Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » The Pulsar Carnage Continues!
| The Pulsar Carnage Continues! [message #76873] |
Fri, 08 December 2006 17:49  |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Project Card and Sync Plate (very important - can't do 88.2k
without it) arrived today - will post new summing comparison
clips ASAP... sometime over the weekend if all goes well.
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Pulsar Carnage Continues! [message #76898 is a reply to message #76895] |
Sat, 09 December 2006 23:19  |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
OK, it's official... this will absolutely NOT sync to 88.2k.
Gary (the guy that Deej & I got our cards from) checked it out;
and although it did sync to this saplerate in earlier versions,
it no longer does (WTF? would that be a "downgrade" into newer
versions? lol).
It syncs perfectly to 44.1, 48, and 96, no issues there; but
not to 88.2k.
So... if there's no solution (Gary is going to check with
Creamware on Monday) for this samplerate, I will be selling
this brand-new Pulsar Project Card & Sync Plate at a discounted
rate. I'm thinking like $850 for the card & sync plate, which
is $100 off for a brand-new card and I'll ship it for free to
any CONUS address... it'll work fine for those of you working
at anything up to 96k (besides 88.2 lol).
So if anyone's interested, let me know.
neil DOT henderson AT sbcglobal.net
Neil
"Neil" <IUOIU@IOU.com> wrote:
>
>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>might be a dumb question, but do you need to/have you tried to terminate
>the
>>word clock?
>
>Yep, tried it terminated, unterminated, semi-terminated (lol) -
>man, I've tried everything on this & the Pulsar simply will not
>sync to that samplerate.
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Pulsar Carnage Continues! Record @ 96 [message #76899 is a reply to message #76898] |
Sat, 09 December 2006 23:56 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil, why don;t you just record @ 96k?? What's so special about 88.2.. Man,
in Nuendo, I only use 24 bit.. Paris, 16bi and both rates sound great.
In Pro Tools HD, 96k recording sounds very good, soI can' see why you just
won't track at that rate??
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>OK, it's official... this will absolutely NOT sync to 88.2k.
>Gary (the guy that Deej & I got our cards from) checked it out;
>and although it did sync to this saplerate in earlier versions,
>it no longer does (WTF? would that be a "downgrade" into newer
>versions? lol).
>
>It syncs perfectly to 44.1, 48, and 96, no issues there; but
>not to 88.2k.
>
>So... if there's no solution (Gary is going to check with
>Creamware on Monday) for this samplerate, I will be selling
>this brand-new Pulsar Project Card & Sync Plate at a discounted
>rate. I'm thinking like $850 for the card & sync plate, which
>is $100 off for a brand-new card and I'll ship it for free to
>any CONUS address... it'll work fine for those of you working
>at anything up to 96k (besides 88.2 lol).
>
>So if anyone's interested, let me know.
>
>neil DOT henderson AT sbcglobal.net
>
>
>Neil
>
>
>
>
>
>"Neil" <IUOIU@IOU.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>might be a dumb question, but do you need to/have you tried to terminate
>>the
>>>word clock?
>>
>>Yep, tried it terminated, unterminated, semi-terminated (lol) -
>>man, I've tried everything on this & the Pulsar simply will not
>>sync to that samplerate.
>>
>>Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Pulsar Carnage Continues! Record @ 96 [message #76901 is a reply to message #76899] |
Sat, 09 December 2006 23:51 |
AlexPlasko
Messages: 211
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
less quantization errors. when you downsample to 44.1 it being 1/2 , instead
of 96/44.1. same thing with 48/44.1.plus he gets the nyquist frequency well
into doggy ear range recording at 88.2
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:457baf82$1@linux...
>
> Neil, why don;t you just record @ 96k?? What's so special about 88.2..
> Man,
> in Nuendo, I only use 24 bit.. Paris, 16bi and both rates sound great.
>
> In Pro Tools HD, 96k recording sounds very good, soI can' see why you just
> won't track at that rate??
>
>
> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>
>>OK, it's official... this will absolutely NOT sync to 88.2k.
>>Gary (the guy that Deej & I got our cards from) checked it out;
>>and although it did sync to this saplerate in earlier versions,
>>it no longer does (WTF? would that be a "downgrade" into newer
>>versions? lol).
