Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » the last paris app we need?
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102022 is a reply to message #102021] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 18:11   |
JeffH
Messages: 307
Registered: October 2007
Location: Wamic, OR
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil wrote:
> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>>> LaMont
>>>has pointed out that Nuendo starts to crap-out, sound and summing wise
>
> after
>
>>>so many tracks, I believe around 40 tracks.
>>
>>i beg to differ. nuendo no more "craps out" than paris does.
>>that is a myth.
>
>
>
> Awhile back, while Derek was gone, and while I was still
> hanging out here more, I posted an example or two of a couple
> of songs I'd mixed through an SSL & a couple that I'd done ITB
> in Cubase... while they were not the same song, they were a couple of the
> same players, and were in the same genre, - the
> results in responses were clearly in favor of the ITB Cubase
> mixes, though some people did like the SSL mixes better... same
> recordist & mixer on both (me), so I would have had to
> PURPOSELY pre-plan to sabotage the SSL mixes I did a year
> before the ITB mixes if I wanted to rig that test.
>
> Around the same time, I was starting to experiment with
> external summing, so I posted some comparison files of a Cubase
> mix summed out into 8-channels of lightpipe, going into a
> Creamware/Pulsar card, summing through it's DSP mixer at 24-
> bit/88.2k, and the same song summed through 8 channels of
> Paris a/d convertors, and the same mix ITB in Cubase...
> these had mixed results in terms of this user group - in other
> words, some people liked one better than the other, and it was
> split (as I recall) almost equally - a little more than a third
> had a preference for the Paris summing, a little less than a
> third liked the DSP summing in Creamware, and a little more
> than a third liked the Cubase ITB version. I think everyone was
> being pretty honest about this, as this was a blind test, and
> people were tending to describe WHAT they liked about each
> one: "I liked version B because it was warmer", or "I Liked
> version C becausee it was cleaner & had better dimension", or
> what have you. IOW, there was no clear "wow, this one is WAY
> better!" in this test. Different-sounding, yes. "Better"? Nope.
>
One variable in the test that really isn't accounted for is the playback
system each person used. Each person picked what sounded best in their
specific environment, so they were not in reality listening to the exact
same representation of the samples (though they were playing the exact
same samples).
It would be interesting to try this with 15-20 people blind listening
off the same system in the same environment. DOn't know that the
results would be different, but it would definitely add a level of
certainty in the results.
Jeff
> I bring this up to reinforce Derek's point that there is no
> such thing as "crapping out" in a good native DAW. What CAN
> happen, however, is poor gainstage management, which WILL cause
> your mix to sound like shit... when you go over the "zero"
> threshhold on either individual channels, or groups, or the 2-
> Buss, the higher you go over that threshhold, the more like ass
> your mix will sound... the image will indeed start to collapse,
> and your front-to-back depth will become more one-dimensional,
> regardless of if you're getting no distortion alarm-bells going
> off, due to floating-point math on the mix buss or groups.
>
> Consider this: If you've got a 30 or 40 or 50 channel mix, and
> 16 of those channels are peaking at +2, then what does that do
> to your 32-bit float-point mix buss during those peak
> intervals? It maxes it out, right? Let's take it further... if
> you've got those 16 channels peaking at +2, and 30 that are
> peaking at -10, and two or three that are peaking at +3, then what does THAT
> do?
>
> It's all about gainstaging, folks. the analogy I like to use is:
> Would you start a mix on a console with every fader at
> +15 or whatever the max is? Hell no! So why would you want to
> work with every channel at 0db as the starting point in the
> Native world?
>
> According to Chuck Duffy (who should know), 0db in the Paris
> world is REALLY -20, so no wonder you can "spank it", when you
> have 20 db of headroom you don't even know about on every
> channel.
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102023 is a reply to message #102021] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 20:06 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neal, I think it also proves other points. One, is that it is subjective,
two that it is subjective, and three, that it is subjective! It depends
on the equipment, the engineer, type of music and many other factors. I
believe Paris has it's own sound. I believe that Paris is in the same league
with other DAWs as far as sound goes. I do not believe you can throw 20
grand at another system and get it to sound any better than Paris, especially
not 20 grand better than Paris. I think Paris has an edge sound wise for
rock n roll, and for cutting live instruments and vocals paris is fine.
For other types of music, maybe not so much. Paris is a good summing choice,
IMO. Function and feature wise, paris may not be the best choice, however,
Paris is still alive and works for many, and it sounds damn good especially
for the money.
It's good to know that other DAWs sound good too, I've used a few myself.
I would say that Derek's idea of a Paris EXIT software, would make Mike's
work and all of our hardware values somewhat null and void. At least Paris
still has some value now. Many of us have chosen to ride Paris in to the
ground. The hard ware will be available for years to come and T sonic will
be there to repair stuff that goes bad. Paris has lived on way longer than
anybody expected, we're here 12 years later, I have a feeling Paris and Paris
users will be around for years to come. I encourage Mike to keep up the
good work! I see no good reason to jump ship.
"Neil" <OIUIOU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>> LaMont
>>>has pointed out that Nuendo starts to crap-out, sound and summing wise
>after
>>>so many tracks, I believe around 40 tracks.
>>
>>i beg to differ. nuendo no more "craps out" than paris does.
>>that is a myth.
>
>
>Awhile back, while Derek was gone, and while I was still
>hanging out here more, I posted an example or two of a couple
>of songs I'd mixed through an SSL & a couple that I'd done ITB
>in Cubase... while they were not the same song, they were a couple of the
>same players, and were in the same genre, - the
>results in responses were clearly in favor of the ITB Cubase
>mixes, though some people did like the SSL mixes better... same
>recordist & mixer on both (me), so I would have had to
>PURPOSELY pre-plan to sabotage the SSL mixes I did a year
>before the ITB mixes if I wanted to rig that test.
>
>Around the same time, I was starting to experiment with
>external summing, so I posted some comparison files of a Cubase
>mix summed out into 8-channels of lightpipe, going into a
>Creamware/Pulsar card, summing through it's DSP mixer at 24-
>bit/88.2k, and the same song summed through 8 channels of
>Paris a/d convertors, and the same mix ITB in Cubase...
>these had mixed results in terms of this user group - in other
>words, some people liked one better than the other, and it was
>split (as I recall) almost equally - a little more than a third
>had a preference for the Paris summing, a little less than a
>third liked the DSP summing in Creamware, and a little more
>than a third liked the Cubase ITB version. I think everyone was
>being pretty honest about this, as this was a blind test, and
>people were tending to describe WHAT they liked about each
>one: "I liked version B because it was warmer", or "I Liked
>version C becausee it was cleaner & had better dimension", or
>what have you. IOW, there was no clear "wow, this one is WAY
>better!" in this test. Different-sounding, yes. "Better"? Nope.
>
>I bring this up to reinforce Derek's point that there is no
>such thing as "crapping out" in a good native DAW. What CAN
>happen, however, is poor gainstage management, which WILL cause
>your mix to sound like shit... when you go over the "zero"
>threshhold on either individual channels, or groups, or the 2-
>Buss, the higher you go over that threshhold, the more like ass
>your mix will sound... the image will indeed start to collapse,
>and your front-to-back depth will become more one-dimensional,
>regardless of if you're getting no distortion alarm-bells going
>off, due to floating-point math on the mix buss or groups.
>
>Consider this: If you've got a 30 or 40 or 50 channel mix, and
>16 of those channels are peaking at +2, then what does that do
>to your 32-bit float-point mix buss during those peak
>intervals? It maxes it out, right? Let's take it further... if
>you've got those 16 channels peaking at +2, and 30 that are
>peaking at -10, and two or three that are peaking at +3, then what does
THAT
>do?
>
>It's all about gainstaging, folks. the analogy I like to use is:
>Would you start a mix on a console with every fader at
>+15 or whatever the max is? Hell no! So why would you want to
>work with every channel at 0db as the starting point in the
>Native world?
>
>According to Chuck Duffy (who should know), 0db in the Paris
>world is REALLY -20, so no wonder you can "spank it", when you
>have 20 db of headroom you don't even know about on every
>channel.
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102024 is a reply to message #102023] |
Fri, 09 January 2009 20:51 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
James, there is ABSOLUTELY some subjective stuff involved - no
doubt - and that was part of my point... IOW, when you get to
the subjective part of things, there was no clear-cut victory
between Paris summing, and Creamware summing, and Cubase ITB.
They were all pretty close in some people's minds, and
different people picked whichever one they liked based
on whatever resonated with them best. When they did this, there
was no clear-cut victory, meaning that even under the most
subjective terms, neither DAW or summing app was decidedly
"better". It simply came down to whichever set of sonic
attributes they personally preferred.
Is Paris still a valid DAW? Sure, if it works for you, then
go for it. Tape could be a valid recording medium for you too -
depending on what you're looking for. Is it a valid DAW in
terms of workflow in the current environment of what you need
to do in many circumstances of what's more current & modern? I
kinda doubt it.
Neil
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote>
>Neal, I think it also proves other points. One, is that it is subjective,
>two that it is subjective, and three, that it is subjective! It depends
>on the equipment, the engineer, type of music and many other factors. I
>believe Paris has it's own sound. I believe that Paris is in the same league
>with other DAWs as far as sound goes. I do not believe you can throw 20
>grand at another system and get it to sound any better than Paris, especially
>not 20 grand better than Paris. I think Paris has an edge sound wise for
>rock n roll, and for cutting live instruments and vocals paris is fine.
>For other types of music, maybe not so much. Paris is a good summing choice,
>IMO. Function and feature wise, paris may not be the best choice, however,
>Paris is still alive and works for many, and it sounds damn good especially
>for the money.
>
>It's good to know that other DAWs sound good too, I've used a few myself.
> I would say that Derek's idea of a Paris EXIT software, would make Mike's
>work and all of our hardware values somewhat null and void. At least Paris
>still has some value now. Many of us have chosen to ride Paris in to the
>ground. The hard ware will be available for years to come and T sonic will
>be there to repair stuff that goes bad. Paris has lived on way longer than
>anybody expected, we're here 12 years later, I have a feeling Paris and
Paris
>users will be around for years to come. I encourage Mike to keep up the
>good work! I see no good reason to jump ship.
>
>"Neil" <OIUIOU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>
>>"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>> LaMont
>>>>has pointed out that Nuendo starts to crap-out, sound and summing wise
>>after
>>>>so many tracks, I believe around 40 tracks.
>>>
>>>i beg to differ. nuendo no more "craps out" than paris does.
>>>that is a myth.
>>
>>
>>Awhile back, while Derek was gone, and while I was still
>>hanging out here more, I posted an example or two of a couple
>>of songs I'd mixed through an SSL & a couple that I'd done ITB
>>in Cubase... while they were not the same song, they were a couple of the
>>same players, and were in the same genre, - the
>>results in responses were clearly in favor of the ITB Cubase
>>mixes, though some people did like the SSL mixes better... same
>>recordist & mixer on both (me), so I would have had to
>>PURPOSELY pre-plan to sabotage the SSL mixes I did a year
>>before the ITB mixes if I wanted to rig that test.
>>
>>Around the same time, I was starting to experiment with
>>external summing, so I posted some comparison files of a Cubase
>>mix summed out into 8-channels of lightpipe, going into a
>>Creamware/Pulsar card, summing through it's DSP mixer at 24-
>>bit/88.2k, and the same song summed through 8 channels of
>>Paris a/d convertors, and the same mix ITB in Cubase...
>>these had mixed results in terms of this user group - in other
>>words, some people liked one better than the other, and it was
>>split (as I recall) almost equally - a little more than a third
>>had a preference for the Paris summing, a little less than a
>>third liked the DSP summing in Creamware, and a little more
>>than a third liked the Cubase ITB version. I think everyone was
>>being pretty honest about this, as this was a blind test, and
>>people were tending to describe WHAT they liked about each
>>one: "I liked version B because it was warmer", or "I Liked
>>version C becausee it was cleaner & had better dimension", or
>>what have you. IOW, there was no clear "wow, this one is WAY
>>better!" in this test. Different-sounding, yes. "Better"? Nope.
>>
>>I bring this up to reinforce Derek's point that there is no
>>such thing as "crapping out" in a good native DAW. What CAN
>>happen, however, is poor gainstage management, which WILL cause
>>your mix to sound like shit... when you go over the "zero"
>>threshhold on either individual channels, or groups, or the 2-
>>Buss, the higher you go over that threshhold, the more like ass
>>your mix will sound... the image will indeed start to collapse,
>>and your front-to-back depth will become more one-dimensional,
>>regardless of if you're getting no distortion alarm-bells going
>>off, due to floating-point math on the mix buss or groups.
>>
>>Consider this: If you've got a 30 or 40 or 50 channel mix, and
>>16 of those channels are peaking at +2, then what does that do
>>to your 32-bit float-point mix buss during those peak
>>intervals? It maxes it out, right? Let's take it further... if
>>you've got those 16 channels peaking at +2, and 30 that are
>>peaking at -10, and two or three that are peaking at +3, then what does
>THAT
>>do?
>>
>>It's all about gainstaging, folks. the analogy I like to use is:
>>Would you start a mix on a console with every fader at
>>+15 or whatever the max is? Hell no! So why would you want to
>>work with every channel at 0db as the starting point in the
>>Native world?
>>
>>According to Chuck Duffy (who should know), 0db in the Paris
>>world is REALLY -20, so no wonder you can "spank it", when you
>>have 20 db of headroom you don't even know about on every
>>channel.
