Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » the last paris app we need?
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101949 is a reply to message #101939] |
Tue, 06 January 2009 19:06   |
|
|
Heya Gantt - 8ch of lightpipe now (RME 9632), haven't thought about sync
yet; soon to be 24 channels of lightpipe plus ADAT sync (RME 9652).
- k
On 1/6/09 10:15 AM, in article 496391af$1@linux, "Gantt Kushner"
<ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hey Kerry,
>
> How integrate the two systems?
>
> Gantt
>
> Kerry Galloway <kg@kerrygalloway.com> wrote:
>> I use both, myself. Logic Pro 8 and RME for the features and modernity,
>> PARIS for what I'm looking for sonically.
>>
>> - K
>>
>> On 1/5/09 8:54 PM, in article 4962d602$1@linux, "Neil" <OIOIU@oiu.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Derek... I gotcha. BTW, FWIW, your recent posts look
>>> STAGGERINGLY familiar to some posts I made few years back when
>>> I bailed on paris for the Native world... welcome to the Dark
>>> Side, my Jedi friend. lol
>>>
>>> ;)
>>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>>>
>>> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> "Neil" <OIUIOU@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>> heck, maybe this is what you're
>>>>> doing already, for all I know. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i tried that route for a while, until i realized
>>>> that within the time i take for all the routing,
>>>> troubleshooting and restarts because of hiccups of
>>>> one kind or the other, i might as well just export
>>>> selections of tracks within paris at a time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> my interest is not so much in saving a few man hours.
>>>> its more for the times when the hardware will eventually
>>>> bite the dust. and that day is coming. not to mention
>>>> the slowly fading software compability etc. already today,
>>>> my only chance of opening a project as is with all
>>>> settings and plugs in place it to actually maintain
>>>> my win 98 machine from back then. and that just feels like
>>>> a ticking bomb to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
"... being bitter is like swallowing poison and waiting for the other guy to die..." - anon
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101950 is a reply to message #101949] |
Tue, 06 January 2009 21:21 |
|
|
So you send stems out of Logic into Paris? Do you use the Paris automation?
Gantt
Kerry Galloway <kg@kerrygalloway.com> wrote:
>Heya Gantt - 8ch of lightpipe now (RME 9632), haven't thought about sync
>yet; soon to be 24 channels of lightpipe plus ADAT sync (RME 9652).
>
>- k
>
>On 1/6/09 10:15 AM, in article 496391af$1@linux, "Gantt Kushner"
><ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey Kerry,
>>
>> How integrate the two systems?
>>
>> Gantt
>>
>> Kerry Galloway <kg@kerrygalloway.com> wrote:
>>> I use both, myself. Logic Pro 8 and RME for the features and modernity,
>>> PARIS for what I'm looking for sonically.
>>>
>>> - K
>>>
>>> On 1/5/09 8:54 PM, in article 4962d602$1@linux, "Neil" <OIOIU@oiu.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Derek... I gotcha. BTW, FWIW, your recent posts look
>>>> STAGGERINGLY familiar to some posts I made few years back when
>>>> I bailed on paris for the Native world... welcome to the Dark
>>>> Side, my Jedi friend. lol
>>>>
>>>> ;)
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Neil" <OIUIOU@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>>> heck, maybe this is what you're
>>>>>> doing already, for all I know. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> i tried that route for a while, until i realized
>>>>> that within the time i take for all the routing,
>>>>> troubleshooting and restarts because of hiccups of
>>>>> one kind or the other, i might as well just export
>>>>> selections of tracks within paris at a time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> my interest is not so much in saving a few man hours.
>>>>> its more for the times when the hardware will eventually
>>>>> bite the dust. and that day is coming. not to mention
>>>>> the slowly fading software compability etc. already today,
>>>>> my only chance of opening a project as is with all
>>>>> settings and plugs in place it to actually maintain
>>>>> my win 98 machine from back then. and that just feels like
>>>>> a ticking bomb to me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101951 is a reply to message #101950] |
Tue, 06 January 2009 20:25 |
|
|
Well, this is all theoretical, as I'm just building the sound treatments,
painting the place and setting up to wire patchbays right now. But that's
basically going to be it; using Logic for VSTi's and using PARIS as the
mixing/FX/summing engine.
- K
On 1/6/09 9:21 PM, in article 49642db6$1@linux, "Gantt Kushner"
<ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> So you send stems out of Logic into Paris? Do you use the Paris automation?
>
> Gantt
>
> Kerry Galloway <kg@kerrygalloway.com> wrote:
>> Heya Gantt - 8ch of lightpipe now (RME 9632), haven't thought about sync
>> yet; soon to be 24 channels of lightpipe plus ADAT sync (RME 9652).
>>
>> - k
>>
>> On 1/6/09 10:15 AM, in article 496391af$1@linux, "Gantt Kushner"
>> <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hey Kerry,
>>>
>>> How integrate the two systems?
>>>
>>> Gantt
>>>
>>> Kerry Galloway <kg@kerrygalloway.com> wrote:
>>>> I use both, myself. Logic Pro 8 and RME for the features and modernity,
>>>> PARIS for what I'm looking for sonically.
>>>>
>>>> - K
>>>>
>>>> On 1/5/09 8:54 PM, in article 4962d602$1@linux, "Neil" <OIOIU@oiu.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Derek... I gotcha. BTW, FWIW, your recent posts look
>>>>> STAGGERINGLY familiar to some posts I made few years back when
>>>>> I bailed on paris for the Native world... welcome to the Dark
>>>>> Side, my Jedi friend. lol
>>>>>
>>>>> ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Neil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Neil" <OIUIOU@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>>>> heck, maybe this is what you're
>>>>>>> doing already, for all I know. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i tried that route for a while, until i realized
>>>>>> that within the time i take for all the routing,
>>>>>> troubleshooting and restarts because of hiccups of
>>>>>> one kind or the other, i might as well just export
>>>>>> selections of tracks within paris at a time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> my interest is not so much in saving a few man hours.
>>>>>> its more for the times when the hardware will eventually
>>>>>> bite the dust. and that day is coming. not to mention
>>>>>> the slowly fading software compability etc. already today,
>>>>>> my only chance of opening a project as is with all
>>>>>> settings and plugs in place it to actually maintain
>>>>>> my win 98 machine from back then. and that just feels like
>>>>>> a ticking bomb to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
"... being bitter is like swallowing poison and waiting for the other guy to die..." - anon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101973 is a reply to message #101934] |
Thu, 08 January 2009 07:35 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>What I agree with is the certainty that you can produce fantastic results
>with many other combinations of software, hardware and technique.
you know, i used to stand on a different side on this issue.
back then, paris really DID sound better on average
than a lot of the competition. but youve got to keep in mind
there, those were the deal oldschool days. from todays
perspective, its almost banal to realize that OF COURSE
paris sounded better and "more analog" than say a protools
system running mostly first generation waves plugins.
try to mimic ANY paris eq setting with a waves Q10, heck,
even with a renaissance eq. no chance. and PTs converters
sucked. and most native VST plugins sucked, sonically.
so i am by no means saying paris' reputation is built on
a legend or anything. what it brought to the table sonically,
for the year 97, was simply amazing.
but this aint 97 anymore, and its really a different story
if youre comparing it to todays world of daws where its
almost impossible to find a AD/DA converter that sounds
"bad" and where even freeware plugins dont just try to get
away with doing stuff by the book but care about parameter
interpolation, emulating soft saturation etc, not to mention
stuff from the "UAD league" if you will.
I also
>agree with you that
>"convenience" advantages in other software can have a direct impact on sonics.
>What I have difficulty with personally is getting the same sonic
>results from other software/hardware combos without investing
>significant time and money. I have been happy with results from CuBase or
>Logic summed through an analog board to tape. But I have been happier with
>those same mixes summed in Paris by itself.
see this is where i part ways. i do so because i used
to believe in the "summing aspect" too - until i made huge
tests followed by true blind tests. and boy, did the difference
between just "trying it out" and true blind testing
blow me away. i could have sworn the paris sound was a completely
different one even just when pulling up faders. but it wasnt.
i wasnt able to tell what the paris one was, and upon further
investigation when i made sure to sidestep all of paris'
potential hiccups such as slight DC offset problems or else,
i got to archieve 100% cancellation in a null test, and
thats where that argument ends.
the only explanation i have is the paris UI and its psychological
effect both visually and also because of the responsiveness
of the interface and IDs neat way or handling linear knob movements with
the mouse.
>As far as the idea that the Paris summing/bounce "magic" is easily replicated
>in other systems and "proven" using phase
>cancelling tests, I'm not sure what you mean by this (this is what I think
>you're saying, if I'm misinterpreting, I apologize). Even if you could take
>the same mix and bounce it from both Paris and Nuendo, then take both bounces
>and line them up in either software and flip phase on one, and largely cancel
>the other out, phase cancellation speaks only to panning and frequency.
first of all im not talking about "largely cancelling out"
but "completely cancelling out". it admittedly takes quite
a lot of expertise and trial and error to get to that because
of many things that can throw you off in paris (the DC offset...
one extra sample offset for each submix...even an enabled eq
on an empty channel can throw this off...effects with
random parameters or unsynced LFOs such as reverb and chorus
must be excluded...plus, fader value
readouts are not 100& the same from one daw to another so
you might end up comparing -0.33db to -0.37db and
mistake the level difference for a difference in sonic quality).
so im talking about cancelling out completely. anything else
is kind of pointless because then you only open the can of
worms whether that little rest of difference is inaudible
or just what it took for the magic to happen.
but when youre presented with 100% cancelling, the argument
is over, because then youre talking about an output that
is sonically and mathematically the same. in such cases,
there is no difference.
But
>sonics and our perception of sound, to my mind,
>have more to them than frequency response alone (beating an old drum here).
no, whatever the "realm" is you want to put the finger on,
be it spaceiousness, transient response, "3D"-ness, clarity, density,
whatever it is: if a mix cancels out 100%, it means that
any of these parameters you can come up with would be
exactly identical, or else there would be a difference signal.
no difference signal means no difference. its really an absolute
in that case.
>How many companies are pushing their new audio components - mics, tape emulators,
>amp simulators - as exact replicas of the originals they are trying to replace
>(at much lower cost and greater convenience) by shoving EQ response curves
>in our faces? "See, our product has virtually the same curve as the product
>we are trying to unseat, therefore it must be as good" and then we listen
>to it, or use it, and find it doesn't sound nearly the same enough?
yes, but thats not an adequate comparison. you cant compare
"nearly the same sounding" frequency responses to something
as methodically water proof as comparing two things with
a null test and ending up with a null :-)
For me,
>other things like 3 dimensionality (depth) and accurate time alignment -
>affects attack - are important (when digital first hit the scene everyone
>talked about it being cold, using EQ terms of reference, yet I knew as a
>piano technician that the piano concertos I was listening to on CD had much
>less problem with EQ - any piano can be "bright" - than they did with the
>attack of the hammers striking the strings, it was just plain "unrealistic").
>The thing is, currently we have the technology to measure EQ, but we don't
>really have the means to measure depth and the psycho-acoustic effects of
>the more "intangible" items.
we may not have a way to measure how parameter X and Y, but we do have a
way to measure whether parameter X and Y are identical
in a given example or not, and that is the null test.
so whether say the "depth" of a mix is totally great or totally
awful, we cannot say, but we can say "whatever it is, its
the same in this other copy of the mix because it cancels
out completely and if there were any sonical difference
whatsoever, there would have to be a difference signal".
understand what i mean?
>Yikes! Dead? Using this descriptor is prejudicial, "leading the witness"
>so to speak. A variety of dictionaries define "dead"
>with phrases like - lacking life, devoid of usefulness, unable to function.
>I understand in your paradigm, PARIS is dead (and I
>totally respect that, for most of the reasons you've cited), but PARIS is
>no more dead than any other piece of gear that's been
>discontinued by its manufacturer yet still serves the function for which
>it was intended.
i didnt mean it the way you understood it ;-) with "dead" i
just meant "unsupported by its official manufacturer"
(which itself may not be dead but it sure smells slightly
fishy to me) and not really in hopes of any major
software update ever (i.e. i could do without support
from the original manufaturer if ID had been so nice to
give the paris heroes the source code of the paris app,
but they didnt, so that fundamental aspect of the system
falls into the "dead" category by my standards)
by no means did i say with that the system isnt useful.
i mean, hey, i kept using it for many years after its death,
so i must know ;-)
i really just meant dead as the term that tells where it
the product stands in the marketplace (which in turn
kind of dictates the price, in paris' case a really low
price now, for a system that already was a steal
for its official price back in the day).
best,
derek
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101974 is a reply to message #101973] |
Thu, 08 January 2009 07:55 |
|
|
Hey Derek,
I'm sorry - I'm sure you mentioned this earlier or elsewhere, but what system
do you use now?
Are you using Protools?
Thanks,
Gantt
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>What I agree with is the certainty that you can produce fantastic results
>>with many other combinations of software, hardware and technique.
>
>you know, i used to stand on a different side on this issue.
>back then, paris really DID sound better on average
>than a lot of the competition. but youve got to keep in mind
>there, those were the deal oldschool days. from todays
>perspective, its almost banal to realize that OF COURSE
>paris sounded better and "more analog" than say a protools
>system running mostly first generation waves plugins.
>try to mimic ANY paris eq setting with a waves Q10, heck,
>even with a renaissance eq. no chance. and PTs converters
>sucked. and most native VST plugins sucked, sonically.
>
>so i am by no means saying paris' reputation is built on
>a legend or anything. what it brought to the table sonically,
>for the year 97, was simply amazing.
>
>
>but this aint 97 anymore, and its really a different story
>if youre comparing it to todays world of daws where its
>almost impossible to find a AD/DA converter that sounds
>"bad" and where even freeware plugins dont just try to get
>away with doing stuff by the book but care about parameter
>interpolation, emulating soft saturation etc, not to mention
>stuff from the "UAD league" if you will.
>
>
>
> I also
>>agree with you that
>>"convenience" advantages in other software can have a direct impact on
sonics.
>
>
>
>>What I have difficulty with personally is getting the same sonic
>>results from other software/hardware combos without investing
>>significant time and money. I have been happy with results from CuBase
or
>>Logic summed through an analog board to tape. But I have been happier with
>>those same mixes summed in Paris by itself.
>
>see this is where i part ways. i do so because i used
>to believe in the "summing aspect" too - until i made huge
>tests followed by true blind tests. and boy, did the difference
>between just "trying it out" and true blind testing
>blow me away. i could have sworn the paris sound was a completely
>different one even just when pulling up faders. but it wasnt.
