Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Mucking up the thread
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61477 is a reply to message #61471] |
Sat, 17 December 2005 10:28   |
![Deej [1] is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png "Deej [1] is currently offline")
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>PC with the new chip set. So it might be cheaper to wait.
>>
>>I guess will know more Jan. 9th. A $299 Mac mini with a built in TV tuner
>>would be vary cool. A dual boot, multi processor tower with standard PCI
>>slots that could run Paris XP and Mac OSX would be even cooler!
>>
>>Anybody have any thoughts?
>>
>>James
>
>
>Hmmm......maybe I need to poke around in my bios some more but my AMD 64
4200 dual core CPU is operating at 2200MHz? Is this normal? Does this mean
each core is operating at this speed, or both?
It's a bit faster than the XP 3000 that I was using on my old mobo, but
nothing tht would call for a tickertape parade.
Perhaps the juju is in the ability of these to handle heavier processing
loads?
Right now, I'm underwhelmed, but I haven't had a chance to really use this
for anything other than booting Windows and loading drivers.
;oPHmmmm........just checked my system info and now it shows two CPU's each
running at 2202MHz. This wasn't the situation last night. Also, the system
is running faster this morning than it was last night when I was having
problems with the drivers.......much faster. I'll post more about this as I
get into it.
Now that I've Ghosted the system drive, I'm getting ready to do the OS
tweaking., load drivers, etc.
I'll be coming up for air in a couple of hours.
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:43a45e31$1@linux...
> Hmmm......maybe I need to poke around in my bios some more but my AMD 64<
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61478 is a reply to message #61471] |
Sat, 17 December 2005 10:35 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
br />
> 4200 dual core CPU is operating at 2200MHz? Is this normal? Does this mean
> each core is operating at this speed, or both?
>
> It's a bit faster than the XP 3000 that I was using on my old mobo, but
> nothing tht would call for a tickertape parade.
>
> Perhaps the juju is in the ability of these to handle heavier processing
> loads?
>
> Right now, I'm underwhelmed, but I haven't had a chance to really use this
> for anything other than booting Windows and loading drivers.
>
> ;oP
>
>I will admit that the Mac is a much prettier Borg......perhaps a Borgette?
I'm sure gonna wake up one day and notice a heatsink with a spinning fan
where my right eye used to be
;o)
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:43a45cf8@linux...
>
> You are already one with the Borg, Deej. Choose your Borg. On Slashdot
> the Borg icon is reserved for Microsoft, and for good reason.
>
> Not that you shouldn't feel free to use whatever system you feel does
> the job for you. Enjoy what you dig. And dig deep. ;^)
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> > I was down an the local Mac store here yesterday. I played around with a
new
> > monster G5. I must say that *elegant in every way* was my
> > impression..........but that's my impression of Pro Tool HD system too.
> > IMO, with both of them, the purchaser becomes the *screwee* whenever the
> > moneymonkey needs a new injection of cash. Thing is, with a little
tweaking,
> > I can achieve at least an equal, if not better result with alternative
> > platforms and not become one with the Borg.
> >
> > ;o)
> >
> > "James McCloskey" <
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61481 is a reply to message #61478] |
Sat, 17 December 2005 10:44 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>> > IMO, with both of them, the purchaser becomes the *screwee* whenever
>> > the
>> > moneymonkey needs a new injection of cash. Thing is, with a little
> tweaking,
>> > I can achieve at least an equal, if not better result with alternative
>> > platforms and not become one with the Borg.
>> >
>> > ;o)
>> >
>> > "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:43a43ddf$1@linux...
>> >
>> >>Sorry about mucking up Deej's thread. I wasn't looking to start the
> whole
>> >>Mac vs. PC debate. I was just thinking out loud. I go through this
> same
>> >>kind of thing every time I build a new PC or upgrade, it's kind of a
> PITA.
>> >> I was just wondering if upgrading an Apple Intel mac will have the
>> >> same
>> >>kind of issues? I hope they get it right. I wonder if Apple will have
>> >
>> > affordable
>> >
>> >>upgrade paths? Knowing Apple, they will probably solder in the
> processors
>> >>so you have to buy a whole new computer to upgrade.
>> >>
>> >>This machine will be a whole new beast, I for one , will not be the
> first
>> >>to dive in! It will be interesting to see how these systems perform
>> >>and
>> >>what problems they will have with them. People are already talking
> about
>> >>hacking them to run dual boot, with XP and Mac OS. Dual boot would be
>> >
>> > cool.
>> >
>> >>I'm thinking, that even though Apple will be using Intel hardware
> software
>> >>locking technology, some body will hack the new Mac OS and run it on a
>> >
>> > standard
>> >
>> >>PC with the new chip set. So it might be cheaper to wait.
>> >>
>> >>I guess will know more Jan. 9th. A $299 Mac mini with a built in TV
> tuner
>> >>would be vary cool. A dual boot, multi processor tower with standard
> PCI
>> >>slots that could run Paris XP and Mac OSX would be even cooler!
>> >>
>> >>Anybody have any thoughts?
>> >>
>> >>James
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>Was 7 of 9 PARIS compatible?
Deej, knowing you, your right eye will be re
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61484 is a reply to message #61481] |
Sat, 17 December 2005 10:58 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
egant in every way* was my
>>>>impression..........but that's my impression of Pro Tool HD system
>>>>too.
>>>>IMO, with both of them, the purchaser becomes the *screwee* whenever
>>>>the
>>>>moneymonkey needs a new injection of cash. Thing is, with a little
>>
>>tweaking,
>>
>>>>I can achieve at least an equal, if not better result with alternative
>>>>platforms and not become one with the Borg.
>>>>
>>>>;o)
>>>>
>>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:43a43ddf$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sorry about mucking up Deej's thread. I wasn't looking to start the
>>
>>whole
>>
>>>>>Mac vs. PC debate. I was just thinking out loud. I go through this
>>
>>same
>>
>>>>>kind of thing every time I build a new PC or upgrade, it's kind of a
>>
>>PITA.
>>
>>>>>I was just wondering if upgrading an Apple Intel mac will have the
>>>>>same
>>>>>kind of issues? I hope they get it right. I wonder if Apple will have
>>>>
>>>>affordable
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>upgrade paths? Knowing Apple, they will probably solder in the
>>
>>processors
>>
>>>>>so you have to buy a whole new computer to upgrade.
>>>>>
>>>>>This machine will be a whole new beast, I for one , will not be the
>>
>>first
>>
>>>>>to dive in! It will be interesting to see how these systems perform
>>>>>and
>>>>>what problems they will have with them. People are already talking
>>
>>about
>>
>>>>>hacking them to run dual boot, with XP and Mac OS. Dual boot would be
>>>>
>>>>cool.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm thinking, that even though Apple will be using Intel hardware
>>
>>software
>>
>>>>>locking technology, some body will hack the new Mac OS and run it on a
>>>>
>>>>standard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>PC with the new chip set. So it might be cheaper to wait.
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess will know more Jan. 9th. A $299 Mac mini with a built in TV
>>
>>tuner
>>
>>>>>would be vary cool. A dual boot, multi processor tower with standard
>>
>>PCI
>>
>>>>>slots that could run Paris XP and Mac OSX would be even cooler!
>>>>>
>>>>>Anybody have any thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>I've got a friend here who is seriously into metalworking. He is also into
studio engineering in a big way and he helps me out on larger sessions. He
wan
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61485 is a reply to message #61484] |
Sat, 17 December 2005 11:08 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ts to build me a custom computer case that will house 3 x mobos and all
the components for three DAWs in one big rolling case with all of the ports,
power access and PCI access sticking out the front. I'm envisioning
something bigger..........like the big mechanical spider in Wild Wild West.
;o)
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:43a465f1@linux...
>
> Was 7 of 9 PARIS compatible?
>
> Deej, knowing you, your right eye will be replaced with a socket linking
> to five outboard fans, fourteen heat sinks, twenty eight i/o modules and
> a small generator on a cart. And somehow you'll make it all look stylish
> and hip!
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> Aaron Allen wrote:
> > No doubt the 7 of 9 model you were looking at.
> > AA
> >
> >
> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> > news:43a460b9@linux...
> >
> >>I will admit that the Mac is a much prettier Borg......perhaps a
Borgette?
> >>I'm sure gonna wake up one day and notice a heatsink with a spinning fan
> >>where my right eye used to be
> >>
> >>;o)
> >>
> >>"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:43a45cf8@linux...
> >>
> >>>You are already one with the Borg, Deej. Choose your Borg. On Slashdot
> >>>the Borg icon is reserved for Microsoft, and for good reason.
> >>>
> >>>Not that you shouldn't feel free to use whatever system you feel does
> >>>the job for you. Enjoy what you dig. And dig deep. ;^)
> >>>
> >>>Cheers,
> >>> -Jamie
> >>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>DJ wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I was down an the local Mac store here yesterday. I played around with
> >>>>a
> >>
> >>new
> >>
> >>>>monster G5. I must say that *elegant in every way* was my
> >>>>impression..........but that's my impression of Pro Tool HD system
> >>>>too.
> >>>>IMO, with both of them, the purchaser becomes the *screwee* whenever
> >>>>the
> >>>>moneymonkey needs a new injection of cash. Thing is, with a little
> >>
> >>tweaking,
> >>
> >>>>I can achieve at least an equal, if not better result with alternative
> >>>>platforms and not become one with the Borg.
> >>>>
> >>>>;o)
> >>>>
> >>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:43a43ddf$1@linux...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Sorry about mucking up Deej's thread. I wasn't looking to start the
> >>
> >>whole
> >>
> >>>>>Mac vs. PC debate. I was just thinking out loud. I go through this
> >>
> >>same
> >>
> >>>>>kind of thing every time I build a new PC or upgrade, it's kind of a
> >>
> >>PITA.
