Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » I'm moving on.
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74120 is a reply to message #74119] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 00:35   |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Big move Deej...
You certainly will need a dual something, but why not go for Core Duo 6600
or so?
I use ASIO direct monitoring with no dramas, but I never record that many
tracks at one time, and probably never will, (I don't normally have to
record 16 voiceover talent at the one time, luckily).
Good luck with whatever you choose, but don't leave this little community,
soon there's going to be more of us that don't use Paris on this group than
does.
Cheers
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:45332adb@linux...
>
> I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this.
> I'm
> going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and
> I'll
> be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
>
> I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
> different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious to
> me
> as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with it
> so
> far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I
> want
> to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing pains,
> but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
>
> I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to be
> 2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right???
> I've
> never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
> sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be able
> to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
> also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
> mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
> enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like
> to
> be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not
> sure
> how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
> There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
> direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
> just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
> sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may
> have
> to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
>
> With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically inaudible.
> that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
> asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris
> (using
> the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build an
> Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
> existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware
> compatibility
> though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
> want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so
> that's
> why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
> interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
>
> Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much
> appreciated.
>
> Deej
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74121 is a reply to message #74120] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 00:58 |
Jeremy Luzier
Messages: 102
Registered: November 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ-
i don't know your setup but.... you might want to seriously consider holding
onto 2 mecs and 2 cards. that way you can track without any latency (well
whatever latency there was in paris). you can monitor the paris inputs
while simultaneously sending inputs to your rme interface via paris adat.
or if you wanna go throught the trouble of staying true 24 bit.... i'm sure
you can find a way... a super awesome splitter... some routing scheme with
paris 24 bit in and 24 bit outs.
i am just saying its really nice to not have to worry about any direct
monitoring bullshit. paris becomes your cue mixer... and a summing box if
you wanna go there.
i don't track 15 mics at one time... i mostly do overdubs here... and
mixing.
if i were you i give some thought to keeping a bare bones system around as a
cue mix/no latency monitoring daw.
good luck.... oh and... get nuendo its better because.... well .... people
say so.... cuz... its more "pro".... and cuz it costs 1500 more than SX...
hey ... the gui is better.
;-)
jeremy
"Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:45333431@linux...
> Big move Deej...
> You certainly will need a dual something, but why not go for Core Duo 6600
> or so?
> I use ASIO direct monitoring with no dramas, but I never record that many
> tracks at one time, and probably never will, (I don't normally have to
> record 16 voiceover talent at the one time, luckily).
> Good luck with whatever you choose, but don't leave this little community,
> soon there's going to be more of us that don't use Paris on this group
than
> does.
> Cheers
> --
> Martin Harrington
> www.lendanear-sound.com
>
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:45332adb@linux...
> >
> > I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this.
> > I'm
> > going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and
> > I'll
> > be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
> >
> > I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
> > different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious
to
> > me
> > as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with
it
> > so
> > far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I
> > want
> > to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing
pains,
> > but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
> >
> > I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to
be
> > 2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right???
> > I've
> > never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
> > sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be
able
> > to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks.
I'm
> > also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a
cue
> > mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
> > enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like
> > to
> > be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not
> > sure
> > how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
> > There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
> > direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
> > just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
> > sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may
> > have
> > to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
> >
> > With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically
inaudible.
> > that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
> > asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris
> > (using
> > the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build
an
> > Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
> > existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware
> > compatibility
> > though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
> > want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so
> > that's
> > why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
> > interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
> >
> > Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Deej
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74122 is a reply to message #74119] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 01:51 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hehe, and so ends the story...
....so can I shut off the server now? ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>
>I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this.
I'm
>going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and
I'll
>be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
>
>I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
>different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious to
me
>as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with it
so
>far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I
want
>to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing pains,
>but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
>
>I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to be
>2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right??? I've
>never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
>sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be able
>to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
>also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
>mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
>enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like
to
>be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not sure
>how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
>There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
>direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
>just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
>sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may
have
>to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
>
>With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically inaudible.
>that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
>asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris (using
>the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build
an
>Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
>existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware compatibility
>though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
>want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so that's
>why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
>interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
>
>Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much appreciated.
