Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Matrox?
| Matrox? [message #61649] |
Tue, 20 December 2005 08:05  |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
n't use DVI, but
I have, and I don't see a big difference there either. Of course, at my
age, I am about blind... lol
"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>First thing I think of is that I would have to buy 3 new DVI flat panels
to
>go with 3 DVI outs... not cheap. PCI-E is going to force this change on
ppl
>sooner or later anyway, but - In DJ's case at least - the problem comes
in
>the amount of usable PCI slots and video heads. By sticking to the agp/pci
>duo of Matrox 450, he loses no usable PCI slots and gets 4 head outputs
>without taking more than one IRQ.
>On a single or even dual head video system, I couldn't see keeping those
old
>units - especially knowing that with the Matrox drivers they are somewhat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Matrox? [message #61653 is a reply to message #61652] |
Tue, 20 December 2005 09:25  |
Ed
Messages: 199
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
onger horribly
> expensive and it seems people here are giving up a lot of time and effort
> to use a (let's admit pretty crappy) old video card.
>
> Obviously, this same argument could be used to suggest dropping PARIS
itself,
> but at least PARIS adds some distinct value with its sonics. I don't think
> Matrox pixels look any better.
>
> Just wondering . . .
>
> TCBSO I've got a piano jazz trio project I'm going to try and
master.Just want some advice on what is being used to master.
Are some of you doing it in PARIS or do I need to buy Wavelab?
Thinking of trying some of the UAD precision stuff too.
Probably a good project for me to get into the mastering thing
since it shouldn't require alot since its a jaaz thing.
I also recorded it so I know the material.
Thanks,
PeteBut these two posts, combined with DJ's experience, sort of confirm what I
was saying. The 450's are not in any way problem free or certified or anything.
In fact, if DJ loads the AGP drivers for his mobo (a rather logical thing)
the Matrox won't work. And if he loads the freaking Matrox drivers (an even
more logical thing) it won't work. I'd say that's a long ways from compatibility.
I've done quad setups with nVidia chipset boards and nVidia vido cards (on
AGP, one PCI) and trust me they were a lot easier than what it sounds like
DJ went through.
Of course, they're your computers, your life, and none of my business. But
when I hear someone having setup and IRQ problems with a Matrox 450 it's
sort of like hearing someone having problems with the first SoundBlaster
Live! card. "Hey, My SB Live is making my new Athlon X2 crash." "Wow, you
mean it actually boots? Lucky you!"
TCB
"Ed" <askme@email.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, I think Aaron hit it on the head... the G-450 is already confirmed
>by various systems, motherboards, etc. that it works well with these setups,
>along with Paris. Since I have built and own quite a few different systems,
>I can tell you that some of the newer, NVIDIA-type power video cards LOVE
>to screw with IRQs. Or perhaps the other way around... the newer cards
are
>forced on IRQs that Paris don't like. I am not that technical with all
that...
>but in layman's terms, that is my understanding. I bought the G-450 back
>in 99 or 2000 when everyone on here said it is the easiest to work with...
>for compatibility. Stuck with it since and I have had ZERO issues.
>
>I am sure some of the newer ones will work just fine... but that may depend
>on your motherboard, what other cards are plugged in and sometimes, which
>card is in which slot. If you have the time, patience, money and virtuoso...
>good luck in finding compatibility... then again... to elimimate that..
find
>a cheap G-450! Lastly, as I said I have multiple computers and I am at
work
>and can't remember model numbers, but personally, I don't see that much
of
>a difference in a G-450 -vs- some of the newer ones. I don't use DVI, but
>I have, and I don't see a big difference there either. Of course, at my
>age, I am about blind... lol
>
>"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>First th
|
|
|
|
| Re: Matrox? [message #61655 is a reply to message #61649] |
Tue, 20 December 2005 09:20 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
the Nforce graphics cards has been less than stellar and it
seems that the VIA chipsets are most friendly with multicore CPU's and my
other PCI cards (RME and UAD-1).
Thanks,
Deej
"tcb" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43a84f70$1@linux...
>
> But these two posts, combined with DJ's experience, sort of confirm what I
> was saying. The 450's are not in any way problem free or certified or
anything.
> In fact, if DJ loads the AGP drivers for his mobo (a rather logical thing)
> the Matrox won't work. And if he loads the freaking Matrox drivers (an
even
> more logical thing) it won't work. I'd say that's a long ways from
compatibility.
> I've done quad setups with nVidia chipset boards and nVidia vido cards (on
> AGP, one PCI) and trust me they were a lot easier than what it sounds like
> DJ went through.
>
> Of course, they're your computers, your life, and none of my business. But
> when I hear someone having setup and IRQ problems with a Matrox 450 it's
> sort of like hearing someone having problems with the first SoundBlaster
> Live! card. "Hey, My SB Live is making my new Athlon X2 crash." "Wow, you
> mean it actually boots? Lucky you!"
>
> TCB
>
> "Ed" <askme@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >Actually, I think Aaron hit it on the head... the G-450 is already
confirmed
> >by various systems, motherboards, etc. that it works well with these
setups,
> >along with Paris. Since I have built and own quite a few different
systems,
> >I can tell you that some of the newer, NVIDIA-type power video cards LOVE
> >to screw with IRQs. Or perhaps the other way around... the newe
|
|
|
|
| Re: Matrox? [message #61657 is a reply to message #61653] |
Tue, 20 December 2005 11:37 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hat may
depend
> >on your motherboard, what other cards are plugged in and sometimes, which
> >card is in which slot. If you have the time, patience, money and
virtuoso...