>>
>>It syncs perfectly to 44.1, 48, and 96, no issues there; but
>>not to 88.2k.
>>
>>So... if there's no solution (Gary is going to check with
>>Creamware on Monday) for this samplerate, I will be selling
>>this brand-new Pulsar Project Card & Sync Plate at a discounted
>>rate. I'm thinking like $850 for the card & sync plate, which
>>is $100 off for a brand-new card and I'll ship it for free to
>>any CONUS address... it'll work fine for those of you working
>>at anything up to 96k (besides 88.2 lol).
>>
>>So if anyone's interested, let me know.
>>
>>neil DOT henderson AT sbcglobal.net
>>
>>
>>Neil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Neil" <IUOIU@IOU.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>might be a dumb question, but do you need to/have you tried to terminate
>>>the
>>>>word clock?
>>>
>>>Yep, tried it terminated, unterminated, semi-terminated (lol) -
>>>man, I've tried everything on this & the Pulsar simply will not
>>>sync to that samplerate.
>>>
>>>Neil
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Pulsar Carnage Continues! Record @ 96 [message #76904 is a reply to message #76901] |
Sun, 10 December 2006 08:51 |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Alex, that's one reason... less rounding errors (and, in fact,
who was it on this newsgroup who told me that when I first
started getting into wanting to use higher sample rates -
something tells me it was Aaron, I seem to recall?)
Another reason:
The difference between the CPU resources required to run lotsa
tracks @ various plugins at 96k vs. 88.2k is not 9% more
resources, as the numbers might imply (96 is roughly 9% higher
than 88.2), it's considerably more - in fact, when I tried
converting an 88.2k project to 96k (it had about 40 tracks &
various assorted plugins), the 88.2 version was pushing my cpu
meter to about 60% usage - the same project/same plugins at 96k
pushed my CPU over the top & it wouldn't even play back.
The best reason yet:
I have a bunch of projects already recorded at 88.2k; it's not
as if I can really see re-recording these just for this one
card.
Neil
"alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>less quantization errors. when you downsample to 44.1 it being 1/2 , instead
>of 96/44.1. same thing with 48/44.1.plus he gets the nyquist frequency
well
>into doggy ear range recording at 88.2
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:457baf82$1@linux...
>>
>> Neil, why don;t you just record @ 96k?? What's so special about 88.2..
>> Man,
>> in Nuendo, I only use 24 bit.. Paris, 16bi and both rates sound great.
>>
>> In Pro Tools HD, 96k recording sounds very good, soI can' see why you
just
>> won't track at that rate??
>>
>>
>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>OK, it's official... this will absolutely NOT sync to 88.2k.
>>>Gary (the guy that Deej & I got our cards from) checked it out;
>>>and although it did sync to this saplerate in earlier versions,
>>>it no longer does (WTF? would that be a "downgrade" into newer
>>>versions? lol).
>>>
>>>It syncs perfectly to 44.1, 48, and 96, no issues there; but
>>>not to 88.2k.
>>>
>>>So... if there's no solution (Gary is going to check with
>>>Creamware on Monday) for this samplerate, I will be selling
>>>this brand-new Pulsar Project Card & Sync Plate at a discounted
>>>rate. I'm thinking like $850 for the card & sync plate, which
>>>is $100 off for a brand-new card and I'll ship it for free to
>>>any CONUS address... it'll work fine for those of you working
>>>at anything up to 96k (besides 88.2 lol).
>>>
>>>So if anyone's interested, let me know.
>>>
>>>neil DOT henderson AT sbcglobal.net
>>>
>>>
>>>Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@IOU.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>might be a dumb question, but do you need to/have you tried to terminate
>>>>the
>>>>>word clock?
>>>>
>>>>Yep, tried it terminated, unterminated, semi-terminated (lol) -
>>>>man, I've tried everything on this & the Pulsar simply will not
>>>>sync to that samplerate.
>>>>
>>>>Neil
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Pulsar Carnage Continues! Record @ 96 [message #76905 is a reply to message #76899] |
Sun, 10 December 2006 09:02 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Neil, why don;t you just record @ 96k?? What's so special about 88.2.. Man,
>in Nuendo, I only use 24 bit.. Paris, 16bi and both rates sound great.