>i wasnt able to tell what the paris one was, and upon further
>investigation when i made sure to sidestep all of paris'
>potential hiccups such as slight DC offset problems or else,
>i got to archieve 100% cancellation in a null test, and
>thats where that argument ends.
>
>the only explanation i have is the paris UI and its psychological
>effect both visually and also because of the responsiveness
>of the interface and IDs neat way or handling linear knob movements with
>the mouse.
>
>
>>As far as the idea that the Paris summing/bounce "magic" is easily replicated
>>in other systems and "proven" using phase
>>cancelling tests, I'm not sure what you mean by this (this is what I think
>>you're saying, if I'm misinterpreting, I apologize). Even if you could
take
>>the same mix and bounce it from both Paris and Nuendo, then take both bounces
>>and line them up in either software and flip phase on one, and largely
cancel
>>the other out, phase cancellation speaks only to panning and frequency.
>
>
>first of all im not talking about "largely cancelling out"
>but "completely cancelling out". it admittedly takes quite
>a lot of expertise and trial and error to get to that because
>of many things that can throw you off in paris (the DC offset...
>one extra sample offset for each submix...even an enabled eq
>on an empty channel can throw this off...effects with
>random parameters or unsynced LFOs such as reverb and chorus
>must be excluded...plus, fader value
>readouts are not 100& the same from one daw to another so
>you might end up comparing -0.33db to -0.37db and
>mistake the level difference for a difference in sonic quality).
>
>so im talking about cancelling out completely. anything else
>is kind of pointless because then you only open the can of
>worms whether that little rest of difference is inaudible
>or just what it took for the magic to happen.
>
>but when youre presented with 100% cancelling, the argument
>is over, because then youre talking about an output that
>is sonically and mathematically the same. in such cases,
>there is no difference.
>
>
> But
>>sonics and our perception of sound, to my mind,
>>have more to them than frequency response alone (beating an old drum here).
>
>no, whatever the "realm" is you want to put the finger on,
>be it spaceiousness, transient response, "3D"-ness, clarity, density,
>whatever it is: if a mix cancels out 100%, it means that
>any of these parameters you can come up with would be
>exactly identical, or else there would be a difference signal.
>no difference signal means no difference. its really an absolute
>in that case.
>
>
>
>>How many companies are pushing their new audio components - mics, tape
emulators,
>>amp simulators - as exact replicas of the originals they are trying to
replace
>>(at much lower cost and greater convenience) by shoving EQ response curves
>>in our faces? "See, our product has virtually the same curve as the product
>>we are trying to unseat, therefore it must be as good" and then we listen
>>to it, or use it, and find it doesn't sound nearly the same enough?
>
>
>yes, but thats not an adequate comparison. you cant compare
>"nearly the same sounding" frequency responses to something
>as methodically water proof as comparing two things with
>a null test and ending up with a null :-)
>
>
> For me,
>>other things like 3 dimensionality (depth) and accurate time alignment
-
>>affects attack - are important (when digital first hit the scene everyone
>>talked about it being cold, using EQ terms of reference, yet I knew as
a
>>piano technician that the piano concertos I was listening to on CD had
much
>>less problem with EQ - any piano can be "bright" - than they did with the
>>attack of the hammers striking the strings, it was just plain "unrealistic").
>>The thing is, currently we have the technology to measure EQ, but we don't
>>really have the means to measure depth and the psycho-acoustic effects
of
>>the more "intangible" items.
>
>
>we may not have a way to measure how parameter X and Y, but we do have a
>way to measure whether parameter X and Y are identical
>in a given example or not, and that is the null test.
>
>so whether say the "depth" of a mix is totally great or totally
>awful, we cannot say, but we can say "whatever it is, its
>the same in this other copy of the mix because it cancels
>out completely and if there were any sonical difference
>whatsoever, there would have to be a difference signal".
>
>understand what i mean?
>
>
>
>>Yikes! Dead? Using this descriptor is prejudicial, "leading the witness"
>>so to speak. A variety of dictionaries define "dead"
>>with phrases like - lacking life, devoid of usefulness, unable to function.
>>I understand in your paradigm, PARIS is dead (and I
>>totally respect that, for most of the reasons you've cited), but PARIS
is
>>no more dead than any other piece of gear that's been
>>discontinued by its manufacturer yet still serves the function for which
>>it was intended.
>
>
>i didnt mean it the way you understood it ;-) with "dead" i
>just meant "unsupported by its official manufacturer"
>(which itself may not be dead but it sure smells slightly
>fishy to me) and not really in hopes of any major
>software update ever (i.e. i could do without support
>from the original manufaturer if ID had been so nice to
>give the paris heroes the source code of the paris app,
>but they didnt, so that fundamental aspect of the system
>falls into the "dead" category by my standards)
>
>by no means did i say with that the system isnt useful.
>i mean, hey, i kept using it for many years after its death,
>so i must know ;-)
>
>i really just meant dead as the term that tells where it
>the product stands in the marketplace (which in turn
>kind of dictates the price, in paris' case a really low
>price now, for a system that already was a steal
>for its official price back in the day).
>
>
>best,
>derek
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101977 is a reply to message #101971] |
Thu, 08 January 2009 08:37 |
|
|
Yes, of course we're speaking of *perceptible* latency - sound transmitted
in *air* has latency.
You're completely correct in pointing out that today, if I chose to incur a
number of additional expenses (that I would have to pass on to my clients in
an economic downturn), I could *match* the lack of perceptible latency that
PARIS already had on a Pentium 166 in 1997. I agree with that.
- K
> well there you have it :-) that was my original point -
> this is not a matter of "no latency versus some latency"
> but "very little latency versus very little more".
> actually very easy to try out - if one converter roundtrip
> is about 1.5ms (based on the assumption that everyone
> in their right mind who does music production works in 44.1)
> then you can simulate how bad it really is to use a modern
> native host by routing one external insert
> (note: the external device must be an analog one and not
> add any latency of its own) and see how different that feels.
> play a base guitar and then add an external compressor via
> an external paris insert and tell me whether that changes
> the feel from awesome to unacceptable ;-)
>
> id be tempted to say the difference is completely neglectible
> in this area. the classic protools mix, a system ive never heard anyone
> complain
> about its latency and which is still
> used in thousands of tracking studios has about double the
> latency with its original converters. the biggest factor
> here is the psychological one, what you expect from a native
> system because of the word "native" and ita (arguably well
> deserved) reputation.
>
> and we are talking about full software monitoring here mind you,
> meaning monitoring through plugins as you like, including
> stuff like recording something with a guitar rig plugin on
> the channel etc, completely ignoring the "latency free"
> hardware monitoring option.
"... being bitter is like swallowing poison and waiting for the other guy to die..." - anon
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101979 is a reply to message #101976] |
Thu, 08 January 2009 11:10 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>It's 1.5mSec -round trip- convertors and all. I'd like to see what kind
of
>track/plug counts you get from a native rig attempting that.
for the same latency youd probably have to go to 0.75ms
latency and use the fastest modern converters. more
practical is to get somewhere close, in my case i usually
use a 1.5ms setting, which combined with the converter roundtrip
results in a little less than 3ms.
with that setting you get...i dont know, ive never really
tested it. on a dual quad, you for sure get enough for
huge tracking sessions with filtering and dynamics everywhere
and reverb and stuff as needed, and you can even run complex
stuff like amp simulators and stuff easily in multiple instances
in that scenario. and of course already here
you can do group routing, group processing etc etc.
definetly a lot more flexibility that you get for 1.2ms more
latency (not to mention the insanity of performance you get
when you switch to 6ms or something, which is still absolutely
useable)
Native rigs
>when giving you latency do not include the convertor latency, typically.
At
>least I haven't seen it. It's only the software latency you get to see.
>
>AA
>
>
>"derek" <a@b.com> wrote in message news:496607ba$1@linux...
>>
>> "Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>yup, here it is, copied from the post
>>>
>>>"round trip via Mec 24 bit is 60 samples or 1.36 ms at 44.1 or 1.25 ms
at
>>>48k
>>>
>>>Total record and monitor path 24 bit in to 24 bit out is 66 samples
or
>>>1.5 ms at 44.1 or 1.375 ms at 48k"
>>
>>
>>
>> well there you have it :-) that was my original point -
>> this is not a matter of "no latency versus some latency"
>> but "very little latency versus very little more".
>> actually very easy to try out - if one converter roundtrip
>> is about 1.5ms (based on the assumption that everyone
>> in their right mind who does music production works in 44.1)
>> then you can simulate how bad it really is to use a modern
>> native host by routing one external insert
>> (note: the external device must be an analog one and not
>> add any latency of its own) and see how different that feels.
>> play a base guitar and then add an external compressor via
>> an external paris insert and tell me whether that changes
>> the feel from awesome to unacceptable ;-)
>>
>> id be tempted to say the difference is completely neglectible
>> in this area. the classic protools mix, a system ive never heard anyone
>> complain
>> about its latency and which is still
>> used in thousands of tracking studios has about double the
>> latency with its original converters. the biggest factor
>> here is the psychological one, what you expect from a native
>> system because of the word "native" and ita (arguably well
>> deserved) reputation.
>>
>> and we are talking about full software monitoring here mind you,
>> meaning monitoring through plugins as you like, including
>> stuff like recording something with a guitar rig plugin on
>> the channel etc, completely ignoring the "latency free"
>> hardware monitoring option.
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101982 is a reply to message #101976] |
Thu, 08 January 2009 14:28 |
|
|
How about Logic w/ the Apogee Symphony system's claim to 1.5ms door-to-door?
Does that not include converter latency? And really, it seems to me that
anything under about 5ms is less latency than you'd get sitting 5' away from
a guitar amp.
Gantt
"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>It's 1.5mSec -round trip- convertors and all. I'd like to see what kind
of
>track/plug counts you get from a native rig attempting that. Native rigs
>when giving you latency do not include the convertor latency, typically.
At
>least I haven't seen it. It's only the software latency you get to see.
>
>AA
>
>
>"derek" <a@b.com> wrote in message news:496607ba$1@linux...
>>
>> "Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>yup, here it is, copied from the post
>>>
>>>"round trip via Mec 24 bit is 60 samples or 1.36 ms at 44.1 or 1.25 ms
at
>>>48k
>>>
>>>Total record and monitor path 24 bit in to 24 bit out is 66 samples
or
>>>1.5 ms at 44.1 or 1.375 ms at 48k"
>>
>>
>>
>> well there you have it :-) that was my original point -
>> this is not a matter of "no latency versus some latency"
>> but "very little latency versus very little more".
>> actually very easy to try out - if one converter roundtrip
>> is about 1.5ms (based on the assumption that everyone
>> in their right mind who does music production works in 44.1)
>> then you can simulate how bad it really is to use a modern
>> native host by routing one external insert
>> (note: the external device must be an analog one and not
>> add any latency of its own) and see how different that feels.
>> play a base guitar and then add an external compressor via
>> an external paris insert and tell me whether that changes
>> the feel from awesome to unacceptable ;-)
>>
>> id be tempted to say the difference is completely neglectible
>> in this area. the classic protools mix, a system ive never heard anyone
>> complain
>> about its latency and which is still
>> used in thousands of tracking studios has about double the
>> latency with its original converters. the biggest factor
>> here is the psychological one, what you expect from a native
>> system because of the word "native" and ita (arguably well
>> deserved) reputation.
>>
>> and we are talking about full software monitoring here mind you,
>> meaning monitoring through plugins as you like, including
>> stuff like recording something with a guitar rig plugin on
>> the channel etc, completely ignoring the "latency free"
>> hardware monitoring option.
>
>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101984 is a reply to message #101982] |
Thu, 08 January 2009 14:28 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Gantt,
The Symphony system has no better latency performance than Lynx, RME, MOTU when using their PCI-e interfaces.
It is all dependent on the speed of the MAC system and the sample rate and the host program.
If someone already owns a bunch of Apogees converters then the Symphony can be a get investment.
For someone starting from scratch or using non Apogee gear then there are far more better options available.
Chris
Gantt Kushner wrote:
> How about Logic w/ the Apogee Symphony system's claim to 1.5ms door-to-door?
> Does that not include converter latency? And really, it seems to me that
> anything under about 5ms is less latency than you'd get sitting 5' away from
> a guitar amp.
>
> Gantt
>
> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>> It's 1.5mSec -round trip- convertors and all. I'd like to see what kind
> of
>> track/plug counts you get from a native rig attempting that. Native rigs
>
>> when giving you latency do not include the convertor latency, typically.
> At
>> least I haven't seen it. It's only the software latency you get to see.
>>
>> AA
>>
>>
>> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote in message news:496607ba$1@linux...
>>> "Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> yup, here it is, copied from the post
>>>>
>>>> "round trip via Mec 24 bit is 60 samples or 1.36 ms at 44.1 or 1.25 ms
> at
>>>> 48k
>>>>
>>>> Total record and monitor path 24 bit in to 24 bit out is 66 samples
> or
>>>> 1.5 ms at 44.1 or 1.375 ms at 48k"
>>>
>>>
>>> well there you have it :-) that was my original point -
>>> this is not a matter of "no latency versus some latency"
>>> but "very little latency versus very little more".
>>> actually very easy to try out - if one converter roundtrip
>>> is about 1.5ms (based on the assumption that everyone
>>> in their right mind who does music production works in 44.1)
>>> then you can simulate how bad it really is to use a modern
>>> native host by routing one external insert
>>> (note: the external device must be an analog one and not
>>> add any latency of its own) and see how different that feels.
>>> play a base guitar and then add an external compressor via
>>> an external paris insert and tell me whether that changes
>>> the feel from awesome to unacceptable ;-)
>>>
>>> id be tempted to say the difference is completely neglectible
>>> in this area. the classic protools mix, a system ive never heard anyone
>
>>> complain
>>> about its latency and which is still
>>> used in thousands of tracking studios has about double the
>>> latency with its original converters. the biggest factor
>>> here is the psychological one, what you expect from a native
>>> system because of the word "native" and ita (arguably well
>>> deserved) reputation.
>>>
>>> and we are talking about full software monitoring here mind you,
>>> meaning monitoring through plugins as you like, including
>>> stuff like recording something with a guitar rig plugin on
>>> the channel etc, completely ignoring the "latency free"
>>> hardware monitoring option.
>>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK Pro Audio
(859) 635-5762
www.adkproaudio.com
chrisl@adkproaudio.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101996 is a reply to message #101972] |
Thu, 08 January 2009 20:51 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Derek,
Well for the sake of argument. First, are you saying that your Nuendo setup
sounds better than Paris? If so, in what way? What was the cost of this
system? I think we need some kind of recording and mix down challenge here;
) I'd like to hear your Nuendo mixes that sound like a Paris mix. LaMont
has pointed out that Nuendo starts to crap-out, sound and summing wise after
so many tracks, I believe around 40 tracks. Has this situation changed with
the latest systems? Or is it Nuendo? Since ProTools is the de-facto industry
standard, why use Nuendo in a commercial studio?