> >good luck in finding compatibility... then again... to elimimate that..
> find
> >a cheap G-450! Lastly, as I said I have multiple computers and I am at
> work
> >and can't remember model numbers, but personally, I don't see that much
> of
> >a difference in a G-450 -vs- some of the newer ones. I don't use DVI,
but
> >I have, and I don't see a big difference there either. Of course, at my
> >age, I am about blind... lol
> >
> >"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
> >>First thing I think of is that I would have to buy 3 new DVI flat panels
> >to
> >>go with 3 DVI outs... not cheap. PCI-E is going to force this change on
> >ppl
> >>sooner or later anyway, but - In DJ's case at least - the problem comes
> >in
> >>the amount of usable PCI slots and video heads. By sticking to the
agp/pci
> >
> >>duo of Matrox 450, he loses no usable PCI slots and gets 4 head outputs
> >
> >>without taking more than one IRQ.
> >>On a single or even dual head video system, I couldn't see keeping those
> >old
> >>units - especially knowing that with the Matrox drivers they are
somewhat
> >
> >>evil with resource hogging.
> >>AA
> >>
> >>
> >>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43a81dae$1@linux...
> >>>
> >>> I've been reading this NG on and off again for a few weeks and am
> >>> wondering
> >>> something. Why do all of you guys use those clunky old Matrox cards?
> There
> >>> must be some reason or another, but one of the first rules of stable
>
> >>> computing
> >>> is never mix hardware and software from vastly different eras. Don't
> put
> >>> your brand new 8X AGP Super Gamer Qautro nVidia card on a 1999 mobo
> >>> running
> >>> WinME. Don't run Netscape 4.2 on Server 2003 SP2. Yes, it's a PITA to
> >
> >>> upgrade,
> >>> but dual DVI nVidia cards to run on nVidia chipsets are no longer
horribly
> >>> expensive and it seems people here are giving up a lot of time and
effort
> >>> to use a (let's admit pretty crappy) old video card.
> >>>
> >>> Obviously, this same argument could be used to suggest dropping PARIS
> >
> >>> itself,
> >>> but at least PARIS adds some distinct value with its sonics. I don't
> think
> >>> Matrox pixels look any better.
> >>>
> >>> Just wondering . . .
> >>>
> >>> TCB
> >>
> >>
> >
>Hi Pete-
I personally prefer Wavelab big-time over Sound Forge,
though I own an older version of SF, 6.0. Wavelab has
superior effects, EQ, and dithering, in my opinion.
However, have you considered mastering in paris? If you
have No Limit, just insert it on each of the stereo tracks,
and use the Paris EQ. I have had AWESOME results doing that.
Record it to disk as a stereo .paf, then open in Wavelab, and
dither it usung the UV H22R option in wave lab to 16-bit .wav.
I also do not know if sound Forge recognizes .paf files. I know
that Wavelab does.
Merry Christmas,
Chris
"Pete" <ruthenburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Pete Ruthenburg" <ruthenburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> SO I've got a piano jazz trio project I'm going to try and
>>master.Just want some advice on what is being used to master.
>>
>>Are some of you doing it in PARIS or do I need to buy Wavelab?
>>
>>Thinking of trying some of the UAD precision stuff too.
>>Probably a good project for me to get into the mastering thing
>>since it shouldn't require alot since its a jaaz thing.
>> I also recorded it so I know the material.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Matrox? [message #61660 is a reply to message #61657] |
Tue, 20 December 2005 10:57 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
it's
> sort of like hearing someone having problems with the first SoundBlaster
> Live! card. "Hey, My SB Live is making my new Athlon X2 crash." "Wow, you
> mean it actually boots? Lucky you!"
>
> TCB
>
> "Ed" <askme@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>Actually, I think Aaron hit it on the head... the G-450 is already
>>confirmed
>>by various systems, motherboards, etc. that it works well with these
>>setups,
>>along with Paris. Since I have built and own quite a few different
>>systems,
>>I can tell you that some of the newer, NVIDIA-type power video cards LOVE
>>to screw with IRQs. Or perhaps the other way around... the newer cards
> are
>>forced on IRQs that Paris don't like. I am not that technical with all
> that...
>>but in layman's terms, that is my understanding. I bought the G-450 back
>>in 99 or 2000 when everyone on here said it is the easiest to work with...
>>for compatibility. Stuck with it since and I have had ZERO issues.
>>
>>I am sure some of the newer ones will work just fine... but that may
>>depend
>>on your motherboard, what other cards are plugged in and sometimes, which
>>card is in which slot. If you have the time, patience, money and
>>virtuoso...
>>good luck in finding compatibility... then again... to elimimate that..
> find
>>a cheap G-450! Lastly, as I said I have multiple computers and I am at
> work
>>and can't remember model numbers, but personally, I don't see that much
> of
>>a difference in a G-450 -vs- some of the newer ones. I don't use DVI, but
>>I have, and I don't see a big difference there either. Of course, at my
>>age, I am about blind... lol
>>
>>"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>First thing I think of is that I would have to buy 3 new DVI flat panels
>>to
>>>go with 3 DVI outs... not cheap. PCI-E is going to force this change on
>>ppl
>>>sooner or later anyway, but - In DJ's case at least - the problem comes
>>in
>>>the amount of usable PCI slots and video heads. By sticking to the
>>>agp/pci
>>
>>>duo of Matrox 450, he loses no usable PCI slots and gets 4 head outputs
>>
>>>without taking more than one IRQ.