>
>In Pro Tools HD, 96k recording sounds very good, soI can' see why you just
>won't track at that rate??
Because, numerologically, 88.2 works out to a "9"
(88.2: 8+8+2=18; 18: 1+8=9), while 96k works out to a "6"
(96: 9+6=15; 15: 1+5=6), so 88.2k is 3 better.
It's just my own little magic bit of audio mojo, baby! lol
Seriously, though - see my response to Alex's respose to your
post - I answered your inquiry at the same time.
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Pulsar Carnage Continues! Record @ 96 [message #76906 is a reply to message #76905] |
Sun, 10 December 2006 10:23 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I guess the big question is are you taking an unacceptable sonic hit a 44.1
vs 88.2 and does the summing using the Pulsar offset the sonic hit you take
(if in fact you do)
If the answer is no...dump them ASAP
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:457c2f7d$1@linux...
>
> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Neil, why don;t you just record @ 96k?? What's so special about 88.2..
>>Man,
>>in Nuendo, I only use 24 bit.. Paris, 16bi and both rates sound great.
>>
>>In Pro Tools HD, 96k recording sounds very good, soI can' see why you just
>>won't track at that rate??
>
> Because, numerologically, 88.2 works out to a "9"
> (88.2: 8+8+2=18; 18: 1+8=9), while 96k works out to a "6"
> (96: 9+6=15; 15: 1+5=6), so 88.2k is 3 better.
>
> It's just my own little magic bit of audio mojo, baby! lol
>
> Seriously, though - see my response to Alex's respose to your
> post - I answered your inquiry at the same time.
>
> Neil
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Pulsar Carnage Continues! Record @ 96 [message #76920 is a reply to message #76904] |
Sun, 10 December 2006 18:37 |
|
|
Neil, In SX/Neundo, can you hear the difference btw 24bit vs 82?
I have yet to track a projject higher than 24bit. 16bit only in Pairis.
Why even start recording a such a high rate, when the 24/32 sounds great?
"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>Alex, that's one reason... less rounding errors (and, in fact,
>who was it on this newsgroup who told me that when I first
>started getting into wanting to use higher sample rates -
>something tells me it was Aaron, I seem to recall?)
>
>Another reason:
>The difference between the CPU resources required to run lotsa
>tracks @ various plugins at 96k vs. 88.2k is not 9% more
>resources, as the numbers might imply (96 is roughly 9% higher
>than 88.2), it's considerably more - in fact, when I tried
>converting an 88.2k project to 96k (it had about 40 tracks &
>various assorted plugins), the 88.2 version was pushing my cpu
>meter to about 60% usage - the same project/same plugins at 96k
>pushed my CPU over the top & it wouldn't even play back.
>
>The best reason yet:
>I have a bunch of projects already recorded at 88.2k; it's not
>as if I can really see re-recording these just for this one
>card.
>
>Neil
>
>
>
>"alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>less quantization errors. when you downsample to 44.1 it being 1/2 , instead
>
>>of 96/44.1. same thing with 48/44.1.plus he gets the nyquist frequency
>well
>>into doggy ear range recording at 88.2
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:457baf82$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Neil, why don;t you just record @ 96k?? What's so special about 88.2..
>
>>> Man,
>>> in Nuendo, I only use 24 bit.. Paris, 16bi and both rates sound great.
>>>
>>> In Pro Tools HD, 96k recording sounds very good, soI can' see why you
>just
>>> won't track at that rate??
>>>
>>>
>>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>OK, it's official... this will absolutely NOT sync to 88.2k.
>>>>Gary (the guy that Deej & I got our cards from) checked it out;
>>>>and although it did sync to this saplerate in earlier versions,
>>>>it no longer does (WTF? would that be a "downgrade" into newer
>>>>versions? lol).
>>>>
>>>>It syncs perfectly to 44.1, 48, and 96, no issues there; but
>>>>not to 88.2k.
>>>>
>>>>So... if there's no solution (Gary is going to check with
>>>>Creamware on Monday) for this samplerate, I will be selling
>>>>this brand-new Pulsar Project Card & Sync Plate at a discounted
>>>>rate. I'm thinking like $850 for the card & sync plate, which
>>>>is $100 off for a brand-new card and I'll ship it for free to
>>>>any CONUS address... it'll work fine for those of you working
>>>>at anything up to 96k (besides 88.2 lol).
