Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW
| Re: OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW [message #63173 is a reply to message #63135] |
Mon, 16 January 2006 12:06   |
Chris Wargo
Messages: 45
Registered: November 2005
|
Member |
|
|
Dedric, you captured my thoughts perfectly. Time after time I am amazed at
the CRAP that comes out of "pro" situations. I find myself asking "well,
I see it was really important to put your house clock in an oven to get better
stability, so much so that you found it necessary to insult your peers on
a recording forum. So why does the bass guitar you recorded sound like it's
coming from a dog's ass?" Most of the discussions I have been reading lately
on audio groups seem to be fundamentally pennywise and pound foolish. It
reminds me of audiophiles that put sandbags on top of their $10,000 CD player
to damp mechanical resonances and then play the unit in a rectangular room
with no wall treatments. I think the recording industry suffers collectively
from a problem with priorities.
BTW, I heard the tracks from Albini's studio (recorded by another house engineer).
Mom always said, if you don’t have anything nice to say…
-Chris
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>I guess I'm outnumbered in the Nuendo sucks or not debate.
>
>Interesting example of when pro gear and reputation isn't all it's cracked
>up to be:
>
>I got a voiceover from a top post house in my area to use to create and
ad
>for a client. I don't know what they use, but PT would be the obvious
>guess.
>
>The voiceover was just 30 minutes of Q&A with an expert, logged for later
>use - the raw files from the studio were preprocessed - heavily over
>compressed with no apparent attempt to address heavy sibilance before
>compressing the crap out of it. Their goal is probably to produce quick
and
>low cost, so they have a "preset" chain for audio, and charge $200/hr for
it
>- no customization, just track it, burn it and send you on your way. Their
>rates are high, but project costs are low - you do the math, it's the
>Walmart approach to production.
>
>There was little I could do to remove the sibilance without audibly
>degrading the mids balance, and reaching diminishing returns very quickly,
>but I did make it sound better. Every voice over I've worked on, and heard
>from them sounds the same - sibilant, even in my car, from CD or on-air.
>
>The moral of the story - a lot of people call themselves pro, have pro gear,
>and hold a lion's share of their market to back it up, but that doesn't
mean
>the product is any better for it.
>
>I would rather be good using less than perfect gear to create a superior
>product than have the best, most recent and advanced gear money can buy
and
>not know what the heck I'm doing. Gear lust and aspiring for sonic nirvana
>is all well and good, but I had to put a limit on it and make it work for
>me, rather than against me. Now I'm just trying to make a living creating
a
>great product with what I have rather than worrying about how spending
>$30,000 more would make my audio sound 1% wider, or the top end 2% silkier
>when the client is going to cram it down an FM band with 10:1 or higher
>compression, or rip it to a 128k or lower mp3, cutting off every sonic
>nicety I slaved over and invested thousands of $$ to get.
>
>I'm off. Later.
>
>Dedric
>
>On 1/16/06 12:10 AM, in article 43cb38ba$1@linux, "Deej" <yiruyfh@hgdgr.not>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> La Mont,
>>
>> I started noticing something sort of mushy in SX in the low end at around
>> 24 tracks. It could very well be that I just don't know how to mix on
a native
>> system though. Fire it over lightpipe into the Paris mixer and it gets
big
>> again. I'm still summing in Paris and actually setting levels and fader/FX
>> automation on both DAWs. I'm getting basic fader moves done in SX and
then
>> tweaking them in Paris. It's pretty wild to watch a mix happen here. I'm
>> using a fair amount of analog gear in my mixes. I've got 10 analog I/O
in
>> my Cubase DAW and I'm using them all for inserts of analog comps and EQ's.
>> In Paris, I'm patching in analog qand digital reverbs and delays. For
a while
>> I was paranoid about signal degradation with this many AD/DA's. Now I
don't
>> even think twice.
>>
>> Last night Tony posted up a song that I mixed on his site.
>>
>> http://www.mercysakes.com/paris/Doug%20Joyce/Faith%20In%20Lo ve/
>>
>> It's about finished, maybe a little more LF and vocal rebalancing and
a little
>> de-essing that I'm going to add. There are 30 tracks-12 drum tracks, vocal
>> track, 15 acoustic instrument tracks and 3 x electric bass tracks. They've
>> got external processors all over them....10 x AD/DA's with analog processors
>> in cubase Sx and another 6 x AD/DA's in Paris, but I'm happy with the
>> mix......and
>> what's most important, so is the client. It doesn't have that linearity
and
>> accuracy that I hear in the new PTHD, but we were going after a retro
feel
>> and I think we achieved it. I think the Paris mix engine has a lot to
do
>> with it all hanging together. It just doesn't sound at all the same if
I
>> sum it in SX. Much smaller sounding. this mix has had no *mastering*,
though
>> NoLimit was kissing the Paris mix bus.
>>
>> Deej
>>
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpo@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> hey Dedric, a friend of mine has upgrade to Sonar5 and we can hear the
>>> difference
>>> form version 4. Version 4 sound was very balnd , vanillia if you will.
>>> version
>>> 5 mix summing sounds very wide, with more dept than version 4..So, they
>> did
>>> soemthing.
>>>
>>> Note: That's what I think Nuendos/SX weak point. in theory,their 32bit
>>> floating
>>> point mixer/summing bus was to allow for more audio options up and down
>> the
>>> audio bandwdith, but, things(mixes) start to fall apart at a certain
point.
>>> 32bit float is great for plugins, limited for summming with high track
>>> counts.
>>> LaMont
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> ID would be cool, even if it looks like a psychedelic video switching
mixer
>>>> from the 70's, but the reviews on functionality and increased productivity
>>>> are rather convincing. Price is a bit steep though.
>>>>
>>>> One of these wouldn't be bad either:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/system_5-mc/system_5-m c.htm
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe,
>>>>
>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/mc/mc.htm
>>>>
>>>> That's Nuendo on screen in both links.
>>>>
>>>> This one still gets my vote for geek heaven and client wow factor:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.smartav.net/images/E72Splash1-1024x768.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW - I'm guessing that if Steinberg gets the 64 bit update right with
>> a
>>> 64
>>>> bit full audio path, summing boxes could be just another color in the
tool
>>>> palette, but far from necessary, and likely less spacious and clear,
but
>>>> that's more optimism than guarantee.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to hear Sonar 5 in full 64-bit glory to see if 64-bit (assuming
>>>> Cakewalk isn't blowing smoke) lives up the paper specs on the concept,
>> but
>>>> I'm hesitant to buy into the hype until proven sonically.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> On 1/15/06 10:45 PM, in article 43cb24d5$1@linux, "Deej"
>>>> <hdfajkl@hjkal.buzzz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This would be my idea of an optimized productivity scenario if I was
>> using
>>>>> Nuendo and had the budget.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.arbitermt.co.uk/nuendo/products/idcontroller.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> A bit pricey, but definitely specific to the application and with a
moose
>>>>> of a DAW running the software and DSP, a nice rack of Myteks or Lavry's
>>> for
>>>>> tracking and patching external processors, and a decent summing box,
>> I
>>> might
>>>>> be convinced to jump ship.
>>>>>
>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "LaMont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you need
>>> what
>>>>>> I need may not be what you need and that could be the root of this
>>>>>> discussion)."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed.. :)
>>>>>> But, the rest of your post illustrates my points. Some Producer buddies
>>>>> of
>>>>>> mine in town, were having this same discusion about amonth or so ago.
>>> They
>>>>>> are all Mac user, with a few giga machines. The consesus for us all
>> is
>>> that
>>>>>> we have grown tired of the "upgrade" syndrome that, for one forces
the
>>>>>> non-computer
>>>>>> music guy to become so entrenched with personal computer technology,
>>> that
>>>>>> they can't focus on music..At the end of the conversation, we all
agreed
>>>>>> that having a system like Pro-Tools HD would "serve" us best with
out
>>> having
>>>>>> to "think" or stay on the CPU upgrade "teadmill" if you will. I've
been
>>>>> on
>>>>>> that treadmill since 97,and as I look back on how many great working
>>> system
>>>>>> setups I've detroyed due becuase I was trying to play the CPU sped
>> game.
>>>>>> I've lost decnet paying mixng and production jobs becuase my systems
>>> were
>>>>>> not as stable as I had them before I "upgraded" to a faster cpu and
>> OS..
>>>>>> I one of our suites we still have PT Mix cube running on a G4(450)
OS9
>>> that's
>>>>>> rock solid stable.. One of my Paris setup still has Win 98se..Stable
>>> stable
>>>>>> stable:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2 staff producers went chasing the Apple speed dream , from Dual 867s
>>> to
>>>>>> Dual G5(2.5s) on OSX..Man, the agony and frustrations on their faces
>>> due
>>>>>> to the fact that they had serious deadlines. That's what spurred our
>>>>>> conversations
>>>>>> about it's either PTHD or a slotion with DM2000/02r96 with Nuendo/PT
>>> Radar
>>>>>> with the yammy difital mixer.. Each set up cost. But, we demand a
solid
>>>>> working
>>>>>> system, that you do not have to make execues to yourself and the client..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric may have said it best when he stated that doing a dedicated
dsp
>>> system
>>>>>> manybe a daughting task$$ Or so they say.. Stuff coming out of China
>>> (Phonic
>>>>>> firewire) mixers as well as microphones and other products are astounding
>>>>>> deals. Just maybe the solution I'm after will come from China?
>>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey Jaimie,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Athough native cpus are fast, don't think that you are getting off
>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>> Playing the speed keep up game every 2 years is 1) not productive..2)
>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> expensive.. think about it..??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both native and DSP-based can be expensive. Native can be much less
>>>>>>> expensive though, if budget is limited. For example, on the low end
>>> a
>>>>>>> Mac Mini comes with Garage Band and you can do a lot with that and
>> an
>>>>>>> inexpensive Firewire or USB i/o box for a total cost of less than
$1000.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you need
>>>>>>> (what I need may not be what you need and that could be the root
of
>>> this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> discussion).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are DSP-based systems out there that come with their own
>>>>>>> mixer/burner/software in a table-top format without requiring a
>>>>>>> computer. They cost as much or more as a native system with a fast
>>>>>>> computer. If you want to get off of the computer upgrade cycle, they're
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> available and they do what they do pretty well. But they aren't
>>>>>>> particularly upgradable and upgradability is a big draw for
>>>>>>> computer-based systems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Computer-based systems that include separate DSP cards have some
of
>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> advantages and upgrade costs of native systems and some of the
>>>>>>> disadvantages and limitations of dedicated, non-computer-based systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PARIS illustrates the disadvantages very well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I bought an Intel computer for PARIS and bought an OS upgrade along
>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> way. A few years later I bought a faster G4 computer for PARIS and
>> it
>>>>>>> was a noticable improvement. I also bought an upgrade for the PARIS
>>>>>>> software which added useful new features and some unfinished, broken
>>>>>>> features. It was nice to be able to upgrade but it did cost money
just
>>>>>
>>>>>>> as a native system would have. I was limited to the PARIS hardware
>>>>>>> running on OS9, and the developers dropped support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PARIS would never get faster better, it was what it was. For me,
the
>>>>>>> freeze point in development stopped just short of what I needed.
Close,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but forever short. So I sold it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile CPUs had gotten much, much faster and having separate DSP
>>> for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the DAW had lost much of its advantage. I switched to a native system
>>>>>>> running on the same G4 computer I had purchased for PARIS, but using
>>>>>>> native software along with a new i/o box and a better operating system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The transition did not cost a lot overall and the sale of PARIS pretty
>>>>>
>>>>>>> much covered it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did live on the bleeding edge for a while, though, with the transition
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to OSX and I had to try several Firewire interfaces to find a solid
>>> system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After a few years I upgraded to a new computer but kept the software
>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i/o box I was already using. I sold the previous computer, so the
>>>>>>> upgrade cost was not high. I upgraded the native software and computer
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OS several times and the increase in capability was worth the upgrade
>>>>>>> costs, just as it would have been with a DSP based system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I had to buy from scratch today, I'd either pick up a Quad PowerMac
>>>>>
>>>>>>> or save a bunch of money and get a dual G5 PowerMac, add extra RAM
>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>>> HD, Digital Performer or Logic, a Firewire i/o box or two and some
>> third
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> party plugins. That system would probably last for the next ten years.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if I added a 24 moving fader controller it would be well under
>>> 10K.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, what I do and what you do may be different so your mileage
may
>>> vary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My current 2.5GHZ dual G5 is fast enough that I don't feel the need
>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>>> upgrade it for audio production. It could go for the next decade
with
>>>>>>> slowing me down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However if I decide to upgrade it at some point for animation or
video
>>>>>
>>>>>>> production, the audio side will come along for the ride at no extra
>>> cost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least with a DSP based sytem, you know what you have, and the
native
>>>>>> cpu
>>>>>>>> is a secondary issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the speed of CPUs today, why tie yourself to a hardware-limited
>>> DSP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> system. If the company you buy it from is in business in five years,
>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cost to upgrade a system like that could be much higher than just
buying
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a newer, faster computer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And when you buy a newer, faster computer you are upgrading everything
>>>>>
>>>>>>> that runs on it, all your plugins, virtual instruments, even other
>>>>>>> software (graphics, animation, video editing, software development,
>>>>>>> whatever else you do), in one shot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plus, low latency, better i/o integration in a pro
>>>>>>>> enviorment..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is your best argument. But latency is not an issue in my current
>>>>>>> setup. My i/o box has direct monitoring. Even if I monitor through
>> Logic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the latency is low enough that it hasn't been a problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The i/o integration is fine, I have 18 analog inputs and 16 analog
>>>>>>> outputs plus stereo digital i/o directly patchable through my DAW
>>>>>>> software and also routable from the i/o box's monitoring software.
>> If
>>> I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> need more i/o I can plug in another Firewire i/o box.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I run my system with a mouse and a jog/shuttle wheel add-on. I can
>> get
>>>>>
>>>>>>> moving fader controllers from at least four different manufacturers
>>>>>>> which is tempting, but since I only really used the jog/shuttle part
>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the PARIS controller I haven't needed that. Plus I've grown used
to
>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> precision and (believe it or not) speed of mixing with the mouse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The sad truth with moast if not all native solutios is that
>>>>>>>> it has forced a big$$$ third party solutions market, inwhic native
>>> users
>>>>>>>> are going back to purchase , talk back units, better than average
>>>>>>>> converters..All
>>>>>>>> to chase the dsp systems way of working..in the end, the native
person
>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> not realize that they have spent just as much, if not more than
they
>>>>> could've
>>>>>>>> gotten with a dsp based DAW.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A native system will be more flexible, you'll have more developers
>> to
>>>>>>> choose from to enhance your system, and if one of the developers
goes
>>>>>>> under, your system will not hit a dead end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Over the last decade I've spent way less than, for example, a ProTools
>>>>>
>>>>>>> system would have cost and am getting, I think, comparable results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having used nuendo sice it's inception (2000, ),logic audio, Ican
>> with
>>>>>> hesitation,
>>>>>>>> that it takes a lot of $$$ to bring those apps up to pro specs,
and
>>> truth
>>>>>>>> be known, steinbergs way of integrating hardware leaves a lot to
be
>>>>>>>> desired..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Quad PowerMac with extra RAM and HD, MOTU Digital Performer, a
MOTU
>>>>>>> Firewire i/o box or two and some third party plugins...even a 24
moving
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fader controller and you're well under 10K.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It all comes down to individual needs and preferences, so I'm not
really
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> saying you're wrong for what you're looking for. But for what I'm
>>>>>>> looking for, a native system is pretty compelling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OTOH, had PARIS MIDI support been better, had they hung around long
>>>>>>> enough to support OSX and AU plugins, I'd still be using PARIS. Even
>>>>>>> with the limitation of 44.1 or 48 sampling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>>> Lamont
>>>>>>>> take care
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I dunno. Why lock into developing a new DSP system when native
CPUs
>>> are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so fast now (fast enough for tons of tracks/plugins) and just getting
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> faster?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The folks on gearslutz will always be chasing ways to spend more
>> money
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on their systems (no matter what systems they have, native or DSP).
>>>>>>>>> There's no real cure for that. :^)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's true the Mac Intel transition will take time. It's not a five
>>> year
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wait, though. Over the next six months there will likely be software
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> choices for audio production that run on both Intel and PPC, probably
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> starting with Logic around March/April as a $50 upgrade, so they
>> say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Over the next year the Mac Intel hardware choices will expand into
>>> more
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> laptop and desktop choices as Intel's series of chips hit the market.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The roadmap is pretty much known at this point. If you want to
go
>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Intel, pick your best time for the transition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you want to make music using OSX right away there are plenty
of
>>> PPC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> choices that work today, all the way up to the quad PowerMac which
>>> has
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> more muscle than you probably need. Available now and they'll continue
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to work after the Intel transition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guys, Some thoughts:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone noticed that since our beloved Paris DAW($2700list)there
>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> pro DAW for under 10k??? Why??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know we have the Cubases ($499) Nuendo's ($1,500), Logic(1k),
>> DP(699)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sonar($400). There are all very good naitive systems that will
yield
>>>>>> pro
>>>>>>>>>> results. However, I can't belive thatthere is not one manufacture
>>> other
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Digidesign that want's to producer a DSP based DAW?? It's almost
>>> 6 years
>>>>>>>>>> since the plug was pulled on Paris! Yes, I did not forget about
>>>>>>>>>> Soundscape..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My Point in this post is to bring to ligh that Paris was a product
>>> that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> served
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the "Middle ground" studio. Now, looking back, it's price point
>> was
>>>>> revolutionary.
>>>>>>>>>> AND That's the point..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Today, if you're shelling out at least 10k for a PT HD system,
your
>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> other alternative is do a naitive system..Again, I'm not saying
>> that
>>>>>> naitive's
>>>>>>>>>> are bad, but we all know that there's nothing like a cool DSP
>>>>>>>>>> DAW..Even
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> more,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it's a knwon fact that, if you wew to build your naitive system
>> up
>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pro
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> standards (AD/DA converters,mixer,DSP FX cards) you'd actually
come
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PT HD system.
>>>>>>>>>> There has to be a manufactuer that will stand up and fill in the
>>> gap
>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>> PT HD & the Naitives. Any company has the balls??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Today my dream DAW would come from Mackie:
>>>>>>>>>> -The MAckie DBX digital mixer (Dual touch screens)that also had
>> the
>>>>> capability
>>>>>>>>>> to record up to 128 24/96 audio tracks. Using the same cool editing
>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>> in their earlier Hard disk recorder MDR2496. The mix has the
>>>>>>>>>> capabilities
>>>>>>>>>> to add up to 3or 4 UAD cards, as well as third party FX for the
>> mixer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> would be a ground breaking product. Even though Tascam tried it,
>>> their
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SX-1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> was cool, but was too limited. Actualy, the SA-1 was a Ensoniq/EMU
>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>> first, then made it's was over to Tascam..I digress..
>>>>>>>>>> I still hoping that the Yamaha/Steinberg marrige would yield a
very
>>>>> cool
>>>>>>>>>> DM2000 metts Nuendo or 02R-96 meets Cubase sx . All in one units..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As things stands now in our current state of Personal computers
>> based
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DAW,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we really have not had any ground breaking technology save for
newer
>>>>>> faster
>>>>>>>>>> Cpus.. Inwhich, I for one am tired of chasing the speed demon.Enough
>>>>>> already..I
>>>>>>>>>> say this and I work as a IT Network Consultant.. Okay :) i digress
>>>>>>>>>> again..:)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I guess this post grew out of neverending post over on
>>>>>>>>>> www.gearslutz.com
>>>>>>>>>> about Ribbon mics, Summing buss's, 5k mics, 4k pre-amps, 4k
>>>>>>>>>> converters..
>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking, why do I want to keep sinking good money into "dressing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a naitive DAW to try to sound as good as Paris does for (2,700.00
>>> Orginal
>>>>>>>>>> list)??? Those guys, bless their hearts are into dreaming that
if
>>> they
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sink
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> another 5-10k in analoge summing gear, tey will have that magic
>> ssound..
>>>>>>>>>> So, I'm thinkink, 'Why have we gone backwards in this dAW game??
>>> Is
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Digi has such a strangle hold on the industry,that they can dictate
>>>>> jsut
>>>>>>>>>> how much cool stuff reaches the lowered of the spectrum. What
I
>> mean
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PT LE is just enough to get frustrated to only dream and save
up
>>> for
>>>>>> HD..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now, we have this Apple fiasco..New machines, with new CPUS, little
>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>> support. do they really think that thisi was good move now?? I'm
>>> not
>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>> a current Mac owner and I agonise for MAc lovers and users. If
I
>>> were
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> them,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would not upgrade for at leat 3-4 years. I digress again ..:)
>> Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, calling on all new and current manufactures..You a vast
market
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pro users and studios that needs more juice and pro features than
>>> your
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> offereing, but we don;t want to spend 20k for it.. Soemthing along
>>> say
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3-15k
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> would do it..
>>>>>>>>>> Okay end of rant..LaMont
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW [message #63174 is a reply to message #63124] |
Sun, 15 January 2006 22:04 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
La Mont,
I started noticing something sort of mushy in SX in the low end at around 24
tracks. It could very well be that I just don't know how to mix on a native
system though. Fire it over lightpipe into the Paris mixer and it gets big
again. I'm still summing in Paris and actually setting levels and fader/FX
automation on both DAWs. I'm getting basic fader moves done in SX and then
tweaking them in Paris. It's pretty wild to watch a mix happen here. I'm
using a fair amount of analog gear in my mixes. I've got 10 analog I/O in my
cubase DAw and I'm using them all for inserts of analog comps and EQ's. In
Paris, I'm patching in analog qand digital reverbs and delays. For a while I
was paranoid about signal degradation with this many AD/DA's. Now I don't
even think twice.
Last night Tony posted up a song that I mixed on his site.
http://www.mercysakes.com/paris/Doug%20Joyce/Faith%20In%20Lo ve/
It's about finished, maybe a little more LF and vocal rebalancing and a
little de-essing that I'm going to add. There are 30 tracks-12 drum tracks,
vocal track, 15 acoustic instrument tracks and 3 x electric bass tracks.
They've got external processors all over them....10 x AD/DA's with analog
processors in cubase Sx and another 6 x AD/DA's in Paris, but I'm happy with
the mix......and what's most important, so is the client. It doesn't have
that linearness that I hear in PT, but we were going after a retro feel and
I think we achieved it. I think the Paris mix engine has a lot to do with it
all hanging together. It just doesn't sound at all the same if I sum it in
SX. Much smaller sounding. this mix has had no *mastering*, though NoLimit
was kissing the Paris mix bus.
Deej
..
"LaMont" <jjdpo@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:43cb2d79$1@linux...
>
> hey Dedric, a friend of mine has upgrade to Sonar5 and we can hear the
difference
> form version 4. Version 4 sound was very balnd , vanillia if you will.
version
> 5 mix summing sounds very wide, with more dept than version 4..So, they
did
> soemthing.
>
> Note: That's what I think Nuendos/SX weak point. in theory,their 32bit
floating
> point mixer/summing bus was to allow for more audio options up and down
the
> audio bandwdith, but, things(mixes) start to fall apart at a certain
point.
> 32bit float is great for plugins, limited for summming with high track
counts.
> LaMont
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
> >ID would be cool, even if it looks like a psychedelic video switching
mixer
> >from the 70's, but the reviews on functionality and increased
productivity
> >are rather convincing. Price is a bit steep though.
> >
> >One of these wouldn't be bad either:
> >
> > http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/system_5-mc/system_5-m c.htm
> >
> >Or maybe,
> >
> >http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/mc/mc.htm
> >
> >That's Nuendo on screen in both links.
> >
> >This one still gets my vote for geek heaven and client wow factor:
> >
> >http://www.smartav.net/images/E72Splash1-1024x768.jpg
> >
> >
> >BTW - I'm guessing that if Steinberg gets the 64 bit update right with a
> 64
> >bit full audio path, summing boxes could be just another color in the
tool
> >palette, but far from necessary, and likely less spacious and clear, but
> >that's more optimism than guarantee.
> >
> >I would like to hear Sonar 5 in full 64-bit glory to see if 64-bit
(assuming
> >Cakewalk isn't blowing smoke) lives up the paper specs on the concept,
but
> >I'm hesitant to buy into the hype until proven sonically.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Dedric
> >
> >On 1/15/06 10:45 PM, in article 43cb24d5$1@linux, "Deej"
> ><hdfajkl@hjkal.buzzz> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> This would be my idea of an optimized productivity scenario if I was
using
> >> Nuendo and had the budget.
> >>
> >> http://www.arbitermt.co.uk/nuendo/products/idcontroller.htm
> >>
> >> A bit pricey, but definitely specific to the application and with a
moose
> >> of a DAW running the software and DSP, a nice rack of Myteks or Lavry's
> for
> >> tracking and patching external processors, and a decent summing box, I
> might
> >> be convinced to jump ship.
> >>
> >> ;o)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "LaMont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you need
> what
> >>> I need may not be what you need and that could be the root of this
> >>> discussion)."
> >>>
> >>> Agreed.. :)
> >>> But, the rest of your post illustrates my points. Some Producer
buddies
> >> of
> >>> mine in town, were having this same discusion about amonth or so ago.
> They
> >>> are all Mac user, with a few giga machines. The consesus for us all is
> that
> >>> we have grown tired of the "upgrade" syndrome that, for one forces the
> >>> non-computer
> >>> music guy to become so entrenched with personal computer technology,
> that
> >>> they can't focus on music..At the end of the conversation, we all
agreed
> >>> that having a system like Pro-Tools HD would "serve" us best with out
> having
> >>> to "think" or stay on the CPU upgrade "teadmill" if you will. I've
been
> >> on
> >>> that treadmill since 97,and as I look back on how many great working
> system
> >>> setups I've detroyed due becuase I was trying to play the CPU sped
game.
> >>> I've lost decnet paying mixng and production jobs becuase my systems
> were
> >>> not as stable as I had them before I "upgraded" to a faster cpu and
OS..
> >>> I one of our suites we still have PT Mix cube running on a G4(450) OS9
> that's
> >>> rock solid stable.. One of my Paris setup still has Win 98se..Stable
> stable
> >>> stable:)
> >>>
> >>> 2 staff producers went chasing the Apple speed dream , from Dual 867s
> to
> >>> Dual G5(2.5s) on OSX..Man, the agony and frustrations on their faces
> due
> >>> to the fact that they had serious deadlines. That's what spurred our
> >>> conversations
> >>> about it's either PTHD or a slotion with DM2000/02r96 with Nuendo/PT
> Radar
> >>> with the yammy difital mixer.. Each set up cost. But, we demand a
solid
> >> working
> >>> system, that you do not have to make execues to yourself and the
client..
> >>>
> >>> Dedric may have said it best when he stated that doing a dedicated dsp
> system
> >>> manybe a daughting task$$ Or so they say.. Stuff coming out of China
> (Phonic
> >>> firewire) mixers as well as microphones and other products are
astounding
> >>> deals. Just maybe the solution I'm after will come from China?
> >>> LaMont
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Lamont wrote:
> >>>>> Hey Jaimie,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Athough native cpus are fast, don't think that you are getting off
> cheap.
> >>>>> Playing the speed keep up game every 2 years is 1) not
productive..2)
> >>> very
> >>>>> expensive.. think about it..??
> >>>>
> >>>> Both native and DSP-based can be expensive. Native can be much less
> >>>> expensive though, if budget is limited. For example, on the low end
> a
> >>>> Mac Mini comes with Garage Band and you can do a lot with that and an
> >>>> inexpensive Firewire or USB i/o box for a total cost of less than
$1000.
> >>>>
> >>>> Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you need
> >>>> (what I need may not be what you need and that could be the root of
> this
> >>>
> >>>> discussion).
> >>>>
> >>>> There are DSP-based systems out there that come with their own
> >>>> mixer/burner/software in a table-top format without requiring a
> >>>> computer. They cost as much or more as a native system with a fast
> >>>> computer. If you want to get off of the computer upgrade cycle,
they're
> >>>
> >>>> available and they do what they do pretty well. But they aren't
> >>>> particularly upgradable and upgradability is a big draw for
> >>>> computer-based systems.
> >>>>
> >>>> Computer-based systems that include separate DSP cards have some of
> the
> >>>
> >>>> advantages and upgrade costs of native systems and some of the
> >>>> disadvantages and limitations of dedicated, non-computer-based
systems.
> >>>
> >>>> PARIS illustrates the disadvantages very well.
> >>>>
> >>>> I bought an Intel computer for PARIS and bought an OS upgrade along
> the
> >>>
> >>>> way. A few years later I bought a faster G4 computer for PARIS and it
> >>>> was a noticable improvement. I also bought an upgrade for the PARIS
> >>>> software which added useful new features and some unfinished, broken
> >>>> features. It was nice to be able to upgrade but it did cost money
just
> >>
> >>>> as a native system would have. I was limited to the PARIS hardware
> >>>> running on OS9, and the developers dropped support.
> >>>>
> >>>> PARIS would never get faster better, it was what it was. For me, the
> >>>> freeze point in development stopped just short of what I needed.
Close,
> >>>
> >>>> but forever short. So I sold it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Meanwhile CPUs had gotten much, much faster and having separate DSP
> for
> >>>
> >>>> the DAW had lost much of its advantage. I switched to a native system
> >>>> running on the same G4 computer I had purchased for PARIS, but using
> >>>> native software along with a new i/o box and a better operating
system.
> >>>
> >>>> The transition did not cost a lot overall and the sale of PARIS
pretty
> >>
> >>>> much covered it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I did live on the bleeding edge for a while, though, with the
transition
> >>>
> >>>> to OSX and I had to try several Firewire interfaces to find a solid
> system.