>
>Deej
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74124 is a reply to message #74122] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 04:00 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kim, hell no, just rename it Cubase ! hehe
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Hehe, and so ends the story...
>
>...so can I shut off the server now? ;o)
>
>Cheers,
>Kim.
>
>"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>
>>I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this.
>I'm
>>going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and
>I'll
>>be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
>>
>>I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
>>different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious
to
>me
>>as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with
it
>so
>>far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I
>want
>>to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing pains,
>>but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
>>
>>I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to
be
>>2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right???
I've
>>never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
>>sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be able
>>to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
>>also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
>>mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
>>enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like
>to
>>be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not
sure
>>how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
>>There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
>>direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
>>just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
>>sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may
>have
>>to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
>>
>>With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically inaudible.
>>that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
>>asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris (using
>>the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build
>an
>>Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
>>existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware compatibility
>>though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything
I
>>want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so that's
>>why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
>>interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
>>
>>Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much appreciated.
>>
>>Deej
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74129 is a reply to message #74119] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 05:55 |
Rod Lincoln
Messages: 883
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ouch!!!! Man, that's a shock to wake up to! I wouldn't sell the stuff yet...in
case you change your mind. Give it a couple months buffer zone in the boxes,
just to be sure.
I think the latency of paris is more like 3 to 4 samples....WAY less than
1.5 ms.
Anyway, I know you'll still be here. Mornings wouldn't be the same without
your posts ;-).
Rod
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>
>I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this.
I'm
>going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and
I'll
>be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
>
>I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
>different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious to
me
>as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with it
so
>far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I
want
>to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing pains,
>but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
>
>I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to be
>2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right??? I've
>never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
>sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be able
>to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
>also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
>mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
>enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like
to
>be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not sure
>how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
>There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
>direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
>just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
>sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may
have
>to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
>
>With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically inaudible.
>that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
>asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris (using
>the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build
an
>Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
>existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware compatibility
>though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
>want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so that's
>why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
>interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
>
>Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much appreciated.
>
>Deej
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74133 is a reply to message #74119] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 06:38 |
neil[1]
Messages: 164
Registered: October 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Deej - saw Martin's post, and while I think if you want to go
with a more robust PC, that would certainly help your monitoring
latency, but FWIW, the most recent recordings I did with a full
band were BEFORE I upgraded my current MOBO & CPU, so I was
running an Athlon XP 2800+ (which is , what - 1.8 gigs?), and I
was able to go to the 6ms buffer setting & record 12 tracks at
once with no problem... and don't forget, this is at 24-
bit/88.2k! And this is with IDE drives - you're running the
faster SATA drives, yes?
Even if your PC was only as fast as mine, you should, in theory,
be able to double this count to 24 tracks at once if you're
staying with 44.1k, or since your PC is faster (and has the
faster-streaming SATA setup on the audio drive, to boot),
perhaps go to 1.5 msec latency & STILL be able to get up in
that range.
What I'm saying, IOW, you might just try your current PC first
and see what happens - it would take you less time to set that
one up as your main Cubase Rig & run a few track-count tests on
it (half a day, perhaps?) than it would to build a new one from
scratch, configure it, etc.
Might be worth your trouble to find out!
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74135 is a reply to message #74119] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 06:45 |
Dimitrios
Messages: 1056
Registered: August 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey DJ<
I can't let you do that after all that you have done to Paris.
I jumped over a year ago to Paris so I must be the last indian who jumped
on that train.
I an others need you , so you oughta have Paris along with any newer system
you grow up.
Please try the creamware addon to Paris .
You will be amazed with that combo.
Trust me.
No vst shit just great realtime creamware effects with SSL eq/comps, RMX
160 reverbs, dynamic eq's mastering devices and more more to come.
Don't need any fats or dual cpu comp , creamware is realtime dsp like paris.
Together you can go miracles.
If we will be both on that we can go places and keep paris alive.
If you go I will be very sad !!!!!!!
I and the rest of us here like you very much.
Its not just psoting a hello every morning it is trying and solving problems
!!