>>
>>Neil
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102039 is a reply to message #102034] |
Sat, 10 January 2009 19:11 |
TC
Messages: 327
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Deej,
Good to hear that they are working well. I ordered all 4" thick ones,
open back. 6 of the 4x2' and 3 of the 2x2's. I'm in a much smaller
space, so that should improve things. I also ordered the mocha ones :)
How's your CM7 working out for you? Have you had a chance to compare it
to a vintage 47 at all? I'm a CM7 (M7) owner also, and have an
opportunity to purchase a vintage Klause Heyne restored U47 here shortly
from a good friend of mine at a decent price. I'm still keeping the CM7
if the deal goes through, but I'm curious to get your impressions now
that you've been using it for awhile..
Cheers,
TC
Deej wrote:
> TC <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote:
>> That's great, thanks for the info. I'll probably build some stands also.
>>
>> I'd prefer that to wall mounting, at least for some of them (the ones
>> that will need to be corner mounted etc.)
>>
>> Are you happy with them? I know the price on them is great..
>>
>> Mine should be showing up early next week.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> TC
>>
>
>
> They work very well. When I got them in here Amy and I both immediately noticed
> how quiet the house got. Ambient noise levels all but disappeared. This is
> actually something that you need to be careful of unless you're trying to
> recreate the sonic fingerprint of being locked inside a coffin. If you're
> using the 4" deep ones, space them well apart to begin with. A little goes
> a long way.
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need?-couple questions [message #102045 is a reply to message #102019] |
Sun, 11 January 2009 11:40 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Nappy" <juggler9@rock.com> wrote:
>
>So is Vista ready for prime time now?
>
>
>respect
>Nappy
that depends on your viewpoint. actually, from the start,
the bad reputation vista got in the audio world was
because you got a little less performance when running it
than using windows XP, which is still the case.
OTOH, this performance loss ironically is very much the same
as the one you get when using OSX - these days its pretty
easy to run OSX alongside win XP on one machine (be it a mac
with bootcamp or a pc with those fancy pretend-to-OSX-youre-a-mac dongles)
and OSX consistently shows a less
performance on a given machine than win XP too. totally
makes sense too, considering that both OSX and vista rely
heavily on ram and CPU hungry fancy graphics and animations whereas win XP
is just ugly and visibly doesnt waste very many CPU cycles
on any OS-related visuals ;-)
so with that being said, id say of course vista is ready for
prime time. with todays machines youve got so much power
that the differences become neglectible, i for sure wouldnt
care about it on my machine. in the nuendo users group theres
many people that use vista64 now, and after quite a while
it seems like theyre all very happy with it.
of course theres also no real *reason* to switch to vista
unless youre bored by XP, want the fancy visual stuff or,
in my case, keep running into 32bit memory limits. which
is why personally, i would say the bottom line is it
doesnt make very much sense to switch to vista, but
it sure makes sense to switch to vista64, that benefit is
very real - but only if you work with huge sample libraries
and projects and NEED that much ram.
the only thing that sort of speaks against vista64 at this
point are the advance reviews windows 7 is getting. its
getting a LOT of advance praise, and from critical sources too.
even in its current beta status its said to be very streamlined,
very performant and at the same time, with many feature additions
that actually make sense in daily life, for a change ;-)
thats why im undecided. i may as well maybe keep running XP
for this one more year and then jump directly to windows 7...
its really mostly a question about how lazy i am :-)
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102050 is a reply to message #102020] |
Sun, 11 January 2009 13:18 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As I recall, Steinberg rewrote nuendo for Mac, something to do with the
core
>or audio engine, not sure, it might have had to do with 64bit.
they didnt "rewrite" it, but yes, they had to do a lot of
work twice because apple at some point decided a fundamental
architecure change, exclusively supporting one...tech thingy...that was
incompatible with what the other solution they had
recommended 3rd party developers to use, causing once again
3rd party developers to jump through totally unnecessary hoops.
like it or not, apple is not very popular in that regard,
and rightly so. ive talked to developers from many
companies first hand (germany is an awesome place to live
in when youre into audio software) and this stuff comes
from them, not from me.
I don't know
>what recompiling was necessary, I do know that if you write new code it's
>a simple as a check box to get a universal binary of the code.
yes, thats what apple PR told you. considering how little
examples in practice of that showed up, and considering
how virtually the entire industry took a lot longer than
that to make the transition, i wouldnt hesitate labeling it
pure BS, but then, im not an apple fan as you are, so thats
not really a surprise :-)
> From my prospective
>Steinberg has not made Mac users their top priority in the last 5 years
by
>any means, and who really knows what goes on in house.
why should it be a "top" priority? theyve released most
of the products in parallel, and id say, considering that
theyre about the only major crossplatform supporter left
besides digidesign, well, good thing that they support
apple dont you think?
> To blame Apple is to
>cry about progress and growing pains,
yes, thats exactly right. progress and growing pains is
something that should happen in a manufacturers lab, not
in the course of almost half a dozen updates (many
of them costing money, and with apple constantly pulling
the "this new gimmick requires the latest OSX to work
at all trick). its a bit like when windows 95 came out and
only reached a certain level of maturity with windows 98.
stuff like that sucks.
> so what do you have to say about the
>Windows Vista debacle? It's not like MS had it all together for the software
>developers.
im far from being a MS defender (theres no fanboy culture
in the pc world like there is in the mac world ;-) but fwiw,
i dont recall any of the audio softwares that ran on XP
not running on vista (no wonder, its just XP with fancy
graphics). in fact, a friend of mine started using his
stuff more or less the day it came out, and one of the
things he did was just copying his freeware VST effect
folder from the old machine to the new one, and lo and behold,
that stuff still works.
sure, you get a little less performance under
vista than under XP and many pc people freaked out about
that, but then, the same is true for OSX. having fancy
animations, "swooshing" windows and all that stuff results
in a performance hit. surprise, surprise! :-)
> How long has it taken them to catch up with Vista 64? Or is
>it Windows 7 now?
catch up to what? vista64 was released when vista was released.
and before that, there already was windows XP64 for a long time.
were you trying to go the "OSX has been 64bit before peecees
were"-route? do you swallow absolutely everything apple PR
tells you to believe?
>I wasn't trying to say that Logic is the best DAW software in the world,
>I was trying to say that Logic 8 has caught up, it's now a modern DAW package.
as i said, thats very obviously a matter of perspective :-)
i dont expect us to agree on that.
> Logic 8 is not the old logic 5 and it is not a kludge that has been thrown
>together with a new paint job.
from where i stand, thats actually a VERY precise description
of what it is. but again, we dont have to agree here.
> I think you should take a closer look at
>Logic 8 and I'll leave it at that.
i know logic 8. do you know the competing programs i was
talking about? ever seen samplitude in action? and i dont mean 5 minute google
knowledge...
>Back to Paris being dead, I disagree if your saying that Paris does not
have
>it's own sound. If your saying that you can reproduce that sound in another
>DAW, I'd like to know how?
well, i have presented you with quite a few factual statements,
and if your reaction is a mere "i still disagree", well, what else is there
to say.
> I don't doubt that at unity gain or less, you
>could get tracks to null, I'd like to see you get them to null when the
Paris
>tracks are pushed. Where you able to do this? Do you have copies of those
>tracks you tested?
when pushing stuff into the red, paris does straightforward clipping
(which actually quite often is the best sounding option from
a variety of options).
its a bonus that you get this clipping while the converters
yet dont clip (when dialed in right) - on a floating point host
that by itself doesnt really ever clip internally even if you
go 40db "into the red", you can get a very wrong idea of
whats happening because, while the floating point host itself
wont clip, your very-much-not-floating-point DA converters
will, and depending on the converter that will of course sound like crap.
but clipping ones converters is just an operator
error (one that many mastering houses do on purpose, nonetheless ;-)
pull down the fader of that channel that is 40db in the red
and you will be back to no clipping and it will be as if
you had perfect gainstaging. thats the advantage of floating
point.
and of course you can always put something in the master channel
that internally is linear and will do the clipping for you,
if you want your floating point host to behave like it had
a linear 24bit masterbus. theres that, and
theres anything from tape saturation simulation to soft saturation
that just "tries to sound good" (i.e. the UAD loudness maximizer,
which has a slightly misleading name because its not a limiter
but a saturator is very very good and almost always a better
way to go than straight clipping) (something i would not
say is the case always for traditional limiting, which
is the most "official" way of making something loud) and
of course the whole arsenal of mastering tools that all deal
with the topic of having a "hot" mix in one way or the other.
so you can do it the paris way, or theres dozens of
other options.
are you saying that the option to do straightforward clipping
in paris is by default always the best way to go?
or are you claiming that the way paris is clipping is
in a way "magic" that lets you make your summing bus hotter
than any other mastering approach?
i dont want to ask strawman questions, so i will say out loud
that i dont quite believe that thats what youre saying. but
if thats not what youre saying, what is it then?
> I'm from the show me state!
yeah, so show me :-) youre the one whos claiming to have
a superior method of driving "hot" mixes. i do mastering a lot
and my statement would be that theres a million ways that
lead to rome. clipping is one of them, but it sure is not
the only one.
youre the one who says that theres a special way that
results in superior "hot" sound. so, since youre "from
the show me state", im very much looking forward to that.
maybe i missed that all these years that ive been running
paris (and happily clipping the master bus when i found
it appropriate, though definetly not always).
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102055 is a reply to message #102050] |
Sun, 11 January 2009 17:40 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>As I recall, Steinberg rewrote nuendo for Mac, something to do with the
>core
>>or audio engine, not sure, it might have had to do with 64bit.
>
>
>they didnt "rewrite" it, but yes, they had to do a lot of
>work twice because apple at some point decided a fundamental
>architecure change, exclusively supporting one...tech thingy...that was
>incompatible with what the other solution they had
>recommended 3rd party developers to use, causing once again
>3rd party developers to jump through totally unnecessary hoops.
I heard differently.
>
>like it or not, apple is not very popular in that regard,
>and rightly so. ive talked to developers from many
>companies first hand (germany is an awesome place to live
>in when youre into audio software) and this stuff comes
>from them, not from me.
>
>
> I don't know
>>what recompiling was necessary, I do know that if you write new code it's
>>a simple as a check box to get a universal binary of the code.
>
>
>yes, thats what apple PR told you. considering how little
>examples in practice of that showed up, and considering
>how virtually the entire industry took a lot longer than
>that to make the transition, i wouldnt hesitate labeling it
>pure BS, but then, im not an apple fan as you are, so thats
>not really a surprise :-)
Apple has made changes to their ADK over the years, and Apple products are
better off for it, it's called improvement. It isn't like there wasn't years
of growing pain with Vista. As a former Apple Developer, the compiler has
a simple check box that writes a dual binary for PPC and Intel at the same
time, this is a fact, not BS. If you don't believe me look in to it yourself
>
>
>> From my prospective
>>Steinberg has not made Mac users their top priority in the last 5 years
>by
>>any means, and who really knows what goes on in house.
>
>
>why should it be a "top" priority? theyve released most
>of the products in parallel, and id say, considering that
>theyre about the only major crossplatform supporter left
>besides digidesign, well, good thing that they support
>apple dont you think?
Steinberg has not always released their products in parallel, and that's
part of my point. My point was that Steinberg's Mac products have lagged
behind in performance with code that was not optimized up to date. I believe
Steinberg has lost Mac customers as a result. Steinberg and the Mac community
for years supported each other before Steinberg products were ever on the
PC platform. It's a good thing that Apple and Mac users supported Steinberg
for all these years, don't you think?
There has been a narrowing down of DAW software Manufacturers over the years.
There are still plenty of companies that support the Mac platform and that's
not likely to change.
>
>
>
>> To blame Apple is to
>>cry about progress and growing pains,
>
>
>yes, thats exactly right. progress and growing pains is
>something that should happen in a manufacturers lab, not
>in the course of almost half a dozen updates (many
>of them costing money, and with apple constantly pulling
>the "this new gimmick requires the latest OSX to work
>at all trick). its a bit like when windows 95 came out and
>only reached a certain level of maturity with windows 98.
>stuff like that sucks.
PLEASE! Dude, your still on an operating system from 2001 due to MS's blunders
and upgrade issues with Windows Vista! And talk about upgrade cycles, a
5 YEAR wait for Vista! Talk about growing pains, upgrade and compatibility
issues, I've got one word for you, VISTA!!! You got no room to talk! At
least Apple continues to improve their OS, every upgrade has been more than
worth the cost in features alone. Talk about the price of admission Mac
OSX can be bought for $129 or less, and there are not 5 or more versions
costing up to $399.00. That's more than 3 times the cost of Mac OSX. Just
look at the customer satisfaction rates, including XP, I'll take Mac OSX
thank you.
Your original post was about Paris no longer making sense, then you went
to Apple is the evil empire and Logic sucks. Instead of us having the next
Mac verses PC war, why don't we stick to Paris vs. other DAWs and we can
leave Logic out of it.
>
>> so what do you have to say about the
>>Windows Vista debacle? It's not like MS had it all together for the software
>>developers.
>
>
>im far from being a MS defender (theres no fanboy culture
>in the pc world like there is in the mac world ;-) but fwiw,
>i dont recall any of the audio softwares that ran on XP
>not running on vista (no wonder, its just XP with fancy
>graphics). in fact, a friend of mine started using his
>stuff more or less the day it came out, and one of the
>things he did was just copying his freeware VST effect
>folder from the old machine to the new one, and lo and behold,
>that stuff still works.
>sure, you get a little less performance under
>vista than under XP and many pc people freaked out about
>that, but then, the same is true for OSX. having fancy
>animations, "swooshing" windows and all that stuff results
>in a performance hit. surprise, surprise! :-)
Yes PC users always know more about Macs than Mac users about Mac performance
and all the "swooshing' stuff. I'll just say I own and use both. As I recall,
there were Audio softwares that were not Vista ready, and many that won't
work with Vista 64, but what ever.