I totally understand the functionality and ease of use argument. I'll still
say, Paris sound and summing is damn good, even today 12 years later! Again
for many, there is not a good reason to change based on the type of audio/music
they record. For some it's cost prohibitive to switch, learning curve and
time are considerations. Nuendo list for around $2600.00 in the US, that's
considerable for just software. Many of us use Paris in combination with
other DAW softwares, it's the best of both worlds. And last, Paris is being
developed further, thanks to Mike A. and Doug W., who knows, maybe Edmund
will get inspired and deliver something soon... We should all email him.
As for logic, I will say Apple is supporting Logic and Logic 8 is incredible
software. I would say any tying Apple to Advid Digidesign is disingenuous
at this point and time, if anything, tying Microsoft to Avid Digidesign would
be more appropriate being that Microsoft owns Avid Digidesign, or at least
owns a large stake in them.
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>"Neil" <OIOIU@oiu.com> wrote:
>>
>>Derek... I gotcha. BTW, FWIW, your recent posts look
>>STAGGERINGLY familiar to some posts I made few years back when
>>I bailed on paris for the Native world... welcome to the Dark
>>Side, my Jedi friend. lol
>
>
>i did change a few years ago too (in case you got the impression
>that i changed just recently).
>
>oh and this aint the "dark side". that terrority is still firmly
>in digidesigns hands ;-)
>(allthough personally after the whole
>emagic/apple soap opera a few years ago
>and the ongoing next-to-zero-support-for-logic tragedy that followed, id
>be tempted to label apple/logic the new "dark side")
>
>
>best,
>derek
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101997 is a reply to message #101973] |
Thu, 08 January 2009 22:10 |
Ted Gerber
Messages: 705
Registered: January 2009
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Derek -
Thanks for taking the time. If I thought you were trying to Troll, I wouldn't
bother here, but I think there is a genuine
interest in exchanging viewpoints.
So, yes, now I get that you are talking about actual complete
phase cancellation between 2 files, one of which has been
summed in Paris, the other bounced in Nuendo with the needed
tweaks to make it sound identical to the one bounced in Paris.
My question on this matter now would be, what is the source of
the files in question - a Paris mix? a Nuendo mix? Is it a 2 track (stereo)
bounce, or a multi track session created separately in each (seems unlikely).
If it is _not_ a multi track session, then that is telling to
me, since the Paris summing "magic" was always in the context of
many tracks, and conversely, the Native apps summing "shortfalls"
were likewise within the context of many tracks.
Having said that, complete cancellation of any 2 sources created
within different programs is significant. Have you been successful doing
this on a variety of test files? If the point was to dissect and recreate
the supposed Paris summing mystique
in Nuendo, then it would be applicable to any/all files. Did you
build and save a channel strip Preset in Nuendo for easy recall?
This would be useful perhaps to others using Nuendo (and other
Native DAWS?)and you might be able to share/sell it. Additionally
I would be very interested in your findings about all the things
that Paris does "wrong" like DC offset, sample differences between submixes
and other items you listed, - could you post findings? Or is this presumptuous
of me?
So what are we left with now? At this point we are left with
1/ you being able to perfectly recreate/duplicate the Paris summing sound
in Nuendo, while at the same time
2/ wondering why I have not likewise jumped ship and left Paris behind, since
I should now understand that the Paris summing magic is not magic at all.
Well, I have said from the beginning that there are two reasons
for staying with Paris, and they cannot be unlinked:
1/ The sound
2/ The time and expense to switch
You found the way to solve the Paris puzzle but "it admittedly takes quite
a lot of expertise and trial and error to get to that". Even if you can,
it doesn't mean I can. Even if I can it
doesn't mean I want to.
I remain really happy with what Paris does for me sonically with my currently
limited skill set (my listening skills are very good, my engineering skills
are not in the same league as yours),
and have no desire to spend any money/time on a new DAW/Computer/Converters
at this time. (Remember I am already using Logic 8
together with Paris...)
Peace,
Ted
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>What I agree with is the certainty that you can produce fantastic results
>>with many other combinations of software, hardware and technique.
>
>you know, i used to stand on a different side on this issue.
>back then, paris really DID sound better on average
>than a lot of the competition. but youve got to keep in mind
>there, those were the deal oldschool days. from todays
>perspective, its almost banal to realize that OF COURSE
>paris sounded better and "more analog" than say a protools
>system running mostly first generation waves plugins.
>try to mimic ANY paris eq setting with a waves Q10, heck,
>even with a renaissance eq. no chance. and PTs converters
>sucked. and most native VST plugins sucked, sonically.
>
>so i am by no means saying paris' reputation is built on
>a legend or anything. what it brought to the table sonically,
>for the year 97, was simply amazing.
>
>
>but this aint 97 anymore, and its really a different story
>if youre comparing it to todays world of daws where its
>almost impossible to find a AD/DA converter that sounds
>"bad" and where even freeware plugins dont just try to get
>away with doing stuff by the book but care about parameter
>interpolation, emulating soft saturation etc, not to mention
>stuff from the "UAD league" if you will.
>
>
>
> I also
>>agree with you that
>>"convenience" advantages in other software can have a direct impact on
sonics.
>
>
>
>>What I have difficulty with personally is getting the same sonic
>>results from other software/hardware combos without investing
>>significant time and money. I have been happy with results from CuBase
or
>>Logic summed through an analog board to tape. But I have been happier with
>>those same mixes summed in Paris by itself.
>
>see this is where i part ways. i do so because i used
>to believe in the "summing aspect" too - until i made huge
>tests followed by true blind tests. and boy, did the difference
>between just "trying it out" and true blind testing
>blow me away. i could have sworn the paris sound was a completely
>different one even just when pulling up faders. but it wasnt.
>i wasnt able to tell what the paris one was, and upon further
>investigation when i made sure to sidestep all of paris'
>potential hiccups such as slight DC offset problems or else,
>i got to archieve 100% cancellation in a null test, and
>thats where that argument ends.
>
>the only explanation i have is the paris UI and its psychological
>effect both visually and also because of the responsiveness
>of the interface and IDs neat way or handling linear knob movements with
>the mouse.
>
>
>>As far as the idea that the Paris summing/bounce "magic" is easily replicated
>>in other systems and "proven" using phase
>>cancelling tests, I'm not sure what you mean by this (this is what I think
>>you're saying, if I'm misinterpreting, I apologize). Even if you could
take
>>the same mix and bounce it from both Paris and Nuendo, then take both bounces
>>and line them up in either software and flip phase on one, and largely
cancel
>>the other out, phase cancellation speaks only to panning and frequency.
>
>
>first of all im not talking about "largely cancelling out"
>but "completely cancelling out". it admittedly takes quite
>a lot of expertise and trial and error to get to that because
>of many things that can throw you off in paris (the DC offset...
>one extra sample offset for each submix...even an enabled eq
>on an empty channel can throw this off...effects with
>random parameters or unsynced LFOs such as reverb and chorus
>must be excluded...plus, fader value
>readouts are not 100& the same from one daw to another so
>you might end up comparing -0.33db to -0.37db and
>mistake the level difference for a difference in sonic quality).
>
>so im talking about cancelling out completely. anything else
>is kind of pointless because then you only open the can of
>worms whether that little rest of difference is inaudible
>or just what it took for the magic to happen.
>
>but when youre presented with 100% cancelling, the argument
>is over, because then youre talking about an output that
>is sonically and mathematically the same. in such cases,
>there is no difference.
>
>
> But
>>sonics and our perception of sound, to my mind,
>>have more to them than frequency response alone (beating an old drum here).
>
>no, whatever the "realm" is you want to put the finger on,
>be it spaceiousness, transient response, "3D"-ness, clarity, density,
>whatever it is: if a mix cancels out 100%, it means that
>any of these parameters you can come up with would be
>exactly identical, or else there would be a difference signal.
>no difference signal means no difference. its really an absolute
>in that case.
>
>
>
>>How many companies are pushing their new audio components - mics, tape
emulators,
>>amp simulators - as exact replicas of the originals they are trying to
replace
>>(at much lower cost and greater convenience) by shoving EQ response curves
>>in our faces? "See, our product has virtually the same curve as the product
>>we are trying to unseat, therefore it must be as good" and then we listen
>>to it, or use it, and find it doesn't sound nearly the same enough?
>
>
>yes, but thats not an adequate comparison. you cant compare
>"nearly the same sounding" frequency responses to something
>as methodically water proof as comparing two things with
>a null test and ending up with a null :-)
>
>
> For me,
>>other things like 3 dimensionality (depth) and accurate time alignment
-
>>affects attack - are important (when digital first hit the scene everyone
>>talked about it being cold, using EQ terms of reference, yet I knew as
a
>>piano technician that the piano concertos I was listening to on CD had
much
>>less problem with EQ - any piano can be "bright" - than they did with the
>>attack of the hammers striking the strings, it was just plain "unrealistic").
>>The thing is, currently we have the technology to measure EQ, but we don't
>>really have the means to measure depth and the psycho-acoustic effects
of
>>the more "intangible" items.
>
>
>we may not have a way to measure how parameter X and Y, but we do have a
>way to measure whether parameter X and Y are identical
>in a given example or not, and that is the null test.
>
>so whether say the "depth" of a mix is totally great or totally
>awful, we cannot say, but we can say "whatever it is, its
>the same in this other copy of the mix because it cancels
>out completely and if there were any sonical difference
>whatsoever, there would have to be a difference signal".
>
>understand what i mean?
>
>
>
>>Yikes! Dead? Using this descriptor is prejudicial, "leading the witness"
>>so to speak. A variety of dictionaries define "dead"
>>with phrases like - lacking life, devoid of usefulness, unable to function.
>>I understand in your paradigm, PARIS is dead (and I
>>totally respect that, for most of the reasons you've cited), but PARIS
is
>>no more dead than any other piece of gear that's been
>>discontinued by its manufacturer yet still serves the function for which
>>it was intended.
>
>
>i didnt mean it the way you understood it ;-) with "dead" i
>just meant "unsupported by its official manufacturer"
>(which itself may not be dead but it sure smells slightly
>fishy to me) and not really in hopes of any major
>software update ever (i.e. i could do without support
>from the original manufaturer if ID had been so nice to
>give the paris heroes the source code of the paris app,
>but they didnt, so that fundamental aspect of the system
>falls into the "dead" category by my standards)
>
>by no means did i say with that the system isnt useful.
>i mean, hey, i kept using it for many years after its death,
>so i must know ;-)
>
>i really just meant dead as the term that tells where it
>the product stands in the marketplace (which in turn
>kind of dictates the price, in paris' case a really low
>price now, for a system that already was a steal
>for its official price back in the day).
>
>
>best,
>derek
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102001 is a reply to message #101890] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 03:01 |
Wynona
Messages: 1
Registered: January 2009
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hey there, haven't been on in a while, but still using PARIS.
It's too bad a lot of the discussion was PARIS vs. not PARIS, as I think
that the interesting question is, what are the apps we need that deal with
the realities of PARIS in today's world.
I really like the idea of fooling the software to think there's hardware,
even if that means you can't play or hear anything, so long as you could
export data and perhaps do some non-sound tasks. I think that would be
essential as we all face the day of dying hardware. So to me, that's the #1
PARIS app we could use. Failing that, something that can read the PPJ and
find the correct audio files and then write everything out to disk (perfect
world would include rendering FX/etc.) would at least be an ideal
export/disastery recovery too. I would definitely pay for something along
these lines.
Less critical, I do find that the PARIS native plug-ins are so resource
intensive I can't run too many (even on a gig of memory), so I resort to VST
a lot and would love to see PARIS-UI-inflected and PARIS-inspired VST
plug-ins.
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote in message news:4960e292$1@linux...
>
> hey guys :-)
>
>
> after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
> again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
> quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
> it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
> how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
> and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
>
>
> with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
> platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
> put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
> more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
> still using paris? is it even one hundred?
>
> ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
> platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
> going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
> integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
> sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc
> yada
> yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
> is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
> most ex-paris users feel that way.
>
> so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
> for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
> to focus on something entirely different?
> like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
> and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
> that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
> like files in use and position info and would convert
> that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
> (OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
> target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
> continous wave files that get their data from the project file
> and the associated pafs?
>
> or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
> that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
> EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
> you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
> software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
> dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
> whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
> get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
> a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
> where you then could ressurrect your files.
>
> i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work
> thats
> currently being done (and that is exactly
> what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
> make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
>
> to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
> is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
> whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
> working paris computer in the second control room but its
> collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
> outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
> the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
>
> and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
> at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
> great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
> in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
> (and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
> fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
> for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
>
> not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
> in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
> more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
> paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
> machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
> impossible).
>
>
> i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
> people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
> wrong.
>
>
> thanks for listening :-)
> derek
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102003 is a reply to message #102001] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 08:21 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Wynona" <wynona@asterick.com> wrote:
>Hey there, haven't been on in a while, but still using PARIS.
>
>It's too bad a lot of the discussion was PARIS vs. not PARIS, as I think
>that the interesting question is, what are the apps we need that deal with
>the realities of PARIS in today's world.
>
>I really like the idea of fooling the software to think there's hardware,
>even if that means you can't play or hear anything, so long as you could
>export data and perhaps do some non-sound tasks. I think that would be
>essential as we all face the day of dying hardware. So to me, that's the
#1
>PARIS app we could use. Failing that, something that can read the PPJ and
>find the correct audio files and then write everything out to disk (perfect
>world would include rendering FX/etc.) would at least be an ideal
>export/disastery recovery too. I would definitely pay for something along
>these lines.
>
>Less critical, I do find that the PARIS native plug-ins are so resource
>intensive I can't run too many (even on a gig of memory), so I resort to
VST
>a lot and would love to see PARIS-UI-inflected and PARIS-inspired VST
>plug-ins.
thanks :-) yes, i would pay for such exporting apps too.
the target audience for such "paris project recovery" apps
(whether its the approach of fake hardware driver or
simply a ppj-audiofile position ressurection app) would
not be the current paris userbase but the current paris userbase
plus all ex-paris users out there.
that would be quite a few people more i guess. and i can imagine
many of them would be willing to pay real good money for this
(if you calculate just a single purchase of something that
would be such a huge timesaver versus the amount of time it
takes to properly export stuff from a big paris project with
paris itself, even rather high prices still seem like a reasonable
deal IMO).