REgards,
Dimitrios
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>
>I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this.
I'm
>going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and
I'll
>be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
>
>I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
>different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious to
me
>as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with it
so
>far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I
want
>to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing pains,
>but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
>
>I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to be
>2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right??? I've
>never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
>sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be able
>to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
>also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
>mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
>enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like
to
>be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not sure
>how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
>There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
>direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
>just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
>sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may
have
>to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
>
>With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically inaudible.
>that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
>asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris (using
>the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build
an
>Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
>existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware compatibility
>though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
>want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so that's
>why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
>interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
>
>Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much appreciated.
>
>Deej
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74136 is a reply to message #74135] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 06:56 |
Rich[3]
Messages: 132
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dimitrios:
I know you wote about this before; but now might be a good time to review
how your using creamware again. What cards - software - Pc's - and how you
connect etc. Any latancy issues and how your addressing and with what.
You seem to be very pleased with the creamware results and this may save
some Paris users from jumping ship just yet. Please be specific and if you
can compaire to UAD as I belive you used that also. Thanks as always!!
Rich
"Dimitrios" <musurgio@otenet.gr> wrote:
>
>Hey DJ<
>I can't let you do that after all that you have done to Paris.
>I jumped over a year ago to Paris so I must be the last indian who jumped
>on that train.
>I an others need you , so you oughta have Paris along with any newer system
>you grow up.
>Please try the creamware addon to Paris .
>You will be amazed with that combo.
>Trust me.
>No vst shit just great realtime creamware effects with SSL eq/comps, RMX
>160 reverbs, dynamic eq's mastering devices and more more to come.
>Don't need any fats or dual cpu comp , creamware is realtime dsp like paris.
>Together you can go miracles.
>If we will be both on that we can go places and keep paris alive.
>If you go I will be very sad !!!!!!!
>I and the rest of us here like you very much.
>Its not just psoting a hello every morning it is trying and solving problems
>!!
>REgards,
>Dimitrios
>
>"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>
>>I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this.
>I'm
>>going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and
>I'll
>>be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
>>
>>I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
>>different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious
to
>me
>>as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with
it
>so
>>far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I
>want
>>to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing pains,
>>but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
>>
>>I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to
be
>>2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right???
I've
>>never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
>>sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be able
>>to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
>>also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
>>mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
>>enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like
>to
>>be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not
sure
>>how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
>>There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
>>direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
>>just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
>>sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may
>have
>>to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
>>
>>With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically inaudible.
>>that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
>>asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris (using
>>the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build
>an
>>Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
>>existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware compatibility
>>though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything
I
>>want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so that's
>>why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
>>interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
>>
>>Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much appreciated.
>>
>>Deej
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74139 is a reply to message #74119] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 07:24 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
HI DJ,
Come join the dark side young padawan.
If you want to track with effects on the live inputs then something like
the Pulsar would be the only choice outside of using external hardware
for effects.
You might be getting some of the phasing because you are monitoring the
original signal with the effected signal. I've found that as long as I
only monitor thru Cubase and not thru the sound cards hardware
monitoring then the 3ms isn't noticeable. I only get phasing if I have
both active. The DSP cards such as UAD, TC still add too much of a
internal buffer on live inputs but Cubase 4's new effects sound great
and are more than usable for tracking.
If you plan at working at real low latencies then the Intel Core and
Woodcrest Xeon are the way to go. You will also have more CPU power.
Your over complicating the Total Mix. I would make sure you turn off the
sub-mix view. That is the only complicated part of it. If you are trying
to use software effects on live inputs then the top row can be ignored.
If you are going to use the Cue Mix in Cubase then only the bottom row
ill be any use. The Studio functions do use some CPU power though so you
might want to experiment with that.
If you are using Direct Monitoring or need hardware mixing of some sort
then RME is by far a better choice. If you are just monitoring thru
software then there is no difference with the RME or Lynx.
