licensed products, but imho,
>>>> by keying demos developers are really pushing their luck with users.
>>>>
>>>> At some point, the USB key idea has to end. It's a shortlived concept,
>>>
>>>> imho. One cannot have 25 keys
>>>> hanging off of their computer, and there's no way I'm loading $10k of
>>>> software on a single $40 piece of plastic
>>>> and hope my insurance company understands the concept.
>>>>
>>>> ...er... sorry... rant off... ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:47616ab0$1@linux...
>>>>> HI Saw this at AES. Seemed to sound very nice and was really low on
> cpu
>>>
>>>>> resources. Hopefully I'll be able to get a full copy soon.
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>> Check it out the audio demos..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.overloud.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Chris Ludwig
>>>>>
>>>>> ADK Pro Audio
>>>>> (859) 635-5762
>>>>> www.adkproaudio.com
>>>>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com
>>>>
>>>
>>
>Tom...here are the notes I have for just such an occasion.
Rod
1.Remove UAD using control Panel (may not have to do this)
2.Install new UAD software
3.Go to My computer/hardware device manager/DSP accelerators and very drivers
are updated for each card (they usually aren't) uninstall drivers and re-install
new version drivers
4.Restart
5. If you didn't already load new drivers, windows will prompt you at this
time. If you want to do the automatic add thing...make sure you have all
previous UAD versions deleted off your C drive or it will just re-load old
drivers.
6.Authorize any new plugs
7.Open FXpansion
8.Remove powered plugins folder (assuming this is where the UAD stuff is),don't
close or click OK at this time.
re-add powered, don't add vst suffix, disable midi, DO NOT CHECK THE RESCAN
PLUGS OR FORCE RESCAN FAILED PLUGS BOX (this is a sure fire way to loose
presets)
that's it
Note....starting with 4.5 you will get (I do anyway, in Paris)an error that
says the Farichild mono and EX M plug is not installed. To defeat this, install
4.5 again, specifying a folder other than the correct folder (you will delete
it later) and select the "install mono versions"
box. Go into the mono folder that's in the folder you chose, copy the Fairchild
and EX-M DLL's
(there the only ones that don't have the word (mono) in parenthisis) and
copy them to the correct folder. Then delete the bogus folder, or the UAD
dll's. I use the steinberg/vst folder, since that's what it defaults to,
and that's not what I use normally. You don't have to do this, but if the
error messages bug you (they do me) you can. The mono versions don't work
correctly in Paris, but it keeps the error screen from popping up.
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>Hey Rod,
>What are settings to use in 3.3 wrapper so I don't lose presets?
>I thought I had a document here from before but can't find it
>in my Paris folder.
>
>Thanks,
>I'm ready to try it!!!
>Tom
> "Roc Lincoln" <rlincoln@nocpam.kc.rr.com> wrote in message =
>news:4761f0f7@linux...
>
> I just slide the track and get it sample accurate with sampleslide. i
=
>dunno,
> it's not that big of a deal for me.
> Rod
> "Rob Arsenault" <mani1147athotmaildotcom> wrote:
> >Funny, I was just thinkin last night how I should drop the old UAD-1
=
>back
>
> >into my Paris rig. I guess that would make 3 of us. So how do you =
>guys=20
> >handle the UAD in Paris, do you do the old track slide (PITA) or just
=
>make
> a=20
> >copy of the track, render / listen / undo?
> >
> >Thanks
> >Rob
> >
> >"Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote in message=20
> >news:4761b804$1@linux...
> >>
> >> It might be just you and me.
> >> Rod
> >> "Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I think I'll to a fresh clone before anything cr
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 05 22:53:13 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.74667 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