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102004 is a reply to message #101997] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 12:29 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Derek -
>
>Thanks for taking the time. If I thought you were trying to Troll, I wouldn't
>bother here, but I think there is a genuine
>interest in exchanging viewpoints.
>
>So, yes, now I get that you are talking about actual complete
>phase cancellation between 2 files, one of which has been
>summed in Paris, the other bounced in Nuendo with the needed
>tweaks to make it sound identical to the one bounced in Paris.
>
>the files in question - a Paris mix? a Nuendo mix? Is it a 2 track (stereo)
>bounce, or a multi track session created separately in each (seems unlikely).
>
>
>If it is _not_ a multi track session, then that is telling to
>me, since the Paris summing "magic" was always in the context of
>many tracks, and conversely, the Native apps summing "shortfalls"
>were likewise within the context of many tracks.
>
>Having said that, complete cancellation of any 2 sources created
>within different programs is significant. Have you been successful doing
>this on a variety of test files? If the point was to dissect and recreate
>the supposed Paris summing mystique
>in Nuendo, then it would be applicable to any/all files. Did you
>build and save a channel strip Preset in Nuendo for easy recall?
>This would be useful perhaps to others using Nuendo (and other
>Native DAWS?)and you might be able to share/sell it. Additionally
>I would be very interested in your findings about all the things
>that Paris does "wrong" like DC offset, sample differences between submixes
>and other items you listed, - could you post findings? Or is this presumptuous
>of me?
>
>So what are we left with now? At this point we are left with
>1/ you being able to perfectly recreate/duplicate the Paris summing sound
>in Nuendo, while at the same time
>2/ wondering why I have not likewise jumped ship and left Paris behind,
since
>I should now understand that the Paris summing magic is not magic at all.
>
>Well, I have said from the beginning that there are two reasons
>for staying with Paris, and they cannot be unlinked:
>1/ The sound
>2/ The time and expense to switch
>
>You found the way to solve the Paris puzzle but "it admittedly takes quite
>a lot of expertise and trial and error to get to that". Even if you can,
>it doesn't mean I can. Even if I can it
>doesn't mean I want to.
>
>I remain really happy with what Paris does for me sonically with my currently
>limited skill set (my listening skills are very good, my engineering skills
>are not in the same league as yours),
>and have no desire to spend any money/time on a new DAW/Computer/Converters
>at this time. (Remember I am already using Logic 8
>together with Paris...)
>
>Peace,
>
>Ted
hey ted,
no im not trying to troll ;-) the original reason why
i posted here kind of vanished but if i can take some
of the summing angst away from people, im telling myself
thats worth something too ;-)
it of course was a multitrack test, thats the whole
point of the summing issue, it it not? but
you slightly misread my post. it did not take tweaking in
nuendo to make it sound like paris, it took tweaking in
paris to avoid the numerous "gotchas" to avoid anything
that could throw off the test. basically it goes like
this: in theory, all daws should sound the same (if you isolate
the parameters involved to just the daw itself, and leave
external influeces like converters etc outside of the issue,
cause you can use any converter with any daw).
summing is math, and most daws have a reasonably high resolution,
so they should all cancel out completely or down at some
grotesquely low level like -100 (=below a typical DAs noise floor) or even
values like -150 or "infinity".
in practice, *almost* all daws sound exactly the same and
cancel each other out completely in summing tests when done
right. some daws fail to cancel completely, and upon
further investigation you usually realize its not because
of some magic soup involved but because of some methodical
errors or because of some banal stuff that throws the test
off, like noise floor coming from an open aux return, file timing offsets
because of imprecise implementation, stuff like that. none of that means
theres an actual sound difference, i.e.
with the file timing, theres just a little timing error, yet
it leads to a nulltest that fails that some would interpret
as there being a sonical difference and it might be summing,
but if you can correct the issue with a file offset, it
clearly shows that its not.
this is also the case with paris. i think ive listed quite
a few of the many parameters to keep an eye on in my previous post.
best,
derek
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102006 is a reply to message #101983] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 12:42 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Mike Audet" <mike@...> wrote:
> Any singer singing along
>with themselves through headphones will have a tougher time with pitch if
>there is higher latency.
just, but only from a certain point on. as mentioned, with
a modern multicore setup you can get lower latencies than
the thousands of PT systems in all those recording studios
out there. and noone ever complained about latency there
either. of course it starts to make an influence at some
point, but in this low range we are talking about here
(1.5ms in paris, around 2.7ms in my setup) the
difference is neglectible.
as i mentioned, the difference is less than one external
analog insert in paris. i dont recall anyone ever been
thrown off by that.
....again, not trying to "convert" anyone. just trying to
put the summing and latency angst somewhat into perspective
from someone who came from the same system (and thus the
same mindset, in a way :-)
and of course theres always hardware monitoring. with that,
you can archieve even lower latencies due to today converters
being even a little faster. so you could just as well take
this argument to the other extreme and argue that the 1.5ms
of paris are too much and its absolutely gotta be the
1.1ms of more modern converter roundtrips or the 0.001ms of
an analog monitoring system.
my point would be that anything below x ms is just neglectible,
and both paris, protools and modern native systems fall
into that category.
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102007 is a reply to message #102006] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 11:49 |
TC
Messages: 327
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I've done a fair amount of singing through headphones into my native
Logic system (using core audio with a HD core card to a Lynx Aurora).
I didn't notice any latency that was problematic or distracting. I'm
running a quad core, so no 8 cores yet, but I have about 10 GB of ram
installed. (logic has some other issues that annoy me, but that's
another discussion).
I really like the sound of logic, both itb, and more so summed through
the equinox and back through an apogee mini-me.
I also really like the sound of Paris. I don't think latency is as big a
deal either. I do think that Paris still does add something special (I'm
bypassing the paris converters), whether it's soft clipping in the
software or hardware, the eds chips, I don't know, but it sounds good,
and it does sound different from other daws to my ears.. not always
"better", but a different flavor certainly.
Cheers,
TC
derek wrote:
> "Mike Audet" <mike@...> wrote:
>> Any singer singing along
>> with themselves through headphones will have a tougher time with pitch if
>> there is higher latency.
>
>
> just, but only from a certain point on. as mentioned, with
> a modern multicore setup you can get lower latencies than
> the thousands of PT systems in all those recording studios
> out there. and noone ever complained about latency there
> either. of course it starts to make an influence at some
> point, but in this low range we are talking about here
> (1.5ms in paris, around 2.7ms in my setup) the
> difference is neglectible.
>
> as i mentioned, the difference is less than one external
> analog insert in paris. i dont recall anyone ever been
> thrown off by that.
>
>
> ...again, not trying to "convert" anyone. just trying to
> put the summing and latency angst somewhat into perspective
> from someone who came from the same system (and thus the
> same mindset, in a way :-)
>
> and of course theres always hardware monitoring. with that,
> you can archieve even lower latencies due to today converters
> being even a little faster. so you could just as well take
> this argument to the other extreme and argue that the 1.5ms
> of paris are too much and its absolutely gotta be the
> 1.1ms of more modern converter roundtrips or the 0.001ms of
> an analog monitoring system.
>
> my point would be that anything below x ms is just neglectible,
> and both paris, protools and modern native systems fall
> into that category.
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102008 is a reply to message #101996] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 13:21 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Derek,
>Well for the sake of argument. First, are you saying that your Nuendo setup
>sounds better than Paris? If so, in what way?
theres several factors. for one, yes, it can "sum" just
the way paris sums. you can even get it to do clipping
like paris does (as a floating point mixing engine, nuendo
by nature basically doesnt clip internally within reasonable
ranges, but of course theres ways to do clipping anyhow).
so that part of the "magic sauce" is covered.
2. even though my basic point is that all daws in their
bare bones "sum" more or less the same, i would still argue
that my mixes sound better with nuendo. not because of
some sonic superiority, but because of what i described earlier,
fields where ease-of-use has a sonic impact.
like, easily being able to create subgroups and do processing
there. parallel processing (try to do "new york" type
parallel compression setups on the drums in paris
without first bouncing the drums down to a stereo file - it
cant be done). ability to throw around stuff
without having to worry about latency compensation ever.
super easy low level automation with object volumes and stuff.
you think twice before you turn on the automation of a track,
or recalculate a file with the gain DSP command. you dont
think twice if all it takes is selecting the file and dragging
its volume knob up. ability for ducking anywhere, both
mono and on stereo groups (which might be a group thats
made up of other groups).
you just mix more freely due to the flexibility. and that
has a sonic impact, yes, i would argue that.
> What was the cost of this
>system?
oh, MY system was expensive, but i needed something
where i knew it could handle 400 tracks and more in realtime
with reasonable latency (dont ask - i have a couple of
jobs that really require that kind of insanity).
thats why i have a dual quadcore xeon, which was and
maybe still is a pretty expensive machine.
but a good machine that has awesome performance specs
(and is even a little more ultra low latency friendly than
dual quadcore xeons) would be something like a nice
custom designed core4quad from a daw maker. a popular daw
maker here in germany sells models with awesome overall specs
for around 1200 euros.
> I think we need some kind of recording and mix down challenge here;
> ) I'd like to hear your Nuendo mixes that sound like a Paris mix.
oh please, im not here to start challenges :-) feel free to
google me if you cant take my word for it, i have lots of
releases (usually german speaking countries only though).
> LaMont
>has pointed out that Nuendo starts to crap-out, sound and summing wise after
>so many tracks, I believe around 40 tracks.
i beg to differ. nuendo no more "craps out" than paris does.
that is a myth.
> Has this situation changed with
>the latest systems? Or is it Nuendo? Since ProTools is the de-facto industry
>standard, why use Nuendo in a commercial studio?
because nobody cares, really. and in my specific case, because
there is no protools system that does that many tracks.
>I totally understand the functionality and ease of use argument. I'll still
>say, Paris sound and summing is damn good, even today 12 years later!
of course it is. the point is just, its a myth that all
other hosts summing would be bad. the impression of
paris being an exceptionally good sounding daw was totally
valid, always, but it doesnt have to do with summing.
paris was "just" a daw that in times when people dealt with
unmasked clipping, shitty first generation waves plugins
and crap ADDA such as the early digidesign stuff as
de facto standard, was a daw that did many many things very very
right.
Again
>for many, there is not a good reason to change based on the type of audio/music
>they record. For some it's cost prohibitive to switch, learning curve
and
>time are considerations.
guess i cant point that out often enough: im not
trying to convert anybody. i know the warm and fuzzy
feeling of being in the paris world.
yet, i also know the not quite so warm and fuzzy feeling
of dealing with audio not streaming fast enough messages,
with the 283746398594234 bugs of version 3, with an audio
window severely slowing down the entire system when open,
the unhandled exceptions, stereo native plugin hiccups
when the edits of the two mono files where not completely
in sync, all the hassle with hybrid "this daw does this
and that daw does that" setups as opposed to just
having one system that does it all etc blah blah.
so my point is more, to those who are bothered by this,
all i can say is, do not be afraid ;-) theres awesome
stuff out there these days, and im tempted to say, it
ALL sounds absolutely awesome. there is no bad sounding
daw out there anymore. heck, its hard to find bad sounding
converters these days. and the plugin side of things,
hey, if youve got a UAD and cant get a mix to sound with
those plugins, then the problem probably lies more with
yourself than with your setup.
> Nuendo list for around $2600.00 in the US, that's
>considerable for just software.
nuendo is only so expensive for image reasons, to differentiate
it from cubase, which under the hood is exactly the same
program minus a few features, none of which are
relevant to regular music production (ok, maybe with the
exception of the extremely cool automation system that
nuendo 4 got a while ago, but cubases automation is
still also very good and for sure still a lot better than the
one in paris)
> Many of us use Paris in combination with
>other DAW softwares, it's the best of both worlds.
well but if the only reason why you go through all the
hassle is the belief in some voodoo summing magic happening
and otherwise you could just as well save yourself the
trouble, isnt that kind of a waste of time?
> And last, Paris is being
>developed further, thanks to Mike A. and Doug W., who knows, maybe Edmund
>will get inspired and deliver something soon... We should all email him.
what mike&co are doing is downright amazing, no doubt.
so many of the things theyve done, boy i wish so much i
would have had that back then when i was still using paris :-)
also note im NOT trying to get them off track.
but think about it this way: imagine writing such a "fake
driver to get paris to run software only" would be a not-so
enourmous task (i really have absolutely no idea, for all
i know it might just as well be completely impossible, i
just dont know), yet the target audience for this thing
would be all of todays paris users (who wouldnt want
such a safety net to export stuff from PPJs) plus ALL
ex paris users, willing to pay good money for this.
that would mean more money for mike for his efforts.
that would be good karma IMO :-)
as far as edmund is concerned, i wouldnt hold my breath.
>As for logic, I will say Apple is supporting Logic and Logic 8 is incredible
>software.
yeah, apple is supporting logic. with ONE major update
in the last five years. and in what ways logic 8 is
"incredible" kind of lies in the eye of the beholder i guess ;-)
seriously though - logic is an almost unsupported product.
they went as far as dialing down the copy protection, lowering
the price and throwing in freebie apps (that have functionality
that apple didnt care to built into logic like almost
all competitors have it now). if you cant read those signs
as what they clearly are, i cant help you. i know that where
i live, from all the studios that used to use logic (and
there were many), ALL but one have switched to either
protools or nuendo.
> I would say any tying Apple to Advid Digidesign is disingenuous
>at this point and time, if anything, tying Microsoft to Avid Digidesign
would
>be more appropriate being that Microsoft owns Avid Digidesign, or at least
>owns a large stake in them.
i was talking in "which giant holds shares in the company" terms,
more like the overall "niceness" from a company towards it
customers. and apples track record with logic really stinks
as far as that is concerned:
1. cancel crossplatform support without advance warning and thus completely
pull the plug for around 40% of your userbase.
2. cancel VST plugin support and thus make your users
plugin lists 50% shorter to push your own non-crossplatform
plugin standard agendas
3. force people to participate in the transitional period
between OS9 and OSX (boy was that a tough ride in the beginning),
with all the poofs, compability issues and yet even shorter
plugin lists that were involved
4. as if that werent enough transitional periods, give
them the nice chaos of PPC vs intel dual support. who
cares that many 3rd parties now in theory have to support
FOUR compilations on the mac of they want to cover the market
(VST/ppc/intel, AU/ppc/intel)
5. reward your users for enduring all this bullshit with
ONE update in 5 years. ONE.
i know youre an apple fan. but sorry man, you cant
sugarcoat that one. more or less all logic and exlogic users
i know downright HATE apple for their track record in
this regard, and that includes some really die hard apple
fans that otherwise still swear by the company (and they
do build quite nice computers, no argument there)
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102009 is a reply to message #102004] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 15:00 |
Ted Gerber
Messages: 705
Registered: January 2009
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks again Derek for your findings and conclusions -
I have one last question:
You listed as one of Paris' shortfalls rendering that
doesn't work (file does not sound the same after rendering
to disk). I have only had a rendering problem when there were
crossfades _that did not touch_ in an edited track. If I make
sure that all segments touch on the timeline (no big effort) I
have been able to "render track to disc", then "undo" to get
the pre-rendered edited track back, then drag in the newly rendered file
and cancel out with a phase flip. This has also worked when "render(ing)
with Native Plugins".