> >>
> >>>>>I was just wondering if upgrading an Apple Intel mac will have the
> >>&
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61486 is a reply to message #61485] |
Sat, 17 December 2005 11:23 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt;>>same
> >>>>>kind of issues? I hope they get it right. I wonder if Apple will
have
> >>>>
> >>>>affordable
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>upgrade paths? Knowing Apple, they will probably solder in the
> >>
> >>processors
> >>
> >>>>>so you have to buy a whole new computer to upgrade.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This machine will be a whole new beast, I for one , will not be the
> >>
> >>first
> >>
> >>>>>to dive in! It will be interesting to see how these systems perform
> >>>>>and
> >>>>>what problems they will have with them. People are already talking
> >>
> >>about
> >>
> >>>>>hacking them to run dual boot, with XP and Mac OS. Dual boot would
be
> >>>>
> >>>>cool.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I'm thinking, that even though Apple will be using Intel hardware
> >>
> >>software
> >>
> >>>>>locking technology, some body will hack the new Mac OS and run it on
a
> >>>>
> >>>>standard
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>PC with the new chip set. So it might be cheaper to wait.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I guess will know more Jan. 9th. A $299 Mac mini with a built in TV
> >>
> >>tuner
> >>
> >>>>>would be vary cool. A dual boot, multi processor tower with standard
> >>
> >>PCI
> >>
> >>>>>slots that could run Paris XP and Mac OSX would be even cooler!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Anybody have any thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>James
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >I have a feeling that you will need the VIA drivers...
Maybe it's time to move the '450 to another box and get a '750??
David.
DJ wrote:
> Hmmmm........just checked my system info and now it shows two CPU's each
> running at 2202MHz. This wasn't the situation last night. Also, the system
> is running faster this morning than it was last night when I was having
> problems with the drivers.......much faster. I'll post more about this as I
> get into it.
>
> Now that I've Ghosted the system drive, I'm getting ready to do the OS
> tweaking., load drivers, etc.
>
> I'll be coming up for air in a couple of hours.
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:43a45e31$1@linux...
>
>>Hmmm......maybe I need to poke around in my bios some more but my AMD 64
>>4200 dual core CPU is operating at 2200MHz? Is this normal? Does this mean
>>each core is operating at this speed, or both?
>>
>>It's a bit faster than the XP 3000 that I was using on my old mobo, but
>>nothing tht would call for a tickertape parade.
>>
>>Perhaps the juju is in the ability of these to handle heavier processing
>>loads?
>>
>>Right now, I'm underwhelmed, but I haven't had a chance to really use this
>>for anything other than booting Windows and loading drivers.
>>
>>;oP
>>
>>
>
>
>Maybe so. I'm Ghosting my system at another stage of the process right now
and I'm getting ready to do the driver loading and the IRQ waltz. I'm going
to try to load all of the VIA drivers *except* the AGP.
"Dave(EK Sound)" <audioguy_editout_@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:43a46fdc$1@linux...
> I have a feeling that you will need the VIA drivers...
> Maybe it's time to move the '450 to another box and get a '750??
>
> David.
>
> DJ wrote:
> > Hmmmm........just checked my system info and now it shows two CPU's each
> > running at 2202MHz. This wasn't the situation last night. Also, the
system
> > is running faster this morning than it was last night when I was having
> > problems with the drivers.......much faster. I'll post more about this
as I
> > get into it.
> >
> > Now that I've Ghosted the system drive, I'm getting ready to do the OS
> > tweaking., load drivers, etc.
> >
> > I'll be coming up for air in a couple of hours.
> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> > news:43a45e31$1@li
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61487 is a reply to message #61486] |
Sat, 17 December 2005 11:34 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
nux...
> >
> >>Hmmm......maybe I need to poke around in my bios some more but my AMD 64
> >>4200 dual core CPU is operating at 2200MHz? Is this normal? Does this
mean
> >>each core is operating at this speed, or both?
> >>
> >>It's a bit faster than the XP 3000 that I was using on my old mobo, but
> >>nothing tht would call for a tickertape parade.
> >>
> >>Perhaps the juju is in the ability of these to handle heavier processing
> >>loads?
> >>
> >>Right now, I'm underwhelmed, but I haven't had a chance to really use
this
> >>for anything other than booting Windows and loading drivers.
> >>
> >>;oP
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >My current isnstall is ACPI. I've got a 13 slot Magma here with my 3 x RME
PCI cards onboard. The Magma host card is in PCI slot #4 which doesn't share
an IRQ with any other system devices. Right now the RME cards are on IRQ 3
and nothing else is sharing with them.. I'm getting ready to install my
UAD-1 cards.
Now the question........I wondering if ACPI is intelligent enough so that
even if I come up with the UAD-1 cards sharing IRQ's with the RME cards or
other devices, they will still work. I seem to recall Brian T saying he had
lots of stuff sharing and was having no problems.
If I start having problems, I'm going to need to revert to standard PC mode.
I have forgotten how to do this, short of reinstalling Windows. I wrote it
down somewhere but I can't find it.
If someone would be so knnd, it would be appreciated.
Thanks,
DeejI don't think you will have an issue with ACPI... but here
it is:
Device manager, Expand Computer Icon, Right click on ACPI PC
and "update driver"
- No, not this time - Next
- Install from a list - Next
- Don't search, I will choose - Next
- Scoll down to Standard PC... you can figure it out from
here (I hope).
;-)
David.
DJ wrote:
> My current isnstall is ACPI. I've got a 13 slot Magma here with my 3 x RME
> PCI cards onboard. The Magma host card is in PCI slot #4 which doesn't share
> an IRQ with any other system devices. Right now the RME cards are on IRQ 3
> and nothing else is sharing with them.. I'm getting ready to install my
> UAD-1 cards.
>
> Now the question........I wondering if ACPI is intelligent enough so that
> even if I come up with the UAD-1 cards sharing IRQ's with the RME cards or
> other devices, they will still work. I seem to recall Brian T saying he had
> lots of stuff sharing and was having no problems.
>
> If I start having problems, I'm going to need to revert to standard PC mode.
> I have forgotten how to do this, short of reinstalling Windows. I wrote it
> down somewhere but I can't find it.
>
> If someone would be so knnd, it would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Deej
>
>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>I was down an the local Mac store here yesterday. I played around with a
new
>monster G5. I must say that *elegant in every way* was my
>impression..........but that's my impression of Pro Tool HD system too.
>IMO, with both of them, the purchaser becomes the *screwee* whenever the
>moneymonkey needs a new injection of cash. Thing is, with a little tweaking,
>I can achieve at least an equal, if not better result with alternative
>platforms and not become one with the Borg.
>
>;o)
>
Ouch! That has to hurt.
We all need to admit that the things we love and hate about or tools are
generally arbitrary and often emotional rather than practical.
That said, it good to see you can appreciate the G5 for its beauty and elegance…even
if it is “overpriced.”
I still like both platforms, but more and more I think I use PCs just to
prove to myself that I can build them and keep them running. (When I write
it down it look silly.)
Gene
P.S. I’ve said this before…
As a shoebox style organizer, and a self-proclaimed searching fanatic, I
love Spotlight.
I can now find anything on all my drives (both mounted and stored away) plus
all my removable media and backups covering almost 30 years, in less than
10 seconds. (Well over 2 TB), and Spotlight searches can include finding
content inside files, not just the title and metadata.
A friend with a $20,000 IBM SAN at work recently complained to me that searches
across his 2TB SAN can take 15 minutes. (And he could never search for a
word in a PDF, or a number in an Excel file, or across unmounted storage.)
Naturally, Microsoft will be coming out with a Spotlight-like system in a
future OS.Now that I gotta see!
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> I've got a friend here who is seriously into metalworking. He is also into
> studio engineering in a big way and he helps me out on larger sessions. He
> wants to build me a custom computer case that will house 3 x mobos and all
> the components for three DAWs in one big rolling case with all of the ports,
> power access and PCI access sticking out the front. I'm envisioning
> something bigger..........like the big mechanical spider in Wild Wild West.
>
> ;o)
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:43a465f1@linux...
>
>>Was 7 of 9 PARIS compatible?
>>
>>Deej, knowing you, your right eye will be replaced with a socket linking
>>to five outboard fans, fourteen heat sinks, twenty eight i/o modules and
>>a small generator on a cart. And somehow you'll make it all look stylish
>>and hip!
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>Aaron Allen wrote:
>>
>>>No doubt the 7 of 9 model you were looking at.
>>>AA
>>>
>>>
>>>"DJ" <Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61493 is a reply to message #61487] |
Sat, 17 December 2005 12:44 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ten how to do this, short of reinstalling Windows. I wrote
it
> > down somewhere but I can't find it.
> >
> > If someone would be so knnd, it would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Deej
> >
> >Hi Everybody,
I just thought I'd share a small epiphony I had late last night when I couldn't
sleep. You've probably all had it already, but I thought I'd share just in
case.
I've been working on a mix, and I was lamenting the fact that in order to
pan my reverb returns in to 10 and 2, I have to use live mix mode and rout
the returns to ajacent chanels. This sucks because you can't record new
tracks without killing the reverb, etc, etc.
So, it dawned on me: why not use the patch bay to route the left reverb return
to both the right and left inputs of aux 1 and the right reverb return to
both the left and right inputs of aux 2 and then use the pan control to pan
them in.
Of course, it works!
PARIS rulez.
MikeAll i get is a blank screen in Win98 even with Chainer. Also in Wavelab
it doesn't show up either. crap crap crap Such a nice plug in and it
won't do 98 from according to their sys reqmnts.
crap"gene lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>>I was down an the local Mac store here yesterday. I played around with
a
>new
>>monster G5. I must say that *elegant in every way* was my
>>impression..........but that's my impression of Pro Tool HD system too.
>>IMO, with both of them, the purchaser becomes the *screwee* whenever the
>>moneymonkey needs a new injection of cash. Thing is, with a little tweaking,
>>I can achieve at least an equal, if not better result with alternative
>>platforms and not become one with the Borg.
>>
>>;o)
>>
>
>Ouch! That has to hurt.
>We all need to admit that the things we love and hate about or tools are
>generally arbitrary and often emotional rather than practical.
>That said, it good to see you can appreciate the G5 for its beauty and elegance…even
>if it is “overpriced.”
>
>I still like both platforms, but more and more I think I use PCs just to
>prove to myself that I can build them and keep them running. (When I write
>it down it look silly.)
>
>Gene
>
>P.S. I’ve said this before…
>
>As a shoebox style organizer, and a self-proclaimed searching fanatic, I
>love Spotlight.
>I can now find anything on all my drives (both mounted and stored away)
plus
>all my removable media and backups covering almost 30 years, in less than
>10 seconds. (Well over 2 TB), and Spotlight searches can include finding
>content inside files, not just the title and metadata.
>A friend with a $20,000 IBM SAN at work recently complained to me that searches
>across his 2TB SAN can take 15 minutes. (And he could never search for a
>word in a PDF, or a number in an Excel file, or across unmounted storage.)
>Naturally, Microsoft will be coming out with a Spotlight-like system in
a
>future OS.