>>>>
>>>>So if anyone's interested, let me know.
>>>>
>>>>neil DOT henderson AT sbcglobal.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@IOU.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>might be a dumb question, but do you need to/have you tried to terminate
>>>>>the
>>>>>>word clock?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep, tried it terminated, unterminated, semi-terminated (lol) -
>>>>>man, I've tried everything on this & the Pulsar simply will not
>>>>>sync to that samplerate.
>>>>>
>>>>>Neil
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Pulsar Carnage Continues! Record @ 96 [message #76926 is a reply to message #76924] |
Sun, 10 December 2006 19:36 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That's OK Chris. It will give me an excuse to figure out a workaround. I'm
thinking that by building another DAW and putting my RME cards in it,
slaving it to WC at 88.2, then slaving the Pulsar system timeline to ADAT
sync generated by the RME system and streaming the audio via lightpipe from
the RME system outputs to the Scope system inputs I should be able to get
the damned thing to play back 88.2k audio files at the proper
pitch........now that makes a hell'uva lot of sense, doesn't it?
;oD
"Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
news:457cc376$1@linux...
> HI Dj and Neil,
> It's sadly amusing to see that Creamware's way of doing things hasn't
> changed at all sense I dealt with them years ago. Some of the user
> responses you all got are are hilarious in their denial of facts.
> Any of the effects available could be coded and ran in a current native
> system. Creamware, TC and UAD types do not want to do it for the simple
> reason people could easily steal the software. The big thing that the
> Creamware DSP cards offer which same goes for Pro Tools is the ability to
> do it very low latencies so as to make is seem real time. The UAD and TCs
> don't even offer this and actually quite the opposite. In native systems
> you can't run the latencies to their lowest settings when using these plug
> ins.
>
> I have a feeling that the reason the does not do 88.2k is because of
> hardware limitations. It may be that the clocks they use on their cards
> which are fairly old right now may not have had the ability to support the
> 88.2k clock. People as fair as I've seen didn't really start trying to use
> 88.2k till the past 2/3 years but 96k has been around a couple more years
> so has been more commonly available on digital clocks.
>
>
> Chris
>
> DJ wrote:
>
>><evil grin>
>>
>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:457c65bb$1@linux...
>>
>>>"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I guess the big question is are you taking an unacceptable sonic hit a
>>>>44.1
>>>>
>>>>vs 88.2 and does the summing using the Pulsar offset the sonic hit you
>>>>take
>>>>
>>>>(if in fact you do)
>>>>
>>>>If the answer is no...dump them ASAP
>>>>
>>>Do you mean if the answer is "yes", dump them ASAP? Or do you
>>>mean if the answer is "no" I should dump using 88.2k ASAP?
>>>
>>>Frankly I don't know if using the Pulsar for summing would make
>>>up for the sonic hit I would take at 44.1k - I can use Paris
>>>for summing right now & NOT have to take the hit to
>>>downconvert, though I have to go out through several Analog
>>>submixes to do this. My idea with the Pulsar was
>>>essentially: "What if I can sum in the digital domain via DSP;
>>>and if so, would that sound better than what I can do right
>>>now?" At this point I still can't find out, however, due to the
>>>inability of the Pulsar stuff to work at 88.2k.
>>>
>>>If you want to see the minor shitstorm that Deej & I started
>>>over on the Pulsar forum over this issue, go here:
>>>
>>>http://www.planetz.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20885
>>>
>>>
>>>Neil
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Chris Ludwig
> ADK
> chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
> www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
> (859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Pulsar Carnage Continues! Record @ 96 [message #76933 is a reply to message #76920] |
Mon, 11 December 2006 07:33 |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Neil, In SX/Neundo, can you hear the difference btw 24bit vs 82?
You mean 32, right? And the answer is: I don't know, in terms of
tracking a whole project at 32-bit, never done that... I use 24-
bit 88.2k to track & if I'm mixing down to stems I'll do the
stems at 32-bit. Same thing if I'm going straight to a 2-buss
mix that I'm going to do sort of a light "mastering" or pre-
mastering on... I'll render the 2-buss mix down a 32-bit/88.2k,
then use Ozone on either the 2-buss mix itself (in this case)
or the master module of the stems mix in those instances.
