Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » still fighting for stability
| Re: still fighting for stability [message #72476 is a reply to message #72474] |
Fri, 15 September 2006 19:21   |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t it would
>>>sit well on radio, and does so on small systems. A matter of
>>>taste, really.
>>>I didn't master the Goose stuff, but I remember hearing the first
>>>mastered version of "schwang", and I felt it didn't breathe enough.
>>>I told the band, and they got the mastering engineer to back off
>>>the processing, and the result was much better.
>>>As it turned out, the final master sounded pretty close to the
>>>final mixes, but louder.
>>>Perhaps for commercial airplay the first master would be better,
>>>but the band decided to opt for the transparency of the second.
>>>As I said, matter of taste.
>>>Go to the goose homepage and you will find a list of outlets that
>>>stock the cd's. There are a couple of full songs on the page, but
>>>I think "rump" is a rough mix they posted.
>>>Failing that, I could check with Dave, and send you a couple of
>>>"evaluation" copies if you wish. I don't have spares of the prints.
>>>Email me your postal address.
>>>Kim Twosheep.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=91
>>>>
>>>>Gee, doesn't What You Need sound overcompressed these days? ;o) My ears
>>>have
>>>>certainly changed. I remember mastering that and thinking that compression
>>>>was the best thing since Paris...
>>>>
>>>>...turns out it's all a little too squished really. Should have just
pumped
>>>>the Paris mix bus a little harder...
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Kim.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>Kim.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Kim W" <no@way.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah yes. The good old days.
>>>>>>My first Paris recording was for a then Adelaide based 70's influenced
>>>>soul/funk
>>>>>>outfit called Goose. (now Melbourne based). At any one time they have
>>>some
>>>>>>fifteen members.
>>>>>>Early versions of Paris had a bug which would
>>>>>>corrupt segments occasionally, leaving the project unplayable.
>>>>>>I emailed the .ppj (minus audio) to Edmund, and within an hour
>>>>>>he sent it back fixed. The session continued.
>>>>>>This album (and the sequel) are still being used by a couple of
>>>>>>audiophile hifi shops in Melbourne as one of their system
>>>>>>demonstration disks.
>>>>>>If you're interested:
>>>>>>http://www.goose.com.au/schwang.php
>>>>>>http://www.goose.com.au/dancefloor.php
>>>>>>Cheers
>>>>>>Kim Double Ewe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Kim W has been dropping in here to the group since the very early
days
>>>>>also...
>>>>>>> ...I think it was '98 or '99 when I realised that the group had
>another
>>>>>>>Kim also from Australia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>>Kim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>>Kim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Hey..............for all I know you guys could be just toying with
>>us
>>>>>>>>here....wearing each other's clothes, swapping ID's,
>>>>>>>>toothbrushes???........you name it. The implications boggle the mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Now
>>>>>>>>I'm paranoid. I need coffee................. or I will die.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>;o)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Kim W." <no-one@home.y'know> wrote in message news:451cddee$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for clearing that up, Kim.
>>>>>>>>> At four in the morning, I didn't tweak to the fact that Deej
>>>>>>>>> thought I was you, or you me....
>>>>>>>>> Hope the new job is going well.
>>>>>>>>> The other Kim
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >Was just reading a post from you Deej where you referred to Kim
>>W
>>>>as
>>>>>>>"Oh
>>>>>>>>> >Moderating one". ;o) I assume you mean me... ;o)
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >Kim W is also Australian, but he kindly signs off Kim W to differentiate
>>>>>>>>> >between himself and I because I lazily simply call myself Kim.
>:o)
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >I'm Kim S, was I to add an initial...
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> >Kim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You can worry about perfection
>later, just get your music out of you.
Did another song already this arvo! WOOHOO!!
Expectation now online...
Cheers,
Kim.all i know is in his address it mentions Lady Pickwick
Sanitorium...somewhere
On 30 Sep 2006 10:29:01 +1000, "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>How about we find out who has the most awesome Paris setup and spend Christmas
>at his house. Let's all just show up. So what's DJ's address?
>
>
>hehe,
>John"It's a good thing I had a bag of marijuana instead of a bag of
spinach or
I'd be dead now"..........you can smoke spinach?
;o)
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:drgsh25ebkn94dpct70mnga177oksef0a9@4ax.com...
> "It's a good thing I had a bag of marijuana instead of a bag of
> spinach or
> I'd be dead now"A bit of a sidenote, but interestingly Cubase 4 and Nuendo 4 apparently
won't support DirectX plugins anymore (don't know about video or driver
support - I'll have SX4 Monday to find out I hope).
I don't know if that implies anything in particular, at least in terms of
the longterm plans for DirectX, and Directshow vs. OpenGL, etc; could just
be Steinberg's attempt to push VST3, or just get rid of DirectX headaches
once and for all (since it is a more limited plugin format than VST).
The reviews of Liquid Mix I've read haven't been stellar. I'm holding out
for a Duende at some point.
Dedric
On 9/29/06 8:16 PM, in article 451dd381$1@linux, "LaMOnt"
<jjdpro@ameeriech.net> wrote:
>
> For sure, Uad is not going directx. The Pro Video market would not stand for
> this. The Pixar's, SGI's workstations..Not to mention, Final Cut Pro,
> Avid..Nahh.
> I don't buy it..
> Again, the waves SSL plugs are wonderful..Matters not what platform it was
> coded in, just as long as it performs..
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>> Of course no one is going to use direct show on OSX.
>>
>> Direct show/Direct X is proprietary Microsoft stuff.
>>
>> OpenGL is a multi-platform open system.
>>
>> Last I heard Microsoft was finding ways to make it hard for software
>> companies to continue to use OpenGL on MSWindows but at least some
>> software companies were fighting that. Dunno how that's been working out
>
>> but it seemed pretty fishy.
>>
>> Here's the OpenGL info page:
>>
>> http://www.opengl.org/about/
>>
>> OpenGL on the Mac: http://developer.apple.com/graphicsimaging/opengl/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Chris Ludwig wrote:
>>> Hi Lamont,
>>> All the of the software manufacturers are going to be using Direct show
>
>>> many already are. It is just as powerful and from what I've seen easier
>
>>> to code force and maintain.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>> Hey Chris, not sure why as well. Maybe they no something???
>>>> Or, they already have a easy port over version waiting.
>>>>
>>>> I do know (And You) that Open GL is used for high level graphics. That
>
>>>> being
>>>> the case, I really can't see both Microsoft & Apple dropping support
>
>>>> being
>>>> that the entire Video post pro market works on that standard.
>>>>
>>>> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Lamont,
>>>>> Too bad Waves wasted time on using Open GL for the SSL plug ins. Not
>
>>>>> sure why they did it sense future versions of Windows and Apple will
> not
>>>>
>>>>> have Open GL support at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Guys. None. These plugs are very efficent. Here is what waves
>>>>>> sugggest
>>>>>> and really as shededsome light to the Native plugin delima.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Waves says in the SSL docuemntation that these plugin require that
> your
>>>> DAW
>>>>>> run in 32 bit Video mode. If not,(And I have personally witnessed
>>>>>> running
>>>>>> in 16 bot mode) these plugins are sluggish and will bore down your
>
>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plain and simple: The bettter your Video card is, the better overall
>
>>>>>> performance
>>>>>> you'll get with using the SSL plugs.
>>>>>> This is a revelaion of sorts because, as Chuck Duffy once expalined
> to
>>>> me,
>>>>>> The UAD PCI card is no more than a nice Video card. It seems that
>
>>>>>> waves
>>>>>> have tapped into this technology of using the video card's dsp
>>>>>> excellerators
>>>>>> to enhance the performance of their new SSL Plugins.
>>>>>> Suffice it to say that, the better the video performance,the better
>
>>>>>> performance
>>>>>> of these new plugins..
>>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> LaMont. Is there a big latency issue with the URS plugins or the Waves
>>>> SSL
>>>>>>> pluygins with Paris?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deej
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:451d4bf1$1@linux...
>>>>>>>> Hello To all,
>>>>>>>> Not to rain on the Liquid Channel, but we just got the Waves SSL
>
>>>>>>>> bundle,
>>>>>>>> and all I can say is WOW!! DEAD On. We have a SSL 4000G/W E Series
> EQ
>>>>>> 7
>>>>>>> Comp
>>>>>>>> /56 channels and those plugins sound just like the real things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, I went to load up the VST /RTAS version demo to try out in Paris
>>>> &
>>>>>>> PT-Mpowered..
>>>>>>>> Needless to say, the SSL plugs sounds Wonderful in Paris.. Like Paris
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> needed the help :)..But, it takes our beloved Paris sound to newer
>>>>>>> heights.
>>>>>>>> In Nuendo & PT, same results.. In those apps, you can hear the
>>>>>>>> coloring
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> soon as you insert them on a channel!! :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These days there are some great Native Plugins that can hang with
>
>>>>>>>> UAD.
>>>>>>> Like
>>>>>>>> the URS line.. Their Neve, API, Pultec, fairchild,etc emulations
> are
>>>>>>> sweet!!..
>>>>>>>> With Intel announcing 80 cores on a chip in 5 years.. Native
>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> take over and we wil
|
|
|
|
| Re: still fighting for stability [message #72478 is a reply to message #72476] |
Fri, 15 September 2006 19:33 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
e LiquidChannel, right? If you're a Mucusrite
>>>>>>>>>> dealer, you must have tried that unit out, yes? If so, what do
>>>>>>>>>> you think of that one? Sounds good? Not so good?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Neil
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Liquid Mix is not Algo based. It is convolution based. The only
>>>>>>> algorithms
>>>>>>>>> are containers that hold the various impulses. Both the "container"
>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> eq models and the one for compressor impulses are new as are most
> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> impulse responses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I only have a few hours playing with a friends unit in Logic. The
>
>>>>>>>>> sound
>>>>>>>> quality
>>>>>>>>> is approximately equivalent to a UAD-1 (IMHO). Which is quite good
>>>> but
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> always the same as the original. The compressors are a little
>>>>>>> disconcerting
>>>>>>>>> to me. Many of the impulses are right-on but the algorithm for the
>>>>>>> container
>>>>>>>>> does not model the real attack, release, and timing attributes of
>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>> units, and this is a big part of the sound of any compressor. As
> a
>>>>>>> result,
>>>>>>>>> all the compressors have a similar feel, but with the harmonic sound
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> original sampled unit (I hope that's clear). They do sound good,
> and
>>>>>>> varied,
>>>>>>>>> if not "real".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The EQ options were a little more disappointing for me. In a direct
>>>>>>> comparison
>>>>>>>>> to HydraTone and AngleTone (beta), I had a strong preference for
> the
>>>>>>> TriTone
>>>>>>>>> sound.
>>>>>>>>> The hardware interface and DSP relief are indeed benefits. I do
> wish
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> hardware unit chased the selected channel in the DAW. That was a
> big
>>>>>>> disappointment.
>>>>>>>>> My friend is happy with his purchase, but I am still undecided.
> One
>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>> is that I am still contemplating getting a Duende and I am
>>>>>>>>> reasonably
>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>>> that even with a dedicated Firewire card added to my Mac, I could
>
>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>> both units to work together. I am hoping to borrow a Liquid Mix
> to
>>>> use
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> extensively in my room.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Chris Ludwig
>>>>>
>>>>> ADK Pro Audio
>>>>> (859) 635-5762
>>>>> www.adkproaudio.com
>>>>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com
>>>>
>>>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>For anyone who wants to check out some tunes from your favourite newsgroup
>host, please check out:
>
>http://www.myspace.com/drschnauberg
>
>I'm in the midst of a work ethic/method revolution, where I try and produce
>songs within the space of only a couple of hours. All these tunes are recorded
>mostly on my GNX-4 looper, then transferred to Paris and vocals and solos
>are added. It's usually about a 2-2.5 hour turnaround for a complete song.
>
>And yes some of the recording methods are dodgy... yes I need to get a
pop
>filter for the mic, and yes the harmonies in Revision need work, but hey,
>it's music, I'm getting it done quickly, and I'm having fun, and I think
>the vibe is there. :o)
>
>Tell me what you think...
>
>Cheers,
>Kim.
Me like.
I thought I would hear some Ausi-funk :-(
Couldn’t get “Everything You Are” to play.
GeneCrikey! Actually, I'd probably fit right in with the fauna. When I was a
kid, I had a minizoo with snakes, alligators, turtles aanything else I could
catch in the local billabong. I did stop drinking over 15 years ago. Can I
be an honorary Aussie and not drink beer? I suppose there may be other kinds
of *little creatures* you could bring to a pub, but ingesting them might
cause problems/get you arrested.
;o)
"Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:451e1bb2$1@linux...
> Deej,
> I hereby bequeath upon you, the title of "HONOURARY AUSTRALIAN"
> --
> Martin Harrington
> www.lendanear-sound.com
>
> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:451dfe0f$1@linux...
> >
> > "Kim W." <no@way.com> wrote:
> >>Kenoath!!
> >>(I speak for both us Kims)
> >
> > ROTLF!! Indeed he does. ;o)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kim.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Kim W
> >>
> >>"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
> >>>I was wondering what that Holden was doing in my driveway and why I've
> > been
> >>>referring to gasoline as being "petrol" lately.
> >>>Well, at least I have been paying fewer pence for it lately. If I'm
you,
> >>>then I can say cool stuff like "stone the crows" and it will be OK,
> >>>right?
> >>>
> >>>;O)
> >>>
> >>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:451deecc$1@linux...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Well I have no idea what Kim W looks like, as we have never been in
the
> >>>same
> >>>> room together at the same time to my knowledge...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...hmm, never been seen in the same room at the same time eh? Hmm...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...though I am also about 5'9" and my hair these days somewhat
> >>>"cueball'esque"...
> >>>> so perhaps we are the same person. I hear we've never been seen in
> > the
> >>>> same room at the same time either... ;o)
> >>>>
> >>>> ...though if we are the same person, who was I talking to on the
phone
> >>the
> >>>> other week... ...maybe my medication isn't working... ;o)
> >>>>
> >>>> ...and where the hell did I put those distressors?
> >>>>
> >>>> ;o)
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Kim.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
> >>>> >Well, I've met Doug Wellington and he's about 6'4". I'm 5'9". He
also
> >>has
> >>>> >hair down to his waist and I'm cueball'esque so there wouldn't be
much
> >>in
> >>>> >the way of mistaking us for each other........oh yeah........he's
> >>>*really*
> >>>> >incredibly-as in genius level, smart as well so there's another
> >>>> >dissimilarity. I'm not going to start talking about clothes,
> >>>toothbrushes,
> >>>> >etc. That's too gross. where'd you get that stuff anyway?
> >>>> >
> >>>> >;o)
> >>>> >
> >>>> >"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:451de552$1@linux...
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
> >>>> >> >Yeah, OK, but are you really Kim.........or are you Kim?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Well that is the question. And are you Deej? And who is this
Animix
> >>>fellow
> >>>> >> who was posting a while back... and this guy Doug, how does he
fit
> >>>into
> >>>> >> the picture? And do Doug Wellington's clothes fit this Animix guy?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> All these questions and more... ;o)
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Cheers,
> >>>> >> Kim.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >;o)
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> >news:451da750$1@linux...
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
> >>>> >> >> >If I don't have whatever this is, I will die.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> Hehe, it's an oldie, but it still made me LOL. ;o)
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> ...because I know it's true. ;o)
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> Cheers,
> >>>> >> >> Kim.
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>Me like.
Excellent. :o)
>I thought I would hear some Ausi-funk :-(
Yeh, it's not funk. It's somewhat funk influenced, but not funk.
>Couldn’t get “Everything You Are” to play.
Odd, it's playing now for me. Probably the closest to funk of the bunch...
Cheers,
Kim.
>Gene
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Very nice work. :)
Thanks! :o)
Cheers,
Kim.>I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
Namm2007) there toast..<
Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>
> Hi Jamie,
> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really losing
> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm ....I
> wonder why??
>
> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
sealed
> their fate???
>
> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this charade
> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>
> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
users,
> I stopped using the product.
> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
luster.
> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers are
> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not play.
Even
> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in waste
> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you stop
evolving,
> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon
(Winter
> Namm2007) there toast..
>
> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with Apogee
> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem: Apogee
> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
Soundtrack
> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should run. I
hope
> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
Soundtrack
> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>
>
>
>
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >
> >http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
> >
> >Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who have
> >been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
> >
> >Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but I'm sure
>
> >it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
> >
> >Cheers,
> > -Jamie
> > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Cool vibes, cool grooves, cool music!
Thanks heaps. Nice things to say and I very much appreciate it.
The production does need improving somewhat, but as you say, it's not that
far wrong. It can be fixed, most of it in the mix. Step one is to get 30
songs done and whittle it down to one good album. So far I've done ten tunes
in about 6 weeks, so three more months and I should have about 30 to choose
from.
Pick the best and go over them with a little more attention to detail and
I should be right to... err... sit in this back room and burn copies of
it for my friends. ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.
> Sounds good Kim, keep going. Don't
>worry about production values, their good enough. You can worry about perfection
>later, just get your music out of you.
>
>Good job!
>
>James
>Okay here's where I am so far
2 EDS cards - Both functioning when Card A is connected to single MEC A -
this has been my set up for several years now.