Those dirty copycats! LOL; )Do you have the fxpansion DX Wrapper ver. 3.3? If so, try it to only find
Chainer and not the Steinberg\vstplugins map at all( Chainer must find all
the VST plugins in Steinberg\vstplugins map). I have only tested with WinXP
and Paris and it's working perfect there for me. I shall try a test later on
with WinME too, when I have time enough.
Erling
"John" <no@no.com> skrev i melding news:43a48f5c@linux...
> All i get is a blank screen in Win98 even with Chainer. Also in Wavelab
> it doesn't show up either. crap crap crap Such a nice plug in and it
> won't do 98 from according to their sys reqmnts.
>
> crapit's time to join the 21's century and migrate to XP, think of it as a
Christmas pressie to you..
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:43a48f5c@linux...
> All i get is a blank screen in Win98 even with Chainer. Also in Wavelab
> it doesn't show up either. crap crap crap Such a nice plug in and it
> won't do 98 from according to their sys reqmnts.
>
> crapOK,
All devices and drivers are installed. I've still got to do a little
tweaking with the Steiny Houston controller. It's not talking to Cubase
properly yet, but all RME cards, UAD-1 cards and the Matrox cards are
working properly. The RME cards and ll of the UAD cards are in the Magma.
Matrox video cards are on IRQ 16, RME Cards are on IRQ 19, one of the UAD
1's in on IRQ 18 (not shared) and 3 x of the UAD-1 cards are on IRQ 17
sharing with the Marvell LAN controller. Hope this doesn't bite me, but I
can always disable it when using Cubase I guess. I only use LAN to transfer
files between computers prior to mixing anyway.
The Magma seems much friendlier working under ACPI than my old SBS
chassis..........guess that's why they're recommended.......eh? ;o)
System is running fast and smooth, UAD-1 plugs are authorized and working
and I haven't even gotten into the *in depth* tweaks yet where all
non-essential background services are turned off .
I just opened a 48 track Cubase project with 40 tracks of audio loaded.
Playing this back on my old AMD XP 3000 system on the ASUS A7V8X mobo
(333MHz bus speed) used to use up between 40 to 50% of my CPU cycles with
512k buffer settings and wouldn't even play back at 64k buffer settings. On
this new system, it hums along steadily at 12% at 512k buffers and plays
back at 64k buffer settings with between 30 and 35% CPU usage. That's
*significant* and is what I was looking for when I decided to build this
machine.
Once I get my Steiny controller working, I'm Ghosting this one.
So far so good.
;o)
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:43a472e1$1@linux...
> My current isnstall is ACPI. I've got a 13 slot Magma here with my 3 x RME
> PCI cards onboard. The Magma host card is in PCI slot #4 which doesn't
share
> an IRQ with any other system devices. Right now the RME cards are on IRQ 3
> and nothing else is sharing with them.. I'm getting ready to install my
> UAD-1 cards.
>
> Now the question........I wondering if ACPI is intelligent enough so that
> even if I come up with the UAD-1 cards sharing IRQ's with the RME cards or
> other devices, they will still work. I seem to recall Brian T saying he
had
> lots of stuff sharing and was having no problems.
>
> If I start having problems, I'm going to need to revert to standard PC
mode.
> I have forgotten how to do this, short of reinstalling Windows. I wrote
it
> down somewhere but I can't find it.
>
> If someone would be so knnd, it would be appreciated.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61497 is a reply to message #61492] |
Sat, 17 December 2005 15:29 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Deej
>>
>>
>
>
>heheh, funny you mention that. I just installed XP and am 'hoping' it
will like me for a change. I made a ghost of it raw xp and a ghost of
raw xp with paris 3. Next I'll add plugs one by one to see if I can be
stable on my 2.3ghz celeron. Praying hard. Thanks for the push Martin.
What is the most bang for the buck now days? I could prolly swing a
newer CPU that's not celeron if that's required.
John
Martin Harrington wrote:
> it's time to join the 21's century and migrate to XP, think of it as a
> Christmas pressie to you..
>> Imagine going to WinXP64! That would take full advantage of
> the dual cores.
>
But would this work with the 32 bit RME drivers and a 32bit Magma?
"Dave(EK Sound)" <audioguy_editout_@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:43a4acdc@linux...
> Pretty zippy... ain't it! ;-)
>
> Imagine going to WinXP64! That would take full advantage of
> the dual cores.
>
> David.
>
> DJ wrote:
> > OK,
> >
> > All devices and drivers are installed. I've still got to do a little
> > tweaking with the Steiny Houston controller. It's not talking to Cubase
> > properly yet, but all RME cards, UAD-1 cards and the Matrox cards are
> > working properly. The RME cards and ll of the UAD cards are in the
Magma.
> > Matrox video cards are on IRQ 16, RME Cards are on IRQ 19, one of the
UAD
> > 1's in on IRQ 18 (not shared) and 3 x of the UAD-1 cards are on IRQ 17
> > sharing with the Marvell LAN controller. Hope this doesn't bite me, but
I
> > can always disable it when using Cubase I guess. I only use LAN to
transfer
> > files between computers prior to mixing anyway.
> >
> > The Magma seems much friendlier working under ACPI than my old SBS
> > chassis..........guess that's why they'r
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61536 is a reply to message #61527] |
Sun, 18 December 2005 10:56 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
rage competition. Or at least give it lip service.
Steve Jobs cannot obsolete my PowerMac tomorrow. It will continue to do
what it does now even if he stopped development for it entirely. Which
Apple has already stated they will not do even after the transition to
Intel processors.
Apple transitioned out of OS9 and previous with a long program of
emulation so that old, non-hardware dependent programs can still run.
OS9 is something I didn't buy into anyway since it was never above my
threshold of OS goodness but it's interesting that Apple went to
considerable effort to bring the customer base along. Apple has been
sticking with OSX for quite a while now with no immediate plans to
abandon it.
Microsoft also drops support for older OS versions after a time. And
they periodically churn their market with new versions. When choosing
Microsoft you are not escaping obsolescence or attempts at locking you in.
The next round of Microsoft market churning is coming soon. So you'll be
able to enjoy the new stuff they've copied from OSX, and maybe some
other improvements and proprietary lock-in attempts. :^)
Bottom line, we have limited choices now. But we still have a few.
Choose what works for you but don't fool yourself. Meanwhile, no matter
what tools we choose to deal with, and how much time we want to devote
to fanboy posts about them, the end results are what matter.
Make great music.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:43a5b143@linux...
>
>>The case for the most cost effective system is not as clear as you might
>>guess at first, and it will depend on your specific needs.
>>
>>If you price a Mac compared to, for example, a Dell, I don't think the
>>difference in price comes anywhere near the a down payment on a house.
>>
>>If you look at the average turnover, I would guess it's less with Macs.
>>PowerMacs are upgradable with faster display cards, copious amounts of
>>RAM, i/o cards on a very fast bus, wireless, firewire and USB2 i/o. My
>>dual 2.5GHZ PowerMac does not need replacement even though it's a few
>>years old. It already does far more real time plugins and tracks than I
>>require and it can keep doing what it does for years to come. It may
>>even get better if that Logic plugin dropout bug gets fixed someday. ;^)
>>
>>The hardware churn on the MSWindows market has actually been higher over
>>the last few years if you want to stay current. Meanwhile if you look at
>>average resale value I'll bet it's been higher with Macs.
>>
>>If you want to talk about being locked in, that's very much what
>>MSWindows is all about. You're locked into a proprietary OS and the
>>chipsets it supports. And you're supporting a company that was convicted
>>of using its monopoly power to drive other choices
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61537 is a reply to message #61536] |
Sun, 18 December 2005 10:57 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
out of business.
>>Which has left us in a limited choice position as consumers.
>>
>>With the Intel/Athlon boxes you can build your own system from parts, an
>> advantage: On the plus side you can choose the combination of parts
>>you want and the cost of parts may be less than, say, a Dell or Mac
>>system. On the minus side, what is your time worth? Add that in and the
>>cost of your system could easily come up to that of a Dell or Mac, or
>>more if you run into configuration and hardware troubles.
>>
>>Bottom line, there are a limited number of choices available today
>>because we're down to just a few OS choices and chip manufacturers.
>>Choose whichever proprietary system best meets your needs. Choice is
>>good. Narrowing of choices is disturbing.
>>
>>Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>PS. If you spec your system for what you actually need and don't settle
>>for something that falls short _or_ float with the hype of the latest
>>thing, you can get a very long life out of your equipment investments.
>>This is true no matter what type of system you choose.
>>
>>
>>Neil wrote:
>>
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anybody have any thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>The only thing I have against Macs is that - at least with
>>>regard to DAW applications - you're really locked into more
>>>proprietary stuff. Less flexibility... and that's the same thing
>>>I have against PT, now that sonically (at least IMO) the new HD
>>>systems are really quite good. If you need to upgrade your Mac
>>>at some point, you've got buy a whole new one... same thing
>>>with PT - every few years you're forking over another down
>>>payment on a house in order to get a new system just to stay
>>>current.
>>>
>>>Neil
>
>
>"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:43a5a578@linux...
>I seem to be a crash magnet so I'm wondering what crashes you the most in
>Paris?
>
> messing with inserts while recording?
>
> corrupted ppj project files?
>
> streaming errors?
>
> Thanks,
> John
Trying to edit too many objects at one time ARGH!!!!
DonIt would have been a nice feature though had it been possible
Don
"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
news:43a5b128$1@linux...
> EDS rendering never worked, never would/will. The Native effects render
> along as normal system plugs... EDS run off the EDS card, so it's not
> possible since those are realtime CPU's.
> AA
>
> "John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:43a565b0@linux...
>>I was testing rendering and it was doing the natives effects but not the
>>EDS or Paris EQ's. I'm just letting other know who may be wondering.
>>
>> Also, if you want a cool core dump in XP, start a render and then hit
>> CTRL-ALT-DEL and kill Paris. My mistake, I was closing paris and didn't
>> realize the render was still going and it stopped responding. Ka blamo!
>>
>> John
>
>Well the workaround is to patch a external insert loop in the last EDS
insert hole (using spdif or adat) and tap off that into a new track to
record to. I
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61539 is a reply to message #61537] |
Sun, 18 December 2005 11:21 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>> possible since those are realtime CPU's.
>> AA
>>
>> "John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:43a565b0@linux...
>>>I was testing rendering and it was doing the natives effects but not the
>>>EDS or Paris EQ's. I'm just letting other know who may be wondering.
