Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Track Counts in Native Systems?
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76631 is a reply to message #76623] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 11:09   |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That sounds like fun! It's nice to hear about the magic making side of
your experience. The highest end gear in your studio walks in on legs.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> The Cubase editor works for me because I usually end up arranging the songs
> during the mix. We have a bunch of drop-dead, unbelievable musicians here.
> One of my session players, Gary Cook has been voted national flatpicking
> champion and mandolin god of the universe at quite a few festival venues.
> There are others around here who are at that level, fiddle players,
> dobroists, pianists, etc. We're talking Nashville session player level. Gary
> is buddies with Tony Rice and a bunch of that crew in Tennessee and has
> hangs with/records with Charlie Daniels and his band quite a bit (no
> slouches in that band). Our pianist was Toby Keiths pianist for many years
> and has a lot of Nashville session experience. these guys can just walk in
> the door and create magic. What my partner and I do a lot of here is get a
> guitar/vocal track happening to some kind of simple rythym/click-I usually
> use Groove Agent. Then we bring in a bass player and drummer and nail down
> the rythym section. After that we bring in the rest of the players. We
> usually have arrangements for them and they are rehearsed so there is a
> general direction this should go and these guys are good so we can usually
> get the basics down PDQ........but then the fun starts because these guys
> are mostly disgustingly egotistical virtuosos so we just turn them loose and
> let them go nuts all over the basic arrangement until they wear themselves
> out. Once all of this mayhem is finished, the comping starts. 90% of the
> noodling around gets shitcanned but the other 10% is golden and comes
> directly from the freedom we give these guys to have fun. My job is usually
> to integrate these snippets into the song as hooks or whatever and arrange
> everything so that it integrates well. I'll grab a cool lick on a guitar, a
> cool lick on a fiddle or mando or whatever and make a hook out of it, find a
> part of another instrument that counterpoints it and go to town. The Cubase
> editor works extremely well for this and if I need to pitch a note up or
> down a cent or two to achieve a nice harmonic between two instruments in a
> solo or whatever, then it's done quickly. Also, the fadesins/outs between
> tracks are so easily managed as well as basic gain changes, rendering of FX
> (if desired), etc. It has just spoiled me rotten. I just find it much
> easier/more intuitive than the Paris editor.
> ;o)
>
>
> "Neil" <IOUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4571bbb9$1@linux...
>> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>>> but it's
>>> pretty hard to beat Cubase for VST integration and editing
>> Deej, I've seen you rave about the Cubase editing features a
>> lot... what kind of editing do you find yourself doing? The
>> reason I ask is that any editing I have to do is pretty much
>> simple stuff like crossfading punches, moving the xfades around
>> so they're in the least noticeable place, the occasional snip
>> to get rid of an extraneous string noise or vocal artifact
>> ("hack!, mmmmrgh, AHEM!") lol; and that's about it, really...
>> am I missing the boat on something really cool here with regard
>> to more enhanced editing capabilities?
>>
>> Neil
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76632 is a reply to message #76631] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 11:25 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It's funny Jamie. I've always been able to pick up an inanimate object and
figure out how to get something melodic out of it, I learned to play my
grandmother's Hammond organ and piano by ear but I've never learned to read
music. In my younger days I was a fairly proficient guitarist but I really
haven't played an instrument in years and I'm so rusty/incompetent now that
I sorta' cringe when I pick one up. I would love to have the luxury of
having time to practice and of going back to school and study music and
arranging. I've always had a bit of an ear for it though I seldom have any
idea at all what I'm after at the beginning. I just sorta jump into it like
a kid doing a cannonball into a swimming pool and flail around until
something I like spills over the rim.
;o)
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4571ccf4@linux...
>
> That sounds like fun! It's nice to hear about the magic making side of
> your experience. The highest end gear in your studio walks in on legs.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
>> Hi Neil,
>>
>> The Cubase editor works for me because I usually end up arranging the
>> songs during the mix. We have a bunch of drop-dead, unbelievable
>> musicians here. One of my session players, Gary Cook has been voted
>> national flatpicking champion and mandolin god of the universe at quite a
>> few festival venues. There are others around here who are at that level,
>> fiddle players, dobroists, pianists, etc. We're talking Nashville session
>> player level. Gary is buddies with Tony Rice and a bunch of that crew in
>> Tennessee and has hangs with/records with Charlie Daniels and his band
>> quite a bit (no slouches in that band). Our pianist was Toby Keiths
>> pianist for many years and has a lot of Nashville session experience.
>> these guys can just walk in the door and create magic. What my partner
>> and I do a lot of here is get a guitar/vocal track happening to some kind
>> of simple rythym/click-I usually use Groove Agent. Then we bring in a
>> bass player and drummer and nail down the rythym section. After that we
>> bring in the rest of the players. We usually have arrangements for them
>> and they are rehearsed so there is a general direction this should go and
>> these guys are good so we can usually get the basics down PDQ........but
>> then the fun starts because these guys are mostly disgustingly
>> egotistical virtuosos so we just turn them loose and let them go nuts all
>> over the basic arrangement until they wear themselves out. Once all of
>> this mayhem is finished, the comping starts. 90% of the noodling around
>> gets shitcanned but the other 10% is golden and comes directly from the
>> freedom we give these guys to have fun. My job is usually to integrate
>> these snippets into the song as hooks or whatever and arrange everything
>> so that it integrates well. I'll grab a cool lick on a guitar, a cool
>> lick on a fiddle or mando or whatever and make a hook out of it, find a
>> part of another instrument that counterpoints it and go to town. The
>> Cubase editor works extremely well for this and if I need to pitch a note
>> up or down a cent or two to achieve a nice harmonic between two
>> instruments in a solo or whatever, then it's done quickly. Also, the
>> fadesins/outs between tracks are so easily managed as well as basic gain
>> changes, rendering of FX (if desired), etc. It has just spoiled me
>> rotten. I just find it much easier/more intuitive than the Paris editor.
>> ;o)
>>
>>
>> "Neil" <IOUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4571bbb9$1@linux...
>>> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>>>> but it's
>>>> pretty hard to beat Cubase for VST integration and editing
>>> Deej, I've seen you rave about the Cubase editing features a
>>> lot... what kind of editing do you find yourself doing? The
>>> reason I ask is that any editing I have to do is pretty much
>>> simple stuff like crossfading punches, moving the xfades around
>>> so they're in the least noticeable place, the occasional snip
>>> to get rid of an extraneous string noise or vocal artifact
>>> ("hack!, mmmmrgh, AHEM!") lol; and that's about it, really...
>>> am I missing the boat on something really cool here with regard
>>> to more enhanced editing capabilities?
>>>
>>> Neil
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76634 is a reply to message #76632] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 11:44 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I like that image - the reflexes of swimming are similar to the reflexes
of making music in a group, diving in, taking risks, splashing around
and seeing what everyone does with it, having fun.
There are some great books and web sites on arranging if you do get some
time to spare. Maybe now that your system is coalescing you can spend
less time on that and free up some time for books and arranging exploration.
I just got together with another drummer who is giving me tips on kit
techniques to help me to my next level on drums in exchange for music
theory lessons to help him to his next level on both drums and
keyboards. The first lesson went great and I'll be practicing ghost
notes on snare this week...
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> It's funny Jamie. I've always been able to pick up an inanimate object and
> figure out how to get something melodic out of it, I learned to play my
> grandmother's Hammond organ and piano by ear but I've never learned to read
> music. In my younger days I was a fairly proficient guitarist but I really
> haven't played an instrument in years and I'm so rusty/incompetent now that
> I sorta' cringe when I pick one up. I would love to have the luxury of
> having time to practice and of going back to school and study music and
> arranging. I've always had a bit of an ear for it though I seldom have any
> idea at all what I'm after at the beginning. I just sorta jump into it like
> a kid doing a cannonball into a swimming pool and flail around until
> something I like spills over the rim.
>
> ;o)
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4571ccf4@linux...
>> That sounds like fun! It's nice to hear about the magic making side of
>> your experience. The highest end gear in your studio walks in on legs.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> Hi Neil,
>>>
>>> The Cubase editor works for me because I usually end up arranging the
>>> songs during the mix. We have a bunch of drop-dead, unbelievable
>>> musicians here. One of my session players, Gary Cook has been voted
>>> national flatpicking champion and mandolin god of the universe at quite a
>>> few festival venues. There are others around here who are at that level,
>>> fiddle players, dobroists, pianists, etc. We're talking Nashville session
>>> player level. Gary is buddies with Tony Rice and a bunch of that crew in
>>> Tennessee and has hangs with/records with Charlie Daniels and his band
>>> quite a bit (no slouches in that band). Our pianist was Toby Keiths
>>> pianist for many years and has a lot of Nashville session experience.