So I buy a second MEC and ADAT card..check to see that both MEC and ADAT
card are functioning by connecting them to Card A...I didn't try sending a
signal to my machine with the Dakota card so I am in fact assuming they both
work BUT this new MEC setup was recognised by Paris and showed up correctly
in the Patch bay window
So I....
Wired MEC A via multi pin cable to Card A
Wired MEC B via multi pin cable to Card B
Link the two MECs via the word clock cable I bought from you...MEC A -WC out
to MEC B WC in
Start Paris - Get message - Error in initializing Paris Engine Err
|
|
|
|
| Re: still fighting for stability [message #72480 is a reply to message #72478] |
Fri, 15 September 2006 21:42 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ge - Error in initializing Paris Engine Error
>> Code
>> 18/12
>>
>> I did some testing and both multi pin cables are good and both MECs get
>> recognised individually by Card A but neither MEC is recognised
> individually
>> by Card B
>>
>> Any ideas as to what is going on?
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>
>Sorry should have added
MEC A - 8 in / 8 out / ADAT
MEC B - ADAT
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eadce$1@linux...
>2 MECs with one ADAT module per MEC
>
> D
>
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451ea7e4@linux...
>> 18/12 is an ADAT module error IIRC. Are you running Paris on Win XP? If
>> so,
>> do you have more than one ADAT module "per MEC'? If this is the case,
>> this
>> is the problem. If you've only got one ADAT module, make sure it's in the
>> MEC attached to Card A.
>>
>> Deej
>>
>> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451ea4da@linux...
>>> Okay here's where I am so far
>>>
>>> 2 EDS cards - Both functioning when Card A is connected to single MEC
>>> A -
>>> this has been my set up for several years now.
>>>
>>> So I buy a second MEC and ADAT card..check to see that both MEC and ADAT
>>> card are functioning by connecting them to Card A...I didn't try sending
>>> a
>>> signal to my machine with the Dakota card so I am in fact assuming they
>> both
>>> work BUT this new MEC setup was recognised by Paris and showed up
>> correctly
>>> in the Patch bay window
>>>
>>> So I....
>>>
>>> Wired MEC A via multi pin cable to Card A
>>> Wired MEC B via multi pin cable to Card B
>>> Link the two MECs via the word clock cable I bought from you...MEC A -WC
>> out
>>> to MEC B WC in
>>>
>>> Start Paris - Get message - Error in initializing Paris Engine Error
>>> Code
>>> 18/12
>>>
>>> I did some testing and both multi pin cables are good and both MECs get
>>> recognised individually by Card A but neither MEC is recognised
>> individually
>>> by Card B
>>>
>>> Any ideas as to what is going on?
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>Hmmm..........Win XP I'm assuming. Try inserting the ADAT cards in different
slots-preferably the #1 slots. I actually had 2 x ADAT cards working in MEC
#1 and a single ADAT card working in MECs 2 & 3 back when I was running
Paris on XP. The ADAT cards were in the first two MEC slots on the MEC on
card A and in the first slot on the MECs on Cards B & C.
Deej
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eadce$1@linux...
> 2 MECs with one ADAT module per MEC
>
> D
>
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451ea7e4@linux...
> > 18/12 is an ADAT module error IIRC. Are you running Paris on Win XP? If
> > so,
> > do you have more than one ADAT module "per MEC'? If this is the case,
this
> > is the problem. If you've only got one ADAT module, make sure it's in
the
> > MEC attached to Card A.
> >
> > Deej
> >
> > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451ea4da@linux...
> >> Okay here's where I am so far
> >>
> >> 2 EDS cards - Both functioning when Card A is connected to single MEC
A -
> >> this has been my set up for several years now.
> >>
> >> So I buy a second MEC and ADAT card..check to see that both MEC and
ADAT
> >> card are functioning by connecting them to Card A...I didn't try
sending
> >> a
> >> signal to my machine with the Dakota card so I am in fact assuming they
> > both
> >> work BUT this new MEC setup was recognised by Paris and showed up
> > correctly
> >> in the Patch bay window
> >>
> >> So I....
> >>
> >> Wired MEC A via multi pin cable to Card A
> >> Wired MEC B via multi pin cable to Card B
> >> Link the two MECs via the word clock cable I bought from you...MEC
A -WC
> > out
> >> to MEC B WC in
> >>
> >> Start Paris - Get message - Error in initializing Paris Engine Error
> >> Code
> >> 18/12
> >>
> >> I did some testing and both multi pin cables are good and both MECs get
> >> recognised individually by Card A but neither MEC is recognised
> > individually
> >> by Card B
> >>
> >> Any ideas as to what is going on?
> >>
> >> Don
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>OK then......see my post above.
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eae4e@linux...
> Sorry should have added
>
> MEC A - 8 in / 8 out / ADAT
> MEC B - ADAT
>
>
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eadce$1@linux...
> >2 MECs with one ADAT module per MEC
> >
> > D
> >
> > "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451ea7e4@linux...
> >> 18/12 is an ADAT module error IIRC. Are you running Paris on Win XP? If
> >> so,
> >> do you have more than one ADAT module "per MEC'? If this is the case,
> >> this
> >> is the problem. If you've only got one ADAT module, make sure it's in
the
> >> MEC attached to Card A.
> >>
> >> Deej
> >>
> >> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451ea4da@linux...
> >>> Okay here's where I am so far
> >>>
> >>> 2 EDS cards - Both functioning when Card A is connected to single MEC
> >>> A -
> >>> this has been my set up for several years now.
> >>>
> >>> So I buy a second MEC and ADAT card..check to see that both MEC and
ADAT
> >>> card are functioning by connecting them to Card A...I didn't try
sending
> >>> a
> >>> signal to my machine with the Dakota card so I am in fact assuming
they
> >> both
> >>> work BUT this new MEC setup was recognised by Paris and showed up
> >> correctly
> >>> in the Patch bay window
> >>>
> >>> So I....
> >>>
> >>> Wired MEC A via multi pin cable to Card A
> >>> Wired MEC B via multi pin cable to Card B
> >>> Link the two MECs via the word clock cable I bought from you...MEC
A -WC
> >> out
> >>> to MEC B WC in
> >>>
> >>> Start Paris - Get message - Error in initializing Paris Engine Error
> >>> Code
> >>> 18/12
> >>>
> >>> I did some testing and both multi pin cables are good and both MECs
get
> >>> recognised individually by Card A but neither MEC is recognised
> >> individually
> >>> by Card B
> >>>
> >>> Any ideas as to what is going on?
> >>>
> >>> Don
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>Hey man.............that was nice! I'm gonna DL this and play it for my 84
year old mum at "11" in the car. I'm getting ready to take her for her
weekly shopping. I wish I had some big bass drivers in the back and a 1000W
power amp.
;oP
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:451df184$1@linux...
>
>
> For anyone who wants to check out some tunes from your favourite newsgroup
> host, please check out:
>
> http://www.myspace.com/drschnauberg
>
> I'm in the midst of a work ethic/method revolution, where I try and
produce
> songs within the space of only a couple of hours. All these tunes are
recorded
> mostly on my GNX-4 looper, then transferred to Paris and vocals and solos
> are added. It's usually about a 2-2.5 hour turnaround for a complete song.
>
> And yes some of the recording methods are dodgy... yes I need to get a
pop
> filter for the mic, and yes the harmonies in Revision need work, but hey,
> it's music, I'm getting it done quickly, and I'm having fun, and I think
> the vibe is there. :o)
>
> Tell me what you think...
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.Sorry DJ yes it is Win XP
Present set up is MEC A - ADAT is in slot 5 (it's original slot)
MEC B - ADAT is in Slot 1
Should I swap MEC A's ADAT to slot 1 or Slot 3
DOn
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451eaefd@linux...
> Hmmm..........Win XP I'm assuming. Try inserting the ADAT cards in
> different
> slots-preferably the #1 slots. I actually had 2 x ADAT cards working in
> MEC
> #1 and a single ADAT card working in MECs 2 & 3 back when I was running
> Paris on XP. The ADAT cards were in the first two MEC slots on the MEC on
> card A and in the first slot on the MECs on Cards B & C.
>
> Deej
>
>
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eadce$1@linux...
>> 2 MECs with one ADAT module per MEC
>>
>> D
>>
>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451ea7e4@linux...
>> > 18/12 is an ADAT module error IIRC. Are you running Paris on Win XP? If
>> > so,
>> > do you have more than one ADAT module "per MEC'? If this is the case,
> this
>> > is the problem. If you've only got one ADAT module, make sure it's in
> the
>> > MEC attached to Card A.
>> >
>> > Deej
>> >
>> > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451ea4da@linux...
>> >> Okay here's where I am so far
>> >>
>> >> 2 EDS cards - Both functioning when Card A is connected to single MEC
> A -
>> >> this has been my set up for several years now.
>> >>
>> >> So I buy a second MEC and ADAT card..check to see that both MEC and
> ADAT
>> >> card are functioning by connecting them to Card A...I didn't try
> sending
>> >> a
>> >> signal to my machine with the Dakota card so I am in fact assuming
>> >> they
>> > both
>> >> work BUT this new MEC setup was recognised by Paris and showed up
>> > correctly
>> >> in the Patch bay window
>> >>
>> >> So I....
>> >>
>> >> Wired MEC A via multi pin cable to Card A
>> >> Wired MEC B via multi pin cable to Card B
>> >> Link the two MECs via the word clock cable I bought from you...MEC
> A -WC
>> > out
>> >> to MEC B WC in
>> >>
>> >> Start Paris - Get message - Error in initializing Paris Engine Error
>> >> Code
>> >> 18/12
>> >>
>> >> I did some testing and both multi pin cables are good and both MECs
>> >> get
>> >> recognised individually by Card A but neither MEC is recognised
>> > individually
>> >> by Card B
>> >>
>> >> Any ideas as to what is going on?
>> >>
>> >> Don
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>Use MEC slot #1 for the ADAT card on all MECs.
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eafd3@linux...
> Sorry DJ yes it is Win XP
>
> Present set up is MEC A - ADAT is in slot 5 (it's original slot)
> MEC B - ADAT is in Slot 1
>
> Should I swap MEC A's ADAT to slot 1 or Slot 3
>
> DOn
>
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451eaefd@linux...
> > Hmmm..........Win XP I'm assuming. Try inserting the ADAT cards in
> > different
> > slots-preferably the #1 slots. I actually had 2 x ADAT cards working in
> > MEC
> > #1 and a single ADAT card working in MECs 2 & 3 back when I was running
> > Paris on XP. The ADAT cards were in the first two MEC slots on the MEC
on
> > card A and in the first slot on the MECs on Cards B & C.
> >
> > Deej
> >
> >
> > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eadce$1@linux...
> >> 2 MECs with one ADAT module per MEC
> >>
> >> D
> >>
> >> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451ea7e4@linux...
> >> > 18/12 is an ADAT module error IIRC. Are you running Paris on Win XP?
If
> >> > so,
> >> > do you have more than one ADAT module "per MEC'? If this is the case,
> > this
> >> > is the problem. If you've only got one ADAT module, make sure it's in
> > the
> >> > MEC attached to Card A.
> >> >
> >> > Deej
> >> >
> >> > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451ea4da@linux...
> >> >> Okay here's where I am so far
> >> >>
> >> >> 2 EDS cards - Both functioning when Card A is connected to single
MEC
> > A -
> >> >> this has been my set up for several years now.
> >> >>
> >> >> So I buy a second MEC and ADAT card..check to see that both MEC and
> > ADAT
> >> >> card are functioning by connecting them to Card A...I didn't try
> > sending
> >> >> a
> >> >> signal to my machine with the Dakota card so I am in fact assuming
> >> >> they
> >> > both
> >> >> work BUT this new MEC setup was recognised by Paris and showed up
> >> > correctly
> >> >> in the Patch bay window
> >> >>
> >> >> So I....
> >> >>
> >> >> Wired MEC A via multi pin cable to Card A
> >> >> Wired MEC B via multi pin cable to Card B
> >> >> Link the two MECs via the word clock cable I bought from you...MEC
> > A -WC
> >> > out
> >> >> to MEC B WC in
> >> >>
> >> >> Start Paris - Get message - Error in initializing Paris Engine
Error
> >> >> Code
> >> >> 18/12
> >> >>
> >> >> I did some testing and both multi pin cables are good and both MECs
> >> >> get
> >> >> recognised individually by Card A but neither MEC is recognised
> >> > individually
> >> >> by Card B
> >> >>
> >> >> Any ideas as to what is going on?
> >> >>
> >> >> Don
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>Ok...I'll swap out the Modules in MEC A so that it is
Slot 1) ADAT
Slot 2) 8 in
Slot 3) 8 out
I'll get back to you when that is done...1/2 hour or so
DOn
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451eb02c$1@linux...
> Use MEC slot #1 for the ADAT card on all MECs.
>
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eafd3@linux...
>> Sorry DJ yes it is Win XP
>>
>> Present set up is MEC A - ADAT is in slot 5 (it's original slot)
>> MEC B - ADAT is in Slot 1
>>
>> Should I swap MEC A's ADAT to slot 1 or Slot 3
>>
>> DOn
>>
>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: still fighting for stability [message #72482 is a reply to message #72469] |
Fri, 15 September 2006 22:38 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ea4da@linux..." target="_blank">451ea4da@linux...
>> >> >> Okay here's where I am so far
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2 EDS cards - Both functioning when Card A is connected to single
> MEC
>> > A -
>> >> >> this has been my set up for several years now.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So I buy a second MEC and ADAT card..check to see that both MEC and
>> > ADAT
>> >> >> card are functioning by connecting them to Card A...I didn't try
>> > sending
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> signal to my machine with the Dakota card so I am in fact assuming
>> >> >> they
>> >> > both
>> >> >> work BUT this new MEC setup was recognised by Paris and showed up
>> >> > correctly
>> >> >> in the Patch bay window
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So I....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wired MEC A via multi pin cable to Card A
>> >> >> Wired MEC B via multi pin cable to Card B
>> >> >> Link the two MECs via the word clock cable I bought from you...MEC
>> > A -WC
>> >> > out
>> >> >> to MEC B WC in
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Start Paris - Get message - Error in initializing Paris Engine
> Error
>> >> >> Code
>> >> >> 18/12
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I did some testing and both multi pin cables are good and both MECs
>> >> >> get
>> >> >> recognised individually by Card A but neither MEC is recognised
>> >> > individually
>> >> >> by Card B
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Any ideas as to what is going on?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Don
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>That the exact config that worked for me.
good luck
Deej
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eb0c1$1@linux...
> Ok...I'll swap out the Modules in MEC A so that it is
>
> Slot 1) ADAT
> Slot 2) 8 in
> Slot 3) 8 out
>
> I'll get back to you when that is done...1/2 hour or so
>
> DOn
>
>
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451eb02c$1@linux...
> > Use MEC slot #1 for the ADAT card on all MECs.
> >
> > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eafd3@linux...
> >> Sorry DJ yes it is Win XP
> >>
> >> Present set up is MEC A - ADAT is in slot 5 (it's original slot)
> >> MEC B - ADAT is in Slot 1
> >>
> >> Should I swap MEC A's ADAT to slot 1 or Slot 3
> >>
> >> DOn
> >>
> >> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451eaefd@linux...
> >> > Hmmm..........Win XP I'm assuming. Try inserting the ADAT cards in
> >> > different
> >> > slots-preferably the #1 slots. I actually had 2 x ADAT cards working
in
> >> > MEC
> >> > #1 and a single ADAT card working in MECs 2 & 3 back when I was
running
> >> > Paris on XP. The ADAT cards were in the first two MEC slots on the
MEC
> > on
> >> > card A and in the first slot on the MECs on Cards B & C.
> >> >
> >> > Deej
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eadce$1@linux...
> >> >> 2 MECs with one ADAT module per MEC
> >> >>
> >> >> D
> >> >>
> >> >> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451ea7e4@linux...
> >> >> > 18/12 is an ADAT module error IIRC. Are you running Paris on Win
XP?
> > If
> >> >> > so,
> >> >> > do you have more than one ADAT module "per MEC'? If this is the
> >> >> > case,
> >> > this
> >> >> > is the problem. If you've only got one ADAT module, make sure it's
> >> >> > in
> >> > the
> >> >> > MEC attached to Card A.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Deej
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:451ea4da@linux...
> >> >> >> Okay here's where I am so far
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2 EDS cards - Both functioning when Card A is connected to single
> > MEC
> >> > A -
> >> >> >> this has been my set up for several years now.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So I buy a second MEC and ADAT card..check to see that both MEC
and
> >> > ADAT
> >> >> >> card are functioning by connecting them to Card A...I didn't try
> >> > sending
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> signal to my machine with the Dakota card so I am in fact
assuming
> >> >> >> they
> >> >> > both
> >> >> >> work BUT this new MEC setup was recognised by Paris and showed up
> >> >> > correctly
> >> >> >> in the Patch bay window
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So I....
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Wired MEC A via multi pin cable to Card A
> >> >> >> Wired MEC B via multi pin cable to Card B
> >> >> >> Link the two MECs via the word clock cable I bought from
you...MEC
> >> > A -WC
> >> >> > out
> >> >> >> to MEC B WC in
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Start Paris - Get message - Error in initializing Paris Engine
> > Error
> >> >> >> Code
> >> >> >> 18/12
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I did some testing and both multi pin cables are good and both
MECs
> >> >> >> get
> >> >> >> recognised individually by Card A but neither MEC is recognised
> >> >> > individually
> >> >> >> by Card B
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Any ideas as to what is going on?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Don
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>Hi, Kim.