>>>
>>> Also, if you want a cool core dump in XP, start a render and then hit
>>> CTRL-ALT-DEL and kill Paris. My mistake, I was closing paris and
>>> didn't realize the render was still going and it stopped responding. Ka
>>> blamo!
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>
>
>I DO have BOTH Native and EDS plugs rendering if I do the SPDIF trick
which doesn't use the render function. Is there any way to get EQs
also? I would really like a way to render all three.
Thanks
Here's the trick I do with SPDIF:
SPDIF Rendering
--------------------------
Patchbay workaround for bouncing tracks and rendering plugins
Tired of zeroing/clearing a mix to bounce a track or tracks to a new
file? Or wish you could render native plugins while listening and
adjusting in context. No problem.
Open the Patch Bay. Clear all your SPDIF I/O connections. Physically (as
in, on the back of your Paris 442 or MEC) loop your Paris SPDIF in to
your Paris SPDIF out with a short cable. Go back to the Patch Bay.
In the Patch Bay, connect the "Mixer Insert" SEND of the source channel
for the bounce to the left SPDIF output (dL) on your 442 or MEC. Connect
the SPDIF left input (dL) back to the same channel's "Mixer Insert"
Return to complete the loop. Now connect the same left SPDIF output to
the "Submixer Input" of the Destination channel you want to
bounce/record to. Select "External" on the EDS insert on the source channel.
Enable Record on the Destination channel. That's it. Record away. You
can use your mixer normally while you bounce with no ill effect. And in
a case of good fortune, since the EDS inserts are after the native
inserts, any active plugins will be printed while bouncing. Great for
rendering AutoTune or various other plugin settings for different song
sections. For the price of time and disk space, you have unlimited plugins.
Example. You have a track on track 10 and you want to render this to
track 11. In the Patchbay:
Mixer-A channel 11 connects to MEC-Master-A Digital In Left
MEC-Master-A Digital In Left connects to Mixer-A-Insert Return10
MEC-Master-A Digital Out Left connects to Mixer-A-Insert Send10
Select "External" on the EDS insert on the source channel.
Aaron Allen wrote:
> EDS rendering never worked, never would/will. The Native effects render
> along as normal system plugs... EDS run off the EDS card, so it's not
> possible since those are realtime CPU's.
> AA
>
> "John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:43a565b0@linux...
>
>>I was testing rendering and it was doing the natives effects but not the
>>EDS or Paris EQ's. I'm just letting other know who may be wondering.
>>
>>Also, if you want a cool core dump in XP, start a render and then hit
>>CTRL-ALT-DEL and kill Paris. My mistake, I was closing paris and didn't
>>realize the render was still going and it stopped responding. Ka blamo!
>>
>>John
>
>
>Yup, sure is but you'll only do 2 tracks at a time, max. Run it through the
bus as a mixdown muting all other tracks through the submix group or as
individual channels. Take the resultant L/R files and place them in a track.
OR
There is an easier way. Use the Paris VST plugin on a native insert. They
did a fantastic job of emulating the EQ on the port.
AA
"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:43a5d0b1@linux...
>I DO have BOTH Native and EDS plugs rendering if I do the SPDIF trick which
>doesn't use the render function. Is there any way to get EQs also? I
>would really like a way to render all three.
>
> Thanks
>
> Here's the trick I do with SPDIF:
>
>
> SPDIF Rendering
> --------------------------
> Patchbay workaround for bouncing tracks and rendering plugins
>
> Tired of zeroing/clearing a mix to bounce a track or tracks to a new file?
> Or wish you could render native plugins while listening and adjusting in
> context. No problem.
>
> Open the Patch Bay. Clear all your SPDIF I/O connections. Physically (as
> in, on the back of your Paris 442 or MEC) loop your Paris SPDIF in to your
> Paris SPDIF out with a short cable. Go back to the Patch Bay.
>
> In the Patch Bay, connect the "Mixer Insert" SEND of the source channel
> for the bounce to the left SPDIF output (dL) on your 442 or MEC. Connect
> the SPDIF left input (dL) back to the same channel's "Mixer Insert" Return
> to complete the loop. Now connect the same left SPDIF output to the
> "Submixer Input" of the Destination channel you want to bounce/record to.
> Select "External" on the EDS insert on the source channel.
>
> Enable Record on the Destination channel. That's it. Record away. You
> can use your mixer normally while you bounce with no ill effect. And in a
> case of good fortune, since the EDS inserts are after the native inserts,
> any active plugins will be printed while bouncing. Great for rendering
> AutoTune or various other plugin settings for different song sections. For
> the price of time and disk space, you have unlimited plugins.
>
> Example. You have a track on track 10 and you want to render this to
> track 11. In the Patchbay:
> Mixer-A channel 11 connects to MEC-Master-A Digital In Left
> MEC-Master-A Digital In Left connects to Mixer-A-Insert Return10
> MEC-Master-A Digital Out Left connects to Mixer-A-Insert Send10
> Select "External" on the EDS insert on the source channel.
>
>
>
> Aaron Allen wrote:
>> EDS rendering never worked, never would/will. The Native effects render
>> along as normal system plugs... EDS run off the EDS card, so i
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61564 is a reply to message #61563] |
Mon, 19 December 2005 00:30 |
erlilo
Messages: 405
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ve a good wordclock BNC cable running from MEC #1 to MEC #2.
>
> AA
>
>
> "Deadmeat" <scott@postmodernblues.com> wrote in message=20
> news:43a59445$1@linux...
> >
> > Hi all -
> > Been messing with V3 for a bit and noticed a real problem.
> > Testing on a 3-card system, 2 MECs installed (on A and B
> > cards), 2 ADAT and one Sync on MEC A, 1 8-input on MEC B.
> >
> > Can record fine with MIX A, MEC A. Getting no sound at all
> > on any inputs for MEC B, Mix B. Tried to load V2.2, and all
> > is fine - can record on MEC B inputs all day long. When using
> > V3, see input lights on module, but have no meters in mixer
> > and no sound - MEC B syncing to WC fine - plays sound accross
> > all submixes just fine from projects recorded on V2.
> >
> > Any Thoughts?=20
>
>
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
><STYLE></STYLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dead,</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What Aaron says is true. When my =
>system was=20
>three cards with two Mecs</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61576 is a reply to message #61539] |
Mon, 19 December 2005 10:01 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>
> NeilThe
> fact is, it was hurting Apple because they had not grown their market.
Apple
> simply let competitors come in and take sales from them and they didn't
make
> enough on the licensing
This is because the Power Computing and UMax models had higher bus speeds
and consistently kicked Appal'e ass in benchmark tests. They were better
computers, hands down. Mac was going to be my platform of choice until Jobs
pulled this stunt.
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43a6e761$1@linux...
>
> I was a Mac clone dealer, it kind of sucked for me when it happened. The
> fact is, it was hurting Apple because they had not grown their market.
Apple
> simply let competitors come in and take sales from them and they didn't
make
> enough on the licensing. They lost money on the deal. Apple had to do
what
> it needed to do to survive. There is talk again of Apple licensing,
Michael
> Dell has expressed interest. That actually surprises me because of all
the
> bad things he has said in the past about Steve Jobs and Apple, including
> that Apple would be out of business in a couple of years. Guess he was
wrong
> about that one. He has tried to work out a deal to sell Dell versions of
> the iPod, Jobs said no. It's going to be interesting to see what happens
> with Apple products in the first quarter of 2006.
>
> James
>
>
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >DJ wrote:
> >>>My
> >>
> >> dual 2.5GHZ PowerMac does not need replacement even though it's a few
> >> years old. It already does far more real time plugins and tracks than
> I
> >> require and it can keep doing what it does for years to come<
> >>
> >> Unless Steveo decides he needs more cash and obsoletes it tomorrow. It
> >> always amazed me that Bill Gates got such a bad rap even when it was
Jobs
> >> that created a Mac monopoly by yanking the OS licensing from Power
computing
> >> and Umax.
> >
> >I disagreed with the decision to shut down Apple clones, and I have
> >never been discrete about that opinion. We agree. Even though some claim
>
> >Apple would have gone out of business had they not done that, I disagree
>
> >with that analysis.
> >
> >However, Apple does not have a monopoly. "Monopoly" is a very specific
> >legal term. Once you have one, you have to operate under more stringent
>
> >rules. Microsoft achieved a monopoly in the OS market and exploited that
>
> >monopoly illegally to shut down competitors and leverage into new
> >markets. That is bad for consumer choice, bad for companies trying to
> >compete on a level playing field, and illegal.
> >
> >In general, competition is more beneficial to consumers than monopolies
>
> >and so we try to encourage competition. Or at least give it lip service.
> >
> >Steve Jobs cannot obsolete my PowerMac tomorrow. It will continue to do
>
> >what it does now even if he stopped development for it entirely. Which
> >Apple has already stated they will not do even after the transition to
> >Intel processors.
> >
> >Apple transitioned out of OS9 and previous with a long program of
> >emulation so that old, non-hardware dependent programs can still run.
> >OS9 is something I didn't buy into anyway since it was never above my
> >threshold of OS goodness but it's interesting that Apple went to
> >considerable effort to bring the customer base along. Apple has been
> >sticking with OSX for quite a while now with no immediate plans to
> >abandon it.
> >
> >Microsoft also drops support for older OS versions after a time. And
> >they periodically churn their market with new versions. When choosing
> >Microsoft you are not escaping obsolescence or attempts at locking you
in.
> >
> >The next round of Microsoft market churning is coming soon. So you'll be
>
> >able to enjoy the new stuff they've copied from OSX, and maybe some
> >other improvements and proprietary lock-in attempts. :^)
> >
> >Bottom line, we have limited choices now. But we still have a few.
> >Choose what works for you but don't fool yourself. Meanwhile, no matter
>
> >what tools we choose to deal with, and how much time we want to devote
> >to fanboy posts about them, the end results are what matter.
> >
> >Make great music.
> >
> >Cheers,
> > -Jamie
> > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >
> >
> >> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:43a5b143@linux...
> >>
> >>>The case for the most cost effective system is not as clear as you
might
> >>>guess at first, and it will depend on your specific needs.
> >>>
> >>>If you price a Mac compared to, for example, a Dell, I don't think the
> >>>difference in price comes anywhere near the a down payment on a house.
> >>>
> >>>If you look at the average turnover, I would guess it's less with Macs.