>>> these guys can just walk in the door and create magic. What my partner
>>> and I do a lot of here is get a guitar/vocal track happening to some kind
>>> of simple rythym/click-I usually use Groove Agent. Then we bring in a
>>> bass player and drummer and nail down the rythym section. After that we
>>> bring in the rest of the players. We usually have arrangements for them
>>> and they are rehearsed so there is a general direction this should go and
>>> these guys are good so we can usually get the basics down PDQ........but
>>> then the fun starts because these guys are mostly disgustingly
>>> egotistical virtuosos so we just turn them loose and let them go nuts all
>>> over the basic arrangement until they wear themselves out. Once all of
>>> this mayhem is finished, the comping starts. 90% of the noodling around
>>> gets shitcanned but the other 10% is golden and comes directly from the
>>> freedom we give these guys to have fun. My job is usually to integrate
>>> these snippets into the song as hooks or whatever and arrange everything
>>> so that it integrates well. I'll grab a cool lick on a guitar, a cool
>>> lick on a fiddle or mando or whatever and make a hook out of it, find a
>>> part of another instrument that counterpoints it and go to town. The
>>> Cubase editor works extremely well for this and if I need to pitch a note
>>> up or down a cent or two to achieve a nice harmonic between two
>>> instruments in a solo or whatever, then it's done quickly. Also, the
>>> fadesins/outs between tracks are so easily managed as well as basic gain
>>> changes, rendering of FX (if desired), etc. It has just spoiled me
>>> rotten. I just find it much easier/more intuitive than the Paris editor.
>>> ;o)
>>>
>>>
>>> "Neil" <IOUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4571bbb9$1@linux...
>>>> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>>>>> but it's
>>>>> pretty hard to beat Cubase for VST integration and editing
>>>> Deej, I've seen you rave about the Cubase editing features a
>>>> lot... what kind of editing do you find yourself doing? The
>>>> reason I ask is that any editing I have to do is pretty much
>>>> simple stuff like crossfading punches, moving the xfades around
>>>> so they're in the least noticeable place, the occasional snip
>>>> to get rid of an extraneous string noise or vocal artifact
>>>> ("hack!, mmmmrgh, AHEM!") lol; and that's about it, really...
>>>> am I missing the boat on something really cool here with regard
>>>> to more enhanced editing capabilities?
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76637 is a reply to message #76627] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 12:04 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
They are making a profit and having a life with it?
;o)
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:4571c8a4$1@linux...
>
> Good Post Decric ..
>
> There was this debate (last year) on gearslutz about the UAD card issue
> and
> it was an overwhelming fact that most of the users would gladly pay "more"
> money for a "faster" DSP card..
>
> And to be honest, I think I would galdly pay more for the UAD if it had
> more
> horsepower than he current model(s).
>
> Soemthing not quite right in UAD land with concernng the UAD powered
> plugins
> business model. Factor in this :
>
> -Their plugins have never been hacked, nor iare being sold on the black
> market.
>
> So, unlike other Plugin manufactuers, their seeing a real profit and not
> loses on plugins.
> So what gives..??
>
>
> c Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>On 12/2/06 9:31 AM, in article 45719c34$1@linux, "LaMont"
>><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They recently interviewd the UAD guys and the big question was put to
> them:
>>> 'Why not add more power to the card"?
>>>
>>> UAD: answer was : Because they could not find a "cost-effective "DSp
>>> that
>>> would not raise the price of the card???
>>
>>UA is a very small company. This is the same necessity of survival that
>>has locked Digidesign into using Motorola dsps that are far from cutting
>>edge.
>>
>>It's very expensive to change course completely with dsp or cpu based
>>development, or start from scratch without $5,000,000 in development
>>budget
>>and base a product around a higher end dsp, *and* expect it to pay for
>>itself.
>>
>>Joe Bryan addressed this in an interview with Sound on Sound a year or two
>>ago. They didn't have a ton of capital at startup, so the card had to be
>>affordable to sell enough to pay for itself, and feasible for a limited
>>development team. Fairlight has taken a more expensive development route
>>with the CC-1. That's probably part of the reason they are only bundling
> it
>>with Dream systems, and selling different track counts/processing
>>capability
>>levels as licenses at different price points - to ensure they make up the
>>heavy development cost.
>>
>>I'm not trying to defend UA other than understanding their business model.
>>But imho, too many users seem to blame companies for trying to run a
>>profitable business when the same users are making equally biased
>>decisions
>>for exactly the same reason: wanting cheaper more capable products in
>>order
>>to spend less and make more; or buy marketing hype because xyz producer
> made
>>a hit record with that gear.
>>
>>I do agree the vintage gear craze is absurd beyond belief. To me there
> is
>>some great character and quality in some vintage gear, but not all has the
>>quality available today. There is way too much "follow the leader" bad
>>engineering going on, and companies are all to happy to appeal to whatever
>>sells.
>>
>>Dedric
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76639 is a reply to message #76637] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 13:26 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yes of course Dj, but whay have are not giving the user's (customers) what
they want.
The user(customers) don;t want more plugings from UAD, but just a faster
DSP card to run more of whthe plugins they have..
But, UAD just releases another plugin to seemingly apease the customer base.
However, it's not working..
"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>They are making a profit and having a life with it?
>
>;o)
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:4571c8a4$1@linux...
>>
>> Good Post Decric ..
>>
>> There was this debate (last year) on gearslutz about the UAD card issue
>> and
>> it was an overwhelming fact that most of the users would gladly pay "more"
>> money for a "faster" DSP card..
>>
>> And to be honest, I think I would galdly pay more for the UAD if it had
>> more
>> horsepower than he current model(s).
>>
>> Soemthing not quite right in UAD land with concernng the UAD powered
>> plugins
>> business model. Factor in this :
>>
>> -Their plugins have never been hacked, nor iare being sold on the black
>> market.
>>
>> So, unlike other Plugin manufactuers, their seeing a real profit and not
>> loses on plugins.
>> So what gives..??
>>
>>
>> c Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>On 12/2/06 9:31 AM, in article 45719c34$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> They recently interviewd the UAD guys and the big question was put to
>> them:
>>>> 'Why not add more power to the card"?
>>>>
>>>> UAD: answer was : Because they could not find a "cost-effective "DSp
>>>> that
>>>> would not raise the price of the card???
>>>
>>>UA is a very small company. This is the same necessity of survival that
>>>has locked Digidesign into using Motorola dsps that are far from cutting
>>>edge.
>>>
>>>It's very expensive to change course completely with dsp or cpu based
>>>development, or start from scratch without $5,000,000 in development
>>>budget
>>>and base a product around a higher end dsp, *and* expect it to pay for
>>>itself.
>>>
>>>Joe Bryan addressed this in an interview with Sound on Sound a year or
two
>>>ago. They didn't have a ton of capital at startup, so the card had to
be
>>>affordable to sell enough to pay for itself, and feasible for a limited
>>>development team. Fairlight has taken a more expensive development route
>>>with the CC-1. That's probably part of the reason they are only bundling
>> it
>>>with Dream systems, and selling different track counts/processing
>>>capability
>>>levels as licenses at different price points - to ensure they make up
the
>>>heavy development cost.
>>>
>>>I'm not trying to defend UA other than understanding their business model.
>>>But imho, too many users seem to blame companies for trying to run a
>>>profitable business when the same users are making equally biased
>>>decisions
>>>for exactly the same reason: wanting cheaper more capable products in
>>>order
>>>to spend less and make more; or buy marketing hype because xyz producer
>> made
>>>a hit record with that gear.
>>>
>>>I do agree the vintage gear craze is absurd beyond belief. To me there
>> is
>>>some great character and quality in some vintage gear, but not all has
the
>>>quality available today. There is way too much "follow the leader" bad
>>>engineering going on, and companies are all to happy to appeal to whatever
>>>sells.
>>>
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76641 is a reply to message #76629] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 12:51 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4571cb6a@linux...
>> With hundreds of articulations required for a score, there isn't a single
>> box that I could use to run a full complement. And what I could load into
>> a
>> current PC/Mac will usually only account for about 30 seconds of scoring
>> in
>> one style/tempo.
>
> Wow, really? I need to hear one of your scores. Clearly we're having
> different experiences. What libraries do you use?
I'm using East West's Quantum Leap Symphonic XP library at the moment: 38G
total. For some things
I then add Symphonic Choirs at 35G (just one section (e.g. sopranos) uses
most of my free Ram).
Then factor in Stormdrum, Kontakt 2, Absynth, and numerous other VSTi's for
more varied, or modern/cinematic uses
and it adds up really fast. EW actually recommends up to 8 PCs for their
platinum library (24-bit).
The composers I've chatted with a few times in LA use 300 track templates
for composing, mutliple
PCs and a large number of outboard samplers/synths - usually 50-100 inputs.
Although I'm not anywhere
near that scale of outboard gear, I can see, and feel the need to greatly
expand my rig in my work more and more now.
I'm getting ready to put together a rather involved and dynamic piece for a
new demo - I'll email you a link when it's done.
> Heh. My timpani and horns are very good about not dropping out, (that is,
> ever since that one Logic bug was finally fixed, grrrr!) and they all live
> happily on one box.