Yes, mostly my work. (I didn't do the mastering).
Some guitar parts on the second album were recorded in Sam's home, as he
preferred to
nut out his parts at his own pace. Likewise the Hammond parts.
(Paul has a C3 in his lounge room).
Mixing was quite a challenge. One of the tunes peaked at 80
tracks. (the only time I used virtual submixing).
Half the band, including the leader, now live in Melbourne,
so they do gig there every couple of months, when the Adelaide
contingent can make it across.
I found the dragster stuff amongst the archives.
I'll convert them to mp3 in the next day or two.
Cheers,
Kim W
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Kim,
>
>Thanks heaps for that. I've downloaded the two MP3's and am having a listen
>now. Sounding excellent. Is this all your work or was some done elsewhere?
>I'll have to check these guys out if they ever come over this way.
>
>And do post about that other group. I'm very keen to have a listen...
>
>Cheers,
>Kim.
>"Kim W" <no@way.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Kim.
>>
>>http://www.goose.com.au/multimedia.php
>>There is a link to two mp3's and a bunch of videos.
>>
>>http://www.goose.com.au/index.php
>>Here you will find a list of retailers.
>>
>>Will check out your stuff further on the studio monitors. Sounds great
so
>>far. Gotta keep painting the spare room right now.
>>
>>I recoreded a band called "Dragster" some years ago on my fostex
>>b16. I will post a couple of songs somewhere and give you the links.
>>They were a scream...should be up your alley also.
>>In fact I'll start a new topic for the benefit of others overseas. Their
>>stuff was priceless, wildly funky and funny as
>>all hell. (very Australian as well).
>>Cheers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Kim,
>>>
>>>I didn't see any links, but I didn't look that hard, and my monitors aren't
>>>all that bright. I'll have a better look. I'm more than happy to shell
>out
>>>the cash as it's excellent work.
>>>
>>>If I get no joy trying to track down a copy I'll let you know. I've just
>>>gotta get my hands on that though. Right up my alley...
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Kim.
>>>
>>>"Kim Dubya" <no@way.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Good stuff. Great live vibe!
>>>>Overcompressed?, maybe a little for my tastes, but it would
>>>>sit well on radio, and does so on small systems. A matter of
>>>>taste, really.
>>>>I didn't master the Goose stuff, but I remember hearing the first
>>>>mastered version of "schwang", and I felt it didn't breathe enough.
>>>>I told the band, and they got the mastering engineer to back off
>>>>the processing, and the result was much better.
>>>>As it turned out, the final master sounded pretty close to the
>>>>final mixes, but louder.
>>>>Perhaps for commercial airplay the first master would be better,
>>>>but the band decided to opt for the transparency of the second.
>>>>As I said, matter of taste.
>>>>Go to the goose homepage and you will find a list of outlets that
>>>>stock the cd's. There are a couple of full songs on the page, but
>>>>I think "rump" is a rough mix they posted.
>>>>Failing that, I could check with Dave, and send you a couple of
>>>>"evaluation" copies if you wish. I don't have spares of the prints.
>>>>Email me your postal address.
>>>>Kim Twosheep.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=91
>>>>>
>>>>>Gee, doesn't What You Need sound overcompressed these days? ;o) My ears
>>>>have
>>>>>certainly changed. I remember mastering that and thinking that compression
>>>>>was the best thing since Paris...
>>>>>
>>>>>...turns out it's all a little too squished really. Should have just
>pumped
>>>>>the Paris mix bus a little harder...
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>Kim.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>Kim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Kim W" <no@way.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ah yes. The good old days.
>>>>>>>My first Paris recording was for a then Adelaide based 70's influenced
>>>>>soul/funk
>>>>>>>outfit called Goose. (now Melbourne based). At any one time they have
>>>>some
>>>>>>>fifteen members.
>>>>>>>Early versions of Paris had a bug which would
>>>>>>>corrupt segments occasionall
|
|
|
|
| Re: still fighting for stability [message #72485 is a reply to message #72480] |
Fri, 15 September 2006 22:48 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hour or so
> >
> > DOn
> >
> >
> > "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451eb02c$1@linux...
> > > Use MEC slot #1 for the ADAT card on all MECs.
> > >
> > > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eafd3@linux...
> > >> Sorry DJ yes it is Win XP
> > >>
> > >> Present set up is MEC A - ADAT is in slot 5 (it's original slot)
> > >> MEC B - ADAT is in Slot 1
> > >>
> > >> Should I swap MEC A's ADAT to slot 1 or Slot 3
> > >>
> > >> DOn
> > >>
> > >> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451eaefd@linux...
> > >> > Hmmm..........Win XP I'm assuming. Try inserting the ADAT cards in
> > >> > different
> > >> > slots-preferably the #1 slots. I actually had 2 x ADAT cards
working
> in
> > >> > MEC
> > >> > #1 and a single ADAT card working in MECs 2 & 3 back when I was
> running
> > >> > Paris on XP. The ADAT cards were in the first two MEC slots on the
> MEC
> > > on
> > >> > card A and in the first slot on the MECs on Cards B & C.
> > >> >
> > >> > Deej
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:451eadce$1@linux...
> > >> >> 2 MECs with one ADAT module per MEC
> > >> >>
> > >> >> D
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451ea7e4@linux...
> > >> >> > 18/12 is an ADAT module error IIRC. Are you running Paris on Win
> XP?
> > > If
> > >> >> > so,
> > >> >> > do you have more than one ADAT module "per MEC'? If this is the
> > >> >> > case,
> > >> > this
> > >> >> > is the problem. If you've only got one ADAT module, make sure
it's
> > >> >> > in
> > >> > the
> > >> >> > MEC attached to Card A.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Deej
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message
> news:451ea4da@linux...
> > >> >> >> Okay here's where I am so far
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> 2 EDS cards - Both functioning when Card A is connected to
single
> > > MEC
> > >> > A -
> > >> >> >> this has been my set up for several years now.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> So I buy a second MEC and ADAT card..check to see that both MEC
> and
> > >> > ADAT
> > >> >> >> card are functioning by connecting them to Card A...I didn't
try
> > >> > sending
> > >> >> >> a
> > >> >> >> signal to my machine with the Dakota card so I am in fact
> assuming
> > >> >> >> they
> > >> >> > both
> > >> >> >> work BUT this new MEC setup was recognised by Paris and showed
up
> > >> >> > correctly
> > >> >> >> in the Patch bay window
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> So I....
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Wired MEC A via multi pin cable to Card A
> > >> >> >> Wired MEC B via multi pin cable to Card B
> > >> >> >> Link the two MECs via the word clock cable I bought from
> you...MEC
> > >> > A -WC
> > >> >> > out
> > >> >> >> to MEC B WC in
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Start Paris - Get message - Error in initializing Paris Engine
> > > Error
> > >> >> >> Code
> > >> >> >> 18/12
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> I did some testing and both multi pin cables are good and both
> MECs
> > >> >> >> get
> > >> >> >> recognised individually by Card A but neither MEC is recognised
> > >> >> > individually
> > >> >> >> by Card B
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Any ideas as to what is going on?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Don
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>Hi, Rich.
Sorry, your post slipped under the radar.
I was running these cards under win98 prior to switching to XP
earlier this year. Drivers are available.
Kim
"Rich Kelley" <r_and_b_junkmail@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Looking on the NVIDIA website, these cards only seem to have XP Drivers,
true?
>
>I'm trying to decide whether to go to XP or stay on 98. Except for large
>HD support (>137GB), I can't see a reason to make the jump. This might
be
>one more reason.
>
>My PARIS machine is dedicated to PARIS.
>
>Rich Kelley
>
>"Kim W" <no@way.com> wrote:
>>
>>OOPS!
>>Try these for the PCI.
>>Guess my copy/paste chops aren't up to it a 4am.
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/NVIDIA-64MB-PCI-Graphics-Card-Quadro-NVS 280-DDR_W0QQitemZ140032418162QQihZ004QQcategoryZ96877QQrdZ1Q QcmdZViewItem
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/PNY-NVIDIA-QUADRO-NVS-280-PCI-64MB-VCQ42 80NVS-PCI_W0QQitemZ110038297777QQihZ001QQcategoryZ64481QQrdZ 1QQcmdZViewItem
>>
>>>Lookie Here:
>>>
>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/Nvidia-Quadro-NVS-280-AGP-64mb-2x-4x-8x- Dual-Video_W0QQitemZ180032324096QQihZ008QQcategoryZ40161QQrd Z1QQcmdZViewItem
>>>
>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/Nvidia-Quadro-NVS-280-AGP-64mb-2x-4x-8x- Dual-Video_W0QQitemZ180032324980QQihZ008QQcategoryZ40161QQrd Z1QQcmdZViewItem
>>>
>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/NVIDIA-Quadro-NVS280-AGP-64mb-DDR-SDRAM- Excellent_W0QQitemZ260035231225QQihZ016QQcategoryZ40161QQrdZ 1QQcmdZViewItem
>>>
>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/NVIDIA-Quadro-NVS280-AGP-64mb-DDR-SDRAM- Excellent_W0QQitemZ260035231225QQihZ016QQcategoryZ40161QQrdZ 1QQcmdZViewItem
>>>
>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/NVIDIA-Quadro-NVS280-AGP-64mb-DDR-SDRAM- Excellent_W0QQitemZ260035231225QQihZ016QQcategoryZ40161QQrdZ 1QQcmdZViewItem
>>>
>>>Passive cooling, too. Nice and quiet.
>>>
>>>Kim
>>>
>>>"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>Kim,
>>>>
>>>>Could you get me the model #'s of those video cards when you get a chance?
>>>>
>>>>thanks, oh moderating one
>>>>
>>>>;o)
>>>>
>>>>"Kim W" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:451c10ca$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, DJ.
>>>>> They are the original Quadros. (NVS 280 I think..)
>>>>> Would have to check. Got them some time ago on ebay for next to
>>>>> nothing. These are/were available in PCI and AGP.
>>>>> Yes, sluttage is good!
>>>>> Kim
>>>>>
>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>> >Ahhhh.....HA!!! ....sooooo....... you're using 4 monitors as well?
>
>>I
>>>>missed
>>>>> >that. What kind of dual heads are you using? GEForce 5500's?
>>>>> > BTW, your foray into wretched exess and componentry sluttage has
made
>>>me
>>>>> >proud.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >;o)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >"Kim W" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:451bfec7$1@linux...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Hi John.
>>>>> >> Never used a Magma. I reckon you could probably even get 5 EDS's
>>>>> >> working, but I need 4 monitors, so one of the pci slots has a
>>>>> >> Nvidia Quadro in it.
>>>>> >> Kim
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >No problems with IRQs? What fun is that? Is 4 the most Paris
can
>>>go
>>>>> >before
>>>>> >> >a Magma chassis is needed? So how are the IRQs on the Magma again
>>>>with
>>>>> >> 8
>>>>> >> >eds cards? It has one PCI interface card that goes in the host
>pc
>>>and
>>>>> it
>>>>> >> >uses 2(?) irqs and the chassis shares those two across the 8 cards?
>>>>> How
>>>>> >> >does that work?
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >Thanks,
>>>>> >> >John
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >"Kim W." <no@way.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>A bit hard to find these days, and a bit "old school", but they
>>are
>>>>> >still
>>>>> >> >>out there.
>>>>> >> >>Gigabyte K8NS Ultra 939. Works like a charm with XP and 4 EDS
cards,
>>>>> and
>>>>> >> >>two dual-head Nvidia VGA's.
>>>>> >> >>I Highly recommend it. No problems with IRQ's etc, just plug in
>>>>> >> >>all cards, and install XP. Easy.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>Kim
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>"Steve L." <slavii@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>>I am strongly considering building myself a new box and making
>>the
>>>>> >switch
>>>>> >> >>>from 98 to xp. Is there a list of moterboards (or any other
>>>>hardware)
>>>>> >> >that
>>>>> >> >>>works best in running paris on XP. I will only use this computer
>>>to
>>>>> >run
>>>>> >> >>>Paris. And if I have a system with 2 eds cards, one mec, one
>c16,
>>>>> is
>>>>> >> it
>>>>> >> >>>worth it for me to switch to XP ?
>>>>> >> >>> I rarely have projects with more than 32 tracks.
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>>Thanks,
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>>Steve L.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>I'm sure this will be an interesting read.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/287061_applebook30.ht ml
I got to meet Steve Wozniak in 2000 when he gave a speech at MacGroup Detroit.
www.macgroup.org. He told the story of how he created the first practical
PC. the story was vary interesting and his antidotes were vary funny.
His father was a rocket scientist/mathematics guy at Raytheon corp., he taught
Woz advanced mathematics. Woz use mathematics to shrink down the size of
the chips to make a smaller computer that could do more tasks. He also figured
out that he could use one chip that could do three things, instead of three
chips, and save more space and money. He did things like adding an electric
typewriter key board and a CRT monitor.
He changed the world, companies like IBM more than likely, would have kept
computers corporate and vary expensive. He made computers more affordable
and accessible to everybody. Woz was definitely a whiz kid.Hi DJ
Bingo !!! all is good with the world
Thank you
DOn
ps. Dave...thanks you actually beat Deej to the pucnch with the solution by
one minute
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451eb3ca@linux...
> BTW, I'm off to the store for a while. B'back in about 3 hours. One
> suggestion before I go. If this configuration doesn't work right out of
> the
> chute, save your fxvar file (so your EDS presets are preserved), uninstall
> and reinstall Paris so that the first configuration the new install sees
> is
> this one. IIRC, that's something I had to do, but Paris on XP can be
> quirky
> sometimes. I think Mic Cross had 2 x ADAT modules working in each of 4 X
> MECS........Brian T. also. I couldn't get this working.......but then
> again,
> those guys are smart.
> ;o)
> Deej
>
>
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451eb26c$1@linux...
>> That the exact config that worked for me.
>>
>> good luck
>>
>> Deej
>>
>> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eb0c1$1@linux...
>> > Ok...I'll swap out the Modules in MEC A so that it is
>> >
>> > Slot 1) ADAT
>> > Slot 2) 8 in
>> > Slot 3) 8 out
>> >
>> > I'll get back to you when that is done...1/2 hour or so
>> >
>> > DOn
>> >
>> >
>> > "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451eb02c$1@linux...
>> > > Use MEC slot #1 for the ADAT card on all MECs.
>> > >
>> > > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:451eafd3@linux...
>> > >> Sorry DJ yes it is Win XP
>> > >>
>> > >> Present set up is MEC A - ADAT is in slot 5 (it's original slot)
>> > >> MEC B - ADAT is in Slot 1
>> > >>
>> > >> Should I swap MEC A's ADAT to slot 1 or Slot 3
>> > >>
>> > >> DOn
>> > >>
>> > >> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451eaefd@linux...
>> > >> > Hmmm..........Win XP I'm assuming. Try inserting the ADAT cards in
>> > >> > different
>> > >> > slots-preferably the #1 slots. I actually had 2 x ADAT cards
> working
>> in
>> > >> > MEC
>> > >> > #1 and a single ADAT card working in MECs 2 & 3 back when I was
>> running
>> > >> > Paris on XP. The ADAT cards were in the first two MEC slots on the
>> MEC
>> > > on
>> > >> > card A and in the first slot on the MECs on Cards B & C.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Deej
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message
> news:451eadce$1@linux...
>> > >> >> 2 MECs with one ADAT module per MEC
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> D
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451ea7e4@linux...
>> > >> >> > 18/12 is an ADAT module error IIRC. Are you running Paris on
>> > >> >> > Win
>> XP?
>> > > If
>> > >> >> > so,
>> > >> >> > do you have more than one ADAT module "per MEC'? If this is the
>> > >> >> > case,
>> > >> > this
>> > >> >> > is the problem. If you've only got one ADAT module, make sure
> it's
>> > >> >> > in
>> > >> > the
>> > >> >> > MEC attached to Card A.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Deej
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message
>> news:451ea4da@linux...
>> > >> >> >> Okay here's where I am so far
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> 2 EDS cards - Both functioning when Card A is connected to
> single
>> > > MEC
>> > >> > A -
>> > >> >> >> this has been my set up for several years now.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> So I buy a second MEC and ADAT card..check to see that both
>> > >> >> >> MEC
>> and
>> > >> > ADAT
>> > >> >> >> card are funct
|
|
|
|
| Re: still fighting for stability [message #72494 is a reply to message #72485] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 08:14 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
plugins is much appreciated. On a
>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and soft
>
>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>
>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>
>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>
>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here and
>
>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>
>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> LaMont wrote:
>>> Wow!
>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>
>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
> losing
>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
> ...I
>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>
>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>>>> sealed
>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>
>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this charade
>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>> users,
>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>>>> luster.
>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
> are
>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not play.
>>>> Even
>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
> waste
>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you stop
>>>> evolving,
>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon
>>>> (Winter
>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>
>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with Apogee
>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem: Apogee
>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should run.
> I
>>>> hope
>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who have
>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but I'm
> sure
>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>Hey Jamie good points. I think most if not all former users wnat Logic Audio
to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps that
we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the other,
no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair with
that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple can
develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I think
that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over the
Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to snub
their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks like
a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner, Magix
(Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually appealing.Giveing
their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens me to
know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign) by
the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic Audio.