> >>>PowerMacs are upgradable with faster display cards, copious amounts of
> >>>RAM, i/o cards on a very fast bus, wireless, firewire and USB2 i/o. My
> >>>dual 2.5GHZ PowerMac does not need replacement even though it's a few
> >>>years old. It already does far more real time plugins and tracks than
> I
> >>>require and it can keep doing what it does for years to come. It may
> >>>even get better if that Logic plugin dropout bug gets fixed someday.
;^)
> >>>
> >>>The hardware churn on the MSWindows market has actually been higher
over
> >>>the last few years if you want to stay current. Meanwhile if you look
> at
> >>>average resale value I'll bet it's been higher with Macs.
> >>>
> >>>If you want to talk about being locked in, that's very much what
> >>>MSWindows is all about. You're locked into a proprietary OS and the
> >>>chipsets it supports. And you're supporting a company that was
convicted
> >>>of using its monopoly power to drive other choices out of business.
> >>>Which has left us in a limited choice position as consumers.
> >>>
> >>>With the Intel/Athlon boxes you can build your own system from parts,
> an
> >>> advantage: On the plus side you can choose the combination of parts
> >>>you want and the cost of parts may be less than, say, a Dell or Mac
> >>>system. On the minus side, what is your time worth? Add that in and the
> >>>cost of your system could easily come up to that of a Dell or Mac, or
> >>>more if you run into configuration and hardware troubles.
> >>>
> >>>Bottom line, there are a limited number of choices available today
> >>>because we're down to just a few OS choices and chip manufacturers.
> >>>Choose whichever proprietary system best meets your needs. Choice is
> >>>good. Narrowing of choices is disturbing.
> >>>
> >>>Cheers,
> >>> -Jamie
> >>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>
> >>>PS. If you spec your syst
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61579 is a reply to message #61576] |
Mon, 19 December 2005 09:30 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
> >>
> >>Lance, I'm really late getting in on this, but I think I experienced this
exact problem...seems eerily similar to what I encountered. I too am on Win98SE
and about a year or so ago, I was rebuilding my system. When I tried adding
a third HD to the system, I crashed. I received a bluescreen message I had
not seen prior to this crash or any other crash for that matter. Upon re-boot,
all of my HD's had been removed and I was not able to recover. I did a full
re-install only to encounter the same problem, at the same point.
In the end, I found that it was actually cable related. I saw earlier that
someone mentioned checking the cables, I would look at this rather closely
as some older cables work fine with devices of that era, but are not compatible
with newer devices. Sorry for the lack of spec detail, but I’m on the go.
Hope this helps!
Tyrone............so you need two mics of the same kind????.........hell man, just
stick the TLM on one side and the CAD on the other and be done with it.
(heheheheh.......I actually did this with a U87 and a Studio Projects C1
once upon a time. Worked fairly OK, sorta', kinda'........maybe ;o)
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:43a6e902$1@linux...
>
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
> >No Neil you want my CAD M9...much warmer and prettier
> >
> >DOn
>
> Well, if I already had 1 CAD M9 I might consider it, but I have
> a TLM-103, and I basically need another LDC pair, which is why
> I'm looking for another -103 (I'd also take another B.L.U.E.
> Kiwi since I have one of those, but I don't know of anyone on
> this group that has one... and also if anyone owns one, I doubt
> they'd be inclined to sell it.)
>
> Neilhmmmm...........if I was going to do a song critique, I'd say that there
probably needs to be fewer than 216 verses before the
chorus.......errr......and somehow I must have missed the bridge???? That
song definitely needs a rewrite before we pitch it to anyone in Nashville.
Kenny Chesney ain't gonna' pick it up unless we figure out a way to get a
steel guitar in there somewhere. Maybe this should just be a barebones
vocal/guitar demo?
;o)
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:43a67ad6$1@linux...
>
>
> Cool tune. It's keeping it real more than most rappers who use the phrase
> keeping it real.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
>
> "justcron" <pachinko@hydrorecords.com> wrote:
> >double A...
> >
> >hehe... for some reason the 80lb dog is often seen running full speed
away
>
> >from the 15lb cat....
> >
> >the studio shooting has definitely hit us hard... bad press... lots of
>
> >discussions about 'snitching' and life imitating art. Personally I
believe
>
> >you live by the sword you die by the sword and you reap what you sow.
> Its
> >a crazy cycle between hip hop (pop culture as a whole) and violence that
> is
> >only getting worse. I definitely fear for the little ones. I was in
toys
>
> >r us and the hip hop shit has trickled down to preschool... the remote
> >control cars are hummers with spinning rims and I even saw Bling Bling
> >Barbie. Argh.
> >
> >Good new local video on topic:
> >http://www.statikselektah.com/media/motionpicturevideo.wmv
> >
> >"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
news:43a5afcd@linux...
> >>I hear there will be a patch for that coming.
> >>
> >> Install Doghatescat patch release 1.01 or you can install the current
>
> >> Alpha release of Kittygetsashowereverytimethishappens.DLL, version
0.85.
>
> >> Some people have tried an alternative, katnip.exe release 3.47 but with
>
> >> mixed results.
> >> Glad to see you posting, we weren't that sure for a bit what was going
>
> >> down in your town with the studio shooting.
> >> AA
> >>
> >>
> >> "justcron" <caffiene@hydrorecords.com> wrote in message
> >> news:43a5a862$1@linux...
> >>>
> >>> hola Juan...
> >>>
> >>> The only thing that crashes me all the time is when my cat jumps up on
>
> >>> the
> >>> desk and walks accross the C-16 :)
> >>>
> >>> John <no@no.com> wrote:
> >>>>I seem to be a crash magnet so I'm wondering what crashes you the most
> >>>>in Paris?
> >>>>
> >>>>messing with inserts while recording?
> >>>>
> >>>>corrupted ppj project files?
> >>>>
> >>>>streaming errors?
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks,
> >>>>John
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>I've found that the PCI slot order often gets reallocated in WinXP - that is
to say, slot 1 under Win98 might become slot 4 under WinXP. If your Paris
2.2 config was running under an earlier version of Windows and this is your
first Paris/WinXP experiment, this could be the issue.
I've had to completely re-identify Card A, B etc under WinXP, and then
rewire the inside sync and serial data cables accordingly (because sync and
serial need to flow from the master card, which gets reassigned).
Sandy
"Deadmeat" <scott@postmodernblues.com> wrote in message
news:43a6d87f$1@linux...
>
> Well, like I said, the system works as is (MECs on A and B)
> with the older 2.2 software, and has been running like that
> for a couple of years - all inputs and outputs producing
> sound without problems. So, I know my clock is good, the
> cards are good, the MECs and interfaces are good. I just
> brought up V2.2 to double check, and recorded using the
> interfaces that don't work with 3.0, so it's definatley
> a 3.0 issue.
>
> When you had to have your MECs on A and C (or E), was that
> with Version 2.2 and 3.0, or just with 3.0? I could try moving
> the MEC to C and see if that fixes it, but I dread making any
> changes at all to a functional (under 2.2) PARIS system......
>
>
> "Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Dead,
>>What Aaron says is true. When my system was three cards with two Mecs
>>I had card A and C attached to the Mecs. Now with five cards it's A and
> =
>>E. =20
>>My ASUS boards like the first and last card when using two Mecs.
>>Tom
>> "Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote in message =
>>news:43a5b0b4$1@linux...
>> Are you sure you have the two 'correct' EDS cards chosen for your =
>>system? I=20
>> know that it gets sketchy pinning down which one, but on my system I =
>>have to=20
>> use card A and C and skip putting a MEC on card B or wierd stuff like
> =
>>this=20
>> happens (another hidden Paris 'feature'). The other thing to check is
> =
>>that=20
>> you have a good wordclock BNC cable running from MEC #1 to MEC #2.
>>
>> AA
>>
>>
>> "Deadmeat" <scott@postmodernblues.com> wrote in message=20
>> news:43a59445$1@linux...
>> >
>> > Hi all -
>> > Been messing with V3 for a bit and noticed a real problem.
>> > Testing on a 3-card system, 2 MECs installed (on A and B
>> > cards), 2 ADAT and one Sync on MEC A, 1 8-input on MEC B.
>> >
>> > Can record fine with MIX A, MEC A. Getting no sound at all
>> > on any inputs for MEC B, Mix B. Tried to load V2.2, and all
>> > is fine - can record on MEC B inputs all day long. When using
>> > V3, see input lights on module, but have no meters in mixer
>> > and no sound - MEC B syncing to WC fine - plays sound accross
>> > all submixes just fine from projects recorded on V2.
>> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61591 is a reply to message #61579] |
Mon, 19 December 2005 11:27 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>>
>> >>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Anybody have any thoughts?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The only thing I have against Macs is that - at least with
>> >>>>regard to DAW applications - you're really locked into more
>> >>>>proprietary stuff. Less flexibility... and that's the same thing
>> >>>>I have against PT, now that sonically (at least IMO) the new HD
>> >>>>systems are really quite good. If you need to upgrade your Mac
>> >>>>at some point, you've got buy a whole new one... same thing
>> >>>>with PT - every few years you're forking over another down
>> >>>>payment on a house in order to get a new system just to stay
>> >>>>current.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Neil
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>
>YEAH!!!!........damn dude.......you nailed it!!!
Glad you're OK BTW. Stay safe up there and scratch your dobie behind the
ears once for me.
;o)
"justcron" <pachinko@hydrorecords.com> wrote in message
news:43a6f6d0$1@linux...
> more cowbell
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:43a6f459@linux...
> > hmmmm...........if I was going to do a song critique, I'd say that there
> > probably needs to be fewer than 216 verses before the
> > chorus.......errr......and somehow I must have missed the bridge????
That
> > song definitely needs a rewrite before we pitch it to anyone in
Nashville.
> > Kenny Chesney ain't gonna' pick it up unless we figure out a way to get
a
> > steel guitar in there somewhere. Maybe this should just be a barebones
> > vocal/guitar demo?
> >
> > ;o)
> >
> > "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43a67ad6$1@linux...
> >>
> >>
> >> Cool tune. It's keeping it real more than most rappers who use the
phrase
> >> keeping it real.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Kim.
> >>
> >> "justcron" <pachinko@hydrorecords.com> wrote:
> >> >double A...
> >> >
> >> >hehe... for some reason the 80lb dog is often seen running full speed
> > away
> >>
> >> >from the 15lb cat....