>>>On a single or even dual head video system, I couldn't see keeping those
>>old
>>>units - especially knowing that with the Matrox drivers they are somewhat
>>
>>>evil with resource hogging.
>>>AA
>>>
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43a81dae$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> I've been reading this NG on and off again for a few weeks and am
>>>> wondering
>>>> something. Why do all of you guys use those clunky old Matrox cards?
> There
>>>> must be some reason or another, but one of the first rules of stable
>
>>>> computing
>>>> is never mix hardware and software from vastly different eras. Don't
> put
>>>> your brand new 8X AGP Super Gamer Qautro nVidia card on a 1999 mobo
>>>> running
>>>> WinME. Don't run Netscape 4.2 on Server 2003 SP2. Yes, it's a PITA to
>>
>>>> upgrade,
>>>> but dual DVI nVidia cards to run on nVidia chipsets are no longer
>>>> horribly
>>>> expensive and it seems people here are giving up a lot of time and
>>>> effort
>>>> to use a (let's admit pretty crappy) old video card.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, this same argument could be used to suggest dropping PARIS
>>
>>>> itself,
>>>> but at least PARIS adds some distinct value with its sonics. I don't
> think
>>>> Matrox pixels look any better.
>>>>
>>>> Just wondering . . .
>>>>
>>>> TCB
>>>
>>>
>>
>Thanks for the info Chris.I have thought about mastering in
Paris.
So if mastering in PARIS your talking about bringing my stereo
mix back into PARIS to master correct?What difference would using
Nolimit on the tracks as oppossed to the master bus give me if
any?
So then you assemble and lay out your cd tracks in Wavelab for
your final master cd?
Any need to dither if I was already using 16 bit files to begin
with?
Thanks Chris,
Pete
"Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote:
>
>Hi Pete-
>
>I personally prefer Wavelab big-time over Sound Forge,
>though I own an older version of SF, 6.0. Wavelab has
>superior effects, EQ, and dithering, in my opinion.
>
>However, have you considered mastering in paris? If you
>have No Limit, just insert it on each of the stereo tracks,
>and use the Paris EQ. I have had AWESOME results doing that.
>Record it to disk as a stereo .paf, then open in Wavelab, and
>dither it usung the UV H22R option in wave lab to 16-bit .wav.
>
>I also do not know if sound Forge recognizes .paf files. I know
>that Wavelab does.
>
>Merry Christmas,
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>"Pete" <ruthenburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Pete Ruthenburg" <ruthenburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:<
|
|
|
|
| Re: Matrox? [message #61662 is a reply to message #61657] |
Tue, 20 December 2005 11:53 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
o master correct?What difference would using
>Nolimit on the tracks as oppossed to the master bus give me if
>any?
>
>So then you assemble and lay out your cd tracks in Wavelab for
>your final master cd?
>
>Any need to dither if I was already using 16 bit files to begin
>with?
>
>Thanks Chris,
>Pete
>
>
>"Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Pete-
>>
>>I personally prefer Wavelab big-time over Sound Forge,
>>though I own an older version of SF, 6.0. Wavelab has
>>superior effects, EQ, and dithering, in my opinion.
>>
>>However, have you considered mastering in paris? If you
>>have No Limit, just insert it on each of the stereo tracks,
>>and use the Paris EQ. I have had AWESOME results doing that.
>>Record it to disk as a stereo .paf, then open in Wavelab, and
>>dither it usung the UV H22R option in wave lab to 16-bit .wav.
>>
>>I also do not know if sound Forge recognizes .paf files. I know
>>that Wavelab does.
>>
>>Merry Christmas,
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>"Pete" <ruthenburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Pete Ruthenburg" <ruthenburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SO I've got a piano jazz trio project I'm going to try and
>>>>master.Just want some advice on what is being used to master.
>>>>
>>>>Are some of you doing it in PARIS or do I need to buy Wavelab?
>>>>
>>>>Thinking of trying some of the UAD precision stuff too.
>>>>Probably a good project for me to get into the mastering thing
>>>>since it shouldn't require alot since its a jaaz thing.
>>>> I also recorded it so I know the material.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Pete
>>>
>>>I've been checking into Sound Forge and Wavelab.I've found Sound
>>>Forge 8 new for $170.00.Wavelab lloks to be $550ish;thats a
>>>pretty big difference.
>>>
>>>Is there that much of a difference between the two?
>>>
>>>The master cd I do will be sent off of replication and pressing
>>>if that has a bearing on what to use.
>>>
>>>TIA,
>>>Pete
>>
>Pete,
Are you saying your tracks are 16 bit, or your mix files? I would
definitely mix at 24 bits. This will give you higher resolution to do
your processing in before knocking it back down to 16 at the end of
the mastering process. I do all my mastering (so far) within Wavelab
at 32 bit float (output from the montage used for assembly), then
dither down to 16 at the very end.
David.
Pete wrote:
> Thanks for the info Chris.I have thought about mastering in
> Paris.
>
> So if mastering in PARIS your talking about bringing my stereo
> mix back into PARIS to master correct?What difference would using
> Nolimit on the tracks as oppossed to the master bus give me if
> any?
>
> So then you assemble and lay out your cd tracks in Wavelab for
> your final master cd?
>
> Any need to dither if I was already using 16 bit files to begin
> with?