> >>>>
> >>>> After a few years I upgraded to a new computer but kept the software
> and
> >>>
> >>>> i/o box I was already using. I sold the previous computer, so the
> >>>> upgrade cost was not high. I upgraded the native software and
computer
> >>
> >>>> OS several times and the increase in capability was worth the upgrade
> >>>> costs, just as it would have been with a DSP based system.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I had to buy from scratch today, I'd either pick up a Quad
PowerMac
> >>
> >>>> or save a bunch of money and get a dual G5 PowerMac, add extra RAM
and
> >>
> >>>> HD, Digital Performer or Logic, a Firewire i/o box or two and some
third
> >>>
> >>>> party plugins. That system would probably last for the next ten
years.
> >>
> >>>> Even if I added a 24 moving fader controller it would be well under
> 10K.
> >>>
> >>>> Again, what I do and what you do may be different so your mileage may
> vary.
> >>>>
> >>>> My current 2.5GHZ dual G5 is fast enough that I don't feel the need
> to
> >>
> >>>> upgrade it for audio production. It could go for the next decade with
> >>>> slowing me down.
> >>>>
> >>>> However if I decide to upgrade it at some point for animation or
video
> >>
> >>>> production, the audio side will come along for the ride at no extra
> cost.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> At least with a DSP based sytem, you know what you have, and the
native
> >>> cpu
> >>>>> is a secondary issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> With the speed of CPUs today, why tie yourself to a hardware-limited
> DSP
> >>>
> >>>> system. If the company you buy it from is in business in five years,
> the
> >>>
> >>>> cost to upgrade a system like that could be much higher than just
buying
> >>>
> >>>> a newer, faster computer.
> >>>>
> >>>> And when you buy a newer, faster computer you are upgrading
everything
> >>
> >>>> that runs on it, all your plugins, virtual instruments, even other
> >>>> software (graphics, animation, video editing, software development,
> >>>> whatever else you do), in one shot.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Plus, low latency, better i/o integration in a pro
> >>>>> enviorment..
> >>>>
> >>>> This is your best argument. But latency is not an issue in my current
> >>>> setup. My i/o box has direct monitoring. Even if I monitor through
Logic
> >>>
> >>>> the latency is low enough that it hasn't been a problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> The i/o integration is fine, I have 18 analog inputs and 16 analog
> >>>> outputs plus stereo digital i/o directly patchable through my DAW
> >>>> software and also routable from the i/o box's monitoring software. If
> I
> >>>
> >>>> need more i/o I can plug in another Firewire i/o box.
> >>>>
> >>>> I run my system with a mouse and a jog/shuttle wheel add-on. I can
get
> >>
> >>>> moving fader controllers from at least four different manufacturers
> >>>> which is tempting, but since I only really used the jog/shuttle part
> of
> >>>
> >>>> the PARIS controller I haven't needed that. Plus I've grown used to
> the
> >>>
> >>>> precision and (believe it or not) speed of mixing with the mouse.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The sad truth with moast if not all native solutios is that
> >>>>> it has forced a big$$$ third party solutions market, inwhic native
> users
> >>>>> are going back to purchase , talk back units, better than average
> >>>>> converters..All
> >>>>> to chase the dsp systems way of working..in the end, the native
person
> >>> does
> >>>>> not realize that they have spent just as much, if not more than they
> >> could've
> >>>>> gotten with a dsp based DAW.
> >>>>
> >>>> A native system will be more flexible, you'll have more developers to
> >>>> choose from to enhance your system, and if one of the developers goes
> >>>> under, your system will not hit a dead end.
> >>>>
> >>>> Over the last decade I've spent way less than, for example, a
ProTools
> >>
> >>>> system would have cost and am getting, I think, comparable results.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Having used nuendo sice it's inception (2000, ),logic audio, Ican
with
> >>> hesitation,
> >>>>> that it takes a lot of $$$ to bring those apps up to pro specs, and
> truth
> >>>>> be known, steinbergs way of integrating hardware leaves a lot to be
> >>>>> desired..
> >>>>
> >>>> A Quad PowerMac with extra RAM and HD, MOTU Digital Performer, a MOTU
> >>>> Firewire i/o box or two and some third party plugins...even a 24
moving
> >>>
> >>>> fader controller and you're well under 10K.
> >>>>
> >>>> It all comes down to individual needs and preferences, so I'm not
really
> >>>
> >>>> saying you're wrong for what you're looking for. But for what I'm
> >>>> looking for, a native system is pretty compelling.
> >>>>
> >>>> OTOH, had PARIS MIDI support been better, had they hung around long
> >>>> enough to support OSX and AU plugins, I'd still be using PARIS. Even
> >>>> with the limitation of 44.1 or 48 sampling.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -Jamie
> >>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Take care,
> >>>>> Lamont
> >>>>> take care
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I dunno. Why lock into developing a new DSP system when native CPUs
> are
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> so fast now (fast enough for tons of tracks/plugins) and just
getting
> >>>
> >>>>>> faster?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The folks on gearslutz will always be chasing ways to spend more
money
> >>>
> >>>>>> on their systems (no matter what systems they have, native or DSP).
> >>>>>> There's no real cure for that. :^)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's true the Mac Intel transition will take time. It's not a five
> year
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> wait, though. Over the next six months there will likely be
software
> >>
> >>>>>> choices for audio production that run on both Intel and PPC,
probably
> >>>
> >>>>>> starting with Logic around March/April as a $50 upgrade, so they
say.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Over the next year the Mac Intel hardware choices will expand into
> more
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> laptop and desktop choices as Intel's series of chips hit the
market.
> >>>
> >>>>>> The roadmap is pretty much known at this point. If you want to go
> with
> >>>
> >>>>>> Intel, pick your best time for the transition.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you want to make music using OSX right away there are plenty of
> PPC
> >>>
> >>>>>> choices that work today, all the way up to the quad PowerMac which
> has
> >>>
> >>>>>> more muscle than you probably need. Available now and they'll
continue
> >>>
> >>>>>> to work after the Intel transition.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LaMont wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Guys, Some thoughts:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Has anyone noticed that since our beloved Paris
DAW($2700list)there
> >> has
> >>>>>
> >>>>> no
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> pro DAW for under 10k??? Why??
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I know we have the Cubases ($499) Nuendo's ($1,500), Logic(1k),
DP(699)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> &
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sonar($400). There are all very good naitive systems that will
yield
> >>> pro
> >>>>>>> results. However, I can't belive thatthere is not one manufacture
> other
> >>>>>
> >>>>> than
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Digidesign that want's to producer a DSP based DAW?? It's almost
> 6 years
> >>>>>>> since the plug was pulled on Paris! Yes, I did not forget about
> >>>>>>> Soundscape..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My Point in this post is to bring to ligh that Paris was a product
> that
> >>>>>
> >>>>> served
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> the "Middle ground" studio. Now, looking back, it's price point
was
> >> revolutionary.
> >>>>>>> AND That's the point..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Today, if you're shelling out at least 10k for a PT HD system,
your
> >> only
> >>>>>>> other alternative is do a naitive system..Again, I'm not saying
that
> >>> naitive's
> >>>>>>> are bad, but we all know that there's nothing like a cool DSP
DAW..Even
> >>>>>
> >>>>> more,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> it's a knwon fact that, if you wew to build your naitive system up
> to
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pro
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> standards (AD/DA converters,mixer,DSP FX cards) you'd actually
come
> >> to
> >>>>>
> >>>>> an
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> PT HD system.
> >>>>>>> There has to be a manufactuer that will stand up and fill in the
> gap
> >>> between
> >>>>>>> PT HD & the Naitives. Any company has the balls??
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Today my dream DAW would come from Mackie:
> >>>>>>> -The MAckie DBX digital mixer (Dual touch screens)that also had
the
> >> capability
> >>>>>>> to record up to 128 24/96 audio tracks. Using the same cool
editing
> >> found
> >>>>>>> in their earlier Hard disk recorder MDR2496. The mix has the
capabilities
> >>>>>>> to add up to 3or 4 UAD cards, as well as third party FX for the
mixer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> would be a ground breaking product. Even though Tascam tried it,
> their
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SX-1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> was cool, but was too limited. Actualy, the SA-1 was a Ensoniq/EMU
> >>>>>>> product
> >>>>>>> first, then made it's was over to Tascam..I digress..
> >>>>>>> I still hoping that the Yamaha/Steinberg marrige would yield a
very
> >> cool
> >>>>>>> DM2000 metts Nuendo or 02R-96 meets Cubase sx . All in one units..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As things stands now in our current state of Personal computers
based
> >>>>>
> >>>>> DAW,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> we really have not had any ground breaking technology save for
newer
> >>> faster
> >>>>>>> Cpus.. Inwhich, I for one am tired of chasing the speed
demon.Enough
> >>> already..I
> >>>>>>> say this and I work as a IT Network Consultant.. Okay :) i digress
> >>>>>>> again..:)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I guess this post grew out of neverending post over on
www.gearslutz.com
> >>>>>>> about Ribbon mics, Summing buss's, 5k mics, 4k pre-amps, 4k
converters..
> >>>>>>> I'm thinking, why do I want to keep sinking good money into
"dressing
> >>>>>
> >>>>> up
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> a naitive DAW to try to sound as good as Paris does for (2,700.00
> Orginal
> >>>>>>> list)??? Those guys, bless their hearts are into dreaming that if
> they
> >>>>>
> >>>>> sink
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> another 5-10k in analoge summing gear, tey will have that magic
ssound..
> >>>>>>> So, I'm thinkink, 'Why have we gone backwards in this dAW game??
> Is
> >> it
> >>>>>
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Digi has such a strangle hold on the industry,that they can
dictate
> >> jsut
> >>>>>>> how much cool stuff reaches the lowered of the spectrum. What I
mean
> >>> is
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> PT LE is just enough to get frustrated to only dream and save up
> for
> >>> HD..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now, we have this Apple fiasco..New machines, with new CPUS,
little
> >> software
> >>>>>>> support. do they really think that thisi was good move now?? I'm
> not
> >>> even
> >>>>>>> a current Mac owner and I agonise for MAc lovers and users. If I
> were
> >>>>>
> >>>>> them,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would not upgrade for at leat 3-4 years. I digress again ..:)
Sorry.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Again, calling on all new and current manufactures..You a vast
market
> >>>>>
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Pro users and studios that needs more juice and pro features than
> your
> >>>>>
> >>>>> current
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> offereing, but we don;t want to spend 20k for it.. Soemthing along
> say
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3-15k
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> would do it..
> >>>>>>> Okay end of rant..LaMont
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW [message #63185 is a reply to message #63135] |
Mon, 16 January 2006 14:03 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Dedric,
Here's my take on this. I bought the DAW CD from Lynn What's His Name. I
listened to it. I took the tests. I took them again. I had someone jumble
the tracks around and play them for me again. There were tiny wisp of smoke
differences between the "best" and the "worst." On top of that, in an ABY
test I can't imagine anyone doing dramatically better than a coin flip. Maybe,
just maybe, a handful could, but I doubt even that.
So, for me, that put the "summing bus" issue to rest. Until someone can give
me proof, and by proof I mean ABY testing or real matmatical analysis or
resulting audio files from different systems, I will believe that all properly
written summing busses sound essentially the same. After that summing bus
CD came out suddenly the critiques of summing busses moved into other areas
like certain frequencies (that apparently weren't on the tesing CD) and higher
track counts and acoustic instruments and so on. When someone gets me evidence
I'll be interested again, but until then I'm happily over here using SX and
Live. So is DJ Krush and about a million other talented people who I am happy
to have as my company.
TCB
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>I guess I'm outnumbered in the Nuendo sucks or not debate.
>
>Interesting example of when pro gear and reputation isn't all it's cracked
>up to be:
>
>I got a voiceover from a top post house in my area to use to create and
ad
>for a client. I don't know what they use, but PT would be the obvious
>guess.
>
>The voiceover was just 30 minutes of Q&A with an expert, logged for later
>use - the raw files from the studio were preprocessed - heavily over
>compressed with no apparent attempt to address heavy sibilance before
>compressing the crap out of it. Their goal is probably to produce quick
and
>low cost, so they have a "preset" chain for audio, and charge $200/hr for
it
>- no customization, just track it, burn it and send you on your way. Their
>rates are high, but project costs are low - you do the math, it's the
>Walmart approach to production.
>
>There was little I could do to remove the sibilance without audibly
>degrading the mids balance, and reaching diminishing returns very quickly,
>but I did make it sound better. Every voice over I've worked on, and heard
>from them sounds the same - sibilant, even in my car, from CD or on-air.
>
>The moral of the story - a lot of people call themselves pro, have pro gear,
>and hold a lion's share of their market to back it up, but that doesn't
mean
>the product is any better for it.
>
>I would rather be good using less than perfect gear to create a superior
>product than have the best, most recent and advanced gear money can buy
and
>not know what the heck I'm doing. Gear lust and aspiring for sonic nirvana
>is all well and good, but I had to put a limit on it and make it work for
>me, rather than against me. Now I'm just trying to make a living creating
a
>great product with what I have rather than worrying about how spending
>$30,000 more would make my audio sound 1% wider, or the top end 2% silkier
>when the client is going to cram it down an FM band with 10:1 or higher
>compression, or rip it to a 128k or lower mp3, cutting off every sonic
>nicety I slaved over and invested thousands of $$ to get.
>
>I'm off. Later.
>
>Dedric
>
>On 1/16/06 12:10 AM, in article 43cb38ba$1@linux, "Deej" <yiruyfh@hgdgr.not>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> La Mont,
>>
>> I started noticing something sort of mushy in SX in the low end at around
>> 24 tracks. It could very well be that I just don't know how to mix on
a native
>> system though. Fire it over lightpipe into the Paris mixer and it gets
big
>> again. I'm still summing in Paris and actually setting levels and fader/FX
>> automation on both DAWs. I'm getting basic fader moves done in SX and
then
>> tweaking them in Paris. It's pretty wild to watch a mix happen here. I'm
>> using a fair amount of analog gear in my mixes. I've got 10 analog I/O
in
>> my Cubase DAW and I'm using them all for inserts of analog comps and EQ's.
>> In Paris, I'm patching in analog qand digital reverbs and delays. For
a while
>> I was paranoid about signal degradation with this many AD/DA's. Now I
don't
>> even think twice.
>>
>> Last night Tony posted up a song that I mixed on his site.
>>
>> http://www.mercysakes.com/paris/Doug%20Joyce/Faith%20In%20Lo ve/
>>
>> It's about finished, maybe a little more LF and vocal rebalancing and
a little
>> de-essing that I'm going to add. There are 30 tracks-12 drum tracks, vocal
>> track, 15 acoustic instrument tracks and 3 x electric bass tracks. They've
>> got external processors all over them....10 x AD/DA's with analog processors
>> in cubase Sx and another 6 x AD/DA's in Paris, but I'm happy with the
>> mix......and
>> what's most important, so is the client. It doesn't have that linearity
and
>> accuracy that I hear in the new PTHD, but we were going after a retro
feel
>> and I think we achieved it. I think the Paris mix engine has a lot to
do
>> with it all hanging together. It just doesn't sound at all the same if
I
>> sum it in SX. Much smaller sounding. this mix has had no *mastering*,
though
>> NoLimit was kissing the Paris mix bus.
>>
>> Deej
>>
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpo@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> hey Dedric, a friend of mine has upgrade to Sonar5 and we can hear the
>>> difference
>>> form version 4. Version 4 sound was very balnd , vanillia if you will.
>>> version
>>> 5 mix summing sounds very wide, with more dept than version 4..So, they
>> did
>>> soemthing.
>>>
>>> Note: That's what I think Nuendos/SX weak point. in theory,their 32bit
>>> floating
>>> point mixer/summing bus was to allow for more audio options up and down
>> the
>>> audio bandwdith, but, things(mixes) start to fall apart at a certain
point.
>>> 32bit float is great for plugins, limited for summming with high track
>>> counts.
>>> LaMont
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> ID would be cool, even if it looks like a psychedelic video switching
mixer
>>>> from the 70's, but the reviews on functionality and increased productivity
>>>> are rather convincing. Price is a bit steep though.
>>>>
>>>> One of these wouldn't be bad either:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/system_5-mc/system_5-m c.htm
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe,
>>>>
>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/mc/mc.htm
>>>>
>>>> That's Nuendo on screen in both links.
>>>>
>>>> This one still gets my vote for geek heaven and client wow factor:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.smartav.net/images/E72Splash1-1024x768.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW - I'm guessing that if Steinberg gets the 64 bit update right with
>> a
>>> 64
>>>> bit full audio path, summing boxes could be just another color in the
tool
>>>> palette, but far from necessary, and likely less spacious and clear,
but
>>>> that's more optimism than guarantee.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to hear Sonar 5 in full 64-bit glory to see if 64-bit (assuming
>>>> Cakewalk isn't blowing smoke) lives up the paper specs on the concept,
>> but
>>>> I'm hesitant to buy into the hype until proven sonically.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> On 1/15/06 10:45 PM, in article 43cb24d5$1@linux, "Deej"
>>>> <hdfajkl@hjkal.buzzz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This would be my idea of an optimized productivity scenario if I was
>> using
>>>>> Nuendo and had the budget.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.arbitermt.co.uk/nuendo/products/idcontroller.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> A bit pricey, but definitely specific to the application and with a
moose
>>>>> of a DAW running the software and DSP, a nice rack of Myteks or Lavry's
>>> for
>>>>> tracking and patching external processors, and a decent summing box,
>> I
>>> might
>>>>> be convinced to jump ship.
>>>>>
>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "LaMont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you need
>>> what
>>>>>> I need may not be what you need and that could be the root of this
>>>>>> discussion)."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed.. :)
>>>>>> But, the rest of your post illustrates my points. Some Producer buddies
>>>>> of
>>>>>> mine in town, were having this same discusion about amonth or so ago.
>>> They
>>>>>> are all Mac user, with a few giga machines. The consesus for us all
>> is
>>> that
>>>>>> we have grown tired of the "upgrade" syndrome that, for one forces
the
>>>>>> non-computer
>>>>>> music guy to become so entrenched with personal computer technology,
>>> that
>>>>>> they can't focus on music..At the end of the conversation, we all
agreed
>>>>>> that having a system like Pro-Tools HD would "serve" us best with
out
>>> having
>>>>>> to "think" or stay on the CPU upgrade "teadmill" if you will. I've
been
>>>>> on
>>>>>> that treadmill since 97,and as I look back on how many great working
>>> system
>>>>>> setups I've detroyed due becuase I was trying to play the CPU sped
>> game.
>>>>>> I've lost decnet paying mixng and production jobs becuase my systems
>>> were
>>>>>> not as stable as I had them before I "upgraded" to a faster cpu and
>> OS..
>>>>>> I one of our suites we still have PT Mix cube running on a G4(450)
OS9
>>> that's
>>>>>> rock solid stable.. One of my Paris setup still has Win 98se..Stable
>>> stable
>>>>>> stable:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2 staff producers went chasing the Apple speed dream , from Dual 867s
>>> to
>>>>>> Dual G5(2.5s) on OSX..Man, the agony and frustrations on their faces
>>> due
>>>>>> to the fact that they had serious deadlines. That's what spurred our
>>>>>> conversations
>>>>>> about it's either PTHD or a slotion with DM2000/02r96 with Nuendo/PT
>>> Radar
>>>>>> with the yammy difital mixer.. Each set up cost. But, we demand a
solid
>>>>> working
>>>>>> system, that you do not have to make execues to yourself and the client..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric may have said it best when he stated that doing a dedicated
dsp
>>> system
>>>>>> manybe a daughting task$$ Or so they say.. Stuff coming out of China
>>> (Phonic
>>>>>> firewire) mixers as well as microphones and other products are astounding
>>>>>> deals. Just maybe the solution I'm after will come from China?
>>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey Jaimie,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Athough native cpus are fast, don't think that you are getting off
>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>> Playing the speed keep up game every 2 years is 1) not productive..2)
>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> expensive.. think about it..??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both native and DSP-based can be expensive. Native can be much less
>>>>>>> expensive though, if budget is limited. For example, on the low end
>>> a
>>>>>>> Mac Mini comes with Garage Band and you can do a lot with that and
>> an
>>>>>>> inexpensive Firewire or USB i/o box for a total cost of less than
$1000.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you need
>>>>>>> (what I need may not be what you need and that could be the root
of
>>> this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> discussion).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are DSP-based systems out there that come with their own
>>>>>>> mixer/burner/software in a table-top format without requiring a
>>>>>>> computer. They cost as much or more as a native system with a fast
>>>>>>> computer. If you want to get off of the computer upgrade cycle, they're
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> available and they do what they do pretty well. But they aren't
>>>>>>> particularly upgradable and upgradability is a big draw for
>>>>>>> computer-based systems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Computer-based systems that include separate DSP cards have some
of
>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> advantages and upgrade costs of native systems and some of the
>>>>>>> disadvantages and limitations of dedicated, non-computer-based systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PARIS illustrates the disadvantages very well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I bought an Intel computer for PARIS and bought an OS upgrade along
>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> way. A few years later I bought a faster G4 computer for PARIS and
>> it
>>>>>>> was a noticable improvement. I also bought an upgrade for the PARIS
>>>>>>> software which added useful new features and some unfinished, broken
>>>>>>> features. It was nice to be able to upgrade but it did cost money
just
>>>>>
>>>>>>> as a native system would have. I was limited to the PARIS hardware
>>>>>>> running on OS9, and the developers dropped support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PARIS would never get faster better, it was what it was. For me,
the
>>>>>>> freeze point in development stopped just short of what I needed.
Close,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but forever short. So I sold it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile CPUs had gotten much, much faster and having separate DSP
>>> for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the DAW had lost much of its advantage. I switched to a native system
>>>>>>> running on the same G4 computer I had purchased for PARIS, but using
>>>>>>> native software along with a new i/o box and a better operating system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The transition did not cost a lot overall and the sale of PARIS pretty
>>>>>
>>>>>>> much covered it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did live on the bleeding edge for a while, though, with the transition
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to OSX and I had to try several Firewire interfaces to find a solid
>>> system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After a few years I upgraded to a new computer but kept the software
>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i/o box I was already using. I sold the previous computer, so the
>>>>>>> upgrade cost was not high. I upgraded the native software and computer
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OS several times and the increase in capability was worth the upgrade
>>>>>>> costs, just as it would have been with a DSP based system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I had to buy from scratch today, I'd either pick up a Quad PowerMac
>>>>>
>>>>>>> or save a bunch of money and get a dual G5 PowerMac, add extra RAM
>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>>> HD, Digital Performer or Logic, a Firewire i/o box or two and some
>> third
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> party plugins. That system would probably last for the next ten years.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if I added a 24 moving fader controller it would be well under
>>> 10K.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, what I do and what you do may be different so your mileage
may
>>> vary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My current 2.5GHZ dual G5 is fast enough that I don't feel the need
>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>>> upgrade it for audio production. It could go for the next decade
with
>>>>>>> slowing me down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However if I decide to upgrade it at some point for animation or
video
>>>>>
>>>>>>> production, the audio side will come along for the ride at no extra
>>> cost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least with a DSP based sytem, you know what you have, and the
native
>>>>>> cpu
>>>>>>>> is a secondary issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the speed of CPUs today, why tie yourself to a hardware-limited
>>> DSP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> system. If the company you buy it from is in business in five years,
>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cost to upgrade a system like that could be much higher than just
buying
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a newer, faster computer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And when you buy a newer, faster computer you are upgrading everything
>>>>>
>>>>>>> that runs on it, all your plugins, virtual instruments, even other
>>>>>>> software (graphics, animation, video editing, software development,
>>>>>>> whatever else you do), in one shot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plus, low latency, better i/o integration in a pro
>>>>>>>> enviorment..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is your best argument. But latency is not an issue in my current
>>>>>>> setup. My i/o box has direct monitoring. Even if I monitor through
>> Logic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the latency is low enough that it hasn't been a problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The i/o integration is fine, I have 18 analog inputs and 16 analog
>>>>>>> outputs plus stereo digital i/o directly patchable through my DAW
>>>>>>> software and also routable from the i/o box's monitoring software.
>> If
>>> I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> need more i/o I can plug in another Firewire i/o box.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I run my system with a mouse and a jog/shuttle wheel add-on. I can
>> get
>>>>>
>>>>>>> moving fader controllers from at least four different manufacturers
>>>>>>> which is tempting, but since I only really used the jog/shuttle part
>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the PARIS controller I haven't needed that. Plus I've grown used
to
>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> precision and (believe it or not) speed of mixing with the mouse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The sad truth with moast if not all native solutios is that
>>>>>>>> it has forced a big$$$ third party solutions market, inwhic native
>>> users
>>>>>>>> are going back to purchase , talk back units, better than average
>>>>>>>> converters..All
>>>>>>>> to chase the dsp systems way of working..in the end, the native
person
>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> not realize that they have spent just as much, if not more than
they
>>>>> could've
>>>>>>>> gotten with a dsp based DAW.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A native system will be more flexible, you'll have more developers
>> to
>>>>>>> choose from to enhance your system, and if one of the developers
goes
>>>>>>> under, your system will not hit a dead end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Over the last decade I've spent way less than, for example, a ProTools
>>>>>
>>>>>>> system would have cost and am getting, I think, comparable results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having used nuendo sice it's inception (2000, ),logic audio, Ican
>> with
>>>>>> hesitation,
>>>>>>>> that it takes a lot of $$$ to bring those apps up to pro specs,
and
>>> truth
>>>>>>>> be known, steinbergs way of integrating hardware leaves a lot to
be
>>>>>>>> desired..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Quad PowerMac with extra RAM and HD, MOTU Digital Performer, a
MOTU
>>>>>>> Firewire i/o box or two and some third party plugins...even a 24
moving
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fader controller and you're well under 10K.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It all comes down to individual needs and preferences, so I'm not
really
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> saying you're wrong for what you're looking for. But for what I'm
>>>>>>> looking for, a native system is pretty compelling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OTOH, had PARIS MIDI support been better, had they hung around long
>>>>>>> enough to support OSX and AU plugins, I'd still be using PARIS. Even
>>>>>>> with the limitation of 44.1 or 48 sampling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>>> Lamont
>>>>>>>> take care
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I dunno. Why lock into developing a new DSP system when native
CPUs
>>> are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so fast now (fast enough for tons of tracks/plugins) and just getting
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> faster?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The folks on gearslutz will always be chasing ways to spend more
>> money
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on their systems (no matter what systems they have, native or DSP).
>>>>>>>>> There's no real cure for that. :^)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's true the Mac Intel transition will take time. It's not a five
>>> year
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wait, though. Over the next six months there will likely be software
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> choices for audio production that run on both Intel and PPC, probably
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> starting with Logic around March/April as a $50 upgrade, so they
>> say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Over the next year the Mac Intel hardware choices will expand into
>>> more
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> laptop and desktop choices as Intel's series of chips hit the market.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The roadmap is pretty much known at this point. If you want to
go
>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Intel, pick your best time for the transition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you want to make music using OSX right away there are plenty
of
>>> PPC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> choices that work today, all the way up to the quad PowerMac which
>>> has
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> more muscle than you probably need. Available now and they'll continue
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to work after the Intel transition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guys, Some thoughts:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone noticed that since our beloved Paris DAW($2700list)there
>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> pro DAW for under 10k??? Why??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know we have the Cubases ($499) Nuendo's ($1,500), Logic(1k),
>> DP(699)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sonar($400). There are all very good naitive systems that will
yield
>>>>>> pro
>>>>>>>>>> results. However, I can't belive thatthere is not one manufacture
>>> other
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Digidesign that want's to producer a DSP based DAW?? It's almost
>>> 6 years
>>>>>>>>>> since the plug was pulled on Paris! Yes, I did not forget about
>>>>>>>>>> Soundscape..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My Point in this post is to bring to ligh that Paris was a product
>>> that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> served
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the "Middle ground" studio. Now, looking back, it's price point
>> was
>>>>> revolutionary.
>>>>>>>>>> AND That's the point..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Today, if you're shelling out at least 10k for a PT HD system,
your
>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> other alternative is do a naitive system..Again, I'm not saying
>> that
>>>>>> naitive's
>>>>>>>>>> are bad, but we all know that there's nothing like a cool DSP
>>>>>>>>>> DAW..Even
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> more,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it's a knwon fact that, if you wew to build your naitive system
>> up
>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pro
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> standards (AD/DA converters,mixer,DSP FX cards) you'd actually
come
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PT HD system.
>>>>>>>>>> There has to be a manufactuer that will stand up and fill in the
>>> gap
>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>> PT HD & the Naitives. Any company has the balls??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Today my dream DAW would come from Mackie:
>>>>>>>>>> -The MAckie DBX digital mixer (Dual touch screens)that also had
>> the
>>>>> capability
>>>>>>>>>> to record up to 128 24/96 audio tracks. Using the same cool editing
>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>> in their earlier Hard disk recorder MDR2496. The mix has the
>>>>>>>>>> capabilities
>>>>>>>>>> to add up to 3or 4 UAD cards, as well as third party FX for the
>> mixer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> would be a ground breaking product. Even though Tascam tried it,
>>> their
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SX-1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> was cool, but was too limited. Actualy, the SA-1 was a Ensoniq/EMU
>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>> first, then made it's was over to Tascam..I digress..
>>>>>>>>>> I still hoping that the Yamaha/Steinberg marrige would yield a
very
>>>>> cool
>>>>>>>>>> DM2000 metts Nuendo or 02R-96 meets Cubase sx . All in one units..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As things stands now in our current state of Personal computers
>> based
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DAW,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we really have not had any ground breaking technology save for
newer
>>>>>> faster
>>>>>>>>>> Cpus.. Inwhich, I for one am tired of chasing the speed demon.Enough
>>>>>> already..I
>>>>>>>>>> say this and I work as a IT Network Consultant.. Okay :) i digress
>>>>>>>>>> again..:)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I guess this post grew out of neverending post over on
>>>>>>>>>> www.gearslutz.com
>>>>>>>>>> about Ribbon mics, Summing buss's, 5k mics, 4k pre-amps, 4k
>>>>>>>>>> converters..