>
>> How long has it taken them to catch up with Vista 64? Or is
>>it Windows 7 now?
>
>
>catch up to what? vista64 was released when vista was released.
>and before that, there already was windows XP64 for a long time.
>were you trying to go the "OSX has been 64bit before peecees
>were"-route? do you swallow absolutely everything apple PR
>tells you to believe?
64bit has been around since the 60's, in 2002 IBM released the PPC 970 G5,
Mac OSX was partially supporting 64bit around that time. AMD followed with
64bit and MS announced they would be supporting it with Windows. It doesn't
really matter who was to the personal computer market first, but I believe
it was IBM Apple. And you can quit with the Mac fan boy shit.
>
>>I wasn't trying to say that Logic is the best DAW software in the world,
>>I was trying to say that Logic 8 has caught up, it's now a modern DAW package.
>
>
>as i said, thats very obviously a matter of perspective :-)
>i dont expect us to agree on that.
>
>
>> Logic 8 is not the old logic 5 and it is not a kludge that has been thrown
>>together with a new paint job.
>
>
>from where i stand, thats actually a VERY precise description
>of what it is. but again, we dont have to agree here.
>
Logic 8 is a big improvement.
>
>
>> I think you should take a closer look at
>>Logic 8 and I'll leave it at that.
>
>
>i know logic 8. do you know the competing programs i was
>talking about? ever seen samplitude in action? and i dont mean 5 minute
google
>knowledge...
Well I own 7 different Daw softwares. When I was a dealer I sold most of
them, so yeah. I don't know it all that's for sure. I wasn't looking for
a Logic vs. Samplitude war either. I was just saying Logic 8 is incredible
software, I didn't say it's the best.
>
>
>>Back to Paris being dead, I disagree if your saying that Paris does not
>have
>>it's own sound. If your saying that you can reproduce that sound in another
>>DAW, I'd like to know how?
>
>
>well, i have presented you with quite a few factual statements,
>and if your reaction is a mere "i still disagree", well, what else is there
>to say.
>
Just about the sound and summing.
>
>> I don't doubt that at unity gain or less, you
>>could get tracks to null, I'd like to see you get them to null when the
>Paris
>>tracks are pushed. Where you able to do this? Do you have copies of those
>>tracks you tested?
>
>
>when pushing stuff into the red, paris does straightforward clipping
>(which actually quite often is the best sounding option from
>a variety of options).
>its a bonus that you get this clipping while the converters
>yet dont clip (when dialed in right) - on a floating point host
>that by itself doesnt really ever clip internally even if you
>go 40db "into the red", you can get a very wrong idea of
>whats happening because, while the floating point host itself
>wont clip, your very-much-not-floating-point DA converters
>will, and depending on the converter that will of course sound like crap.
>but clipping ones converters is just an operator
>error (one that many mastering houses do on purpose, nonetheless ;-)
>pull down the fader of that channel that is 40db in the red
>and you will be back to no clipping and it will be as if
>you had perfect gainstaging. thats the advantage of floating
>point.
>
>and of course you can always put something in the master channel
>that internally is linear and will do the clipping for you,
>if you want your floating point host to behave like it had
>a linear 24bit masterbus. theres that, and
>theres anything from tape saturation simulation to soft saturation
>that just "tries to sound good" (i.e. the UAD loudness maximizer,
>which has a slightly misleading name because its not a limiter
>but a saturator is very very good and almost always a better
>way to go than straight clipping) (something i would not
>say is the case always for traditional limiting, which
>is the most "official" way of making something loud) and
>of course the whole arsenal of mastering tools that all deal
>with the topic of having a "hot" mix in one way or the other.
>
>so you can do it the paris way, or theres dozens of
>other options.
>are you saying that the option to do straightforward clipping
>in paris is by default always the best way to go?
>or are you claiming that the way paris is clipping is
>in a way "magic" that lets you make your summing bus hotter
>than any other mastering approach?
>
>i dont want to ask strawman questions, so i will say out loud
>that i dont quite believe that thats what youre saying. but
>if thats not what youre saying, what is it then?
>
What I'm saying is I like the sound of Paris. What I'm saying is Paris sounds
different to me than other DAWs I've heard. I don't believe all DAWs sound
the same. Again, your points about functionality, ease of use and work flow
are all valid points when comparing Paris to modern DAW systems. I'm not
convinced on the sound front. It doesn't take much to get good sound out
of Paris. As long as Paris sounds good and sums good, I see it as a very
usable tool that's not costing me ant thing at this point.
>
>> I'm from the show me state!
>
>
>yeah, so show me :-) youre the one whos claiming to have
>a superior method of driving "hot" mixes. i do mastering a lot
>and my statement would be that theres a million ways that
>lead to rome. clipping is one of them, but it sure is not
>the only one.
>
>youre the one who says that theres a special way that
>results in superior "hot" sound. so, since youre "from
>the show me state", im very much looking forward to that.
>maybe i missed that all these years that ive been running
>paris (and happily clipping the master bus when i found
>it appropriate, though definetly not always).
>
>
I just wanted to hear what you were talking about. I'd like to hear a comparison
for myself being that audio is somewhat subjective.
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102061 is a reply to message #102055] |
Mon, 12 January 2009 09:19 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
that was
>>incompatible with what the other solution they had
>>recommended 3rd party developers to use, causing once again
>>3rd party developers to jump through totally unnecessary hoops.
>
>I heard differently.
ok, my source was a press release of steinberg
explaining the 64bit situation, and i heard
the same from a NI developer. and your source is...?
>Apple has made changes to their ADK over the years, and Apple products are
>better off for it, it's called improvement.
....and that improvement is what exactly? name me a real
life improvement people got out of the forced switch
from VST plugins to audio units. what did they get in
return for having their whole plugin collections being
made obsolete at one point?
> It isn't like there wasn't years
>of growing pain with Vista.
note that the difference is that MS did not release
vista during these years (a point you later cite
as a negative, no less).
> As a former Apple Developer, the compiler has
>a simple check box that writes a dual binary for PPC and Intel at the same
>time, this is a fact, not BS. If you don't believe me look in to it yourself
im not denying the existence of that checkbox. im
simply argueing that if it really had been that simple,
the entire market of 3rd party softwares would have been
intel ready within weeks. since in the real world it
was more like more than a year and many stuff never got
ported in the first place, i come to the conclusion that
apparently things in the real world were a little more
complex than that. its just an observation. you dont have
to agree.
>Steinberg has not always released their products in parallel, and that's
>part of my point.
most of the time they have, and when they hadnt, sometimes
the mac version came out first, sometimes the pc version.
but really, most of the time the releases were on the same
day, which is actually quite an archievement given the constant
need for recoding for apple whereas the pcs backwards compability
reaches back to somewhere around win 2000 or even win 98.
> My point was that Steinberg's Mac products have lagged
>behind in performance with code that was not optimized up to date.
yes, but thats hardly steinbergs fault. accross all softwares,
OSX is a little less performant than XP. dont take my word
for it. theres been many many benchmarks out there. dont like
steinberg, try ableton, heck, even try digi who usually make
it a point that theyre "very mac".
or are all of these just not giving the mac enough "top
priority"?
> I believe
>Steinberg has lost Mac customers as a result. Steinberg and the Mac community
>for years supported each other before Steinberg products were ever on the
>PC platform. It's a good thing that Apple and Mac users supported Steinberg
>for all these years, don't you think?
i dont care about stuff that happened back in the mid nineties.
personally i still used an atari then, then a mac running cubase,
didnt like it much because the UI was a lot slower than on
the atari, and when i got paris in late 97 i got a pc for it
(which in parises case clearly turned out to be the better
choice, im tempted to say) and at that point cubase pc was
already at 3.something.
but if you care about it: if there had been a theoretical year where there
was no more atari userbase but no pc version
yet, let me say it out loud, thank you, mac users!
oh wait, i was one of them. thank you, derek, for supporting
steinberg, be it with your atari or your mac license :-)
>There has been a narrowing down of DAW software Manufacturers over the years.
i think the overall number has increased quite a bit.
lots of modern hosts such as the whole tracker scene or
stuff like the awesome reaper showed up. a lot more than what died away
i would think.
> There are still plenty of companies that support the Mac platform and that's
>not likely to change.
youre argueing against stuff i didnt even say.
>PLEASE! Dude, your still on an operating system from 2001 due to MS's blunders
>and upgrade issues with Windows Vista!
no "dude", im still on it because it works. what awesome audio
improvements did i miss? the system i work on is the one
that consistently wins all benchmarks, it supports all plugin
and audio standards and its stable as hell.
there simply is nothing besides my 4GB ram now not
being enough anymore that ever tempted me to
change, so only now do i plan to change. come on, youre the expert, name
me something audio related that i missed all
these years that i happily spent on that OS from 2001.
i find it hilarious that you try to make that a bad thing.
its clearly a very very good thing and i will remember XP
very fondly once i made the switch.
> And talk about upgrade cycles, a
>5 YEAR wait for Vista!
....during which XP was supported with free upgrades.
what exactly is good in having to upgrade your OS
once a year and pay for the upgrade? i consider a long life span a plus for
the OS (it says something about its quality too), and i certainly dont mind
that all updates to it were
completely free either.
> Talk about growing pains, upgrade and compatibility
>issues, I've got one word for you, VISTA!!! You got no room to talk!
and youve got no examples, apparently :-)
> At
>least Apple continues to improve their OS, every upgrade has been more than
>worth the cost in features alone.
name me something audio related that i missed. and dont
start with fancy photo viewers or whatever. if i crave a better
picture viewer, i download one (actually i did 2 years ago
when i got bored with the one i had and have a super fancy
one ever since. for free. this is such a cool world we live in).
> Talk about the price of admission Mac
>OSX can be bought for $129 or less, and there are not 5 or more versions
>costing up to $399.00. That's more than 3 times the cost of Mac OSX.
yeah it would be stupid to buy a vista license on its own.
the way to buy MS has always been to just get it when you get
a new computer. and the point about this was...?
> Just
>look at the customer satisfaction rates, including XP, I'll take Mac OSX
>thank you.
but youre not a fanboy. right :-)
>Your original post was about Paris no longer making sense, then you went
>to Apple is the evil empire and Logic sucks.
yes, i made a joke about who i would consider "the dark side"
these days in regards to the whole apple/logic story.
i dont care much actually, ever since i dont have to use
the program in other studios anymore, so in that regard i
probably would have to thank apple for that too.
you just couldnt get over me stating my opinion, apparently.
but it is my opinion. cant help it.
> Instead of us having the next
>Mac verses PC war, why don't we stick to Paris vs. other DAWs and we can
>leave Logic out of it.
oh, but theres two ways of getting there. you might just as
well show the grandeur of ignoring me when i state an opinion
that you dont like.
that usually is considered the better approach than
to try to stop people from voicing their opinions.
youre welcome to your own "microsoft sucks" statements
as much as you like. be my guest, write a whole post about
this stuff and watch me ignore it ;-)
>Yes PC users always know more about Macs than Mac users about Mac performance
>and all the "swooshing' stuff.
im talking about benchmarks from manufacturers such as ableton,
steinberg, NI or independant computer manufacturers such as
ADK (who sell both pcs and macs) and numerous benchmarks i read
in germans sound&recording or keyboards magazine.
sure, maybe its all a conspiracy. i wouldnt know. but i
also wouldnt care much, my whole point these days is that
the performance you get is so huge that these details dont
matter anymore. who cares whether an octocore machine runs
800 instances of a plugin or just 730 when in reality you wouldnt
ever need more than 100 of them?
see where im coming from with this?
> As I recall,
>there were Audio softwares that were not Vista ready, and many that won't
>work with Vista 64, but what ever.
ok, for the sake of the argument. heres the list of softwares
that initially were not macintel compatible: all but logic.
no wait, all including logic, but logic shortly followed
after the introduction.
name me which major players daws did not run on vistas initial
release. i dont recall a single one.
>64bit has been around since the 60's,
so what was your point about the catching up? are you
argueing that XP64bit was not released early enough?
if so, fair enough, allthough i must say that considering that
this is all so many years ago and you were actually talking about vista
(which came as 64bit upon initial release) im not
quite sure what youre trying to say here. and for me personally,
all that counts is that NOW i have a machine thats so powerful
that my bottleneck is not CPU anymore but RAM, so its
NOW that im interested in 64bit, and today i can choose from
xp64, vista64, i could install the free windows 7 beta
(which according to nuendo forum reports runs nuendo just
fine and super fast already as it is) or OSX. and linux
and some more stuff too, im sure.
>And you can quit with the Mac fan boy shit.
sorry, man. youre acting like a fanboy IMO. its just
an observation. im sure you can get over it. you dont have
to agree with my observation (seems like i cannot state
that often enough).
>Logic 8 is a big improvement.
if you say so.
>Well I own 7 different Daw softwares. When I was a dealer I sold most of
>them, so yeah. I don't know it all that's for sure. I wasn't looking for
>a Logic vs. Samplitude war either. I was just saying Logic 8 is incredible
>software, I didn't say it's the best.
jup, and i was saying i dont find anything about
it incredible at all and stated some examples of a software
that i find very "incredible" as reference, awesome features
that i cant wait to have steinberg implement into nuendo ASAP
please. wouldnt you agree that those features i described
are pretty awesome? i mean, multitrack editing suites that
beat beat detective, internal melodyne style piano roll editing
of audio, object based mixing in addition to traditional track+mixer approach
etc etc, isnt that something youd like
logic to have too?
i dont understand why you have a problem with something
like that, or how
you consider me listing some fabulous features from an
audio software whose developers quite obviously are extremely
skilled and super creative equals "starting a war".
i can just as well describe to you what i like about protools.
protools has playlists, which is hands down the simplest,
most powerful yet most intuitive way of multiple sets of
multitrack recording there is. protools has a very nice automation,
super precise transient detection thats better than
all of the competition, a nice suite of offline processes
and the software, while dull and boring is extremely stable.
now, would you consider me listing these advantages over
the competition "starting a war" too? probably not. then
answer me this, why would that be different if i listed
stuff like that for samplitude?