>
> Thanks Chris,
> Pete
>
>
> "Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote:
>
>>Hi Pete-
>>
>>I personally prefer Wavelab big-time over Sound Forge,
>>though I own an older version of SF, 6.0. Wavelab has
>>superior effects, EQ, and dithering, in my opinion.
>>
>>However, have you considered mastering in paris? If you
>>have No Limit, just insert it on each of the stereo tracks,
>>and use the Paris EQ. I have had AWESOME results doing that.
>>Record it to disk as a stereo .paf, then open in Wavelab, and
>>dither it usung the UV H22R option in wave lab to 16-bit .wav.
>>
>>I also do not know if sound Forge recognizes .paf files. I know
>>that Wavelab does.
>>
>>Merry Christmas,
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>"Pete" <ruthenburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Pete Ruthenburg" <ruthenburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> SO I've got a piano jazz trio project I'm going to try and
>>>>master.Just want some advice on what is being used to master.
>>>>
>>>>Are some of you doing it in PARIS or do I need to buy Wavelab?
>>>>
>>>>Thinking of trying some of the UAD precision stuff too.
>>>>Probably a good project for me to get into the mastering thing
>>>>since it shouldn't require alot since its a jaaz thing.
>>>> I also recorded it so I know the material.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Pete
>>>
>>>I've been checking into Sound Forge and Wavelab.I've found Sound
>>>Forge 8 new for $170.00.Wavelab lloks to be $550ish;thats a
>>>pretty big difference.
>>>
>>>Is there that much of a difference between the two?
>>>
>>>The master cd I do will be sent off of replication and pressing
>>>if that has a bearing on what to use.
>>>
>>>TIA,
>>>Pete
>>
>My tracks are 16 bit,not the mix files.I gu
|
|
|
|
| Re: Matrox? [message #61667 is a reply to message #61662] |
Tue, 20 December 2005 14:07 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
r for a week? Ha! It
would have to be a fast one...
-steveAFAIK, mutes do not stop the file from being streamed, but edits do.
David.
John wrote:
> see i'm assuming it does NOT stop. I'm betting that both shortened
> objects and mutes play stream the entire segment I just am not sure how
> to test. Hmm, how to test this. Brains anyone ?
>
> rick wrote:
>
>> i guess you could run a cpu usage check and see what happens but i
>> would assume that the audio streaming would stop when the file stops
>> playing. as far as the mutes go, i would think that it would be
>> likened to a midi on/off command in that data is sent only during the
>> onset of either command.
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:26:21 -0500, John <no@no.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Does an object that has been trimmed still stream the entire object?
>>> Like if I take a 5 minute object and trim it to 5 seconds will it
>>> still be streaming from hard drive the whole time?
>>>
>>> Also, do automated mutes continue streaming from disk? I'm betting
>>> they both stream and need to be rendered to fix it.
>>>
>>> Is there a way to verify this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I tried compact and as reported, it did nothing. Oh well.
>>
>>
>>Essential has only two montage lanes, which would be fine for simple
crossfades... but not anything more detailed. The CD burning
capabilties are the same though, so you could create a full length
file with all the songs correctly spaced and all fades done, then drop
the indexes and burn. We have done loads of masters this way and the
pressing plants haven't had a problem with one yet.
David.
Pete Ruthenburg wrote:
> My tracks are 16 bit,not the mix files.I guess I just assummed
> since my tracks were 16 bit then I mix in 16 bit,but I see the
> rationale for mixing in 24 bit then dithering back down.
>
> Could I do everything I need to do in the cheaper Wavelab
> version(was it Essential)?Would that give me all the tools to
> create a master cd for replication(red book and all that stuff I
> still haven't gotten into)?
>
> Thanks much for the info David,
> Pete
>
> EK Sound <spamnot.info@eksoundNO.com> wrote:
>
>>Pete,
>>
>>Are you saying your tracks are 16 bit, or your mix files? I would
>>definitely mix at 24 bits. This will give you higher resolution to do
>>your processing in before knocking it back down to 16 at the end of
>>the mastering process. I do all my mastering (so far) within Wavelab
>>at 32 bit float (output from the montage used for assembly), then
>>dither down to 16 at the very end.
>>
>>David.
>>
>>Pete wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks for the info Chris.I have thought about mastering in
>>>Paris.
>>>
>>>So if mastering in PARIS your talking about bringing my stereo
>>>mix back into PARIS to master correct?What difference would using
>>>Nolimit on the tracks as oppossed to the master bus give me if
>>>any?
>>>
>>>So then you assemble and lay out your cd tracks in Wavelab for
>>>your final master cd?
>>>
>>>Any need to dither if I was already using 16 bit files to begin
>>>with?
>>>
>>>Thanks Chris,
>>>Pete
>>>
>>>
>>>"Chris Lang" <yo@yo.yo> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Pete-
>>>>
>>>>I personally prefer Wavelab big-time over Sound Forge,
>>>>though I own an older version of SF, 6.0. Wavelab has
>>>>superior effects, EQ, and dithering, in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>>However, have you considered mastering in paris? If you
>>>>have No Limit, just insert it on each of the stereo tracks,
>>>>and use the Paris EQ. I have had AWESOME results doing that.
>>>>Record it to disk as a stereo .paf, then open in Wavelab, and
>>>>dither it usung the UV H22R option in wave lab to 16-bit .wav.
>>>>
>>>>I also do not know if sound Forge recognizes .paf files. I know
>>>>that Wavelab does.