>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking, why do I want to keep sinking good money into "dressing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a naitive DAW to try to sound as good as Paris does for (2,700.00
>>> Orginal
>>>>>>>>>> list)??? Those guys, bless their hearts are into dreaming that
if
>>> they
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sink
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> another 5-10k in analoge summing gear, tey will have that magic
>> ssound..
>>>>>>>>>> So, I'm thinkink, 'Why have we gone backwards in this dAW game??
>>> Is
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Digi has such a strangle hold on the industry,that they can dictate
>>>>> jsut
>>>>>>>>>> how much cool stuff reaches the lowered of the spectrum. What
I
>> mean
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PT LE is just enough to get frustrated to only dream and save
up
>>> for
>>>>>> HD..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now, we have this Apple fiasco..New machines, with new CPUS, little
>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>> support. do they really think that thisi was good move now?? I'm
>>> not
>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>> a current Mac owner and I agonise for MAc lovers and users. If
I
>>> were
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> them,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would not upgrade for at leat 3-4 years. I digress again ..:)
>> Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, calling on all new and current manufactures..You a vast
market
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pro users and studios that needs more juice and pro features than
>>> your
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> offereing, but we don;t want to spend 20k for it.. Soemthing along
>>> say
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3-15k
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> would do it..
>>>>>>>>>> Okay end of rant..LaMont
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW [message #63187 is a reply to message #63185] |
Mon, 16 January 2006 13:36 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thad,
I think most PARIS users here agree that when mixing "correctly" with about
any DAW that the sound will be very close. Whatever "magic" people hear in
PARIS happens when the various gain stages are pushed and pulled. Now, some
make the claim that the fact you can push PARIS into the red in various
areas, but not get that digital clipping "gack" (and in fact can get some
very cool changes in character) is a flaw. Well, to each his own. I also use
DP 4.6, and the difference in the sound of my mixes is dramatic. I always
like my PARIS mixes better, but after all I am a brainwashed PARIS zealot,
spreading unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo! ;>)
Tony
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43cc0a29$1@linux...
>
> Hey Dedric,
>
> Here's my take on this. I bought the DAW CD from Lynn What's His Name. I
> listened to it. I took the tests. I took them again. I had someone jumble
> the tracks around and play them for me again. There were tiny wisp of
> smoke
> differences between the "best" and the "worst." On top of that, in an ABY
> test I can't imagine anyone doing dramatically better than a coin flip.
> Maybe,
> just maybe, a handful could, but I doubt even that.
>
> So, for me, that put the "summing bus" issue to rest. Until someone can
> give
> me proof, and by proof I mean ABY testing or real matmatical analysis or
> resulting audio files from different systems, I will believe that all
> properly
> written summing busses sound essentially the same. After that summing bus
> CD came out suddenly the critiques of summing busses moved into other
> areas
> like certain frequencies (that apparently weren't on the tesing CD) and
> higher
> track counts and acoustic instruments and so on. When someone gets me
> evidence
> I'll be interested again, but until then I'm happily over here using SX
> and
> Live. So is DJ Krush and about a million other talented people who I am
> happy
> to have as my company.
>
> TCB
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>I guess I'm outnumbered in the Nuendo sucks or not debate.
>>
>>Interesting example of when pro gear and reputation isn't all it's cracked
>>up to be:
>>
>>I got a voiceover from a top post house in my area to use to create and
> ad
>>for a client. I don't know what they use, but PT would be the obvious
>>guess.
>>
>>The voiceover was just 30 minutes of Q&A with an expert, logged for later
>>use - the raw files from the studio were preprocessed - heavily over
>>compressed with no apparent attempt to address heavy sibilance before
>>compressing the crap out of it. Their goal is probably to produce quick
> and
>>low cost, so they have a "preset" chain for audio, and charge $200/hr for
> it
>>- no customization, just track it, burn it and send you on your way.
>>Their
>>rates are high, but project costs are low - you do the math, it's the
>>Walmart approach to production.
>>
>>There was little I could do to remove the sibilance without audibly
>>degrading the mids balance, and reaching diminishing returns very quickly,
>>but I did make it sound better. Every voice over I've worked on, and
>>heard
>>from them sounds the same - sibilant, even in my car, from CD or on-air.
>>
>>The moral of the story - a lot of people call themselves pro, have pro
>>gear,
>>and hold a lion's share of their market to back it up, but that doesn't
> mean
>>the product is any better for it.
>>
>>I would rather be good using less than perfect gear to create a superior
>>product than have the best, most recent and advanced gear money can buy
> and
>>not know what the heck I'm doing. Gear lust and aspiring for sonic
>>nirvana
>>is all well and good, but I had to put a limit on it and make it work for
>>me, rather than against me. Now I'm just trying to make a living creating
> a
>>great product with what I have rather than worrying about how spending
>>$30,000 more would make my audio sound 1% wider, or the top end 2% silkier
>>when the client is going to cram it down an FM band with 10:1 or higher
>>compression, or rip it to a 128k or lower mp3, cutting off every sonic
>>nicety I slaved over and invested thousands of $$ to get.
>>
>>I'm off. Later.
>>
>>Dedric
>>
>>On 1/16/06 12:10 AM, in article 43cb38ba$1@linux, "Deej"
>><yiruyfh@hgdgr.not>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> La Mont,
>>>
>>> I started noticing something sort of mushy in SX in the low end at
>>> around
>>> 24 tracks. It could very well be that I just don't know how to mix on
> a native
>>> system though. Fire it over lightpipe into the Paris mixer and it gets
> big
>>> again. I'm still summing in Paris and actually setting levels and
>>> fader/FX
>>> automation on both DAWs. I'm getting basic fader moves done in SX and
> then
>>> tweaking them in Paris. It's pretty wild to watch a mix happen here. I'm
>>> using a fair amount of analog gear in my mixes. I've got 10 analog I/O
> in
>>> my Cubase DAW and I'm using them all for inserts of analog comps and
>>> EQ's.
>>> In Paris, I'm patching in analog qand digital reverbs and delays. For
> a while
>>> I was paranoid about signal degradation with this many AD/DA's. Now I
> don't
>>> even think twice.
>>>
>>> Last night Tony posted up a song that I mixed on his site.
>>>
>>> http://www.mercysakes.com/paris/Doug%20Joyce/Faith%20In%20Lo ve/
>>>
>>> It's about finished, maybe a little more LF and vocal rebalancing and
> a little
>>> de-essing that I'm going to add. There are 30 tracks-12 drum tracks,
>>> vocal
>>> track, 15 acoustic instrument tracks and 3 x electric bass tracks.
>>> They've
>>> got external processors all over them....10 x AD/DA's with analog
>>> processors
>>> in cubase Sx and another 6 x AD/DA's in Paris, but I'm happy with the
>>> mix......and
>>> what's most important, so is the client. It doesn't have that linearity
> and
>>> accuracy that I hear in the new PTHD, but we were going after a retro
> feel
>>> and I think we achieved it. I think the Paris mix engine has a lot to
> do
>>> with it all hanging together. It just doesn't sound at all the same if
> I
>>> sum it in SX. Much smaller sounding. this mix has had no *mastering*,
> though
>>> NoLimit was kissing the Paris mix bus.
>>>
>>> Deej
>>>
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpo@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> hey Dedric, a friend of mine has upgrade to Sonar5 and we can hear the
>>>> difference
>>>> form version 4. Version 4 sound was very balnd , vanillia if you will.
>>>> version
>>>> 5 mix summing sounds very wide, with more dept than version 4..So, they
>>> did
>>>> soemthing.
>>>>
>>>> Note: That's what I think Nuendos/SX weak point. in theory,their 32bit
>>>> floating
>>>> point mixer/summing bus was to allow for more audio options up and down
>>> the
>>>> audio bandwdith, but, things(mixes) start to fall apart at a certain
> point.
>>>> 32bit float is great for plugins, limited for summming with high track
>>>> counts.
>>>> LaMont
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> ID would be cool, even if it looks like a psychedelic video switching
> mixer
>>>>> from the 70's, but the reviews on functionality and increased
>>>>> productivity
>>>>> are rather convincing. Price is a bit steep though.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of these wouldn't be bad either:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/system_5-mc/system_5-m c.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/mc/mc.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> That's Nuendo on screen in both links.
>>>>>
>>>>> This one still gets my vote for geek heaven and client wow factor:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.smartav.net/images/E72Splash1-1024x768.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW - I'm guessing that if Steinberg gets the 64 bit update right with
>>> a
>>>> 64
>>>>> bit full audio path, summing boxes could be just another color in the
> tool
>>>>> palette, but far from necessary, and likely less spacious and clear,
> but
>>>>> that's more optimism than guarantee.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to hear Sonar 5 in full 64-bit glory to see if 64-bit
>>>>> (assuming
>>>>> Cakewalk isn't blowing smoke) lives up the paper specs on the concept,
>>> but
>>>>> I'm hesitant to buy into the hype until proven sonically.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/15/06 10:45 PM, in article 43cb24d5$1@linux, "Deej"
>>>>> <hdfajkl@hjkal.buzzz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This would be my idea of an optimized productivity scenario if I was
>>> using
>>>>>> Nuendo and had the budget.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.arbitermt.co.uk/nuendo/products/idcontroller.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A bit pricey, but definitely specific to the application and with a
> moose
>>>>>> of a DAW running the software and DSP, a nice rack of Myteks or
>>>>>> Lavry's
>>>> for
>>>>>> tracking and patching external processors, and a decent summing box,
>>> I
>>>> might
>>>>>> be convinced to jump ship.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "LaMont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
>>>>>>> need
>>>> what
>>>>>>> I need may not be what you need and that could be the root of this
>>>>>>> discussion)."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed.. :)
>>>>>>> But, the rest of your post illustrates my points. Some Producer
>>>>>>> buddies
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> mine in town, were having this same discusion about amonth or so
>>>>>>> ago.
>>>> They
>>>>>>> are all Mac user, with a few giga machines. The consesus for us all
>>> is
>>>> that
>>>>>>> we have grown tired of the "upgrade" syndrome that, for one forces
> the
>>>>>>> non-computer
>>>>>>> music guy to become so entrenched with personal computer technology,
>>>> that
>>>>>>> they can't focus on music..At the end of the conversation, we all
> agreed
>>>>>>> that having a system like Pro-Tools HD would "serve" us best with
> out
>>>> having
>>>>>>> to "think" or stay on the CPU upgrade "teadmill" if you will. I've
> been
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> that treadmill since 97,and as I look back on how many great working
>>>> system
>>>>>>> setups I've detroyed due becuase I was trying to play the CPU sped
>>> game.
>>>>>>> I've lost decnet paying mixng and production jobs becuase my systems
>>>> were
>>>>>>> not as stable as I had them before I "upgraded" to a faster cpu and
>>> OS..
>>>>>>> I one of our suites we still have PT Mix cube running on a G4(450)
> OS9
>>>> that's
>>>>>>> rock solid stable.. One of my Paris setup still has Win 98se..Stable
>>>> stable
>>>>>>> stable:)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2 staff producers went chasing the Apple speed dream , from Dual
>>>>>>> 867s
>>>> to
>>>>>>> Dual G5(2.5s) on OSX..Man, the agony and frustrations on their faces
>>>> due
>>>>>>> to the fact that they had serious deadlines. That's what spurred our
>>>>>>> conversations
>>>>>>> about it's either PTHD or a slotion with DM2000/02r96 with Nuendo/PT
>>>> Radar
>>>>>>> with the yammy difital mixer.. Each set up cost. But, we demand a
> solid
>>>>>> working
>>>>>>> system, that you do not have to make execues to yourself and the
>>>>>>> client..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric may have said it best when he stated that doing a dedicated
> dsp
>>>> system
>>>>>>> manybe a daughting task$$ Or so they say.. Stuff coming out of China
>>>> (Phonic
>>>>>>> firewire) mixers as well as microphones and other products are
>>>>>>> astounding
>>>>>>> deals. Just maybe the solution I'm after will come from China?
>>>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey Jaimie,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Athough native cpus are fast, don't think that you are getting off
>>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>>> Playing the speed keep up game every 2 years is 1) not
>>>>>>>>> productive..2)
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> expensive.. think about it..??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both native and DSP-based can be expensive. Native can be much less
>>>>>>>> expensive though, if budget is limited. For example, on the low end
>>>> a
>>>>>>>> Mac Mini comes with Garage Band and you can do a lot with that and
>>> an
>>>>>>>> inexpensive Firewire or USB i/o box for a total cost of less than
> $1000.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> (what I need may not be what you need and that could be the root
> of
>>>> this
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> discussion).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are DSP-based systems out there that come with their own
>>>>>>>> mixer/burner/software in a table-top format without requiring a
>>>>>>>> computer. They cost as much or more as a native system with a fast
>>>>>>>> computer. If you want to get off of the computer upgrade cycle,
>>>>>>>> they're
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> available and they do what they do pretty well. But they aren't
>>>>>>>> particularly upgradable and upgradability is a big draw for
>>>>>>>> computer-based systems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Computer-based systems that include separate DSP cards have some
> of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> advantages and upgrade costs of native systems and some of the
>>>>>>>> disadvantages and limitations of dedicated, non-computer-based
>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PARIS illustrates the disadvantages very well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I bought an Intel computer for PARIS and bought an OS upgrade along
>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> way. A few years later I bought a faster G4 computer for PARIS and
>>> it
>>>>>>>> was a noticable improvement. I also bought an upgrade for the PARIS
>>>>>>>> software which added useful new features and some unfinished,
>>>>>>>> broken
>>>>>>>> features. It was nice to be able to upgrade but it did cost money
> just
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as a native system would have. I was limited to the PARIS hardware
>>>>>>>> running on OS9, and the developers dropped support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PARIS would never get faster better, it was what it was. For me,
> the
>>>>>>>> freeze point in development stopped just short of what I needed.
> Close,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but forever short. So I sold it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile CPUs had gotten much, much faster and having separate DSP
>>>> for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the DAW had lost much of its advantage. I switched to a native
>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>> running on the same G4 computer I had purchased for PARIS, but
>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>> native software along with a new i/o box and a better operating
>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The transition did not cost a lot overall and the sale of PARIS
>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> much covered it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did live on the bleeding edge for a while, though, with the
>>>>>>>> transition
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to OSX and I had to try several Firewire interfaces to find a solid
>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After a few years I upgraded to a new computer but kept the
>>>>>>>> software
>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i/o box I was already using. I sold the previous computer, so the
>>>>>>>> upgrade cost was not high. I upgraded the native software and
>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OS several times and the increase in capability was worth the
>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>> costs, just as it would have been with a DSP based system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I had to buy from scratch today, I'd either pick up a Quad
>>>>>>>> PowerMac
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or save a bunch of money and get a dual G5 PowerMac, add extra RAM
>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HD, Digital Performer or Logic, a Firewire i/o box or two and some
>>> third
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> party plugins. That system would probably last for the next ten
>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if I added a 24 moving fader controller it would be well under
>>>> 10K.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, what I do and what you do may be different so your mileage
> may
>>>> vary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My current 2.5GHZ dual G5 is fast enough that I don't feel the need
>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> upgrade it for audio production. It could go for the next decade
> with
>>>>>>>> slowing me down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However if I decide to upgrade it at some point for animation or
> video
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> production, the audio side will come along for the ride at no extra
>>>> cost.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At least with a DSP based sytem, you know what you have, and the
> native
>>>>>>> cpu
>>>>>>>>> is a secondary issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With the speed of CPUs today, why tie yourself to a
>>>>>>>> hardware-limited
>>>> DSP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> system. If the company you buy it from is in business in five
>>>>>>>> years,
>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cost to upgrade a system like that could be much higher than just
> buying
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a newer, faster computer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And when you buy a newer, faster computer you are upgrading
>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that runs on it, all your plugins, virtual instruments, even other
>>>>>>>> software (graphics, animation, video editing, software development,
>>>>>>>> whatever else you do), in one shot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plus, low latency, better i/o integration in a pro
>>>>>>>>> enviorment..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is your best argument. But latency is not an issue in my
>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>> setup. My i/o box has direct monitoring. Even if I monitor through
>>> Logic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the latency is low enough that it hasn't been a problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The i/o integration is fine, I have 18 analog inputs and 16 analog
>>>>>>>> outputs plus stereo digital i/o directly patchable through my DAW
>>>>>>>> software and also routable from the i/o box's monitoring software.
>>> If
>>>> I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> need more i/o I can plug in another Firewire i/o box.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I run my system with a mouse and a jog/shuttle wheel add-on. I can
>>> get
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> moving fader controllers from at least four different manufacturers
>>>>>>>> which is tempting, but since I only really used the jog/shuttle
>>>>>>>> part
>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the PARIS controller I haven't needed that. Plus I've grown used
> to
>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> precision and (believe it or not) speed of mixing with the mouse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The sad truth with moast if not all native solutios is that
>>>>>>>>> it has forced a big$$$ third party solutions market, inwhic native
>>>> users
>>>>>>>>> are going back to purchase , talk back units, better than average
>>>>>>>>> converters..All
>>>>>>>>> to chase the dsp systems way of working..in the end, the native
> person
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>> not realize that they have spent just as much, if not more than
> they
>>>>>> could've
>>>>>>>>> gotten with a dsp based DAW.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A native system will be more flexible, you'll have more developers
>>> to
>>>>>>>> choose from to enhance your system, and if one of the developers
> goes
>>>>>>>> under, your system will not hit a dead end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Over the last decade I've spent way less than, for example, a
>>>>>>>> ProTools
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> system would have cost and am getting, I think, comparable results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Having used nuendo sice it's inception (2000, ),logic audio, Ican
>>> with
>>>>>>> hesitation,
>>>>>>>>> that it takes a lot of $$$ to bring those apps up to pro specs,
> and
>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>> be known, steinbergs way of integrating hardware leaves a lot to
> be
>>>>>>>>> desired..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A Quad PowerMac with extra RAM and HD, MOTU Digital Performer, a
> MOTU
>>>>>>>> Firewire i/o box or two and some third party plugins...even a 24
> moving
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fader controller and you're well under 10K.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It all comes down to individual needs and preferences, so I'm not
> really
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> saying you're wrong for what you're looking for. But for what I'm
>>>>>>>> looking for, a native system is pretty compelling.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OTOH, had PARIS MIDI support been better, had they hung around long
>>>>>>>> enough to support OSX and AU plugins, I'd still be using PARIS.
>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>> with the limitation of 44.1 or 48 sampling.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>>>> Lamont
>>>>>>>>> take care
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I dunno. Why lock into developing a new DSP system when native
> CPUs
>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so fast now (fast enough for tons of tracks/plugins) and just
>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> faster?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The folks on gearslutz will always be chasing ways to spend more
>>> money
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> on their systems (no matter what systems they have, native or
>>>>>>>>>> DSP).
>>>>>>>>>> There's no real cure for that. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's true the Mac Intel transition will take time. It's not a
>>>>>>>>>> five
>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wait, though. Over the next six months there will likely be
>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> choices for audio production that run on both Intel and PPC,
>>>>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> starting with Logic around March/April as a $50 upgrade, so they
>>> say.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Over the next year the Mac Intel hardware choices will expand
>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> laptop and desktop choices as Intel's series of chips hit the
>>>>>>>>>> market.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The roadmap is pretty much known at this point. If you want to
> go
>>>> with
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Intel, pick your best time for the transition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you want to make music using OSX right away there are plenty
> of
>>>> PPC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> choices that work today, all the way up to the quad PowerMac
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>> has
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> more muscle than you probably need. Available now and they'll
>>>>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to work after the Intel transition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guys, Some thoughts:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone noticed that since our beloved Paris
>>>>>>>>>>> DAW($2700list)there
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> pro DAW for under 10k??? Why??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know we have the Cubases ($499) Nuendo's ($1,500), Logic(1k),
>>> DP(699)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sonar($400). There are all very good naitive systems that will
> yield
>>>>>>> pro
>>>>>>>>>>> results. However, I can't belive thatthere is not one
>>>>>>>>>>> manufacture
>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Digidesign that want's to producer a DSP based DAW?? It's almost
>>>> 6 years
>>>>>>>>>>> since the plug was pulled on Paris! Yes, I did not forget about
>>>>>>>>>>> Soundscape..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My Point in this post is to bring to ligh that Paris was a
>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> served
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the "Middle ground" studio. Now, looking back, it's price point
>>> was
>>>>>> revolutionary.
>>>>>>>>>>> AND That's the point..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Today, if you're shelling out at least 10k for a PT HD system,
> your
>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> other alternative is do a naitive system..Again, I'm not saying
>>> that
>>>>>>> naitive's
>>>>>>>>>>> are bad, but we all know that there's nothing like a cool DSP
>>>>>>>>>>> DAW..Even
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> more,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it's a knwon fact that, if you wew to build your naitive system
>>> up
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pro
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> standards (AD/DA converters,mixer,DSP FX cards) you'd actually
> come
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD system.
>>>>>>>>>>> There has to be a manufactuer that will stand up and fill in the
>>>> gap
>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD & the Naitives. Any company has the balls??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Today my dream DAW would come from Mackie:
>>>>>>>>>>> -The MAckie DBX digital mixer (Dual touch screens)that also had
>>> the
>>>>>> capability
>>>>>>>>>>> to record up to 128 24/96 audio tracks. Using the same cool
>>>>>>>>>>> editing
>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>> in their earlier Hard disk recorder MDR2496. The mix has the
>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities
>>>>>>>>>>> to add up to 3or 4 UAD cards, as well as third party FX for the
>>> mixer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> would be a ground breaking product. Even though Tascam tried it,
>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SX-1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> was cool, but was too limited. Actualy, the SA-1 was a
>>>>>>>>>>> Ensoniq/EMU
>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>> first, then made it's was over to Tascam..I digress..
>>>>>>>>>>> I still hoping that the Yamaha/Steinberg marrige would yield a
> very
>>>>>> cool
>>>>>>>>>>> DM2000 metts Nuendo or 02R-96 meets Cubase sx . All in one
>>>>>>>>>>> units..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As things stands now in our current state of Personal computers
>>> based
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DAW,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> we really have not had any ground breaking technology save for
> newer
>>>>>>> faster
>>>>>>>>>>> Cpus.. Inwhich, I for one am tired of chasing the speed
>>>>>>>>>>> demon.Enough
>>>>>>> already..I
>>>>>>>>>>> say this and I work as a IT Network Consultant.. Okay :) i
>>>>>>>>>>> digress
>>>>>>>>>>> again..:)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this post grew out of neverending post over on
>>>>>>>>>>> www.gearslutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>> about Ribbon mics, Summing buss's, 5k mics, 4k pre-amps, 4k
>>>>>>>>>>> converters..
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking, why do I want to keep sinking good money into
>>>>>>>>>>> "dressing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a naitive DAW to try to sound as good as Paris does for
>>>>>>>>>>> (2,700.00
>>>> Orginal
>>>>>>>>>>> list)??? Those guys, bless their hearts are into dreaming that
> if
>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sink
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> another 5-10k in analoge summing gear, tey will have that magic
>>> ssound..
>>>>>>>>>>> So, I'm thinkink, 'Why have we gone backwards in this dAW game??
>>>> Is
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Digi has such a strangle hold on the industry,that they can
>>>>>>>>>>> dictate
>>>>>> jsut
>>>>>>>>>>> how much cool stuff reaches the lowered of the spectrum. What
> I
>>> mean
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PT LE is just enough to get frustrated to only dream and save
> up
>>>> for
>>>>>>> HD..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, we have this Apple fiasco..New machines, with new CPUS,
>>>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>> support. do they really think that thisi was good move now?? I'm
>>>> not
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> a current Mac owner and I agonise for MAc lovers and users. If
> I
>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> them,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would not upgrade for at leat 3-4 years. I digress again ..:)
>>> Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again, calling on all new and current manufactures..You a vast
> market
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro users and studios that needs more juice and pro features
>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> offereing, but we don;t want to spend 20k for it.. Soemthing
>>>>>>>>>>> along
>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3-15k
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> would do it..
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay end of rant..LaMont
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW [message #63195 is a reply to message #63083] |
Mon, 16 January 2006 18:29 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey LaMont! I hear what your saying about a mid market DAW. It's what we
all hoped Paris would have continued to be. I would love to see something
come to market, but I doubt it will happen. I gotta tell you that is a vary
hard market to tap in to. There too many cheap products out their, it's
enough to make your head swim. Just think about going to GC and all the
options there are, Yamaha, Roland, Korg, akai, Alesis, Mackie, Zoom, Fostex,
Tascam, RME, Frontier Designs, ProTools, it goes on and on. It's really
hard to get the attention of people. Paris was the best chance of that happening,
and the companies where stupid. I'm really not sure the market for a integrated
system like Paris under say 6K is big enough to work.
The problem with companies like Mackie, is they are too greedy! I was sitting
with LL Cool J the morning Mackie unveiled the Mackie d8b. First, they talked
a lot of shit about what it could do, what it was going to be able to do
, what the target price was, and when it would be available. They only got
it to pass audio that morning, they couldn't even really demo it. it took
them over two years to really get it out and get right, and I'm not sure
it was ever right??? it was a lot of hype, over priced and a big disappointment
to many.
They wanted $70,000.00 Just to open a dealership for the Mackie d8b!!! That
was Cash up front! That is not to sell anything else Mackie, to do that
that would have been another $30,000.00 to carry the rest of their line.
They don't want Audio guys selling their stuff, they want mass market dealers
like GC. The days of Greg Mackie selling quality mixers at a reasonable
price are over. Mackie gear has never gone down in price, even when it becomes
obsolete. Mackie has gone totally corporate, there are no real bargains
with Mackie, even though they have cut their cost by manufacturing in China.
With a company like Mackie it's all about the bottom line, and the American
dollar. If they did come out with something like Paris, I guaranty you it
would be over priced just like their current digital mixers. I like Mackie,
but they would be out of reach of the mid level you speak of.
I don't think Mackie would be the right company to do a mid priced DAW.
The morning Mackie showed the d8b I spoked to Greg Mackie. I told him he
should think about making the d8b a total solution. I suggested adding a
hard drive to record to, since it was a PC mobo inside the thing. I also
suggested a CD burner with mastering software, he said he would think about
work on another product to go along with the d8b. Instead of incorporating
it in to the d8b, that product turned out to be their HD recorder. Mackie
is all about slicing it and dicing it, and sell ing you the next wiz bang
box. They don't want to sell a total solution to the private studios, there's
more money in the next box.
I also told him that the biggest problem with digital mixer at that time
was not enough I/Os, and that he should consider creating break out boxes
with additional I/Os for the d8b, he thought it was a dumb idea. The bigger
studios I went to, all wanted an 02r with 100+ inputs. That still has not
been addressed in a reasonably priced digital mixer. Their solution, sell
you two digital mixers and all the extra proprietary stuff to hook them up$$$
People tried to get Greg Mackie interested in buying Paris from EMU, including
me, but he bought Soundscape instead.
To sum it up, everybody wants something different and there are already too
many choices out there, I'm not sure a MId priced DAW could do good. Price
is a factor. The companies know they can sell more systems to the bedroom
guitarist than they can to a small studio. It's less cost and a bigger market
and more money for them to sell the cheap native system stuff. It was vary
hard to get people to believe in a system like Paris back then, now I think
it would be almost impossible. It's Harder to sell a good mid priced DAW
than it looks!
I know that Paris is not the best DAW for work flow for some people anymore,
but when combined with a second computer with the latest software, Paris
is still a great choice, especially for the money.
James
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Hi Guys, Some thoughts:
>
>Has anyone noticed that since our beloved Paris DAW($2700list)there has
no
> pro DAW for under 10k??? Why??
>
>I know we have the Cubases ($499) Nuendo's ($1,500), Logic(1k), DP(699)
&
>Sonar($400). There are all very good naitive systems that will yield pro
>results. However, I can't belive thatthere is not one manufacture other
than
>Digidesign that want's to producer a DSP based DAW?? It's almost 6 years
>since the plug was pulled on Paris! Yes, I did not forget about Soundscape..
>
>My Point in this post is to bring to ligh that Paris was a product that
served
>the "Middle ground" studio. Now, looking back, it's price point was revolutionary.
> AND That's the point..
>
>Today, if you're shelling out at least 10k for a PT HD system, your only
>other alternative is do a naitive system..Again, I'm not saying that naitive's
>are bad, but we all know that there's nothing like a cool DSP DAW..Even
more,
>it's a knwon fact that, if you wew to build your naitive system up to Pro
>standards (AD/DA converters,mixer,DSP FX cards) you'd actually come to an
>PT HD system.
>There has to be a manufactuer that will stand up and fill in the gap between
>PT HD & the Naitives. Any company has the balls??
>
>Today my dream DAW would come from Mackie:
>-The MAckie DBX digital mixer (Dual touch screens)that also had the capability
>to record up to 128 24/96 audio tracks. Using the same cool editing found
>in their earlier Hard disk recorder MDR2496. The mix has the capabilities
>to add up to 3or 4 UAD cards, as well as third party FX for the mixer.
This
>would be a ground breaking product. Even though Tascam tried it, their SX-1
>was cool, but was too limited. Actualy, the SA-1 was a Ensoniq/EMU product
>first, then made it's was over to Tascam..I digress..
>I still hoping that the Yamaha/Steinberg marrige would yield a very cool
>DM2000 metts Nuendo or 02R-96 meets Cubase sx . All in one units..
>
>As things stands now in our current state of Personal computers based DAW,
>we really have not had any ground breaking technology save for newer faster
>Cpus.. Inwhich, I for one am tired of chasing the speed demon.Enough already..I
>say this and I work as a IT Network Consultant.. Okay :) i digress again..:)
>
>
>I guess this post grew out of neverending post over on www.gearslutz.com
>about Ribbon mics, Summing buss's, 5k mics, 4k pre-amps, 4k converters..