New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..???? Is
that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason to fork
over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with a
new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting to
look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to become
THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
What happend??
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate the
>change.
>
>For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>
>Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX are
>useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>prefer.
>
>I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>
>Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can tell
>you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you but
>there is no perfect product. :^)
>
>It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what we
>need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free to
>ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these days.
>I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
>
>DP is nice, too.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>Lamont wrote:
>> Hey Jamie,
>>
>> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm only
stating
>> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
>> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic audio,
>> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the But..
>>
>> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting the
Windows
>> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does not
change
>> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and so will
>> Digital Performer.
>> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown in),
I
>> cant really see them making any market penatration.
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em
for
>>
>>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>>> miffed. Whatever.
>>>
>>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>>
>>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated. On
a
>>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and soft
>>
>>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>>
>>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>>
>>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>>
>>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here
and
>>
>>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>>
>>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>> Wow!
>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>> losing
>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
>> ...I
>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>>>>> sealed
>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this
charade
>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>>> users,
>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>>>>> luster.
>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>> are
>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not play.
>>>>> Even
>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>> waste
>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you stop
>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
Soon
>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
Apogee
>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
Apogee
>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should run.
>> I
>>>>> hope
>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who
have
>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but I'm
>> sure
>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>You know that's funny.
Most Australians don't / won't drink Fosters...sure says something for their
OS marketing though, doesn't it?
BTW, I think those 1 litre cans were only for export or made OS. Don't
remember them here.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451f17c1$1@linux...
>I used to drink Fosters in another life..........those big litre steel
>cans.
> Man, those things got soooooo rank with the metallic aftertaste once they
> had been chilled and then warmed up a bit........which was always a good
> excuse to drink 'em quick.
>
> Yikes!!! ;o)
>
>
> "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:451eef22$1@linux...
>> From what I can recall, the average Aussie now drinks more wine than
>> beer.
>> Gotta save those 'little creatures".
>> --
>> Martin Harrington
>> www.lendanear-sound.com
>>
>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451e9484$1@linux...
>> > Crikey! Actually, I'd probably fit right in with the fauna. When I was
>> > a
>> > kid, I had a minizoo with snakes, alligators, turtles aanything else I
>> > could
>> > catch in the local billabong. I did stop drinking over 15 years ago.
>> > Can
> I
>> > be an honorary Aussie and not drink beer? I suppose there may be other
>> > kinds
>> > of *little creatures* you could bring to a pub, but ingesting them
>> > might
>> > cause problems/get you arrested.
>> >
>> > ;o)
>> >
>> > "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> > news:451e1bb2$1@linux...
>> >> Deej,
>> >> I hereby bequeath upon you, the title of "HONOURARY AUSTRALIAN"
>> >> --
>> >> Martin Harrington
>> >> www.lendanear-sound.com
>> >>
>> >> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:451dfe0f$1@linux...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Kim W." <no@way.com> wrote:
>> >> >>Kenoath!!
>> >> >>(I speak for both us Kims)
>> >> >
>> >> > ROTLF!! Indeed he does. ;o)
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> > Kim.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>Kim W
>> >> >>
>> >> >>"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>I was wondering what that Holden was doing in my driveway and why
> I've
>> >> > been
>> >> >>>referring to gasoline as being "petrol" lately.
>> >> >>>Well, at least I have been paying fewer pence for it lately. If I'm
>> > you,
>> >> >>>then I can say cool stuff like "stone the crows" and it will be OK,
>> >> >>>right?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>;O)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>>news:451deecc$1@linux...
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Well I have no idea what Kim W looks like, as we have never been
> in
>> > the
>> >> >>>same
>> >> >>>> room together at the same time to my knowledge...
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ...hmm, never been seen in the same room at the same time eh?
> Hmm...
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ...though I am also about 5'9" and my hair these days somewhat
>> >> >>>"cueball'esque"...
>> >> >>>> so perhaps we are the same person. I hear we've never been seen
> in
>> >> > the
>> >> >>>> same room at the same time either... ;o)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ...though if we are the same person, who was I talking to on the
>> > phone
>> >> >>the
>> >> >>>> other week... ...maybe my medication isn't working... ;o)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ...and where the hell did I put those distressors?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ;o)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Cheers,
>> >> >>>> Kim.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>> >Well, I've met Doug Wellington and he's about 6'4". I'm 5'9". He
>> > also
>> >> >>has
>> >> >>>> >hair down to his waist and I'm cueball'esque so there wouldn't
>> >> >>>> >be
>> > much
>> >> >>in
>> >> >>>> >the way of mistaking us for each other........oh
>> >> >>>> >yeah........he's
>> >> >>>*really*
>> >> >>>> >incredibly-as in genius level, smart as well so there's another
>> >> >>>> >dissimilarity. I'm not going to start talking about clothes,
>> >> >>>toothbrushes,
>> >> >>>> >etc. That's too gross. where'd you get that stuff anyway?
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> >;o)
>> >> >>>> >
>> >> >>>> >"Kim" <Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: still fighting for stability [message #72497 is a reply to message #72494] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 08:34 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
und.com
>
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451f17c1$1@linux...
> >I used to drink Fosters in another life..........those big litre steel
> >cans.
> > Man, those things got soooooo rank with the metallic aftertaste once
they
> > had been chilled and then warmed up a bit........which was always a good
> > excuse to drink 'em quick.
> >
> > Yikes!!! ;o)
> >
> >
> > "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:451eef22$1@linux...
> >> From what I can recall, the average Aussie now drinks more wine than
> >> beer.
> >> Gotta save those 'little creatures".
> >> --
> >> Martin Harrington
> >> www.lendanear-sound.com
> >>
> >> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451e9484$1@linux...
> >> > Crikey! Actually, I'd probably fit right in with the fauna. When I
was
> >> > a
> >> > kid, I had a minizoo with snakes, alligators, turtles aanything else
I
> >> > could
> >> > catch in the local billabong. I did stop drinking over 15 years ago.
> >> > Can
> > I
> >> > be an honorary Aussie and not drink beer? I suppose there may be
other
> >> > kinds
> >> > of *little creatures* you could bring to a pub, but ingesting them
> >> > might
> >> > cause problems/get you arrested.
> >> >
> >> > ;o)
> >> >
> >> > "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> >> > news:451e1bb2$1@linux...
> >> >> Deej,
> >> >> I hereby bequeath upon you, the title of "HONOURARY AUSTRALIAN"
> >> >> --
> >> >> Martin Harrington
> >> >> www.lendanear-sound.com
> >> >>
> >> >> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:451dfe0f$1@linux...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Kim W." <no@way.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>Kenoath!!
> >> >> >>(I speak for both us Kims)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ROTLF!! Indeed he does. ;o)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cheers,
> >> >> > Kim.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Kim W
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>>I was wondering what that Holden was doing in my driveway and why
> > I've
> >> >> > been
> >> >> >>>referring to gasoline as being "petrol" lately.
> >> >> >>>Well, at least I have been paying fewer pence for it lately. If
I'm
> >> > you,
> >> >> >>>then I can say cool stuff like "stone the crows" and it will be
OK,
> >> >> >>>right?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>;O)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>>news:451deecc$1@linux...
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Well I have no idea what Kim W looks like, as we have never
been
> > in
> >> > the
> >> >> >>>same
> >> >> >>>> room together at the same time to my knowledge...
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> ...hmm, never been seen in the same room at the same time eh?
> > Hmm...
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> ...though I am also about 5'9" and my hair these days somewhat
> >> >> >>>"cueball'esque"...
> >> >> >>>> so perhaps we are the same person. I hear we've never been
seen
> > in
> >> >> > the
> >> >> >>>> same room at the same time either... ;o)
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> ...though if we are the same person, who was I talking to on
the
> >> > phone
> >> >> >>the
> >> >> >>>> other week... ...maybe my medication isn't working... ;o)
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> ...and where the hell did I put those distressors?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> ;o)
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Cheers,
> >> >> >>>> Kim.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> >Well, I've met Doug Wellington and he's about 6'4". I'm 5'9".
He
> >> > also
> >> >> >>has
> >> >> >>>> >hair down to his waist and I'm cueball'esque so there wouldn't
> >> >> >>>> >be
> >> > much
> >> >> >>in
> >> >> >>>> >the way of mistaking us for each other........oh
> >> >> >>>> >yeah........he's
> >> >> >>>*really*
> >> >> >>>> >incredibly-as in genius level, smart as well so there's
another
> >> >> >>>> >dissimilarity. I'm not going to start talking about clothes,
> >> >> >>>toothbrushes,
> >> >> >>>> >etc. That's too gross. where'd you get that stuff anyway?
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> >;o)
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> >"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>>news:451de552$1@linux...
> >> >> >>>> >>
> >> >> >>>> >> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> >> >Yeah, OK, but are you really Kim.........or are you Kim?
> >> >> >>>> >>
> >> >> >>>> >> Well that is the question. And are you Deej? And who is this
> >> > Animix
> >> >> >>>fellow
> >> >> >>>> >> who was posting a while back... and this guy Doug, how
does
> > he
> >> > fit
> >> >> >>>into
> >> >> >>>> >> the picture? And do Doug Wellington's clothes fit this
Animix
> >> >> >>>> >> guy?
> >> >> >>>> >>
> >> >> >>>> >> All these questions and more... ;o)
> >> >> >>>> >>
> >> >> >>>> >> Cheers,
> >> >> >>>> >> Kim.
> >> >> >>>> >>
> >> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >> >>>> >> >;o)
> >> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >> >>>> >> >"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>>> >news:451da750$1@linux...
> >> >> >>>> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> >> >> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> >> >> >If I don't have whatever this is, I will die.
> >> >> >>>> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> >> >> Hehe, it's an oldie, but it still made me LOL. ;o)
> >> >> >>>> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> >> >> ...because I know it's true. ;o)
> >> >> >>>> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> >>>> >> >> Kim.
> >> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >> >>>> >> >
> >> >> >>>> >>
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>Well Emapple HAVE been rewriting Logic, it's improved significantly
during the time I've been using it.
Have you been following the updates over the last couple of years? First
they added a ton of good to great FX and instrument plugins and some new
features. Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine
remodeling and bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire?
What, exactly, do you find missing? What part of the current audio track
editing or waveform editing don't you like?
Regarding MSWindows - I understand that's an issue for some folks
(particularly those who didn't switch when Logic went OSX-only), but
really, this is not an issue for everyone. It's kinda late in the game
to still be complaining about that, either switch to OSX (a very good
OS) or give up on Logic and know that just because you gave up doesn't
mean it hasn't improved tremendously and people aren't using and liking
the current version - it's a much better program on OSX today than it
was on MSWindows four years ago, or however long it's been. For that
matter it's a much better program on OSX today than it was on MacOS 9.
I'm no fan of either OS 9 or MSWindows for my own OS snob reasons, but
OSX doesn't suck too badly (high compliment).
At this point I'm OK with seeing the development team continue to
optimize Logic for OSX as they continue to rewrite and update code. If
there's a problem I can complain to a single company to fix it - as I
did when the Apple rep came to town earlier this year. Whether that had
anything to do with it or not, the bugs I complained about got fixed.
I would like to see Emapple continue the process of moving things from
the Environment and into the Arrange window. The manual control in the
Environment is powerful, but some of that could be made easier and put
into the Arrange. It's not a prob for me, I know my way around the
Environment enough to do what I need to do but it would help with the
learning curve for new users to keep up that trend - they've already
done some things toward that end.
I do like that I can arrange multiple mixer windows however I want them,
size the Arrange window to fit, add a transport and I have a really good
view of the project on my 24" widescreen monitor. Views are automatic
and I sometimes use multiple views to arrange windows for different
tasks, but for the most part one view and a big monitor is golden.
They've improved things tremendously by letting users drag plugins
around on the GUI and allowing whole racks of FX to be saved and
recalled. I would say the interface is not "dated" so much as "really,
efficient." I'd hate to see them lose that efficiency in an effort to be
glitzier.
The color scheme is OK with me but I can see where you might like to
have control over that. When the color scheme hacks came out for PARIS I
thought they were interesting but there again, I was OK with the color
scheme for PARIS.
The main questions for me are does it do what I need, within budget, and
does it sound good. Yes to both. In fact it exceeds what I need. At this
point I really appreciate the power on my studio desktop.
Again, there are other systems that also work well. A lot of folks like
Nuendo/Cubase, the new Cubase looks great. The new Digital Performer
also looks great, Etc. If my needs were different I'd still be using
PARIS - it does a lot, just falls short with MIDI and has a few other
limitations, but within those limitations it's a very usable system.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
LaMont wrote:
> Hey Jamie good points. I think most if not all former users wnat Logic Audio
> to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps that
> we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the other,
> no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
>
> Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair with
> that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple can
> develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I think
> that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over the
> Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
> an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to snub
> their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks like
> a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner, Magix
> (Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually appealing.Giveing
> their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens me to
> know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign) by
> the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic Audio.
> New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..???? Is
> that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
> They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason to fork
> over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
>
> Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with a
> new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting to
> look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to become
> THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
> What happend??
>
>
>
>
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>> Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate the
>
>> change.
>>
>> For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>> my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>>
>> Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX are
>> useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>> that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>> prefer.
>>
>> I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>> uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>> that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>> been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>
>> else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>>
>> Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can tell
>
>> you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you but
>
>> there is no perfect product. :^)
>>
>> It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what we
>
>> need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free to
>> ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these days.
>
>> I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>> impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
>>
>> DP is nice, too.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Lamont wrote:
>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>
>>> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm only
> stating
>>> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
>>> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic audio,
>>> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the But..
>>>
>>> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting the
> Windows
>>> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does not
> change
>>> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and so will
>>> Digital Performer.
>>> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown in),
> I
>>> cant really see them making any market penatration.
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>
>>>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em
> for
>>>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>>>> miffed. Whatever.
>>>>
>>>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>>>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>>>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>>>
>>>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>
>>>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated. On
> a
>>>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and soft
>>>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>
>>>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>>>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>
>>>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>>>
>>>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>>>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here
> and
>>>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>>>
>>>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>>>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>> Wow!
>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>>> losing
>>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
>>> ...I
>>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>>>>>> sealed
>>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this
> charade
>>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>>>>>> luster.
>>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>>> are
>>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not play.
>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>>> waste
>>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you stop
>>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
> Soon
>>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
> Apogee
>>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
> Apogee
>>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should run.
>>> I
>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who
> have
>>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but I'm
>>> sure
>>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>"Kim W" <no@way.com> wrote:
|
|
|
|
| Re: still fighting for stability [message #72502 is a reply to message #72485] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 09:58 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
their interface looks
like
>> a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner,
Magix
>> (Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually
appealing.Giveing
>> their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens me
to
>> know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign)
by
>> the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic
Audio.
>> New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..????
Is
>> that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
>> They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason to
fork
>> over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
>>
>> Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with
a
>> new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting
to
>> look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to become
>> THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
>> What happend??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>>> Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate
the
>>
>>> change.
>>>
>>> For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>>> my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>>>
>>> Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX are
>>> useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>>> that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>>> prefer.
>>>
>>> I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>>> uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>>> that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>>> been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>>
>>> else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>>>
>>> Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can tell
>>
>>> you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you
but
>>
>>> there is no perfect product. :^)
>>>
>>> It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what
we
>>
>>> need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free to
>>> ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these days.
>>
>>> I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>>> impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
>>>
>>> DP is nice, too.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>>
>>>> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm only
>> stating
>>>> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
>>>> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic
audio,
>>>> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the
But..
>>>>
>>>> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting the
>> Windows
>>>> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does not
>> change
>>>> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and so
will
>>>> Digital Performer.
>>>> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown in),
>> I
>>>> cant really see them making any market penatration.
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>>
>>>>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em
>> for
>>>>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>>>>> miffed. Whatever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>>>>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>>>>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>>
>>>>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated. On
>> a
>>>>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and
soft
>>>>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>>
>>>>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>>>>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>>
>>>>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>>>>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here
>> and
>>>>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>>>>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>>>> losing
>>>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
>>>> ...I
>>>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>>>>>>> sealed
>>>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this
>> charade
>>>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>>>>>>> luster.
>>>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>>>> are
>>>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not
play.
>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>>>> waste
>>>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you
stop
>>>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
>> Soon
>>>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
>> Apogee
>>>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
>> Apogee
>>>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should
run.
>>>> I
>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who
>> have
>>>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but
I'm
>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of audio editing,
look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks like
Apple is heading there without them.
I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading the Logic
Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2_restoration
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameriech.net> wrote:
>
>Hey Jamie, I preety much know tha you have no problems nor resevations on
>logic audio. However, to answer your question
>
>"Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine remodeling and
>bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire? What, exactly,
>do you find missing? What part of the current audio track editing or waveform
>editing don't you like?io in it's currrent state . :"
>
>Jamie have a look at a current running thread on gearslutz.com concerning
>Logic Audio 8: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=87812&hi ghlight=Logic+Audio
>
>The overwhemingly want is a sleek plaing field that's not clunky, and more
>like Pro Tools and Nuendo. How about some of the slick right-mouse clicking
>features found in Nuendo? Not to mention all of it's menu driven editing..Logic
>audio is not in this leauge at all. When they should be.