Did this not work for you?
Ted
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Derek -
>>
>>Thanks for taking the time. If I thought you were trying to Troll, I wouldn't
>>bother here, but I think there is a genuine
>>interest in exchanging viewpoints.
>>
>>So, yes, now I get that you are talking about actual complete
>>phase cancellation between 2 files, one of which has been
>>summed in Paris, the other bounced in Nuendo with the needed
>>tweaks to make it sound identical to the one bounced in Paris.
>>
>>the files in question - a Paris mix? a Nuendo mix? Is it a 2 track (stereo)
>>bounce, or a multi track session created separately in each (seems unlikely).
>>
>>
>>If it is _not_ a multi track session, then that is telling to
>>me, since the Paris summing "magic" was always in the context of
>>many tracks, and conversely, the Native apps summing "shortfalls"
>>were likewise within the context of many tracks.
>>
>>Having said that, complete cancellation of any 2 sources created
>>within different programs is significant. Have you been successful doing
>>this on a variety of test files? If the point was to dissect and recreate
>>the supposed Paris summing mystique
>>in Nuendo, then it would be applicable to any/all files. Did you
>>build and save a channel strip Preset in Nuendo for easy recall?
>>This would be useful perhaps to others using Nuendo (and other
>>Native DAWS?)and you might be able to share/sell it. Additionally
>>I would be very interested in your findings about all the things
>>that Paris does "wrong" like DC offset, sample differences between submixes
>>and other items you listed, - could you post findings? Or is this presumptuous
>>of me?
>>
>>So what are we left with now? At this point we are left with
>>1/ you being able to perfectly recreate/duplicate the Paris summing sound
>>in Nuendo, while at the same time
>>2/ wondering why I have not likewise jumped ship and left Paris behind,
>since
>>I should now understand that the Paris summing magic is not magic at all.
>>
>>Well, I have said from the beginning that there are two reasons
>>for staying with Paris, and they cannot be unlinked:
>>1/ The sound
>>2/ The time and expense to switch
>>
>>You found the way to solve the Paris puzzle but "it admittedly takes quite
>>a lot of expertise and trial and error to get to that". Even if you can,
>>it doesn't mean I can. Even if I can it
>>doesn't mean I want to.
>>
>>I remain really happy with what Paris does for me sonically with my currently
>>limited skill set (my listening skills are very good, my engineering skills
>>are not in the same league as yours),
>>and have no desire to spend any money/time on a new DAW/Computer/Converters
>>at this time. (Remember I am already using Logic 8
>>together with Paris...)
>>
>>Peace,
>>
>>Ted
>
>
>
>hey ted,
>
>
>no im not trying to troll ;-) the original reason why
>i posted here kind of vanished but if i can take some
>of the summing angst away from people, im telling myself
>thats worth something too ;-)
>
>it of course was a multitrack test, thats the whole
>point of the summing issue, it it not? but
>you slightly misread my post. it did not take tweaking in
>nuendo to make it sound like paris, it took tweaking in
>paris to avoid the numerous "gotchas" to avoid anything
>that could throw off the test. basically it goes like
>this: in theory, all daws should sound the same (if you isolate
>the parameters involved to just the daw itself, and leave
>external influeces like converters etc outside of the issue,
>cause you can use any converter with any daw).
>summing is math, and most daws have a reasonably high resolution,
>so they should all cancel out completely or down at some
>grotesquely low level like -100 (=below a typical DAs noise floor) or even
>values like -150 or "infinity".
>
>in practice, *almost* all daws sound exactly the same and
>cancel each other out completely in summing tests when done
>right. some daws fail to cancel completely, and upon
>further investigation you usually realize its not because
>of some magic soup involved but because of some methodical
>errors or because of some banal stuff that throws the test
>off, like noise floor coming from an open aux return, file timing offsets
>because of imprecise implementation, stuff like that. none of that means
>theres an actual sound difference, i.e.
>with the file timing, theres just a little timing error, yet
>it leads to a nulltest that fails that some would interpret
>as there being a sonical difference and it might be summing,
>but if you can correct the issue with a file offset, it
>clearly shows that its not.
>
>
>this is also the case with paris. i think ive listed quite
>a few of the many parameters to keep an eye on in my previous post.
>
>
>best,
>derek
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102010 is a reply to message #102009] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 13:56 |
EK Sound
Messages: 939
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You can also right click and drag the segments (I think that's the way
it's done) to an adjacent track to make a copy for rendering. That way
you have the original track next to it to compare to. Go to the end of
the track... if it lines up, you're good to go.
David.
Ted Gerber wrote:
> Thanks again Derek for your findings and conclusions -
>
> I have one last question:
>
> You listed as one of Paris' shortfalls rendering that
> doesn't work (file does not sound the same after rendering
> to disk). I have only had a rendering problem when there were
> crossfades _that did not touch_ in an edited track. If I make
> sure that all segments touch on the timeline (no big effort) I
> have been able to "render track to disc", then "undo" to get
> the pre-rendered edited track back, then drag in the newly rendered file
> and cancel out with a phase flip. This has also worked when "render(ing)
> with Native Plugins".
>
> Did this not work for you?
>
> Ted
>
>
> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>> "Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Derek -
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking the time. If I thought you were trying to Troll, I wouldn't
>>> bother here, but I think there is a genuine
>>> interest in exchanging viewpoints.
>>>
>>> So, yes, now I get that you are talking about actual complete
>>> phase cancellation between 2 files, one of which has been
>>> summed in Paris, the other bounced in Nuendo with the needed
>>> tweaks to make it sound identical to the one bounced in Paris.
>>>
>>> the files in question - a Paris mix? a Nuendo mix? Is it a 2 track (stereo)
>>> bounce, or a multi track session created separately in each (seems unlikely).
>>>
>>>
>>> If it is _not_ a multi track session, then that is telling to
>>> me, since the Paris summing "magic" was always in the context of
>>> many tracks, and conversely, the Native apps summing "shortfalls"
>>> were likewise within the context of many tracks.
>>>
>>> Having said that, complete cancellation of any 2 sources created
>>> within different programs is significant. Have you been successful doing
>>> this on a variety of test files? If the point was to dissect and recreate
>>> the supposed Paris summing mystique
>>> in Nuendo, then it would be applicable to any/all files. Did you
>>> build and save a channel strip Preset in Nuendo for easy recall?
>>> This would be useful perhaps to others using Nuendo (and other
>>> Native DAWS?)and you might be able to share/sell it. Additionally
>>> I would be very interested in your findings about all the things
>>> that Paris does "wrong" like DC offset, sample differences between submixes
>>> and other items you listed, - could you post findings? Or is this presumptuous
>>> of me?
>>>
>>> So what are we left with now? At this point we are left with
>>> 1/ you being able to perfectly recreate/duplicate the Paris summing sound
>>> in Nuendo, while at the same time
>>> 2/ wondering why I have not likewise jumped ship and left Paris behind,
>> since
>>> I should now understand that the Paris summing magic is not magic at all.
>>>
>>> Well, I have said from the beginning that there are two reasons
>>> for staying with Paris, and they cannot be unlinked:
>>> 1/ The sound
>>> 2/ The time and expense to switch
>>>
>>> You found the way to solve the Paris puzzle but "it admittedly takes quite
>>> a lot of expertise and trial and error to get to that". Even if you can,
>>> it doesn't mean I can. Even if I can it
>>> doesn't mean I want to.
>>>
>>> I remain really happy with what Paris does for me sonically with my currently
>>> limited skill set (my listening skills are very good, my engineering skills
>>> are not in the same league as yours),
>>> and have no desire to spend any money/time on a new DAW/Computer/Converters
>>> at this time. (Remember I am already using Logic 8
>>> together with Paris...)
>>>
>>> Peace,
>>>
>>> Ted
>>
>>
>> hey ted,
>>
>>
>> no im not trying to troll ;-) the original reason why
>> i posted here kind of vanished but if i can take some
>> of the summing angst away from people, im telling myself
>> thats worth something too ;-)
>>
>> it of course was a multitrack test, thats the whole
>> point of the summing issue, it it not? but
>> you slightly misread my post. it did not take tweaking in
>> nuendo to make it sound like paris, it took tweaking in
>> paris to avoid the numerous "gotchas" to avoid anything
>> that could throw off the test. basically it goes like
>> this: in theory, all daws should sound the same (if you isolate
>> the parameters involved to just the daw itself, and leave
>> external influeces like converters etc outside of the issue,
>> cause you can use any converter with any daw).
>> summing is math, and most daws have a reasonably high resolution,
>> so they should all cancel out completely or down at some
>> grotesquely low level like -100 (=below a typical DAs noise floor) or even
>> values like -150 or "infinity".
>>
>> in practice, *almost* all daws sound exactly the same and
>> cancel each other out completely in summing tests when done
>> right. some daws fail to cancel completely, and upon
>> further investigation you usually realize its not because
>> of some magic soup involved but because of some methodical
>> errors or because of some banal stuff that throws the test
>> off, like noise floor coming from an open aux return, file timing offsets
>> because of imprecise implementation, stuff like that. none of that means
>> theres an actual sound difference, i.e.
>> with the file timing, theres just a little timing error, yet
>> it leads to a nulltest that fails that some would interpret
>> as there being a sonical difference and it might be summing,
>> but if you can correct the issue with a file offset, it
>> clearly shows that its not.
>>
>>
>> this is also the case with paris. i think ive listed quite
>> a few of the many parameters to keep an eye on in my previous post.
>>
>>
>> best,
>> derek
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102011 is a reply to message #102008] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 15:31 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
My challenge idea was more of a fun mix-off contest to liven this place up
a bit and get us all talking. I wasn't challenging your word, I do however
think that audio is subjective and I'd really like to hear a comparison.
A controlled comparison test would tell us more.
As far as my comments about what LaMont said in the past goes, I hope he
chimes in so we know where he stands today. LaMont is a guy that has a lot
of experience with a lot of different equipment, so I also respect what he
has to say. Of course in the end it's all somewhat subjective.
Paris is just another tool in the arsenal to creating great sound. People
that know it well can get up and tracking live instruments very quickly and
making music. If there is a way to reproduce the sound of Paris in another
DAW, I'd like to know what that formula is??? I'd also like to hear it.
About Logic:
In the past I've voiced my opinion about the apple logic deal. I think it
sucks that they dropped VST support, and they did not includ MPEG 2 compression
support in some of their Video products in the past. I didn't like that
in the recent past you could not use any other DVD burners other than their
Super Drives with their video products. Apple has made bad decisions, like
dropping FW 400.
I know for PC users it was a big disappointment that Apple dropped Logic
for PC, and no one could blame them for being disappointed, from a business
stand point it made sense to Apple. Not that this justifies anything, but
I can tell you Mac users have had to deal with this kind of thing many times
with many softwares. Just in audio softwares that have been dropped for
Mac off the top of my head, Deck, Metro, Spark, Studio Vision, Paris, Bias?something,
can't think of the name, there are so many I can't think of them all anymore.
Mac users have been told that there isn't enough of a user base to support
development, often that was not the case, so we've been their.
The past price of Apple support contracts for Logic were a joke, they are
more reasonable now. Apple has caught up in my opinion, it took them time
to get things right. As far as development for PPC and Intel there has been
no chaos, in the developer kit it is simply a check box, it creates binary
code and it writes for both processors, there is no extra work. The transition
to Intel has been the smoothest transition in computer history.
Apple has taken more time to get out Logic than other developers, it took
them time to get things right. Apple has had more than one upgrade in 5
years, you forget Logic 7.x.x. Apple does support Logic. Apple has done
a great job with Logic 8, it's a whole new game now, I think you should use
it before you bash it. Logic 8 and all it's functionality is well integrated.
Logic 8 rocks!
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Derek,
>>Well for the sake of argument. First, are you saying that your Nuendo
setup
>>sounds better than Paris? If so, in what way?
>
>theres several factors. for one, yes, it can "sum" just
>the way paris sums. you can even get it to do clipping
>like paris does (as a floating point mixing engine, nuendo
>by nature basically doesnt clip internally within reasonable
>ranges, but of course theres ways to do clipping anyhow).
>so that part of the "magic sauce" is covered.
>
>2. even though my basic point is that all daws in their
>bare bones "sum" more or less the same, i would still argue
>that my mixes sound better with nuendo. not because of
>some sonic superiority, but because of what i described earlier,
>fields where ease-of-use has a sonic impact.
>
>like, easily being able to create subgroups and do processing
>there. parallel processing (try to do "new york" type
>parallel compression setups on the drums in paris
>without first bouncing the drums down to a stereo file - it
>cant be done). ability to throw around stuff
>without having to worry about latency compensation ever.
>super easy low level automation with object volumes and stuff.
>you think twice before you turn on the automation of a track,
>or recalculate a file with the gain DSP command. you dont
>think twice if all it takes is selecting the file and dragging
>its volume knob up. ability for ducking anywhere, both
>mono and on stereo groups (which might be a group thats
>made up of other groups).
>
>you just mix more freely due to the flexibility. and that
>has a sonic impact, yes, i would argue that.
>
>
>
>> What was the cost of this
>>system?
>
>oh, MY system was expensive, but i needed something
>where i knew it could handle 400 tracks and more in realtime
>with reasonable latency (dont ask - i have a couple of
>jobs that really require that kind of insanity).
>thats why i have a dual quadcore xeon, which was and
>maybe still is a pretty expensive machine.
>
>but a good machine that has awesome performance specs
>(and is even a little more ultra low latency friendly than
>dual quadcore xeons) would be something like a nice
>custom designed core4quad from a daw maker. a popular daw
>maker here in germany sells models with awesome overall specs
>for around 1200 euros.
>
>
>
>> I think we need some kind of recording and mix down challenge here;
>> ) I'd like to hear your Nuendo mixes that sound like a Paris mix.
>
>
>oh please, im not here to start challenges :-) feel free to
>google me if you cant take my word for it, i have lots of
>releases (usually german speaking countries only though).