>>>>
>>>>Merry Christmas,
>>>>
>>>>Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Pete" <ruthenburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Pete Ruthenburg" <ruthenburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>SO I've got a piano jazz trio project I'm going to try and
>>>>>>master.Just want some advice on what is being used to master.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are some of you doing it in PARIS or do I need to buy Wavelab?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thinking of trying some of the UAD precision stuff too.
>>>>>>Probably a good project for me to get into the mastering thing
>>>>>>since it shouldn't require alot since its a jaaz thing.
>>>>>>I also recorded it so I know the material.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>Pete
>>>>>
>>>>>I've been checking into Sound Forge and Wavelab.I've found Sound
>>>>>Forge 8 new for $170.00.Wavelab lloks to be $550ish;thats a
>>>>>pretty big difference.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there that much of a difference between the two?
>>>>>
>>>>>The master cd I do will be sent off of replication and pressing
>>>>>if that has a bearing on what to use.
>>>>>
>>>>>TIA,
>>>>>Pete
>>>>
>We have several of the FX5200's and they work great. One in the Paris
machine right now actually.
David.
TCB wrote:
> Hey Aaron,
>
> I tend to use the GeForce FX 5200 series, though they are getting a little
> long in the tooth themselves. They have solid 2D performance and horrible
> 3D performance for a gamer, they're cheap, and they're cool enough some don't
> even have a cooling fan--just a heat sink. For example
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E168141211 86
>
> would be a good idea. If you look around there are also dual DVI/dual VGA
> cards though one of each tends to be the default.
>
> I tend to use nVidia chipsets with nVidia cards. I usually do NOT use the
> nView desktop management stuff. I probably could but it seems to add very
> little for what I do and offer another chance for things to go wrong.
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Matrox? [message #61672 is a reply to message #61667] |
Tue, 20 December 2005 14:20 |
EK Sound
Messages: 939
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t;
> Are some of you doing it in PARIS or do I need to buy Wavelab?
>
> Thinking of trying some of the UAD precision stuff too.
> Probably a good project for me to get into the mastering thing
> since it shouldn't require alot since its a jaaz thing.
> I also recorded it so I know the material.
>
> Thanks,
> PeteU-Save Auto but its in Somerville...
http://www.rentusave.com/fran_detail.aspx?fid=1048&c=Som erville&s=MA
"steve the artguy" <artguy@svnhoohaa.net> wrote in message
news:43a87d3d$1@linux...
>
> Hey, guys-
>
> The impossible is about to happen. I'm flying back to Boston for
> Christmas.
> First Christmas outside Napa in... hmmm...53 years. Bonnie's daughter
> lives
> there, so the two of us are flying out.
>
> Silly me. Should have checked before today. The only things I can see
> available
> to rent tomorrow (!) are, hmm, a little more expensive than I had
> anticipated.
> If I did this sort of thing more often I would have known to check into
> the
> car at the same time as the ticket. But...
>
> So, do any of you fine Paris folk, who know darned near everything, know
> of a source for renting a car for a week, cheap? or anything else I should
> know of, or see, or do, while in Boston?
>
> Or anyone need a fast mural done in exchange for a car for a week? Ha! It
> would have to be a fast one...
>
> -steveFor an auditory experience go to the Christian Science Monitor building and
tour their inverted globe. It is an approxinatley 25' diameter globe that
you can walk into and across on a little bridge, with the countries painted
on backlit glass. When you stand in the very center and talk it sounds like
your voice is in the center of your skull. Pretty cool - at least it seemed
that way when I was 20.
Bill
"steve the artguy" <artguy@svnhoohaa.net> wrote in message
news:43a87d3d$1@linux...
>
> Hey, guys-
>
> The impossible is about to happen. I'm flying back to Boston for
> Christmas.
> First Christmas outside Napa in... hmmm...53 years. Bonnie's daughter
> lives
> there, so the two of us are flying out.
>
> Silly me. Should have checked before today. The only things I can see
> available
> to rent tomorrow (!) are, hmm, a little more expensive than I had
> anticipated.
> If I did this sort of thing more often I would have known to check into
> the
> car at the same time as the ticket. But...
>
> So, do any of you fine Paris folk, who know darned near everything, know
> of a source for renting a car for a week, cheap? or anything else I should
> know of, or see, or do, while in Boston?
>
> Or anyone need a fast mural done in exchange for a car for a week? Ha! It
> would have to be a fast one...
>
> -steve"Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote:
>For an auditory experience go to the Christian Science Monitor building
and
>tour their inverted globe. It is an approxinatley 25' diameter globe that
>you can walk into and across on a little bridge, with the countries painted
>on backlit glass. When you stand in the very center and talk it sounds like
>your voice is in the center of your skull. Pretty cool - at least it seemed
>that way when I was 20.
Yeah, but that's also because you were on 'shrooms at the time.
:)"justcron" <pachinko@hydrorecords.com> wrote:
>U-Save Auto but its in Somerville...
> http://www.rentusave.com/fran_detail.aspx?fid=1048&c=Som erville&s=MA
>
>
Justin-
thanks -- I checked it out -- but found a better deal at, of all places,
Avis...
-steve"Neil" <IOUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote:
>>For an auditory experience go to the Christian Science Monitor building
>and
>>tour their inverted globe. It is an approxinatley 25' diameter globe that
>
>>you can walk into and across on a little bridge, with the countries painted
>
>>on backlit glass. When you stand in the very center and talk it sounds
like
>
>>your voice is in the center of your skull. Pretty cool - at least it seemed
>
>>that way when I was 20.