>
>But, as long as Logic & DP Continue down their Midi first/Audio secondary
>mind-set, then both will continue to lose market share. Both Apps new complete
>re-write from scratch. I thought I never say this but, Apple should scrap
>this versio of Logic 7.x and go build off Sountrack Pro with the addition
>of Final-Cut Pro, which would yield a Nuendo like app..That would be worth
>$900.00 bucks.
>Just to clarify. You ask what I don't like about Logic? The answers can
be
>found in SoundTrack Pro sleek modern, but powerful audio editing. If Apple
>decides to join Final cut and Sountrack together, and start phasing out
Logic(Vintage)7.x,
>then that along would increase market excitement ten-fold.
>
>But,to keep applying bandaids for an antequated ,but powerful midi-audio
>sequencer is ludacris at best. At it's core, it's a Midi sequencer first
>and a audio recorder second. That combination does not sit well today. Most
>of us want a serious, sleek audio engine first, with a good sequencer..That's
>all.. Yes, I know that there folks like you, and me, who have dedicated
Sequencing
>machines, but not everyone..
>
>Note: My Last version of Logic on windows 5.5 was and sill is smokin!! Very
>stable runing on an AMD Xp2800 machine with M-audio cards using the EASI
>drivers. My windows version out performed my G4-500, and our Studios Dual867
>G4(so musch for the Mac hype). On a PC, I can run full (say 20plus vstis)
>on a given session with about 50 audio tracks..with verbs. The macs would
>choke everytime we tried doing soemthing like that..
>
>Now, with Intel dual cores)Logic can run some serious amount of plugins.Hummm..
>Even Quad G5 can't run with Intel Macs.. Mac Hype all the way to PC land..
>My point, Pc's have always ran Logic better than nay Mac. I should know,
>I run both..
>
>Same with Mac OSX..Nice OS, but very very Bloated. More bloated than WinXP.
>To me and others, Windows outperforms OSX on most DAWS..Especialy Pro-Tools..It's
>not even a funny.
>Now that we are all running PCs (Intels & Amds), we can all have the great
>performance that only Steve JObs promised us. ":)
>
>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>Well Emapple HAVE been rewriting Logic, it's improved significantly
>>during the time I've been using it.
>>
>>Have you been following the updates over the last couple of years? First
>
>>they added a ton of good to great FX and instrument plugins and some new
>
>>features. Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine
>>remodeling and bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire?
>
>>What, exactly, do you find missing? What part of the current audio track
>
>>editing or waveform editing don't you like?
>>
>>Regarding MSWindows - I understand that's an issue for some folks
>>(particularly those who didn't switch when Logic went OSX-only), but
>>really, this is not an issue for everyone. It's kinda late in the game
>>to still be complaining about that, either switch to OSX (a very good
>>OS) or give up on Logic and know that just because you gave up doesn't
>>mean it hasn't improved tremendously and people aren't using and liking
>
>>the current version - it's a much better program on OSX today than it
>>was on MSWindows four years ago, or however long it's been. For that
>>matter it's a much better program on OSX today than it was on MacOS 9.
>>I'm no fan of either OS 9 or MSWindows for my own OS snob reasons, but
>>OSX doesn't suck too badly (high compliment).
>>
>>At this point I'm OK with seeing the development team continue to
>>optimize Logic for OSX as they continue to rewrite and update code. If
>>there's a problem I can complain to a single company to fix it - as I
>>did when the Apple rep came to town earlier this year. Whether that had
>
>>anything to do with it or not, the bugs I complained about got fixed.
>>
>>I would like to see Emapple continue the process of moving things from
>>the Environment and into the Arrange window. The manual control in the
>>Environment is powerful, but some of that could be made easier and put
>>into the Arrange. It's not a prob for me, I know my way around the
>>Environment enough to do what I need to do but it would help with the
>>learning curve for new users to keep up that trend - they've already
>>done some things toward that end.
>>
>>I do like that I can arrange multiple mixer windows however I want them,
>
>>size the Arrange window to fit, add a transport and I have a really good
>
>>view of the project on my 24" widescreen monitor. Views are automatic
>>and I sometimes use multiple views to arrange windows for different
>>tasks, but for the most part one view and a big monitor is golden.
>>They've improved things tremendously by letting users drag plugins
>>around on the GUI and allowing whole racks of FX to be saved and
>>recalled. I would say the interface is not "dated" so much as "really,
>>efficient." I'd hate to see them lose that efficiency in an effort to be
>
>>glitzier.
>>
>>The color scheme is OK with me but I can see where you might like to
>>have control over that. When the color scheme hacks came out for PARIS
I
>
>>thought they were interesting but there again, I was OK with the color
>>scheme for PARIS.
>>
>>The main questions for me are does it do what I need, within budget, and
>
>>does it sound good. Yes to both. In fact it exceeds what I need. At this
>
>>point I really appreciate the power on my studio desktop.
>>
>>Again, there are other systems that also work well. A lot of folks like
>
>>Nuendo/Cubase, the new Cubase looks great. The new Digital Performer
>>also looks great, Etc. If my needs were different I'd still be using
>>PARIS - it does a lot, just falls short with MIDI and has a few other
>>limitations, but within those limitations it's a very usable system.
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>LaMont wrote:
>>> Hey Jamie good points. I think most if not all former users wnat Logic
>Audio
>>> to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps
>that
>>> we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the
other,
>>> no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
>>>
>>> Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair
>with
>>> that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple
>can
>>> develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I think
>>> that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over
the
>>> Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
>>> an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to snub
>>> their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks
>like
>>> a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner,
>Magix
>>> (Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually
>appealing.Giveing
>>> their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens
me
>to
>>> know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign)
>by
>>> the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic
>Audio.
>>> New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..????
>Is
>>> that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
>>> They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason to
>fork
>>> over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with
>a
>>> new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting
>to
>>> look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to
become
>>> THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
>>> What happend??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>
>>>> Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate
>the
>>>
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>
>>>> my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX are
>
>>>> useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>
>>>> that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>
>>>> prefer.
>>>>
>>>> I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>
>>>> uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>
>>>> that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>
>>>> been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>>>
>>>> else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>>>>
>>>> Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can
tell
>>>
>>>> you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you
>but
>>>
>>>> there is no perfect product. :^)
>>>>
>>>> It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what
>we
>>>
>>>> need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free to
>
>>>> ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these days.
>>>
>>>> I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>>&
|
|
|
|
| Re: still fighting for stability [message #72506 is a reply to message #72485] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 11:49 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
and good thing, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>>>>> losing
>>>>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
>>>>> ...I
>>>>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform,
pretty
>>>>>>>> sealed
>>>>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this
>>> charade
>>>>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of
it's
>>>>>>>> luster.
>>>>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not
>play.
>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>>>>> waste
>>>>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you
>stop
>>>>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
>>> Soon
>>>>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should
>run.
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those
who
>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but
>I'm
>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>Using Cubase SX as a standalone FX processor for Paris only:
I set the latency in my RME control panel to 1024 so I could add send VST FX
to Paris auxes without having too much latency (predelay) in a reverb while
not stressing the Cubase VST engine to the point of getting dropouts during
processing when using my dualcore 4400 CPU on lots of tracks being processed
thru Paris inserts.
InCubase SX, create a mono input and output bus
Add a mono track and assign this bus to the input and output
Patch a Paris ADAT I/O to an RME ADAT I/O
Add an audio track to a Paris channel and set up an external insert on this
track
Route the Paris ADAT I/O that is interfacing with the RME I/O to the inserts
on that channel in the virtual patchbay.
In Cubase SX, enable monitoring with FX on the audio channel you will be
using to process the Paris track
Insert a UAD-1 plugin on the Cubase audio channel and enable it for
processing.
Slide the Paris audio track back (to the left) by 50ms and hit play
The track will be looped through the Cubase audio channel and the UAD-1
processor without audible flamming/phasing
Add another UAD-1 plugin to the Cubase insert rack on this channel and slide
the Paris track back another 50 ms
The Paris track should still play back without flamming/phasing and now it
is being processed by two plugins.
Basically, what I *think* I've found here is a way to compensate Paris
tracks by a known (and small-50ms) increment *per UAD-1 plugin* without
having to chase it around with Sampleslide while giving Cubase SX enough
buffer to keep from choking down while processing audio in real time as a
standalone processor.
Increasing the buffers in SX results in more latency *per
plugin*.........and inversely, decreasing the buffers results in less. For
my particular rig/CPU capabilities, 1024 seems to be the magic number for
achieving a very simple means of latency compensation using Paris and UAD-1
plugins without having to stream all tracks in a project from Cubase to
Paris in order to process them with VST plugins with zero latency in Paris.
Doing this is very time consuming and mixing on two DAWs, even with the
incredible flexibility, it just such a hassle sometimes that I just sit
there an look at it and don't want to go there sometimes. Another cool thing
is, so far, my testing shows that Drumagog is exhibiting the same latency in
Cubase SX as the UAD-1 plugins. This *may* be indicitave of a *set latency
increment* that may apply to all VST plugins. That may not be such a big
deal since Paris handles VST plugins pretty easliy, but I'm running Win ME
on my Paris rig and some more recent VST plugins only run on XP. This gives
me a means of using these plugs in Paris with a known (and simple) latency
increment to work with.
I have processed a kick drum with Drumagog in the first Cubase insert, the
Neve 1073 in the second one and the Fairchild in the third one and sliding
the Paris track 3 x 50ms. No audible flamming when running a parallel copy
of the track unprocessed.
Also, a very generous Parisite offered to loan me 3 x EDS cards and an IF
442 today and another smart Parisite may have just come up with a solution
to getting multiple ADAT cards happening reliably with multiple MECs so me
an Igor are gonna' be in the lab next weekend with the beakers bubbling.
;o)OK.........this is cool. It appears that by lowering my buffers in my RME
control panel from 1024 to 512, the latency in increments in Paris can be
adjusted in 25ms increments per plugin rather than 50ms. Makes sense, but I
sometimes don't expect things to make sense with Paris and it's screwy
millisecond increments so this is a welcome revelation. I'm just using my
ears at this point, not doing any actual bounces in order to achieve *exact*
sample accuracy between tracks, but if I'm close enough that I don't hear
any flamming/phasing, then I'm happy so far. I'm going to have to try this
on a project with heavy track count to see if things start sounding sloppy
though. My 4400 x 2 dual core is handling these chores nicely in Cubase at
512ms latency. That seems to be the break point on my system. I'll be
getting my head around exactly how I want to configure Cubase sends with
Paris auxes in this particular working scenario tomorrow.
Deej
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451f53e9@linux...
> Using Cubase SX as a standalone FX processor for Paris only:
>
> I set the latency in my RME control panel to 1024 so I could add send VST
FX
> to Paris auxes without having too much latency (predelay) in a reverb
while
> not stressing the Cubase VST engine to the point of getting dropouts
during
> processing when using my dualcore 4400 CPU on lots of tracks being
processed
> thru Paris inserts.
>
> InCubase SX, create a mono input and output bus
> Add a mono track and assign this bus to the input and output
> Patch a Paris ADAT I/O to an RME ADAT I/O
> Add an audio track to a Paris channel and set up an external insert on
this
> track
> Route the Paris ADAT I/O that is interfacing with the RME I/O to the
inserts
> on that channel in the virtual patchbay.
> In Cubase SX, enable monitoring with FX on the audio channel you will be
> using to process the Paris track
> Insert a UAD-1 plugin on the Cubase audio channel and enable it for
> processing.
> Slide the Paris audio track back (to the left) by 50ms and hit play
> The track will be looped through the Cubase audio channel and the UAD-1
> processor without audible flamming/phasing
> Add another UAD-1 plugin to the Cubase insert rack on this channel and
slide
> the Paris track back another 50 ms
> The Paris track should still play back without flamming/phasing and now it
> is being processed by two plugins.
>
> Basically, what I *think* I've found here is a way to compensate Paris
> tracks by a known (and small-50ms) increment *per UAD-1 plugin* without
> having to chase it around with Sampleslide while giving Cubase SX enough
> buffer to keep from choking down while processing audio in real time as a
> standalone processor.
>
> Increasing the buffers in SX results in more latency *per
> plugin*.........and inversely, decreasing the buffers results in less. For
> my particular rig/CPU capabilities, 1024 seems to be the magic number for
> achieving a very simple means of latency compensation using Paris and
UAD-1
> plugins without having to stream all tracks in a project from Cubase to
> Paris in order to process them with VST plugins with zero latency in
Paris.
> Doing this is very time consuming and mixing on two DAWs, even with the
> incredible flexibility, it just such a hassle sometimes that I just sit
> there an look at it and don't want to go there sometimes. Another cool
thing
> is, so far, my testing shows that Drumagog is exhibiting the same latency
in
> Cubase SX as the UAD-1 plugins. This *may* be indicitave of a *set latency
> increment* that may apply to all VST plugins. That may not be such a big
> deal since Paris handles VST plugins pretty easliy, but I'm running Win ME
> on my Paris rig and some more recent VST plugins only run on XP. This
gives
> me a means of using these plugs in Paris with a known (and simple) latency
> increment to work with.
>
> I have processed a kick drum with Drumagog in the first Cubase insert, the
> Neve 1073 in the second one and the Fairchild in the third one and sliding
> the Paris track 3 x 50ms. No audible flamming when running a parallel copy
> of the track unprocessed.
>
> Also, a very generous Parisite offered to loan me 3 x EDS cards and an IF
> 442 today and another smart Parisite may have just come up with a solution
> to getting multiple ADAT cards happening reliably with multiple MECs so me
> an Igor are gonna' be in the lab next weekend with the beakers bubbling.
>
> ;o)
>
>
>Hey Lamont,
I think we're getting to the essence. Thanks for the discussion.
LaMont wrote:
> Hey Jamie, I preety much know tha you have no problems nor resevations on
> logic audio.
Not quite true. There is always room for improvement and I listed a
couple of things. Over the years I've had some major criticisms.
However, I don't mind sharing that things in Logic-land have gotten
significantly brighter recently, it's not the bleakness you think, I think.
However, to answer your question
>
> "Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine remodeling and
> bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire? What, exactly,
> do you find missing? What part of the current audio track editing or waveform
> editing don't you like?io in it's currrent state . :"
>
> Jamie have a look at a current running thread on gearslutz.com concerning
> Logic Audio 8: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=87812&hi ghlight=Logic+Audio
There are always wishlists for every version of every program. You could
find discussions like this about ProTools, Nuendo, Cubase, etc. There's
more such discussion about Logic at OSXAudio.com. This is OK. From
wishes come good things.
> The overwhemingly want is a sleek plaing field that's not clunky, and more
> like Pro Tools and Nuendo. How about some of the slick right-mouse clicking
> features found in Nuendo? Not to mention all of it's menu driven editing..Logic
> audio is not in this leauge at all. When they should be.
I don't use Nuendo so if you could be specific maybe I can help you find
out if the features you want have been added.
It even looks like some of those cats want Pro-Tools to be more like
Nuendo, which just goes to show that there is no perfect product. Logic
is not alone in having room to improve, and not alone in being pretty
capable as is, for that matter.
In the Arrange window, right clicking in Logic lets you select different
editing tools from a popup iconic menu.
There are some places where a long click is still used and right
clicking should be substituted in a future upgrade, for example, to
assign an audio channel. But that's a minor nit.
Some of those cats are complaining about take management...I manage
multiple takes by having them all on different instances of the same
track. This is automatic if you record in loop mode. So comping is not
difficult, it's similar to Free Form in PARIS. What else am I missing?
> But, as long as Logic & DP Continue down their Midi first/Audio secondary
> mind-set, then both will continue to lose market share. Both Apps new complete
The audio features I need exist in Logic. I'm sure more refinement could
be done that would wow me, but at the same time I don't see huge gaping
holes in the current feature set.
I do similar kinds of editing in Logic now that I used to do in PARIS. I
do similar Free Form style recording without needing an exclusive mode
for it. I do similar crossfade editing, trimming, etc. All very fast.
Some of this functionality is new from updates over the last couple of
years so maybe you haven't had the chance to experience it.
> re-write from scratch. I thought I never say this but, Apple should scrap
> this versio of Logic 7.x and go build off Sountrack Pro with the addition
> of Final-Cut Pro, which would yield a Nuendo like app..That would be worth
> $900.00 bucks.
Or just buy Nuendo if you prefer its feature set. Why not? Choice is
good. :^)
> Just to clarify. You ask what I don't like about Logic? The answers can be
> found in SoundTrack Pro sleek modern, but powerful audio editing. If Apple
> decides to join Final cut and Sountrack together, and start phasing out Logic(Vintage)7.x,
> then that along would increase market excitement ten-fold.
I disagree. I have SoundTrack Pro. For composing and recording music
tracks I prefer Logic. Have you used SoundTrack Pro or the CURRENT
version of Logic?
I'm sure there could be some useful cross-pollenization opportunities,
heck Soundtrack is probably based on Logic, but it would be foolish to
kill off Logic's deep feature set in favor of the features of a program
intended as the audio-for-video sweetening partner for Final Cut Pro.
> But,to keep applying bandaids for an antequated ,but powerful midi-audio
> sequencer is ludacris at best. At it's core, it's a Midi sequencer first
> and a audio recorder second. That combination does not sit well today. Most
> of us want a serious, sleek audio engine first, with a good sequencer..That's
> all.. Yes, I know that there folks like you, and me, who have dedicated Sequencing
> machines, but not everyone..