>I'm thinking, why do I want to keep sinking good money into "dressing up
>a naitive DAW to try to sound as good as Paris does for (2,700.00 Orginal
>list)??? Those guys, bless their hearts are into dreaming that if they sink
>another 5-10k in analoge summing gear, tey will have that magic ssound..
>So, I'm thinkink, 'Why have we gone backwards in this dAW game?? Is it that
>Digi has such a strangle hold on the industry,that they can dictate jsut
>how much cool stuff reaches the lowered of the spectrum. What I mean is
,
>PT LE is just enough to get frustrated to only dream and save up for HD..
>
>
>Now, we have this Apple fiasco..New machines, with new CPUS, little software
>support. do they really think that thisi was good move now?? I'm not even
>a current Mac owner and I agonise for MAc lovers and users. If I were them,
>I would not upgrade for at leat 3-4 years. I digress again ..:) Sorry.
>
>Again, calling on all new and current manufactures..You a vast market of
>Pro users and studios that needs more juice and pro features than your current
>offereing, but we don;t want to spend 20k for it.. Soemthing along say 3-15k
>would do it..
>Okay end of rant..LaMont
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW [message #63196 is a reply to message #63187] |
Mon, 16 January 2006 18:57 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Oh no, Tony, you're not brainwashed at all! That's me! PARIS sounds absolutely
gorgeous when hit really hard, nobody would deny that. But that's an issue
of how the system works when used a certain way. That way happens to be how
a generation of analog mixers worked. When someone says, "PARIS sounds amazing
when I really run it into the red and mix it like an analog board with tape"
I will be the last person to disagree. In fact, I'd love to mix my current
(fairly trad rock) band on PARIS. All of this is true.
However, when someone says "DP is muffled in the high end" or "SX gets mushy
with more than XX tracks" or "native systems sound thin" I just don't buy
it. To me that DAW CD put the burden of proof on the rest of the world. Show
me the proof, I'm ready to be convinced, ready to be shown wrong, but now
I want proof of real sonic difference, not just a preferred way to mix.
TCB
"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>Thad,
>
>I think most PARIS users here agree that when mixing "correctly" with about
>any DAW that the sound will be very close. Whatever "magic" people hear
in
>PARIS happens when the various gain stages are pushed and pulled. Now, some
>make the claim that the fact you can push PARIS into the red in various
>areas, but not get that digital clipping "gack" (and in fact can get some
>very cool changes in character) is a flaw. Well, to each his own. I also
use
>DP 4.6, and the difference in the sound of my mixes is dramatic. I always
>like my PARIS mixes better, but after all I am a brainwashed PARIS zealot,
>spreading unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo! ;>)
>
>Tony
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43cc0a29$1@linux...
>>
>> Hey Dedric,
>>
>> Here's my take on this. I bought the DAW CD from Lynn What's His Name.
I
>> listened to it. I took the tests. I took them again. I had someone jumble
>> the tracks around and play them for me again. There were tiny wisp of
>> smoke
>> differences between the "best" and the "worst." On top of that, in an
ABY
>> test I can't imagine anyone doing dramatically better than a coin flip.
>> Maybe,
>> just maybe, a handful could, but I doubt even that.
>>
>> So, for me, that put the "summing bus" issue to rest. Until someone can
>> give
>> me proof, and by proof I mean ABY testing or real matmatical analysis
or
>> resulting audio files from different systems, I will believe that all
>> properly
>> written summing busses sound essentially the same. After that summing
bus
>> CD came out suddenly the critiques of summing busses moved into other
>> areas
>> like certain frequencies (that apparently weren't on the tesing CD) and
>> higher
>> track counts and acoustic instruments and so on. When someone gets me
>> evidence
>> I'll be interested again, but until then I'm happily over here using SX
>> and
>> Live. So is DJ Krush and about a million other talented people who I am
>> happy
>> to have as my company.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>I guess I'm outnumbered in the Nuendo sucks or not debate.
>>>
>>>Interesting example of when pro gear and reputation isn't all it's cracked
>>>up to be:
>>>
>>>I got a voiceover from a top post house in my area to use to create and
>> ad
>>>for a client. I don't know what they use, but PT would be the obvious
>>>guess.
>>>
>>>The voiceover was just 30 minutes of Q&A with an expert, logged for later
>>>use - the raw files from the studio were preprocessed - heavily over
>>>compressed with no apparent attempt to address heavy sibilance before
>>>compressing the crap out of it. Their goal is probably to produce quick
>> and
>>>low cost, so they have a "preset" chain for audio, and charge $200/hr
for
>> it
>>>- no customization, just track it, burn it and send you on your way.
>>>Their
>>>rates are high, but project costs are low - you do the math, it's the
>>>Walmart approach to production.
>>>
>>>There was little I could do to remove the sibilance without audibly
>>>degrading the mids balance, and reaching diminishing returns very quickly,
>>>but I did make it sound better. Every voice over I've worked on, and
>>>heard
>>>from them sounds the same - sibilant, even in my car, from CD or on-air.
>>>
>>>The moral of the story - a lot of people call themselves pro, have pro
>>>gear,
>>>and hold a lion's share of their market to back it up, but that doesn't
>> mean
>>>the product is any better for it.
>>>
>>>I would rather be good using less than perfect gear to create a superior
>>>product than have the best, most recent and advanced gear money can buy
>> and
>>>not know what the heck I'm doing. Gear lust and aspiring for sonic
>>>nirvana
>>>is all well and good, but I had to put a limit on it and make it work
for
>>>me, rather than against me. Now I'm just trying to make a living creating
>> a
>>>great product with what I have rather than worrying about how spending
>>>$30,000 more would make my audio sound 1% wider, or the top end 2% silkier
>>>when the client is going to cram it down an FM band with 10:1 or higher
>>>compression, or rip it to a 128k or lower mp3, cutting off every sonic
>>>nicety I slaved over and invested thousands of $$ to get.
>>>
>>>I'm off. Later.
>>>
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>On 1/16/06 12:10 AM, in article 43cb38ba$1@linux, "Deej"
>>><yiruyfh@hgdgr.not>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> La Mont,
>>>>
>>>> I started noticing something sort of mushy in SX in the low end at
>>>> around
>>>> 24 tracks. It could very well be that I just don't know how to mix on
>> a native
>>>> system though. Fire it over lightpipe into the Paris mixer and it gets
>> big
>>>> again. I'm still summing in Paris and actually setting levels and
>>>> fader/FX
>>>> automation on both DAWs. I'm getting basic fader moves done in SX and
>> then
>>>> tweaking them in Paris. It's pretty wild to watch a mix happen here.
I'm
>>>> using a fair amount of analog gear in my mixes. I've got 10 analog I/O
>> in
>>>> my Cubase DAW and I'm using them all for inserts of analog comps and
>>>> EQ's.
>>>> In Paris, I'm patching in analog qand digital reverbs and delays. For
>> a while
>>>> I was paranoid about signal degradation with this many AD/DA's. Now
I
>> don't
>>>> even think twice.
>>>>
>>>> Last night Tony posted up a song that I mixed on his site.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mercysakes.com/paris/Doug%20Joyce/Faith%20In%20Lo ve/
>>>>
>>>> It's about finished, maybe a little more LF and vocal rebalancing and
>> a little
>>>> de-essing that I'm going to add. There are 30 tracks-12 drum tracks,
>>>> vocal
>>>> track, 15 acoustic instrument tracks and 3 x electric bass tracks.
>>>> They've
>>>> got external processors all over them....10 x AD/DA's with analog
>>>> processors
>>>> in cubase Sx and another 6 x AD/DA's in Paris, but I'm happy with the
>>>> mix......and
>>>> what's most important, so is the client. It doesn't have that linearity
>> and
>>>> accuracy that I hear in the new PTHD, but we were going after a retro
>> feel
>>>> and I think we achieved it. I think the Paris mix engine has a lot to
>> do
>>>> with it all hanging together. It just doesn't sound at all the same
if
>> I
>>>> sum it in SX. Much smaller sounding. this mix has had no *mastering*,
>> though
>>>> NoLimit was kissing the Paris mix bus.
>>>>
>>>> Deej
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpo@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> hey Dedric, a friend of mine has upgrade to Sonar5 and we can hear
the
>>>>> difference
>>>>> form version 4. Version 4 sound was very balnd , vanillia if you will.
>>>>> version
>>>>> 5 mix summing sounds very wide, with more dept than version 4..So,
they
>>>> did
>>>>> soemthing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: That's what I think Nuendos/SX weak point. in theory,their 32bit
>>>>> floating
>>>>> point mixer/summing bus was to allow for more audio options up and
down
>>>> the
>>>>> audio bandwdith, but, things(mixes) start to fall apart at a certain
>> point.
>>>>> 32bit float is great for plugins, limited for summming with high track
>>>>> counts.
>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>> ID would be cool, even if it looks like a psychedelic video switching
>> mixer
>>>>>> from the 70's, but the reviews on functionality and increased
>>>>>> productivity
>>>>>> are rather convincing. Price is a bit steep though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of these wouldn't be bad either:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/system_5-mc/system_5-m c.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/mc/mc.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's Nuendo on screen in both links.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one still gets my vote for geek heaven and client wow factor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.smartav.net/images/E72Splash1-1024x768.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW - I'm guessing that if Steinberg gets the 64 bit update right
with
>>>> a
>>>>> 64
>>>>>> bit full audio path, summing boxes could be just another color in
the
>> tool
>>>>>> palette, but far from necessary, and likely less spacious and clear,
>> but
>>>>>> that's more optimism than guarantee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to hear Sonar 5 in full 64-bit glory to see if 64-bit
>>>>>> (assuming
>>>>>> Cakewalk isn't blowing smoke) lives up the paper specs on the concept,
>>>> but
>>>>>> I'm hesitant to buy into the hype until proven sonically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/15/06 10:45 PM, in article 43cb24d5$1@linux, "Deej"
>>>>>> <hdfajkl@hjkal.buzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This would be my idea of an optimized productivity scenario if I
was
>>>> using
>>>>>>> Nuendo and had the budget.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.arbitermt.co.uk/nuendo/products/idcontroller.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A bit pricey, but definitely specific to the application and with
a
>> moose
>>>>>>> of a DAW running the software and DSP, a nice rack of Myteks or
>>>>>>> Lavry's
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> tracking and patching external processors, and a decent summing box,
>>>> I
>>>>> might
>>>>>>> be convinced to jump ship.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "LaMont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> I need may not be what you need and that could be the root of this
>>>>>>>> discussion)."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed.. :)
>>>>>>>> But, the rest of your post illustrates my points. Some Producer
>>>>>>>> buddies
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> mine in town, were having this same discusion about amonth or so
>>>>>>>> ago.
>>>>> They
>>>>>>>> are all Mac user, with a few giga machines. The consesus for us
all
>>>> is
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> we have grown tired of the "upgrade" syndrome that, for one forces
>> the
>>>>>>>> non-computer
>>>>>>>> music guy to become so entrenched with personal computer technology,
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> they can't focus on music..At the end of the conversation, we all
>> agreed
>>>>>>>> that having a system like Pro-Tools HD would "serve" us best with
>> out
>>>>> having
>>>>>>>> to "think" or stay on the CPU upgrade "teadmill" if you will. I've
>> been
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> that treadmill since 97,and as I look back on how many great working
>>>>> system
>>>>>>>> setups I've detroyed due becuase I was trying to play the CPU sped
>>>> game.
>>>>>>>> I've lost decnet paying mixng and production jobs becuase my systems
>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> not as stable as I had them before I "upgraded" to a faster cpu
and
>>>> OS..
>>>>>>>> I one of our suites we still have PT Mix cube running on a G4(450)
>> OS9
>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>> rock solid stable.. One of my Paris setup still has Win 98se..Stable
>>>>> stable
>>>>>>>> stable:)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2 staff producers went chasing the Apple speed dream , from Dual
>>>>>>>> 867s
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> Dual G5(2.5s) on OSX..Man, the agony and frustrations on their faces
>>>>> due
>>>>>>>> to the fact that they had serious deadlines. That's what spurred
our
>>>>>>>> conversations
>>>>>>>> about it's either PTHD or a slotion with DM2000/02r96 with Nuendo/PT
>>>>> Radar
>>>>>>>> with the yammy difital mixer.. Each set up cost. But, we demand
a
>> solid
>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>> system, that you do not have to make execues to yourself and the
>>>>>>>> client..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dedric may have said it best when he stated that doing a dedicated
>> dsp
>>>>> system
>>>>>>>> manybe a daughting task$$ Or so they say.. Stuff coming out of China
>>>>> (Phonic
>>>>>>>> firewire) mixers as well as microphones and other products are
>>>>>>>> astounding
>>>>>>>> deals. Just maybe the solution I'm after will come from China?
>>>>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hey Jaimie,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Athough native cpus are fast, don't think that you are getting
off
>>>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>>>> Playing the speed keep up game every 2 years is 1) not
>>>>>>>>>> productive..2)
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>> expensive.. think about it..??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both native and DSP-based can be expensive. Native can be much
less
>>>>>>>>> expensive though, if budget is limited. For example, on the low
end
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> Mac Mini comes with Garage Band and you can do a lot with that
and
>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> inexpensive Firewire or USB i/o box for a total cost of less than
>> $1000.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> (what I need may not be what you need and that could be the root
>> of
>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> discussion).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are DSP-based systems out there that come with their own
>>>>>>>>> mixer/burner/software in a table-top format without requiring a
>>>>>>>>> computer. They cost as much or more as a native system with a fast
>>>>>>>>> computer. If you want to get off of the computer upgrade cycle,
>>>>>>>>> they're
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> available and they do what they do pretty well. But they aren't
>>>>>>>>> particularly upgradable and upgradability is a big draw for
>>>>>>>>> computer-based systems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Computer-based systems that include separate DSP cards have some
>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> advantages and upgrade costs of native systems and some of the
>>>>>>>>> disadvantages and limitations of dedicated, non-computer-based
>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PARIS illustrates the disadvantages very well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I bought an Intel computer for PARIS and bought an OS upgrade along
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> way. A few years later I bought a faster G4 computer for PARIS
and
>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> was a noticable improvement. I also bought an upgrade for the PARIS
>>>>>>>>> software which added useful new features and some unfinished,
>>>>>>>>> broken
>>>>>>>>> features. It was nice to be able to upgrade but it did cost money
>> just
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as a native system would have. I was limited to the PARIS hardware
>>>>>>>>> running on OS9, and the developers dropped support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PARIS would never get faster better, it was what it was. For me,
>> the
>>>>>>>>> freeze point in development stopped just short of what I needed.
>> Close,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but forever short. So I sold it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile CPUs had gotten much, much faster and having separate
DSP
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the DAW had lost much of its advantage. I switched to a native
>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>> running on the same G4 computer I had purchased for PARIS, but
>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>> native software along with a new i/o box and a better operating
>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The transition did not cost a lot overall and the sale of PARIS
>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> much covered it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did live on the bleeding edge for a while, though, with the
>>>>>>>>> transition
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to OSX and I had to try several Firewire interfaces to find a solid
>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After a few years I upgraded to a new computer but kept the
>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i/o box I was already using. I sold the previous computer, so the
>>>>>>>>> upgrade cost was not high. I upgraded the native software and
>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OS several times and the increase in capability was worth the
>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>> costs, just as it would have been with a DSP based system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I had to buy from scratch today, I'd either pick up a Quad
>>>>>>>>> PowerMac
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or save a bunch of money and get a dual G5 PowerMac, add extra
RAM
>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HD, Digital Performer or Logic, a Firewire i/o box or two and some
>>>> third
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> party plugins. That system would probably last for the next ten
>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even if I added a 24 moving fader controller it would be well under
>>>>> 10K.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, what I do and what you do may be different so your mileage
>> may
>>>>> vary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My current 2.5GHZ dual G5 is fast enough that I don't feel the
need
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> upgrade it for audio production. It could go for the next decade
>> with
>>>>>>>>> slowing me down.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However if I decide to upgrade it at some point for animation or
>> video
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> production, the audio side will come along for the ride at no extra
>>>>> cost.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At least with a DSP based sytem, you know what you have, and the
>> native
>>>>>>>> cpu
>>>>>>>>>> is a secondary issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With the speed of CPUs today, why tie yourself to a
>>>>>>>>> hardware-limited
>>>>> DSP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> system. If the company you buy it from is in business in five
>>>>>>>>> years,
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cost to upgrade a system like that could be much higher than just
>> buying
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a newer, faster computer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And when you buy a newer, faster computer you are upgrading
>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that runs on it, all your plugins, virtual instruments, even other
>>>>>>>>> software (graphics, animation, video editing, software development,
>>>>>>>>> whatever else you do), in one shot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Plus, low latency, better i/o integration in a pro
>>>>>>>>>> enviorment..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is your best argument. But latency is not an issue in my
>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>> setup. My i/o box has direct monitoring. Even if I monitor through
>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the latency is low enough that it hasn't been a problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The i/o integration is fine, I have 18 analog inputs and 16 analog
>>>>>>>>> outputs plus stereo digital i/o directly patchable through my DAW
>>>>>>>>> software and also routable from the i/o box's monitoring software.
>>>> If
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> need more i/o I can plug in another Firewire i/o box.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I run my system with a mouse and a jog/shuttle wheel add-on. I
can
>>>> get
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> moving fader controllers from at least four different manufacturers
>>>>>>>>> which is tempting, but since I only really used the jog/shuttle
>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the PARIS controller I haven't needed that. Plus I've grown used
>> to
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> precision and (believe it or not) speed of mixing with the mouse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The sad truth with moast if not all native solutios is that
>>>>>>>>>> it has forced a big$$$ third party solutions market, inwhic native
>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> are going back to purchase , talk back units, better than average
>>>>>>>>>> converters..All
>>>>>>>>>> to chase the dsp systems way of working..in the end, the native
>> person
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>> not realize that they have spent just as much, if not more than
>> they
>>>>>>> could've
>>>>>>>>>> gotten with a dsp based DAW.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A native system will be more flexible, you'll have more developers
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> choose from to enhance your system, and if one of the developers
>> goes
>>>>>>>>> under, your system will not hit a dead end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Over the last decade I've spent way less than, for example, a
>>>>>>>>> ProTools
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> system would have cost and am getting, I think, comparable results.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Having used nuendo sice it's inception (2000, ),logic audio, Ican
>>>> with
>>>>>>>> hesitation,
>>>>>>>>>> that it takes a lot of $$$ to bring those apps up to pro specs,
>> and
>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>> be known, steinbergs way of integrating hardware leaves a lot
to
>> be
>>>>>>>>>> desired..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A Quad PowerMac with extra RAM and HD, MOTU Digital Performer,
a
>> MOTU
>>>>>>>>> Firewire i/o box or two and some third party plugins...even a 24
>> moving
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fader controller and you're well under 10K.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It all comes down to individual needs and preferences, so I'm not
>> really
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> saying you're wrong for what you're looking for. But for what I'm
>>>>>>>>> looking for, a native system is pretty compelling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OTOH, had PARIS MIDI support been better, had they hung around
long
>>>>>>>>> enough to support OSX and AU plugins, I'd still be using PARIS.
>>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>> with the limitation of 44.1 or 48 sampling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>>>>> Lamont
>>>>>>>>>> take care
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I dunno. Why lock into developing a new DSP system when native
>> CPUs
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> so fast now (fast enough for tons of tracks/plugins) and just
>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> faster?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The folks on gearslutz will always be chasing ways to spend more
>>>> money
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> on their systems (no matter what systems they have, native or
>>>>>>>>>>> DSP).
>>>>>>>>>>> There's no real cure for that. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's true the Mac Intel transition will take time. It's not a
>>>>>>>>>>> five
>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wait, though. Over the next six months there will likely be
>>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> choices for audio production that run on both Intel and PPC,
>>>>>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> starting with Logic around March/April as a $50 upgrade, so they
>>>> say.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Over the next year the Mac Intel hardware choices will expand
>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> laptop and desktop choices as Intel's series of chips hit the
>>>>>>>>>>> market.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The roadmap is pretty much known at this point. If you want to
>> go
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Intel, pick your best time for the transition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to make music using OSX right away there are plenty
>> of
>>>>> PPC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> choices that work today, all the way up to the quad PowerMac
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> more muscle than you probably need. Available now and they'll
>>>>>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to work after the Intel transition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guys, Some thoughts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone noticed that since our beloved Paris
>>>>>>>>>>>> DAW($2700list)there
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> pro DAW for under 10k??? Why??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know we have the Cubases ($499) Nuendo's ($1,500), Logic(1k),
>>>> DP(699)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sonar($400). There are all very good naitive systems that will
>> yield
>>>>>>>> pro
>>>>>>>>>>>> results. However, I can't belive thatthere is not one
>>>>>>>>>>>> manufacture
>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Digidesign that want's to producer a DSP based DAW?? It's almost
>>>>> 6 years
>>>>>>>>>>>> since the plug was pulled on Paris! Yes, I did not forget about
>>>>>>>>>>>> Soundscape..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My Point in this post is to bring to ligh that Paris was a
>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> served
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the "Middle ground" studio. Now, looking back, it's price point
>>>> was
>>>>>>> revolutionary.
>>>>>>>>>>>> AND That's the point..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Today, if you're shelling out at least 10k for a PT HD system,
>> your
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> other alternative is do a naitive system..Again, I'm not saying
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> naitive's
>>>>>>>>>>>> are bad, but we all know that there's nothing like a cool DSP
>>>>>>>>>>>> DAW..Even
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> more,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a knwon fact that, if you wew to build your naitive system
>>>> up
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pro
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> standards (AD/DA converters,mixer,DSP FX cards) you'd actually
>> come
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD system.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There has to be a manufactuer that will stand up and fill in
the
>>>>> gap
>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD & the Naitives. Any company has the balls??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Today my dream DAW would come from Mackie:
>>>>>>>>>>>> -The MAckie DBX digital mixer (Dual touch screens)that also
had
>>>> the
>>>>>>> capability
>>>>>>>>>>>> to record up to 128 24/96 audio tracks. Using the same cool
>>>>>>>>>>>> editing
>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>> in their earlier Hard disk recorder MDR2496. The mix has the
>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities
>>>>>>>>>>>> to add up to 3or 4 UAD cards, as well as third party FX for
the
>>>> mixer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a ground breaking product. Even though Tascam tried
it,
>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SX-1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> was cool, but was too limited. Actualy, the SA-1 was a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ensoniq/EMU
>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>>> first, then made it's was over to Tascam..I digress..
>>>>>>>>>>>> I still hoping that the Yamaha/Steinberg marrige would yield
a
>> very
>>>>>>> cool
>>>>>>>>>>>> DM2000 metts Nuendo or 02R-96 meets Cubase sx . All in one
>>>>>>>>>>>> units..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As things stands now in our current state of Personal computers
>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DAW,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> we really have not had any ground breaking technology save for
>> newer
>>>>>>>> faster
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cpus.. Inwhich, I for one am tired of chasing the speed
>>>>>>>>>>>> demon.Enough
>>>>>>>> already..I
>>>>>>>>>>>> say this and I work as a IT Network Consultant.. Okay :) i
>>>>>>>>>>>> digress
>>>>>>>>>>>> again..:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this post grew out of neverending post over on
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.gearslutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ribbon mics, Summing buss's, 5k mics, 4k pre-amps, 4k
>>>>>>>>>>>> converters..
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking, why do I want to keep sinking good money into
>>>>>>>>>>>> "dressing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a naitive DAW to try to sound as good as Paris does for
>>>>>>>>>>>> (2,700.00
>>>>> Orginal
>>>>>>>>>>>> list)??? Those guys, bless their hearts are into dreaming that
>> if
>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> sink
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> another 5-10k in analoge summing gear, tey will have that magic
>>>> ssound..
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I'm thinkink, 'Why have we gone backwards in this dAW game??
>>>>> Is
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Digi has such a strangle hold on the industry,that they can
>>>>>>>>>>>> dictate
>>>>>>> jsut
>>>>>>>>>>>> how much cool stuff reaches the lowered of the spectrum. What
>> I
>>>> mean
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PT LE is just enough to get frustrated to only dream and save
>> up
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> HD..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, we have this Apple fiasco..New machines, with new CPUS,
>>>>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>>> support. do they really think that thisi was good move now??
I'm
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> a current Mac owner and I agonise for MAc lovers and users.
If
>> I
>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> them,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would not upgrade for at leat 3-4 years. I digress again ..:)
>>>> Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, calling on all new and current manufactures..You a vast
>> market
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pro users and studios that needs more juice and pro features
>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> offereing, but we don;t want to spend 20k for it.. Soemthing
>>>>>>>>>>>> along
>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3-15k
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> would do it..
>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay end of rant..LaMont
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW [message #63209 is a reply to message #63185] |
Mon, 16 January 2006 20:25 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Thad,
I hear ya. I did quite a few summing tests between various DAWs and while
there were technical differences between a couple, there were few audible
differences. I haven't listened to the DAWSUM sampler in a while, but found
the same thing you did at the time. My own tests yielded similar results
for the DAWs I was able to include.
I found it very interesting to read recently in one of the tech/electronic
music mags about a DJ who remixed for major artists (Madonna for one?) on
nothing but his Kurzweil K2500. No outboard gear, no console, no DAW,
nothing. Just one keyboard workstation. He used the onboard sampler to
record, edit, mix, along with onboard compression, reverb, EQ, etc - "heresy
I say, stone him for breaking every rule in the book!". He had four or five
major/superstar acts on his credit list before he bought a computer with, I
think, Logic. Still no SSL, Neve, or outboard Lexicons or LA2As. Granted,
that's a specific market that such a sound works when done well. And of
course recording and mixing a folk, classical or jazz record on a keyboard
workstation would be ill advised, but even that could be done if so desired.
Still, I was impressed and rather humbled. He made perhaps the simplest
"studio" work very effectively at a very high and very successful level.
That doesn't diminish the value of quality gear, but it just goes to show
that success is more about carving your own niche by doing something
interesting that people want and being diligent with it, than doing it the
way everyone expects us to hoping to attract success.
Regards,
Dedric
On 1/16/06 3:03 PM, in article 43cc0a29$1@linux, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com>
wrote:
>
> Hey Dedric,
>
> Here's my take on this. I bought the DAW CD from Lynn What's His Name. I
> listened to it. I took the tests. I took them again. I had someone jumble
> the tracks around and play them for me again. There were tiny wisp of smoke
> differences between the "best" and the "worst." On top of that, in an ABY
> test I can't imagine anyone doing dramatically better than a coin flip. Maybe,
> just maybe, a handful could, but I doubt even that.
>
> So, for me, that put the "summing bus" issue to rest. Until someone can give
> me proof, and by proof I mean ABY testing or real matmatical analysis or
> resulting audio files from different systems, I will believe that all properly
> written summing busses sound essentially the same. After that summing bus
> CD came out suddenly the critiques of summing busses moved into other areas
> like certain frequencies (that apparently weren't on the tesing CD) and higher
> track counts and acoustic instruments and so on. When someone gets me evidence
> I'll be interested again, but until then I'm happily over here using SX and
> Live. So is DJ Krush and about a million other talented people who I am happy
> to have as my company.
>
> TCB
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> I guess I'm outnumbered in the Nuendo sucks or not debate.
>>
>> Interesting example of when pro gear and reputation isn't all it's cracked
>> up to be:
>>
>> I got a voiceover from a top post house in my area to use to create and
> ad
>> for a client. I don't know what they use, but PT would be the obvious
>> guess.
>>
>> The voiceover was just 30 minutes of Q&A with an expert, logged for later
>> use - the raw files from the studio were preprocessed - heavily over
>> compressed with no apparent attempt to address heavy sibilance before
>> compressing the crap out of it. Their goal is probably to produce quick
> and
>> low cost, so they have a "preset" chain for audio, and charge $200/hr for
> it
>> - no customization, just track it, burn it and send you on your way. Their
>> rates are high, but project costs are low - you do the math, it's the
>> Walmart approach to production.
>>
>> There was little I could do to remove the sibilance without audibly
>> degrading the mids balance, and reaching diminishing returns very quickly,
>> but I did make it sound better. Every voice over I've worked on, and heard
>> from them sounds the same - sibilant, even in my car, from CD or on-air.
>>
>> The moral of the story - a lot of people call themselves pro, have pro gear,
>> and hold a lion's share of their market to back it up, but that doesn't
> mean
>> the product is any better for it.
>>
>> I would rather be good using less than perfect gear to create a superior
>> product than have the best, most recent and advanced gear money can buy
> and
>> not know what the heck I'm doing. Gear lust and aspiring for sonic nirvana
>> is all well and good, but I had to put a limit on it and make it work for
>> me, rather than against me. Now I'm just trying to make a living creating
> a
>> great product with what I have rather than worrying about how spending
>> $30,000 more would make my audio sound 1% wider, or the top end 2% silkier
>> when the client is going to cram it down an FM band with 10:1 or higher
>> compression, or rip it to a 128k or lower mp3, cutting off every sonic
>> nicety I slaved over and invested thousands of $$ to get.
>>
>> I'm off. Later.
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 1/16/06 12:10 AM, in article 43cb38ba$1@linux, "Deej" <yiruyfh@hgdgr.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW [message #63214 is a reply to message #63196] |
Mon, 16 January 2006 21:17 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Cool. I get what you were saying now.
Tony
On 1/16/06 8:57 PM, in article 43cc4f04$1@linux, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com>
wrote:
>
> Oh no, Tony, you're not brainwashed at all! That's me! PARIS sounds absolutely
> gorgeous when hit really hard, nobody would deny that. But that's an issue
> of how the system works when used a certain way. That way happens to be how
> a generation of analog mixers worked. When someone says, "PARIS sounds amazing
> when I really run it into the red and mix it like an analog board with tape"
> I will be the last person to disagree. In fact, I'd love to mix my current
> (fairly trad rock) band on PARIS. All of this is true.
>
> However, when someone says "DP is muffled in the high end" or "SX gets mushy
> with more than XX tracks" or "native systems sound thin" I just don't buy
> it. To me that DAW CD put the burden of proof on the rest of the world. Show
> me the proof, I'm ready to be convinced, ready to be shown wrong, but now
> I want proof of real sonic difference, not just a preferred way to mix.