>
>Yeah, but that's also because you were on 'shrooms at the time.
>
>:)
Hey, Bill, thanks for the tip! I bet there are lots and lots of cool stuff
in the Boston area. Only have a week there -- it should be fun.
Keep them tips comin'!
-steveBut is there any way to test it?
John
EK Sound wrote:
> AFAIK, mutes do not stop the file from being streamed, but edits do.
>
> David.
>
> John wrote:
>
>> see i'm assuming it does NOT stop. I'm betting that both shortened
>> objects and mutes play stream the entire segment I just am not sure
>> how to test. Hmm, how to test this. Brains anyone ?
>>
>> rick wrote:
>>
>>> i guess you could run a cpu usage check and see what happens but i
>>> would assume that the audio streaming would stop when the file stops
>>> playing. as far as the mutes go, i would think that it would be
>>> likened to a midi on/off command in that data is sent only during the
>>> onset of either command.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:26:21 -0500, John <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Does an object that has been trimmed still stream the entire object?
>>>> Like if I take a 5 minute object and trim it to 5 seconds will it
>>>> still be streaming from hard drive the whole time?
>>>>
>>>> Also, do automated mutes continue streaming from disk? I'm betting
>>>> they both stream and need to be rendered to fix it.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to verify this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I tried compact and as reported, it did nothing. Oh well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope.
David.
John wrote:
> But is there any way to test it?
> John
>
> EK Sound wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, mutes do not stop the file from being streamed, but edits do.
>>
>> David.
>>
>> John wrote:
>>
>>> see i'm assuming it does NOT stop. I'm betting that both shortened
>>> objects and mutes play stream the entire segment I just am not sure
>>> how to test. Hmm, how to test this. Brains anyone ?
>>>
>>> rick wrote:
>>>
>>>> i guess you could run a cpu usage check and see what happens but i
>>>> would assume that the audio streaming would stop when the file stops
>>>> playing. as far as the mutes go, i would think that it would be
>>>> likened to a midi on/off command in that data is sent only during the
>>>> onset of either command.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:26:21 -0500, John <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Does an object that has been trimmed still stream the entire
>>>>> object? Like if I take a 5 minute object and trim it to 5 seconds
>>>>> will it still be streaming from hard drive the whole time?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, do automated mutes continue streaming from disk? I'm
>>>>> betting they both stream and need to be rendered to fix it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a way to verify this?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I tried compact and as reported, it did nothing. Oh well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>aw, you gave up too easily, I'm sure ther
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Matrox? [message #61706 is a reply to message #61672] |
Wed, 21 December 2005 06:51 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>itself,
>>>>>>>but at least PARIS adds some distinct value with its sonics. I don't
>>>>
>>>>think
>>>>
>>>>>>>Matrox pixels look any better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just wondering . . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>TCB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>You see? Great minds think alike.
EK Sound <spamnot.info@eksoundNO.com> wrote:
>We have several of the FX5200's and they work great. One in the Paris
>machine right now actually.
>
>David.
>
>TCB wrote:
>
>> Hey Aaron,
>>
>> I tend to use the GeForce FX 5200 series, though they are getting a little
>> long in the tooth themselves. They have solid 2D performance and horrible
>> 3D performance for a gamer, they're cheap, and they're cool enough some
don't
>> even have a cooling fan--just a heat sink. For example
>>
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E168141211 86
>>
>> would be a good idea. If you look around there are also dual DVI/dual
VGA
>> cards though one of each tends to be the default.
>>
>> I tend to use nVidia chipsets with nVidia cards. I usually do NOT use
the
>> nView desktop management stuff. I probably could but it seems to add very
>> little for what I do and offer another chance for things to go wrong.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>
>>>You have a valid point in that they are a bit tricky and you don't want
>>
>> to
>>
>>>do what you 'should' do on the drivers level. However, they 'are' certified
>>
>>
>>>windows drivers.. and that's the way to go. Use the XP built in certified
>>
>>
>>>drivers and don't load the matrox (and in DJ's case, the AGP via VXD/DLL)
>>
>>
>>>and everything is cool. I've had two die on me already and so I'm down
to
>>
>> my
>>
>>>last G450 now. I am very interested in what you think are the best available
>>
>>
>>>dual head AGP/PCI combos to get 4 VGA outputs with these days. VERY
>>>interested because I know the day is coming and I don't want to shell
the
>>
>>
>>>$$$$ for the colorgraphics stuff.
>>>AA
>>>
>>>
>>>"tcb" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43a84f70$1@linux...
>>>
>>>>But these two posts, combined with DJ's experience, sort of confirm what
>>
>> I
>>
>>>>was saying. The 450's are not in any way problem free or certified or
>>
>>
>>>>anything.
>>>>In fact, if DJ loads the AGP drivers for his mobo (a rather logical thing)
>>>>the Matrox won't work. And if he loads the freaking Matrox drivers (an
>>
>>
>>>>even
>>>>more logical thing) it won't work. I'd say that's a long ways from
>>>>compatibility.
>>>>I've done quad setups with nVidia chipset boards and nVidia vido cards
>>
>> (on
>>
>>>>AGP, one PCI) and trust me they were a lot easier than what it sounds
>>
>> like
>>
>>>>DJ went through.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, they're your computers, your life, and none of my business.
>>
>> But
>>
>>>>when I hear someone having setup and IRQ problems with a Matrox 450 it's
>>>>sort of like hearing someone having problems with the first SoundBlaster
>>>>Live! card. "Hey, My SB Live is making my new Athlon X2 crash." "Wow,
>>
>> you
>>
>>>>mean it actually boots? Lucky you!"