If you mean a dedicated MIDI sequencing machine, I don't have a
dedicated sequencing machine. A single computer running one program for
audio, MIDI and soft synths is a great setup. In that way Logic
simplifies my life. Heck, even DJ is starting to dream of simplifying.
Mind you I didn't used to praise Logic so much. I call 'em as I see 'em
and Logic has had some significant bugs in the past. But it has also
progressed in major ways. Having been there for the progression I can
appreciate where it is, finally, today. I'm trying really hard to
understand why I should hate it now. :^)
> Note: My Last version of Logic on windows 5.5 was and sill is smokin!! Very
> stable runing on an AMD Xp2800 machine with M-audio cards using the EASI
> drivers. My windows version out performed my G4-500, and our Studios Dual867
> G4(so musch for the Mac hype). On a PC, I can run full (say 20plus vstis)
> on a given session with about 50 audio tracks..with verbs. The macs would
> choke everytime we tried doing soemthing like that..
Macs from the last several years (G5 or Intel) do not choke on large
projects with Logic.
> Now, with Intel dual cores)Logic can run some serious amount of plugins.Hummm..
> Even Quad G5 can't run with Intel Macs.. Mac Hype all the way to PC land..
> My point, Pc's have always ran Logic better than nay Mac. I should know,
> I run both..
As far as Logic is concerned, my several year old dual 2.5GHZ G5 is
plenty fast. My previous G4 wasn't bad but I had to freeze tracks to
keep it in the game (nice feature, that).
> Same with Mac OSX..Nice OS, but very very Bloated. More bloated than WinXP.
> To me and others, Windows outperforms OSX on most DAWS..Especialy Pro-Tools..It's
> not even a funny.
Heh. No problem, you like MSWindows so enjoy. To each their own bloat. ;^)
Logic is pretty optimized for OSX at this point. Too bad we don't live
close or I'd give you a demo and you could tell me all the things this
system can't do, while it's doing them. :^)
> Now that we are all running PCs (Intels & Amds), we can all have the great
> performance that only Steve JObs promised us. ":)
Man, ol' Steve really bit it with the 3GHZ prediction for the G5 when
IBM didn't deliver. And then he took a u-turn with Intel to keep the
hardware speed up, a risky move. But Apple pulled it off. Now that new
Macs are all Intel, we can compare on the basis of software performance
and design.
BTW I was not thrilled with the switch to Intel. But it looks like it
will pay off on the laptop side. On the desktop side I think this G5
system has a few years of life in it yet, at least for music production.
For animation, I might be tempted by an 8 core system next year...
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> Well Emapple HAVE been rewriting Logic, it's improved significantly
>> during the time I've been using it.
>>
>> Have you been following the updates over the last couple of years? First
>
>> they added a ton of good to great FX and instrument plugins and some new
>
>> features. Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine
>> remodeling and bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire?
>
>> What, exactly, do you find missing? What part of the current audio track
>
>> editing or waveform editing don't you like?
>>
>> Regarding MSWindows - I understand that's an issue for some folks
>> (particularly those who didn't switch when Logic went OSX-only), but
>> really, this is not an issue for everyone. It's kinda late in the game
>> to still be complaining about that, either switch to OSX (a very good
>> OS) or give up on Logic and know that just because you gave up doesn't
>> mean it hasn't improved tremendously and people aren't using and liking
>
>> the current version - it's a much better program on OSX today than it
>> was on MSWindows four years ago, or however long it's been. For that
>> matter it's a much better program on OSX today than it was on MacOS 9.
>> I'm no fan of either OS 9 or MSWindows for my own OS snob reasons, but
>> OSX doesn't suck too badly (high compliment).
>>
>> At this point I'm OK with seeing the development team continue to
>> optimize Logic for OSX as they continue to rewrite and update code. If
>> there's a problem I can complain to a single company to fix it - as I
>> did when the Apple rep came to town earlier this year. Whether that had
>
>> anything to do with it or not, the bugs I complained about got fixed.
>>
>> I would like to see Emapple continue the process of moving things from
>> the Environment and into the Arrange window. The manual control in the
>> Environment is powerful, but some of that could be made easier and put
>> into the Arrange. It's not a prob for me, I know my way around the
>> Environment enough to do what I need to do but it would help with the
>> learning curve for new users to keep up that trend - they've already
>> done some things toward that end.
>>
>> I do like that I can a
|
|
|
|
| Re: still fighting for stability [message #72509 is a reply to message #72506] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 13:41 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
former users wnat Logic
> Audio
>>> to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps
> that
>>> we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the other,
>>> no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
>>>
>>> Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair
> with
>>> that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple
> can
>>> develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I think
>>> that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over the
>>> Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
>>> an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to snub
>>> their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks
> like
>>> a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner,
> Magix
>>> (Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually
> appealing.Giveing
>>> their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens me
> to
>>> know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign)
> by
>>> the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic
> Audio.
>>> New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..????
> Is
>>> that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
>>> They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason to
> fork
>>> over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with
> a
>>> new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting
> to
>>> look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to become
>>> THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
>>> What happend??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>
>>>> Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate
> the
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>
>>>> my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX are
>
>>>> useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>
>>>> that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>
>>>> prefer.
>>>>
>>>> I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>
>>>> uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>
>>>> that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>
>>>> been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>>>> else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>>>>
>>>> Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can tell
>>>> you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you
> but
>>>> there is no perfect product. :^)
>>>>
>>>> It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what
> we
>>>> need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free to
>
>>>> ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these days.
>>>> I can tell you that for my needs Logic and OSX have developed into
>>>> impressive working tools. They've earned a spot here.
>>>>
>>>> DP is nice, too.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can feel your un-dying love and loyalty to Logic.:) However, I'm only
>>> stating
>>>>> my opinion from the trenches from both small and large studios.
>>>>> When you talk to producers or programmers today and ask about Logic
> audio,
>>>>> they all answer with "Yeah, I know Logic is cool, BUT....Always the
> But..
>>>>> They, Logic are on an deserted Island these days. Not supporting the
>>> Windows
>>>>> Platform was a major mistake. And I'm affraid, that If Apple does not
>>> change
>>>>> it's course Sooooooon, Logic will go the way of Studio Vision and so
> will
>>>>> Digital Performer.
>>>>> Unless Apple starts packaging Logic Pro with every dual Mac(thrown in),
>>> I
>>>>> cant really see them making any market penatration.
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Heh. Yeah, they sit out NAMM sometimes. Apple didn't exhibit at Winter
>>>>>> NAMM when I covered it for MacWEEk a zillion years ago. I dinged 'em
>>> for
>>>>>> it in the mag. The director of music marketing over there was a bit
>
>>>>>> miffed. Whatever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact is, Logic has had several updates this year already, including
>
>>>>>> fixing some moldy bugs that HAD to go. It has finally gotten to the
>
>>>>>> point where I can actually recommend it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The feature set is deep and, frankly, amazing. The included collection
>>>>>> of usable and good to great sounding plugins is much appreciated. On
>>> a
>>>>>> dual G5 it's very efficient and capable of way more tracks, FX and
> soft
>>>>>> synths than even my most overproduced excess would need. The current
>>>>>> improvements in stability makes it a workhorse around here. The support
>>>>>> for both Intel and PowerPC Macs will be extra nice when I get a fast
>>>>>> Intel Mac laptop in a few months (holding out for the 64 bit chip).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that Logic supports the quad boxes, it's just showing off. Naturally
>>>>>> there are a few more things the Logic team can do to improve it here
>>> and
>>>>>> there, but rumors of its demise are more than a bit premature, folks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking nothing away from the other programs which have also been
>>>>>> improving lately - and good thing, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical Soon (Winter
>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..<
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apple wasn't even on the list of NAMM xhbitors, last I looked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:451e02f1$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jamie,
>>>>>>>>> While I'm happy that Logic audio is still in existence, It's really
>>>>> losing
>>>>>>>>> ground in the DAW market share, as well as Digital Performer. Hummm
>>>>> ...I
>>>>>>>>> wonder why??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could it be that by closing it's door to the Windows platform, pretty
>>>>>>>> sealed
>>>>>>>>> their fate???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since Apple gave Intel-mac user's Boot-Camp, they should stop this
>>> charade
>>>>>>>>> and go back to supporting Both Mac OSX and Windows.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I Love Logic Audio, but when Mr Jobs closed it's doors for us Windows
>>>>>>>> users,
>>>>>>>>> I stopped using the product.
>>>>>>>>> Now, it the Pro Audio production game, logic has lost a lot of it's
>>>>>>>> luster.
>>>>>>>>> Mac users are using Pro Tools 7x midi sequencer these days.
>>>>>>>>> And, I still say that Logic's main problem is that their Programmers
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not
> play.
>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>>>>> waste
>>>>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you
> stop
>>>>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
>>> Soon
>>>>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should
> run.
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those who
>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but
> I'm
>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>Wellll......it gets even wierder and it appears to be an issue with Cubase
SX. The latency of the individual plugins seems to change at random after
adding another one in a channel. Closing the project and re-opening it puts
the latency back where it should go, sorta', but the more plugins you add,
the less accurate the Paris fixed increments become so the Cubase fixed
increments appear to be shifting more drastically as more plugins are
added........at least at lower buffer settings. I sorta' halfway expected
this and may go back to the larger and seemingly more stable 1024 buffer
settings. Chasing latency increments around like this is no better than just
using the UAD-1 cards in Paris and chasing Sampleslide around.
Well........back to the lab.
;o)
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451f5c8e@linux...
> OK.........this is cool. It appears that by lowering my buffers in my RME
> control panel from 1024 to 512, the latency in increments in Paris can be
> adjusted in 25ms increments per plugin rather than 50ms. Makes sense, but
I
> sometimes don't expect things to make sense with Paris and it's screwy
> millisecond increments so this is a welcome revelation. I'm just using my
> ears at this point, not doing any actual bounces in order to achieve
*exact*
> sample accuracy between tracks, but if I'm close enough that I don't hear
> any flamming/phasing, then I'm happy so far. I'm going to have to try this
> on a project with heavy track count to see if things start sounding sloppy
> though. My 4400 x 2 dual core is handling these chores nicely in Cubase at
> 512ms latency. That seems to be the break point on my system. I'll be
> getting my head around exactly how I want to configure Cubase sends with
> Paris auxes in this particular working scenario tomorrow.
>
> Deej
>
>
>
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:451f53e9@linux...
> > Using Cubase SX as a standalone FX processor for Paris only:
> >
> > I set the latency in my RME control panel to 1024 so I could add send
VST
> FX
> > to Paris auxes without having too much latency (predelay) in a reverb
> while
> > not stressing the Cubase VST engine to the point of getting dropouts
> during
> > processing when using my dualcore 4400 CPU on lots of tracks being
> processed
> > thru Paris inserts.
> >
> > InCubase SX, create a mono input and output bus
> > Add a mono track and assign this bus to the input and output
> > Patch a Paris ADAT I/O to an RME ADAT I/O
> > Add an audio track to a Paris channel and set up an external insert on
> this
> > track
> > Route the Paris ADAT I/O that is interfacing with the RME I/O to the
> inserts
> > on that channel in the virtual patchbay.
> > In Cubase SX, enable monitoring with FX on the audio channel you will be
> > using to process the Paris track
> > Insert a UAD-1 plugin on the Cubase audio channel and enable it for
> > processing.
> > Slide the Paris audio track back (to the left) by 50ms and hit play
> > The track will be looped through the Cubase audio channel and the UAD-1
> > processor without audible flamming/phasing
> > Add another UAD-1 plugin to the Cubase insert rack on this channel and
> slide
> > the Paris track back another 50 ms
> > The Paris track should still play back without flamming/phasing and now
it
> > is being processed by two plugins.
> >
> > Basically, what I *think* I've found here is a way to compensate Paris
> > tracks by a known (and small-50ms) increment *per UAD-1 plugin* without
> > having to chase it around with Sampleslide while giving Cubase SX enough
> > buffer to keep from choking down while processing audio in real time as
a
> > standalone processor.
> >
> > Increasing the buffers in SX results in more latency *per
> > plugin*.........and inversely, decreasing the buffers results in less.
For
> > my particular rig/CPU capabilities, 1024 seems to be the magic number
for
> > achieving a very simple means of latency compensation using Paris and
> UAD-1
> > plugins without having to stream all tracks in a project from Cubase to
> > Paris in order to process them with VST plugins with zero latency in
> Paris.
> > Doing this is very time consuming and mixing on two DAWs, even with the
> > incredible flexibility, it just such a hassle sometimes that I just sit
> > there an look at it and don't want to go there sometimes. Another cool
> thing
> > is, so far, my testing shows that Drumagog is exhibiting the same
latency
> in
> > Cubase SX as the UAD-1 plugins. This *may* be indicitave of a *set
latency
> > increment* that may apply to all VST plugins. That may not be such a big
> > deal since Paris handles VST plugins pretty easliy, but I'm running Win
ME
> > on my Paris rig and some more recent VST plugins only run on XP. This
> gives
> > me a means of using these plugs in Paris with a known (and simple)
latency
> > increment to work with.
> >
> > I have processed a kick drum with Drumagog in the first Cubase insert,
the
> > Neve 1073 in the second one and the Fairchild in the third one and
sliding
> > the Paris track 3 x 50ms. No audible flamming when running a parallel
copy
> > of the track unprocessed.
> >
> > Also, a very generous Parisite offered to loan me 3 x EDS cards and an
IF
> > 442 today and another smart Parisite may have just come up with a
solution
> > to getting multiple ADAT cards happening reliably with multiple MECs so
me
> > an Igor are gonna' be in the lab next weekend with the beakers bubbling.
> >
> > ;o)
> >
> >
> >
>
>Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market that
will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They have
Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as soon
as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting user.
;-)
Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still). Even PT
isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate to
see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as a whole.
The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone age
5 to 95.
Dedric
On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
<jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of audio
> editing,
> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks like
> Apple is heading there without them.
>
> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading the Logic
> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>
> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2_re
> storationThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C6E506.B573AFA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,
Try Hotel California. I think there are between 11 and 13 different
guitar parts/sounds on that by the end but no clutter. =20
Tom
"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:451de55b$1@linux...
Here's a couple more:
Rolling Stones: It's only rock and roll
acoustic 10 o clock electric 1 right rhythm
electric 2 right lead
electric 3 left electric 4 right
5 freaking guitars !!
Neil Young........Old Man
Guitar panned 90% left
Vocal center, more verb in right
Bass center
Piano center very quiet
banjo comes in left
slide guitar with nice reverb center mono
Stereo vocal harmonies
Share your own !! Thanks
I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C6E506.B573AFA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>John,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Try Hotel California. I think =
there are=20
between 11 and 13 different</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>guitar parts/sounds </FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>on that by the end but no clutter. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tom</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"John" <<A href=3D"mailto:no@no.com">no@no.com</A>> wrote =
in message=20
<A =
href=3D"news:451de55b$1@linux">news:451de55b$1@linux</A>...</DIV><BR>Here=
's a=20
couple more:<BR><BR>Rolling Stones: It's only rock and=20
roll<BR><BR>acoustic 10 o clock electric 1 right rhythm<BR>electric 2 =
right=20
lead<BR><BR>electric 3 left electric 4 right<BR><BR>5 freaking guitars =
!!<BR><BR><BR><BR>Neil Young........Old Man<BR><BR>Guitar panned 90%=20
left<BR>Vocal center, more verb in right<BR>Bass center<BR>Piano =
center very=20
quiet<BR><BR>banjo comes in left<BR>slide guitar with nice reverb =
center=20
mono<BR><BR>Stereo vocal harmonies<BR><BR><BR>Share your own !! =20
Thanks</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><BR><BR>I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, =
and=20
you?<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html">http://www.polesoft.com/refer=
..html</A> </FONT></DIV></BODY ></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C6E506.B573AFA0--Hey LaMont! Your comparing a G4 500 MHz machine up against a 2.8 GHz PC???
That's not a fair comparison, the G4 500 MHz is almost 8 years old, try
1999!!! Why don't you compare it to a PC from 1999!!!, then tell us how
Macs suck and how Steve Jobs is a big lier about performance. That machine
will stand up to a 1GHz pentium III or standard 1 GHz P 4 and beat them.
You can buy G4 500 on ebay for under $100.00 all day long. It's not a fair
comparison.
James
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameriech.net> wrote:
>
>Hey Jamie, I preety much know tha you have no problems nor resevations on
>logic audio. However, to answer your question
>
>"Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine remodeling and
>bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire? What, exactly,
>do you find missing? What part of the current audio track editing or waveform
>editing don't you like?io in it's currrent state . :"
>
>Jamie have a look at a current running thread on gearslutz.com concerning
>Logic Audio 8: http://www.gearslutz.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: still fighting for stability [message #72518 is a reply to message #72502] |
Sat, 16 September 2006 18:07 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
rs
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> beholden to that 1994 GUI. By todays standards, it just does not
>play.
>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>> Cakewalk Sonar looks more profesional.! Yikes!! Man, what a F....in
>>>>> waste
>>>>>>>>> in what is still thee best sequencer in the world..But, when you
>stop
>>>>>>>> evolving,
>>>>>>>>> you die.. I'm afraid that if Logic Audio does do something Radical
>>> Soon
>>>>>>>> (Winter
>>>>>>>>> Namm2007) there toast..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bright-Side: They are struck this monumental joint agreement with
>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>> with the those PCI-E cards and Firewire interface. Nice. Problem:
>>> Apogee
>>>>>>>>> does not know how to write good drivers, at least firewire drivers.