>>well, i have presented you with quite a few factual statements,
>>and if your reaction is a mere "i still disagree", well, what else is there
>>to say.
>>
>
>Just about the sound and summing.
my factual statements were about sound and summing.
a null test is a test you usually do to get all the
urban myths or grand "its all subjective" statements
out of the topic. you can debunk all such statements
with a successful null test, its positive proof that
candidate A sounds exactly the same as candidate B.
i present you with that and your response is "i still
think it sounds different". fair enough. but then
we dont need to continue that discussion because you
apparently dont share my methodolical approach to this
topic and prefer to leave stuff in the dark or "subjective".
>>> I don't doubt that at unity gain or less, you
>>>could get tracks to null,
I'd like to see you get them to null when the
>>Paris
>>>tracks are pushed.
so you DO believe paris sounds the same, but sounds
different only when you push stuff into clipping?
>What I'm saying is I like the sound of Paris. What I'm saying is Paris
sounds
>different to me than other DAWs I've heard.
again, when clipping or in general? cause if youd say also in general,
thats the opposite of saying that you do believe that
its easy to do a positive null test when you dont drive
tracks into clipping.
which one is it gonna be?
> I don't believe all DAWs sound
>the same.
same question as above. only when clipping or also without?
> I'm not
>convinced on the sound front.
what part of a positive null test do you find "not convincing"?
>I just wanted to hear what you were talking about. I'd like to hear a comparison
>for myself being that audio is somewhat subjective.
that would need the assumption that daw sound characteristics
make a bigger difference than the actual mixing choices
the engineer makes, which of course is not the case, im sure
we will agree on that. so all you would get out of
listening to mixes from me is whether or not you like my
style of mixing (if youre really interested, feel free to
google me, im sure theres enough stuff you could
download for free over P2P).
youre the one claiming to have the magic daw that
sounds different in such a fundamental way, not me. my mixes
sound just like anyone elses (for better or worse, i.e.
many of my commercial projects are mastered to loudness
insanity following the usual sick industry standards).
so IMO it would be up to you to show such a fundamental difference.
especially considering that ive used that same supposedly
magic tool for years too :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102092 is a reply to message #102061] |
Wed, 14 January 2009 05:57 |
Kim W
Messages: 165
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Derek.
Nice to hear from you again.
I'm gonna stay right out of the platform/OS wars, as I can see
pros and cons to all of them. (They are all just recording tools, after all).
I Have Cubase, Protools, Paris, and Samplitude.
And yes!! I agree with you about Samplitude.
At present I use it primarily for Mastering and Sound design.
The object-oriented mixing is amazing. (dare I say, revolutionary..)
This will be my next multitrack DAW for sure, when I get tired of Paris workarounds.
But for now, Paris still makes my life easy, sonically.
For me, Protools and Cubase are somewhat uninspiring to use, except
of course the midi aspect of Cubase.
I'm confident that the midi implementation of Samplitude is by now (or will
be soon) up to scratch. (I'm still running version 8).
How do you use Samplitude?
Anyway, Keep well.
Nice to see you still have the passion, even though it's
ruffled a few feathers around here.
Kim
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>that was
>>>incompatible with what the other solution they had
>>>recommended 3rd party developers to use, causing once again
>>>3rd party developers to jump through totally unnecessary hoops.
>>
>>I heard differently.
>
>
>ok, my source was a press release of steinberg
>explaining the 64bit situation, and i heard
>the same from a NI developer. and your source is...?
>
>
>
>>Apple has made changes to their ADK over the years, and Apple products
are
>>better off for it, it's called improvement.
>
>
>...and that improvement is what exactly? name me a real
>life improvement people got out of the forced switch
>from VST plugins to audio units. what did they get in
>return for having their whole plugin collections being
>made obsolete at one point?
>
>
>> It isn't like there wasn't years
>>of growing pain with Vista.
>
>
>note that the difference is that MS did not release
>vista during these years (a point you later cite
>as a negative, no less).
>
>
>
>> As a former Apple Developer, the compiler has
>>a simple check box that writes a dual binary for PPC and Intel at the same
>>time, this is a fact, not BS. If you don't believe me look in to it yourself
>
>
>im not denying the existence of that checkbox. im
>simply argueing that if it really had been that simple,
>the entire market of 3rd party softwares would have been
>intel ready within weeks. since in the real world it
>was more like more than a year and many stuff never got
>ported in the first place, i come to the conclusion that
>apparently things in the real world were a little more
>complex than that. its just an observation. you dont have
>to agree.
>
>
>>Steinberg has not always released their products in parallel, and that's
>>part of my point.
>
>
>most of the time they have, and when they hadnt, sometimes
>the mac version came out first, sometimes the pc version.
>but really, most of the time the releases were on the same
>day, which is actually quite an archievement given the constant
>need for recoding for apple whereas the pcs backwards compability
>reaches back to somewhere around win 2000 or even win 98.
>
>
>> My point was that Steinberg's Mac products have lagged
>>behind in performance with code that was not optimized up to date.
>
>yes, but thats hardly steinbergs fault. accross all softwares,
>OSX is a little less performant than XP. dont take my word
>for it. theres been many many benchmarks out there. dont like
>steinberg, try ableton, heck, even try digi who usually make
>it a point that theyre "very mac".
>
>or are all of these just not giving the mac enough "top
>priority"?
>
>
>> I believe
>>Steinberg has lost Mac customers as a result. Steinberg and the Mac community
>>for years supported each other before Steinberg products were ever on the
>>PC platform. It's a good thing that Apple and Mac users supported Steinberg
>>for all these years, don't you think?
>
>
>i dont care about stuff that happened back in the mid nineties.
>personally i still used an atari then, then a mac running cubase,
>didnt like it much because the UI was a lot slower than on
>the atari, and when i got paris in late 97 i got a pc for it
>(which in parises case clearly turned out to be the better
>choice, im tempted to say) and at that point cubase pc was
>already at 3.something.
>
>but if you care about it: if there had been a theoretical year where there
>was no more atari userbase but no pc version
>yet, let me say it out loud, thank you, mac users!
>oh wait, i was one of them. thank you, derek, for supporting
>steinberg, be it with your atari or your mac license :-)
>
>
>>There has been a narrowing down of DAW software Manufacturers over the
years.
>
>i think the overall number has increased quite a bit.
>lots of modern hosts such as the whole tracker scene or
>stuff like the awesome reaper showed up. a lot more than what died away
>i would think.
>
>
>> There are still plenty of companies that support the Mac platform and
that's
>>not likely to change.
>
>youre argueing against stuff i didnt even say.
>
>
>>PLEASE! Dude, your still on an operating system from 2001 due to MS's
blunders
>>and upgrade issues with Windows Vista!
>
>no "dude", im still on it because it works. what awesome audio
>improvements did i miss? the system i work on is the one
>that consistently wins all benchmarks, it supports all plugin
>and audio standards and its stable as hell.
>
>there simply is nothing besides my 4GB ram now not
>being enough anymore that ever tempted me to
>change, so only now do i plan to change. come on, youre the expert, name
>me something audio related that i missed all
>these years that i happily spent on that OS from 2001.
>i find it hilarious that you try to make that a bad thing.
>its clearly a very very good thing and i will remember XP
>very fondly once i made the switch.
>
>
>> And talk about upgrade cycles, a
>>5 YEAR wait for Vista!
>
>...during which XP was supported with free upgrades.
>what exactly is good in having to upgrade your OS
>once a year and pay for the upgrade? i consider a long life span a plus
for
>the OS (it says something about its quality too), and i certainly dont mind
>that all updates to it were
>completely free either.
>
>
>> Talk about growing pains, upgrade and compatibility
>>issues, I've got one word for you, VISTA!!! You got no room to talk!
>
>and youve got no examples, apparently :-)
>
>
>> At
>>least Apple continues to improve their OS, every upgrade has been more
than
>>worth the cost in features alone.
>
>name me something audio related that i missed. and dont
>start with fancy photo viewers or whatever. if i crave a better
>picture viewer, i download one (actually i did 2 years ago
>when i got bored with the one i had and have a super fancy
>one ever since. for free. this is such a cool world we live in).
>
>
>> Talk about the price of admission Mac
>>OSX can be bought for $129 or less, and there are not 5 or more versions
>>costing up to $399.00. That's more than 3 times the cost of Mac OSX.
>
>yeah it would be stupid to buy a vista license on its own.
>the way to buy MS has always been to just get it when you get
>a new computer. and the point about this was...?
>
>
>> Just
>>look at the customer satisfaction rates, including XP, I'll take Mac OSX
>>thank you.
>
>but youre not a fanboy. right :-)
>
>
>
>>Your original post was about Paris no longer making sense, then you went
>>to Apple is the evil empire and Logic sucks.
>
>
>yes, i made a joke about who i would consider "the dark side"
>these days in regards to the whole apple/logic story.
>i dont care much actually, ever since i dont have to use
>the program in other studios anymore, so in that regard i
>probably would have to thank apple for that too.
>
>you just couldnt get over me stating my opinion, apparently.
>but it is my opinion. cant help it.
>
>
>> Instead of us having the next
>>Mac verses PC war, why don't we stick to Paris vs. other DAWs and we can
>>leave Logic out of it.
>
>
>oh, but theres two ways of getting there. you might just as
>well show the grandeur of ignoring me when i state an opinion
>that you dont like.
>
>that usually is considered the better approach than
>to try to stop people from voicing their opinions.
>
>youre welcome to your own "microsoft sucks" statements
>as much as you like. be my guest, write a whole post about
>this stuff and watch me ignore it ;-)
>
>
>>Yes PC users always know more about Macs than Mac users about Mac performance
>>and all the "swooshing' stuff.
>
>
>im talking about benchmarks from manufacturers such as ableton,
>steinberg, NI or independant computer manufacturers such as
>ADK (who sell both pcs and macs) and numerous benchmarks i read
>in germans sound&recording or keyboards magazine.
>
>sure, maybe its all a conspiracy. i wouldnt know. but i
>also wouldnt care much, my whole point these days is that
>the performance you get is so huge that these details dont
>matter anymore. who cares whether an octocore machine runs
>800 instances of a plugin or just 730 when in reality you wouldnt
>ever need more than 100 of them?
>
>see where im coming from with this?
>
>
>> As I recall,
>>there were Audio softwares that were not Vista ready, and many that won't
>>work with Vista 64, but what ever.
>
>
>ok, for the sake of the argument. heres the list of softwares
>that initially were not macintel compatible: all but logic.
>no wait, all including logic, but logic shortly followed
>after the introduction.
>
>name me which major players daws did not run on vistas initial
>release. i dont recall a single one.
>
>
>>64bit has been around since the 60's,
>
>so what was your point about the catching up? are you
>argueing that XP64bit was not released early enough?
>if so, fair enough, allthough i must say that considering that
>this is all so many years ago and you were actually talking about vista
>(which came as 64bit upon initial release) im not
>quite sure what youre trying to say here. and for me personally,
>all that counts is that NOW i have a machine thats so powerful
>that my bottleneck is not CPU anymore but RAM, so its
>NOW that im interested in 64bit, and today i can choose from
>xp64, vista64, i could install the free windows 7 beta
>(which according to nuendo forum reports runs nuendo just
>fine and super fast already as it is) or OSX. and linux
>and some more stuff too, im sure.
>
>
>>And you can quit with the Mac fan boy shit.
>
>sorry, man. youre acting like a fanboy IMO. its just
>an observation. im sure you can get over it. you dont have
>to agree with my observation (seems like i cannot state
>that often enough).
>
>>Logic 8 is a big improvement.
>
>
>if you say so.
>
>
>>Well I own 7 different Daw softwares. When I was a dealer I sold most
of
>>them, so yeah. I don't know it all that's for sure. I wasn't looking
for
>>a Logic vs. Samplitude war either. I was just saying Logic 8 is incredible
>>software, I didn't say it's the best.
>
>jup, and i was saying i dont find anything about
>it incredible at all and stated some examples of a software
>that i find very "incredible" as reference, awesome features
>that i cant wait to have steinberg implement into nuendo ASAP
>please. wouldnt you agree that those features i described
>are pretty awesome? i mean, multitrack editing suites that
>beat beat detective, internal melodyne style piano roll editing
>of audio, object based mixing in addition to traditional track+mixer approach
>etc etc, isnt that something youd like
>logic to have too?
>
>i dont understand why you have a problem with something
>like that, or how
>you consider me listing some fabulous features from an
>audio software whose developers quite obviously are extremely
>skilled and super creative equals "starting a war".
>
>i can just as well describe to you what i like about protools.
>protools has playlists, which is hands down the simplest,
>most powerful yet most intuitive way of multiple sets of
>multitrack recording there is. protools has a very nice automation,
>super precise transient detection thats better than
>all of the competition, a nice suite of offline processes
>and the software, while dull and boring is extremely stable.
>
>now, would you consider me listing these advantages over
>the competition "starting a war" too? probably not. then
>answer me this, why would that be different if i listed
>stuff like that for samplitude?