>
That really depends on the percussionist though. Some guys are more
reliable than others, esp. if they are former
rock drummers. ;-) Hey, the trumpet player fell asleep during my
wedding....didn't even take a timpani roll to
get him to drop out. He did come back for the recessional though. :-)
With a larger templates I use up most of my Ram, and since one of the
crescendo Fr.Horn instruments I use is actually a mod-wheel dynamic
crossfade of three sample sets,
as are the timpani modwheel crossfade instruments, they tend to suck down
any remaining ram and cpu power very fast
when a lot of other instruments are loaded and running.
> I used to sync via SMPTE to a BetaCamSP deck. Now I run the video in
> Logic, too, as Quicktime. Very slick, SMPTE offset, automatic scene
> detection, import/export audio from the video. I've also used Soundtrack
> Pro in a similar way, but much prefer to compose in Logic. Either way,
> it's all on one box.
Apple has video down cold - H.264 is a superb codec, but sadly doesn't work
with Nuendo(PC- too bad).
AVI works fine but I've never been happy with compression and size vs.
quality tradeoffs.
Inline video in Nuendo actually works very well - Quicktime MJpeg works well
here though better when encoded with Vegas
than Quicktime Pro oddly. (I usually run a compressed 320x240 window in
Nuendo locally just for sync and spotting).
I also have a PC sync'd via System Link running full screen DV (720x480)
MJpeg (Quicktime playback in Cubase 4) -
looks quite good for client previews (not as clear as HD or external
monitored DV, but it works well). I'm planning to add a system
running the new Decklink HDMI PCIe card for full res HD playback to an HD
LCD TV fairly soon - for eye candy mainly.
It's pretty stunning what we can accomplish with a single computer now
though. More power and flexibility is necessary for some
things, but there is a ton of great music that can be produced with even
just a laptop.
Regards,
Dedric
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>>> It's really convenient to do it all on one fast, capable box in the
>>> studio. Less bailing wire, duct tape and magic incantations needed to
>>> hold it all together. :^)
>>>
>>> Almost no administration time needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>> BTW - speaking of intense animation, probably old news, but there's an
>>>> HD
>>>> video online from Animusic - I like some of their other work better,
>>>> but fun
>>>> all the same:
>>>> http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/animusic2dvd.html
>>> Clever stuff. I saw another one of those a while back that also
>>> impressed me.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76642 is a reply to message #76627] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 13:06 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I don't think Powercore has been hacked either, but it's a stock Motorola
56k chipset.
It's hard to hack low level code on a proprietary processing card (i.e
though it's just a graphics card
the processing code isn't run of the mill OS code even if it's C++ or
whatever).
It's way easier to hack an OS that has SDKs galore
floating around and so more holes in it than applications.
I really think their business model was "we ain't got a mint to fund this
puppy so what works for $500k max,
marketing and payroll included?"
As DJ said, there may be something significant on the horizon from them
anyway. Having built
hardware in a slightly larger tech company, I can attest to the approach
they are taking as making complete sense
for their size and market. We ran had 50 employees and only $1.2 mil in
annual revenue (over 10 years ago) to fund everything
we did - there were no shoot for the moon high end projects or redesigns
just because customers wanted bigger, better and faster.
We had to make what we had work, sell and pay for itself.
UA has made a huge impact on that market without even being the most
well-heeled of the dsp developers.
Imho, kudos to them and I hope the next product is even more successful than
the UAD-1 has been.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if they signed a deal with Fairlight to use the CC-1
platform, or Clearspeed cards? Being the supposed
equivalent of 8 HD Accel cards, the CC-1 could be about 16-20 times the
power of a UAD-1 (rough guess - I ran the numbers last
week, but don't remember exactly). I have no idea how the Clearspeed would
translate. Both are probably left field musings though.
Regards,
Dedric
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:4571c8a4$1@linux...
>
> Good Post Dedric ..
>
> There was this debate (last year) on gearslutz about the UAD card issue
> and
> it was an overwhelming fact that most of the users would gladly pay "more"
> money for a "faster" DSP card..
>
> And to be honest, I think I would galdly pay more for the UAD if it had
> more
> horsepower than he current model(s).
>
> Soemthing not quite right in UAD land with concernng the UAD powered
> plugins
> business model. Factor in this :
>
> -Their plugins have never been hacked, nor iare being sold on the black
> market.
>
> So, unlike other Plugin manufactuers, their seeing a real profit and not
> loses on plugins.
> So what gives..??
>
>
> c Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>On 12/2/06 9:31 AM, in article 45719c34$1@linux, "LaMont"
>><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They recently interviewd the UAD guys and the big question was put to
> them:
>>> 'Why not add more power to the card"?
>>>
>>> UAD: answer was : Because they could not find a "cost-effective "DSp
>>> that
>>> would not raise the price of the card???
>>
>>UA is a very small company. This is the same necessity of survival that
>>has locked Digidesign into using Motorola dsps that are far from cutting
>>edge.
>>
>>It's very expensive to change course completely with dsp or cpu based
>>development, or start from scratch without $5,000,000 in development
>>budget
>>and base a product around a higher end dsp, *and* expect it to pay for
>>itself.
>>
>>Joe Bryan addressed this in an interview with Sound on Sound a year or two
>>ago. They didn't have a ton of capital at startup, so the card had to be
>>affordable to sell enough to pay for itself, and feasible for a limited
>>development team. Fairlight has taken a more expensive development route
>>with the CC-1. That's probably part of the reason they are only bundling
> it
>>with Dream systems, and selling different track counts/processing
>>capability
>>levels as licenses at different price points - to ensure they make up the
>>heavy development cost.
>>
>>I'm not trying to defend UA other than understanding their business model.
>>But imho, too many users seem to blame companies for trying to run a
>>profitable business when the same users are making equally biased
>>decisions
>>for exactly the same reason: wanting cheaper more capable products in
>>order
>>to spend less and make more; or buy marketing hype because xyz producer
> made
>>a hit record with that gear.
>>
>>I do agree the vintage gear craze is absurd beyond belief. To me there
> is
>>some great character and quality in some vintage gear, but not all has the
>>quality available today. There is way too much "follow the leader" bad
>>engineering going on, and companies are all to happy to appeal to whatever
>>sells.
>>
>>Dedric
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76648 is a reply to message #76616] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 15:18 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Dedric,
How do you use a separate PC for full screen video, and how are they sync'd,
(sunc)?
Interesting
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C196FF25.5D82%dterry@keyofd.net...
> On 12/2/06 9:14 AM, in article 4571a3d1@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>> Hey Jamie,
>>>
>>> You and the other Mac users know we PC users just give you a hard time
>>> because your comps have fruit on them. ;-)
>>
>> Jealousy is such an ugly thing. I'll send you a banana sticker. ;^)
>>
>
> Excellent! Although a vegetable would be great... I think Broccoli would
> make a great computer logo. ;-)
>
>> Over the years Mac critics, me among them, have argued that Macs are
>> more expensive. Too expensive. And I had other, technical, criticisms of
>> previous generations of Macs.
>>
>> However, more recently the value proposition has improved, and OSX is a
>> huge step forward for Apple.
>>
>> Although the old perceptions have inertia, the reality, from my current
>> experience, is much better.
>
> You are exactly right here - price vs. performance was once a significant
> difference, but the new Intel Macs are right in line with comparable off
> the
> shelf PCs. Of course one can still save $200-$400 building a PC vs. the
> same config in a Mac, but not buying off-the-shelf. I tend to defend PCs
> to
> some degree, but the new Macs are very nice.
>>
>> My G5 is fast enough that I don't need other computers slaved for FX or
>> instrument plugins. That makes things much simpler. The G5 can also
>> address enough HD space that I don't need another server or, for that
>> matter, a network. It has enough RAM (currently 2.5GB, can address up to
>> 8GB) to do a reasonable amount of multitasking.
>>
> For me the multiple systems are needed for orchestral libraries, and PC or
> Mac, that's pretty much standard for composing (there are guys in LA I've
> talked with using even larger rigs).
>
> With hundreds of articulations required for a score, there isn't a single
> box that I could use to run a full complement. And what I could load into
> a
> current PC/Mac will usually only account for about 30 seconds of scoring
> in
> one style/tempo.
>
> I am guessing that with 64G of Ram in a quad quad core or dual octo core
> we
> might get closer to moving large scale orchestration to only one or two
> systems, but the low latency capabilities in the dual quads aren't scaling
> as expected yet. But even then we'll probably just be using 24/96k sample
> libraries to continue the networking requirements. It really isn't any
> different than running outboard samplers/synths. Not quite as convenient
> as
> running everything in one system, but also not as bad as it sounds
> (actually
> quite liberating to know that the percussion section will always be
> there -
> no dropped timpani rolls during French horn crescendos :-)
>
> Then if I add in other cpu/ram/disk streaming intensive VSTi's, full
> screen
> DV resolution video playback, the faster/more the better - I already have
> an
> extra PC is dedicated to full screen video (not unlike using a VCube or
> deck
> really).
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
>> It's really convenient to do it all on one fast, capable box in the
>> studio. Less bailing wire, duct tape and magic incantations needed to
>> hold it all together. :^)
>>
>> Almost no administration time needed.