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> Pro looks and runs and behaves like a modern pro DAW app should
>run.
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> hope
>>>>>>>>> and proay that we are looking at the the Future of Logic Audio/via
>>>>>>>> Soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> Pro..Pleaseeee... :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24742
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Finally. Doesn't matter for me (dual processor) but for those
who
>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> been using quad boxes this is a welcome update.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not that Logic is likely to out of juice on two processors, but
>I'm
>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>> it's fun to watch all the CPU meters moving. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>hell yes!!!
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:37:06 -0600, "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>.........you can smoke spinach?
>
>;o)
>
>
>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:drgsh25ebkn94dpct70mnga177oksef0a9@4ax.com...
>> "It's a good thing I had a bag of marijuana instead of a bag of
>> spinach or
>> I'd be dead now"
>Hi All,
It has been some time since I visited the PARIS community, but am still happily
using it (or unhappily sometimes if I try to insert silence in an audio file
and it crashes!)
Anyway, I write this post purely for the intention of doing some shameless
plugging of my entry in the Real World studios remix competition of Peter
Gabriel's 'Shock the monkey'.
This was created/mixed exclusively in PARIS in one 8 hour session (time isn't
plentiful when you're a househusband). If anyone would like to hear my efforts,
please visit the link below:
http://www.realworldremixed.com/remix.php?remix_id=0DAEEKGJt P4D-l_x
If you feel inclined and consider it worthy please feel free to rate/add
my mix to your top 10 - (that's the real shameless bit) - you do need to
sign up (it is free and they don't spam you) to do that though.
Regards,
Nic GrantOh gosh - I see this has already been covered - ah well - should
have done a search first - I'll check out the other PARIS mixes then.
Nic.Hi Dedric,
From what I've found out so far.
Samplitude/Sequoia 9 now support 4 CPU finally. Of course Dual CPUs have
been common for 4/5 years and dual cores for 2 years. Better late than
never :)
Cubase4/ Nuendo 3 = 8 Cores/CPUs
Sonar 5/6 = 4 cpus
Ableton Live 6 = 2cpus
PT 7.1 LE = 2 cpus
Vegas 7 = 4 cpus
Wavelab = 2 cpus
audition = ummm i think only one still
Acid "Pro" = still 1 but I think next version to match V7 will be multi/
Pro tools is last thing I would consider if I had a tight school budget . :)
The audio market is very fast with support for current technology and
formats and is very responsive to customers about adding them. The video
market is quite the opposite. Most of the video companies still haven't
figured out that a sound blaster isn't "Pro".
Chris
Dedric Terry wrote:
>Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market that
>will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They have
>Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as soon
>as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting user.
>;-)
>
>Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still). Even PT
>isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate to
>see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as a whole.
>
>The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
>what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone age
>5 to 95.
>
>Dedric
>
>On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of audio
>>editing,
>>look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks like
>>Apple is heading there without them.
>>
>>I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading the Logic
>>Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2_re
>>storation
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762I was checking out this site:
http://opencroquet.org/about_croquet/faqs.html
and found this observation: (This quote came from a section of a FAQ that
was talking specifically about GUI's.)
"The emergence of software monopolies removed any encouragement to innovate
on the platform (interface). Compare a modern PC of 2004 to the first
Macintosh shipping in 1984 and the major difference you will see is color."
I had to laugh when I read it. Sure, there are lots of added/new features
on the Mac or Window's GUIs, but the basic design concept remains the same.
Pretty amazing when you consider the high tech wizardry of the past twenty
years.
By the way, if you haven't checked this site out: http://www.metafilter.com/
you might do so. It's become part of my daily internet tour.
Rock on.
MRHey Nic,
Very cool. Great concept -you really turned the original on its head. I'm
afraid I wasn't able to give it the best listen as my computer speakers are
pretty lame. But, despite this, you can hear that warm "Paris sound." I
was noticing the same thing on Kim's tunes. So much of what I'm hearing on
the radio, or on new CD's, sounds like the crispy edges of over-fried eggs.
Cheers,
MR
"Nic Grant" <nic@softaudio.com> wrote in message news:451fa56b$1@linux...
>
> Hi All,
>
> It has been some time since I visited the PARIS community, but am still
happily
> using it (or unhappily sometimes if I try to insert silence in an audio
file
> and it crashes!)
>
> Anyway, I write this post purely for the intention of doing some shameless
> plugging of my entry in the Real World studios remix competition of Peter
> Gabriel's 'Shock the monkey'.
>
> This was created/mixed exclusively in PARIS in one 8 hour session (time
isn't
> plentiful when you're a househusband). If anyone would like to hear my
efforts,
> please visit the link below:
>
> http://www.realworldremixed.com/remix.php?remix_id=0DAEEKGJt P4D-l_x
>
> If you feel inclined and consider it worthy please feel free to rate/add
> my mix to your top 10 - (that's the real shameless bit) - you do need to
> sign up (it is free and they don't spam you) to do that though.
>
> Regards,
> Nic Grant
>
>Hey Kim,
Nice work. Revolution of the Mind stayed with me throughout the day. Also
nifty was how clear the Paris sound came through. Man, it was like cool
water on my ears.
Cheers,
MR
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:451df184$1@linux...
>
>
> For anyone who wants to check out some tunes from your favourite newsgroup
> host, please check out:
>
> http://www.myspace.com/drschnauberg
>
> I'm in the midst of a work ethic/method revolution, where I try and
produce
> songs within the space of only a couple of hours. All these tunes are
recorded
> mostly on my GNX-4 looper, then transferred to Paris and vocals and solos
> are added. It's usually about a 2-2.5 hour turnaround for a complete song.
>
> And yes some of the recording methods are dodgy... yes I need to get a
pop
> filter for the mic, and yes the harmonies in Revision need work, but hey,
> it's music, I'm getting it done quickly, and I'm having fun, and I think
> the vibe is there. :o)
>
> Tell me what you think...
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.Well, this is what Mr Jobs was touting at the time. AND, the price for the
G4 was considerably more expensive and say a Xp2.8 PC. How old do you think
the AMD XP 2800 is ??????
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hey LaMont! Your comparing a G4 500 MHz machine up against a 2.8 GHz PC???
> That's not a fair comparison, the G4 500 MHz is almost 8 years old, try
>1999!!! Why don't you compare it to a PC from 1999!!!, then tell us how
>Macs suck and how Steve Jobs is a big lier about performance. That machine
>will stand up to a 1GHz pentium III or standard 1 GHz P 4 and beat them.
>
>
>You can buy G4 500 on ebay for under $100.00 all day long. It's not a fair
>comparison.
>
>James
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameriech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Jamie, I preety much know tha you have no problems nor resevations
on
>>logic audio. However, to answer your question
>>
>>"Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine remodeling and
>>bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire? What, exactly,
>>do you find missing? What part of the current audio track editing or waveform
>>editing don't you like?io in it's currrent state . :"
>>
>>Jamie have a look at a current running thread on gearslutz.com concerning
>>Logic Audio 8: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=87812&hi ghlight=Logic+Audio
>>
>>The overwhemingly want is a sleek plaing field that's not clunky, and more
>>like Pro Tools and Nuendo. How about some of the slick right-mouse clicking
>>features found in Nuendo? Not to mention all of it's menu driven editing..Logic
>>audio is not in this leauge at all. When they should be.
>>
>>But, as long as Logic & DP Continue down their Midi first/Audio secondary
>>mind-set, then both will continue to lose market share. Both Apps new complete
>>re-write from scratch. I thought I never say this but, Apple should scrap
>>this versio of Logic 7.x and go build off Sountrack Pro with the addition
>>of Final-Cut Pro, which would yield a Nuendo like app..That would be worth
>>$900.00 bucks.
>>Just to clarify. You ask what I don't like about Logic? The answers can
>be
>>found in SoundTrack Pro sleek modern, but powerful audio editing. If Apple
>>decides to join Final cut and Sountrack together, and start phasing out
>Logic(Vintage)7.x,
>>then that along would increase market excitement ten-fold.
>>
>>But,to keep applying bandaids for an antequated ,but powerful midi-audio
>>sequencer is ludacris at best. At it's core, it's a Midi sequencer first
>>and a audio recorder second. That combination does not sit well today.
Most
>>of us want a serious, sleek audio engine first, with a good sequencer..That's
>>all.. Yes, I know that there folks like you, and me, who have dedicated
>Sequencing
>>machines, but not everyone..
>>
>>Note: My Last version of Logic on windows 5.5 was and sill is smokin!!
Very
>>stable runing on an AMD Xp2800 machine with M-audio cards using the EASI
>>drivers. My windows version out performed my G4-500, and our Studios Dual867
>>G4(so musch for the Mac hype). On a PC, I can run full (say 20plus vstis)
>>on a given session with about 50 audio tracks..with verbs. The macs would
>>choke everytime we tried doing soemthing like that..
>>
>>Now, with Intel dual cores)Logic can run some serious amount of plugins.Hummm..
>>Even Quad G5 can't run with Intel Macs.. Mac Hype all the way to PC land..
>>My point, Pc's have always ran Logic better than nay Mac. I should know,
>>I run both..
>>
>>Same with Mac OSX..Nice OS, but very very Bloated. More bloated than WinXP.
>>To me and others, Windows outperforms OSX on most DAWS..Especialy Pro-Tools..It's
>>not even a funny.
>>Now that we are all running PCs (Intels & Amds), we can all have the great
>>performance that only Steve JObs promised us. ":)
>>
>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Well Emapple HAVE been rewriting Logic, it's improved significantly
>>>during the time I've been using it.
>>>
>>>Have you been following the updates over the last couple of years? First
>>
>>>they added a ton of good to great FX and instrument plugins and some new
>>
>>>features. Then they went back and did some UI cleanup, audio engine
>>>remodeling and bug fixing. What exact additional features do you desire?
>>
>>>What, exactly, do you find missing? What part of the current audio track
>>
>>>editing or waveform editing don't you like?
>>>
>>>Regarding MSWindows - I understand that's an issue for some folks
>>>(particularly those who didn't switch when Logic went OSX-only), but
>>>really, this is not an issue for everyone. It's kinda late in the game
>
>>>to still be complaining about that, either switch to OSX (a very good
>>>OS) or give up on Logic and know that just because you gave up doesn't
>
>>>mean it hasn't improved tremendously and people aren't using and liking
>>
>>>the current version - it's a much better program on OSX today than it
>>>was on MSWindows four years ago, or however long it's been. For that
>>>matter it's a much better program on OSX today than it was on MacOS 9.
>
>>>I'm no fan of either OS 9 or MSWindows for my own OS snob reasons, but
>
>>>OSX doesn't suck too badly (high compliment).
>>>
>>>At this point I'm OK with seeing the development team continue to
>>>optimize Logic for OSX as they continue to rewrite and update code. If
>
>>>there's a problem I can complain to a single company to fix it - as I
>>>did when the Apple rep came to town earlier this year. Whether that had
>>
>>>anything to do with it or not, the bugs I complained about got fixed.
>>>
>>>I would like to see Emapple continue the process of moving things from
>
>>>the Environment and into the Arrange window. The manual control in the
>
>>>Environment is powerful, but some of that could be made easier and put
>
>>>into the Arrange. It's not a prob for me, I know my way around the
>>>Environment enough to do what I need to do but it would help with the
>>>learning curve for new users to keep up that trend - they've already
>>>done some things toward that end.
>>>
>>>I do like that I can arrange multiple mixer windows however I want them,
>>
>>>size the Arrange window to fit, add a transport and I have a really good
>>
>>>view of the project on my 24" widescreen monitor. Views are automatic
>>>and I sometimes use multiple views to arrange windows for different
>>>tasks, but for the most part one view and a big monitor is golden.
>>>They've improved things tremendously by letting users drag plugins
>>>around on the GUI and allowing whole racks of FX to be saved and
>>>recalled. I would say the interface is not "dated" so much as "really,
>
>>>efficient." I'd hate to see them lose that efficiency in an effort to
be
>>
>>>glitzier.
>>>
>>>The color scheme is OK with me but I can see where you might like to
>>>have control over that. When the color scheme hacks came out for PARIS
>I
>>
>>>thought they were interesting but there again, I was OK with the color
>
>>>scheme for PARIS.
>>>
>>>The main questions for me are does it do what I need, within budget, and
>>
>>>does it sound good. Yes to both. In fact it exceeds what I need. At this
>>
>>>point I really appreciate the power on my studio desktop.
>>>
>>>Again, there are other systems that also work well. A lot of folks like
>>
>>>Nuendo/Cubase, the new Cubase looks great. The new Digital Performer
>>>also looks great, Etc. If my needs were different I'd still be using
>>>PARIS - it does a lot, just falls short with MIDI and has a few other
>>>limitations, but within those limitations it's a very usable system.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>LaMont wrote:
>>>> Hey Jamie good points. I think most if not all former users wnat Logic
>>Audio
>>>> to survive. I certainly do, But, :) we want on our terms. we like apps
>>that
>>>> we run on both platforms. That way, should one platform oushines the
>other,
>>>> no problem, just get the CD/DVD out and load away:)
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, I don;t know is on the minds of Emagic and their love affair
>>with
>>>> that very dated interface, AND audio editing.. What Gives!!! If Apple
>>can
>>>> develope a great audio editor in Soundrack Pro, WHY NOT LOGIC!!.. I
think
>>>> that one feature item is what really keeping folks from forking over
>the
>>>> Bucks for a Mac, then logic audio. Do they (emagic) know how to implement
>>>> an modern audioeditor?? OR , are so arrogant, that just continue to
snub
>>>> their noses to anybody who keeps suggesting that their interface looks
>>like
>>>> a dated science project. Even their fellow one time German Daw partner,
>>Magix
>>>> (Samplitude & Sequioa) have implemented mixer skins that are visually
>>appealing.Giveing
>>>> their apps a pro look. Looks count. Okay, I digress. It just sickens
>me
>>to
>>>> know end as to why they (Apple-Emagic) won't take the bull (Digedesign)
>>by
>>>> the horns and bring out -once and for all.A Complete-Re-write of Logic
>>Audio.
>>>> New interface, New Audio engine, new audio editor..very polished..????
>>Is
>>>> that too much to ask??? Sheeeshhhh..
>>>> They have Apogee, now, give us (hosessitting on the fence) a reason
to
>>fork
>>>> over 900.00 bucks.. I's their call..
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, Pre-orders of Cubase4 and Sonar 6 are on steroids. And with
>>a
>>>> new rumor of a new PLE & M-powered on the horizon, Apple, is starting
>>to
>>>> look like the minor leagues of Pro Audio, when they were expected to
>become
>>>> THE PRO-Tools Killer!!!
>>>> What happend??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> You're probably right that Logic lost some users when the program went
>>
>>>>> Mac-only. OTOH, some folks switched to OSX and learned to appreciate
>>the
>>>>
>>>>> change.
>>>>>
>>>>> For my part I had zero interest in Logic until it went to OSX. So from
>>
>>>>> my perspective, dropping MSWindows support was a non-issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, the Mac is no deserted Island. Programs that run on OSX
are
>>
>>>>> useful tools in a usable and reasonably advanced environment. Programs
>>
>>>>> that run on Linux or MSWindows can be useful tools, too. Use what you
>>
>>>>> prefer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never lost any sleep fretting over what this or that other studio
>>
>>>>> uses. I use whatever fits my needs, preferences and budget. Right now
>>
>>>>> that's Logic on OSX (along with some other stuff), in the past it has
>>
>>>>> been other programs on other systems. In the future it may be something
>>>>
>>>>> else. It's not about blindly following, I evaluate and choose for myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having been watching this industry for more than a few years, I can
>tell
>>>>
>>>>> you that every product comes with a "but." I hate to break it to you
>>but
>>>>
>>>>> there is no perfect product. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's up to each of us to determine if a particular product does what
>>we
>>>>
>>>>> need. If you have specific questions about Logic or OSX, feel free
to
>>
>>>>> ask and I'll try to answer based on what I do with my system these
days.
>>>>
>>>>> I can tell
|
|
|
|
| Re: still fighting for stability [message #72573 is a reply to message #72518] |
Sun, 17 September 2006 17:00 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
and there.
> Being able to spread those outboard reverbs across submixes is very handy.
>
> I'll post up my Sampleslide presets ASAP. Theyre working very well.
>
> On that note......I'm off to St Mattress cathedral.
>
> G'nite all.
>
> ;o)
>
>I'll have to get back to this thread tonight.Today's already the Monday from
hell and it's only 6:00 AM.
;o)
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:4520ff8c@linux...
> Hey DJ
>
> Could you walk us idiots through the process i.e. "assign a pair of I/O to
> the aux/send return" etc
>
> for example what modules in the paris patch bay are used to do this and
> exactly how are they routed...
>
> I realise this is second nature to you, but as you found out on Sunday
some
> of us (especially me) are still new to/or intimidated by the paris patch
> bay and the relationship of all it's components to each other....make
sense?
>
> If you would, just post this "paris patchbay for dummies" with your
latest
> latency findings
>
> It would be greatly appreciated
>
> Thanks
>
> DOn
>
>
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:4520b451@linux...