Chris
DJ wrote:
>I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this. I'm
>going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and I'll
>be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
>
>I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
>different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious to me
>as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with it so
>far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I want
>to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing pains,
>but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
>
>I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to be
>2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right??? I've
>never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
>sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be able
>to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
>also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
>mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
>enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like to
>be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not sure
>how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
>There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
>direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
>just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
>sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may have
>to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
>
>With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically inaudible.
>that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
>asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris (using
>the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build an
>Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
>existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware compatibility
>though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
>want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so that's
>why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
>interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
>
>Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much appreciated.
>
>Deej
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74141 is a reply to message #74119] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 07:19 |
John Macy
Messages: 242
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Damn, my sister gets rattled by the earthquake and you're quitting Paris--what's
next for today??
Seriously, I'd take Rod's advice and sit on the gear for a while. You may
think twice after you've livid in the other system for a while. Plus, how
can we justify our lives without watching all the grief you have been going
through for us? You're the reason my first stop on the net is to this forum
everyday...
Dimitrios, I would also like a briefing on where your current system is today
and how you got there--even a Cliffnote version...
While I like the UAD card a lot, I mostly use real outboard so the dual workstation
thing is not a huge priority for me. I have 8 analog inserts on each Paris
card, and usually print the track after I have decided on the sound for ease
of recall. I have my 4 KSP8's inputs summed via analog from across all the
Paris cards, plus a TC or Lex on each card via the SPDIFs, so that's not
an issue for me. I am usually tracking 24 inputs at a time, so the latency
thing of Paris keeps me right here.
Of course, you can buy an awful lot of analog console for little cash these
days, so for tracking, 24 outs from Cubase/Neundo might be the answer. I
know Chuck Ainley tracks with a 32in/48out Nuendo rig into the console and
seems to be no problem.
Anyway, I'd sit on that system for a while before I offed it..
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>
>I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this.
I'm
>going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and
I'll
>be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
>
>I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
>different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious to
me
>as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with it
so
>far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I
want
>to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing pains,
>but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
>
>I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to be
>2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right??? I've
>never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
>sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be able
>to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
>also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
>mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
>enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like
to
>be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not sure
>how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
>There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
>direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
>just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
>sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may
have
>to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
>
>With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically inaudible.
>that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
>asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris (using
>the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build
an
>Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
>existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware compatibility
>though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
>want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so that's
>why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
>interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
>
>Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much appreciated.
>
>Deej
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74143 is a reply to message #74119] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 07:22 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi DJ,
Just add a an mixer, preferably ananlog.. The mackie Onyx are great with
really good mic pres to boot..it has Talk-back, and even an firwire option.
This way you are adding back in the "nice harmonic distortion" back into
your summing and not relying on an interface for summing..
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>
>I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this.
I'm
>going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and
I'll
>be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
>
>I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
>different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious to
me
>as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with it
so
>far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I
want
>to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing pains,
>but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
>
>I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to be
>2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right??? I've
>never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
>sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be able
>to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
>also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
>mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
>enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like
to
>be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not sure
>how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
>There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
>direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
>just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
>sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may
have
>to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
>
>With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically inaudible.
>that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
>asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris (using
>the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build
an
>Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
>existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware compatibility
>though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
>want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so that's
>why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
>interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
>
>Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much appreciated.
>
>Deej
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74144 is a reply to message #74119] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 07:51 |
EK Sound
Messages: 939
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
OK, one more time... You need a digital console for routing and que
mixing. Without this, you will die!
David.
DJ wrote:
> I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this. I'm
> going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and I'll
> be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
>
> I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
> different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious to me
> as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with it so
> far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I want
> to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing pains,
> but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
>
> I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to be
> 2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right??? I've
> never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
> sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be able
> to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
> also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
> mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
> enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like to
> be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not sure
> how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
> There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
> direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
> just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
> sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may have
> to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
>
> With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically inaudible.
> that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
> asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris (using
> the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build an
> Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
> existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware compatibility
> though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
> want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so that's
> why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
> interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
>
> Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much appreciated.
>
> Deej
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74145 is a reply to message #74129] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 07:45 |
animix
Messages: 356
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm already having withdrawal symptoms.
;o)
"Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45338124$1@linux...