>
>
>
>>>well, i have presented you with quite a few factual statements,
>>>and if your reaction is a mere "i still disagree", well, what else is
there
>>>to say.
>>>
>>
>>Just about the sound and summing.
>
>
>my factual statements were about sound and summing.
>a null test is a test you usually do to get all the
>urban myths or grand "its all subjective" statements
>out of the topic. you can debunk all such statements
>with a successful null test, its positive proof that
>candidate A sounds exactly the same as candidate B.
>
>i present you with that and your response is "i still
>think it sounds different". fair enough. but then
>we dont need to continue that discussion because you
>apparently dont share my methodolical approach to this
>topic and prefer to leave stuff in the dark or "subjective".
>
>
>
>>>> I don't doubt that at unity gain or less, you
>>>>could get tracks to null,
> I'd like to see you get them to null when the
>>>Paris
>>>>tracks are pushed.
>
>
>so you DO believe paris sounds the same, but sounds
>different only when you push stuff into clipping?
>
>
>
>>What I'm saying is I like the sound of Paris. What I'm saying is Paris
>sounds
>>different to me than other DAWs I've heard.
>
>
>again, when clipping or in general? cause if youd say also in general,
>thats the opposite of saying that you do believe that
>its easy to do a positive null test when you dont drive
>tracks into clipping.
>
>which one is it gonna be?
>
>
>> I don't believe all DAWs sound
>>the same.
>
>same question as above. only when clipping or also without?
>
>
>> I'm not
>>convinced on the sound front.
>
>what part of a positive null test do you find "not convincing"?
>
>
>>I just wanted to hear what you were talking about. I'd like to hear a
comparison
>>for myself being that audio is somewhat subjective.
>
>
>that would need the assumption that daw sound characteristics
>make a bigger difference than the actual mixing choices
>the engineer makes, which of course is not the case, im sure
>we will agree on that. so all you would get out of
>listening to mixes from me is whether or not you like my
>style of mixing (if youre really interested, feel free to
>google me, im sure theres enough stuff you could
>download for free over P2P).
>
>youre the one claiming to have the magic daw that
>sounds different in such a fundamental way, not me. my mixes
>sound just like anyone elses (for better or worse, i.e.
>many of my commercial projects are mastered to loudness
>insanity following the usual sick industry standards).
>so IMO it would be up to you to show such a fundamental difference.
>
>especially considering that ive used that same supposedly
>magic tool for years too :-)
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102098 is a reply to message #102092] |
Wed, 14 January 2009 12:08 |
TC
Messages: 327
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think everyone here needs to take a step back and stop all the
bickering about which app and platform is best. bla bla.. yada yada..
The dust has settled. That debate is now over. There is now only one
true app to rule them all.. and it's only on windows. Sorry Steve Jobs,
you lose.
It will truly blow your mind and make you rethink your whole approach to
recording audio. (You can thank me later).
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/song smith/
Cheers,
TC
Kim W. wrote:
> Hey Derek.
> Nice to hear from you again.
> I'm gonna stay right out of the platform/OS wars, as I can see
> pros and cons to all of them. (They are all just recording tools, after all).
> I Have Cubase, Protools, Paris, and Samplitude.
> And yes!! I agree with you about Samplitude.
> At present I use it primarily for Mastering and Sound design.
> The object-oriented mixing is amazing. (dare I say, revolutionary..)
> This will be my next multitrack DAW for sure, when I get tired of Paris workarounds.
> But for now, Paris still makes my life easy, sonically.
> For me, Protools and Cubase are somewhat uninspiring to use, except
> of course the midi aspect of Cubase.
> I'm confident that the midi implementation of Samplitude is by now (or will
> be soon) up to scratch. (I'm still running version 8).
> How do you use Samplitude?
> Anyway, Keep well.
> Nice to see you still have the passion, even though it's
> ruffled a few feathers around here.
> Kim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> that was
>>>> incompatible with what the other solution they had
>>>> recommended 3rd party developers to use, causing once again
>>>> 3rd party developers to jump through totally unnecessary hoops.
>>> I heard differently.
>>
>> ok, my source was a press release of steinberg
>> explaining the 64bit situation, and i heard
>> the same from a NI developer. and your source is...?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Apple has made changes to their ADK over the years, and Apple products
> are
>>> better off for it, it's called improvement.
>>
>> ...and that improvement is what exactly? name me a real
>> life improvement people got out of the forced switch
>>from VST plugins to audio units. what did they get in
>> return for having their whole plugin collections being
>> made obsolete at one point?
>>
>>
>>> It isn't like there wasn't years
>>> of growing pain with Vista.
>>
>> note that the difference is that MS did not release
>> vista during these years (a point you later cite
>> as a negative, no less).
>>
>>
>>
>>> As a former Apple Developer, the compiler has
>>> a simple check box that writes a dual binary for PPC and Intel at the same
>>> time, this is a fact, not BS. If you don't believe me look in to it yourself
>>
>> im not denying the existence of that checkbox. im
>> simply argueing that if it really had been that simple,
>> the entire market of 3rd party softwares would have been
>> intel ready within weeks. since in the real world it
>> was more like more than a year and many stuff never got
>> ported in the first place, i come to the conclusion that
>> apparently things in the real world were a little more
>> complex than that. its just an observation. you dont have
>> to agree.
>>
>>
>>> Steinberg has not always released their products in parallel, and that's
>>> part of my point.
>>
>> most of the time they have, and when they hadnt, sometimes
>> the mac version came out first, sometimes the pc version.
>> but really, most of the time the releases were on the same
>> day, which is actually quite an archievement given the constant
>> need for recoding for apple whereas the pcs backwards compability
>> reaches back to somewhere around win 2000 or even win 98.
>>
>>
>>> My point was that Steinberg's Mac products have lagged
>>> behind in performance with code that was not optimized up to date.
>> yes, but thats hardly steinbergs fault. accross all softwares,
>> OSX is a little less performant than XP. dont take my word
>> for it. theres been many many benchmarks out there. dont like
>> steinberg, try ableton, heck, even try digi who usually make
>> it a point that theyre "very mac".
>>
>> or are all of these just not giving the mac enough "top
>> priority"?
>>
>>
>>> I believe
>>> Steinberg has lost Mac customers as a result. Steinberg and the Mac community
>>> for years supported each other before Steinberg products were ever on the
>>> PC platform. It's a good thing that Apple and Mac users supported Steinberg
>>> for all these years, don't you think?
>>
>> i dont care about stuff that happened back in the mid nineties.
>> personally i still used an atari then, then a mac running cubase,
>> didnt like it much because the UI was a lot slower than on
>> the atari, and when i got paris in late 97 i got a pc for it
>> (which in parises case clearly turned out to be the better
>> choice, im tempted to say) and at that point cubase pc was
>> already at 3.something.
>>
>> but if you care about it: if there had been a theoretical year where there
>> was no more atari userbase but no pc version
>> yet, let me say it out loud, thank you, mac users!
>> oh wait, i was one of them. thank you, derek, for supporting
>> steinberg, be it with your atari or your mac license :-)
>>
>>
>>> There has been a narrowing down of DAW software Manufacturers over the
> years.
>> i think the overall number has increased quite a bit.
>> lots of modern hosts such as the whole tracker scene or
>> stuff like the awesome reaper showed up. a lot more than what died away
>> i would think.
>>
>>
>>> There are still plenty of companies that support the Mac platform and
> that's
>>> not likely to change.
>> youre argueing against stuff i didnt even say.
>>
>>
>>> PLEASE! Dude, your still on an operating system from 2001 due to MS's
> blunders
>>> and upgrade issues with Windows Vista!
>> no "dude", im still on it because it works. what awesome audio
>> improvements did i miss? the system i work on is the one
>> that consistently wins all benchmarks, it supports all plugin
>> and audio standards and its stable as hell.
>>
>> there simply is nothing besides my 4GB ram now not
>> being enough anymore that ever tempted me to
>> change, so only now do i plan to change. come on, youre the expert, name
>> me something audio related that i missed all
>> these years that i happily spent on that OS from 2001.
>> i find it hilarious that you try to make that a bad thing.
>> its clearly a very very good thing and i will remember XP
>> very fondly once i made the switch.
>>
>>
>>> And talk about upgrade cycles, a
>>> 5 YEAR wait for Vista!
>> ...during which XP was supported with free upgrades.
>> what exactly is good in having to upgrade your OS
>> once a year and pay for the upgrade? i consider a long life span a plus
> for
>> the OS (it says something about its quality too), and i certainly dont mind
>> that all updates to it were
>> completely free either.
>>
>>
>>> Talk about growing pains, upgrade and compatibility
>>> issues, I've got one word for you, VISTA!!! You got no room to talk!
>> and youve got no examples, apparently :-)
>>
>>
>>> At
>>> least Apple continues to improve their OS, every upgrade has been more
> than
>>> worth the cost in features alone.
>> name me something audio related that i missed. and dont
>> start with fancy photo viewers or whatever. if i crave a better
>> picture viewer, i download one (actually i did 2 years ago
>> when i got bored with the one i had and have a super fancy
>> one ever since. for free. this is such a cool world we live in).
>>
>>
>>> Talk about the price of admission Mac
>>> OSX can be bought for $129 or less, and there are not 5 or more versions
>>> costing up to $399.00. That's more than 3 times the cost of Mac OSX.
>> yeah it would be stupid to buy a vista license on its own.
>> the way to buy MS has always been to just get it when you get
>> a new computer. and the point about this was...?
>>
>>
>>> Just
>>> look at the customer satisfaction rates, including XP, I'll take Mac OSX
>>> thank you.
>> but youre not a fanboy. right :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>> Your original post was about Paris no longer making sense, then you went
>>> to Apple is the evil empire and Logic sucks.
>>
>> yes, i made a joke about who i would consider "the dark side"
>> these days in regards to the whole apple/logic story.
>> i dont care much actually, ever since i dont have to use
>> the program in other studios anymore, so in that regard i
>> probably would have to thank apple for that too.
>>
>> you just couldnt get over me stating my opinion, apparently.
>> but it is my opinion. cant help it.
>>
>>
>>> Instead of us having the next
>>> Mac verses PC war, why don't we stick to Paris vs. other DAWs and we can
>>> leave Logic out of it.
>>
>> oh, but theres two ways of getting there. you might just as
>> well show the grandeur of ignoring me when i state an opinion
>> that you dont like.
>>
>> that usually is considered the better approach than
>> to try to stop people from voicing their opinions.
>>
>> youre welcome to your own "microsoft sucks" statements
>> as much as you like. be my guest, write a whole post about
>> this stuff and watch me ignore it ;-)
>>
>>
>>> Yes PC users always know more about Macs than Mac users about Mac performance
>>> and all the "swooshing' stuff.
>>
>> im talking about benchmarks from manufacturers such as ableton,
>> steinberg, NI or independant computer manufacturers such as
>> ADK (who sell both pcs and macs) and numerous benchmarks i read
>> in germans sound&recording or keyboards magazine.
>>
>> sure, maybe its all a conspiracy. i wouldnt know. but i
>> also wouldnt care much, my whole point these days is that
>> the performance you get is so huge that these details dont
>> matter anymore. who cares whether an octocore machine runs
>> 800 instances of a plugin or just 730 when in reality you wouldnt
>> ever need more than 100 of them?
>>
>> see where im coming from with this?
>>
>>
>>> As I recall,
>>> there were Audio softwares that were not Vista ready, and many that won't
>>> work with Vista 64, but what ever.
>>
>> ok, for the sake of the argument. heres the list of softwares
>> that initially were not macintel compatible: all but logic.
>> no wait, all including logic, but logic shortly followed
>> after the introduction.
>>
>> name me which major players daws did not run on vistas initial
>> release. i dont recall a single one.
>>
>>
>>> 64bit has been around since the 60's,
>> so what was your point about the catching up? are you
>> argueing that XP64bit was not released early enough?
>> if so, fair enough, allthough i must say that considering that
>> this is all so many years ago and you were actually talking about vista
>> (which came as 64bit upon initial release) im not
>> quite sure what youre trying to say here. and for me personally,
>> all that counts is that NOW i have a machine thats so powerful
>> that my bottleneck is not CPU anymore but RAM, so its
>> NOW that im interested in 64bit, and today i can choose from
>> xp64, vista64, i could install the free windows 7 beta
>> (which according to nuendo forum reports runs nuendo just
>> fine and super fast already as it is) or OSX. and linux
>> and some more stuff too, im sure.
>>
>>
>>> And you can quit with the Mac fan boy shit.
>> sorry, man. youre acting like a fanboy IMO. its just
>> an observation. im sure you can get over it. you dont have
>> to agree with my observation (seems like i cannot state
>> that often enough).
>>
>>> Logic 8 is a big improvement.
>>
>> if you say so.
>>
>>
>>> Well I own 7 different Daw softwares. When I was a dealer I sold most
> of
>>> them, so yeah. I don't know it all that's for sure. I wasn't looking
> for
>>> a Logic vs. Samplitude war either. I was just saying Logic 8 is incredible
>>> software, I didn't say it's the best.
>> jup, and i was saying i dont find anything about
>> it incredible at all and stated some examples of a software
>> that i find very "incredible" as reference, awesome features
>> that i cant wait to have steinberg implement into nuendo ASAP
>> please. wouldnt you agree that those features i described
>> are pretty awesome? i mean, multitrack editing suites that
>> beat beat detective, internal melodyne style piano roll editing
>> of audio, object based mixing in addition to traditional track+mixer approach
>> etc etc, isnt that something youd like
>> logic to have too?