> >I created some sampleslide presets to work with the nudge increments for
> >the
> > UAD-1 plugins and I've got a sweet mix happening here with Paris tracks
> > being processed in SX, while others are being processed with EDS FX and
> > yet
> > others are being processed with outboard gear.
> >
> > Cubase SX is humming along just like a big ol' effects rack and
> > everything
> > sounds appropriately PHAT!!!
> >
> > I'm liking this. Much easier than rendering all the tracks, flying them
> > into
> > Cubase SX and mixing by streaming every track back through Paris. Just a
> > matter of a few presets in Sampleslide and a small nudge here and there.
> > Being able to spread those outboard reverbs across submixes is very
handy.
> >
> > I'll post up my Sampleslide presets ASAP. Theyre working very well.
> >
> > On that note......I'm off to St Mattress cathedral.
> >
> > G'nite all.
> >
> > ;o)
> >
> >
>
>No sweat...
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:4521045d@linux...
> I'll have to get back to this thread tonight.Today's already the Monday
> from
> hell and it's only 6:00 AM.
>
> ;o)
>
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:4520ff8c@linux...
>> Hey DJ
>>
>> Could you walk us idiots through the process i.e. "assign a pair of I/O
>> to
>> the aux/send return" etc
>>
>> for example what modules in the paris patch bay are used to do this and
>> exactly how are they routed...
>>
>> I realise this is second nature to you, but as you found out on Sunday
> some
>> of us (especially me) are still new to/or intimidated by the paris patch
>> bay and the relationship of all it's components to each other....make
> sense?
>>
>> If you would, just post this "paris patchbay for dummies" with your
> latest
>> latency findings
>>
>> It would be greatly appreciated
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> DOn
>>
>>
>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:4520b451@linux...
>> >I created some sampleslide presets to work with the nudge increments for
>> >the
>> > UAD-1 plugins and I've got a sweet mix happening here with Paris tracks
>> > being processed in SX, while others are being processed with EDS FX and
>> > yet
>> > others are being processed with outboard gear.
>> >
>> > Cubase SX is humming along just like a big ol' effects rack and
>> > everything
>> > sounds appropriately PHAT!!!
>> >
>> > I'm liking this. Much easier than rendering all the tracks, flying them
>> > into
>> > Cubase SX and mixing by streaming every track back through Paris. Just
>> > a
>> > matter of a few presets in Sampleslide and a small nudge here and
>> > there.
>> > Being able to spread those outboard reverbs across submixes is very
> handy.
>> >
>> > I'll post up my Sampleslide presets ASAP. Theyre working very well.
>> >
>> > On that note......I'm off to St Mattress cathedral.
>> >
>> > G'nite all.
>> >
>> > ;o)
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>My main audio computer needs to be replaced....I am looking to put together
a new PC that will be for Paris and also a native platform that I will ultimately
migrate to - but not right away. (Leaning towards Samplitude) My Paris system
is 2 cards, with 1 UAD card.
I have a budget of about $1500.00. What I have come up with myself is
an AMD dualcore 2.6 - 3 pci slots and 3 pcie slots - honkin' power supply
- 7200 rpm SATA main system drive with a 3 removable SATA drive bay for audio.
2 Gigs of RAM.
I know Paris can't make use of it....but should I be looking at dual processors?
Would this send my budget through the roof?
Any specific motherboard/processor recommendations?
Someone want to point me to the ideal system for my budget and needs?Thanks for the info Kim. I went and got the driver.
I noticed that most of these cards come with the analog splitter cable.
Only the PCI-e version seems to come standard with the DVI. Without the
DVI I can't see how it's better than my Matrox G450 (for PARIS). I'll keep
looking.
Thanks,
Rich
"Kim W" <no@way.com> wrote:
>
>Nvidia have a unified driver for win98. It supports all Nvidia
>GPU's. It's called "forceware".
>
>http://www.nvidia.com/object/win9x_53.04
>
>One thing. Some of these cards come with Splitter cables.
>(The connector on the card drives two seperate monitors via a
>breakout cable). If this is the case, make sure you buy cards
>with the splitters included. Also these come in either analog
>or DVI. Do a little research before bidding.
>
>Kim
>
>"Rich Kelley" <rich_and_barbara@netzero.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Kim W" <no@way.com> wrote:
>>Hi Kim,
>>
>>No problem. All I could find on the NVIDIA site was an XP driver. Do
I
>>use the same driver for 98? Should I try PNY's website (PNY is the manufacturer
>>of the card, right)?
>>
>>I'm going to try to pick up a couple of these cards. I just got some nice
>>new 1600x1200 LCD for my PARIS computer, so it would be nice to drive them
>>with the DVI input. I'm using Matrox G450s now (one AGP and one PCI).
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>>
>>>Hi, Rich.
>>>Sorry, your post slipped under the radar.
>>>I was running these cards under win98 prior to switching to XP
>>>earlier this year. Drivers are available.
>>>Kim
>>>
>>
>Phil,
I'm in the same boat as you. I've been looking at the Gigabyte K8NS ultra
939 which
has 5 PCI 2.2 slots and which is know to work very well with PARIS,but there
becoming hard to find. Ideally I'd like a Intel based board with 3 PCI 2.2
slots
and PCI-e slots. This will be my first PC so I'm flying blind. I'd like
to run
Pro Tools le,Ableton Live and Reasons as well as PARIS. I've been looking
at
ASUS P5B Motherboard,don't know if this is a good choice,but I'm going to
some
checking around. Let me know what you come up with. Don't like the idea of
being
beta tester but I my have to.
respect
nappy
"Phil Aiken" <paiken@partners.org> wrote:
>
>
> My main audio computer needs to be replaced....I am looking to put together
> a new PC that will be for Paris and also a native platform that I will
ultimately
>migrate to - but not right away. (Leaning towards Samplitude) My Paris system
>is 2 cards, with 1 UAD card.
>
> I have a budget of about $1500.00. What I have come up with myself is
>an AMD dualcore 2.6 - 3 pci slots and 3 pcie slots - honkin' power supply
>- 7200 rpm SATA main system drive with a 3 removable SATA drive bay for
audio.
>2 Gigs of RAM.
>
>I know Paris can't make use of it....but should I be looking at dual processors?
>Would this send my budget through the roof?
>
>Any specific motherboard/processor recommendations?
>
>Someone want to point me to the ideal system for my budget and needs?
>
>
>> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
Oh great, now I'm going to have nightmares! ;^)
It will be interesting to see what refinements end up in future versions
of Logic. I'm personally glad it's already come so far, and is now not
only feature-rich but much more reliable. The hardware and OS it runs on
is plenty fast and reasonably elegant.
I'm glad we have choices, too. For anyone who wants Nuendo, Pro Tools or
is limited to running on MSWindows, clearly you should not buy Logic.
Apple will be OK without your money.
Of course it _would_ be great if Logic were multi-platform but the
reality is that ain't gonna happen.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
James McCloskey wrote:
> Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not running Logic at
> this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the development of logic.
> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of the bugs have
> been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a while, especially when
> they started to make changes to the interface. Some people liked it the
> way it was, hummmmm!
>
> I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks like a killer
> combination, but time will tell. From what I gather, the drivers are working
> well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all turns out to be true.
> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW software. Logic is still
> a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party hardware options,
> such as DSP cards. It took apple time to get the right people in place for
> the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic will
> now improve.
>
> My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs when your reference
> is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old Mac. That's ridiculous!
> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I think the current
> state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would reveal a different
> conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still prevalent in many
> studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I doubt Logic will
> ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held by PT, and Steinberg
> second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW is a vary subjective
> matter. To each his own.
>
> There is a lot of software out there to choose from, I'm glad we have choices,
> other wise we'd all sound the same.
>
> Just be glad Gibson didn't buy Logic!!!
>
> James
>
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> Hey James - are you using Logic with Symphony? How do you like Symphony
> -
>> thoughts? Seems like a great interface and a perfect complement to Logic,
>> but I know a few people were skeptical of Apogee's ability to deliver the
>> driver end, if there is such a concern with core audio.
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 10/1/06 5:39 PM, in article 452051c3$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Apple is a fortune 50 company with billions of dollars behind it. I don't
>>> think Apple or Logic are going to fail any time soon. Logic will, and
> has
>>> improved over time. Apple could make more money if they had a PC version
>>> again, but it doesn't much matter to Mac users and their are millions
> of
>>> us. I think the biggest problem with Logic is the $999.00 price, if it
> were
>>> $499.00, and continued to improve, a lot more people would be using it.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no perfect DAW, they all need work. Is Nuendo $1,500.00 better
>>> than Logic? Before you answer that, maybe you should try the latest version
>>> of Logic on a new Mac with Symphony. Then I think you would really know.
>>> Logic 5.5 is a vary old version. It's all subjective, different strokes
>>> for different fokes. Jamie and others here are examples of people that
> really
>>> like Logic and are able to do serious work with Logic, so I don't think
> it's
>>> dyeing. Logic and Apple are only going to get better with time. By the
>>> way Logic and SoundTrack are supposed to work together, like Vegas and
> Acid.
>>> Hey, it's always good to have choices.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>> Hey Dedric,
>>>> I disagree..I think Apps like DP & Logic Audio should die off fi they
>>>> continue
>>>> down their Mac centric, mac only, Midi first approach. They will die
> off
>>>> if they don't adjust their product to the demands of the industry..
>>>>
>>>> Now it's a Steinberg, Digidesign, Cakwwalk who are dominating the game
> now.
>>>> Apple has dropped the ball with Logic. It seems that Apple is putting
> most
>>>> of their cardsinto IPODS.
>>>>
>>>> I think Final Cut Pro will mature into a Nueundo(ish) type app or more
> so
>>>> Sony Vegas Pro.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> Imho, Soundtrack Pro seems to be aimed directly at the video market
> that
>>>>> will spend tens of thousands on video, but not a dime on audio. They
> have
>>>>> Soundtrack "Pro", which automatically replaces an actual audio pro as
> soon
>>>>> as it is launched! (Thanks to ProTools, any program carrying the "pro"
>>>>> moniker automatically imparts professional skills on any unsuspecting
> user.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Logic is a great program. So are DP, Nuendo, SX, Sonar, and
>>>>> Samplitude/Sequoia (despite the lack of dual core support, still).
> Even
>>>> PT
>>>>> isn't bad for a generic or educational DAW. ;-) I would actually hate
>>>> to
>>>>> see any of them die off - it wouldn't bode well for the industry as
> a whole.
>>>>> The biggest threat DAWs face isn't one another, but technology... making
>>>>> what we do for a living a simple click of a button accessible to anyone
>>>> age
>>>>> 5 to 95.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/30/06 11:26 PM, in article 451f5170$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie My Logic Audio Buddy..An even better example of the level of
> audio
>>>>>> editing,
>>>>>> look and feel that Logic shouold be heading towards. Well, it looks
> like
>>>>>> Apple is heading there without them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I heard a rumor that most of the German(emagic)team is not leading
> the
>>>> Logic
>>>>>> Audio development team. That it's all Apple developers? Is this true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/quicktours/?quicktours/a udio/qt_stpro_2
>>>>>> _re
>>>>>> storation
>Thanks in advance DJ, whenever you get around to it.
I have the tools you mention, but have not even come close
to using them simultaneously.
peace,
Chris
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>No sweat...
>
>
>"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:4521045d@linux...
>> I'll have to get back to this thread tonight.Today's already the Monday
>> from
>> hell and it's only 6:00 AM.
>>
>> ;o)
>>
>> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:4520ff8c@linux...
>>> Hey DJ
>>>
>>> Could you walk us idiots through the process i.e. "assign a pair of I/O
>>> to
>>> the aux/send return" etc
>>>
>>> for example what modules in the paris patch bay are used to do this and
>>> exactly how are they routed...
>>>
>>> I realise this is second nature to you, but as you found out on Sunday
>> some
>>> of us (especially me) are still new to/or intimidated by the paris patch
>>> bay and the relationship of all it's components to each other....make
>> sense?
>>>
>>> If you would, just post this "paris patchbay for dummies" with your
>> latest
>>> latency findings
>>>
>>> It would be greatly appreciated
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> DOn
>>>
>>>
>>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:4520b451@linux...
>>> >I created some sampleslide presets to work with the nudge increments
for
>>> >the
>>> > UAD-1 plugins and I've got a sweet mix happening here with Paris tracks
>>> > being processed in SX, while others are being processed with EDS FX
and
>>> > yet
>>> > others are being processed with outboard gear.
>>> >
>>> > Cubase SX is humming along just like a big ol' effects rack and
>>> > everything
>>> > sounds appropriately PHAT!!!
>>> >
>>> > I'm liking this. Much easier than rendering all the tracks, flying
them
>>> > into
>>> > Cubase SX and mixing by streaming every track back through Paris. Just
>>> > a
>>> > matter of a few presets in Sampleslide and a small nudge here and
>>> > there.
>>> > Being able to spread those outboard reverbs across submixes is very
>> handy.
>>> >
>>> > I'll post up my Sampleslide presets ASAP. Theyre working very well.
>>> >
>>> > On that note......I'm off to St Mattress cathedral.
>>> >
>>> > G'nite all.
>>> >
>>> > ;o)
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>Hello deej,
I had tried SX, and i'm waiting my first Prais rig to be shipped across
ocean...
so i'm interested by your experiences.
At this point, did you simply tried to make your whole mixes in SX ? I
suppose you did it, and decided to go on with Paris.
As you are in an experimental mood, i'm curious too about the internal
signal processing in SX : did you tried to null files going back from cubase
(no processing in SX) with the originals tracks in Paris ? i'would bet they
are different, but maybe not in an audible way.
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> a écrit dans le message de news: 452082b9@linux...
> Yeah.......read my last post. Man, for a second I thought I'd pulled off a
> miracle. The thing that makes this kind of experimentiation really screwy
> is
> that at times Cubase will behave inconsistently, and inconsistently for
> the
> better. I have actually had Cubase SX latency compensation working on
> Paris
> tracks that were being streamed into Cubase. It was like it was seeing the
> incoming signal and applying a lookahead to the processing. then it would
> quit doing this and the latency would return, so all I can say is that
> interfacing two DAWs like this which would normally behave in predictable
> ways creates a scenario where either or both of them may behave in an
> unpredictable way.
>
> Send me your PT HD rig over here and I'll shut up.
>
> ;o)
>
>
> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:4520816b$1@linux...
>>
>> ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
>> ?????????
>> You're kidding right??
>>
>> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>> >If you've been fllowing my torturous Xperamentin thread........it looks
>> like
>> >all of my grief about the latency compensation issues with
> nudging/slipping
>> >Paris tracks may be solved by using the UAD-1 Delaycomp in "Cubase" as
> the
>> >first insert on the channel that is processing the Paris track. The
>> >first
>> >UAD-1 compensation increment seems to cover the native latency, then
>> >subsequent incremental adjustments cover the plugins. Just adjust it per
>> >plugin and the track stays in phase. Also, Drumagog seems to have the
> exact
>> >same latency as a single UAD-1 plugin so on a kick, I can just insert
>> >the
>> >UAD-1 delaycomp, adjust it to compensate for two UAD-1 plugins (one for
>> >buffer latency, the other for Drumagog), insert Drumagog in the next
>> >slot
>> >and the kick track locks to the rest of the drum tracks that aren't
>> >being
>> >processed.
>> >Now Paris automation can be used without having to worry about the track
>> >being nudged and the plugin automation features can be used.
>> >
>> >This is too easy......there's gotta be a catch.
>> >
>> >;o)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>"It took apple time to get the right people in place for
the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic will
now improve. "
And Roland & Former Sonic Foundry Developers. Hence, SounTrack(Opcode vison
sleekness), apple loops(Acid), guitar sim(Roland Cosm_.. Now, that's a winning
combination. I'm loving Apple's diversity in getting the "best" people from
different Audio manufactuers, then developing a Killer Post/DAW .. :) Now,
they have Apogee, Final Cut Pro, they have the Machines Dual Cores Macs.
Nothing should prevent them (Apple) from becoming thee pre-eminent DAW player,
thus over taking Digidesign..
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Dedric! I have older versions of Logic, but I'm not running Logic at
>this time. I have kept up with, to some degree, the development of logic.
> I've been reading the Logic NG for some time, and a lot of the bugs have
>been fixed. There was a lot of mad Logic users for a while, especially
when
>they started to make changes to the interface. Some people liked it the
>way it was, hummmmm!
>
>I've just been reading about Logic and Symphony. It looks like a killer
>combination, but time will tell. From what I gather, the drivers are working
>well. Obviously the latency thing is a plus if it all turns out to be true.
> I think Logic is still a serious contender for DAW software. Logic is
still
>a good option for many, with it's PT and new third party hardware options,
>such as DSP cards. It took apple time to get the right people in place
for
>the internal Logic team, some people came from Opcode. I think Logic will
>now improve.
>
>My point was it's not fair to pick a part Logic and Macs when your reference
>is a 3 to 4 year old version of Logic and an 8 year old Mac. That's ridiculous!
> There has been a lot of improvements to Logic and Macs. I think the current
>state of the art, first hand experience and honesty would reveal a different
>conclusion. Logic and Macs are not dead, they are still prevalent in many
>studios. Logic will improve over time, as all DAWs do. I doubt Logic will
>ever be top dog, but so what. That position will be held by PT, and Steinberg
>second for a long time to come. In the end, the best DAW is a var
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 08 01:18:54 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03116 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