> >> >
> >> >the studio shooting has definitely hit us hard... bad press... lots
of
> >>
> >> >discussions about 'snitching' and life imitating art. Personally I
> > believe
> >>
> >> >you live by the sword you die by the sword and you reap what you sow.
> >> Its
> >> >a crazy cycle between hip hop (pop culture as a whole) and violence
that
> >> is
> >> >only getting worse. I definitely fear for the little ones. I was in
> > toys
> >>
> >> >r us and the hip hop shit has trickled down to preschool... the remote
> >> >control cars are hummers with spinning rims and I even saw Bling Bling
> >> >Barbie. Argh.
> >> >
> >> >Good new local video on topic:
> >> >http://www.statikselektah.com/media/motionpicturevideo.wmv
> >> >
> >> >"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
> > news:43a5afcd@linux...
> >> >>I hear there will be a patch for that coming.
> >> >>
> >> >> Install Doghatescat patch release 1.01 or you can install the
current
> >>
> >> >> Alpha release of Kittygetsashowereverytimethishappens.DLL, version
> > 0.85.
> >>
> >> >> Some people have tried an alternative, katnip.exe release 3.47 but
> >> >> with
> >>
> >> >> mixed results.
> >> >> Glad to see you posting, we weren't that sure for a bit what was
going
> >>
> >> >> down in your town with the studio shooting.
> >> >> AA
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "justcron" <caffiene@hydrorecords.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:43a5a862$1@linux...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> hola Juan...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The only thing that crashes me all the time is when my cat jumps up
> >> >>> on
> >>
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> desk and walks accross the C-16 :)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> John <no@no.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>I seem to be a crash magnet so I'm wondering what crashes you the
> >> >>>>most
> >> >>>>in Paris?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>messing with inserts while recording?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>corrupted ppj project files?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>streaming errors?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Thanks,
> >> >>>>John
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>> Jobs pulled Apple back from the brink of death. Remember no Apple, no
clones.
Yeah..........but it still pissed me off because I wanted choices. Having
Apple as the sole source of Mac was no choice at all and just seemed to me
like a Microsoft tactic and very hypocritical considering the crap that was
being spewed about Microsoft at the time.
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43a6fb78$1@linux...
>
> Jobs pulled Apple back from the brink of death. Remember no Apple, no
clones.
> Apple has done great under Steve Jobs command as CEO, and will continue
> to do so, regardless of what idiots like MontlyFools try to bullshit us.
> It's hard to argue with success!
>
> James
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> >The
> >> fact is, it was hurting Apple because they had not grown their market.
> >Apple
> >> simply let competitors come in and take sales from them and they didn't
> >make
> >> enough on the licensing
> >
> >This is because the Power Computing and UMax models had higher bus speeds
> >and consistently kicked Appal'e ass in benchmark tests. They were better
> >computers, hands down. Mac was going to be my platform of choice until
Jobs
> >pulled this stunt.
> >
> >
> >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:43a6e761$1@linux...
> >>
> >> I was a Mac clone dealer, it kind of sucked for me when it happened.
> The
> >> fact is, it was hurting Apple because they had not grown their market.
> >Apple
> >> simply let competitors come in and take sales from them and they didn't
> >make
> >> enough on the licensing. They lost money on the deal. Apple had to do
> >what
> >> it needed to do to survive. There is talk again of Apple licensing,
> >Michael
> >> Dell has expressed interest. That actually surprises me because of all
> >the
> >> bad things he has said in the past about Steve Jobs and Apple,
including
> >> that Apple would be out of business in a couple of years. Guess he was
> >wrong
> >> about that one. He has tried to work out a deal to sell Dell versions
> of
> >> the iPod, Jobs said no. It's going to be interesting to see what
happens
> >> with Apple products in the first quarter of 2006.
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >> >DJ wrote:
> >> >>>My
> >> >>
> >> >> dual 2.5GHZ PowerMac does not need replacement even though it's a
few
> >> >> years old. It already does far more real time plugins and tracks
than
> >> I
> >> >> require and it can keep doing what it does for years to come<
> >> >>
> >> >> Unless Steveo decides he needs more cash and obsoletes it tomorrow.
> It
> >> >> always amazed me that Bill Gates got such a bad rap even when it was
> >Jobs
> >> >> that created a Mac monopoly by yanking the OS licensing from Power
> >computing
> >> >> and Umax.
> >> >
> >> >I disagreed with the decision to shut down Apple clones, and I have
> >> >never been discre
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61593 is a reply to message #61591] |
Mon, 19 December 2005 10:30 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;> advantage: On the plus side you can choose the combination of
parts
> >> >>>you want and the cost of parts may be less than, say, a Dell or Mac
> >> >>>system. On the minus side, what is your time worth? Add that in and
> the
> >> >>>cost of your system could easily come up to that of a Dell or Mac,
> or
> >> >>>more if you run into configuration and hardware troubles.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Bottom line, there are a limited number of choices available today
> >> >>>because we're down to just a few OS choices and chip manufacturers.
> >> >>>Choose whichever proprietary system best meets your needs. Choice is
> >> >>>good. Narrowing of choices is disturbing.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Cheers,
> >> >>> -Jamie
> >> >>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >> >>>
> >> >>>PS. If you spec your system for what you actually need and don't
settle
> >> >>>for something that falls short _or_ float with the hype of the
latest
> >> >>>thing, you can get a very long life out of your equipment
investments.
> >> >>>This is true no matter what type of system you choose.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Neil wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>Anybody have any thoughts?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>The only thing I have against Macs is that - at least with
> >> >>>>regard to DAW applications - you're really locked into more
> >> >>>>proprietary stuff. Less flexibility... and that's the same thing
> >> >>>>I have against PT, now that sonically (at least IMO) the new HD
> >> >>>>systems are really quite good. If you need to upgrade your Mac
> >> >>>>at some point, you've got buy a whole new one... same thing
> >> >>>>with PT - every few years you're forking over another down
> >> >>>>payment on a house in order to get a new system just to stay
> >> >>>>current.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Neil
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >
> >Aren't they like a thousand bucks apiece? If I wanted to spend
that much right now, I'd get a single Kiwi off e-bay for $1,200
to $1,600 to pair with my current one & save a few hundred in
the process.
Right now I'd like to spend $500 or $600 range for a decent used
TLM-103 that someone might not be putting to good use.
Neil
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>If'n I was going to buy a pair of LDC's right now, I'd be looking really
>hard at a pair of SE Titans. These multipattern mics are really nice. After
>using SE3's, an SE Gemini and a Titan on projects here, I really want to
try
>their multipattern tube mic.......the 5600 I think it's called. I know SE
>doesn't have the *name* thing going, but the mics are friggin awesome. I
>remember swapping you the C1 I was using for an old SE 2000 a few years
>back. You oughta try their new stuff. Morgan has a demo program going for
>these.
>
>I'm going to be posting some clips up this week of an acoustic guitar
>recorded on a pair of SE3's and a Titan and a dobro recorded on a Gemini.
>
>
>
>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:43a6f742$1@linux...
>>
>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >...........so you need two mics of the same kind????.........hell man,
>just
>> >stick the TLM on one side and the CAD on the other and be done with it.
>>
>> Not EXACTLY the effect I'm looking for. lol
>>
>> I have one LDC pair (Baby Bottles), but ideally I'd like another
>> for some variety.
>>
>> I know you REALLY hate the SP-modded -87 you have... if you had
>> two I'd be happy to pick those up from you
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Neil
>
>I'm trying to remember the exact scenario but basically it allowed Brian to
process and record in real time vocal parts through auto tune...could be
used for other things.
I'll see if I can find the trick and post it for you as my brain just
doesn't want to cooperate today
DOn
"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:43a6fb18@linux...
> ok, so what's the trick?
>
> Rod Lincoln wrote:
>> Don, 8 is the limit if you have 1 mec and 1 adat card. 16 if you have at
>> least
>> 2 mec's and 4 adat cards. If you have no adat cards, then 2, using spdif.
>>
>> Rod "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi All
>>>
>>>Is there a limit to the # of tracks that can be sent via the external
>>>loop
>>
>>
>>>(hardwired) tip that Brian used on his Auto tune trick segment...I'm not
>>
>> at
>>>my rig and I was just wondering
>>>
>>>Don
>>>
>>I hear ya, I was disappointed at the time too. I think there will be more
choices in the future because of the switch to intel. I was vary disappointed
when Jobs went with NeXT over BeOS. I think they should have bought both
of them. I guess he went with his own horse.
James
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>> Jobs pulled Apple back from the brink of death. Remember no Apple, no
>clones.
>
>Yeah..........but it still pissed me off because I wanted choices. Having
>Apple as the sole source of Mac was no choice at all and just seemed to
me
>like a Microsoft tactic and very hypocritical considering the crap that
was
>being spewed about Microsoft at the time.
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:43a6fb78$1@linux...
>>
>> Jobs pulled Apple back from the brink of death. Remember no Apple, no
>clones.
>> Apple has done great under Steve Jobs command as CEO, and will continue
>> to do so, regardless of what idiots like MontlyFools try to bullshit us.
>> It's hard to argue with success!
>>
>> James
>>
>> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >The
>> >> fact is, it was hurting Apple because they had not grown their market.
>> >Apple
>> >> simply let competitors come in and take sales from them and they didn't
>> >make
>> >> enough on the licensing
>> >
>> >This is because the Power Computing and UMax models had higher bus speeds
>> >and consistently kicked Appal'e ass in benchmark tests. They were better
>> >computers, hands down. Mac was going to be my platform of choice until
>Jobs
>> >pulled this stunt.
>> >
>> >
>> >"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:43a6e761$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >> I was a Mac clone dealer, it kind of sucked for me when it happened.
>> The
>> >> fact is, it was hurting Apple because they had not grown their market.
>> >Apple
>> >> simply let competitors come in and take sales from them and they didn't
>> >make
>> >> enough on the licensing. They lost money on the deal. Apple had to
do
>> >what
>> >> it needed to do to survive. There is talk again of Apple licensing,
>> >Michael
>> >> Dell has expressed interest. That actually surprises me because of
all
>> >the
>> >> bad things he has said in the past about Steve Jobs and Apple,
>including
>> >> that Apple would be out of business in a couple of years. Guess he
was
>> >wrong
>> >> about that one. He has tried to work out a deal to sell Dell versions
>> of
>> >> the iPod, Jobs said no. It's going to be interesting to see what
>happens
>> >> with Apple products in the first quarter of 2006.