>
> TCB
>
> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>> Thad,
>>
>> I think most PARIS users here agree that when mixing "correctly" with about
>
>> any DAW that the sound will be very close. Whatever "magic" people hear
> in
>> PARIS happens when the various gain stages are pushed and pulled. Now, some
>
>> make the claim that the fact you can push PARIS into the red in various
>
>> areas, but not get that digital clipping "gack" (and in fact can get some
>
>> very cool changes in character) is a flaw. Well, to each his own. I also
> use
>> DP 4.6, and the difference in the sound of my mixes is dramatic. I always
>
>> like my PARIS mixes better, but after all I am a brainwashed PARIS zealot,
>
>> spreading unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo! ;>)
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:43cc0a29$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Hey Dedric,
>>>
>>> Here's my take on this. I bought the DAW CD from Lynn What's His Name.
> I
>>> listened to it. I took the tests. I took them again. I had someone jumble
>>> the tracks around and play them for me again. There were tiny wisp of
>
>>> smoke
>>> differences between the "best" and the "worst." On top of that, in an
> ABY
>>> test I can't imagine anyone doing dramatically better than a coin flip.
>
>>> Maybe,
>>> just maybe, a handful could, but I doubt even that.
>>>
>>> So, for me, that put the "summing bus" issue to rest. Until someone can
>
>>> give
>>> me proof, and by proof I mean ABY testing or real matmatical analysis
> or
>>> resulting audio files from different systems, I will believe that all
>
>>> properly
>>> written summing busses sound essentially the same. After that summing
> bus
>>> CD came out suddenly the critiques of summing busses moved into other
>
>>> areas
>>> like certain frequencies (that apparently weren't on the tesing CD) and
>
>>> higher
>>> track counts and acoustic instruments and so on. When someone gets me
>
>>> evidence
>>> I'll be interested again, but until then I'm happily over here using SX
>
>>> and
>>> Live. So is DJ Krush and about a million other talented people who I am
>
>>> happy
>>> to have as my company.
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> I guess I'm outnumbered in the Nuendo sucks or not debate.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting example of when pro gear and reputation isn't all it's cracked
>>>> up to be:
>>>>
>>>> I got a voiceover from a top post house in my area to use to create and
>>> ad
>>>> for a client. I don't know what they use, but PT would be the obvious
>>>> guess.
>>>>
>>>> The voiceover was just 30 minutes of Q&A with an expert, logged for later
>>>> use - the raw files from the studio were preprocessed - heavily over
>>>> compressed with no apparent attempt to address heavy sibilance before
>>>> compressing the crap out of it. Their goal is probably to produce quick
>>> and
>>>> low cost, so they have a "preset" chain for audio, and charge $200/hr
> for
>>> it
>>>> - no customization, just track it, burn it and send you on your way.
>>>> Their
>>>> rates are high, but project costs are low - you do the math, it's the
>>>> Walmart approach to production.
>>>>
>>>> There was little I could do to remove the sibilance without audibly
>>>> degrading the mids balance, and reaching diminishing returns very quickly,
>>>> but I did make it sound better. Every voice over I've worked on, and
>
>>>> heard
>>>> from them sounds the same - sibilant, even in my car, from CD or on-air.
>>>>
>>>> The moral of the story - a lot of people call themselves pro, have pro
>
>>>> gear,
>>>> and hold a lion's share of their market to back it up, but that doesn't
>>> mean
>>>> the product is any better for it.
>>>>
>>>> I would rather be good using less than perfect gear to create a superior
>>>> product than have the best, most recent and advanced gear money can buy
>>> and
>>>> not know what the heck I'm doing. Gear lust and aspiring for sonic
>>>> nirvana
>>>> is all well and good, but I had to put a limit on it and make it work
> for
>>>> me, rather than against me. Now I'm just trying to make a living creating
>>> a
>>>> great product with what I have rather than worrying about how spending
>>>> $30,000 more would make my audio sound 1% wider, or the top end 2% silkier
>>>> when the client is going to cram it down an FM band with 10:1 or higher
>>>> compression, or rip it to a 128k or lower mp3, cutting off every sonic
>>>> nicety I slaved over and invested thousands of $$ to get.
>>>>
>>>> I'm off. Later.
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> On 1/16/06 12:10 AM, in article 43cb38ba$1@linux, "Deej"
>>>> <yiruyfh@hgdgr.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> La Mont,
>>>>>
>>>>> I started noticing something sort of mushy in SX in the low end at
>>>>> around
>>>>> 24 tracks. It could very well be that I just don't know how to mix on
>>> a native
>>>>> system though. Fire it over lightpipe into the Paris mixer and it gets
>>> big
>>>>> again. I'm still summing in Paris and actually setting levels and
>>>>> fader/FX
>>>>> automation on both DAWs. I'm getting basic fader moves done in SX and
>>> then
>>>>> tweaking them in Paris. It's pretty wild to watch a mix happen here.
> I'm
>>>>> using a fair amount of analog gear in my mixes. I've got 10 analog I/O
>>> in
>>>>> my Cubase DAW and I'm using them all for inserts of analog comps and
>
>>>>> EQ's.
>>>>> In Paris, I'm patching in analog qand digital reverbs and delays. For
>>> a while
>>>>> I was paranoid about signal degradation with this many AD/DA's. Now
> I
>>> don't
>>>>> even think twice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last night Tony posted up a song that I mixed on his site.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.mercysakes.com/paris/Doug%20Joyce/Faith%20In%20Lo ve/
>>>>>
>>>>> It's about finished, maybe a little more LF and vocal rebalancing and
>>> a little
>>>>> de-essing that I'm going to add. There are 30 tracks-12 drum tracks,
>
>>>>> vocal
>>>>> track, 15 acoustic instrument tracks and 3 x electric bass tracks.
>>>>> They've
>>>>> got external processors all over them....10 x AD/DA's with analog
>>>>> processors
>>>>> in cubase Sx and another 6 x AD/DA's in Paris, but I'm happy with the
>>>>> mix......and
>>>>> what's most important, so is the client. It doesn't have that linearity
>>> and
>>>>> accuracy that I hear in the new PTHD, but we were going after a retro
>>> feel
>>>>> and I think we achieved it. I think the Paris mix engine has a lot to
>>> do
>>>>> with it all hanging together. It just doesn't sound at all the same
> if
>>> I
>>>>> sum it in SX. Much smaller sounding. this mix has had no *mastering*,
>>> though
>>>>> NoLimit was kissing the Paris mix bus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deej
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpo@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hey Dedric, a friend of mine has upgrade to Sonar5 and we can hear
> the
>>>>>> difference
>>>>>> form version 4. Version 4 sound was very balnd , vanillia if you will.
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> 5 mix summing sounds very wide, with more dept than version 4..So,
> they
>>>>> did
>>>>>> soemthing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: That's what I think Nuendos/SX weak point. in theory,their 32bit
>>>>>> floating
>>>>>> point mixer/summing bus was to allow for more audio options up and
> down
>>>>> the
>>>>>> audio bandwdith, but, things(mixes) start to fall apart at a certain
>>> point.
>>>>>> 32bit float is great for plugins, limited for summming with high track
>>>>>> counts.
>>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> ID would be cool, even if it looks like a psychedelic video switching
>>> mixer
>>>>>>> from the 70's, but the reviews on functionality and increased
>>>>>>> productivity
>>>>>>> are rather convincing. Price is a bit steep though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of these wouldn't be bad either:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/system_5-mc/system_5-m c.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or maybe,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/mc/mc.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's Nuendo on screen in both links.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This one still gets my vote for geek heaven and client wow factor:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.smartav.net/images/E72Splash1-1024x768.jpg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW - I'm guessing that if Steinberg gets the 64 bit update right
> with
>>>>> a
>>>>>> 64
>>>>>>> bit full audio path, summing boxes could be just another color in
> the
>>> tool
>>>>>>> palette, but far from necessary, and likely less spacious and clear,
>>> but
>>>>>>> that's more optimism than guarantee.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to hear Sonar 5 in full 64-bit glory to see if 64-bit
>
>>>>>>> (assuming
>>>>>>> Cakewalk isn't blowing smoke) lives up the paper specs on the concept,
>>>>> but
>>>>>>> I'm hesitant to buy into the hype until proven sonically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/15/06 10:45 PM, in article 43cb24d5$1@linux, "Deej"
>>>>>>> <hdfajkl@hjkal.buzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This would be my idea of an optimized productivity scenario if I
> was
>>>>> using
>>>>>>>> Nuendo and had the budget.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.arbitermt.co.uk/nuendo/products/idcontroller.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A bit pricey, but definitely specific to the application and with
> a
>>> moose
>>>>>>>> of a DAW running the software and DSP, a nice rack of Myteks or
>>>>>>>> Lavry's
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> tracking and patching external processors, and a decent summing box,
>>>>> I
>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>> be convinced to jump ship.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "LaMont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
>
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> I need may not be what you need and that could be the root of this
>>>>>>>>> discussion)."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed.. :)
>>>>>>>>> But, the rest of your post illustrates my points. Some Producer
>
>>>>>>>>> buddies
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> mine in town, were having this same discusion about amonth or so
>
>>>>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>> are all Mac user, with a few giga machines. The consesus for us
> all
>>>>> is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> we have grown tired of the "upgrade" syndrome that, for one forces
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> non-computer
>>>>>>>>> music guy to become so entrenched with personal computer technology,
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> they can't focus on music..At the end of the conversation, we all
>>> agreed
>>>>>>>>> that having a system like Pro-Tools HD would "serve" us best with
>>> out
>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>> to "think" or stay on the CPU upgrade "teadmill" if you will. I've
>>> been
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> that treadmill since 97,and as I look back on how many great working
>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>> setups I've detroyed due becuase I was trying to play the CPU sped
>>>>> game.
>>>>>>>>> I've lost decnet paying mixng and production jobs becuase my systems
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> not as stable as I had them before I "upgraded" to a faster cpu
> and
>>>>> OS..
>>>>>>>>> I one of our suites we still have PT Mix cube running on a G4(450)
>>> OS9
>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>> rock solid stable.. One of my Paris setup still has Win 98se..Stable
>>>>>> stable
>>>>>>>>> stable:)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2 staff producers went chasing the Apple speed dream , from Dual
>
>>>>>>>>> 867s
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> Dual G5(2.5s) on OSX..Man, the agony and frustrations on their faces
>>>>>> due
>>>>>>>>> to the fact that they had serious deadlines. That's what spurred
> our
>>>>>>>>> conversations
>>>>>>>>> about it's either PTHD or a slotion with DM2000/02r96 with Nuendo/PT
>>>>>> Radar
>>>>>>>>> with the yammy difital mixer.. Each set up cost. But, we demand
> a
>>> solid
>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>> system, that you do not have to make execues to yourself and the
>
>>>>>>>>> client..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dedric may have said it best when he stated that doing a dedicated
>>> dsp
>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>> manybe a daughting task$$ Or so they say.. Stuff coming out of China
>>>>>> (Phonic
>>>>>>>>> firewire) mixers as well as microphones and other products are
>>>>>>>>> astounding
>>>>>>>>> deals. Just maybe the solution I'm after will come from China?
>>>>>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Jaimie,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Athough native cpus are fast, don't think that you are getting
> off
>>>>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>> Playing the speed keep up game every 2 years is 1) not
>>>>>>>>>>> productive..2)
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>> expensive.. think about it..??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Both native and DSP-based can be expensive. Native can be much
> less
>>>>>>>>>> expensive though, if budget is limited. For example, on the low
> end
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> Mac Mini comes with Garage Band and you can do a lot with that
> and
>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> inexpensive Firewire or USB i/o box for a total cost of less than
>>> $1000.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
>
>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>> (what I need may not be what you need and that could be the root
>>> of
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> discussion).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are DSP-based systems out there that come with their own
>>>>>>>>>> mixer/burner/software in a table-top format without requiring a
>>>>>>>>>> computer. They cost as much or more as a native system with a fast
>>>>>>>>>> computer. If you want to get off of the computer upgrade cycle,
>
>>>>>>>>>> they're
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> available and they do what they do pretty well. But they aren't
>>>>>>>>>> particularly upgradable and upgradability is a big draw for
>>>>>>>>>> computer-based systems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Computer-based systems that include separate DSP cards have some
>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> advantages and upgrade costs of native systems and some of the
>>>>>>>>>> disadvantages and limitations of dedicated, non-computer-based
>
>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PARIS illustrates the disadvantages very well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I bought an Intel computer for PARIS and bought an OS upgrade along
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> way. A few years later I bought a faster G4 computer for PARIS
> and
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> was a noticable improvement. I also bought an upgrade for the PARIS
>>>>>>>>>> software which added useful new features and some unfinished,
>>>>>>>>>> broken
>>>>>>>>>> features. It was nice to be able to upgrade but it did cost money
>>> just
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as a native system would have. I was limited to the PARIS hardware
>>>>>>>>>> running on OS9, and the developers dropped support.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PARIS would never get faster better, it was what it was. For me,
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> freeze point in development stopped just short of what I needed.
>>> Close,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but forever short. So I sold it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile CPUs had gotten much, much faster and having separate
> DSP
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the DAW had lost much of its advantage. I switched to a native
>
>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>> running on the same G4 computer I had purchased for PARIS, but
>
>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>> native software along with a new i/o box and a better operating
>
>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The transition did not cost a lot overall and the sale of PARIS
>
>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> much covered it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I did live on the bleeding edge for a while, though, with the
>>>>>>>>>> transition
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to OSX and I had to try several Firewire interfaces to find a solid
>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After a few years I upgraded to a new computer but kept the
>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> i/o box I was already using. I sold the previous computer, so the
>>>>>>>>>> upgrade cost was not high. I upgraded the native software and
>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OS several times and the increase in capability was worth the
>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>> costs, just as it would have been with a DSP based system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I had to buy from scratch today, I'd either pick up a Quad
>>>>>>>>>> PowerMac
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> or save a bunch of money and get a dual G5 PowerMac, add extra
> RAM
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HD, Digital Performer or Logic, a Firewire i/o box or two and some
>>>>> third
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> party plugins. That system would probably last for the next ten
>
>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even if I added a 24 moving fader controller it would be well under
>>>>>> 10K.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, what I do and what you do may be different so your mileage
>>> may
>>>>>> vary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My current 2.5GHZ dual G5 is fast enough that I don't feel the
> need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> upgrade it for audio production. It could go for the next decade
>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> slowing me down.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However if I decide to upgrade it at some point for animation or
>>> video
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> production, the audio side will come along for the ride at no extra
>>>>>> cost.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At least with a DSP based sytem, you know what you have, and the
>>> native
>>>>>>>>> cpu
>>>>>>>>>>> is a secondary issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With the speed of CPUs today, why tie yourself to a
>>>>>>>>>> hardware-limited
>>>>>> DSP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> system. If the company you buy it from is in business in five
>>>>>>>>>> years,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cost to upgrade a system like that could be much higher than just
>>> buying
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a newer, faster computer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And when you buy a newer, faster computer you are upgrading
>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that runs on it, all your plugins, virtual instruments, even other
>>>>>>>>>> software (graphics, animation, video editing, software development,
>>>>>>>>>> whatever else you do), in one shot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Plus, low latency, better i/o integration in a pro
>>>>>>>>>>> enviorment..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is your best argument. But latency is not an issue in my
>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>> setup. My i/o box has direct monitoring. Even if I monitor through
>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the latency is low enough that it hasn't been a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The i/o integration is fine, I have 18 analog inputs and 16 analog
>>>>>>>>>> outputs plus stereo digital i/o directly patchable through my DAW
>>>>>>>>>> software and also routable from the i/o box's monitoring software.
>>>>> If
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> need more i/o I can plug in another Firewire i/o box.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I run my system with a mouse and a jog/shuttle wheel add-on. I
> can
>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> moving fader controllers from at least four different manufacturers
>>>>>>>>>> which is tempting, but since I only really used the jog/shuttle
>
>>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the PARIS controller I haven't needed that. Plus I've grown used
>>> to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> precision and (believe it or not) speed of mixing with the mouse.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The sad truth with moast if not all native solutios is that
>>>>>>>>>>> it has forced a big$$$ third party solutions market, inwhic native
>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>> are going back to purchase , talk back units, better than average
>>>>>>>>>>> converters..All
>>>>>>>>>>> to chase the dsp systems way of working..in the end, the native
>>> person
>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>> not realize that they have spent just as much, if not more than
>>> they
>>>>>>>> could've
>>>>>>>>>>> gotten with a dsp based DAW.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A native system will be more flexible, you'll have more developers
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> choose from to enhance your system, and if one of the developers
>>> goes
>>>>>>>>>> under, your system will not hit a dead end.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Over the last decade I've spent way less than, for example, a
>>>>>>>>>> ProTools
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> system would have cost and am getting, I think, comparable results.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Having used nuendo sice it's inception (2000, ),logic audio, Ican
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> hesitation,
>>>>>>>>>>> that it takes a lot of $$$ to bring those apps up to pro specs,
>>> and
>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>> be known, steinbergs way of integrating hardware leaves a lot
> to
>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> desired..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A Quad PowerMac with extra RAM and HD, MOTU Digital Performer,
> a
>>> MOTU
>>>>>>>>>> Firewire i/o box or two and some third party plugins...even a 24
>>> moving
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> fader controller and you're well under 10K.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It all comes down to individual needs and preferences, so I'm not
>>> really
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> saying you're wrong for what you're looking for. But for what I'm
>>>>>>>>>> looking for, a native system is pretty compelling.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OTOH, had PARIS MIDI support been better, had they hung around
> long
>>>>>>>>>> enough to support OSX and AU plugins, I'd still be using PARIS.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>>> with the limitation of 44.1 or 48 sampling.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>>>>>> Lamont
>>>>>>>>>>> take care
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I dunno. Why lock into developing a new DSP system when native
>>> CPUs
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> so fast now (fast enough for tons of tracks/plugins) and just
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> faster?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The folks on gearslutz will always be chasing ways to spend more
>>>>> money
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> on their systems (no matter what systems they have, native or
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DSP).
>>>>>>>>>>>> There's no real cure for that. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's true the Mac Intel transition will take time. It's not a
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> five
>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, though. Over the next six months there will likely be
>>>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> choices for audio production that run on both Intel and PPC,
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> starting with Logic around March/April as a $50 upgrade, so they
>>>>> say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the next year the Mac Intel hardware choices will expand
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> laptop and desktop choices as Intel's series of chips hit the
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> market.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The roadmap is pretty much known at this point. If you want to
>>> go
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Intel, pick your best time for the transition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to make music using OSX right away there are plenty
>>> of
>>>>>> PPC
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> choices that work today, all the way up to the quad PowerMac
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> more muscle than you probably need. Available now and they'll
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to work after the Intel transition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guys, Some thoughts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone noticed that since our beloved Paris
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAW($2700list)there
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pro DAW for under 10k??? Why??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know we have the Cubases ($499) Nuendo's ($1,500), Logic(1k),
>>>>> DP(699)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sonar($400). There are all very good naitive systems that will
>>> yield
>>>>>>>>> pro
>>>>>>>>>>>>> results. However, I can't belive thatthere is not one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manufacture
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Digidesign that want's to producer a DSP based DAW?? It's almost
>>>>>> 6 years
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since the plug was pulled on Paris! Yes, I did not forget about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soundscape..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Point in this post is to bring to ligh that Paris was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> served
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "Middle ground" studio. Now, looking back, it's price point
>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> revolutionary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AND That's the point..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today, if you're shelling out at least 10k for a PT HD system,
>>> your
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other alternative is do a naitive system..Again, I'm not saying
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> naitive's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are bad, but we all know that there's nothing like a cool DSP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAW..Even
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> more,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a knwon fact that, if you wew to build your naitive system
>>>>> up
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards (AD/DA converters,mixer,DSP FX cards) you'd actually
>>> come
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has to be a manufactuer that will stand up and fill in
> the
>>>>>> gap
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD & the Naitives. Any company has the balls??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today my dream DAW would come from Mackie:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -The MAckie DBX digital mixer (Dual touch screens)that also
> had
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> capability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to record up to 128 24/96 audio tracks. Using the same cool
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> editing
>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in their earlier Hard disk recorder MDR2496. The mix has the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to add up to 3or 4 UAD cards, as well as third party FX for
> the
>>>>> mixer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a ground breaking product. Even though Tascam tried
> it,
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SX-1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was cool, but was too limited. Actualy, the SA-1 was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ensoniq/EMU
>>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first, then made it's was over to Tascam..I digress..
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still hoping that the Yamaha/Steinberg marrige would yield
> a
>>> very
>>>>>>>> cool
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DM2000 metts Nuendo or 02R-96 meets Cubase sx . All in one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> units..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As things stands now in our current state of Personal computers
>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DAW,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we really have not had any ground breaking technology save for
>>> newer
>>>>>>>>> faster
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cpus.. Inwhich, I for one am tired of chasing the speed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> demon.Enough
>>>>>>>>> already..I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say this and I work as a IT Network Consultant.. Okay :) i
>>>>>>>>>>>>> digress
>>>>>>>>>>>>> again..:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this post grew out of neverending post over on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.gearslutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ribbon mics, Summing buss's, 5k mics, 4k pre-amps, 4k
>>>>>>>>>>>>> converters..
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking, why do I want to keep sinking good money into
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "dressing
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a naitive DAW to try to sound as good as Paris does for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2,700.00
>>>>>> Orginal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> list)??? Those guys, bless their hearts are into dreaming that
>>> if
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> sink
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 5-10k in analoge summing gear, tey will have that magic
>>>>> ssound..
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I'm thinkink, 'Why have we gone backwards in this dAW game??
>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Digi has such a strangle hold on the industry,that they can
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictate
>>>>>>>> jsut
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much cool stuff reaches the lowered of the spectrum. What
>>> I
>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PT LE is just enough to get frustrated to only dream and save
>>> up
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> HD..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, we have this Apple fiasco..New machines, with new CPUS,
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support. do they really think that thisi was good move now??
> I'm
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a current Mac owner and I agonise for MAc lovers and users.
> If
>>> I
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> them,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would not upgrade for at leat 3-4 years. I digress again ..:)
>>>>> Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, calling on all new and current manufactures..You a vast
>>> market
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pro users and studios that needs more juice and pro features
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> offereing, but we don;t want to spend 20k for it.. Soemthing
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> along
>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3-15k
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would do it..
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay end of rant..LaMont
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW [message #63245 is a reply to message #63185] |
Tue, 17 January 2006 11:27 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Okay here's my take :)
First, that summing CD did not tell me diddly-sqat.During that time, I was
activly using DP, Logic, Nuendo, PT, and Paris. To say that you can't "hear"
much difference really speaks volumes.
It's a known fact that "software" does have a sound. Why do folks take offense
becuase someones says something they percieve to a negative, is not, but
only a perspective on sound.
And, yes, the true test of any of these DAWs is it's summing.
Note: DP with Motu hardware renders Top-off the line results, no matter the
tracks count. Something magical is happening when DP is used with it's own
manufatures audio units.
Now, run DP, and use a RME interface.The sound is bland, very vanilla, gerneric.
We don't know why, but this is just the case in our informal real world ,
real project applications.
Now, Thad,I'll be happy to ship/FTP you a project(50-24bit wav files) on
/DVD for you to mix or just bring up with out mixing in SX. .Then, I want
you bring those same files into Paris, or PT HD/LE..Then, if you will, report
your auditory findings..:)
Dedric, I think you think that I'm saying that one app is superior to another..Rather,
I'm saying "in different kinds of music genres, one app suites the music
more than others. Not, saying that you can't acheive great results from any
DAW, but rather, some forms of music is easier to "MIX" in than others..
That's all I'm saying. FOr example. To me, I would not use Paris for "critical
film scoring" work. To me, Nuendo/SX sound quality, with it's wide, spacious,
audio quality is just the right audio foot print for the project.
Pro-Tools could be next and so could DP/Motus interfaces..But, the Paris
sound, would be too "colored" where you need the spearation, wide deep sound
to hear evey element of a score. also, commerical work as well..
But, Paris would and is atop of my DAW food chain for mixing ROCK, HIP/HOP,
R&B, Gospel. Paris's Agressive crunch and it's colored sound when pushed
is alone in this dept followed by PT/with apogees Rosettas /AD/DA16x..
Again, this is my world real world findings, not some internet forum talk..
Sure, give me my MPC-2000& vs2480, and I'll get killer results everytime
that folks swear I used a DAW on.
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Dedric,
>
>Here's my take on this. I bought the DAW CD from Lynn What's His Name. I
>listened to it. I took the tests. I took them again. I had someone jumble
>the tracks around and play them for me again. There were tiny wisp of smoke
>differences between the "best" and the "worst." On top of that, in an ABY
>test I can't imagine anyone doing dramatically better than a coin flip.
Maybe,
>just maybe, a handful could, but I doubt even that.
>
>So, for me, that put the "summing bus" issue to rest. Until someone can
give
>me proof, and by proof I mean ABY testing or real matmatical analysis or
>resulting audio files from different systems, I will believe that all properly
>written summing busses sound essentially the same. After that summing bus
>CD came out suddenly the critiques of summing busses moved into other areas
>like certain frequencies (that apparently weren't on the tesing CD) and
higher
>track counts and acoustic instruments and so on. When someone gets me evidence
>I'll be interested again, but until then I'm happily over here using SX
and
>Live. So is DJ Krush and about a million other talented people who I am
happy
>to have as my company.
>
>TCB
>
>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>I guess I'm outnumbered in the Nuendo sucks or not debate.
>>
>>Interesting example of when pro gear and reputation isn't all it's cracked
>>up to be:
>>
>>I got a voiceover from a top post house in my area to use to create and
>ad
>>for a client. I don't know what they use, but PT would be the obvious
>>guess.
>>
>>The voiceover was just 30 minutes of Q&A with an expert, logged for later
>>use - the raw files from the studio were preprocessed - heavily over
>>compressed with no apparent attempt to address heavy sibilance before
>>compressing the crap out of it. Their goal is probably to produce quick
>and
>>low cost, so they have a "preset" chain for audio, and charge $200/hr for
>it
>>- no customization, just track it, burn it and send you on your way. Their
>>rates are high, but project costs are low - you do the math, it's the
>>Walmart approach to production.
>>
>>There was little I could do to remove the sibilance without audibly
>>degrading the mids balance, and reaching diminishing returns very quickly,
>>but I did make it sound better. Every voice over I've worked on, and heard
>>from them sounds the same - sibilant, even in my car, from CD or on-air.
>>
>>The moral of the story - a lot of people call themselves pro, have pro
gear,
>>and hold a lion's share of their market to back it up, but that doesn't
>mean
>>the product is any better for it.
>>
>>I would rather be good using less than perfect gear to create a superior
>>product than have the best, most recent and advanced gear money can buy
>and
>>not know what the heck I'm doing. Gear lust and aspiring for sonic nirvana
>>is all well and good, but I had to put a limit on it and make it work for
>>me, rather than against me. Now I'm just trying to make a living creating
>a
>>great product with what I have rather than worrying about how spending
>>$30,000 more would make my audio sound 1% wider, or the top end 2% silkier
>>when the client is going to cram it down an FM band with 10:1 or higher
>>compression, or rip it to a 128k or lower mp3, cutting off every sonic
>>nicety I slaved over and invested thousands of $$ to get.
>>
>>I'm off. Later.
>>
>>Dedric
>>
>>On 1/16/06 12:10 AM, in article 43cb38ba$1@linux, "Deej" <yiruyfh@hgdgr.not>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> La Mont,
>>>
>>> I started noticing something sort of mushy in SX in the low end at around
>>> 24 tracks. It could very well be that I just don't know how to mix on
>a native
>>> system though. Fire it over lightpipe into the Paris mixer and it gets
>big
>>> again. I'm still summing in Paris and actually setting levels and fader/FX
>>> automation on both DAWs. I'm getting basic fader moves done in SX and
>then
>>> tweaking them in Paris. It's pretty wild to watch a mix happen here.
I'm
>>> using a fair amount of analog gear in my mixes. I've got 10 analog I/O
>in
>>> my Cubase DAW and I'm using them all for inserts of analog comps and
EQ's.
>>> In Paris, I'm patching in analog qand digital reverbs and delays. For
>a while
>>> I was paranoid about signal degradation with this many AD/DA's. Now I
>don't
>>> even think twice.
>>>
>>> Last night Tony posted up a song that I mixed on his site.
>>>
>>> http://www.mercysakes.com/paris/Doug%20Joyce/Faith%20In%20Lo ve/
>>>
>>> It's about finished, maybe a little more LF and vocal rebalancing and
>a little
>>> de-essing that I'm going to add. There are 30 tracks-12 drum tracks,
vocal
>>> track, 15 acoustic instrument tracks and 3 x electric bass tracks. They've
>>> got external processors all over them....10 x AD/DA's with analog processors
>>> in cubase Sx and another 6 x AD/DA's in Paris, but I'm happy with the
>>> mix......and
>>> what's most important, so is the client. It doesn't have that linearity
>and
>>> accuracy that I hear in the new PTHD, but we were going after a retro
>feel
>>> and I think we achieved it. I think the Paris mix engine has a lot to
>do
>>> with it all hanging together. It just doesn't sound at all the same if
>I
>>> sum it in SX. Much smaller sounding. this mix has had no *mastering*,
>though
>>> NoLimit was kissing the Paris mix bus.
>>>
>>> Deej
>>>
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpo@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> hey Dedric, a friend of mine has upgrade to Sonar5 and we can hear the
>>>> difference
>>>> form version 4. Version 4 sound was very balnd , vanillia if you will.
>>>> version
>>>> 5 mix summing sounds very wide, with more dept than version 4..So, they
>>> did
>>>> soemthing.