>>
>>
>>> BTW - speaking of intense animation, probably old news, but there's an
>>> HD
>>> video online from Animusic - I like some of their other work better, but
>>> fun
>>> all the same:
>>> http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/animusic2dvd.html
>>
>> Clever stuff. I saw another one of those a while back that also
>> impressed me.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76660 is a reply to message #76648] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 20:03 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Martin,
I'm running Nuendo on the main system and Cubase 4 on the second. I have
them linked via VST System Link (SPDIF). SL is more accurate than MTC,
locks faster, and chases jog/scrub better. The video/Cubase 4 PC runs a
full screen MJpeg window, in Cubase 4, using Quicktime (17" Samsung LCD). I
convert the original Final Cut file in Vegas as MJpeg .mov, DV 720x480,
progressive, best quality, etc.
MJpeg seems to work best for native PC playback in general as I can cut down
to 75-80% of the original's size and still have acceptable quality (slightly
less clarity than the original, but no blocking or color degradation issues
as with some other codecs).
I don't have anything else running on this system when syncing video, mainly
for client playback, otherwise it's a waste of Cubase 4 :-). This machine
is slightly slow for this (Athlon XP 1900 with ATA100 drives), so it skips a
frame every now and then, but maintains sync (though I'm still looking to
eliminate the skipping completely in other ways).
Sys Link with Cubase 4 and Nuendo 3 really works quite well. It's a
temporary solution for video, but a faster PC with SATA II Drives would
probably be perfectly fine.
Regards,
Dedric
On 12/2/06 4:18 PM, in article 45720768$1@linux, "Martin Harrington"
<lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Hey Dedric,
> How do you use a separate PC for full screen video, and how are they sync'd,
> (sunc)?
> Interesting
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76662 is a reply to message #76641] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 21:05 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Dedric, what is your cpu configuration (dual or single) and speed?
How much RAM do you have?
It sounds like your setup is more RAM starved for sample space, and
shouldn't necessarily be CPU starved for processing. Can you set the
disk streaming for more efficient RAM usage?
Large libraries shouldn't need to be in RAM all at once. I run the NI
stuff you listed and a bunch of other Audio Unit plugins, including some
pretty large sample sets, and it's no prob here. Granted I don't run the
EW stuff and if you're right about EW, I'm glad I don't.
I have 2.5 GB RAM at present and it's been enough so far for some fairly
large arrangements. Other than the sample-based plugs, some AUs are
synths that depend more on CPU power than RAM and they run fine in large
projects as well, with the G5 muscle. Plus live instrument tracks and
copious FX plugins, no sweat, one box.
What's with 8 PCs recommended to run the EW plugs? If it's just samples,
that's way overkill for CPU power, assuming they're talking about
current boxes.
If it's RAM limitations, then A) sample libraries shouldn't have to run
completely in RAM, and B) current machines have a lot of RAM support
available to buffer samples - for example 16GB on current MacPro boxes,
which should be plenty o' RAM for sample buffering.
If it's an HD i/o speed bottleneck for streaming samples, how about
adding more SATA cards/drives?
I also wonder about the use of 300 tracks. A real orchestra doesn't have
300 sections. It doesn't even have 300 individual players.
Are you using 300 tracks on your stuff? I'm not. Shoot me if I do, the
music would get lost in the overproduction.
Maybe the folks you talked to are just trying to save time preloading a
lot of plugins they won't necessarily use, that's a choice I guess. But
it'd be quicker and waste less resources to work out the arrangement
with fewer plugins (but still plenty). And then add what's needed to
refine, if anything. I'm not going to fault them for using outboard
samplers, that just shows they've been around a while, have a lot
invested in that setup, and it works for them. But anyone starting now
wouldn't likely go that route.
BTW, GPO switches articulations/sample sets on the fly and runs very
efficiently. Big ensembles, small footprint.
Sorry to hear about the trumpet player at your wedding, are you sure it
wasn't an EW plugin? ;^) I'm really looking forward to hearing your demo
piece!
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
PS. You're right about laptops, next laptop I get I'll evaluate for
using the plugins at live shows. It should be as fast or faster than my
G5, although with less RAM expansion and HD flexibility.
Dedric Terry wrote:
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4571cb6a@linux...
>>> With hundreds of articulations required for a score, there isn't a single
>>> box that I could use to run a full complement. And what I could load into
>>> a
>>> current PC/Mac will usually only account for about 30 seconds of scoring
>>> in
>>> one style/tempo.
>> Wow, really? I need to hear one of your scores. Clearly we're having
>> different experiences. What libraries do you use?
>
> I'm using East West's Quantum Leap Symphonic XP library at the moment: 38G
> total. For some things
> I then add Symphonic Choirs at 35G (just one section (e.g. sopranos) uses
> most of my free Ram).
> Then factor in Stormdrum, Kontakt 2, Absynth, and numerous other VSTi's for
> more varied, or modern/cinematic uses
> and it adds up really fast. EW actually recommends up to 8 PCs for their
> platinum library (24-bit).
> The composers I've chatted with a few times in LA use 300 track templates
> for composing, mutliple
> PCs and a large number of outboard samplers/synths - usually 50-100 inputs.
> Although I'm not anywhere
> near that scale of outboard gear, I can see, and feel the need to greatly
> expand my rig in my work more and more now.
>
> I'm getting ready to put together a rather involved and dynamic piece for a
> new demo - I'll email you a link when it's done.
>
>> Heh. My timpani and horns are very good about not dropping out, (that is,
>> ever since that one Logic bug was finally fixed, grrrr!) and they all live
>> happily on one box.
>>
> That really depends on the percussionist though. Some guys are more
> reliable than others, esp. if they are former
> rock drummers. ;-) Hey, the trumpet player fell asleep during my
> wedding....didn't even take a timpani roll to
> get him to drop out. He did come back for the recessional though. :-)
>
> With a larger templates I use up most of my Ram, and since one of the
> crescendo Fr.Horn instruments I use is actually a mod-wheel dynamic
> crossfade of three sample sets,
> as are the timpani modwheel crossfade instruments, they tend to suck down
> any remaining ram and cpu power very fast
> when a lot of other instruments are loaded and running.
>
>> I used to sync via SMPTE to a BetaCamSP deck. Now I run the video in
>> Logic, too, as Quicktime. Very slick, SMPTE offset, automatic scene
>> detection, import/export audio from the video. I've also used Soundtrack
>> Pro in a similar way, but much prefer to compose in Logic. Either way,
>> it's all on one box.
>
> Apple has video down cold - H.264 is a superb codec, but sadly doesn't work
> with Nuendo(PC- too bad).
> AVI works fine but I've never been happy with compression and size vs.
> quality tradeoffs.
> Inline video in Nuendo actually works very well - Quicktime MJpeg works well
> here though better when encoded with Vegas
> than Quicktime Pro oddly. (I usually run a compressed 320x240 window in
> Nuendo locally just for sync and spotting).
> I also have a PC sync'd via System Link running full screen DV (720x480)
> MJpeg (Quicktime playback in Cubase 4) -
> looks quite good for client previews (not as clear as HD or external
> monitored DV, but it works well). I'm planning to add a system
> running the new Decklink HDMI PCIe card for full res HD playback to an HD
> LCD TV fairly soon - for eye candy mainly.
>
> It's pretty stunning what we can accomplish with a single computer now
> though. More power and flexibility is necessary for some
> things, but there is a ton of great music that can be produced with even
> just a laptop.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>>> It's really convenient to do it all on one fast, capable box in the
>>>> studio. Less bailing wire, duct tape and magic incantations needed to
>>>> hold it all together. :^)
>>>>
>>>> Almost no administration time needed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> BTW - speaking of intense animation, probably old news, but there's an
>>>>> HD
>>>>> video online from Animusic - I like some of their other work better,
>>>>> but fun
>>>>> all the same:
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/animusic2dvd.html
>>>> Clever stuff. I saw another one of those a while back that also
>>>> impressed me.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76663 is a reply to message #76660] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 21:06 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks Dedric,
I may give it a try although I get full screen playback in Nuendo now with
no problems, but I lose one of my screens, (2 x 19inch LCD's).
Since I built my new comp,(Intel core 2 duo E1600), everything's been
running like a dream.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C1979A8A.5DBB%dterry@keyofd.net...
> Hi Martin,
>
> I'm running Nuendo on the main system and Cubase 4 on the second. I have
> them linked via VST System Link (SPDIF). SL is more accurate than MTC,
> locks faster, and chases jog/scrub better. The video/Cubase 4 PC runs a
> full screen MJpeg window, in Cubase 4, using Quicktime (17" Samsung LCD).
> I
> convert the original Final Cut file in Vegas as MJpeg .mov, DV 720x480,
> progressive, best quality, etc.
>
> MJpeg seems to work best for native PC playback in general as I can cut
> down
> to 75-80% of the original's size and still have acceptable quality
> (slightly
> less clarity than the original, but no blocking or color degradation
> issues
> as with some other codecs).