>
> Ouch!!!! Man, that's a shock to wake up to! I wouldn't sell the stuff
yet...in
> case you change your mind. Give it a couple months buffer zone in the
boxes,
> just to be sure.
> I think the latency of paris is more like 3 to 4 samples....WAY less than
> 1.5 ms.
> Anyway, I know you'll still be here. Mornings wouldn't be the same without
> your posts ;-).
> Rod
>
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
> >
> >I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this.
> I'm
> >going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and
> I'll
> >be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
> >
> >I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
> >different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious to
> me
> >as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with it
> so
> >far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I
> want
> >to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing
pains,
> >but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
> >
> >I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to be
> >2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right???
I've
> >never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
> >sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be
able
> >to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
> >also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
> >mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
> >enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like
> to
> >be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not
sure
> >how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
> >There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
> >direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
> >just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
> >sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may
> have
> >to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
> >
> >With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically
inaudible.
> >that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
> >asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris
(using
> >the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build
> an
> >Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
> >existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware
compatibility
> >though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
> >want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so
that's
> >why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
> >interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
> >
> >Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much
appreciated.
> >
> >Deej
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74146 is a reply to message #74119] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 07:53 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You could consider some or all monitoring of live tracks via Totalmix (only
disc tracks via ASIO playback) - that would give you the same latency as
Paris' hardware. And since Totalmix can be midi controlled, you could setup
submixes there possibly with one or two outboard reverbs just to appease the
talent if direct monitoring just doesn't work for that many inputs, and have
switchable main monitors, dim, talkback, etc.
Like Martin, I would recommend a core duo - I think the xeon dual versions
are coming out soon if not out already (Chris should know). I wouldn't want
to bother with dual opteron unless you need that extra bandwidth for
tracking before a dual duo is available (compatibility on the core duos
seems to be far better than the dual opterons - e.g. UAD-1s, etc).
Another option for general processing is to setup VST system link between a
couple (or more) PCs. I have mine linked for high res video playback on a
second system (Cubase SX1), and additional VSTi's or processing, and it
works well (no scrubbing though).
BTW - Nuendo will only be adding post features in the future (beyond Cubase
features). Where it had been somewhat preferable for music too due to some
great music/production features, the word is that is ending (hence Cubase 4
got the Control Room). Cubase 4 may be all you need. It is a nice step up
from SX, and should work great for audio production - the bugs I've found
are mostly VSTi related at the moment.
Regards,
Dedric
On 10/16/06 12:47 AM, in article 45332adb@linux, "DJ" <notachance@net.net>
wrote:
>
> I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this. I'm
> going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and I'll
> be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
>
> I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
> different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious to me
> as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with it so
> far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I want
> to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing pains,
> but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
>
> I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to be
> 2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right??? I've
> never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
> sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be able
> to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
> also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
> mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
> enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like to
> be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not sure
> how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
> There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
> direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
> just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
> sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may have
> to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
>
> With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically inaudible.
> that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
> asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris (using
> the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build an
> Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
> existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware compatibility
> though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
> want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so that's
> why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
> interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
>
> Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much appreciated.
>
> Deej
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74150 is a reply to message #74122] |
Mon, 16 October 2006 08:18 |
animix
Messages: 356
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This place has become a universal forum these days with Paris (past and
present) being the common bond.
Depending on a couple factors, I'll probably keep a dual card/single MEC rig
here with a full complment of input and output modules for the time being,
just in case.
The doublewhammymonsterDAW was just too over the top with too many variables
to be practical as far as troubleshooting. the thing that was really uggin
me was that after bouncing a mix from cubase SX into Paris, I could open the
stereo file in Wavelab and an analysis showed literally *millions* of
digital errors. I'm not exaggerating. A 3 second segment would have so many
digital errors that Wavelab couldn't repair it. I could run the click
removal function and a few hundred little green triangles would appear along
the timeline. A very close, critical listening determined that they were
barely audible and they could be removed, but the fact that there were
millions of errors that couldn't was indicitave of some pretty major grunge
happening and I'm wondering if my ears have just become accustomed to the
grunge and that's why I notice such a difference in mixing native.