>>>>
>>>> Note: That's what I think Nuendos/SX weak point. in theory,their 32bit
>>>> floating
>>>> point mixer/summing bus was to allow for more audio options up and down
>>> the
>>>> audio bandwdith, but, things(mixes) start to fall apart at a certain
>point.
>>>> 32bit float is great for plugins, limited for summming with high track
>>>> counts.
>>>> LaMont
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> ID would be cool, even if it looks like a psychedelic video switching
>mixer
>>>>> from the 70's, but the reviews on functionality and increased productivity
>>>>> are rather convincing. Price is a bit steep though.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of these wouldn't be bad either:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/system_5-mc/system_5-m c.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/mc/mc.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> That's Nuendo on screen in both links.
>>>>>
>>>>> This one still gets my vote for geek heaven and client wow factor:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.smartav.net/images/E72Splash1-1024x768.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW - I'm guessing that if Steinberg gets the 64 bit update right with
>>> a
>>>> 64
>>>>> bit full audio path, summing boxes could be just another color in the
>tool
>>>>> palette, but far from necessary, and likely less spacious and clear,
>but
>>>>> that's more optimism than guarantee.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to hear Sonar 5 in full 64-bit glory to see if 64-bit
(assuming
>>>>> Cakewalk isn't blowing smoke) lives up the paper specs on the concept,
>>> but
>>>>> I'm hesitant to buy into the hype until proven sonically.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/15/06 10:45 PM, in article 43cb24d5$1@linux, "Deej"
>>>>> <hdfajkl@hjkal.buzzz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This would be my idea of an optimized productivity scenario if I was
>>> using
>>>>>> Nuendo and had the budget.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.arbitermt.co.uk/nuendo/products/idcontroller.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A bit pricey, but definitely specific to the application and with
a
>moose
>>>>>> of a DAW running the software and DSP, a nice rack of Myteks or Lavry's
>>>> for
>>>>>> tracking and patching external processors, and a decent summing box,
>>> I
>>>> might
>>>>>> be convinced to jump ship.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "LaMont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
need
>>>> what
>>>>>>> I need may not be what you need and that could be the root of this
>>>>>>> discussion)."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed.. :)
>>>>>>> But, the rest of your post illustrates my points. Some Producer buddies
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> mine in town, were having this same discusion about amonth or so
ago.
>>>> They
>>>>>>> are all Mac user, with a few giga machines. The consesus for us all
>>> is
>>>> that
>>>>>>> we have grown tired of the "upgrade" syndrome that, for one forces
>the
>>>>>>> non-computer
>>>>>>> music guy to become so entrenched with personal computer technology,
>>>> that
>>>>>>> they can't focus on music..At the end of the conversation, we all
>agreed
>>>>>>> that having a system like Pro-Tools HD would "serve" us best with
>out
>>>> having
>>>>>>> to "think" or stay on the CPU upgrade "teadmill" if you will. I've
>been
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> that treadmill since 97,and as I look back on how many great working
>>>> system
>>>>>>> setups I've detroyed due becuase I was trying to play the CPU sped
>>> game.
>>>>>>> I've lost decnet paying mixng and production jobs becuase my systems
>>>> were
>>>>>>> not as stable as I had them before I "upgraded" to a faster cpu and
>>> OS..
>>>>>>> I one of our suites we still have PT Mix cube running on a G4(450)
>OS9
>>>> that's
>>>>>>> rock solid stable.. One of my Paris setup still has Win 98se..Stable
>>>> stable
>>>>>>> stable:)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2 staff producers went chasing the Apple speed dream , from Dual
867s
>>>> to
>>>>>>> Dual G5(2.5s) on OSX..Man, the agony and frustrations on their faces
>>>> due
>>>>>>> to the fact that they had serious deadlines. That's what spurred
our
>>>>>>> conversations
>>>>>>> about it's either PTHD or a slotion with DM2000/02r96 with Nuendo/PT
>>>> Radar
>>>>>>> with the yammy difital mixer.. Each set up cost. But, we demand a
>solid
>>>>>> working
>>>>>>> system, that you do not have to make execues to yourself and the
client..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric may have said it best when he stated that doing a dedicated
>dsp
>>>> system
>>>>>>> manybe a daughting task$$ Or so they say.. Stuff coming out of China
>>>> (Phonic
>>>>>>> firewire) mixers as well as microphones and other products are astounding
>>>>>>> deals. Just maybe the solution I'm after will come from China?
>>>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey Jaimie,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Athough native cpus are fast, don't think that you are getting
off
>>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>>> Playing the speed keep up game every 2 years is 1) not productive..2)
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> expensive.. think about it..??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both native and DSP-based can be expensive. Native can be much less
>>>>>>>> expensive though, if budget is limited. For example, on the low
end
>>>> a
>>>>>>>> Mac Mini comes with Garage Band and you can do a lot with that and
>>> an
>>>>>>>> inexpensive Firewire or USB i/o box for a total cost of less than
>$1000.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
need
>>>>>>>> (what I need may not be what you need and that could be the root
>of
>>>> this
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> discussion).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are DSP-based systems out there that come with their own
>>>>>>>> mixer/burner/software in a table-top format without requiring a
>>>>>>>> computer. They cost as much or more as a native system with a fast
>>>>>>>> computer. If you want to get off of the computer upgrade cycle,
they're
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> available and they do what they do pretty well. But they aren't
>>>>>>>> particularly upgradable and upgradability is a big draw for
>>>>>>>> computer-based systems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Computer-based systems that include separate DSP cards have some
>of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> advantages and upgrade costs of native systems and some of the
>>>>>>>> disadvantages and limitations of dedicated, non-computer-based systems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PARIS illustrates the disadvantages very well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I bought an Intel computer for PARIS and bought an OS upgrade along
>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> way. A few years later I bought a faster G4 computer for PARIS and
>>> it
>>>>>>>> was a noticable improvement. I also bought an upgrade for the PARIS
>>>>>>>> software which added useful new features and some unfinished, broken
>>>>>>>> features. It was nice to be able to upgrade but it did cost money
>just
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as a native system would have. I was limited to the PARIS hardware
>>>>>>>> running on OS9, and the developers dropped support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PARIS would never get faster better, it was what it was. For me,
>the
>>>>>>>> freeze point in development stopped just short of what I needed.
>Close,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but forever short. So I sold it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile CPUs had gotten much, much faster and having separate
DSP
>>>> for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the DAW had lost much of its advantage. I switched to a native system
>>>>>>>> running on the same G4 computer I had purchased for PARIS, but using
>>>>>>>> native software along with a new i/o box and a better operating
system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The transition did not cost a lot overall and the sale of PARIS
pretty
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> much covered it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did live on the bleeding edge for a while, though, with the transition
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to OSX and I had to try several Firewire interfaces to find a solid
>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After a few years I upgraded to a new computer but kept the software
>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i/o box I was already using. I sold the previous computer, so the
>>>>>>>> upgrade cost was not high. I upgraded the native software and computer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OS several times and the increase in capability was worth the upgrade
>>>>>>>> costs, just as it would have been with a DSP based system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I had to buy from scratch today, I'd either pick up a Quad PowerMac
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or save a bunch of money and get a dual G5 PowerMac, add extra RAM
>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HD, Digital Performer or Logic, a Firewire i/o box or two and some
>>> third
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> party plugins. That system would probably last for the next ten
years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if I added a 24 moving fader controller it would be well under
>>>> 10K.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, what I do and what you do may be different so your mileage
>may
>>>> vary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My current 2.5GHZ dual G5 is fast enough that I don't feel the need
>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> upgrade it for audio production. It could go for the next decade
>with
>>>>>>>> slowing me down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However if I decide to upgrade it at some point for animation or
>video
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> production, the audio side will come along for the ride at no extra
>>>> cost.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At least with a DSP based sytem, you know what you have, and the
>native
>>>>>>> cpu
>>>>>>>>> is a secondary issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With the speed of CPUs today, why tie yourself to a hardware-limited
>>>> DSP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> system. If the company you buy it from is in business in five years,
>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cost to upgrade a system like that could be much higher than just
>buying
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a newer, faster computer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And when you buy a newer, faster computer you are upgrading everything
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that runs on it, all your plugins, virtual instruments, even other
>>>>>>>> software (graphics, animation, video editing, software development,
>>>>>>>> whatever else you do), in one shot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plus, low latency, better i/o integration in a pro
>>>>>>>>> enviorment..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is your best argument. But latency is not an issue in my current
>>>>>>>> setup. My i/o box has direct monitoring. Even if I monitor through
>>> Logic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the latency is low enough that it hasn't been a problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The i/o integration is fine, I have 18 analog inputs and 16 analog
>>>>>>>> outputs plus stereo digital i/o directly patchable through my DAW
>>>>>>>> software and also routable from the i/o box's monitoring software.
>>> If
>>>> I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> need more i/o I can plug in another Firewire i/o box.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I run my system with a mouse and a jog/shuttle wheel add-on. I can
>>> get
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> moving fader controllers from at least four different manufacturers
>>>>>>>> which is tempting, but since I only really used the jog/shuttle
part
>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the PARIS controller I haven't needed that. Plus I've grown used
>to
>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> precision and (believe it or not) speed of mixing with the mouse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The sad truth with moast if not all native solutios is that
>>>>>>>>> it has forced a big$$$ third party solutions market, inwhic native
>>>> users
>>>>>>>>> are going back to purchase , talk back units, better than average
>>>>>>>>> converters..All
>>>>>>>>> to chase the dsp systems way of working..in the end, the native
>person
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>> not realize that they have spent just as much, if not more than
>they
>>>>>> could've
>>>>>>>>> gotten with a dsp based DAW.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A native system will be more flexible, you'll have more developers
>>> to
>>>>>>>> choose from to enhance your system, and if one of the developers
>goes
>>>>>>>> under, your system will not hit a dead end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Over the last decade I've spent way less than, for example, a ProTools
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> system would have cost and am getting, I think, comparable results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Having used nuendo sice it's inception (2000, ),logic audio, Ican
>>> with
>>>>>>> hesitation,
>>>>>>>>> that it takes a lot of $$$ to bring those apps up to pro specs,
>and
>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>> be known, steinbergs way of integrating hardware leaves a lot to
>be
>>>>>>>>> desired..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A Quad PowerMac with extra RAM and HD, MOTU Digital Performer, a
>MOTU
>>>>>>>> Firewire i/o box or two and some third party plugins...even a 24
>moving
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fader controller and you're well under 10K.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It all comes down to individual needs and preferences, so I'm not
>really
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> saying you're wrong for what you're looking for. But for what I'm
>>>>>>>> looking for, a native system is pretty compelling.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OTOH, had PARIS MIDI support been better, had they hung around long
>>>>>>>> enough to support OSX and AU plugins, I'd still be using PARIS.
Even
>>>>>>>> with the limitation of 44.1 or 48 sampling.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>>>> Lamont
>>>>>>>>> take care
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I dunno. Why lock into developing a new DSP system when native
>CPUs
>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so fast now (fast enough for tons of tracks/plugins) and just
getting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> faster?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The folks on gearslutz will always be chasing ways to spend more
>>> money
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> on their systems (no matter what systems they have, native or
DSP).
>>>>>>>>>> There's no real cure for that. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's true the Mac Intel transition will take time. It's not a
five
>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wait, though. Over the next six months there will likely be software
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> choices for audio production that run on both Intel and PPC, probably
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> starting with Logic around March/April as a $50 upgrade, so they
>>> say.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Over the next year the Mac Intel hardware choices will expand
into
>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> laptop and desktop choices as Intel's series of chips hit the
market.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The roadmap is pretty much known at this point. If you want to
>go
>>>> with
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Intel, pick your best time for the transition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you want to make music using OSX right away there are plenty
>of
>>>> PPC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> choices that work today, all the way up to the quad PowerMac which
>>>> has
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> more muscle than you probably need. Available now and they'll
continue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to work after the Intel transition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guys, Some thoughts:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone noticed that since our beloved Paris DAW($2700list)there
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> pro DAW for under 10k??? Why??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know we have the Cubases ($499) Nuendo's ($1,500), Logic(1k),
>>> DP(699)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sonar($400). There are all very good naitive systems that will
>yield
>>>>>>> pro
>>>>>>>>>>> results. However, I can't belive thatthere is not one manufacture
>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Digidesign that want's to producer a DSP based DAW?? It's almost
>>>> 6 years
>>>>>>>>>>> since the plug was pulled on Paris! Yes, I did not forget about
>>>>>>>>>>> Soundscape..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My Point in this post is to bring to ligh that Paris was a product
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> served
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the "Middle ground" studio. Now, looking back, it's price point
>>> was
>>>>>> revolutionary.
>>>>>>>>>>> AND That's the point..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Today, if you're shelling out at least 10k for a PT HD system,
>your
>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> other alternative is do a naitive system..Again, I'm not saying
>>> that
>>>>>>> naitive's
>>>>>>>>>>> are bad, but we all know that there's nothing like a cool DSP
>>>>>>>>>>> DAW..Even
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> more,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it's a knwon fact that, if you wew to build your naitive system
>>> up
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pro
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> standards (AD/DA converters,mixer,DSP FX cards) you'd actually
>come
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD system.
>>>>>>>>>>> There has to be a manufactuer that will stand up and fill in
the
>>>> gap
>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD & the Naitives. Any company has the balls??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Today my dream DAW would come from Mackie:
>>>>>>>>>>> -The MAckie DBX digital mixer (Dual touch screens)that also had
>>> the
>>>>>> capability
>>>>>>>>>>> to record up to 128 24/96 audio tracks. Using the same cool editing
>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>> in their earlier Hard disk recorder MDR2496. The mix has the
>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities
>>>>>>>>>>> to add up to 3or 4 UAD cards, as well as third party FX for the
>>> mixer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> would be a ground breaking product. Even though Tascam tried
it,
>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SX-1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> was cool, but was too limited. Actualy, the SA-1 was a Ensoniq/EMU
>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>> first, then made it's was over to Tascam..I digress..
>>>>>>>>>>> I still hoping that the Yamaha/Steinberg marrige would yield
a
>very
>>>>>> cool
>>>>>>>>>>> DM2000 metts Nuendo or 02R-96 meets Cubase sx . All in one units..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As things stands now in our current state of Personal computers
>>> based
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DAW,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> we really have not had any ground breaking technology save for
>newer
>>>>>>> faster
>>>>>>>>>>> Cpus.. Inwhich, I for one am tired of chasing the speed demon.Enough
>>>>>>> already..I
>>>>>>>>>>> say this and I work as a IT Network Consultant.. Okay :) i digress
>>>>>>>>>>> again..:)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this post grew out of neverending post over on
>>>>>>>>>>> www.gearslutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>> about Ribbon mics, Summing buss's, 5k mics, 4k pre-amps, 4k
>>>>>>>>>>> converters..
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking, why do I want to keep sinking good money into "dressing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a naitive DAW to try to sound as good as Paris does for (2,700.00
>>>> Orginal
>>>>>>>>>>> list)??? Those guys, bless their hearts are into dreaming that
>if
>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sink
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> another 5-10k in analoge summing gear, tey will have that magic
>>> ssound..
>>>>>>>>>>> So, I'm thinkink, 'Why have we gone backwards in this dAW game??
>>>> Is
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Digi has such a strangle hold on the industry,that they can dictate
>>>>>> jsut
>>>>>>>>>>> how much cool stuff reaches the lowered of the spectrum. What
>I
>>> mean
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PT LE is just enough to get frustrated to only dream and save
>up
>>>> for
>>>>>>> HD..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, we have this Apple fiasco..New machines, with new CPUS,
little
>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>> support. do they really think that thisi was good move now??
I'm
>>>> not
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> a current Mac owner and I agonise for MAc lovers and users. If
>I
>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> them,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would not upgrade for at leat 3-4 years. I digress again ..:)
>>> Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again, calling on all new and current manufactures..You a vast
>market
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro users and studios that needs more juice and pro features
than
>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> offereing, but we don;t want to spend 20k for it.. Soemthing
along
>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3-15k
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> would do it..
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay end of rant..LaMont
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW [message #63253 is a reply to message #63245] |
Tue, 17 January 2006 13:33 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey LaMont,
How did that CD show diddly squat? It took just the kind of mix you were
talking about, ran it through a bunch of different systems, and took the
results. The differences on that CD were vanishingly small. Or I'm deaf,
which is a distinct possibility of course. That said, I've "beaten" pretty
expensive mastering houses before doing post production for people so if
there were dramatic differences between software platforms I suspect I would.
But it could be me, there's no doubt.
For years it was a 'known fact' that, oh I don't know, women weren't smart
enough to vote. That the sun revolved around the earth, that the Russians
had more and better military equipment than the US, and that a 120 P/E for
Amazon was about right. Later, other evidence came forward to disprove those,
and many other known facts. That DAW CD was *evidence* that by and large
all software sounds remakably the same. Tell me the mistake in that methodology
of that test, I'm interested.
I'm more than happy to take a track count that high and run it through a
half dozen systems. I'll do ABY testing and also take the exported files,
line them up to the sample, and flip the phase on one set. When I've done
that I'll know precisely what difference the software makes in how things
sound.
TCB
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Okay here's my take :)
>
>First, that summing CD did not tell me diddly-sqat.During that time, I was
>activly using DP, Logic, Nuendo, PT, and Paris. To say that you can't "hear"
>much difference really speaks volumes.
>
>It's a known fact that "software" does have a sound. Why do folks take offense
>becuase someones says something they percieve to a negative, is not, but
>only a perspective on sound.
>
>And, yes, the true test of any of these DAWs is it's summing.
>Note: DP with Motu hardware renders Top-off the line results, no matter
the
>tracks count. Something magical is happening when DP is used with it's own
>manufatures audio units.
>
>Now, run DP, and use a RME interface.The sound is bland, very vanilla, gerneric.
>We don't know why, but this is just the case in our informal real world
,
>real project applications.
>
>Now, Thad,I'll be happy to ship/FTP you a project(50-24bit wav files) on
>/DVD for you to mix or just bring up with out mixing in SX. .Then, I want
>you bring those same files into Paris, or PT HD/LE..Then, if you will, report
>your auditory findings..:)
>
>Dedric, I think you think that I'm saying that one app is superior to another..Rather,
>I'm saying "in different kinds of music genres, one app suites the music
>more than others. Not, saying that you can't acheive great results from
any
>DAW, but rather, some forms of music is easier to "MIX" in than others..
>That's all I'm saying. FOr example. To me, I would not use Paris for "critical
>film scoring" work. To me, Nuendo/SX sound quality, with it's wide, spacious,
>audio quality is just the right audio foot print for the project.
>Pro-Tools could be next and so could DP/Motus interfaces..But, the Paris
>sound, would be too "colored" where you need the spearation, wide deep sound
>to hear evey element of a score. also, commerical work as well..
>
>But, Paris would and is atop of my DAW food chain for mixing ROCK, HIP/HOP,
>R&B, Gospel. Paris's Agressive crunch and it's colored sound when pushed
>is alone in this dept followed by PT/with apogees Rosettas /AD/DA16x..
>Again, this is my world real world findings, not some internet forum talk..
>
>Sure, give me my MPC-2000& vs2480, and I'll get killer results everytime
>that folks swear I used a DAW on.
>
>
>
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Dedric,
>>
>>Here's my take on this. I bought the DAW CD from Lynn What's His Name.
I
>>listened to it. I took the tests. I took them again. I had someone jumble
>>the tracks around and play them for me again. There were tiny wisp of smoke
>>differences between the "best" and the "worst." On top of that, in an ABY
>>test I can't imagine anyone doing dramatically better than a coin flip.
>Maybe,
>>just maybe, a handful could, but I doubt even that.
>>
>>So, for me, that put the "summing bus" issue to rest. Until someone can
>give
>>me proof, and by proof I mean ABY testing or real matmatical analysis or
>>resulting audio files from different systems, I will believe that all properly
>>written summing busses sound essentially the same. After that summing bus
>>CD came out suddenly the critiques of summing busses moved into other areas
>>like certain frequencies (that apparently weren't on the tesing CD) and
>higher
>>track counts and acoustic instruments and so on. When someone gets me evidence
>>I'll be interested again, but until then I'm happily over here using SX
>and
>>Live. So is DJ Krush and about a million other talented people who I am
>happy
>>to have as my company.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>I guess I'm outnumbered in the Nuendo sucks or not debate.
>>>
>>>Interesting example of when pro gear and reputation isn't all it's cracked
>>>up to be:
>>>
>>>I got a voiceover from a top post house in my area to use to create and
>>ad
>>>for a client. I don't know what they use, but PT would be the obvious
>>>guess.
>>>
>>>The voiceover was just 30 minutes of Q&A with an expert, logged for later
>>>use - the raw files from the studio were preprocessed - heavily over
>>>compressed with no apparent attempt to address heavy sibilance before
>>>compressing the crap out of it. Their goal is probably to produce quick
>>and
>>>low cost, so they have a "preset" chain for audio, and charge $200/hr
for
>>it
>>>- no customization, just track it, burn it and send you on your way.
Their
>>>rates are high, but project costs are low - you do the math, it's the
>>>Walmart approach to production.
>>>
>>>There was little I could do to remove the sibilance without audibly
>>>degrading the mids balance, and reaching diminishing returns very quickly,
>>>but I did make it sound better. Every voice over I've worked on, and
heard
>>>from them sounds the same - sibilant, even in my car, from CD or on-air.
>>>
>>>The moral of the story - a lot of people call themselves pro, have pro
>gear,
>>>and hold a lion's share of their market to back it up, but that doesn't
>>mean
>>>the product is any better for it.
>>>
>>>I would rather be good using less than perfect gear to create a superior
>>>product than have the best, most recent and advanced gear money can buy
>>and
>>>not know what the heck I'm doing. Gear lust and aspiring for sonic nirvana
>>>is all well and good, but I had to put a limit on it and make it work
for
>>>me, rather than against me. Now I'm just trying to make a living creating
>>a
>>>great product with what I have rather than worrying about how spending
>>>$30,000 more would make my audio sound 1% wider, or the top end 2% silkier
>>>when the client is going to cram it down an FM band with 10:1 or higher
>>>compression, or rip it to a 128k or lower mp3, cutting off every sonic
>>>nicety I slaved over and invested thousands of $$ to get.
>>>
>>>I'm off. Later.
>>>
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>On 1/16/06 12:10 AM, in article 43cb38ba$1@linux, "Deej" <yiruyfh@hgdgr.not>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> La Mont,
>>>>
>>>> I started noticing something sort of mushy in SX in the low end at around
>>>> 24 tracks. It could very well be that I just don't know how to mix on
>>a native
>>>> system though. Fire it over lightpipe into the Paris mixer and it gets
>>big
>>>> again. I'm still summing in Paris and actually setting levels and fader/FX
>>>> automation on both DAWs. I'm getting basic fader moves done in SX and
>>then
>>>> tweaking them in Paris. It's pretty wild to watch a mix happen here.
>I'm
>>>> using a fair amount of analog gear in my mixes. I've got 10 analog I/O
>>in
>>>> my Cubase DAW and I'm using them all for inserts of analog comps and
>EQ's.
>>>> In Paris, I'm patching in analog qand digital reverbs and delays. For
>>a while
>>>> I was paranoid about signal degradation with this many AD/DA's. Now
I
>>don't
>>>> even think twice.
>>>>
>>>> Last night Tony posted up a song that I mixed on his site.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mercysakes.com/paris/Doug%20Joyce/Faith%20In%20Lo ve/
>>>>
>>>> It's about finished, maybe a little more LF and vocal rebalancing and
>>a little
>>>> de-essing that I'm going to add. There are 30 tracks-12 drum tracks,
>vocal
>>>> track, 15 acoustic instrument tracks and 3 x electric bass tracks. They've
>>>> got external processors all over them....10 x AD/DA's with analog processors
>>>> in cubase Sx and another 6 x AD/DA's in Paris, but I'm happy with the
>>>> mix......and
>>>> what's most important, so is the client. It doesn't have that linearity
>>and
>>>> accuracy that I hear in the new PTHD, but we were going after a retro
>>feel
>>>> and I think we achieved it. I think the Paris mix engine has a lot to
>>do
>>>> with it all hanging together. It just doesn't sound at all the same
if
>>I
>>>> sum it in SX. Much smaller sounding. this mix has had no *mastering*,
>>though
>>>> NoLimit was kissing the Paris mix bus.
>>>>
>>>> Deej
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpo@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> hey Dedric, a friend of mine has upgrade to Sonar5 and we can hear
the
>>>>> difference
>>>>> form version 4. Version 4 sound was very balnd , vanillia if you will.
>>>>> version
>>>>> 5 mix summing sounds very wide, with more dept than version 4..So,
they
>>>> did
>>>>> soemthing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: That's what I think Nuendos/SX weak point. in theory,their 32bit
>>>>> floating
>>>>> point mixer/summing bus was to allow for more audio options up and
down
>>>> the
>>>>> audio bandwdith, but, things(mixes) start to fall apart at a certain
>>point.
>>>>> 32bit float is great for plugins, limited for summming with high track
>>>>> counts.
>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>> ID would be cool, even if it looks like a psychedelic video switching
>>mixer
>>>>>> from the 70's, but the reviews on functionality and increased productivity
>>>>>> are rather convincing. Price is a bit steep though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of these wouldn't be bad either:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/system_5-mc/system_5-m c.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/mc/mc.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's Nuendo on screen in both links.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one still gets my vote for geek heaven and client wow factor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.smartav.net/images/E72Splash1-1024x768.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW - I'm guessing that if Steinberg gets the 64 bit update right
with
>>>> a
>>>>> 64
>>>>>> bit full audio path, summing boxes could be just another color in
the
>>tool
>>>>>> palette, but far from necessary, and likely less spacious and clear,
>>but
>>>>>> that's more optimism than guarantee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to hear Sonar 5 in full 64-bit glory to see if 64-bit
>(assuming
>>>>>> Cakewalk isn't blowing smoke) lives up the paper specs on the concept,
>>>> but
>>>>>> I'm hesitant to buy into the hype until proven sonically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/15/06 10:45 PM, in article 43cb24d5$1@linux, "Deej"
>>>>>> <hdfajkl@hjkal.buzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This would be my idea of an optimized productivity scenario if I
was
>>>> using
>>>>>>> Nuendo and had the budget.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.arbitermt.co.uk/nuendo/products/idcontroller.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A bit pricey, but definitely specific to the application and with
>a
>>moose
>>>>>>> of a DAW running the software and DSP, a nice rack of Myteks or Lavry's
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> tracking and patching external processors, and a decent summing box,
>>>> I
>>>>> might
>>>>>>> be convinced to jump ship.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "LaMont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
>need
>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> I need may not be what you need and that could be the root of this
>>>>>>>> discussion)."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed.. :)
>>>>>>>> But, the rest of your post illustrates my points. Some Producer
buddies
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> mine in town, were having this same discusion about amonth or so
>ago.
>>>>> They
>>>>>>>> are all Mac user, with a few giga machines. The consesus for us
all
>>>> is
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> we have grown tired of the "upgrade" syndrome that, for one forces
>>the
>>>>>>>> non-computer
>>>>>>>> music guy to become so entrenched with personal computer technology,
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> they can't focus on music..At the end of the conversation, we all
>>agreed
>>>>>>>> that having a system like Pro-Tools HD would "serve" us best with
>>out
>>>>> having
>>>>>>>> to "think" or stay on the CPU upgrade "teadmill" if you will. I've
>>been
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> that treadmill since 97,and as I look back on how many great working
>>>>> system
>>>>>>>> setups I've detroyed due becuase I was trying to play the CPU sped
>>>> game.
>>>>>>>> I've lost decnet paying mixng and production jobs becuase my systems
>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> not as stable as I had them before I "upgraded" to a faster cpu
and
>>>> OS..
>>>>>>>> I one of our suites we still have PT Mix cube running on a G4(450)
>>OS9
>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>> rock solid stable.. One of my Paris setup still has Win 98se..Stable
>>>>> stable
>>>>>>>> stable:)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2 staff producers went chasing the Apple speed dream , from Dual
>867s
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> Dual G5(2.5s) on OSX..Man, the agony and frustrations on their faces
>>>>> due
>>>>>>>> to the fact that they had serious deadlines. That's what spurred
>our
>>>>>>>> conversations
>>>>>>>> about it's either PTHD or a slotion with DM2000/02r96 with Nuendo/PT
>>>>> Radar
>>>>>>>> with the yammy difital mixer.. Each set up cost. But, we demand
a
>>solid
>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>> system, that you do not have to make execues to yourself and the
>client..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dedric may have said it best when he stated that doing a dedicated
>>dsp
>>>>> system
>>>>>>>> manybe a daughting task$$ Or so they say.. Stuff coming out of China
>>>>> (Phonic
>>>>>>>> firewire) mixers as well as microphones and other products are astounding
>>>>>>>> deals. Just maybe the solution I'm after will come from China?
>>>>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hey Jaimie,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Athough native cpus are fast, don't think that you are getting
>off
>>>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>>>> Playing the speed keep up game every 2 years is 1) not productive..2)
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>> expensive.. think about it..??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both native and DSP-based can be expensive. Native can be much
less
>>>>>>>>> expensive though, if budget is limited. For example, on the low
>end
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> Mac Mini comes with Garage Band and you can do a lot with that
and
>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> inexpensive Firewire or USB i/o box for a total cost of less than
>>$1000.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
>need
>>>>>>>>> (what I need may not be what you need and that could be the root
>>of
>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> discussion).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are DSP-based systems out there that come with their own
>>>>>>>>> mixer/burner/software in a table-top format without requiring a
>>>>>>>>> computer. They cost as much or more as a native system with a fast
>>>>>>>>> computer. If you want to get off of the computer upgrade cycle,
>they're
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> available and they do what they do pretty well. But they aren't
>>>>>>>>> particularly upgradable and upgradability is a big draw for
>>>>>>>>> computer-based systems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Computer-based systems that include separate DSP cards have some
>>of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> advantages and upgrade costs of native systems and some of the
>>>>>>>>> disadvantages and limitations of dedicated, non-computer-based
systems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PARIS illustrates the disadvantages very well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I bought an Intel computer for PARIS and bought an OS upgrade along
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> way. A few years later I bought a faster G4 computer for PARIS
and
>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> was a noticable improvement. I also bought an upgrade for the PARIS
>>>>>>>>> software which added useful new features and some unfinished, broken
>>>>>>>>> features. It was nice to be able to upgrade but it did cost money
>>just
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as a native system would have. I was limited to the PARIS hardware
>>>>>>>>> running on OS9, and the developers dropped support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PARIS would never get faster better, it was what it was. For me,
>>the
>>>>>>>>> freeze point in development stopped just short of what I needed.