>
> I don't have anything else running on this system when syncing video,
> mainly
> for client playback, otherwise it's a waste of Cubase 4 :-). This machine
> is slightly slow for this (Athlon XP 1900 with ATA100 drives), so it skips
> a
> frame every now and then, but maintains sync (though I'm still looking to
> eliminate the skipping completely in other ways).
>
> Sys Link with Cubase 4 and Nuendo 3 really works quite well. It's a
> temporary solution for video, but a faster PC with SATA II Drives would
> probably be perfectly fine.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
> On 12/2/06 4:18 PM, in article 45720768$1@linux, "Martin Harrington"
> <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>> Hey Dedric,
>> How do you use a separate PC for full screen video, and how are they
>> sync'd,
>> (sunc)?
>> Interesting
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76664 is a reply to message #76663] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 21:20 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Martin - That's certainly easier.
I usually run a heavy VSTi load while scoring that I need to cut down what I
run for video on the main system, and maintain both screens for editing with
post too. The separate video PC is really just eye candy. Not necessary for
scoring or spotting effects.
I've heard great things about the core 2 duos, and quad cores. Great to
hear yours is running well.
Regards,
Dedric
On 12/2/06 10:06 PM, in article 457258dd$1@linux, "Martin Harrington"
<lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Thanks Dedric,
> I may give it a try although I get full screen playback in Nuendo now with
> no problems, but I lose one of my screens, (2 x 19inch LCD's).
> Since I built my new comp,(Intel core 2 duo E1600), everything's been
> running like a dream.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76666 is a reply to message #76662] |
Sat, 02 December 2006 23:00 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie,
My system is an AMD X2 (dual core) with 2G of Ram and am planning to bump to
4G soon. EWQLSO uses NI's Kompakt player and I have the system pretty well
tweaked for this.
More ram will buy me a little more space to load instruments, and a few more
voices, but latency, disk streaming and cpu power also becomes an issue with
these libraries at a point.
GPO is a great set - I used it for quite a while before moving to EWQLSO,
and it would run fully loaded on my system I am sure (haven't used it since
getting the X2). I also have Kirk Hunter's Emerald, though I only use it
infrequently for a more unique sound (and where I don't need the depth of
EWQL). There is a significant difference between the amount of processing
(cpu, ram and disk) required between GPO and EWQSOL. Where GPO might have a
single Marcato sample for Violins 1, EWQLSO will have 8 variations depending
on what phrasing is required.
Regarding 300 track templates, no I don't use that many yet, but the need is
there - I just haven't taken, or had the time to start setting it up. That
is really borne out of the necessity of having quick access to what you
might use most to minimize loading and setup times, esp. for guys scoring
for weekly TV. Even with the 60-100 mid tracks I might use on a short
piece, setup really gets tedious and time consuming.
Running the numbers for example:
Just for orchestra with EWQLSO, each subsection may have 30 articulations or
more, then you have roughly 10-12 subsections/instruments (Vlns 1 & 2,
Violas, Cellos, Basses, Trumpets, Trombones, Fr. Horns, Clarinets, Oboes,
Flutes, percussion, solo instruments, etc) - right there are 300+ midi
tracks to access each individually. Less common articulations may be loaded
only as needed (one doesn't often need a Psycho minor 3rd half step run up
;-).
Then add in several VSTi's on a slave PC, outboard synths/samplers, etc -
all that you want accessible simply by enabling a track and selecting a
preset/patch, and you have a very large template.
I also frequently run a config similar to what you are describing for many
projects with no problem. I can load up, for example, Kontakt 2, Stormdrum,
Intakt, 4-5 instances of Rapture (imho, one of the best soft synths on the
market), 2 instances of Absynth, plugins, audio tracks, and never push the
system.
....but just load up the full orchestra and she starts whinin' about union
regulations and demandin' double scale. ;-)
East West's 8 PC recommendation is probably based on each being a 3GHz
Pentium or comparable system with 2G ram each minimum, given the timeframe
of the manual, and that is for the 24-bit Platinum edition that has 3 mic
positions for each instrument, including 5.1 surround samples - cutting that
to 4 core duos is possible. Spreading out any such larger library (even 16
bit stereo samples with one mic position) into just four sections makes it
easier and faster to manage loading since each PC can be loading its'
section at the same time when starting the session, and each can run at
lower latency because it isn't pushed to the limit.
Regards,
Dedric
PS: the trumpet player was a Mac user... lol ;-)
On 12/2/06 10:05 PM, in article 45725893@linux, "Jamie K"
<Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Dedric, what is your cpu configuration (dual or single) and speed?
> How much RAM do you have?
>
> It sounds like your setup is more RAM starved for sample space, and
> shouldn't necessarily be CPU starved for processing. Can you set the
> disk streaming for more efficient RAM usage?
>
> Large libraries shouldn't need to be in RAM all at once. I run the NI
> stuff you listed and a bunch of other Audio Unit plugins, including some
> pretty large sample sets, and it's no prob here. Granted I don't run the
> EW stuff and if you're right about EW, I'm glad I don't.
>
> I have 2.5 GB RAM at present and it's been enough so far for some fairly
> large arrangements. Other than the sample-based plugs, some AUs are
> synths that depend more on CPU power than RAM and they run fine in large
> projects as well, with the G5 muscle. Plus live instrument tracks and
> copious FX plugins, no sweat, one box.
>
> What's with 8 PCs recommended to run the EW plugs? If it's just samples,
> that's way overkill for CPU power, assuming they're talking about
> current boxes.
>
> If it's RAM limitations, then A) sample libraries shouldn't have to run
> completely in RAM, and B) current machines have a lot of RAM support
> available to buffer samples - for example 16GB on current MacPro boxes,
> which should be plenty o' RAM for sample buffering.
>
> If it's an HD i/o speed bottleneck for streaming samples, how about
> adding more SATA cards/drives?
>
> I also wonder about the use of 300 tracks. A real orchestra doesn't have
> 300 sections. It doesn't even have 300 individual players.
>
> Are you using 300 tracks on your stuff? I'm not. Shoot me if I do, the
> music would get lost in the overproduction.
>
> Maybe the folks you talked to are just trying to save time preloading a
> lot of plugins they won't necessarily use, that's a choice I guess. But
> it'd be quicker and waste less resources to work out the arrangement
> with fewer plugins (but still plenty). And then add what's needed to
> refine, if anything. I'm not going to fault them for using outboard
> samplers, that just shows they've been around a while, have a lot
> invested in that setup, and it works for them. But anyone starting now
> wouldn't likely go that route.
>
> BTW, GPO switches articulations/sample sets on the fly and runs very
> efficiently. Big ensembles, small footprint.
>
> Sorry to hear about the trumpet player at your wedding, are you sure it
> wasn't an EW plugin? ;^) I'm really looking forward to hearing your demo
> piece!
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
> PS. You're right about laptops, next laptop I get I'll evaluate for
> using the plugins at live shows. It should be as fast or faster than my
> G5, although with less RAM expansion and HD flexibility.
>
>
> Dedric Terry wrote:
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4571cb6a@linux...
>>>> With hundreds of articulations required for a score, there isn't a single
>>>> box that I could use to run a full complement. And what I could load into
>>>> a
>>>> current PC/Mac will usually only account for about 30 seconds of scoring
>>>> in
>>>> one style/tempo.
>>> Wow, really? I need to hear one of your scores. Clearly we're having
>>> different experiences. What libraries do you use?
>>
>> I'm using East West's Quantum Leap Symphonic XP library at the moment: 38G
>> total. For some things
>> I then add Symphonic Choirs at 35G (just one section (e.g. sopranos) uses
>> most of my free Ram).
>> Then factor in Stormdrum, Kontakt 2, Absynth, and numerous other VSTi's for
>> more varied, or modern/cinematic uses
>> and it adds up really fast. EW actually recommends up to 8 PCs for their
>> platinum library (24-bit).
>> The composers I've chatted with a few times in LA use 300 track templates
>> for composing, mutliple
>> PCs and a large number of outboard samplers/synths - usually 50-100 inputs.
>> Although I'm not anywhere
>> near that scale of outboard gear, I can see, and feel the need to greatly
>> expand my rig in my work more and more now.
>>
>> I'm getting ready to put together a rather involved and dynamic piece for a
>> new demo - I'll email you a link when it's done.
>>
>>> Heh. My timpani and horns are very good about not dropping out, (that is,
>>> ever since that one Logic bug was finally fixed, grrrr!) and they all live
>>> happily on one box.
>>>
>> That really depends on the percussionist though. Some guys are more
>> reliable than others, esp. if they are former
>> rock drummers. ;-) Hey, the trumpet player fell asleep during my
>> wedding....didn't even take a timpani roll to
>> get him to drop out. He did come back for the recessional though. :-)
>>
>> With a larger templates I use up most of my Ram, and since one of the
>> crescendo Fr.Horn instruments I use is actually a mod-wheel dynamic
>> crossfade of three sample sets,
>> as are the timpani modwheel crossfade instruments, they tend to suck down
>> any remaining ram and cpu power very fast
>> when a lot of other instruments are loaded and running.