>>
>> i dont understand why you have a problem with something
>> like that, or how
>> you consider me listing some fabulous features from an
>> audio software whose developers quite obviously are extremely
>> skilled and super creative equals "starting a war".
>>
>> i can just as well describe to you what i like about protools.
>> protools has playlists, which is hands down the simplest,
>> most powerful yet most intuitive way of multiple sets of
>> multitrack recording there is. protools has a very nice automation,
>> super precise transient detection thats better than
>> all of the competition, a nice suite of offline processes
>> and the software, while dull and boring is extremely stable.
>>
>> now, would you consider me listing these advantages over
>> the competition "starting a war" too? probably not. then
>> answer me this, why would that be different if i listed
>> stuff like that for samplitude?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> well, i have presented you with quite a few factual statements,
>>>> and if your reaction is a mere "i still disagree", well, what else is
> there
>>>> to say.
>>>>
>>> Just about the sound and summing.
>>
>> my factual statements were about sound and summing.
>> a null test is a test you usually do to get all the
>> urban myths or grand "its all subjective" statements
>> out of the topic. you can debunk all such statements
>> with a successful null test, its positive proof that
>> candidate A sounds exactly the same as candidate B.
>>
>> i present you with that and your response is "i still
>> think it sounds different". fair enough. but then
>> we dont need to continue that discussion because you
>> apparently dont share my methodolical approach to this
>> topic and prefer to leave stuff in the dark or "subjective".
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I don't doubt that at unity gain or less, you
>>>>> could get tracks to null,
>> I'd like to see you get them to null when the
>>>> Paris
>>>>> tracks are pushed.
>>
>> so you DO believe paris sounds the same, but sounds
>> different only when you push stuff into clipping?
>>
>>
>>
>>> What I'm saying is I like the sound of Paris. What I'm saying is Paris
>> sounds
>>> different to me than other DAWs I've heard.
>>
>> again, when clipping or in general? cause if youd say also in general,
>> thats the opposite of saying that you do believe that
>> its easy to do a positive null test when you dont drive
>> tracks into clipping.
>>
>> which one is it gonna be?
>>
>>
>>> I don't believe all DAWs sound
>>> the same.
>> same question as above. only when clipping or also without?
>>
>>
>>> I'm not
>>> convinced on the sound front.
>> what part of a positive null test do you find "not convincing"?
>>
>>
>>> I just wanted to hear what you were talking about. I'd like to hear a
> comparison
>>> for myself being that audio is somewhat subjective.
>>
>> that would need the assumption that daw sound characteristics
>> make a bigger difference than the actual mixing choices
>> the engineer makes, which of course is not the case, im sure
>> we will agree on that. so all you would get out of
>> listening to mixes from me is whether or not you like my
>> style of mixing (if youre really interested, feel free to
>> google me, im sure theres enough stuff you could
>> download for free over P2P).
>>
>> youre the one claiming to have the magic daw that
>> sounds different in such a fundamental way, not me. my mixes
>> sound just like anyone elses (for better or worse, i.e.
>> many of my commercial projects are mastered to loudness
>> insanity following the usual sick industry standards).
>> so IMO it would be up to you to show such a fundamental difference.
>>
>> especially considering that ive used that same supposedly
>> magic tool for years too :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102101 is a reply to message #102098] |
Wed, 14 January 2009 12:25 |
|
|
Oh my, those accompaniments are just superb! I just burned my "black book"
of top session players - I won't be needing *that* old thing any more. I
loved the "ridiculously fast" and "mind-numbingly slow" settings.
:D
- K
On 1/14/09 12:08 PM, in article 496e49ab@linux, "TC"
<tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote:
>
> I think everyone here needs to take a step back and stop all the
> bickering about which app and platform is best. bla bla.. yada yada..
>
> The dust has settled. That debate is now over. There is now only one
> true app to rule them all.. and it's only on windows. Sorry Steve Jobs,
> you lose.
>
> It will truly blow your mind and make you rethink your whole approach to
> recording audio. (You can thank me later).
>
> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/song smith/
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> TC
>
>
>
>
> Kim W. wrote:
>> Hey Derek.
>> Nice to hear from you again.
>> I'm gonna stay right out of the platform/OS wars, as I can see
>> pros and cons to all of them. (They are all just recording tools, after all).
>> I Have Cubase, Protools, Paris, and Samplitude.
>> And yes!! I agree with you about Samplitude.
>> At present I use it primarily for Mastering and Sound design.
>> The object-oriented mixing is amazing. (dare I say, revolutionary..)
>> This will be my next multitrack DAW for sure, when I get tired of Paris
>> workarounds.
>> But for now, Paris still makes my life easy, sonically.
>> For me, Protools and Cubase are somewhat uninspiring to use, except
>> of course the midi aspect of Cubase.
>> I'm confident that the midi implementation of Samplitude is by now (or will
>> be soon) up to scratch. (I'm still running version 8).
>> How do you use Samplitude?
>> Anyway, Keep well.
>> Nice to see you still have the passion, even though it's
>> ruffled a few feathers around here.
>> Kim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> that was
>>>>> incompatible with what the other solution they had
>>>>> recommended 3rd party developers to use, causing once again
>>>>> 3rd party developers to jump through totally unnecessary hoops.
>>>> I heard differently.
>>>
>>> ok, my source was a press release of steinberg
>>> explaining the 64bit situation, and i heard
>>> the same from a NI developer. and your source is...?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Apple has made changes to their ADK over the years, and Apple products
>> are
>>>> better off for it, it's called improvement.
>>>
>>> ...and that improvement is what exactly? name me a real
>>> life improvement people got out of the forced switch
>>> from VST plugins to audio units. what did they get in
>>> return for having their whole plugin collections being
>>> made obsolete at one point?
>>>
>>>
>>>> It isn't like there wasn't years
>>>> of growing pain with Vista.
>>>
>>> note that the difference is that MS did not release
>>> vista during these years (a point you later cite
>>> as a negative, no less).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> As a former Apple Developer, the compiler has
>>>> a simple check box that writes a dual binary for PPC and Intel at the same
>>>> time, this is a fact, not BS. If you don't believe me look in to it
>>>> yourself
>>>
>>> im not denying the existence of that checkbox. im
>>> simply argueing that if it really had been that simple,
>>> the entire market of 3rd party softwares would have been
>>> intel ready within weeks. since in the real world it
>>> was more like more than a year and many stuff never got
>>> ported in the first place, i come to the conclusion that
>>> apparently things in the real world were a little more
>>> complex than that. its just an observation. you dont have
>>> to agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Steinberg has not always released their products in parallel, and that's
>>>> part of my point.
>>>
>>> most of the time they have, and when they hadnt, sometimes
>>> the mac version came out first, sometimes the pc version.
>>> but really, most of the time the releases were on the same
>>> day, which is actually quite an archievement given the constant
>>> need for recoding for apple whereas the pcs backwards compability
>>> reaches back to somewhere around win 2000 or even win 98.
>>>
>>>
>>>> My point was that Steinberg's Mac products have lagged
>>>> behind in performance with code that was not optimized up to date.
>>> yes, but thats hardly steinbergs fault. accross all softwares,
>>> OSX is a little less performant than XP. dont take my word
>>> for it. theres been many many benchmarks out there. dont like
>>> steinberg, try ableton, heck, even try digi who usually make
>>> it a point that theyre "very mac".
>>>
>>> or are all of these just not giving the mac enough "top
>>> priority"?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I believe
>>>> Steinberg has lost Mac customers as a result. Steinberg and the Mac
>>>> community
>>>> for years supported each other before Steinberg products were ever on the
>>>> PC platform. It's a good thing that Apple and Mac users supported
>>>> Steinberg
>>>> for all these years, don't you think?
>>>
>>> i dont care about stuff that happened back in the mid nineties.
>>> personally i still used an atari then, then a mac running cubase,
>>> didnt like it much because the UI was a lot slower than on
>>> the atari, and when i got paris in late 97 i got a pc for it
>>> (which in parises case clearly turned out to be the better
>>> choice, im tempted to say) and at that point cubase pc was
>>> already at 3.something.
>>>
>>> but if you care about it: if there had been a theoretical year where there
>>> was no more atari userbase but no pc version
>>> yet, let me say it out loud, thank you, mac users!
>>> oh wait, i was one of them. thank you, derek, for supporting
>>> steinberg, be it with your atari or your mac license :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> There has been a narrowing down of DAW software Manufacturers over the
>> years.
>>> i think the overall number has increased quite a bit.
>>> lots of modern hosts such as the whole tracker scene or
>>> stuff like the awesome reaper showed up. a lot more than what died away
>>> i would think.
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are still plenty of companies that support the Mac platform and
>> that's
>>>> not likely to change.
>>> youre argueing against stuff i didnt even say.
>>>
>>>
>>>> PLEASE! Dude, your still on an operating system from 2001 due to MS's
>> blunders
>>>> and upgrade issues with Windows Vista!
>>> no "dude", im still on it because it works. what awesome audio
>>> improvements did i miss? the system i work on is the one
>>> that consistently wins all benchmarks, it supports all plugin
>>> and audio standards and its stable as hell.
>>>
>>> there simply is nothing besides my 4GB ram now not
>>> being enough anymore that ever tempted me to
>>> change, so only now do i plan to change. come on, youre the expert, name
>>> me something audio related that i missed all
>>> these years that i happily spent on that OS from 2001.
>>> i find it hilarious that you try to make that a bad thing.
>>> its clearly a very very good thing and i will remember XP
>>> very fondly once i made the switch.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And talk about upgrade cycles, a
>>>> 5 YEAR wait for Vista!
>>> ...during which XP was supported with free upgrades.
>>> what exactly is good in having to upgrade your OS
>>> once a year and pay for the upgrade? i consider a long life span a plus
>> for
>>> the OS (it says something about its quality too), and i certainly dont mind
>>> that all updates to it were
>>> completely free either.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Talk about growing pains, upgrade and compatibility
>>>> issues, I've got one word for you, VISTA!!! You got no room to talk!
>>> and youve got no examples, apparently :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> At
>>>> least Apple continues to improve their OS, every upgrade has been more
>> than
>>>> worth the cost in features alone.
>>> name me something audio related that i missed. and dont
>>> start with fancy photo viewers or whatever. if i crave a better
>>> picture viewer, i download one (actually i did 2 years ago
>>> when i got bored with the one i had and have a super fancy
>>> one ever since. for free. this is such a cool world we live in).
>>>
>>>
>>>> Talk about the price of admission Mac
>>>> OSX can be bought for $129 or less, and there are not 5 or more versions
>>>> costing up to $399.00. That's more than 3 times the cost of Mac OSX.
>>> yeah it would be stupid to buy a vista license on its own.
>>> the way to buy MS has always been to just get it when you get
>>> a new computer. and the point about this was...?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just
>>>> look at the customer satisfaction rates, including XP, I'll take Mac OSX
>>>> thank you.
>>> but youre not a fanboy. right :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Your original post was about Paris no longer making sense, then you went
>>>> to Apple is the evil empire and Logic sucks.
>>>
>>> yes, i made a joke about who i would consider "the dark side"
>>> these days in regards to the whole apple/logic story.
>>> i dont care much actually, ever since i dont have to use
>>> the program in other studios anymore, so in that regard i
>>> probably would have to thank apple for that too.
>>>
>>> you just couldnt get over me stating my opinion, apparently.
>>> but it is my opinion. cant help it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Instead of us having the next
>>>> Mac verses PC war, why don't we stick to Paris vs. other DAWs and we can
>>>> leave Logic out of it.
>>>
>>> oh, but theres two ways of getting there. you might just as
>>> well show the grandeur of ignoring me when i state an opinion
>>> that you dont like.
>>>
>>> that usually is considered the better approach than
>>> to try to stop people from voicing their opinions.
>>>
>>> youre welcome to your own "microsoft sucks" statements
>>> as much as you like. be my guest, write a whole post about
>>> this stuff and watch me ignore it ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes PC users always know more about Macs than Mac users about Mac
>>>> performance
>>>> and all the "swooshing' stuff.
>>>
>>> im talking about benchmarks from manufacturers such as ableton,
>>> steinberg, NI or independant computer manufacturers such as
>>> ADK (who sell both pcs and macs) and numerous benchmarks i read
>>> in germans sound&recording or keyboards magazine.
>>>
>>> sure, maybe its all a conspiracy. i wouldnt know. but i
>>> also wouldnt care much, my whole point these days is that
>>> the performance you get is so huge that these details dont
>>> matter anymore. who cares whether an octocore machine runs
>>> 800 instances of a plugin or just 730 when in reality you wouldnt
>>> ever need more than 100 of them?
>>>
>>> see where im coming from with this?
>>>
>>>
>>>> As I recall,
>>>> there were Audio softwares that were not Vista ready, and many that won't
>>>> work with Vista 64, but what ever.
>>>
>>> ok, for the sake of the argument. heres the list of softwares
>>> that initially were not macintel compatible: all but logic.
>>> no wait, all including logic, but logic shortly followed
>>> after the introduction.
>>>
>>> name me which major players daws did not run on vistas initial
>>> release. i dont recall a single one.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 64bit has been around since the 60's,
>>> so what was your point about the catching up? are you
>>> argueing that XP64bit was not released early enough?
>>> if so, fair enough, allthough i must say that considering that
>>> this is all so many years ago and you were actually talking about vista
>>> (which came as 64bit upon initial release) im not
>>> quite sure what youre trying to say here. and for me personally,
>>> all that counts is that NOW i have a machine thats so powerful
>>> that my bottleneck is not CPU anymore but RAM, so its
>>> NOW that im interested in 64bit, and today i can choose from
>>> xp64, vista64, i could install the free windows 7 beta
>>> (which according to nuendo forum reports runs nuendo just
>>> fine and super fast already as it is) or OSX. and linux
>>> and some more stuff too, im sure.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And you can quit with the Mac fan boy shit.