>>Close,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but forever short. So I sold it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile CPUs had gotten much, much faster and having separate
>DSP
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the DAW had lost much of its advantage. I switched to a native
system
>>>>>>>>> running on the same G4 computer I had purchased for PARIS, but
using
>>>>>>>>> native software along with a new i/o box and a better operating
>system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The transition did not cost a lot overall and the sale of PARIS
>pretty
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> much covered it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did live on the bleeding edge for a while, though, with the transition
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to OSX and I had to try several Firewire interfaces to find a solid
>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After a few years I upgraded to a new computer but kept the software
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i/o box I was already using. I sold the previous computer, so the
>>>>>>>>> upgrade cost was not high. I upgraded the native software and computer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OS several times and the increase in capability was worth the upgrade
>>>>>>>>> costs, just as it would have been with a DSP based system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I had to buy from scratch today, I'd either pick up a Quad PowerMac
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or save a bunch of money and get a dual G5 PowerMac, add extra
RAM
>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HD, Digital Performer or Logic, a Firewire i/o box or two and some
>>>> third
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> party plugins. That system would probably last for the next ten
>years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even if I added a 24 moving fader controller it would be well under
>>>>> 10K.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, what I do and what you do may be different so your mileage
>>may
>>>>> vary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My current 2.5GHZ dual G5 is fast enough that I don't feel the
need
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> upgrade it for audio production. It could go for the next decade
>>with
>>>>>>>>> slowing me down.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However if I decide to upgrade it at some point for animation or
>>video
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> production, the audio side will come along for the ride at no extra
>>>>> cost.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At least with a DSP based sytem, you know what you have, and the
>>native
>>>>>>>> cpu
>>>>>>>>>> is a secondary issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With the speed of CPUs today, why tie yourself to a hardware-limited
>>>>> DSP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> system. If the company you buy it from is in business in five years,
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cost to upgrade a system like that could be much higher than just
>>buying
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a newer, faster computer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And when you buy a newer, faster computer you are upgrading everything
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that runs on it, all your plugins, virtual instruments, even other
>>>>>>>>> software (graphics, animation, video editing, software development,
>>>>>>>>> whatever else you do), in one shot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Plus, low latency, better i/o integration in a pro
>>>>>>>>>> enviorment..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is your best argument. But latency is not an issue in my current
>>>>>>>>> setup. My i/o box has direct monitoring. Even if I monitor through
>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the latency is low enough that it hasn't been a problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The i/o integration is fine, I have 18 analog inputs and 16 analog
>>>>>>>>> outputs plus stereo digital i/o directly patchable through my DAW
>>>>>>>>> software and also routable from the i/o box's monitoring software.
>>>> If
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> need more i/o I can plug in another Firewire i/o box.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I run my system with a mouse and a jog/shuttle wheel add-on. I
can
>>>> get
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> moving fader controllers from at least four different manufacturers
>>>>>>>>> which is tempting, but since I only really used the jog/shuttle
>part
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the PARIS controller I haven't needed that. Plus I've grown used
>>to
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> precision and (believe it or not) speed of mixing with the mouse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The sad truth with moast if not all native solutios is that
>>>>>>>>>> it has forced a big$$$ third party solutions market, inwhic native
>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> are going back to purchase , talk back units, better than average
>>>>>>>>>> converters..All
>>>>>>>>>> to chase the dsp systems way of working..in the end, the native
>>person
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>> not realize that they have spent just as much, if not more than
>>they
>>>>>>> could've
>>>>>>>>>> gotten with a dsp based DAW.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A native system will be more flexible, you'll have more developers
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> choose from to enhance your system, and if one of the developers
>>goes
>>>>>>>>> under, your system will not hit a dead end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Over the last decade I've spent way less than, for example, a ProTools
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> system would have cost and am getting, I think, comparable results.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Having used nuendo sice it's inception (2000, ),logic audio, Ican
>>>> with
>>>>>>>> hesitation,
>>>>>>>>>> that it takes a lot of $$$ to bring those apps up to pro specs,
>>and
>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>> be known, steinbergs way of integrating hardware leaves a lot
to
>>be
>>>>>>>>>> desired..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A Quad PowerMac with extra RAM and HD, MOTU Digital Performer,
a
>>MOTU
>>>>>>>>> Firewire i/o box or two and some third party plugins...even a 24
>>moving
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fader controller and you're well under 10K.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It all comes down to individual needs and preferences, so I'm not
>>really
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> saying you're wrong for what you're looking for. But for what I'm
>>>>>>>>> looking for, a native system is pretty compelling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OTOH, had PARIS MIDI support been better, had they hung around
long
>>>>>>>>> enough to support OSX and AU plugins, I'd still be using PARIS.
>Even
>>>>>>>>> with the limitation of 44.1 or 48 sampling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>>>>> Lamont
>>>>>>>>>> take care
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I dunno. Why lock into developing a new DSP system when native
>>CPUs
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> so fast now (fast enough for tons of tracks/plugins) and just
>getting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> faster?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The folks on gearslutz will always be chasing ways to spend more
>>>> money
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> on their systems (no matter what systems they have, native or
>DSP).
>>>>>>>>>>> There's no real cure for that. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's true the Mac Intel transition will take time. It's not a
>five
>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wait, though. Over the next six months there will likely be software
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> choices for audio production that run on both Intel and PPC,
probably
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> starting with Logic around March/April as a $50 upgrade, so they
>>>> say.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Over the next year the Mac Intel hardware choices will expand
>into
>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> laptop and desktop choices as Intel's series of chips hit the
>market.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The roadmap is pretty much known at this point. If you want to
>>go
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Intel, pick your best time for the transition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to make music using OSX right away there are plenty
>>of
>>>>> PPC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> choices that work today, all the way up to the quad PowerMac
which
>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> more muscle than you probably need. Available now and they'll
>continue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to work after the Intel transition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guys, Some thoughts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone noticed that since our beloved Paris DAW($2700list)there
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> pro DAW for under 10k??? Why??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know we have the Cubases ($499) Nuendo's ($1,500), Logic(1k),
>>>> DP(699)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sonar($400). There are all very good naitive systems that will
>>yield
>>>>>>>> pro
>>>>>>>>>>>> results. However, I can't belive thatthere is not one manufacture
>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Digidesign that want's to producer a DSP based DAW?? It's almost
>>>>> 6 years
>>>>>>>>>>>> since the plug was pulled on Paris! Yes, I did not forget about
>>>>>>>>>>>> Soundscape..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My Point in this post is to bring to ligh that Paris was a product
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> served
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the "Middle ground" studio. Now, looking back, it's price point
>>>> was
>>>>>>> revolutionary.
>>>>>>>>>>>> AND That's the point..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Today, if you're shelling out at least 10k for a PT HD system,
>>your
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> other alternative is do a naitive system..Again, I'm not saying
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> naitive's
>>>>>>>>>>>> are bad, but we all know that there's nothing like a cool DSP
>>>>>>>>>>>> DAW..Even
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> more,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a knwon fact that, if you wew to build your naitive system
>>>> up
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pro
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> standards (AD/DA converters,mixer,DSP FX cards) you'd actually
>>come
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD system.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There has to be a manufactuer that will stand up and fill in
>the
>>>>> gap
>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD & the Naitives. Any company has the balls??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Today my dream DAW would come from Mackie:
>>>>>>>>>>>> -The MAckie DBX digital mixer (Dual touch screens)that also
had
>>>> the
>>>>>>> capability
>>>>>>>>>>>> to record up to 128 24/96 audio tracks. Using the same cool
editing
>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>> in their earlier Hard disk recorder MDR2496. The mix has the
>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities
>>>>>>>>>>>> to add up to 3or 4 UAD cards, as well as third party FX for
the
>>>> mixer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a ground breaking product. Even though Tascam tried
>it,
>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SX-1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> was cool, but was too limited. Actualy, the SA-1 was a Ensoniq/EMU
>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>>> first, then made it's was over to Tascam..I digress..
>>>>>>>>>>>> I still hoping that the Yamaha/Steinberg marrige would yield
>a
>>very
>>>>>>> cool
>>>>>>>>>>>> DM2000 metts Nuendo or 02R-96 meets Cubase sx . All in one units..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As things stands now in our current state of Personal computers
>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DAW,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> we really have not had any ground breaking technology save for
>>newer
>>>>>>>> faster
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cpus.. Inwhich, I for one am tired of chasing the speed demon.Enough
>>>>>>>> already..I
>>>>>>>>>>>> say this and I work as a IT Network Consultant.. Okay :) i digress
>>>>>>>>>>>> again..:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this post grew out of neverending post over on
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.gearslutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ribbon mics, Summing buss's, 5k mics, 4k pre-amps, 4k
>>>>>>>>>>>> converters..
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking, why do I want to keep sinking good money into
"dressing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a naitive DAW to try to sound as good as Paris does for (2,700.00
>>>>> Orginal
>>>>>>>>>>>> list)??? Those guys, bless their hearts are into dreaming that
>>if
>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> sink
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> another 5-10k in analoge summing gear, tey will have that magic
>>>> ssound..
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I'm thinkink, 'Why have we gone backwards in this dAW game??
>>>>> Is
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Digi has such a strangle hold on the industry,that they can
dictate
>>>>>>> jsut
>>>>>>>>>>>> how much cool stuff reaches the lowered of the spectrum. What
>>I
>>>> mean
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PT LE is just enough to get frustrated to only dream and save
>>up
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> HD..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, we have this Apple fiasco..New machines, with new CPUS,
>little
>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>>> support. do they really think that thisi was good move now??
>I'm
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> a current Mac owner and I agonise for MAc lovers and users.
If
>>I
>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> them,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would not upgrade for at leat 3-4 years. I digress again ..:)
>>>> Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, calling on all new and current manufactures..You a vast
>>market
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pro users and studios that needs more juice and pro features
>than
>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> offereing, but we don;t want to spend 20k for it.. Soemthing
>along
>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3-15k
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> would do it..
>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay end of rant..LaMont
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW [message #63254 is a reply to message #63245] |
Tue, 17 January 2006 12:45 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lamont,
Bingo - you just stated that Nuendo exhibits a wide and spacious (I would
add clear) sound, where Paris is colored.
That's what I want in a DAW - transparent/clear. I don't want colored.
There are other ways to create color, but once it's in a colored mix engine,
there is no way to take it back out. That's what I found with Paris -
orchestral work and spacious synth pads never sounded righ. Yes, it sounds
great for rock, and many other sytles, but in general I prefer a transparent
starting point, creating attitude on a track by track basis as needed.
I know that's a departure from the audio industry's engineering approach to
using consoles for their characterm almost as a mantra rather than
understanding the real reason: we developed those expectations and
"standards" if you will, because the formats weren't absolutely
transparent - we had no choice - make the tool work for what it does, and
find something else when the requirements change. However, I'm a purist,
but without the unlimited budget to appease my ears. I always hated having
to factor in any noise floor from analog consoles, or tape. We went to a
lot of trouble and expense trying to keep analog gear (which does have very
good merits for character and color) sounding as clear as possible, and now
that we have clear digital (albeit not as clear as DSD or very high sample
rates would), we spend the same amount of time trying to put it all back.
Doesn't that sound just a little silly? I chalk it up to human nature. But
hearing a friend of mine in a well known audio engineering school talk, you
would think that these are standards that can't be changed without a
unanimous UN resolution.
I'll also be happy to take you up on your offer to Thad (if you will extend
that offer to me) to send a DVD to mix in Nuendo. If you are serious, email
me at: dedric at echomg dot com. You can include your best PTHD and/or
Paris mixes of the same tracks - I'll see if I can match them, even if we
don't have equivalent plugins.
For the record, regardless of who you were addressing, I can hear the
difference between a DCS converter, Mytek and Cransesong,
and can hear the differences at very minute levels - including between Paris
and other DAWs. But, your statement that it is a known fact that software
"has a sound" is misleading, if not incorrect. Software does not have a
sound beyond the accuracy of passing through what the converters interpret.
What you are referring to are differences in how audio files are managed in
specific situations, and how accurate that is - the ongoing DAW debate is
really about what is the "standard" or reference method. So far there isn't
one that anyone can agree on: float vs. fixed, DSD vs. PCM, etc, etc. For
example:
What Lynn Fuston's DAWSUM sampler shows is that actual summing of 24-bit
audio files (the act of adding at a given level) is identical in most DAWs
that have a known, invariant, direct path. This doesn't mean 32-bit float
and 48-bit fixed are identical in all mathematical uses, just that 22-24
bits of dyamic range, added together, are. Any difference between DAWs in
this test would indicate an error in pass through capability. The lowest
levels are where the bit depth differences occur - with 24-bit files in
unity gain summing, there will nothing to use beyond a 24-bit dynamic range.
At one time I found Paris was boosting gain exponentially as you go down. I
don't have Paris to confirm or recreate this (Sakis thinks we resolved that
issue, but I don't ever recall doing so).
**Also, interestingly, from Lynn's CD, Nuendo, Fairlight, Pyramix,
Samplitude and PTHD mixes cancel completely through -144dB, although with
very very small correlation differences between each (i.e. not one in
particular - this could be a slight variance in phase alignment in the
test), but Paris doesn't cancel with either - it exhibits differences as
high as -82dB. I first thought the Paris mix sounded wider, but when
comparing to Nuendo, and PTHD, the center of the mix sounded lower in
volume, making the edges sound wider - with a very slight bit of phase
oddity. The center of Nuendo sounded more defined, just as wide, just not
as loud on the edges. Paris almost sucked the center very slightly to my
ears, where Nuendo and PTHD pushed it a bit more. All of this can be
subjective, and on different monitors, the results could vary.
That's my take on it in more than a nutshell, and with more detail and
comparative listening than forum talk.
Regards,
Dedric
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:43cd3715$1@linux...
>
> Now, Thad,I'll be happy to ship/FTP you a project(50-24bit wav files) on
> /DVD for you to mix or just bring up with out mixing in SX. .Then, I want
> you bring those same files into Paris, or PT HD/LE..Then, if you will,
> report
> your auditory findings..:)
>
> Dedric, I think you think that I'm saying that one app is superior to
> another..Rather,
> I'm saying "in different kinds of music genres, one app suites the music
> more than others. Not, saying that you can't acheive great results from
> any
> DAW, but rather, some forms of music is easier to "MIX" in than others..
> That's all I'm saying. FOr example. To me, I would not use Paris for
> "critical
> film scoring" work. To me, Nuendo/SX sound quality, with it's wide,
> spacious,
> audio quality is just the right audio foot print for the project.
> Pro-Tools could be next and so could DP/Motus interfaces..But, the Paris
> sound, would be too "colored" where you need the spearation, wide deep
> sound
> to hear evey element of a score. also, commerical work as well..
>
> But, Paris would and is atop of my DAW food chain for mixing ROCK,
> HIP/HOP,
> R&B, Gospel. Paris's Agressive crunch and it's colored sound when pushed
> is alone in this dept followed by PT/with apogees Rosettas /AD/DA16x..
> Again, this is my world real world findings, not some internet forum
> talk..
>
> Sure, give me my MPC-2000& vs2480, and I'll get killer results everytime
> that folks swear I used a DAW on.
>
>
>
>
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Dedric,
>>
>>Here's my take on this. I bought the DAW CD from Lynn What's His Name. I
>>listened to it. I took the tests. I took them again. I had someone jumble
>>the tracks around and play them for me again. There were tiny wisp of
>>smoke
>>differences between the "best" and the "worst." On top of that, in an ABY
>>test I can't imagine anyone doing dramatically better than a coin flip.
> Maybe,
>>just maybe, a handful could, but I doubt even that.
>>
>>So, for me, that put the "summing bus" issue to rest. Until someone can
> give
>>me proof, and by proof I mean ABY testing or real matmatical analysis or
>>resulting audio files from different systems, I will believe that all
>>properly
>>written summing busses sound essentially the same. After that summing bus
>>CD came out suddenly the critiques of summing busses moved into other
>>areas
>>like certain frequencies (that apparently weren't on the tesing CD) and
> higher
>>track counts and acoustic instruments and so on. When someone gets me
>>evidence
>>I'll be interested again, but until then I'm happily over here using SX
> and
>>Live. So is DJ Krush and about a million other talented people who I am
> happy
>>to have as my company.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>I guess I'm outnumbered in the Nuendo sucks or not debate.
>>>
>>>Interesting example of when pro gear and reputation isn't all it's
>>>cracked
>>>up to be:
>>>
>>>I got a voiceover from a top post house in my area to use to create and
>>ad
>>>for a client. I don't know what they use, but PT would be the obvious
>>>guess.
>>>
>>>The voiceover was just 30 minutes of Q&A with an expert, logged for later
>>>use - the raw files from the studio were preprocessed - heavily over
>>>compressed with no apparent attempt to address heavy sibilance before
>>>compressing the crap out of it. Their goal is probably to produce quick
>>and
>>>low cost, so they have a "preset" chain for audio, and charge $200/hr for
>>it
>>>- no customization, just track it, burn it and send you on your way.
>>>Their
>>>rates are high, but project costs are low - you do the math, it's the
>>>Walmart approach to production.
>>>
>>>There was little I could do to remove the sibilance without audibly
>>>degrading the mids balance, and reaching diminishing returns very
>>>quickly,
>>>but I did make it sound better. Every voice over I've worked on, and
>>>heard
>>>from them sounds the same - sibilant, even in my car, from CD or on-air.
>>>
>>>The moral of the story - a lot of people call themselves pro, have pro
> gear,
>>>and hold a lion's share of their market to back it up, but that doesn't
>>mean
>>>the product is any better for it.
>>>
>>>I would rather be good using less than perfect gear to create a superior
>>>product than have the best, most recent and advanced gear money can buy
>>and
>>>not know what the heck I'm doing. Gear lust and aspiring for sonic
>>>nirvana
>>>is all well and good, but I had to put a limit on it and make it work for
>>>me, rather than against me. Now I'm just trying to make a living
>>>creating
>>a
>>>great product with what I have rather than worrying about how spending
>>>$30,000 more would make my audio sound 1% wider, or the top end 2%
>>>silkier
>>>when the client is going to cram it down an FM band with 10:1 or higher
>>>compression, or rip it to a 128k or lower mp3, cutting off every sonic
>>>nicety I slaved over and invested thousands of $$ to get.
>>>
>>>I'm off. Later.
>>>
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>On 1/16/06 12:10 AM, in article 43cb38ba$1@linux, "Deej"
>>><yiruyfh@hgdgr.not>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> La Mont,
>>>>
>>>> I started noticing something sort of mushy in SX in the low end at
>>>> around
>>>> 24 tracks. It could very well be that I just don't know how to mix on
>>a native
>>>> system though. Fire it over lightpipe into the Paris mixer and it gets
>>big
>>>> again. I'm still summing in Paris and actually setting levels and
>>>> fader/FX
>>>> automation on both DAWs. I'm getting basic fader moves done in SX and
>>then
>>>> tweaking them in Paris. It's pretty wild to watch a mix happen here.
> I'm
>>>> using a fair amount of analog gear in my mixes. I've got 10 analog I/O
>>in
>>>> my Cubase DAW and I'm using them all for inserts of analog comps and
> EQ's.
>>>> In Paris, I'm patching in analog qand digital reverbs and delays. For
>>a while
>>>> I was paranoid about signal degradation with this many AD/DA's. Now I
>>don't
>>>> even think twice.
>>>>
>>>> Last night Tony posted up a song that I mixed on his site.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mercysakes.com/paris/Doug%20Joyce/Faith%20In%20Lo ve/
>>>>
>>>> It's about finished, maybe a little more LF and vocal rebalancing and
>>a little
>>>> de-essing that I'm going to add. There are 30 tracks-12 drum tracks,
> vocal
>>>> track, 15 acoustic instrument tracks and 3 x electric bass tracks.
>>>> They've
>>>> got external processors all over them....10 x AD/DA's with analog
>>>> processors
>>>> in cubase Sx and another 6 x AD/DA's in Paris, but I'm happy with the
>>>> mix......and
>>>> what's most important, so is the client. It doesn't have that linearity
>>and
>>>> accuracy that I hear in the new PTHD, but we were going after a retro
>>feel
>>>> and I think we achieved it. I think the Paris mix engine has a lot to
>>do
>>>> with it all hanging together. It just doesn't sound at all the same if
>>I
>>>> sum it in SX. Much smaller sounding. this mix has had no *mastering*,
>>though
>>>> NoLimit was kissing the Paris mix bus.
>>>>
>>>> Deej
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpo@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> hey Dedric, a friend of mine has upgrade to Sonar5 and we can hear the
>>>>> difference
>>>>> form version 4. Version 4 sound was very balnd , vanillia if you will.
>>>>> version
>>>>> 5 mix summing sounds very wide, with more dept than version 4..So,
>>>>> they
>>>> did
>>>>> soemthing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: That's what I think Nuendos/SX weak point. in theory,their 32bit
>>>>> floating
>>>>> point mixer/summing bus was to allow for more audio options up and
>>>>> down
>>>> the
>>>>> audio bandwdith, but, things(mixes) start to fall apart at a certain
>>point.
>>>>> 32bit float is great for plugins, limited for summming with high track
>>>>> counts.
>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>> ID would be cool, even if it looks like a psychedelic video switching
>>mixer
>>>>>> from the 70's, but the reviews on functionality and increased
>>>>>> productivity
>>>>>> are rather convincing. Price is a bit steep though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of these wouldn't be bad either:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/system_5-mc/system_5-m c.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/mc/mc.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's Nuendo on screen in both links.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one still gets my vote for geek heaven and client wow factor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.smartav.net/images/E72Splash1-1024x768.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW - I'm guessing that if Steinberg gets the 64 bit update right
>>>>>> with
>>>> a
>>>>> 64
>>>>>> bit full audio path, summing boxes could be just another color in the
>>tool
>>>>>> palette, but far from necessary, and likely less spacious and clear,
>>but
>>>>>> that's more optimism than guarantee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to hear Sonar 5 in full 64-bit glory to see if 64-bit
> (assuming
>>>>>> Cakewalk isn't blowing smoke) lives up the paper specs on the
>>>>>> concept,
>>>> but
>>>>>> I'm hesitant to buy into the hype until proven sonically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/15/06 10:45 PM, in article 43cb24d5$1@linux, "Deej"
>>>>>> <hdfajkl@hjkal.buzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This would be my idea of an optimized productivity scenario if I was
>>>> using
>>>>>>> Nuendo and had the budget.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.arbitermt.co.uk/nuendo/products/idcontroller.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A bit pricey, but definitely specific to the application and with
> a
>>moose
>>>>>>> of a DAW running the software and DSP, a nice rack of Myteks or
>>>>>>> Lavry's
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> tracking and patching external processors, and a decent summing box,
>>>> I
>>>>> might
>>>>>>> be convinced to jump ship.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "LaMont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
> need
>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> I need may not be what you need and that could be the root of this
>>>>>>>> discussion)."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed.. :)
>>>>>>>> But, the rest of your post illustrates my points. Some Producer
>>>>>>>> buddies
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> mine in town, were having this same discusion about amonth or so
> ago.
>>>>> They
>>>>>>>> are all Mac user, with a few giga machines. The consesus for us all
>>>> is
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> we have grown tired of the "upgrade" syndrome that, for one forces
>>the
>>>>>>>> non-computer
>>>>>>>> music guy to become so entrenched with personal computer
>>>>>>>> technology,
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> they can't focus on music..At the end of the conversation, we all
>>agreed
>>>>>>>> that having a system like Pro-Tools HD would "serve" us best with
>>out
>>>>> having
>>>>>>>> to "think" or stay on the CPU upgrade "teadmill" if you will. I've
>>been
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> that treadmill since 97,and as I look back on how many great
>>>>>>>> working
>>>>> system
>>>>>>>> setups I've detroyed due becuase I was trying to play the CPU sped
>>>> game.
>>>>>>>> I've lost decnet paying mixng and production jobs becuase my
>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> not as stable as I had them before I "upgraded" to a faster cpu and
>>>> OS..
>>>>>>>> I one of our suites we still have PT Mix cube running on a G4(450)
>>OS9
>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>> rock solid stable.. One of my Paris setup still has Win
>>>>>>>> 98se..Stable
>>>>> stable
>>>>>>>> stable:)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2 staff producers went chasing the Apple speed dream , from Dual
> 867s
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> Dual G5(2.5s) on OSX..Man, the agony and frustrations on their
>>>>>>>> faces
>>>>> due
>>>>>>>> to the fact that they had serious deadlines. That's what spurred
> our
>>>>>>>> conversations
>>>>>>>> about it's either PTHD or a slotion with DM2000/02r96 with
>>>>>>>> Nuendo/PT
>>>>> Radar
>>>>>>>> with the yammy difital mixer.. Each set up cost. But, we demand a
>>solid
>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>> system, that you do not have to make execues to yourself and the
> client..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dedric may have said it best when he stated that doing a dedicated
>>dsp
>>>>> system
>>>>>>>> manybe a daughting task$$ Or so they say.. Stuff coming out of
>>>>>>>> China
>>>>> (Phonic
>>>>>>>> firewire) mixers as well as microphones and other products are
>>>>>>>> astounding
>>>>>>>> deals. Just maybe the solution I'm after will come from China?
>>>>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hey Jaimie,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Athough native cpus are fast, don't think that you are getting
> off
>>>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>>>> Playing the speed keep up game every 2 years is 1) not
>>>>>>>>>> productive..2)
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>> expensive.. think about it..??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both native and DSP-based can be expensive. Native can be much
>>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>> expensive though, if budget is limited. For example, on the low
> end
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> Mac Mini comes with Garage Band and you can do a lot with that and
>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> inexpensive Firewire or USB i/o box for a total cost of less than
>>$1000.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
> need
>>>>>>>>> (what I need may not be what you need and that could be the root
>>of
>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> discussion).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are DSP-based systems out there that come with their own
>>>>>>>>> mixer/burner/software in a table-top format without requiring a
>>>>>>>>> computer. They cost as much or more as a native system with a fast
>>>>>>>>> computer. If you want to get off of the computer upgrade cycle,
> they're
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> available and they do what they do pretty well. But they aren't
>>>>>>>>> particularly upgradable and upgradability is a big draw for
>>>>>>>>> computer-based systems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Computer-based systems that include separate DSP cards have some
>>of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> advantages and upgrade costs of native systems and some of the
>>>>>>>>> disadvantages and limitations of dedicated, non-computer-based
>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PARIS illustrates the disadvantages very well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I bought an Intel computer for PARIS and bought an OS upgrade
>>>>>>>>> along
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> way. A few years later I bought a faster G4 computer for PARIS and
>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> was a noticable improvement. I also bought an upgrade for the
>>>>>>>>> PARIS
>>>>>>>>> software which added useful new features and some unfinished,
>>>>>>>>> broken
>>>>>>>>> features. It was nice to be able to upgrade but it did cost money
>>just
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as a native system would have. I was limited to the PARIS hardware
>>>>>>>>> running on OS9, and the developers dropped support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PARIS would never get faster better, it was what it was. For me,
>>the
>>>>>>>>> freeze point in development stopped just short of what I needed.
>>Close,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but forever short. So I sold it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile CPUs had gotten much, much faster and having separate
> DSP
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the DAW had lost much of its advantage. I switched to a native
>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>> running on the same G4 computer I had purchased for PARIS, but
>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>> native software along with a new i/o box and a better operating
> system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The transition did not cost a lot overall and the sale of PARIS
> pretty
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> much covered it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did live on the bleeding edge for a while, though, with the
>>>>>>>>> transition
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to OSX and I had to try several Firewire interfaces to find a
>>>>>>>>> solid
>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After a few years I upgraded to a new computer but kept the
>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i/o box I was already using. I sold the previous computer, so the
>>>>>>>>> upgrade cost was not high. I upgraded the native software and
>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OS several times and the increase in capability was worth the
>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>> costs, just as it would have been with a DSP based system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I had to buy from scratch today, I'd either pick up a Quad
>>>>>>>>> PowerMac
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or save a bunch of money and get a dual G5 PowerMac, add extra RAM
>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HD, Digital Performer or Logic, a Firewire i/o box or two and some
>>>> third
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> party plugins. That system would probably last for the next ten
> years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even if I added a 24 moving fader controller it would be well
>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>> 10K.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, what I do and what you do may be different so your mileage
>>may
>>>>> vary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My current 2.5GHZ dual G5 is fast enough that I don't feel the
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> upgrade it for audio production. It could go for the next decade
>>with
>>>>>>>>> slowing me down.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However if I decide to upgrade it at some point for animation or
>>video
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> production, the audio side will come along for the ride at no
>>>>>>>>> extra
>>>>> cost.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At least with a DSP based sytem, you know what you have, and the
>>native
>>>>>>>> cpu
>>>>>>>>>> is a secondary issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With the speed of CPUs today, why tie yourself to a
>>>>>>>>> hardware-limited
>>>>> DSP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> system. If the company you buy it from is in business in five
>>>>>>>>> years,
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cost to upgrade a system like that could be much higher than just
>>buying
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a newer, faster computer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And when you buy a newer, faster computer you are upgrading
>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that runs on it, all your plugins, virtual instruments, even other
>>>>>>>>> software (graphics, animation, video editing, software
>>>>>>>>> development,
>>>>>>>>> whatever else you do), in one shot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Plus, low latency, better i/o integration in a pro
>>>>>>>>>> enviorment..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is your best argument. But latency is not an issue in my
>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>> setup. My i/o box has direct monitoring. Even if I monitor through
>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the latency is low enough that it hasn't been a problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The i/o integration is fine, I have 18 analog inputs and 16 analog
>>>>>>>>> outputs plus stereo digital i/o directly patchable through my DAW
>>>>>>>>> software and also routable from the i/o box's monitoring software.