>>
>>> I used to sync via SMPTE to a BetaCamSP deck. Now I run the video in
>>> Logic, too, as Quicktime. Very slick, SMPTE offset, automatic scene
>>> detection, import/export audio from the video. I've also used Soundtrack
>>> Pro in a similar way, but much prefer to compose in Logic. Either way,
>>> it's all on one box.
>>
>> Apple has video down cold - H.264 is a superb codec, but sadly doesn't work
>> with Nuendo(PC- too bad).
>> AVI works fine but I've never been happy with compression and size vs.
>> quality tradeoffs.
>> Inline video in Nuendo actually works very well - Quicktime MJpeg works well
>> here though better when encoded with Vegas
>> than Quicktime Pro oddly. (I usually run a compressed 320x240 window in
>> Nuendo locally just for sync and spotting).
>> I also have a PC sync'd via System Link running full screen DV (720x480)
>> MJpeg (Quicktime playback in Cubase 4) -
>> looks quite good for client previews (not as clear as HD or external
>> monitored DV, but it works well). I'm planning to add a system
>> running the new Decklink HDMI PCIe card for full res HD playback to an HD
>> LCD TV fairly soon - for eye candy mainly.
>>
>> It's pretty stunning what we can accomplish with a single computer now
>> though. More power and flexibility is necessary for some
>> things, but there is a ton of great music that can be produced with even
>> just a laptop.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>>> It's really convenient to do it all on one fast, capable box in the
>>>>> studio. Less bailing wire, duct tape and magic incantations needed to
>>>>> hold it all together. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost no administration time needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW - speaking of intense animation, probably old news, but there's an
>>>>>> HD
>>>>>> video online from Animusic - I like some of their other work better,
>>>>>> but fun
>>>>>> all the same:
>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/animusic2dvd.html
>>>>> Clever stuff. I saw another one of those a while back that also
>>>>> impressed me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76667 is a reply to message #76666] |
Sun, 03 December 2006 00:43 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for the info, Dedric. So the difference between running on one
box or multiple boxes comes down to not only the speed/RAM/HD access of
the box but the plugin set you choose. My plugin set is happy on my G5,
your set is not happy on your AMD.
Over time that distinction will melt away, as computers continue gaining
power.
It's also interesting to see plugin designers coming up with algorithmic
emulations, which have reduced RAM requirements, as opposed to straight
sample-based approaches. We'll see more of this down the road.
I'll have to check out your setup sometime. Is EWQLSO a tedious way to
orchestrate? I find GPO very performance oriented and reasonably quick
to use, in addition to its efficient use of RAM/CPU.
I also keep a violin handy when I need complete control of articulation. :^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
PS. The groom was also a Mac user, although not exclusively. :^)
Dedric Terry wrote:
> Jamie,
>
> My system is an AMD X2 (dual core) with 2G of Ram and am planning to bump to
> 4G soon. EWQLSO uses NI's Kompakt player and I have the system pretty well
> tweaked for this.
>
> More ram will buy me a little more space to load instruments, and a few more
> voices, but latency, disk streaming and cpu power also becomes an issue with
> these libraries at a point.
>
> GPO is a great set - I used it for quite a while before moving to EWQLSO,
> and it would run fully loaded on my system I am sure (haven't used it since
> getting the X2). I also have Kirk Hunter's Emerald, though I only use it
> infrequently for a more unique sound (and where I don't need the depth of
> EWQL). There is a significant difference between the amount of processing
> (cpu, ram and disk) required between GPO and EWQSOL. Where GPO might have a
> single Marcato sample for Violins 1, EWQLSO will have 8 variations depending
> on what phrasing is required.
>
> Regarding 300 track templates, no I don't use that many yet, but the need is
> there - I just haven't taken, or had the time to start setting it up. That
> is really borne out of the necessity of having quick access to what you
> might use most to minimize loading and setup times, esp. for guys scoring
> for weekly TV. Even with the 60-100 mid tracks I might use on a short
> piece, setup really gets tedious and time consuming.
>
>
> Running the numbers for example:
>
> Just for orchestra with EWQLSO, each subsection may have 30 articulations or
> more, then you have roughly 10-12 subsections/instruments (Vlns 1 & 2,
> Violas, Cellos, Basses, Trumpets, Trombones, Fr. Horns, Clarinets, Oboes,
> Flutes, percussion, solo instruments, etc) - right there are 300+ midi
> tracks to access each individually. Less common articulations may be loaded
> only as needed (one doesn't often need a Psycho minor 3rd half step run up
> ;-).
>
> Then add in several VSTi's on a slave PC, outboard synths/samplers, etc -
> all that you want accessible simply by enabling a track and selecting a
> preset/patch, and you have a very large template.
>
> I also frequently run a config similar to what you are describing for many
> projects with no problem. I can load up, for example, Kontakt 2, Stormdrum,
> Intakt, 4-5 instances of Rapture (imho, one of the best soft synths on the
> market), 2 instances of Absynth, plugins, audio tracks, and never push the
> system.
>
> ...but just load up the full orchestra and she starts whinin' about union
> regulations and demandin' double scale. ;-)
>
> East West's 8 PC recommendation is probably based on each being a 3GHz
> Pentium or comparable system with 2G ram each minimum, given the timeframe
> of the manual, and that is for the 24-bit Platinum edition that has 3 mic
> positions for each instrument, including 5.1 surround samples - cutting that
> to 4 core duos is possible. Spreading out any such larger library (even 16
> bit stereo samples with one mic position) into just four sections makes it
> easier and faster to manage loading since each PC can be loading its'
> section at the same time when starting the session, and each can run at
> lower latency because it isn't pushed to the limit.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
> PS: the trumpet player was a Mac user... lol ;-)
>
> On 12/2/06 10:05 PM, in article 45725893@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Dedric, what is your cpu configuration (dual or single) and speed?
>> How much RAM do you have?
>>
>> It sounds like your setup is more RAM starved for sample space, and
>> shouldn't necessarily be CPU starved for processing. Can you set the
>> disk streaming for more efficient RAM usage?
>>
>> Large libraries shouldn't need to be in RAM all at once. I run the NI
>> stuff you listed and a bunch of other Audio Unit plugins, including some
>> pretty large sample sets, and it's no prob here. Granted I don't run the
>> EW stuff and if you're right about EW, I'm glad I don't.
>>
>> I have 2.5 GB RAM at present and it's been enough so far for some fairly
>> large arrangements. Other than the sample-based plugs, some AUs are
>> synths that depend more on CPU power than RAM and they run fine in large
>> projects as well, with the G5 muscle. Plus live instrument tracks and
>> copious FX plugins, no sweat, one box.
>>
>> What's with 8 PCs recommended to run the EW plugs? If it's just samples,
>> that's way overkill for CPU power, assuming they're talking about
>> current boxes.
>>
>> If it's RAM limitations, then A) sample libraries shouldn't have to run
>> completely in RAM, and B) current machines have a lot of RAM support
>> available to buffer samples - for example 16GB on current MacPro boxes,
>> which should be plenty o' RAM for sample buffering.
>>
>> If it's an HD i/o speed bottleneck for streaming samples, how about
>> adding more SATA cards/drives?
>>
>> I also wonder about the use of 300 tracks. A real orchestra doesn't have
>> 300 sections. It doesn't even have 300 individual players.
>>
>> Are you using 300 tracks on your stuff? I'm not. Shoot me if I do, the
>> music would get lost in the overproduction.
>>
>> Maybe the folks you talked to are just trying to save time preloading a
>> lot of plugins they won't necessarily use, that's a choice I guess. But
>> it'd be quicker and waste less resources to work out the arrangement
>> with fewer plugins (but still plenty). And then add what's needed to
>> refine, if anything. I'm not going to fault them for using outboard
>> samplers, that just shows they've been around a while, have a lot
>> invested in that setup, and it works for them. But anyone starting now
>> wouldn't likely go that route.
>>
>> BTW, GPO switches articulations/sample sets on the fly and runs very
>> efficiently. Big ensembles, small footprint.
>>
>> Sorry to hear about the trumpet player at your wedding, are you sure it
>> wasn't an EW plugin? ;^) I'm really looking forward to hearing your demo
>> piece!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>> PS. You're right about laptops, next laptop I get I'll evaluate for
>> using the plugins at live shows. It should be as fast or faster than my
>> G5, although with less RAM expansion and HD flexibility.
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4571cb6a@linux...
>>>>> With hundreds of articulations required for a score, there isn't a single
>>>>> box that I could use to run a full complement. And what I could load into
>>>>> a
>>>>> current PC/Mac will usually only account for about 30 seconds of scoring
>>>>> in
>>>>> one style/tempo.
>>>> Wow, really? I need to hear one of your scores. Clearly we're having
>>>> different experiences. What libraries do you use?
>>> I'm using East West's Quantum Leap Symphonic XP library at the moment: 38G
>>> total. For some things
>>> I then add Symphonic Choirs at 35G (just one section (e.g. sopranos) uses
>>> most of my free Ram).