>Why even start recording a such a high rate, when the 24/32
>sounds great?
Because I am a complete & utter moron, apparently... I know
that more people have been getting into using this particular
samplerate lately, but it seems the vast majority of people who
don't use Pro-Tools are dead-set against going above 44.1 (or
sometimes 48k), while a lot of pepole using PT are going for
96k and some are apparently starting to use 88.2k - a couple of
posts ago in this thread I answered your above question on the
samplerate already... unless you're asking something different
now, and I don't get what you mean?
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Pulsar Carnage Continues! Record @ 96 [message #76934 is a reply to message #76924] |
Mon, 11 December 2006 08:34 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
While I agree that the same things could be done with native DSP code, if
the only way to get a John Bowen synth is to buy a Pulsar, because Bowen
prefers copy protection to size of potential market, then that's that. I
was worried about stability but if that is taken care of then I'm in.
I also think it's odd that people will pay absurd amounts of money for esoteric
analog recording hardware (mics, pres, cables, EQs, comps) when if even one
of the links in the chain is subpar, even the quality of power in the building,
can 86 those thousands of dollars spent. But that makes perfect sense, in
contrast to buying an esoteric DSP card that only sounds a bit better than
the native apps (the NI Prophet sounds very good, the Creamware Prophet sounds
sick). Isn't that a strange double standard?
None of which means I might not be cursing the day I ordered a Pulsar, but
seeing the number of people there using the gear makes me somewhat optomistic.
I just think it's odd that the pursuit of superior sound is fine when it's
tube amps and vintage limiters, but it's silly when it's a DSP synth.
TCB
Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>HI Dj and Neil,
>It's sadly amusing to see that Creamware's way of doing things hasn't
>changed at all sense I dealt with them years ago. Some of the user
>responses you all got are are hilarious in their denial of facts.
>Any of the effects available could be coded and ran in a current native
>system. Creamware, TC and UAD types do not want to do it for the simple
>reason people could easily steal the software. The big thing that the
>Creamware DSP cards offer which same goes for Pro Tools is the ability
>to do it very low latencies so as to make is seem real time. The UAD
>and TCs don't even offer this and actually quite the opposite. In native
>systems you can't run the latencies to their lowest settings when using
>these plug ins.
>
>I have a feeling that the reason the does not do 88.2k is because of
>hardware limitations. It may be that the clocks they use on their cards
>which are fairly old right now may not have had the ability to support
>the 88.2k clock. People as fair as I've seen didn't really start trying
>to use 88.2k till the past 2/3 years but 96k has been around a couple
>more years so has been more commonly available on digital clocks.
>
>
>Chris
>
>DJ wrote:
>
>><evil grin>
>>
>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:457c65bb$1@linux...
>>
>>
>>>"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I guess the big question is are you taking an unacceptable sonic hit
a
>>>>44.1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>vs 88.2 and does the summing using the Pulsar offset the sonic hit you
>>>>take
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>(if in fact you do)
>>>>
>>>>If the answer is no...dump them ASAP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Do you mean if the answer is "yes", dump them ASAP? Or do you
>>>mean if the answer is "no" I should dump using 88.2k ASAP?
>>>
>>>Frankly I don't know if using the Pulsar for summing would make
>>>up for the sonic hit I would take at 44.1k - I can use Paris
>>>for summing right now & NOT have to take the hit to
>>>downconvert, though I have to go out through several Analog
>>>submixes to do this. My idea with the Pulsar was
>>>essentially: "What if I can sum in the digital domain via DSP;
>>>and if so, would that sound better than what I can do right
>>>now?" At this point I still can't find out, however, due to the
>>>inability of the Pulsar stuff to work at 88.2k.
>>>
>>>If you want to see the minor shitstorm that Deej & I started
>>>over on the Pulsar forum over this issue, go here:
>>>
>>>http://www.planetz.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20885
>>>
>>>
>>>Neil
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Chris Ludwig
>ADK
>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Pulsar Carnage Continues! Record @ 96 [message #76938 is a reply to message #76934] |
Mon, 11 December 2006 10:28 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thad, from what I can tell you probably won't have any stability
issues with the Pulsar stuff... I was playing with it at 44.1k
and the only thing I nticed is that a couple of plugins sure
seem to take awhile to load (like ten or 15 seconds - strange
when it's got all that DSP power on-board), but they
don't "hang" once they're loaded & you start using them or
anything like that.