>
>
>
>> LaMont
>>has pointed out that Nuendo starts to crap-out, sound and summing wise
after
>>so many tracks, I believe around 40 tracks.
>
>
>i beg to differ. nuendo no more "craps out" than paris does.
>that is a myth.
>
>
>
>> Has this situation changed with
>>the latest systems? Or is it Nuendo? Since ProTools is the de-facto industry
>>standard, why use Nuendo in a commercial studio?
>
>
>because nobody cares, really. and in my specific case, because
>there is no protools system that does that many tracks.
>
>
>
>>I totally understand the functionality and ease of use argument. I'll
still
>>say, Paris sound and summing is damn good, even today 12 years later!
>
>of course it is. the point is just, its a myth that all
>other hosts summing would be bad. the impression of
>paris being an exceptionally good sounding daw was totally
>valid, always, but it doesnt have to do with summing.
>paris was "just" a daw that in times when people dealt with
>unmasked clipping, shitty first generation waves plugins
>and crap ADDA such as the early digidesign stuff as
>de facto standard, was a daw that did many many things very very
>right.
>
>
> Again
>>for many, there is not a good reason to change based on the type of audio/music
>>they record. For some it's cost prohibitive to switch, learning curve
>and
>>time are considerations.
>
>guess i cant point that out often enough: im not
>trying to convert anybody. i know the warm and fuzzy
>feeling of being in the paris world.
>
>yet, i also know the not quite so warm and fuzzy feeling
>of dealing with audio not streaming fast enough messages,
>with the 283746398594234 bugs of version 3, with an audio
>window severely slowing down the entire system when open,
>the unhandled exceptions, stereo native plugin hiccups
>when the edits of the two mono files where not completely
>in sync, all the hassle with hybrid "this daw does this
>and that daw does that" setups as opposed to just
>having one system that does it all etc blah blah.
>
>so my point is more, to those who are bothered by this,
>all i can say is, do not be afraid ;-) theres awesome
>stuff out there these days, and im tempted to say, it
>ALL sounds absolutely awesome. there is no bad sounding
>daw out there anymore. heck, its hard to find bad sounding
>converters these days. and the plugin side of things,
>hey, if youve got a UAD and cant get a mix to sound with
>those plugins, then the problem probably lies more with
>yourself than with your setup.
>
>
>> Nuendo list for around $2600.00 in the US, that's
>>considerable for just software.
>
>nuendo is only so expensive for image reasons, to differentiate
>it from cubase, which under the hood is exactly the same
>program minus a few features, none of which are
>relevant to regular music production (ok, maybe with the
>exception of the extremely cool automation system that
>nuendo 4 got a while ago, but cubases automation is
>still also very good and for sure still a lot better than the
>one in paris)
>
>
>
>> Many of us use Paris in combination with
>>other DAW softwares, it's the best of both worlds.
>
>well but if the only reason why you go through all the
>hassle is the belief in some voodoo summing magic happening
>and otherwise you could just as well save yourself the
>trouble, isnt that kind of a waste of time?
>
>
>
>> And last, Paris is being
>>developed further, thanks to Mike A. and Doug W., who knows, maybe Edmund
>>will get inspired and deliver something soon... We should all email him.
>
>
>what mike&co are doing is downright amazing, no doubt.
>so many of the things theyve done, boy i wish so much i
>would have had that back then when i was still using paris :-)
>also note im NOT trying to get them off track.
>but think about it this way: imagine writing such a "fake
>driver to get paris to run software only" would be a not-so
>enourmous task (i really have absolutely no idea, for all
>i know it might just as well be completely impossible, i
>just dont know), yet the target audience for this thing
>would be all of todays paris users (who wouldnt want
>such a safety net to export stuff from PPJs) plus ALL
>ex paris users, willing to pay good money for this.
>
>that would mean more money for mike for his efforts.
>that would be good karma IMO :-)
>
>as far as edmund is concerned, i wouldnt hold my breath.
>
>
>>As for logic, I will say Apple is supporting Logic and Logic 8 is incredible
>>software.
>
>yeah, apple is supporting logic. with ONE major update
>in the last five years. and in what ways logic 8 is
>"incredible" kind of lies in the eye of the beholder i guess ;-)
>
>seriously though - logic is an almost unsupported product.
>they went as far as dialing down the copy protection, lowering
>the price and throwing in freebie apps (that have functionality
>that apple didnt care to built into logic like almost
>all competitors have it now). if you cant read those signs
>as what they clearly are, i cant help you. i know that where
>i live, from all the studios that used to use logic (and
>there were many), ALL but one have switched to either
>protools or nuendo.
>
>
>> I would say any tying Apple to Advid Digidesign is disingenuous
>>at this point and time, if anything, tying Microsoft to Avid Digidesign
>would
>>be more appropriate being that Microsoft owns Avid Digidesign, or at least
>>owns a large stake in them.
>
>
>i was talking in "which giant holds shares in the company" terms,
>more like the overall "niceness" from a company towards it
>customers. and apples track record with logic really stinks
>as far as that is concerned:
>
>1. cancel crossplatform support without advance warning and thus completely
>pull the plug for around 40% of your userbase.
>2. cancel VST plugin support and thus make your users
>plugin lists 50% shorter to push your own non-crossplatform
>plugin standard agendas
>3. force people to participate in the transitional period
>between OS9 and OSX (boy was that a tough ride in the beginning),
>with all the poofs, compability issues and yet even shorter
>plugin lists that were involved
>4. as if that werent enough transitional periods, give
>them the nice chaos of PPC vs intel dual support. who
>cares that many 3rd parties now in theory have to support
>FOUR compilations on the mac of they want to cover the market
>(VST/ppc/intel, AU/ppc/intel)
>5. reward your users for enduring all this bullshit with
>ONE update in 5 years. ONE.
>
>
>i know youre an apple fan. but sorry man, you cant
>sugarcoat that one. more or less all logic and exlogic users
>i know downright HATE apple for their track record in
>this regard, and that includes some really die hard apple
>fans that otherwise still swear by the company (and they
>do build quite nice computers, no argument there)
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102012 is a reply to message #102010] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 15:32 |
Ted Gerber
Messages: 705
Registered: January 2009
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah, my brain's on other things. With Mac OS9, "option-click"
drag to next track and render that for comparison...
Thanks
Ted
Now here's something that really doesn't make sense to me,
even with the time and expense of switching: Staying on a
Mac for Paris...
EK Sound <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote:
>You can also right click and drag the segments (I think that's the way
>it's done) to an adjacent track to make a copy for rendering. That way
>you have the original track next to it to compare to. Go to the end of
>the track... if it lines up, you're good to go.
>
>David.
>
>Ted Gerber wrote:
>> Thanks again Derek for your findings and conclusions -
>>
>> I have one last question:
>>
>> You listed as one of Paris' shortfalls rendering that
>> doesn't work (file does not sound the same after rendering
>> to disk). I have only had a rendering problem when there were
>> crossfades _that did not touch_ in an edited track. If I make
>> sure that all segments touch on the timeline (no big effort) I
>> have been able to "render track to disc", then "undo" to get
>> the pre-rendered edited track back, then drag in the newly rendered file
>> and cancel out with a phase flip. This has also worked when "render(ing)
>> with Native Plugins".
>>
>> Did this not work for you?
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>> "Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Derek -
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for taking the time. If I thought you were trying to Troll, I
wouldn't
>>>> bother here, but I think there is a genuine
>>>> interest in exchanging viewpoints.
>>>>
>>>> So, yes, now I get that you are talking about actual complete
>>>> phase cancellation between 2 files, one of which has been
>>>> summed in Paris, the other bounced in Nuendo with the needed
>>>> tweaks to make it sound identical to the one bounced in Paris.
>>>>
>>>> the files in question - a Paris mix? a Nuendo mix? Is it a 2 track (stereo)
>>>> bounce, or a multi track session created separately in each (seems unlikely).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it is _not_ a multi track session, then that is telling to
>>>> me, since the Paris summing "magic" was always in the context of
>>>> many tracks, and conversely, the Native apps summing "shortfalls"
>>>> were likewise within the context of many tracks.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, complete cancellation of any 2 sources created
>>>> within different programs is significant. Have you been successful doing
>>>> this on a variety of test files? If the point was to dissect and recreate
>>>> the supposed Paris summing mystique
>>>> in Nuendo, then it would be applicable to any/all files. Did you
>>>> build and save a channel strip Preset in Nuendo for easy recall?
>>>> This would be useful perhaps to others using Nuendo (and other
>>>> Native DAWS?)and you might be able to share/sell it. Additionally
>>>> I would be very interested in your findings about all the things
>>>> that Paris does "wrong" like DC offset, sample differences between submixes
>>>> and other items you listed, - could you post findings? Or is this presumptuous
>>>> of me?
>>>>
>>>> So what are we left with now? At this point we are left with
>>>> 1/ you being able to perfectly recreate/duplicate the Paris summing
sound
>>>> in Nuendo, while at the same time
>>>> 2/ wondering why I have not likewise jumped ship and left Paris behind,
>>> since
>>>> I should now understand that the Paris summing magic is not magic at
all.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I have said from the beginning that there are two reasons
>>>> for staying with Paris, and they cannot be unlinked:
>>>> 1/ The sound
>>>> 2/ The time and expense to switch
>>>>
>>>> You found the way to solve the Paris puzzle but "it admittedly takes
quite
>>>> a lot of expertise and trial and error to get to that". Even if you
can,
>>>> it doesn't mean I can. Even if I can it
>>>> doesn't mean I want to.
>>>>
>>>> I remain really happy with what Paris does for me sonically with my
currently
>>>> limited skill set (my listening skills are very good, my engineering
skills
>>>> are not in the same league as yours),
>>>> and have no desire to spend any money/time on a new DAW/Computer/Converters
>>>> at this time. (Remember I am already using Logic 8
>>>> together with Paris...)
>>>>
>>>> Peace,
>>>>
>>>> Ted
>>>
>>>
>>> hey ted,
>>>
>>>
>>> no im not trying to troll ;-) the original reason why
>>> i posted here kind of vanished but if i can take some
>>> of the summing angst away from people, im telling myself
>>> thats worth something too ;-)
>>>
>>> it of course was a multitrack test, thats the whole
>>> point of the summing issue, it it not? but
>>> you slightly misread my post. it did not take tweaking in
>>> nuendo to make it sound like paris, it took tweaking in
>>> paris to avoid the numerous "gotchas" to avoid anything
>>> that could throw off the test. basically it goes like
>>> this: in theory, all daws should sound the same (if you isolate
>>> the parameters involved to just the daw itself, and leave
>>> external influeces like converters etc outside of the issue,
>>> cause you can use any converter with any daw).
>>> summing is math, and most daws have a reasonably high resolution,
>>> so they should all cancel out completely or down at some
>>> grotesquely low level like -100 (=below a typical DAs noise floor) or
even
>>> values like -150 or "infinity".
>>>
>>> in practice, *almost* all daws sound exactly the same and
>>> cancel each other out completely in summing tests when done
>>> right. some daws fail to cancel completely, and upon
>>> further investigation you usually realize its not because
>>> of some magic soup involved but because of some methodical
>>> errors or because of some banal stuff that throws the test
>>> off, like noise floor coming from an open aux return, file timing offsets
>>> because of imprecise implementation, stuff like that. none of that means
>>> theres an actual sound difference, i.e.
>>> with the file timing, theres just a little timing error, yet
>>> it leads to a nulltest that fails that some would interpret
>>> as there being a sonical difference and it might be summing,
>>> but if you can correct the issue with a file offset, it
>>> clearly shows that its not.
>>>
>>>
>>> this is also the case with paris. i think ive listed quite
>>> a few of the many parameters to keep an eye on in my previous post.
>>>
>>>
>>> best,
>>> derek
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need?-couple questions [message #102016 is a reply to message #102008] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 17:00 |
Nappy
Messages: 198
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Derek,
I hear you load and clear! I've got a couple quick questions:What
OS are you using XP or Vista? and why didn't you just buy a Mac Pro and use
Bootcamp? BTW,I have been a Mac person all my life,until now! I just built
a quadcore and I am loving it.
respect
Nappy
PS Its great seeing your post here. I was lucky because I don't check in
here much. Drop me a line if you get a chance.
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Derek,
>>Well for the sake of argument. First, are you saying that your Nuendo
setup
>>sounds better than Paris? If so, in what way?
>
>theres several factors. for one, yes, it can "sum" just
>the way paris sums. you can even get it to do clipping
>like paris does (as a floating point mixing engine, nuendo
>by nature basically doesnt clip internally within reasonable
>ranges, but of course theres ways to do clipping anyhow).
>so that part of the "magic sauce" is covered.
>
>2. even though my basic point is that all daws in their
>bare bones "sum" more or less the same, i would still argue
>that my mixes sound better with nuendo. not because of
>some sonic superiority, but because of what i described earlier,
>fields where ease-of-use has a sonic impact.
>
>like, easily being able to create subgroups and do processing
>there. parallel processing (try to do "new york" type
>parallel compression setups on the drums in paris
>without first bouncing the drums down to a stereo file - it
>cant be done). ability to throw around stuff
>without having to worry about latency compensation ever.
>super easy low level automation with object volumes and stuff.
>you think twice before you turn on the automation of a track,
>or recalculate a file with the gain DSP command. you dont
>think twice if all it takes is selecting the file and dragging
>its volume knob up. ability for ducking anywhere, both
>mono and on stereo groups (which might be a group thats
>made up of other groups).
>
>you just mix more freely due to the flexibility. and that
>has a sonic impact, yes, i would argue that.
>
>
>
>> What was the cost of this
>>system?
>
>oh, MY system was expensive, but i needed something
>where i knew it could handle 400 tracks and more in realtime
>with reasonable latency (dont ask - i have a couple of
>jobs that really require that kind of insanity).
>thats why i have a dual quadcore xeon, which was and
>maybe still is a pretty expensive machine.
>
>but a good machine that has awesome performance specs
>(and is even a little more ultra low latency friendly than
>dual quadcore xeons) would be something like a nice
>custom designed core4quad from a daw maker. a popular daw
>maker here in germany sells models with awesome overall specs
>for around 1200 euros.
>
>
>
>> I think we need some kind of recording and mix down challenge here;
>> ) I'd like to hear your Nuendo mixes that sound like a Paris mix.
>
>
>oh please, im not here to start challenges :-) feel free to
>google me if you cant take my word for it, i have lots of
>releases (usually german speaking countries only though).
>
>
>
>> LaMont
>>has pointed out that Nuendo starts to crap-out, sound and summing wise
after
>>so many tracks, I believe around 40 tracks.