>>> Then factor in Stormdrum, Kontakt 2, Absynth, and numerous other VSTi's for
>>> more varied, or modern/cinematic uses
>>> and it adds up really fast. EW actually recommends up to 8 PCs for their
>>> platinum library (24-bit).
>>> The composers I've chatted with a few times in LA use 300 track templates
>>> for composing, mutliple
>>> PCs and a large number of outboard samplers/synths - usually 50-100 inputs.
>>> Although I'm not anywhere
>>> near that scale of outboard gear, I can see, and feel the need to greatly
>>> expand my rig in my work more and more now.
>>>
>>> I'm getting ready to put together a rather involved and dynamic piece for a
>>> new demo - I'll email you a link when it's done.
>>>
>>>> Heh. My timpani and horns are very good about not dropping out, (that is,
>>>> ever since that one Logic bug was finally fixed, grrrr!) and they all live
>>>> happily on one box.
>>>>
>>> That really depends on the percussionist though. Some guys are more
>>> reliable than others, esp. if they are former
>>> rock drummers. ;-) Hey, the trumpet player fell asleep during my
>>> wedding....didn't even take a timpani roll to
>>> get him to drop out. He did come back for the recessional though. :-)
>>>
>>> With a larger templates I use up most of my Ram, and since one of the
>>> crescendo Fr.Horn instruments I use is actually a mod-wheel dynamic
>>> crossfade of three sample sets,
>>> as are the timpani modwheel crossfade instruments, they tend to suck down
>>> any remaining ram and cpu power very fast
>>> when a lot of other instruments are loaded and running.
>>>
>>>> I used to sync via SMPTE to a BetaCamSP deck. Now I run the video in
>>>> Logic, too, as Quicktime. Very slick, SMPTE offset, automatic scene
>>>> detection, import/export audio from the video. I've also used Soundtrack
>>>> Pro in a similar way, but much prefer to compose in Logic. Either way,
>>>> it's all on one box.
>>> Apple has video down cold - H.264 is a superb codec, but sadly doesn't work
>>> with Nuendo(PC- too bad).
>>> AVI works fine but I've never been happy with compression and size vs.
>>> quality tradeoffs.
>>> Inline video in Nuendo actually works very well - Quicktime MJpeg works well
>>> here though better when encoded with Vegas
>>> than Quicktime Pro oddly. (I usually run a compressed 320x240 window in
>>> Nuendo locally just for sync and spotting).
>>> I also have a PC sync'd via System Link running full screen DV (720x480)
>>> MJpeg (Quicktime playback in Cubase 4) -
>>> looks quite good for client previews (not as clear as HD or external
>>> monitored DV, but it works well). I'm planning to add a system
>>> running the new Decklink HDMI PCIe card for full res HD playback to an HD
>>> LCD TV fairly soon - for eye candy mainly.
>>>
>>> It's pretty stunning what we can accomplish with a single computer now
>>> though. More power and flexibility is necessary for some
>>> things, but there is a ton of great music that can be produced with even
>>> just a laptop.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's really convenient to do it all on one fast, capable box in the
>>>>>> studio. Less bailing wire, duct tape and magic incantations needed to
>>>>>> hold it all together. :^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Almost no administration time needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW - speaking of intense animation, probably old news, but there's an
>>>>>>> HD
>>>>>>> video online from Animusic - I like some of their other work better,
>>>>>>> but fun
>>>>>>> all the same:
>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/animusic2dvd.html
>>>>>> Clever stuff. I saw another one of those a while back that also
>>>>>> impressed me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76671 is a reply to message #76667] |
Sun, 03 December 2006 05:37 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/3/06 1:43 AM, in article 45728b8a@linux, "Jamie K"
<Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the info, Dedric. So the difference between running on one
> box or multiple boxes comes down to not only the speed/RAM/HD access of
> the box but the plugin set you choose. My plugin set is happy on my G5,
> your set is not happy on your AMD.
It's a size issue. GPO (2G) is significantly smaller than EWQLSO (38G), so
it really isn't taxing your G5 as much as EWQL would.
> I'll have to check out your setup sometime. Is EWQLSO a tedious way to
> orchestrate? I find GPO very performance oriented and reasonably quick
> to use, in addition to its efficient use of RAM/CPU.
Certainly - feel free to pop down for a visit sometime. The advantage of
EWQLSO, VSL or Sonic Implants libraries is that they provide a much wider
range of realism, and creating that realism in a score is time consuming,
though most have quite a few performance shortcuts to simplify the process -
it's easy enough to be as quick or as accurate and detailed as desired.
Regards,
Dedric
>
> I also keep a violin handy when I need complete control of articulation. :^)
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
> PS. The groom was also a Mac user, although not exclusively. :^)
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76676 is a reply to message #76671] |
Sun, 03 December 2006 10:06 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dedric Terry wrote:
> On 12/3/06 1:43 AM, in article 45728b8a@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info, Dedric. So the difference between running on one
>> box or multiple boxes comes down to not only the speed/RAM/HD access of
>> the box but the plugin set you choose. My plugin set is happy on my G5,
>> your set is not happy on your AMD.
>
> It's a size issue. GPO (2G) is significantly smaller than EWQLSO (38G), so
> it really isn't taxing your G5 as much as EWQL would.
But since EWQL runs in Kontakt, and Kontakt can do disk streaming, there
must be a happy medium where you could have much less than 38GB of RAM
and still access the entire library.
If current machines can't yet do this in one box, that day will come. Of
course for anyone willing to freeze tracks as they go, one box should
handle it already. Continued development of algorithmic emulations will
also likely lead to less RAM heavy solutions for orchestrations, some
pieces of that puzzle are already available.
Since I'm not using EWQL, and even though I am using several other large
sample libraries, being able to run on a single box without freezing is
a great way to work. Compared to every system I've used in the past, I
really appreciate this setup.
But it's also great that working on multiple boxes is is getting the job
done for you with EWQL. For anyone who really likes and needs EWQL the
extra hardware would be worth it.
>> I'll have to check out your setup sometime. Is EWQLSO a tedious way to
>> orchestrate? I find GPO very performance oriented and reasonably quick
>> to use, in addition to its efficient use of RAM/CPU.
>
> Certainly - feel free to pop down for a visit sometime. The advantage of
> EWQLSO, VSL or Sonic Implants libraries is that they provide a much wider
> range of realism, and creating that realism in a score is time consuming,
> though most have quite a few performance shortcuts to simplify the process -
> it's easy enough to be as quick or as accurate and detailed as desired.
Next time I'm heading your way I'll stop in. I can see advantages and
disadvantages to the EWQLSO approach and it will be nice to hear how
you're using it.
I have a lot of respect for the GPO approach to make a library that's
efficient and easily performable in real time, with clever control
functions that allow enough variation and oft-used articulations to
create credible orchestrations. I also like that it's a dry library that
can be mixed into any space. The EWQLSO approach of samples recorded
with room space included is also valid and useful for many applications,
and it's an impressively deep collection.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
PS. Just saw a report of the emergency radio system test in the Springs.
Did the air force jam your garage door? "When a secretive Air Force
installation in Colorado Springs began testing the radio signal, it
knocked out remote control garage door openers around the area. The
communication system, intended to reach first responders, uses the same
frequency as an estimated 50 million garage door openers." -AP
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
>> I also keep a violin handy when I need complete control of articulation. :^)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>> PS. The groom was also a Mac user, although not exclusively. :^)
>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76684 is a reply to message #76676] |
Sun, 03 December 2006 14:13 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/3/06 11:06 AM, in article 45730fa6@linux, "Jamie K"
<Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> But since EWQL runs in Kontakt, and Kontakt can do disk streaming, there
> must be a happy medium where you could have much less than 38GB of RAM
> and still access the entire library.
DSD can only do so much streaming and swapping out with that amount of data
and number of instruments and orchestral library requires. With multiple
instruments DSD is handling multiple separate processes, not just one as
with a grand piano. (That may not be quite accurate, but it makes sense in
light of how system requirements vary when I load a large piano sample vs.
multiple orchestral instruments).
>
> If current machines can't yet do this in one box, that day will come. Of
> course for anyone willing to freeze tracks as they go, one box should
> handle it already. Continued development of algorithmic emulations will
> also likely lead to less RAM heavy solutions for orchestrations, some
> pieces of that puzzle are already available.
But emulations come at the expense of higher cpu usage, and realism. It's
certainly an interesting approach and does work fairly well in the VSTi's
I've tried, for what they are, but it still doesn't approach the realism of
a large sample library.... which itself doesn't completely replace the
realism of the real thing, though it can be quite convincing.
> Next time I'm heading your way I'll stop in. I can see advantages and
> disadvantages to the EWQLSO approach and it will be nice to hear how
> you're using it.
Please do! Seeing and hearing is the easiest way to get a feel for why many
composers go this route. But don't anticipate benching GPO for EWQLSO
though - the whole goal is to maximize creativity, and when you have a setup
you are excited about working with and are productive with, I think it's
best to stick with it.
Regards,
Dedric
>
> PS. Just saw a report of the emergency radio system test in the Springs.