>>>>
>>>>TCB
>>>>
>>>>"Ed" <askme@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Actually, I think Aaron hit it on the head... the G-450 is already
>>>>>confirmed
>>>>>by various systems, motherboards, etc. that it works well with these
>>>>>setups,
>>>>>along with Paris. Since I have built and own quite a few different
>>>>>systems,
>>>>>I can tell you that some of the newer, NVIDIA-type power video cards
LOVE
>>>>>to screw with IRQs. Or perhaps the other way around... the newer cards
>>>>
>>>>are
>>>>
>>>>>forced on IRQs that Paris don't like. I am not that technical with
all
>>>>
>>>>that...
>>>>
>>>>>but in layman's terms, that is my understanding. I bought the G-450
back
>>>>>in 99 or 2000 when everyone on here said it is the easiest to work with...
>>>>>for compatibility. Stuck with it since and I have had ZERO issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am sure some of the newer ones will work just fine... but that may
>>>>>depend
>>>>>on your motherboard, what other cards are plugged in and sometimes,
which
>>>>>card is in which slot. If you have the time, patience, money and
>>>>>virtuoso...
>>>>>good luck in finding compatibility... then again... to elimimate that..
>>>>
>>>>find
>>>>
>>>>>a cheap G-450! Lastly, as I said I have multiple computers and I am
at
>>>>
>>>>work
>>>>
>>>>>and can't remember model numbers, but personally, I don't see that much
>>>>
>>>>of
>>>>
>>>>>a difference in a G-450 -vs- some of the newer ones. I don't use DVI,
>>
>> but
>>
>>>>>I have, and I don't see a big difference there either. Of course, at
>>
>> my
>>
>>>>>age, I am about blind... lol
>>>>>
>>>>>"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>First thing I think of is that I would have to buy 3 new DVI flat panels
>>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>>go with 3 DVI outs... not cheap. PCI-E is going to force this change
>>
>> on
>>
>>>>>ppl
>>>>>
>>>>>>sooner or later anyway, but - In DJ's case at least - the problem comes
>>>>>
>>>>>in
>>>>>
>>>>>>the amount of usable PCI slots and video heads. By sticking to the
>>>>>>agp/pci
>>>>>
>>>>>>duo of Matrox 450, he loses no usable PCI slots and gets 4 head outputs
>>>>>
>>>>>>without taking more than one IRQ.
>>>>>>On a single or even dual head video system, I couldn't see keeping
those
>>>>>
>>>>>old
>>>>>
>>>>>>units - especially knowing that with the Matrox drivers they are somewhat
>>>>>
>>>>>>evil with resource hogging.
>>>>>>AA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43a81dae$1@linux...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've been reading this NG on and off again for a few weeks and am
>>>>>>>wondering
>>>>>>>something. Why do all of you guys use those clunky old Matrox cards?
>>>>
>>>>There
>>>>
>>>>>>>must be some reason or another, but one of the first rules of stable
>>>>
>>>>>>>computing
>>>>>>>is never mix hardware and software from vastly different eras. Don't
>>>>
>>>>put
>>>>
>>>>>>>your brand new 8X AGP Super Gamer Qautro nVidia card on a 1999 mobo
>>>>>>>running
>>>>>>>WinME. Don't run Netscape 4.2 on Server 2003 SP2. Yes, it's a PITA
>>
>> to
>>
>>>>>>>upgrade,
>>>>>>>but dual DVI nVidia cards to run on nVidia chipsets are no longer
>>>>>>>horribly
>>>>>>>expensive and it seems people here are giving up a lot of time and
>>
>>
>>>>>>>effort
>>>>>>>to use a (let's admit pretty crappy) old video card.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Obviously, this same ar
|
|
|
|
| Re: Matrox? [message #61707 is a reply to message #61672] |
Wed, 21 December 2005 06:51 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gument could be used to suggest dropping PARIS
>>>>>
>>>>>>>itself,
>>>>>>>but at least PARIS adds some distinct value with its sonics. I don't
>>>>
>>>>think
>>>>
>>>>>>>Matrox pixels look any better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just wondering . . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>TCB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>Hey all,
I've been looking for a new audio interface, as my Aardvark Q10 has no continuing
driver support. I'm kind of out of the loop these days, but a friend suggested
that since I'm a SX boy and Yamaha is pimping SX as the best software for
use with mLan products, that the 01X might be a good idea.
http://www.zzounds.com/item--YAM01X
Any experiences, good or bad? I don't think I'd be using the mixer much,
it would mostly just be an audio interface and a remote control device.
Thanks,
TCBThe nice thing about hammerhead is you can do 505 type simple kick snare
beats, but it outputs that neatly edited bar already perfect size for paris
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>Yep, Rob, you can find a bazillion old Roland drum machines for
>cheap in lot of places... I think there's still a 505 at a
>music store around here that i could pick up for you for not
>much dough if you needed it.
>
>Or, If you need a MIDI-generated timing track with kick & snare
>(for example) on the evens & odds, I can do one of those for
>you in a heartbeat & just e-mail it to you in whatever tempo &
>lengths you needed. You could trigger whatever sound module you
>wanted to off of something like that.
>
>Neil
>
>"cujo" <chris@nospamapplemanstudio.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>I have been using this one for years
>>It;s a snap..or a snap/clap...or a 909..