>>> sorry, man. youre acting like a fanboy IMO. its just
>>> an observation. im sure you can get over it. you dont have
>>> to agree with my observation (seems like i cannot state
>>> that often enough).
>>>
>>>> Logic 8 is a big improvement.
>>>
>>> if you say so.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well I own 7 different Daw softwares. When I was a dealer I sold most
>> of
>>>> them, so yeah. I don't know it all that's for sure. I wasn't looking
>> for
>>>> a Logic vs. Samplitude war either. I was just saying Logic 8 is incredible
>>>> software, I didn't say it's the best.
>>> jup, and i was saying i dont find anything about
>>> it incredible at all and stated some examples of a software
>>> that i find very "incredible" as reference, awesome features
>>> that i cant wait to have steinberg implement into nuendo ASAP
>>> please. wouldnt you agree that those features i described
>>> are pretty awesome? i mean, multitrack editing suites that
>>> beat beat detective, internal melodyne style piano roll editing
>>> of audio, object based mixing in addition to traditional track+mixer
>>> approach
>>> etc etc, isnt that something youd like
>>> logic to have too?
>>>
>>> i dont understand why you have a problem with something
>>> like that, or how
>>> you consider me listing some fabulous features from an
>>> audio software whose developers quite obviously are extremely
>>> skilled and super creative equals "starting a war".
>>>
>>> i can just as well describe to you what i like about protools.
>>> protools has playlists, which is hands down the simplest,
>>> most powerful yet most intuitive way of multiple sets of
>>> multitrack recording there is. protools has a very nice automation,
>>> super precise transient detection thats better than
>>> all of the competition, a nice suite of offline processes
>>> and the software, while dull and boring is extremely stable.
>>>
>>> now, would you consider me listing these advantages over
>>> the competition "starting a war" too? probably not. then
>>> answer me this, why would that be different if i listed
>>> stuff like that for samplitude?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> well, i have presented you with quite a few factual statements,
>>>>> and if your reaction is a mere "i still disagree", well, what else is
>> there
>>>>> to say.
>>>>>
>>>> Just about the sound and summing.
>>>
>>> my factual statements were about sound and summing.
>>> a null test is a test you usually do to get all the
>>> urban myths or grand "its all subjective" statements
>>> out of the topic. you can debunk all such statements
>>> with a successful null test, its positive proof that
>>> candidate A sounds exactly the same as candidate B.
>>>
>>> i present you with that and your response is "i still
>>> think it sounds different". fair enough. but then
>>> we dont need to continue that discussion because you
>>> apparently dont share my methodolical approach to this
>>> topic and prefer to leave stuff in the dark or "subjective".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I don't doubt that at unity gain or less, you
>>>>>> could get tracks to null,
>>> I'd like to see you get them to null when the
>>>>> Paris
>>>>>> tracks are pushed.
>>>
>>> so you DO believe paris sounds the same, but sounds
>>> different only when you push stuff into clipping?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> What I'm saying is I like the sound of Paris. What I'm saying is Paris
>>> sounds
>>>> different to me than other DAWs I've heard.
>>>
>>> again, when clipping or in general? cause if youd say also in general,
>>> thats the opposite of saying that you do believe that
>>> its easy to do a positive null test when you dont drive
>>> tracks into clipping.
>>>
>>> which one is it gonna be?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't believe all DAWs sound
>>>> the same.
>>> same question as above. only when clipping or also without?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm not
>>>> convinced on the sound front.
>>> what part of a positive null test do you find "not convincing"?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I just wanted to hear what you were talking about. I'd like to hear a
>> comparison
>>>> for myself being that audio is somewhat subjective.
>>>
>>> that would need the assumption that daw sound characteristics
>>> make a bigger difference than the actual mixing choices
>>> the engineer makes, which of course is not the case, im sure
>>> we will agree on that. so all you would get out of
>>> listening to mixes from me is whether or not you like my
>>> style of mixing (if youre really interested, feel free to
>>> google me, im sure theres enough stuff you could
>>> download for free over P2P).
>>>
>>> youre the one claiming to have the magic daw that
>>> sounds different in such a fundamental way, not me. my mixes
>>> sound just like anyone elses (for better or worse, i.e.
>>> many of my commercial projects are mastered to loudness
>>> insanity following the usual sick industry standards).
>>> so IMO it would be up to you to show such a fundamental difference.
>>>
>>> especially considering that ive used that same supposedly
>>> magic tool for years too :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
"... being bitter is like swallowing poison and waiting for the other guy to die..." - anon
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102107 is a reply to message #102092] |
Wed, 14 January 2009 16:17 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Kim W." <no@way.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Derek.
>Nice to hear from you again.
>I'm gonna stay right out of the platform/OS wars, as I can see
>pros and cons to all of them. (They are all just recording tools, after
all).
absolutely :-)
>I Have Cubase, Protools, Paris, and Samplitude.
>And yes!! I agree with you about Samplitude.
>At present I use it primarily for Mastering and Sound design.
>The object-oriented mixing is amazing. (dare I say, revolutionary..)
>This will be my next multitrack DAW for sure, when I get tired of Paris
workarounds.
>But for now, Paris still makes my life easy, sonically.
>For me, Protools and Cubase are somewhat uninspiring to use, except
>of course the midi aspect of Cubase.
yeah protools is very boring...got forbid, imagine theyd
make their program skinnable (a feature that, once again,
only one program in this list has, samplitude) how creative
people would get with that old dog. but of course that
aint gonna happen, because that old dog image is part of
digis game here. no graphics, no customizable key commands,
no nothing...
....but hey, it works. its very stable, and you can count on
something: if it HAS a feature, that feature is done right.
thats someting i.e. steinberg often dont get right.
>I'm confident that the midi implementation of Samplitude is by now (or will
>be soon) up to scratch. (I'm still running version 8).
>How do you use Samplitude?
my "main" host is still nuendo...im just so used to it.
but i do have samplitude and i keep using it more and more.
by now, when i know i have some serious multitrack editing
to do, i switch to samplitude cause of its multitrack "wizard"
thing...
the midi is on par with the rest now. version 9 was a big step
already, version 10 now feels very mature. let me put it
this way, i opened the key editor and tried to find some
aspect of the cubase and nuendo key editors i would possibly
miss here, and i didnt find one. i didnt look THAT hard
because for now i use samplitude very much for audio,
but it all seemed to be there.
>Anyway, Keep well.
>Nice to see you still have the passion, even though it's
>ruffled a few feathers around here.
>Kim
actually the person with the passion in this case would
be james ;-) he apparently didnt like my little offhand joke
about apples dealing with poor emagic very much. but
yes, when im asked about my opinion, i dont hesitate
saying it out loud. precisely because its only audio software.
you cant offend audio softwares. they dont have feelings.
....yet! :-)
best,
derek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? - link [message #102120 is a reply to message #102119] |
Wed, 14 January 2009 23:52 |
|
|
Oh, the song, it's stuck in my head... I feel like... Oh noooooooo!
Nooooooooo!
These cliched chords and hackneyed drums
Will make most listeners sick;
I'd like to take that laptop out
And smash it with a stick
Sometimes it's hard to look away
When passing highway wrecks;
The worst part was imagining
Those parents having (breakfast)
This weird and creepy video
Has made me want to shout -
"Yes, everyone has a song inside,
And pleeeeeeeease don't let them out!"
On 1/14/09 10:57 PM, in article 496ee1b3$1@linux, "TC"
<tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote:
>
> I would recommend everyone download the high res version so you can
> enjoy it over and over again and again..
>
> Hurry before Microsoft realizes that everyone involved with the making
> of this commercial was high on crack..
>
> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/song smith/videos/Every
> oneHasASongInside.mov
>
> Cheers,
>
> TC
>
>
> James McCloskey wrote:
>> By the way, is that a MacBook Pro she's using in the beginning of the video?
>>
>> Bill wishes he was Steve Jobs, and Ballmer wishes he was an ape: )
>>
>> TC <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote:
>>> Apparently the promo video was just too mind blowing, so they replaced
>>> it with some technical crap..
>>>
>>> Here is the link to the video that was previously on their site.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oGFogwcx-E
>>>
>>>
>>> TC wrote:
>>>> I think everyone here needs to take a step back and stop all the
>>>> bickering about which app and platform is best. bla bla.. yada yada..
>>>>
>>>> The dust has settled. That debate is now over. There is now only one
>>>> true app to rule them all.. and it's only on windows. Sorry Steve Jobs,
>>
>>>> you lose.
>>>>
>>>> It will truly blow your mind and make you rethink your whole approach
>> to
>>>> recording audio. (You can thank me later).
>>>>
>>>> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/song smith/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> TC
>>>>
>>
"... being bitter is like swallowing poison and waiting for the other guy to die..." - anon
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102121 is a reply to message #102098] |
Wed, 14 January 2009 23:56 |
Erling
Messages: 156
Registered: October 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hmmm...can it help people who can't sing in tune with playing out of tune
too?...hmmm...
....if not, I think it's more a consume joke...
"TC" <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> skrev i melding
news:496e49ab@linux...
>
> I think everyone here needs to take a step back and stop all the bickering
> about which app and platform is best. bla bla.. yada yada..
>
> The dust has settled. That debate is now over. There is now only one true
> app to rule them all.. and it's only on windows. Sorry Steve Jobs, you
> lose.
>
> It will truly blow your mind and make you rethink your whole approach to
> recording audio. (You can thank me later).
>
> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/song smith/
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> TC
>
>
>
>
> Kim W. wrote:
>> Hey Derek.
>> Nice to hear from you again.
>> I'm gonna stay right out of the platform/OS wars, as I can see
>> pros and cons to all of them. (They are all just recording tools, after
>> all).
>> I Have Cubase, Protools, Paris, and Samplitude.
>> And yes!! I agree with you about Samplitude.
>> At present I use it primarily for Mastering and Sound design.
>> The object-oriented mixing is amazing. (dare I say, revolutionary..)
>> This will be my next multitrack DAW for sure, when I get tired of Paris
>> workarounds.
>> But for now, Paris still makes my life easy, sonically.
>> For me, Protools and Cubase are somewhat uninspiring to use, except
>> of course the midi aspect of Cubase. I'm confident that the midi
>> implementation of Samplitude is by now (or will
>> be soon) up to scratch. (I'm still running version 8).
>> How do you use Samplitude?
>> Anyway, Keep well.
>> Nice to see you still have the passion, even though it's ruffled a few
>> feathers around here.
>> Kim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>> "James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> that was
>>>>> incompatible with what the other solution they had
>>>>> recommended 3rd party developers to use, causing once again
>>>>> 3rd party developers to jump through totally unnecessary hoops.
>>>> I heard differently.
>>>
>>> ok, my source was a press release of steinberg
>>> explaining the 64bit situation, and i heard
>>> the same from a NI developer. and your source is...?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Apple has made changes to their ADK over the years, and Apple products
>> are
>>>> better off for it, it's called improvement.
>>>
>>> ...and that improvement is what exactly? name me a real
>>> life improvement people got out of the forced switch
>>>from VST plugins to audio units. what did they get in
>>> return for having their whole plugin collections being
>>> made obsolete at one point?
>>>
>>>
>>>> It isn't like there wasn't years
>>>> of growing pain with Vista.
>>>
>>> note that the difference is that MS did not release
>>> vista during these years (a point you later cite
>>> as a negative, no less).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> As a former Apple Developer, the compiler has
>>>> a simple check box that writes a dual binary for PPC and Intel at the
>>>> same
>>>> time, this is a fact, not BS. If you don't believe me look in to it
>>>> yourself
>>>
>>> im not denying the existence of that checkbox. im
>>> simply argueing that if it really had been that simple,
>>> the entire market of 3rd party softwares would have been
>>> intel ready within weeks. since in the real world it
>>> was more like more than a year and many stuff never got
>>> ported in the first place, i come to the conclusion that
>>> apparently things in the real world were a little more
>>> complex than that. its just an observation. you dont have
>>> to agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Steinberg has not always released their products in parallel, and
>>>> that's
>>>> part of my point.
>>>
>>> most of the time they have, and when they hadnt, sometimes
>>> the mac version came out first, sometimes the pc version.
>>> but really, most of the time the releases were on the same
>>> day, which is actually quite an archievement given the constant
>>> need for recoding for apple whereas the pcs backwards compability
>>> reaches back to somewhere around win 2000 or even win 98.
>>>
>>>
>>>> My point was that Steinberg's Mac products have lagged
>>>> behind in performance with code that was not optimized up to date.
>>> yes, but thats hardly steinbergs fault. accross all softwares,
>>> OSX is a little less performant than XP. dont take my word
>>> for it. theres been many many benchmarks out there. dont like
>>> steinberg, try ableton, heck, even try digi who usually make
>>> it a point that theyre "very mac".
>>>
>>> or are all of these just not giving the mac enough "top
>>> priority"?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I believe
>>>> Steinberg has lost Mac customers as a result. Steinberg and the Mac
>>>> community
>>>> for years supported each other before Steinberg products were ever on
>>>> the
>>>> PC platform. It's a good thing that Apple and Mac users supported
>>>> Steinberg
>>>> for all these years, don't you think?
>>>
>>> i dont care about stuff that happened back in the mid nineties.
>>> personally i still used an atari then, then a mac running cubase,
>>> didnt like it much because the UI was a lot slower than on
>>> the atari, and when i got paris in late 97 i got a pc for it
>>> (which in parises case clearly turned out to be the better
>>> choice, im tempted to say) and at that point cubase pc was
>>> already at 3.something.