>> >>
>> >> James
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> >> >DJ wrote:
>> >> >>>My
>> >> >>
>> >> >> dual 2.5GHZ PowerMac does not need replacement even though it's
a
>few
>> >> >> years old. It already does far more real time plugins and tracks
>than
>> >> I
>> >> >> require and it can keep doing what it does for years to come<
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Unless Steveo decides he needs more cash and obsoletes it tomorrow.
>> It
>> >> >> always amazed me that Bill Gates got such a bad rap even when it
was
>> >Jobs
>> >> >> that created a Mac monopoly by yanking the OS licensing from Power
>> >computing
>> >> >> and Umax.
>> >> >
>> >> >I disagreed with the decision to shut down Apple clones, and I have
>> >> >never been discrete about that opinion. We agree. Even though some
>claim
>> >>
>> >> >Apple would have gone out of business had they not done that, I
>disagree
>> >>
>> >> >with that analysis.
>> >> >
>> >> >However, Apple does not have a monopoly. "Monopoly" is a very specific
>> >> >legal term. Once you have one, you have to operate under more
>stringent
>> >>
>> >> >rules. Microsoft achieved a monopoly in the OS market and exploited
>that
>> >>
>> >> >monopoly illegally to shut down competitors and leverage into new
>> >> >markets. That is bad for consumer choice, bad for companies trying
to
>> >> >compete on a level playing field, and illegal.
>> >> >
>> >> >In general, competition is more beneficial to consumers than
>monopolies
>> >>
>> >> >and so we try to encourage competition. Or at least give it lip
>service.
>> >> >
>> >> >Steve Jobs cannot obsolete my PowerMac tomorrow. It will continue
to
>> do
>> >>
>> >> >what it does now even if he stopped development for it entirely. Which
>> >>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61596 is a reply to message #61593] |
Mon, 19 December 2005 11:52 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
rs to come. It
may
>> >> >>>even get better if that Logic plugin dropout bug gets fixed someday.
>> >;^)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>The hardware churn on the MSWindows market has actually been higher
>> >over
>> >> >>>the last few years if you want to stay current. Meanwhile if you
>look
>> >> at
>> >> >>>average resale value I'll bet it's been higher with Macs.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>If you want to talk about being locked in, that's very much what
>> >> >>>MSWindows is all about. You're locked into a proprietary OS and
the
>> >> >>>chipsets it supports. And you're supporting a company that was
>> >convicted
>> >> >>>of using its monopoly power to drive other choices out of business.
>> >> >>>Which has left us in a limited choice position as consumers.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>With the Intel/Athlon boxes you can build your own system from
>parts,
>> >> an
>> >> >>> advantage: On the plus side you can choose the combination of
>parts
>> >> >>>you want and the cost of parts may be less than, say, a Dell or
Mac
>> >> >>>system. On the minus side, what is your time worth? Add that in
and
>> the
>> >> >>>cost of your system could easily come up to that of a Dell or Mac,
>> or
>> >> >>>more if you run into configuration and hardware troubles.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Bottom line, there are a limited number of choices available today
>> >> >>>because we're down to just a few OS choices and chip manufacturers.
>> >> >>>Choose whichever proprietary system best meets your needs. Choice
is
>> >> >>>good. Narrowing of choices is disturbing.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Cheers,
>> >> >>> -Jamie
>> >> >>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>PS. If you spec your system for what you actually need and don't
>settle
>> >> >>>for something that falls short _or_ float with the hype of the
>latest
>> >> >>>thing, you can get a very long life out of your equipment
>investments.
>> >> >>>This is true no matter what type of system you choose.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Neil wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>Anybody have any thoughts?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>The only thing I have against Macs is that - at least with
>> >> >>>>regard to DAW applications - you're really locked into more
>> >> >>>>proprietary stuff. Less flexibility... and that's the same thing
>> >> >>>>I have against PT, now that sonically (at least IMO) the new HD
>> >> >>>>systems are really quite good. If you need to upgrade your Mac
>> >> >>>>at some point, you've got buy a whole new one... same thing
>> >> >>>>with PT - every few years you're forking over another down
>> >> >>>>payment on a house in order to get a new system just to stay
>> >> >>>>current.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Neil
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>I was annoyed with Apple also.
Which in no way excuses Microsoft, their crap was criminal behavior
which crushed innovation.
Apple's crap was stupid behavior which alienated potential customers
like you and me while apparently trying, from their point of view, to
survive Microsoft's crap. Which they did.
But between Microsoft's crap and Apple's mistakes, Apple lost a lot of
market share and only recently has begun to earn some of it back. Would
Apple now be gone had they not gone all control freak? Dunno.
They've had to work pretty hard to make their strategy work, including
creating much better hardware and software and branching out into
content distribution and the hardware to do it. In short, they've had to
innovate and become competitive. It hasn't all been pretty. But at this
point they have an impressive product and a clear growth path.
Whether Apple has earned another chance from you is up to you. Whether
Microsoft deserves your support is also up to you.
Linux is a much better choice if you don't like supporting a
control-freak, market protecting, obsolescence churning strategies.
Especially if you are of a mind to contribute development time yourself;
perhaps the closest to freedom from "crap" currently available.
Cheers,
-Jamie
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
>>Jobs pulled Apple back from the brink of death. Remember no Apple, no
>
> clones.
>
> Yeah..........but it still pissed me off because I wanted choices. Having
> Apple as the sole source of Mac was no choice at all and just seemed to me
> like a Microsoft tactic and very hypocritical considering the crap that was
> being spewed about Microsoft at the time.
>
> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43a6fb78$1@linux...
>
>>Jobs pulled Apple back from the brink of death. Remember no Apple, no
>
> clones.
>
>> Apple has done great under Steve Jobs command as CEO, and will continue
>>to do so, regardless of what idiots like MontlyFools try to bullshit us.
>> It's hard to argue with success!
>>
>>James
>>
>>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The
>>>
>>>>fact is, it was hurting Apple because they had not grown their market.
>>>
>>>Apple
>>>
>>>>simply let competitors come in and take sales from them and they didn't
>>>
>>>make
>>>
>>>>enough on the licensing
>>>
>>>This is because the Power Computing and UMax models had higher bus speeds
>>>and consistently kicked Appal'e ass in benchmark tests. They were better
>>>computers, hands down. Mac was going to be my platform of choice until
>
> Jobs
>
>>>pulled this stunt.
>>>
>>>
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:43a6e761$1@linux...
>>>
>>>>I was a Mac clone dealer, it kind of sucked for me when it happened.
>>
>>The
>>
>>>>fact is, it was hurting Apple because they had not grown their market.
>>>
>>>Apple
>>>
>>>>simply let competitors come in and take sales from them and they didn't
>>>
>>>make
>>>
>>>>enough on the licensing. They lost money on the deal. Apple had to do
>>>
>>>what
>>>
>>>>it needed to do to survive. There is talk again of Apple licensing,
>>>
>>>Michael
>>>
>>>>Dell has expressed interest. That actually surprises me because of all
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>bad things he has said in the past about Steve Jobs and Apple,
>
> including
>
>>>>that Apple would be out of business in a couple of years. Guess he was
>>>
>>>wrong
>>>
>>>>about that one. He has tried to work out a deal to sell Dell versions
>>
>>of
>>
>>>>the iPod, Jobs said no. It's going to be interesting to see what
>
> happens
>
>>>>with Apple products in the first quarter of 2006.
>>>>
>>>>James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>DJ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>My
>>>>>>
>>>>>>dual 2.5GHZ PowerMac does not need replacement even though it's a
>
> few
>
>>>>>>years old. It already does far more real time plugins and tracks
>
> than
>
>>>>I
>>>>
>>>>>>require and it can keep doing what it does for years to come<
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unless Steveo decides he needs more cash and obsoletes it tomorrow.
>>
>>It
>>
>>>>>>always amazed me that Bill Gates got such a bad rap even when it was
>>>
>>>Jobs
>>>
>>>>>>that created a Mac monopoly by yanking the OS licensing from Power
>>>
>>>computing
>>>
>>>>>>and Umax.
>>>>>
>>>>>I disagreed with the decision to shut down Apple clones, and I have
>>>>>never been discrete about that opinion. We agree. Even though some
>
> claim
>
>>>>>Apple would have gone out of business had they not done that, I
>
> disagree
>
>>>>>with that analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, Apple does not have a monopoly. "Monopoly" is a very specific
>>>>>legal term. Once you have one, you have to operate under more
>
> stringent
>
>>>>>rules. Microsoft achieved a monopoly in the OS market and exploited
>
> that
>
>>>>>monopoly illegally to shut down competitors and leverage into new
>>>>>markets. That is bad for consumer choice, bad for companies trying to
>>>>>compete on a level playing field, and illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>>In general, competition is more beneficial to consumers than
>
> monopolies
>
>>>>>and so we try to encourage competition. Or at least give it lip
>
> service.
>
>>>>>Steve Jobs cannot obsolete my PowerMac tomorrow. It will continue to
>>
>>do
>>
>>>>>what it does now even if he stopped development for it entirely. Which
>>>>>Apple has already stated they will not do even after the transition to
>>>>>Intel processors.
>>>>>
>>>>>Apple transitioned out of OS9 and previous with a long program of
>>>>>emulation so that old, non-hardware dependent programs can still run.
>>>>>OS9 is something I didn't buy into anyway since it was never above my
>>>>>threshold of OS goodness but it's interesting that Apple went to
>>>>>considerable effort to bring the customer base along. Apple has been
>>>>>sticking with OSX for quite a while now with no immediate plans to
>>>>>abandon it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Microsoft also drops support for older OS versions after a time. And
>>>>>they periodically churn their market with new versions. When choosing
>>>>>Microsoft you are not escaping obsolescence or attempts at locking you
>>>
>>>in.
>>>
>>>>>The next round of Microsoft market churning is coming soon. So you'll
>>
>>be
>>
>>>>>able to enjoy the new stuff they've copied from OSX, and maybe some
>>>>>other improvements and proprietary lock-in attempts. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>>Bottom line, we have limited choices now. But we still have a few.
>>>>>Choose what works for you but don't fool yourself. Meanwhile, no
>
> matter
>
>>>>>what tools we choose to deal with, and how much time we want to devote
>>>>>to fanboy posts about them, the end results are what matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>Make great music.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mucking up the thread [message #61597 is a reply to message #61593] |
Mon, 19 December 2005 10:58 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"_blank">http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>news:43a5b143@linux...