As for your other comment about spending tons of $$$ for a
vintage mic or pre, but not being willing to fork it over for
some other core need... I'm with you there - this is why I'm
trying the Pulsar stuff - mt feelinds are that I've got killer
signal chain stuff happening in terms of mics & pres, pristine
hi-rez convertors, but I'm still not able to get the full mix
sound that I'm looking for... short of going PTHD (which I
suppose I could do, but that's just a TON of money); the Pulsar
stuff - IF I can get it to work at 88.2 - maybe has a shot at
getting me there.
Neil
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>While I agree that the same things could be done with native DSP code, if
>the only way to get a John Bowen synth is to buy a Pulsar, because Bowen
>prefers copy protection to size of potential market, then that's that. I
>was worried about stability but if that is taken care of then I'm in.
>
>I also think it's odd that people will pay absurd amounts of money for esoteric
>analog recording hardware (mics, pres, cables, EQs, comps) when if even
one
>of the links in the chain is subpar, even the quality of power in the building,
>can 86 those thousands of dollars spent. But that makes perfect sense, in
>contrast to buying an esoteric DSP card that only sounds a bit better than
>the native apps (the NI Prophet sounds very good, the Creamware Prophet
sounds
>sick). Isn't that a strange double standard?
>
>None of which means I might not be cursing the day I ordered a Pulsar, but
>seeing the number of people there using the gear makes me somewhat optomistic.
>I just think it's odd that the pursuit of superior sound is fine when it's
>tube amps and vintage limiters, but it's silly when it's a DSP synth.
>
>TCB
>
>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>HI Dj and Neil,
>>It's sadly amusing to see that Creamware's way of doing things hasn't
>>changed at all sense I dealt with them years ago. Some of the user
>>responses you all got are are hilarious in their denial of facts.
>>Any of the effects available could be coded and ran in a current native
>
>>system. Creamware, TC and UAD types do not want to do it for the simple
>
>>reason people could easily steal the software. The big thing that the
>>Creamware DSP cards offer which same goes for Pro Tools is the ability
>>to do it very low latencies so as to make is seem real time. The UAD
>>and TCs don't even offer this and actually quite the opposite. In native
>
>>systems you can't run the latencies to their lowest settings when using
>
>>these plug ins.
>>
>>I have a feeling that the reason the does not do 88.2k is because of
>>hardware limitations. It may be that the clocks they use on their cards
>
>>which are fairly old right now may not have had the ability to support
>>the 88.2k clock. People as fair as I've seen didn't really start trying
>
>>to use 88.2k till the past 2/3 years but 96k has been around a couple
>>more years so has been more commonly available on digital clocks.
>>
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>DJ wrote:
>>
>>><evil grin>
>>>
>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:457c65bb$1@linux...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I guess the big question is are you taking an unacceptable sonic hit
>a
>>>>>44.1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>vs 88.2 and does the summing using the Pulsar offset the sonic hit you
>
>>>>>take
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>(if in fact you do)
>>>>>
>>>>>If the answer is no...dump them ASAP
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Do you mean if the answer is "yes", dump them ASAP? Or do you
>>>>mean if the answer is "no" I should dump using 88.2k ASAP?
>>>>
>>>>Frankly I don't know if using the Pulsar for summing would make
>>>>up for the sonic hit I would take at 44.1k - I can use Paris
>>>>for summing right now & NOT have to take the hit to
>>>>downconvert, though I have to go out through several Analog
>>>>submixes to do this. My idea with the Pulsar was
>>>>essentially: "What if I can sum in the digital domain via DSP;
>>>>and if so, would that sound better than what I can do right
>>>>now?" At this point I still can't find out, however, due to the
>>>>inability of the Pulsar stuff to work at 88.2k.
>>>>
>>>>If you want to see the minor shitstorm that Deej & I started
>>>>over on the Pulsar forum over this issue, go here:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.planetz.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20885
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Chris Ludwig
>>ADK
>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>(859) 635-5762
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 25 21:28:12 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04964 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