>>> but if you care about it: if there had been a theoretical year where
>>> there
>>> was no more atari userbase but no pc version
>>> yet, let me say it out loud, thank you, mac users!
>>> oh wait, i was one of them. thank you, derek, for supporting
>>> steinberg, be it with your atari or your mac license :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> There has been a narrowing down of DAW software Manufacturers over the
>> years.
>>> i think the overall number has increased quite a bit.
>>> lots of modern hosts such as the whole tracker scene or
>>> stuff like the awesome reaper showed up. a lot more than what died away
>>> i would think.
>>>
>>>> There are still plenty of companies that support the Mac platform and
>> that's
>>>> not likely to change.
>>> youre argueing against stuff i didnt even say.
>>>
>>>
>>>> PLEASE! Dude, your still on an operating system from 2001 due to MS's
>> blunders
>>>> and upgrade issues with Windows Vista!
>>> no "dude", im still on it because it works. what awesome audio
>>> improvements did i miss? the system i work on is the one
>>> that consistently wins all benchmarks, it supports all plugin
>>> and audio standards and its stable as hell.
>>>
>>> there simply is nothing besides my 4GB ram now not
>>> being enough anymore that ever tempted me to
>>> change, so only now do i plan to change. come on, youre the expert, name
>>> me something audio related that i missed all
>>> these years that i happily spent on that OS from 2001.
>>> i find it hilarious that you try to make that a bad thing.
>>> its clearly a very very good thing and i will remember XP
>>> very fondly once i made the switch.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And talk about upgrade cycles, a
>>>> 5 YEAR wait for Vista!
>>> ...during which XP was supported with free upgrades.
>>> what exactly is good in having to upgrade your OS
>>> once a year and pay for the upgrade? i consider a long life span a plus
>> for
>>> the OS (it says something about its quality too), and i certainly dont
>>> mind
>>> that all updates to it were
>>> completely free either.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Talk about growing pains, upgrade and compatibility
>>>> issues, I've got one word for you, VISTA!!! You got no room to talk!
>>> and youve got no examples, apparently :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> At
>>>> least Apple continues to improve their OS, every upgrade has been more
>> than
>>>> worth the cost in features alone.
>>> name me something audio related that i missed. and dont
>>> start with fancy photo viewers or whatever. if i crave a better
>>> picture viewer, i download one (actually i did 2 years ago
>>> when i got bored with the one i had and have a super fancy
>>> one ever since. for free. this is such a cool world we live in).
>>>
>>>
>>>> Talk about the price of admission Mac
>>>> OSX can be bought for $129 or less, and there are not 5 or more
>>>> versions
>>>> costing up to $399.00. That's more than 3 times the cost of Mac OSX.
>>> yeah it would be stupid to buy a vista license on its own.
>>> the way to buy MS has always been to just get it when you get
>>> a new computer. and the point about this was...?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just
>>>> look at the customer satisfaction rates, including XP, I'll take Mac
>>>> OSX
>>>> thank you.
>>> but youre not a fanboy. right :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Your original post was about Paris no longer making sense, then you
>>>> went
>>>> to Apple is the evil empire and Logic sucks.
>>>
>>> yes, i made a joke about who i would consider "the dark side"
>>> these days in regards to the whole apple/logic story.
>>> i dont care much actually, ever since i dont have to use
>>> the program in other studios anymore, so in that regard i
>>> probably would have to thank apple for that too.
>>>
>>> you just couldnt get over me stating my opinion, apparently.
>>> but it is my opinion. cant help it.
>>>
>>>> Instead of us having the next
>>>> Mac verses PC war, why don't we stick to Paris vs. other DAWs and we
>>>> can
>>>> leave Logic out of it.
>>>
>>> oh, but theres two ways of getting there. you might just as
>>> well show the grandeur of ignoring me when i state an opinion
>>> that you dont like.
>>>
>>> that usually is considered the better approach than
>>> to try to stop people from voicing their opinions.
>>> youre welcome to your own "microsoft sucks" statements
>>> as much as you like. be my guest, write a whole post about
>>> this stuff and watch me ignore it ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes PC users always know more about Macs than Mac users about Mac
>>>> performance
>>>> and all the "swooshing' stuff.
>>>
>>> im talking about benchmarks from manufacturers such as ableton,
>>> steinberg, NI or independant computer manufacturers such as
>>> ADK (who sell both pcs and macs) and numerous benchmarks i read
>>> in germans sound&recording or keyboards magazine.
>>>
>>> sure, maybe its all a conspiracy. i wouldnt know. but i
>>> also wouldnt care much, my whole point these days is that
>>> the performance you get is so huge that these details dont
>>> matter anymore. who cares whether an octocore machine runs
>>> 800 instances of a plugin or just 730 when in reality you wouldnt
>>> ever need more than 100 of them?
>>>
>>> see where im coming from with this?
>>>
>>>
>>>> As I recall,
>>>> there were Audio softwares that were not Vista ready, and many that
>>>> won't
>>>> work with Vista 64, but what ever.
>>>
>>> ok, for the sake of the argument. heres the list of softwares
>>> that initially were not macintel compatible: all but logic.
>>> no wait, all including logic, but logic shortly followed
>>> after the introduction.
>>>
>>> name me which major players daws did not run on vistas initial
>>> release. i dont recall a single one.
>>>
>>>> 64bit has been around since the 60's,
>>> so what was your point about the catching up? are you
>>> argueing that XP64bit was not released early enough?
>>> if so, fair enough, allthough i must say that considering that
>>> this is all so many years ago and you were actually talking about vista
>>> (which came as 64bit upon initial release) im not
>>> quite sure what youre trying to say here. and for me personally,
>>> all that counts is that NOW i have a machine thats so powerful
>>> that my bottleneck is not CPU anymore but RAM, so its
>>> NOW that im interested in 64bit, and today i can choose from
>>> xp64, vista64, i could install the free windows 7 beta
>>> (which according to nuendo forum reports runs nuendo just
>>> fine and super fast already as it is) or OSX. and linux
>>> and some more stuff too, im sure.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And you can quit with the Mac fan boy shit.
>>> sorry, man. youre acting like a fanboy IMO. its just
>>> an observation. im sure you can get over it. you dont have
>>> to agree with my observation (seems like i cannot state that often
>>> enough).
>>>
>>>> Logic 8 is a big improvement.
>>>
>>> if you say so.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well I own 7 different Daw softwares. When I was a dealer I sold most
>> of
>>>> them, so yeah. I don't know it all that's for sure. I wasn't looking
>> for
>>>> a Logic vs. Samplitude war either. I was just saying Logic 8 is
>>>> incredible
>>>> software, I didn't say it's the best.
>>> jup, and i was saying i dont find anything about
>>> it incredible at all and stated some examples of a software
>>> that i find very "incredible" as reference, awesome features
>>> that i cant wait to have steinberg implement into nuendo ASAP
>>> please. wouldnt you agree that those features i described
>>> are pretty awesome? i mean, multitrack editing suites that
>>> beat beat detective, internal melodyne style piano roll editing
>>> of audio, object based mixing in addition to traditional track+mixer
>>> approach
>>> etc etc, isnt that something youd like
>>> logic to have too?
>>>
>>> i dont understand why you have a problem with something
>>> like that, or how
>>> you consider me listing some fabulous features from an
>>> audio software whose developers quite obviously are extremely
>>> skilled and super creative equals "starting a war".
>>>
>>> i can just as well describe to you what i like about protools.
>>> protools has playlists, which is hands down the simplest,
>>> most powerful yet most intuitive way of multiple sets of
>>> multitrack recording there is. protools has a very nice automation,
>>> super precise transient detection thats better than
>>> all of the competition, a nice suite of offline processes
>>> and the software, while dull and boring is extremely stable.
>>>
>>> now, would you consider me listing these advantages over
>>> the competition "starting a war" too? probably not. then
>>> answer me this, why would that be different if i listed
>>> stuff like that for samplitude?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> well, i have presented you with quite a few factual statements,
>>>>> and if your reaction is a mere "i still disagree", well, what else is
>> there
>>>>> to say.
>>>>>
>>>> Just about the sound and summing.
>>>
>>> my factual statements were about sound and summing.
>>> a null test is a test you usually do to get all the
>>> urban myths or grand "its all subjective" statements
>>> out of the topic. you can debunk all such statements
>>> with a successful null test, its positive proof that
>>> candidate A sounds exactly the same as candidate B.
>>>
>>> i present you with that and your response is "i still
>>> think it sounds different". fair enough. but then
>>> we dont need to continue that discussion because you
>>> apparently dont share my methodolical approach to this
>>> topic and prefer to leave stuff in the dark or "subjective".
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I don't doubt that at unity gain or less, you
>>>>>> could get tracks to null,
>>> I'd like to see you get them to null when the
>>>>> Paris
>>>>>> tracks are pushed.
>>>
>>> so you DO believe paris sounds the same, but sounds
>>> different only when you push stuff into clipping?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> What I'm saying is I like the sound of Paris. What I'm saying is Paris
>>> sounds
>>>> different to me than other DAWs I've heard.
>>>
>>> again, when clipping or in general? cause if youd say also in general,
>>> thats the opposite of saying that you do believe that its easy to do a
>>> positive null test when you dont drive
>>> tracks into clipping.
>>>
>>> which one is it gonna be?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't believe all DAWs sound
>>>> the same.
>>> same question as above. only when clipping or also without?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm not
>>>> convinced on the sound front.
>>> what part of a positive null test do you find "not convincing"?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I just wanted to hear what you were talking about. I'd like to hear a
>> comparison
>>>> for myself being that audio is somewhat subjective.
>>>
>>> that would need the assumption that daw sound characteristics
>>> make a bigger difference than the actual mixing choices
>>> the engineer makes, which of course is not the case, im sure
>>> we will agree on that. so all you would get out of
>>> listening to mixes from me is whether or not you like my
>>> style of mixing (if youre really interested, feel free to
>>> google me, im sure theres enough stuff you could
>>> download for free over P2P).
>>>
>>> youre the one claiming to have the magic daw that sounds different in
>>> such a fundamental way, not me. my mixes
>>> sound just like anyone elses (for better or worse, i.e.
>>> many of my commercial projects are mastered to loudness
>>> insanity following the usual sick industry standards).
>>> so IMO it would be up to you to show such a fundamental difference.
>>>
>>> especially considering that ive used that same supposedly
>>> magic tool for years too :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? - link [message #102123 is a reply to message #102120] |
Thu, 15 January 2009 00:05 |
|
|
By the way - for me, the *crowning* moment while watching that video was
when I recognized the faintest echo of the verse of Frank Zappa's
"Tinseltown Rebellion" in the melody she was singing.
http://www.lyricsdomain.com/6/frank_zappa/tinsel_town_rebell ion.html
(moderately NSFW)
It was a Priceless Moment of Cultural Zen.
- K
On 1/14/09 11:52 PM, in article C5942B20.D312%kg@kerrygalloway.com, "Kerry
Galloway" <kg@kerrygalloway.com> wrote:
> Oh, the song, it's stuck in my head... I feel like... Oh noooooooo!
> Nooooooooo!
>
> These cliched chords and hackneyed drums
> Will make most listeners sick;
> I'd like to take that laptop out
> And smash it with a stick
> Sometimes it's hard to look away
> When passing highway wrecks;
> The worst part was imagining
> Those parents having (breakfast)
> This weird and creepy video
> Has made me want to shout -
> "Yes, everyone has a song inside,
> And pleeeeeeeease don't let them out!"
>
>
> On 1/14/09 10:57 PM, in article 496ee1b3$1@linux, "TC"
> <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I would recommend everyone download the high res version so you can
>> enjoy it over and over again and again..
>>
>> Hurry before Microsoft realizes that everyone involved with the making
>> of this commercial was high on crack..
>>
>>
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/song smith/videos/Ever>>
y
>> oneHasASongInside.mov
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> TC
>>
>>
>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>> By the way, is that a MacBook Pro she's using in the beginning of the video?
>>>
>>> Bill wishes he was Steve Jobs, and Ballmer wishes he was an ape: )
>>>
>>> TC <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote:
>>>> Apparently the promo video was just too mind blowing, so they replaced
>>>> it with some technical crap..
>>>>
>>>> Here is the link to the video that was previously on their site.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oGFogwcx-E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TC wrote:
>>>>> I think everyone here needs to take a step back and stop all the
>>>>> bickering about which app and platform is best. bla bla.. yada yada..
>>>>>
>>>>> The dust has settled. That debate is now over. There is now only one
>>>>> true app to rule them all.. and it's only on windows. Sorry Steve Jobs,
>>>
>>>>> you lose.
>>>>>
>>>>> It will truly blow your mind and make you rethink your whole approach
>>> to
>>>>> recording audio. (You can thank me later).
>>>>>
>>>>> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/song smith/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> TC
>>>>>
>>>
>
"... being bitter is like swallowing poison and waiting for the other guy to die..." - anon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #102129 is a reply to message #102107] |
Thu, 15 January 2009 09:32 |
|
|
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>its only audio software.
>you cant offend audio softwares. they dont have feelings.
>...yet! :-)
>
>best,
>derek
Oh yeah?!? Paris does!
Or is it just that it feels good. Remember the Sunkist Tuna commercials?
"Sorry Charlie - Sunkist doesn't want tuna with good taste. Sunkist wants
tuna that TASTES GOOD!"
Don't know what that has to do with anything. Kind of a stream of consciousness
thing. I took way too many drugs when I was young!
Gantt
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 04 22:56:40 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02727 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