>>>
>>>>>>>The case for the most cost effective system is not as clear as you
>>>
>>>might
>>>
>>>>>>>guess at first, and it will depend on your specific needs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you price a Mac compared to, for example, a Dell, I don't think
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>>>>difference in price comes anywhere near the a down payment on a
>
> house.
>
>>>>>>>If you look at the average turnover, I would guess it's less with
>
> Macs.
>
>>>>>>>PowerMacs are upgradable with faster display cards, copious amounts
>>
>>of
>>
>>>>>>>RAM, i/o cards on a very fast bus, wireless, firewire and USB2 i/o.
>>
>>My
>>
>>>>>>>dual 2.5GHZ PowerMac does not need replacement even though it's a
>
> few
>
>>>>>>>years old. It already does far more real time plugins and tracks
>
> than
>
>>>>I
>>>>
>>>>>>>require and it can keep doing what it does for years to come. It may
>>>>>>>even get better if that Logic plugin dropout bug gets fixed someday.
>>>
>>>;^)
>>>
>>>>>>>The hardware churn on the MSWindows market has actually been higher
>>>
>>>over
>>>
>>>>>>>the last few years if you want to stay current. Meanwhile if you
>
> look
>
>>>>at
>>>>
>>>>>>>average resale value I'll bet it's been higher with Macs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you want to talk about being locked in, that's very much what
>>>>>>>MSWindows is all about. You're locked into a proprietary OS and the
>>>>>>>chipsets it supports. And you're supporting a company that was
>>>
>>>convicted
>>>
>>>>>>>of using its monopoly power to drive other choices out of business.
>>>>>>>Which has left us in a limited choice position as consumers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>With the Intel/Athlon boxes you can build your own system from
>
> parts,
>
>>>>an
>>>>
>>>>>>> advantage: On the plus side you can choose the combination of
>
> parts
>
>>>>>>>you want and the cost of parts may be less than, say, a Dell or Mac
>>>>>>>system. On the minus side, what is your time worth? Add that in and
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>>>>cost of your system could easily come up to that of a Dell or Mac,
>>
>>or
>>
>>>>>>>more if you run into configuration and hardware troubles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bottom line, there are a limited number of choices available today
>>>>>>>because we're down to just a few OS choices and chip manufacturers.
>>>>>>>Choose whichever proprietary system best meets your needs. Choice is
>>>>>>>good. Narrowing of choices is disturbing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PS. If you spec your system for what you actually need and don't
>
> settle
>
>>>>>>>for something that falls short _or_ float with the hype of the
>
> latest
>
>>>>>>>thing, you can get a very long life out of your equipment
>
> investments.
>
>>>>>>>This is true no matter what type of system you choose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Anybody have any thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The only thing I have against Macs is that - at least with
>>>>>>>>regard to DAW applications - you're really locked into more
>>>>>>>>proprietary stuff. Less flexibility... and that's the same thing
>>>>>>>>I have against PT, now that sonically (at least IMO) the new HD
>>>>>>>>systems are really quite good. If you need to upgrade your Mac
>>>>>>>>at some point, you've got buy a whole new one... same thing
>>>>>>>>with PT - every few years you're forking over another down
>>>>>>>>payment on a house in order to get a new system just to stay
>>>>>>>>current.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Neil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>
>Ok, so for Christmas I ordered a new Western Digital SATA 250Gig hard drive
for my son's PC (that I, the Mac guy, actually help him build last summer!).
Anyway, I thought what the heck, as long as I'm getting him one, I might as
well get myself one for my new Mac G5 for a second internal drive. So the
drives arrive from NewEgg and I install one in my new Mac (which, by the
way, is the easiest hard drive install scheme I've ever seen). I turn the
Mac on, but no new hard drive to be found. I restart and still no drive. I
shut down, double check all my connections, and try again. This time I get a
dialog box saying the hard drive needs to be formatted. Ok, now we're in
business. I run Mac Disk Tools to format the drive and it freezes about half
way through. I exit Disk Tools and look for the drive to try again. I can
see the drive, but Disc Tools now tells me that S.M.A.R.T. is not supported
for that drive (which I know is not true) and that the total capacity is
0kb. I can't repair, format, partition, anything. So now I think, this hard
drive is screwy. I take the other one I was going to give to my son and
install it. Nothing but a nice loud rhythmic knocking noise issues fourth
from this drive. TWO DOA HARD DRIVES! This can't be true. Something must be
wrong with my new Mac? Say it isn't so! Now I'm on a mission. I have my son
take his Western Digital SATA from his PC so I can see if my G5 recognizes
it. Install his drive and boom, it pops right up on the Mac desktop and I
can see all his files and folders, etc. So now I've got two DOA WD hard
drives to return to NewEgg. BUMMER! The reason I bought Western Digital is
because I've had such great luck with them in the past. Now I'm totally
spooked. These are going back for a refund and I'm ordering two Seagate's
instead.
Sorry for the long post. I just need to rant a bit.
TonyIt's really a trick, just patching to bounce autotune in manual mode..
If your track to be tuned is on track 1, put autotune on an insert. Select
"external" on the eds insert. Assuming your using mec A spdif, in the Paris
batchbay, patch the "Mixer A insert" output of track 1 (green arrows Bottom
row) to Mec Master digital out L or R. Then Patch the Mec Master Digital
In L or R (use same as before)to the insert "in" (brown, top)of mixer A insert.
ALSO patch the Mec Master digital in (brown, same as above)
to track 2 of Mixer A.
Mute track 1. record inable track 2. You might want to also change the input
monitor to "Always monitor input' in the Project window, but you don't have
to. you just won't hear anything unless your recording.
NEXT STEP VERY IMPORTANT:
you MUST make a physical connection (with a real spdif cable) from the spdif
out to the spdif in on the Mec. Now you can autotune away and bounce your
newly tuned track to track 2.
You can use the adat connections the same way as the spdif. Just make sure
to loop the lightpipe cable from the in to the out on the back of the adat
card.
Rod
John <no@no.com> wrote:
>ok, so what's the trick?
>
>Rod Lincoln wrote:
>> Don, 8 is the limit if you have 1 mec and 1 adat card. 16 if you have
at least
>> 2 mec's and 4 adat cards. If you have no adat cards, then 2, using spdif.
>>
>> Rod
>> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi All
>>>
>>>Is there a limit to the # of tracks that can be sent via the external
loop
>>
>>
>>>(hardwired) tip that Brian used on his Auto tune trick segment...I'm not
>>
>> at
>>
>>>my rig and I was just wondering
>>>
>>>Don
>>>
>>>
>>
>>So you're trying to be frugal and reasonable eh?..............but don't you
need multipatterns so you set it to fif8 can aim one side at the singer and
the other side at a bass amp 30 feet away?
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:43a6fe38$1@linux...
>
> Aren't they like a thousand bucks apiece? If I wanted to spend
> that much right now, I'd get a single Kiwi off e-bay for $1,200
> to $1,600 to pair with my current one & save a few hundred in
> the process.
>
> Right now I'd like to spend $500 or $600 range for a decent used
> TLM-103 that someone might not be putting to good use.
>
> Neil
>
>
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> >If'n I was going to buy a pair of LDC's right now, I'd be looking really
> >hard at a pair of SE Titans. These multipattern mics are really nice.
After
> >using SE3's, an SE Gemini and a Titan on projects here, I really want to
> try
> >their multipattern tube mic.......the 5600 I think it's called. I know SE
> >doesn't have the *name* thing going, but the mics are friggin awesome. I
> >remember swapping you the C1 I was using for an old SE 2000 a few years
> >back. You oughta try their new stuff. Morgan has a demo program going for
> >these.
> >
> >I'm going to be posting some clips up this week of an acoustic guitar
> >recorded on a pair of SE3's and a Titan and a dobro recorded on a Gemini.
> >
> >
> >
> >"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:43a6f742$1@linux...
> >>
> >> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> >> >...........so you need two mics of the same kind????.........hell man,
> >just
> >> >stick the TLM on one side and the CAD on the other and be done with
it.
> >>
> >> Not EXACTLY the effect I'm looking for. lol
> >>
> >> I have one LDC pair (Baby Bottles), but ideally I'd like another
> >> for some variety.
> >>
> >> I know you REALLY hate the SP-modded -87 you have... if you had
> >> two I'd be happy to pick those up from you
> >>
> >> :)
> >>
> >> Neil
> >
> >
>Nope - Same OS (WinXP) for 2.2 and 3.0. Both versions
are installed at the moment on the same machine, so I
can A/B the results. 2.2 works fine, 3.0 exibits the problem.
"Sandy Tipping" <tippsand@earthling.net> wrote:
>I've found that the PCI slot order often gets reallocated in WinXP - that
is
>to say, slot 1 under Win98 might become slot 4 under WinXP. If your Paris
>2.2 config was running under an earlier version of Windows and this is your
>first Paris/WinXP experiment, this could be the issue.
>I've had to completely re-identify Card A, B etc under WinXP, and then
>rewire the inside sync and serial data cables accordingly (because sync
and
>serial need to flow from the master card, which gets reassigned).
>
>Sandy
>"Deadmeat" <scott@postmodernblues.com> wrote in message
>news:43a6d87f$1@linux...
>>
>> Well, like I said, the system works as is (MECs on A and B)
>> with the older 2.2 software, and has been running like that
>> for a couple of years - all inputs and outputs producing
>> sound without problems. So, I know my clock is good, the
>> cards are good, the MECs and interfaces are good. I just
>> brought up V2.2 to double check, and recorded using the
>> interfaces that don't work with 3.0, so it's definatley
>> a 3.0 issue.
>>
>> When you had to have your MECs on A and C (or E), was that
>> with Version 2.2 and 3.0, or just with 3.0? I could try moving
>> the MEC to C and see if that fixes it, but I dread making any
>> changes at all to a functional (under 2.2) PARIS system......
>>
>>
>> "Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Dead,
>>>What Aaron says is true. When my system was three cards with two Mecs
>>>I had card A and C attached to the Mecs. Now with five cards it's A and
>> =
>>>E. =20
>>>My ASUS boards like the first and last card when using two Mecs.
>>>Tom
>>> "Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote in message =
>>>news:43a5b0b4$1@linux...
>>> Are you sure you have the two 'correct' EDS cards chosen for your =
>>>system? I=20
>>> know that it gets sketchy pinning down which one, but on my system I
=
>>>have to=20
>>> use card A and C and skip putting a MEC on card B or wierd stuff
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 30 08:06:58 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03173 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