>
>
>i beg to differ. nuendo no more "craps out" than paris does.
>that is a myth.
>
>
>
>> Has this situation changed with
>>the latest systems? Or is it Nuendo? Since ProTools is the de-facto industry
>>standard, why use Nuendo in a commercial studio?
>
>
>because nobody cares, really. and in my specific case, because
>there is no protools system that does that many tracks.
>
>
>
>>I totally understand the functionality and ease of use argument. I'll
still
>>say, Paris sound and summing is damn good, even today 12 years later!
>
>of course it is. the point is just, its a myth that all
>other hosts summing would be bad. the impression of
>paris being an exceptionally good sounding daw was totally
>valid, always, but it doesnt have to do with summing.
>paris was "just" a daw that in times when people dealt with
>unmasked clipping, shitty first generation waves plugins
>and crap ADDA such as the early digidesign stuff as
>de facto standard, was a daw that did many many things very very
>right.
>
>
> Again
>>for many, there is not a good reason to change based on the type of audio/music
>>they record. For some it's cost prohibitive to switch, learning curve
>and
>>time are considerations.
>
>guess i cant point that out often enough: im not
>trying to convert anybody. i know the warm and fuzzy
>feeling of being in the paris world.
>
>yet, i also know the not quite so warm and fuzzy feeling
>of dealing with audio not streaming fast enough messages,
>with the 283746398594234 bugs of version 3, with an audio
>window severely slowing down the entire system when open,
>the unhandled exceptions, stereo native plugin hiccups
>when the edits of the two mono files where not completely
>in sync, all the hassle with hybrid "this daw does this
>and that daw does that" setups as opposed to just
>having one system that does it all etc blah blah.
>
>so my point is more, to those who are bothered by this,
>all i can say is, do not be afraid ;-) theres awesome
>stuff out there these days, and im tempted to say, it
>ALL sounds absolutely awesome. there is no bad sounding
>daw out there anymore. heck, its hard to find bad sounding
>converters these days. and the plugin side of things,
>hey, if youve got a UAD and cant get a mix to sound with
>those plugins, then the problem probably lies more with
>yourself than with your setup.
>
>
>> Nuendo list for around $2600.00 in the US, that's
>>considerable for just software.
>
>nuendo is only so expensive for image reasons, to differentiate
>it from cubase, which under the hood is exactly the same
>program minus a few features, none of which are
>relevant to regular music production (ok, maybe with the
>exception of the extremely cool automation system that
>nuendo 4 got a while ago, but cubases automation is
>still also very good and for sure still a lot better than the
>one in paris)
>
>
>
>> Many of us use Paris in combination with
>>other DAW softwares, it's the best of both worlds.
>
>well but if the only reason why you go through all the
>hassle is the belief in some voodoo summing magic happening
>and otherwise you could just as well save yourself the
>trouble, isnt that kind of a waste of time?
>
>
>
>> And last, Paris is being
>>developed further, thanks to Mike A. and Doug W., who knows, maybe Edmund
>>will get inspired and deliver something soon... We should all email him.
>
>
>what mike&co are doing is downright amazing, no doubt.
>so many of the things theyve done, boy i wish so much i
>would have had that back then when i was still using paris :-)
>also note im NOT trying to get them off track.
>but think about it this way: imagine writing such a "fake
>driver to get paris to run software only" would be a not-so
>enourmous task (i really have absolutely no idea, for all
>i know it might just as well be completely impossible, i
>just dont know), yet the target audience for this thing
>would be all of todays paris users (who wouldnt want
>such a safety net to export stuff from PPJs) plus ALL
>ex paris users, willing to pay good money for this.
>
>that would mean more money for mike for his efforts.
>that would be good karma IMO :-)
>
>as far as edmund is concerned, i wouldnt hold my breath.
>
>
>>As for logic, I will say Apple is supporting Logic and Logic 8 is incredible
>>software.
>
>yeah, apple is supporting logic. with ONE major update
>in the last five years. and in what ways logic 8 is
>"incredible" kind of lies in the eye of the beholder i guess ;-)
>
>seriously though - logic is an almost unsupported product.
>they went as far as dialing down the copy protection, lowering
>the price and throwing in freebie apps (that have functionality
>that apple didnt care to built into logic like almost
>all competitors have it now). if you cant read those signs
>as what they clearly are, i cant help you. i know that where
>i live, from all the studios that used to use logic (and
>there were many), ALL but one have switched to either
>protools or nuendo.
>
>
>> I would say any tying Apple to Advid Digidesign is disingenuous
>>at this point and time, if anything, tying Microsoft to Avid Digidesign
>would
>>be more appropriate being that Microsoft owns Avid Digidesign, or at least
>>owns a large stake in them.
>
>
>i was talking in "which giant holds shares in the company" terms,
>more like the overall "niceness" from a company towards it
>customers. and apples track record with logic really stinks
>as far as that is concerned:
>
>1. cancel crossplatform support without advance warning and thus completely
>pull the plug for around 40% of your userbase.
>2. cancel VST plugin support and thus make your users
>plugin lists 50% shorter to push your own non-crossplatform
>plugin standard agendas
>3. force people to participate in the transitional period
>between OS9 and OSX (boy was that a tough ride in the beginning),
>with all the poofs, compability issues and yet even shorter
>plugin lists that were involved
>4. as if that werent enough transitional periods, give
>them the nice chaos of PPC vs intel dual support. who
>cares that many 3rd parties now in theory have to support
>FOUR compilations on the mac of they want to cover the market
>(VST/ppc/intel, AU/ppc/intel)
>5. reward your users for enduring all this bullshit with
>ONE update in 5 years. ONE.
>
>
>i know youre an apple fan. but sorry man, you cant
>sugarcoat that one. more or less all logic and exlogic users
>i know downright HATE apple for their track record in
>this regard, and that includes some really die hard apple
>fans that otherwise still swear by the company (and they
>do build quite nice computers, no argument there)
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102017 is a reply to message #102011] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 17:19 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>My challenge idea was more of a fun mix-off contest to liven this place
up
>a bit and get us all talking.
i think i will pass. ive got so much work to do that
i dont really plan on doing extra mixing on my free time,
hope you understand :-)
> I wasn't challenging your word, I do however
>think that audio is subjective and I'd really like to hear a comparison.
> A controlled comparison test would tell us more.
whats there more to be had than a positive null test?
when you avoid all possible traps (listed in the other
posts), you can get multitracks to null. there IS no
magic happening when you add 40 tracks. its just
that, adding 40 tracks.
>As far as my comments about what LaMont said in the past goes, I hope he
>chimes in so we know where he stands today. LaMont is a guy that has a
lot
>of experience with a lot of different equipment, so I also respect what
he
>has to say. Of course in the end it's all somewhat subjective.
yes, but null tests arent. you can make a point that
the paris interface, the combination of this particular
selection of effects plus the converters plus the whole
way its all setup (what with forcing one to think in
logical groups of 16, which ive always kind of liked
because it led to a certain way of organized mixing)
"make you mix good", and thats a very valid argument.
but it aint something magical in the summing.
>Paris is just another tool in the arsenal to creating great sound. People
>that know it well can get up and tracking live instruments very quickly
and
>making music. If there is a way to reproduce the sound of Paris in another
>DAW, I'd like to know what that formula is???
if you can make a good mix in paris, you can do it in any
host, these days. paris used to rule in a world where
most other daws sucked. now they all rule. if you think
otherwise, i would argue the biggest issue here is one
of a self fullfilling prophecy, its a question of how
you approach another program and with what expectations
(i know, i went through this too, actually all that intensive
testing i did, i did it mostly to come over my own
"daw sound angst" if you will).
plus: you cannot stress often enough how much UI makes a difference.
most modern daws have a somewhat industrial design in either
grey or cold blue. paris looks like a bottle of champaign.
it DOES make a difference, everyone knows that. but i do
think that most people dont really admit to themselves just
how much of a difference it makes.
in cubase, you can open plugins as ugly parameter only windows.
its extremely revealing to see how ones judgement changes
of i.e. some super nice looking vintage emulation plugin
when you only see the parameters. its amazing how much
of a difference it makes.
>from a business
>stand point it made sense to Apple. Not that this justifies anything,
indeed, that doesnt justify anything at all :-)
with all due respect, saying something like that is being
an apologist. if you dont agree, just imagine me
making something plausible because it made sense for microsoft
to make more money that way. youd be all over me, and
rightly so.
> but
>I can tell you Mac users have had to deal with this kind of thing many times
>with many softwares. Just in audio softwares that have been dropped for
>Mac off the top of my head, Deck, Metro, Spark, Studio Vision, Paris, Bias?something,
>can't think of the name, there are so many I can't think of them all anymore.
and that makes the logic story better in...what way?
> Mac users have been told that there isn't enough of a user base to support
>development, often that was not the case, so we've been their.
maybe it would help to have more of a culture of complaining
instead of a culture of rationalizing stuff as in
"it makes sense for apple business wise so it must be good".
thats such a weird way of looking at things as a user.
i can somewhat relate to that way of thinking when its
about fragile, small software companies, but an industry giant
like apple?
again, taking the microsoft example: i give a s**t about
whats good for them business wise. shut up and deliver
the goods, please, industry giant. and please for free
whenever possible. you can afford it. or else i will
install android and linux, take that :-)
>The past price of Apple support contracts for Logic were a joke,
oh yeah i forgot all about that, that should have belonged
in that list too :-)
>they are
>more reasonable now.
so theyre free now? cause they really should. when
i call steinberg support, thats free.
> Apple has caught up in my opinion,
no, they dont. you know, actually i dont even regard
nuendo as "being in the lead". that currently clearly
is samplitude, thats one bad ass software.
its got *everything* of the others, plus lots and lots of
innovative and super useful things. you have a fully
functioning beat detective multitrack editing suite, only
that its better, faster and more intuitive than beat
detective ever was. its got object based mixing PLUS
traditional mixing. every object can have its own volume,
pan, 8 inserts, 8 aux plus elastic audio settings.
you can mix in the traditional way, or you can mix without
a mixing desk whatsoever and purely object based (makes a lot
of sense i.e. for sound design, movie sound, TV production
and stuff where a traditional mixing board emulation is
really redundant and messy cause you basically have to do one channel for
each little snippet).
oh and you got something a la melodyne, allowing you midi-ish
piano roll editing (timing and tuning) of audio, all calculated
realtime and nondestructive. and you got extremely free routing,
freeze functionality where you can still access the files,
you can bounce files and have those files be container
objects that open back projects with the settings how they
were bounced if you need to bounce them differently,
you have batch processing, full blown media authoring, and
the list goes on and on and on. and of course completely
elastic audio, pitch and timing are more or less free
parameters.
nuendo has some of that stuff. logic - nowhere near this.
logic doesnt even have all the audio editing functionality
that nuendo had three versions ago. it has an awful lot
of catching up to do, and the fields where it was innovative
are limited to singled out little gimmicks like swipe comping
(something you can recreate in nuendo with a few clicks
via its macro functionality, something logic doesnt have either).
just my personal opinion, for what its worth.
> it took them time
>to get things right.
yeah they even - more or less - got the thing to finally
allow editing with sample precision. i remember they
advertised that as a key selling point. that this would
be kind of ironic to advertise so many years after everyone
else could do it obviously didnt occur to them ;-)
> As far as development for PPC and Intel there has been
>no chaos, in the developer kit it is simply a check box, it creates binary
>code and it writes for both processors, there is no extra work. The transition
>to Intel has been the smoothest transition in computer history.
yes that seems to be the official version of how that went.
when i talked so an actual programmer who works in this
area (he works for native instruments) he...sort of disagreed,
to put it mildly :-)
another clue might be that if it really were as simple as
clicking one checkbox, one wonders why there wasnt the
full selection of software avaiable by the end of the week?
what took steinberg more than a year where they probably
lost significant market share in the apple sector if
all that it takes is clicking a checkbox?
IMO, that official version doesnt quite compute, so to say :-)
>Apple has taken more time to get out Logic than other developers, it took
>them time to get things right.
nah thats just phrases. they simply didnt work much on it.
and it shows. many many things in logic 8 are really exactly
the same, the whole underlying architecture including
fundamental bugs (and lack of functionality) people have been complaining
about for ages is still there. in many many
ways, logic 8 is more a paint job than anything. it clearly
is not the result of 5 years of hard work.
if you ask me.
> Apple has had more than one upgrade in 5
>years, you forget Logic 7.x.x.
i meant significant upgrades.
> Apple does support Logic. Apple has done
>a great job with Logic 8, it's a whole new game now, I think you should
use
>it before you bash it. Logic 8 and all it's functionality is well integrated.
> Logic 8 rocks!
i would argue that its a matter of perspective. i work
full time in various studios and am forced to use whatevers
there (thats why ive "met" so many hosts in action, of course
in my own studio i usually dont use more than one or two),
and ive seen the competition. have you?
if not, i recommend you take a little tour i.e. through
samplitude, just so you know what youre missing. of course
nothing of this is a must to have, but boy, is it FUN to
have it :-) and more editing/workflow functionality equals
more time in your life for beautiful things like playing
with the children, doing the actual music, or...well, basically
anything but dreadful editing work ;-) so im kind of a fascist
as far as that is concerned and dont take it very lightly
when a host is wasting my lifetime with a lack of editing
functionality ;-)
just my 2 cents on that matter.
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need?-couple questions [message #102018 is a reply to message #102016] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 17:25 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Nappy" <juggler9@rock.com> wrote:
>Derek,
>I hear you load and clear! I've got a couple quick questions:What
>OS are you using XP or Vista?
i bought that machine 2 years ago when vista was too young
for me to have the courage to use it, so i went with XP.
i now kind of regret that because my memory issues with
my lowly 4GB really become a serious bottleneck and
i wish i had gone with vista64 (or at least XP64, a very
good and long established option people just always forget).
im kind of torn right now whether i want to upgrade
to vista64 or wait another year for the much praised
windows 7 to come out.
> and why didn't you just buy a Mac Pro and use
>Bootcamp? BTW,I have been a Mac person all my life,until now! I just built
>a quadcore and I am loving it.
you can just as well put one of these funny "pretend to
OSX that youre a mac" USB sticks into a pc and install OSX -
my brother has a video studio (boy do THEY need processing
power...) and he has such a stick in almost all his huge
workstations.
plus, when i bought this machine, bootcamp was still beta,
and it had lots of little issues, SATA drive access being
to slow here, blah blah driver not working properly there...so
since i dont really have any use for OSX, a "real" pc
just made more sense for me, and of course it was a little cheaper too.