The wierd thing about this is that *everyone* likes the sound of this
grunge. It sounds great.............but it's just about impossible to
achieve *good grunge* and stability at the same time. It's one or the other.
;oD
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45334804$1@linux...
>
>
> Hehe, and so ends the story...
>
> ...so can I shut off the server now? ;o)
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
>
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
> >
> >I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this.
> I'm
> >going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and
> I'll
> >be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
> >
> >I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
> >different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious to
> me
> >as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with it
> so
> >far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I
> want
> >to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing
pains,
> >but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
> >
> >I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to be
> >2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right???
I've
> >never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
> >sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be
able
> >to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
> >also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
> >mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
> >enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like
> to
> >be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not
sure
> >how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
> >There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
> >direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
> >just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
> >sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may
> have
> >to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
> >
> >With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically
inaudible.
> >that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
> >asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris
(using
> >the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build
> an
> >Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
> >existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware
compatibility
> >though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
> >want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so
that's
> >why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
> >interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
> >
> >Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much
appreciated.
> >
> >Deej
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I'm moving on. [message #74314 is a reply to message #74119] |
Tue, 17 October 2006 12:18 |
Dubya Mark Wilson
Messages: 108
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I see myself moving out of PARIS for mix but I'm firmly holding for
tracking. It's just not that bigga deal to me to edit/export.... waaaay
bigger deal to try to manage large track counts for print in a latency
riddled daw during tracking. Even if I need to go back post export and
retrack something, anything.... sticking. Good luck in the curves Deej.
Watch for falling rocks, wooden nickels and stray dogs.
Dubya
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote in message news:45332adb@linux...
>
> I have completely torn down my Paris rig today so I'm committed to this.
> I'm
> going to find all the original boxes (or as many as I've still got) and
> I'll
> be selling it all once I clean up and package all of the components.
>
> I've been mixing a project natively today/tonight. There's definitely a
> different sonic footprint between Cubase SX and Paris. It's as obvious to
> me
> as the sun rising in the morning, but I'm liking what I'm getting with it
> so
> far and I think I can achieve something similar to the Paris sound if I
> want
> to by using certain kinds of processing. There will be some growing pains,
> but it's nice being able to just strap anything, anywhere I want.
>
> I'm concerned about a few things. With the RME hardware, it's going to be
> 2ms hardware latency plus another 1.5ms converter latency.....right???
> I've
> never done a cue mix with this RME hardware. I track up to 15 live mics
> sometimes and I'm not sure how well my AMD 64 4400 x 2 system will be able
> to handle this if I'm also playing back 15 or 20 prerecorded tracks. I'm
> also wondering how phasey 3.5 ms is going to be (if it is 3.5ms) in a cue
> mix if I'm sending an audio stream out of a mix with plugin monitoring
> enabled with buffers set to 64k to my Furman headphone system. I'd like
> to
> be able to do this. I definitely hear phasing in a mix at 3ms. I'm not
> sure
> how that would translate to a performer's cue mix in tracking scenario.
> There may be no way around this with the RME hardware without using ASIO
> direct monitoring. the whole point of my switching DAWs is to be able to
> just fire it up and get going at the lowest possible latency in tracking
> sessions without worrying about jumping through a bunch of hoops. I may
> have
> to build myself a dual/dualcore Opteron system.
>
> With Paris, it was just 1.5 ms conversion latency and basically inaudible.
> that's a big deal to me in a tracking session. This is the reason I was
> asking about the Pulsar. If it's latency is similar to that of Paris
> (using
> the onboard DSP only) then I think I can use my current DAW. If I build an
> Opteron rig, I think I will be able to use the PSU, RAM and HD's of my
> existing DAW. I do not want any more grief with mobo/hardware
> compatibility
> though. I'm doing this because I just can't get Paris to do everything I
> want and I'm tired of the struggle. I don't want another struggle so
> that's
> why I'll probably stay with RME or Lynx (I hate the Totalmix
> interface.......Lynx is much better IMO)
>
> Anyway.......your thoughts/advice and suggestions will be much
> appreciated.
>
> Deej
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Dec 14 20:36:09 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02005 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