>>
>>Just select the export all measures..and it gives you a 1 measure block
>perfect
>>to past into the grid in paris.
>>
>>Takes one second to do..and it sounds pretty decent
>>
>>
>>http://www.threechords.com/hammerhead/
>>
>>"Rob Arsenault" <mani2@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>I was just wondering if any of you use / know of some kind of drum beat
>>>generator I could use instead of a click. I run Cakewalk Pro 9 on a second
>>>PC synced to Paris via SMPTE. I then send a midi note from Cakewalk to
>a
>>D4
>>>drum module and use that as my click sound back into Paris. Is there an
>>app
>>>I could use that could sync to time code where I could chose the beat,
>tempo
>>>and just start trackin, no F__in around...!! Then, with the same timecode,
>>I
>>>could go back to Cakewalk if need be, punch in the same tempo and work
>on
>>>midi tracks/sequences, etc.
>>>
>>>Thanks much and Happy Holidays from the great white north.
>>>
>>>Rob A
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>Hey RZ, I want to do this for my ME too, a lot less back and forth of test
CD's this way. I have heard from Neil I think that Wavelab essentials does
this well too. I need to pick it up.
"RZ" <pearlmusic@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I have been using Sound Forge for years and would highly recommend it,
>especially for CD Mastering because version 8.0 comes with CD Architect
>which is probably the best redbook CD program.
>
>I use Waves plug-ins, but with mixes I 've done myself the only plug-in
>needed is the L1 to raise the level up and dither down to 16 bit. I use
the
>PAF to WAV converter to prep my files for Sound Forge.
>
>The last record I did, I used these tools to make a reference master for
the
>car before having the actual mastering done at The Mastering Lab in
>Hollywood. The engineer (who has a couple grammys) wanted to listen to
my
>master as a target and he thought it was pretty good.
>
>RZ
>
>"Bill Lorentzen" <bill@lorentzen.ws> wrote in message news:43a88583@linux...
>> If you are looking for a good mastering limiter, the UAD Precision Limiter
>> is the best I have heard.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> "Pete Ruthenburg" <ruthenburg@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:43a84d7b$1@linux...
>> >
>> > SO I've got a piano jazz trio project I'm going to try and
>> > master.Just want some advice on what is being used to master.
>> >
>> > Are some of you doing it in PARIS or do I need to buy Wavelab?
>> >
>> > Thinking of trying some of the UAD precision stuff too.
>> > Probably a good project for me to get into the mastering thing
>> > since it shouldn't require alot since its a jaaz thing.
>> > I also recorded it so I know the material.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Pete
>>
>>
>
>Thad, I shopped for a new audio setup about 1 1/2 yrs ago, and here was what
I went through...
The O1X looked nice, but the small faders were a deal breaker for me. Also,
there was no fader expansion pack at the time (not sure about today). I
didn't get a chance to hear it or play with it.
I bought the Tascam 1884 and had some major issues with it. The driver barely
worked (which I here is much better now) and the converters weren't stellar.
The implementation as a mackie control in Cubase was also poor. Finally,
the lack of true scribble strips were a deal breaker. I tried the on screen
"vitual strips" and couldn't get used to them.
I wound up taking it back and getting a Emu 1820M and Mackie control. I
am starting to sound like a broken record with all my 1820M pimping, but
it is that good. Stellar converters/clock, and stellar mic pres. If I had
anything bad to say about it, it would be the mixer/router interface takes
a little getting use to, and the FX are mostly utilitarian (with a few nice
surprises). Also, you can upgrade it to Emulator X soft synth for $100,
which might be manditory given your background ;-)
-Chris
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Hey all,
>
>I've been looking for a new audio interface, as my Aardvark Q10 has no continuing
>driver support. I'm kind of out of the loop these days, but a friend suggested
>that since I'm a SX boy and Yamaha is pimping SX as the best software for
>use with mLan products, that the 01X might be a good idea.
>
>http://www.zzounds.com/item--YAM01X
>
>Any experiences, good or bad? I don't think I'd be using the mixer much,
>it would mostly just be an audio interface and a remote control device.
>
>Thanks,
>
>TCBIt seems to be more of that kind of stuff out there but as said, Yamaha and
SX are going hand in hand in these days. But I think all three is using the
Mackie protocol, just to be compatible with most of the audio software out
there.
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/ProjectMixIO-main.html
http://www.mackie.com/products/mcu/index.html
Erling
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> skrev i melding news:43a95e64$1@linux...
>
> Hey all,
>
> I've been looking for a new audio interface, as my Aardvark Q10 has no
> continuing
> driver support. I'm kind of out of the loop these days, but a friend
> suggested
> that since I'm a SX boy and Yamaha is pimping SX as the best software for
> use with mLan products, that the 01X might be a good idea.
>
> http://www.zzounds.com/item--YAM01X
>
> Any experiences, good or bad? I don't think I'd be using the mixer much,
> it would mostly just be an audio interface and a remote control device.
>
> Thanks,
>
> TCB http://www.macclesfield-express.co.uk/news/s/207/207169_its_ a_fiddle.html
WTF!What a bunch of B.S. Way do assholes always think they are entitled to take
from others??? This music store owner is not profiting from a performance,
he is only possibly profiting from the sale of the instrument.
"JB" <no@mail.com> wrote:
> http://www.macclesfield-express.co.uk/news/s/207/207169_its_ a_fiddle.html
>
>WTF!
>
>
>Hey Thad,
Be very cautious w
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 02 09:54:55 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01979 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