> Did the air force jam your garage door? "When a secretive Air Force
> installation in Colorado Springs began testing the radio signal, it
> knocked out remote control garage door openers around the area. The
> communication system, intended to reach first responders, uses the same
> frequency as an estimated 50 million garage door openers." -AP
PS: Our garage door opener is working - maybe it's in the Navy radio band.
:-)
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>>> I also keep a violin handy when I need complete control of articulation. :^)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>> PS. The groom was also a Mac user, although not exclusively. :^)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76686 is a reply to message #76684] |
Sun, 03 December 2006 15:32 |
AlexPlasko
Messages: 211
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
dedric
how many instances are you able to run together? do you run EWQLSO and
EWQLSC at the same time?I have choirs, and am trying to hold out for a
group buy offering on orchestra.
word builder is amazing isnt it?
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C19899FE.5E01%dterry@keyofd.net...
> On 12/3/06 11:06 AM, in article 45730fa6@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> But since EWQL runs in Kontakt, and Kontakt can do disk streaming, there
>> must be a happy medium where you could have much less than 38GB of RAM
>> and still access the entire library.
>
> DSD can only do so much streaming and swapping out with that amount of
> data
> and number of instruments and orchestral library requires. With multiple
> instruments DSD is handling multiple separate processes, not just one as
> with a grand piano. (That may not be quite accurate, but it makes sense
> in
> light of how system requirements vary when I load a large piano sample vs.
> multiple orchestral instruments).
>>
>> If current machines can't yet do this in one box, that day will come. Of
>> course for anyone willing to freeze tracks as they go, one box should
>> handle it already. Continued development of algorithmic emulations will
>> also likely lead to less RAM heavy solutions for orchestrations, some
>> pieces of that puzzle are already available.
>
> But emulations come at the expense of higher cpu usage, and realism. It's
> certainly an interesting approach and does work fairly well in the VSTi's
> I've tried, for what they are, but it still doesn't approach the realism
> of
> a large sample library.... which itself doesn't completely replace the
> realism of the real thing, though it can be quite convincing.
>
>> Next time I'm heading your way I'll stop in. I can see advantages and
>> disadvantages to the EWQLSO approach and it will be nice to hear how
>> you're using it.
>
> Please do! Seeing and hearing is the easiest way to get a feel for why
> many
> composers go this route. But don't anticipate benching GPO for EWQLSO
> though - the whole goal is to maximize creativity, and when you have a
> setup
> you are excited about working with and are productive with, I think it's
> best to stick with it.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
>>
>> PS. Just saw a report of the emergency radio system test in the Springs.
>> Did the air force jam your garage door? "When a secretive Air Force
>> installation in Colorado Springs began testing the radio signal, it
>> knocked out remote control garage door openers around the area. The
>> communication system, intended to reach first responders, uses the same
>> frequency as an estimated 50 million garage door openers." -AP
>
> PS: Our garage door opener is working - maybe it's in the Navy radio band.
> :-)
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>>> I also keep a violin handy when I need complete control of
>>>> articulation. :^)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>> PS. The groom was also a Mac user, although not exclusively. :^)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76688 is a reply to message #76686] |
Sun, 03 December 2006 16:30 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Alex,
I run about 8 instances of EWQL's Kompakt player. I can't run Choirs
simultaneously - too memory intensive, for the switched parts at least.
All the East West stuff is on sale for about 50% off right now. That's what
I paid for Choirs in a group buy.
Regards,
Dedric
On 12/3/06 4:32 PM, in article 45735c0c@linux, "alex plasko"
<alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
> dedric
> how many instances are you able to run together? do you run EWQLSO and
> EWQLSC at the same time?I have choirs, and am trying to hold out for a
> group buy offering on orchestra.
> word builder is amazing isnt it?
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:C19899FE.5E01%dterry@keyofd.net...
>> On 12/3/06 11:06 AM, in article 45730fa6@linux, "Jamie K"
>> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But since EWQL runs in Kontakt, and Kontakt can do disk streaming, there
>>> must be a happy medium where you could have much less than 38GB of RAM
>>> and still access the entire library.
>>
>> DSD can only do so much streaming and swapping out with that amount of
>> data
>> and number of instruments and orchestral library requires. With multiple
>> instruments DSD is handling multiple separate processes, not just one as
>> with a grand piano. (That may not be quite accurate, but it makes sense
>> in
>> light of how system requirements vary when I load a large piano sample vs.
>> multiple orchestral instruments).
>>>
>>> If current machines can't yet do this in one box, that day will come. Of
>>> course for anyone willing to freeze tracks as they go, one box should
>>> handle it already. Continued development of algorithmic emulations will
>>> also likely lead to less RAM heavy solutions for orchestrations, some
>>> pieces of that puzzle are already available.
>>
>> But emulations come at the expense of higher cpu usage, and realism. It's
>> certainly an interesting approach and does work fairly well in the VSTi's
>> I've tried, for what they are, but it still doesn't approach the realism
>> of
>> a large sample library.... which itself doesn't completely replace the
>> realism of the real thing, though it can be quite convincing.
>>
>>> Next time I'm heading your way I'll stop in. I can see advantages and
>>> disadvantages to the EWQLSO approach and it will be nice to hear how
>>> you're using it.
>>
>> Please do! Seeing and hearing is the easiest way to get a feel for why
>> many
>> composers go this route. But don't anticipate benching GPO for EWQLSO
>> though - the whole goal is to maximize creativity, and when you have a
>> setup
>> you are excited about working with and are productive with, I think it's
>> best to stick with it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>>>
>>> PS. Just saw a report of the emergency radio system test in the Springs.
>>> Did the air force jam your garage door? "When a secretive Air Force
>>> installation in Colorado Springs began testing the radio signal, it
>>> knocked out remote control garage door openers around the area. The
>>> communication system, intended to reach first responders, uses the same
>>> frequency as an estimated 50 million garage door openers." -AP
>>
>> PS: Our garage door opener is working - maybe it's in the Navy radio band.
>> :-)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>>> I also keep a violin handy when I need complete control of
>>>>> articulation. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>> PS. The groom was also a Mac user, although not exclusively. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Track Counts in Native Systems? [message #76719 is a reply to message #76684] |
Mon, 04 December 2006 10:09 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dedric Terry wrote:
> On 12/3/06 11:06 AM, in article 45730fa6@linux, "Jamie K"
> <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>> But since EWQL runs in Kontakt, and Kontakt can do disk streaming, there
>> must be a happy medium where you could have much less than 38GB of RAM
>> and still access the entire library.
>
> DSD can only do so much streaming and swapping out with that amount of data
> and number of instruments and orchestral library requires. With multiple
> instruments DSD is handling multiple separate processes, not just one as
> with a grand piano. (That may not be quite accurate, but it makes sense in
> light of how system requirements vary when I load a large piano sample vs.
> multiple orchestral instruments).
>> If current machines can't yet do this in one box, that day will come. Of
>> course for anyone willing to freeze tracks as they go, one box should
>> handle it already. Continued development of algorithmic emulations will
>> also likely lead to less RAM heavy solutions for orchestrations, some
>> pieces of that puzzle are already available.
>
> But emulations come at the expense of higher cpu usage, and realism. It's
> certainly an interesting approach and does work fairly well in the VSTi's
> I've tried, for what they are, but it still doesn't approach the realism of
> a large sample library.... which itself doesn't completely replace the
> realism of the real thing, though it can be quite convincing.
We've gone from pipe organs taking up the space of a small house to
software plugins inside laptops. An amazing progression of ensemble
emulation tools, and the progression will continue.
I suspect algorithmic emulations will take over eventually. CPU power is
less and less a problem. Potential advantages in performability, low
storage/bandwidth requirements and ever improving accuracy/quality will
tilt the balance at some point.
Meanwhile, speaking of realism, you're right. A great use of these
libraries is as mockups in preparation for directing a real orchestra.
I've also found that combining real instrument tracks with sampled
tracks aids greatly in producing a convincing piece.
>> Next time I'm heading your way I'll stop in. I can see advantages and
>> disadvantages to the EWQLSO approach and it will be nice to hear how
>> you're using it.
>
> Please do! Seeing and hearing is the easiest way to get a feel for why many
> composers go this route. But don't anticipate benching GPO for EWQLSO
> though - the whole goal is to maximize creativity, and when you have a setup
> you are excited about working with and are productive with, I think it's
> best to stick with it.
Good advice. Whenever I add a new approach I usually keep the existing
ones around and integrate the new approach gradually, and only where it
makes sense.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
>> PS. Just saw a report of the emergency radio system test in the Springs.
>> Did the air force jam your garage door? "When a secretive Air Force
>> installation in Colorado Springs began testing the radio signal, it
>> knocked out remote control garage door openers around the area. The
>> communication system, intended to reach first responders, uses the same
>> frequency as an estimated 50 million garage door openers." -AP
>
> PS: Our garage door opener is working - maybe it's in the Navy radio band.
> :-)
>
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>>> I also keep a violin handy when I need complete control of articulation. :^)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>> PS. The groom was also a Mac user, although not exclusively. :^)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Nov 12 10:38:09 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02506 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