>respect
>Nappy
>PS Its great seeing your post here. I was lucky because I don't check in
>here much. Drop me a line if you get a chance.
always good to hear from you too nappy! man its been a long time huh :-)
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need?-couple questions [message #102019 is a reply to message #102018] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 18:29 |
Nappy
Messages: 198
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
So is Vista ready for prime time now?
respect
Nappy
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>"Nappy" <juggler9@rock.com> wrote:
>>Derek,
>>I hear you load and clear! I've got a couple quick questions:What
>>OS are you using XP or Vista?
>
>i bought that machine 2 years ago when vista was too young
>for me to have the courage to use it, so i went with XP.
>i now kind of regret that because my memory issues with
>my lowly 4GB really become a serious bottleneck and
>i wish i had gone with vista64 (or at least XP64, a very
>good and long established option people just always forget).
>
>im kind of torn right now whether i want to upgrade
>to vista64 or wait another year for the much praised
>windows 7 to come out.
>
>
>> and why didn't you just buy a Mac Pro and use
>>Bootcamp? BTW,I have been a Mac person all my life,until now! I just built
>>a quadcore and I am loving it.
>
>you can just as well put one of these funny "pretend to
>OSX that youre a mac" USB sticks into a pc and install OSX -
>my brother has a video studio (boy do THEY need processing
>power...) and he has such a stick in almost all his huge
>workstations.
>
>plus, when i bought this machine, bootcamp was still beta,
>and it had lots of little issues, SATA drive access being
>to slow here, blah blah driver not working properly there...so
>since i dont really have any use for OSX, a "real" pc
>just made more sense for me, and of course it was a little cheaper too.
>
>
>>respect
>>Nappy
>>PS Its great seeing your post here. I was lucky because I don't check in
>>here much. Drop me a line if you get a chance.
>
>
>always good to hear from you too nappy! man its been a long time huh :-)
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102020 is a reply to message #102017] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 18:56 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
As I recall, Steinberg rewrote nuendo for Mac, something to do with the core
or audio engine, not sure, it might have had to do with 64bit. I don't know
what recompiling was necessary, I do know that if you write new code it's
a simple as a check box to get a universal binary of the code. From my prospective
Steinberg has not made Mac users their top priority in the last 5 years by
any means, and who really knows what goes on in house. By the way, it's not
like Steinberg software is not with out it's bugs. To blame Apple is to
cry about progress and growing pains, so what do you have to say about the
Windows Vista debacle? It's not like MS had it all together for the software
developers. How long has it taken them to catch up with Vista 64? Or is
it Windows 7 now?
I wasn't trying to say that Logic is the best DAW software in the world,
I was trying to say that Logic 8 has caught up, it's now a modern DAW package.
Logic 8 is not the old logic 5 and it is not a kludge that has been thrown
together with a new paint job. I think you should take a closer look at
Logic 8 and I'll leave it at that.
http://www.apple.com/logicstudio/
http://www.apple.com/logicstudio/tutorials/#logicpro-overvie w
http://www.apple.com/logicstudio/tutorials/
http://www.apple.com/logicstudio/logicpro/specs.html
Back to Paris being dead, I disagree if your saying that Paris does not have
it's own sound. If your saying that you can reproduce that sound in another
DAW, I'd like to know how? I don't doubt that at unity gain or less, you
could get tracks to null, I'd like to see you get them to null when the Paris
tracks are pushed. Where you able to do this? Do you have copies of those
tracks you tested? I'm from the show me state!
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>My challenge idea was more of a fun mix-off contest to liven this place
>up
>>a bit and get us all talking.
>
>i think i will pass. ive got so much work to do that
>i dont really plan on doing extra mixing on my free time,
>hope you understand :-)
>
>
>> I wasn't challenging your word, I do however
>>think that audio is subjective and I'd really like to hear a comparison.
>> A controlled comparison test would tell us more.
>
>whats there more to be had than a positive null test?
>when you avoid all possible traps (listed in the other
>posts), you can get multitracks to null. there IS no
>magic happening when you add 40 tracks. its just
>that, adding 40 tracks.
>
>
>
>>As far as my comments about what LaMont said in the past goes, I hope he
>>chimes in so we know where he stands today. LaMont is a guy that has a
>lot
>>of experience with a lot of different equipment, so I also respect what
>he
>>has to say. Of course in the end it's all somewhat subjective.
>
>
>yes, but null tests arent. you can make a point that
>the paris interface, the combination of this particular
>selection of effects plus the converters plus the whole
>way its all setup (what with forcing one to think in
>logical groups of 16, which ive always kind of liked
>because it led to a certain way of organized mixing)
>"make you mix good", and thats a very valid argument.
>
>but it aint something magical in the summing.
>
>
>
>>Paris is just another tool in the arsenal to creating great sound. People
>>that know it well can get up and tracking live instruments very quickly
>and
>>making music. If there is a way to reproduce the sound of Paris in another
>>DAW, I'd like to know what that formula is???
>
>
>if you can make a good mix in paris, you can do it in any
>host, these days. paris used to rule in a world where
>most other daws sucked. now they all rule. if you think
>otherwise, i would argue the biggest issue here is one
>of a self fullfilling prophecy, its a question of how
>you approach another program and with what expectations
>(i know, i went through this too, actually all that intensive
>testing i did, i did it mostly to come over my own
>"daw sound angst" if you will).
>
>plus: you cannot stress often enough how much UI makes a difference.
>most modern daws have a somewhat industrial design in either
>grey or cold blue. paris looks like a bottle of champaign.
>it DOES make a difference, everyone knows that. but i do
>think that most people dont really admit to themselves just
>how much of a difference it makes.
>
>in cubase, you can open plugins as ugly parameter only windows.
>its extremely revealing to see how ones judgement changes
>of i.e. some super nice looking vintage emulation plugin
>when you only see the parameters. its amazing how much
>of a difference it makes.
>
>
>>from a business
>>stand point it made sense to Apple. Not that this justifies anything,
>
>
>indeed, that doesnt justify anything at all :-)
>with all due respect, saying something like that is being
>an apologist. if you dont agree, just imagine me
>making something plausible because it made sense for microsoft
>to make more money that way. youd be all over me, and
>rightly so.
>
>
>
>> but
>>I can tell you Mac users have had to deal with this kind of thing many
times
>>with many softwares. Just in audio softwares that have been dropped for
>>Mac off the top of my head, Deck, Metro, Spark, Studio Vision, Paris, Bias?something,
>>can't think of the name, there are so many I can't think of them all anymore.
>
>
>and that makes the logic story better in...what way?
>
>
>> Mac users have been told that there isn't enough of a user base to support
>>development, often that was not the case, so we've been their.
>
>
>maybe it would help to have more of a culture of complaining
>instead of a culture of rationalizing stuff as in
>"it makes sense for apple business wise so it must be good".
>thats such a weird way of looking at things as a user.
>i can somewhat relate to that way of thinking when its
>about fragile, small software companies, but an industry giant
>like apple?
>
>again, taking the microsoft example: i give a s**t about
>whats good for them business wise. shut up and deliver
>the goods, please, industry giant. and please for free
>whenever possible. you can afford it. or else i will
>install android and linux, take that :-)
>
>
>>The past price of Apple support contracts for Logic were a joke,
>
>
>oh yeah i forgot all about that, that should have belonged
>in that list too :-)
>
>
>>they are
>>more reasonable now.
>
>so theyre free now? cause they really should. when
>i call steinberg support, thats free.
>
>
>
>> Apple has caught up in my opinion,
>
>no, they dont. you know, actually i dont even regard
>nuendo as "being in the lead". that currently clearly
>is samplitude, thats one bad ass software.
>
>its got *everything* of the others, plus lots and lots of
>innovative and super useful things. you have a fully
>functioning beat detective multitrack editing suite, only
>that its better, faster and more intuitive than beat
>detective ever was. its got object based mixing PLUS
>traditional mixing. every object can have its own volume,
>pan, 8 inserts, 8 aux plus elastic audio settings.
>you can mix in the traditional way, or you can mix without
>a mixing desk whatsoever and purely object based (makes a lot
>of sense i.e. for sound design, movie sound, TV production
>and stuff where a traditional mixing board emulation is
>really redundant and messy cause you basically have to do one channel for
>each little snippet).
>
>oh and you got something a la melodyne, allowing you midi-ish
>piano roll editing (timing and tuning) of audio, all calculated
>realtime and nondestructive. and you got extremely free routing,
>freeze functionality where you can still access the files,
>you can bounce files and have those files be container
>objects that open back projects with the settings how they
>were bounced if you need to bounce them differently,
>you have batch processing, full blown media authoring, and
>the list goes on and on and on. and of course completely
>elastic audio, pitch and timing are more or less free
>parameters.
>
>nuendo has some of that stuff. logic - nowhere near this.
>logic doesnt even have all the audio editing functionality
>that nuendo had three versions ago. it has an awful lot
>of catching up to do, and the fields where it was innovative
>are limited to singled out little gimmicks like swipe comping
>(something you can recreate in nuendo with a few clicks
>via its macro functionality, something logic doesnt have either).
>
>just my personal opinion, for what its worth.
>
>
>
>
>> it took them time
>>to get things right.
>
>yeah they even - more or less - got the thing to finally
>allow editing with sample precision. i remember they
>advertised that as a key selling point. that this would
>be kind of ironic to advertise so many years after everyone
>else could do it obviously didnt occur to them ;-)
>
>
>
>> As far as development for PPC and Intel there has been
>>no chaos, in the developer kit it is simply a check box, it creates binary
>>code and it writes for both processors, there is no extra work. The transition
>>to Intel has been the smoothest transition in computer history.
>
>
>yes that seems to be the official version of how that went.
>when i talked so an actual programmer who works in this
>area (he works for native instruments) he...sort of disagreed,
>to put it mildly :-)
>
>another clue might be that if it really were as simple as
>clicking one checkbox, one wonders why there wasnt the
>full selection of software avaiable by the end of the week?
>what took steinberg more than a year where they probably
>lost significant market share in the apple sector if
>all that it takes is clicking a checkbox?
>
>IMO, that official version doesnt quite compute, so to say :-)
>
>
>
>>Apple has taken more time to get out Logic than other developers, it took
>>them time to get things right.
>
>
>nah thats just phrases. they simply didnt work much on it.
>and it shows. many many things in logic 8 are really exactly
>the same, the whole underlying architecture including
>fundamental bugs (and lack of functionality) people have been complaining
>about for ages is still there. in many many
>ways, logic 8 is more a paint job than anything. it clearly
>is not the result of 5 years of hard work.
>
>if you ask me.
>
>
>> Apple has had more than one upgrade in 5
>>years, you forget Logic 7.x.x.
>
>i meant significant upgrades.
>
>
>> Apple does support Logic. Apple has done
>>a great job with Logic 8, it's a whole new game now, I think you should
>use
>>it before you bash it. Logic 8 and all it's functionality is well integrated.
>> Logic 8 rocks!
>
>
>i would argue that its a matter of perspective. i work
>full time in various studios and am forced to use whatevers
>there (thats why ive "met" so many hosts in action, of course
>in my own studio i usually dont use more than one or two),
>and ive seen the competition. have you?
>
>if not, i recommend you take a little tour i.e. through
>samplitude, just so you know what youre missing. of course
>nothing of this is a must to have, but boy, is it FUN to
>have it :-) and more editing/workflow functionality equals
>more time in your life for beautiful things like playing
>with the children, doing the actual music, or...well, basically
>anything but dreadful editing work ;-) so im kind of a fascist
>as far as that is concerned and dont take it very lightly
>when a host is wasting my lifetime with a lack of editing
>functionality ;-)
>
>
>just my 2 cents on that matter.
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102021 is a reply to message #102008] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 19:08 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>> LaMont
>>has pointed out that Nuendo starts to crap-out, sound and summing wise
after
>>so many tracks, I believe around 40 tracks.
>
>i beg to differ. nuendo no more "craps out" than paris does.
>that is a myth.
Awhile back, while Derek was gone, and while I was still
hanging out here more, I posted an example or two of a couple
of songs I'd mixed through an SSL & a couple that I'd done ITB
in Cubase... while they were not the same song, they were a couple of the
same players, and were in the same genre, - the
results in responses were clearly in favor of the ITB Cubase
mixes, though some people did like the SSL mixes better... same
recordist & mixer on both (me), so I would have had to
PURPOSELY pre-plan to sabotage the SSL mixes I did a year
before the ITB mixes if I wanted to rig that test.
Around the same time, I was starting to experiment with
external summing, so I posted some comparison files of a Cubase
mix summed out into 8-channels of lightpipe, going into a
Creamware/Pulsar card, summing through it's DSP mixer at 24-
bit/88.2k, and the same song summed through 8 channels of
Paris a/d convertors, and the same mix ITB in Cubase...
these had mixed results in terms of this user group - in other
words, some people liked one better than the other, and it was
split (as I recall) almost equally - a little more than a third
had a preference for the Paris summing, a little less than a
third liked the DSP summing in Creamware, and a little more
than a third liked the Cubase ITB version. I think everyone was
being pretty honest about this, as this was a blind test, and
people were tending to describe WHAT they liked about each
one: "I liked version B because it was warmer", or "I Liked
version C becausee it was cleaner & had better dimension", or
what have you. IOW, there was no clear "wow, this one is WAY
better!" in this test. Different-sounding, yes. "Better"? Nope.
I bring this up to reinforce Derek's point that there is no
such thing as "crapping out" in a good native DAW. What CAN
happen, however, is poor gainstage management, which WILL cause
your mix to sound like shit... when you go over the "zero"
threshhold on either individual channels, or groups, or the 2-
Buss, the higher you go over that threshhold, the more like ass
your mix will sound... the image will indeed start to collapse,
and your front-to-back depth will become more one-dimensional,
regardless of if you're getting no distortion alarm-bells going
off, due to floating-point math on the mix buss or groups.
Consider this: If you've got a 30 or 40 or 50 channel mix, and
16 of those channels are peaking at +2, then what does that do
to your 32-bit float-point mix buss during those peak
intervals? It maxes it out, right? Let's take it further... if
you've got those 16 channels peaking at +2, and 30 that are
peaking at -10, and two or three that are peaking at +3, then what does THAT
do?
It's all about gainstaging, folks. the analogy I like to use is:
Would you start a mix on a console with every fader at
+15 or whatever the max is? Hell no! So why would you want to
work with every channel at 0db as the starting point in the
Native world?
According to Chuck Duffy (who should know), 0db in the Paris
world is REALLY -20, so no wonder you can "spank it", when you
have 20 db of headroom you don't even know about on every
channel.
Neil
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 30 06:51:58 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.09067 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