>>>> If
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> need more i/o I can plug in another Firewire i/o box.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I run my system with a mouse and a jog/shuttle wheel add-on. I can
>>>> get
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> moving fader controllers from at least four different
>>>>>>>>> manufacturers
>>>>>>>>> which is tempting, but since I only really used the jog/shuttle
> part
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the PARIS controller I haven't needed that. Plus I've grown used
>>to
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> precision and (believe it or not) speed of mixing with the mouse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The sad truth with moast if not all native solutios is that
>>>>>>>>>> it has forced a big$$$ third party solutions market, inwhic
>>>>>>>>>> native
>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> are going back to purchase , talk back units, better than average
>>>>>>>>>> converters..All
>>>>>>>>>> to chase the dsp systems way of working..in the end, the native
>>person
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>> not realize that they have spent just as much, if not more than
>>they
>>>>>>> could've
>>>>>>>>>> gotten with a dsp based DAW.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A native system will be more flexible, you'll have more developers
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> choose from to enhance your system, and if one of the developers
>>goes
>>>>>>>>> under, your system will not hit a dead end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Over the last decade I've spent way less than, for example, a
>>>>>>>>> ProTools
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> system would have cost and am getting, I think, comparable
>>>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Having used nuendo sice it's inception (2000, ),logic audio, Ican
>>>> with
>>>>>>>> hesitation,
>>>>>>>>>> that it takes a lot of $$$ to bring those apps up to pro specs,
>>and
>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>> be known, steinbergs way of integrating hardware leaves a lot to
>>be
>>>>>>>>>> desired..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A Quad PowerMac with extra RAM and HD, MOTU Digital Performer, a
>>MOTU
>>>>>>>>> Firewire i/o box or two and some third party plugins...even a 24
>>moving
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fader controller and you're well under 10K.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It all comes down to individual needs and preferences, so I'm not
>>really
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> saying you're wrong for what you're looking for. But for what I'm
>>>>>>>>> looking for, a native system is pretty compelling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OTOH, had PARIS MIDI support been better, had they hung around
>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>> enough to support OSX and AU plugins, I'd still be using PARIS.
> Even
>>>>>>>>> with the limitation of 44.1 or 48 sampling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>>>>> Lamont
>>>>>>>>>> take care
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I dunno. Why lock into developing a new DSP system when native
>>CPUs
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> so fast now (fast enough for tons of tracks/plugins) and just
> getting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> faster?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The folks on gearslutz will always be chasing ways to spend more
>>>> money
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> on their systems (no matter what systems they have, native or
> DSP).
>>>>>>>>>>> There's no real cure for that. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's true the Mac Intel transition will take time. It's not a
> five
>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wait, though. Over the next six months there will likely be
>>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> choices for audio production that run on both Intel and PPC,
>>>>>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> starting with Logic around March/April as a $50 upgrade, so they
>>>> say.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Over the next year the Mac Intel hardware choices will expand
> into
>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> laptop and desktop choices as Intel's series of chips hit the
> market.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The roadmap is pretty much known at this point. If you want to
>>go
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Intel, pick your best time for the transition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to make music using OSX right away there are plenty
>>of
>>>>> PPC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> choices that work today, all the way up to the quad PowerMac
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> more muscle than you probably need. Available now and they'll
> continue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to work after the Intel transition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guys, Some thoughts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone noticed that since our beloved Paris
>>>>>>>>>>>> DAW($2700list)there
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> pro DAW for under 10k??? Why??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know we have the Cubases ($499) Nuendo's ($1,500), Logic(1k),
>>>> DP(699)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sonar($400). There are all very good naitive systems that will
>>yield
>>>>>>>> pro
>>>>>>>>>>>> results. However, I can't belive thatthere is not one
>>>>>>>>>>>> manufacture
>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Digidesign that want's to producer a DSP based DAW?? It's
>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>> 6 years
>>>>>>>>>>>> since the plug was pulled on Paris! Yes, I did not forget about
>>>>>>>>>>>> Soundscape..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My Point in this post is to bring to ligh that Paris was a
>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> served
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the "Middle ground" studio. Now, looking back, it's price point
>>>> was
>>>>>>> revolutionary.
>>>>>>>>>>>> AND That's the point..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Today, if you're shelling out at least 10k for a PT HD system,
>>your
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> other alternative is do a naitive system..Again, I'm not saying
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> naitive's
>>>>>>>>>>>> are bad, but we all know that there's nothing like a cool DSP
>>>>>>>>>>>> DAW..Even
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> more,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a knwon fact that, if you wew to build your naitive system
>>>> up
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pro
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> standards (AD/DA converters,mixer,DSP FX cards) you'd actually
>>come
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD system.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There has to be a manufactuer that will stand up and fill in
> the
>>>>> gap
>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD & the Naitives. Any company has the balls??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Today my dream DAW would come from Mackie:
>>>>>>>>>>>> -The MAckie DBX digital mixer (Dual touch screens)that also had
>>>> the
>>>>>>> capability
>>>>>>>>>>>> to record up to 128 24/96 audio tracks. Using the same cool
>>>>>>>>>>>> editing
>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>> in their earlier Hard disk recorder MDR2496. The mix has the
>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities
>>>>>>>>>>>> to add up to 3or 4 UAD cards, as well as third party FX for the
>>>> mixer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a ground breaking product. Even though Tascam tried
> it,
>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SX-1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> was cool, but was too limited. Actualy, the SA-1 was a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ensoniq/EMU
>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>>> first, then made it's was over to Tascam..I digress..
>>>>>>>>>>>> I still hoping that the Yamaha/Steinberg marrige would yield
> a
>>very
>>>>>>> cool
>>>>>>>>>>>> DM2000 metts Nuendo or 02R-96 meets Cubase sx . All in one
>>>>>>>>>>>> units..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As things stands now in our current state of Personal computers
>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DAW,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> we really have not had any ground breaking technology save for
>>newer
>>>>>>>> faster
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cpus.. Inwhich, I for one am tired of chasing the speed
>>>>>>>>>>>> demon.Enough
>>>>>>>> already..I
>>>>>>>>>>>> say this and I work as a IT Network Consultant.. Okay :) i
>>>>>>>>>>>> digress
>>>>>>>>>>>> again..:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this post grew out of neverending post over on
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.gearslutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ribbon mics, Summing buss's, 5k mics, 4k pre-amps, 4k
>>>>>>>>>>>> converters..
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking, why do I want to keep sinking good money into
>>>>>>>>>>>> "dressing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a naitive DAW to try to sound as good as Paris does for
>>>>>>>>>>>> (2,700.00
>>>>> Orginal
>>>>>>>>>>>> list)??? Those guys, bless their hearts are into dreaming that
>>if
>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> sink
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> another 5-10k in analoge summing gear, tey will have that magic
>>>> ssound..
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I'm thinkink, 'Why have we gone backwards in this dAW
>>>>>>>>>>>> game??
>>>>> Is
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Digi has such a strangle hold on the industry,that they can
>>>>>>>>>>>> dictate
>>>>>>> jsut
>>>>>>>>>>>> how much cool stuff reaches the lowered of the spectrum. What
>>I
>>>> mean
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PT LE is just enough to get frustrated to only dream and save
>>up
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> HD..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, we have this Apple fiasco..New machines, with new CPUS,
> little
>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>>> support. do they really think that thisi was good move now??
> I'm
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> a current Mac owner and I agonise for MAc lovers and users. If
>>I
>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> them,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would not upgrade for at leat 3-4 years. I digress again ..:)
>>>> Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, calling on all new and current manufactures..You a vast
>>market
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pro users and studios that needs more juice and pro features
> than
>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> offereing, but we don;t want to spend 20k for it.. Soemthing
> along
>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3-15k
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> would do it..
>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay end of rant..LaMont
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Not Since Paris, There Has been no Pro (Mid) DSPDAW [message #63276 is a reply to message #63254] |
Tue, 17 January 2006 19:45 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"But, your statement that it is a known fact that software
"has a sound" is misleading, if not incorrect. Software does not have a
sound beyond the accuracy of passing through what the converters interpret".
Hey Dedric, good discusion..But, I would have to disagree with you on the
above statement. DAW manufactuers have stated that yes, the code and scheme
used to derive their mixer and summing buss sound & performance is a factor..I
like that choices thtat we have in each DAW.. The right tool for the right
job..:)
P.S.
I can mail you the cd/dvd of the files and my premix.
email me with the specifics.. take care..Lamont
"Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote:
>Lamont,
>
>Bingo - you just stated that Nuendo exhibits a wide and spacious (I would
>add clear) sound, where Paris is colored.
>That's what I want in a DAW - transparent/clear. I don't want colored.
>There are other ways to create color, but once it's in a colored mix engine,
>there is no way to take it back out. That's what I found with Paris -
>orchestral work and spacious synth pads never sounded righ. Yes, it sounds
>great for rock, and many other sytles, but in general I prefer a transparent
>starting point, creating attitude on a track by track basis as needed.
>I know that's a departure from the audio industry's engineering approach
to
>using consoles for their characterm almost as a mantra rather than
>understanding the real reason: we developed those expectations and
>"standards" if you will, because the formats weren't absolutely
>transparent - we had no choice - make the tool work for what it does, and
>find something else when the requirements change. However, I'm a purist,
>but without the unlimited budget to appease my ears. I always hated having
>to factor in any noise floor from analog consoles, or tape. We went to
a
>lot of trouble and expense trying to keep analog gear (which does have very
>good merits for character and color) sounding as clear as possible, and
now
>that we have clear digital (albeit not as clear as DSD or very high sample
>rates would), we spend the same amount of time trying to put it all back.
>Doesn't that sound just a little silly? I chalk it up to human nature.
But
>hearing a friend of mine in a well known audio engineering school talk,
you
>would think that these are standards that can't be changed without a
>unanimous UN resolution.
>
>I'll also be happy to take you up on your offer to Thad (if you will extend
>that offer to me) to send a DVD to mix in Nuendo. If you are serious, email
>me at: dedric at echomg dot com. You can include your best PTHD and/or
>Paris mixes of the same tracks - I'll see if I can match them, even if we
>don't have equivalent plugins.
>
>For the record, regardless of who you were addressing, I can hear the
>difference between a DCS converter, Mytek and Cransesong,
>and can hear the differences at very minute levels - including between Paris
>and other DAWs. But, your statement that it is a known fact that software
>"has a sound" is misleading, if not incorrect. Software does not have a
>sound beyond the accuracy of passing through what the converters interpret.
>What you are referring to are differences in how audio files are managed
in
>specific situations, and how accurate that is - the ongoing DAW debate is
>really about what is the "standard" or reference method. So far there isn't
>one that anyone can agree on: float vs. fixed, DSD vs. PCM, etc, etc. For
>example:
>
>What Lynn Fuston's DAWSUM sampler shows is that actual summing of 24-bit
>audio files (the act of adding at a given level) is identical in most DAWs
>that have a known, invariant, direct path. This doesn't mean 32-bit float
>and 48-bit fixed are identical in all mathematical uses, just that 22-24
>bits of dyamic range, added together, are. Any difference between DAWs in
>this test would indicate an error in pass through capability. The lowest
>levels are where the bit depth differences occur - with 24-bit files in
>unity gain summing, there will nothing to use beyond a 24-bit dynamic range.
>At one time I found Paris was boosting gain exponentially as you go down.
I
>don't have Paris to confirm or recreate this (Sakis thinks we resolved that
>issue, but I don't ever recall doing so).
>
>**Also, interestingly, from Lynn's CD, Nuendo, Fairlight, Pyramix,
>Samplitude and PTHD mixes cancel completely through -144dB, although with
>very very small correlation differences between each (i.e. not one in
>particular - this could be a slight variance in phase alignment in the
>test), but Paris doesn't cancel with either - it exhibits differences as
>high as -82dB. I first thought the Paris mix sounded wider, but when
>comparing to Nuendo, and PTHD, the center of the mix sounded lower in
>volume, making the edges sound wider - with a very slight bit of phase
>oddity. The center of Nuendo sounded more defined, just as wide, just not
>as loud on the edges. Paris almost sucked the center very slightly to my
>ears, where Nuendo and PTHD pushed it a bit more. All of this can be
>subjective, and on different monitors, the results could vary.
>
>That's my take on it in more than a nutshell, and with more detail and
>comparative listening than forum talk.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:43cd3715$1@linux...
>>
>> Now, Thad,I'll be happy to ship/FTP you a project(50-24bit wav files)
on
>> /DVD for you to mix or just bring up with out mixing in SX. .Then, I want
>> you bring those same files into Paris, or PT HD/LE..Then, if you will,
>> report
>> your auditory findings..:)
>>
>> Dedric, I think you think that I'm saying that one app is superior to
>> another..Rather,
>> I'm saying "in different kinds of music genres, one app suites the music
>> more than others. Not, saying that you can't acheive great results from
>> any
>> DAW, but rather, some forms of music is easier to "MIX" in than others..
>> That's all I'm saying. FOr example. To me, I would not use Paris for
>> "critical
>> film scoring" work. To me, Nuendo/SX sound quality, with it's wide,
>> spacious,
>> audio quality is just the right audio foot print for the project.
>> Pro-Tools could be next and so could DP/Motus interfaces..But, the Paris
>> sound, would be too "colored" where you need the spearation, wide deep
>> sound
>> to hear evey element of a score. also, commerical work as well..
>>
>> But, Paris would and is atop of my DAW food chain for mixing ROCK,
>> HIP/HOP,
>> R&B, Gospel. Paris's Agressive crunch and it's colored sound when pushed
>> is alone in this dept followed by PT/with apogees Rosettas /AD/DA16x..
>> Again, this is my world real world findings, not some internet forum
>> talk..
>>
>> Sure, give me my MPC-2000& vs2480, and I'll get killer results everytime
>> that folks swear I used a DAW on.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hey Dedric,
>>>
>>>Here's my take on this. I bought the DAW CD from Lynn What's His Name.
I
>>>listened to it. I took the tests. I took them again. I had someone jumble
>>>the tracks around and play them for me again. There were tiny wisp of
>>>smoke
>>>differences between the "best" and the "worst." On top of that, in an
ABY
>>>test I can't imagine anyone doing dramatically better than a coin flip.
>> Maybe,
>>>just maybe, a handful could, but I doubt even that.
>>>
>>>So, for me, that put the "summing bus" issue to rest. Until someone can
>> give
>>>me proof, and by proof I mean ABY testing or real matmatical analysis
or
>>>resulting audio files from different systems, I will believe that all
>>>properly
>>>written summing busses sound essentially the same. After that summing
bus
>>>CD came out suddenly the critiques of summing busses moved into other
>>>areas
>>>like certain frequencies (that apparently weren't on the tesing CD) and
>> higher
>>>track counts and acoustic instruments and so on. When someone gets me
>>>evidence
>>>I'll be interested again, but until then I'm happily over here using SX
>> and
>>>Live. So is DJ Krush and about a million other talented people who I am
>> happy
>>>to have as my company.
>>>
>>>TCB
>>>
>>>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>I guess I'm outnumbered in the Nuendo sucks or not debate.
>>>>
>>>>Interesting example of when pro gear and reputation isn't all it's
>>>>cracked
>>>>up to be:
>>>>
>>>>I got a voiceover from a top post house in my area to use to create and
>>>ad
>>>>for a client. I don't know what they use, but PT would be the obvious
>>>>guess.
>>>>
>>>>The voiceover was just 30 minutes of Q&A with an expert, logged for later
>>>>use - the raw files from the studio were preprocessed - heavily over
>>>>compressed with no apparent attempt to address heavy sibilance before
>>>>compressing the crap out of it. Their goal is probably to produce quick
>>>and
>>>>low cost, so they have a "preset" chain for audio, and charge $200/hr
for
>>>it
>>>>- no customization, just track it, burn it and send you on your way.
>>>>Their
>>>>rates are high, but project costs are low - you do the math, it's the
>>>>Walmart approach to production.
>>>>
>>>>There was little I could do to remove the sibilance without audibly
>>>>degrading the mids balance, and reaching diminishing returns very
>>>>quickly,
>>>>but I did make it sound better. Every voice over I've worked on, and
>>>>heard
>>>>from them sounds the same - sibilant, even in my car, from CD or on-air.
>>>>
>>>>The moral of the story - a lot of people call themselves pro, have pro
>> gear,
>>>>and hold a lion's share of their market to back it up, but that doesn't
>>>mean
>>>>the product is any better for it.
>>>>
>>>>I would rather be good using less than perfect gear to create a superior
>>>>product than have the best, most recent and advanced gear money can buy
>>>and
>>>>not know what the heck I'm doing. Gear lust and aspiring for sonic
>>>>nirvana
>>>>is all well and good, but I had to put a limit on it and make it work
for
>>>>me, rather than against me. Now I'm just trying to make a living
>>>>creating
>>>a
>>>>great product with what I have rather than worrying about how spending
>>>>$30,000 more would make my audio sound 1% wider, or the top end 2%
>>>>silkier
>>>>when the client is going to cram it down an FM band with 10:1 or higher
>>>>compression, or rip it to a 128k or lower mp3, cutting off every sonic
>>>>nicety I slaved over and invested thousands of $$ to get.
>>>>
>>>>I'm off. Later.
>>>>
>>>>Dedric
>>>>
>>>>On 1/16/06 12:10 AM, in article 43cb38ba$1@linux, "Deej"
>>>><yiruyfh@hgdgr.not>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> La Mont,
>>>>>
>>>>> I started noticing something sort of mushy in SX in the low end at
>>>>> around
>>>>> 24 tracks. It could very well be that I just don't know how to mix
on
>>>a native
>>>>> system though. Fire it over lightpipe into the Paris mixer and it gets
>>>big
>>>>> again. I'm still summing in Paris and actually setting levels and
>>>>> fader/FX
>>>>> automation on both DAWs. I'm getting basic fader moves done in SX and
>>>then
>>>>> tweaking them in Paris. It's pretty wild to watch a mix happen here.
>> I'm
>>>>> using a fair amount of analog gear in my mixes. I've got 10 analog
I/O
>>>in
>>>>> my Cubase DAW and I'm using them all for inserts of analog comps and
>> EQ's.
>>>>> In Paris, I'm patching in analog qand digital reverbs and delays. For
>>>a while
>>>>> I was paranoid about signal degradation with this many AD/DA's. Now
I
>>>don't
>>>>> even think twice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last night Tony posted up a song that I mixed on his site.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.mercysakes.com/paris/Doug%20Joyce/Faith%20In%20Lo ve/
>>>>>
>>>>> It's about finished, maybe a little more LF and vocal rebalancing and
>>>a little
>>>>> de-essing that I'm going to add. There are 30 tracks-12 drum tracks,
>> vocal
>>>>> track, 15 acoustic instrument tracks and 3 x electric bass tracks.
>>>>> They've
>>>>> got external processors all over them....10 x AD/DA's with analog
>>>>> processors
>>>>> in cubase Sx and another 6 x AD/DA's in Paris, but I'm happy with the
>>>>> mix......and
>>>>> what's most important, so is the client. It doesn't have that linearity
>>>and
>>>>> accuracy that I hear in the new PTHD, but we were going after a retro
>>>feel
>>>>> and I think we achieved it. I think the Paris mix engine has a lot
to
>>>do
>>>>> with it all hanging together. It just doesn't sound at all the same
if
>>>I
>>>>> sum it in SX. Much smaller sounding. this mix has had no *mastering*,
>>>though
>>>>> NoLimit was kissing the Paris mix bus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deej
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpo@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hey Dedric, a friend of mine has upgrade to Sonar5 and we can hear
the
>>>>>> difference
>>>>>> form version 4. Version 4 sound was very balnd , vanillia if you will.
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> 5 mix summing sounds very wide, with more dept than version 4..So,
>>>>>> they
>>>>> did
>>>>>> soemthing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: That's what I think Nuendos/SX weak point. in theory,their 32bit
>>>>>> floating
>>>>>> point mixer/summing bus was to allow for more audio options up and
>>>>>> down
>>>>> the
>>>>>> audio bandwdith, but, things(mixes) start to fall apart at a certain
>>>point.
>>>>>> 32bit float is great for plugins, limited for summming with high track
>>>>>> counts.
>>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> ID would be cool, even if it looks like a psychedelic video switching
>>>mixer
>>>>>>> from the 70's, but the reviews on functionality and increased
>>>>>>> productivity
>>>>>>> are rather convincing. Price is a bit steep though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of these wouldn't be bad either:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/system_5-mc/system_5-m c.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or maybe,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/mc/mc.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's Nuendo on screen in both links.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This one still gets my vote for geek heaven and client wow factor:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.smartav.net/images/E72Splash1-1024x768.jpg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW - I'm guessing that if Steinberg gets the 64 bit update right
>>>>>>> with
>>>>> a
>>>>>> 64
>>>>>>> bit full audio path, summing boxes could be just another color in
the
>>>tool
>>>>>>> palette, but far from necessary, and likely less spacious and clear,
>>>but
>>>>>>> that's more optimism than guarantee.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to hear Sonar 5 in full 64-bit glory to see if 64-bit
>> (assuming
>>>>>>> Cakewalk isn't blowing smoke) lives up the paper specs on the
>>>>>>> concept,
>>>>> but
>>>>>>> I'm hesitant to buy into the hype until proven sonically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/15/06 10:45 PM, in article 43cb24d5$1@linux, "Deej"
>>>>>>> <hdfajkl@hjkal.buzzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This would be my idea of an optimized productivity scenario if I
was
>>>>> using
>>>>>>>> Nuendo and had the budget.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.arbitermt.co.uk/nuendo/products/idcontroller.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A bit pricey, but definitely specific to the application and with
>> a
>>>moose
>>>>>>>> of a DAW running the software and DSP, a nice rack of Myteks or
>>>>>>>> Lavry's
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> tracking and patching external processors, and a decent summing
box,
>>>>> I
>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>> be convinced to jump ship.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "LaMont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
>> need
>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> I need may not be what you need and that could be the root of this
>>>>>>>>> discussion)."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed.. :)
>>>>>>>>> But, the rest of your post illustrates my points. Some Producer
>>>>>>>>> buddies
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> mine in town, were having this same discusion about amonth or so
>> ago.
>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>> are all Mac user, with a few giga machines. The consesus for us
all
>>>>> is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> we have grown tired of the "upgrade" syndrome that, for one forces
>>>the
>>>>>>>>> non-computer
>>>>>>>>> music guy to become so entrenched with personal computer
>>>>>>>>> technology,
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> they can't focus on music..At the end of the conversation, we all
>>>agreed
>>>>>>>>> that having a system like Pro-Tools HD would "serve" us best with
>>>out
>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>> to "think" or stay on the CPU upgrade "teadmill" if you will. I've
>>>been
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> that treadmill since 97,and as I look back on how many great
>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>> setups I've detroyed due becuase I was trying to play the CPU
sped
>>>>> game.
>>>>>>>>> I've lost decnet paying mixng and production jobs becuase my
>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> not as stable as I had them before I "upgraded" to a faster cpu
and
>>>>> OS..
>>>>>>>>> I one of our suites we still have PT Mix cube running on a G4(450)
>>>OS9
>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>> rock solid stable.. One of my Paris setup still has Win
>>>>>>>>> 98se..Stable
>>>>>> stable
>>>>>>>>> stable:)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2 staff producers went chasing the Apple speed dream , from Dual
>> 867s
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> Dual G5(2.5s) on OSX..Man, the agony and frustrations on their
>>>>>>>>> faces
>>>>>> due
>>>>>>>>> to the fact that they had serious deadlines. That's what spurred
>> our
>>>>>>>>> conversations
>>>>>>>>> about it's either PTHD or a slotion with DM2000/02r96 with
>>>>>>>>> Nuendo/PT
>>>>>> Radar
>>>>>>>>> with the yammy difital mixer.. Each set up cost. But, we demand
a
>>>solid
>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>> system, that you do not have to make execues to yourself and the
>> client..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dedric may have said it best when he stated that doing a dedicated
>>>dsp
>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>> manybe a daughting task$$ Or so they say.. Stuff coming out of
>>>>>>>>> China
>>>>>> (Phonic
>>>>>>>>> firewire) mixers as well as microphones and other products are
>>>>>>>>> astounding
>>>>>>>>> deals. Just maybe the solution I'm after will come from China?
>>>>>>>>> LaMont
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lamont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Jaimie,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Athough native cpus are fast, don't think that you are getting
>> off
>>>>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>> Playing the speed keep up game every 2 years is 1) not
>>>>>>>>>>> productive..2)
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>> expensive.. think about it..??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Both native and DSP-based can be expensive. Native can be much
>>>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>>> expensive though, if budget is limited. For example, on the low
>> end
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> Mac Mini comes with Garage Band and you can do a lot with that
and
>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> inexpensive Firewire or USB i/o box for a total cost of less than
>>>$1000.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Productivity is a matter of finding a system that does what you
>> need
>>>>>>>>>> (what I need may not be what you need and that could be the root
>>>of
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> discussion).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are DSP-based systems out there that come with their own
>>>>>>>>>> mixer/burner/software in a table-top format without requiring
a
>>>>>>>>>> computer. They cost as much or more as a native system with a
fast
>>>>>>>>>> computer. If you want to get off of the computer upgrade cycle,
>> they're
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> available and they do what they do pretty well. But they aren't
>>>>>>>>>> particularly upgradable and upgradability is a big draw for
>>>>>>>>>> computer-based systems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Computer-based systems that include separate DSP cards have some
>>>of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> advantages and upgrade costs of native systems and some of the
>>>>>>>>>> disadvantages and limitations of dedicated, non-computer-based
>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PARIS illustrates the disadvantages very well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I bought an Intel computer for PARIS and bought an OS upgrade
>>>>>>>>>> along
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> way. A few years later I bought a faster G4 computer for PARIS
and
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> was a noticable improvement. I also bought an upgrade for the
>>>>>>>>>> PARIS
>>>>>>>>>> software which added useful new features and some unfinished,
>>>>>>>>>> broken
>>>>>>>>>> features. It was nice to be able to upgrade but it did cost money
>>>just
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as a native system would have. I was limited to the PARIS hardware
>>>>>>>>>> running on OS9, and the developers dropped support.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PARIS would never get faster better, it was what it was. For me,
>>>the
>>>>>>>>>> freeze point in development stopped just short of what I needed.
>>>Close,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but forever short. So I sold it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile CPUs had gotten much, much faster and having separate
>> DSP
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the DAW had lost much of its advantage. I switched to a native
>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>> running on the same G4 computer I had purchased for PARIS, but
>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>> native software along with a new i/o box and a better operating
>> system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The transition did not cost a lot overall and the sale of PARIS
>> pretty
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> much covered it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I did live on the bleeding edge for a while, though, with the
>>>>>>>>>> transition
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to OSX and I had to try several Firewire interfaces to find a
>>>>>>>>>> solid
>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After a few years I upgraded to a new computer but kept the
>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> i/o box I was already using. I sold the previous computer, so
the
>>>>>>>>>> upgrade cost was not high. I upgraded the native software and
>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OS several times and the increase in capability was worth the
>>>>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>>>> costs, just as it would have been with a DSP based system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I had to buy from scratch today, I'd either pick up a Quad
>>>>>>>>>> PowerMac
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> or save a bunch of money and get a dual G5 PowerMac, add extra
RAM
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HD, Digital Performer or Logic, a Firewire i/o box or two and
some
>>>>> third
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> party plugins. That system would probably last for the next ten
>> years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even if I added a 24 moving fader controller it would be well
>>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>> 10K.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, what I do and what you do may be different so your mileage
>>>may
>>>>>> vary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My current 2.5GHZ dual G5 is fast enough that I don't feel the
>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> upgrade it for audio production. It could go for the next decade
>>>with
>>>>>>>>>> slowing me down.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However if I decide to upgrade it at some point for animation
or
>>>video
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> production, the audio side will come along for the ride at no
>>>>>>>>>> extra
>>>>>> cost.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At least with a DSP based sytem, you know what you have, and
the
>>>native
>>>>>>>>> cpu
>>>>>>>>>>> is a secondary issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With the speed of CPUs today, why tie yourself to a
>>>>>>>>>> hardware-limited
>>>>>> DSP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> system. If the company you buy it from is in business in five
>>>>>>>>>> years,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cost to upgrade a system like that could be much higher than just
>>>buying
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a newer, faster computer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And when you buy a newer, faster computer you are upgrading
>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that runs on it, all your plugins, virtual instruments, even other
>>>>>>>>>> software (graphics, animation, video editing, software
>>>>>>>>>> development,
>>>>>>>>>> whatever else you do), in one shot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Plus, low latency, better i/o integration in a pro
>>>>>>>>>>> enviorment..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is your best argument. But latency is not an issue in my
>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>> setup. My i/o box has direct monitoring. Even if I monitor through
>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the latency is low enough that it hasn't been a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The i/o integration is fine, I have 18 analog inputs and 16 analog
>>>>>>>>>> outputs plus stereo digital i/o directly patchable through my
DAW
>>>>>>>>>> software and also routable from the i/o box's monitoring software.
>>>>> If
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> need more i/o I can plug in another Firewire i/o box.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I run my system with a mouse and a jog/shuttle wheel add-on. I
can
>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> moving fader controllers from at least four different
>>>>>>>>>> manufacturers
>>>>>>>>>> which is tempting, but since I only really used the jog/shuttle
>> part
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the PARIS controller I haven't needed that. Plus I've grown used
>>>to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> precision and (believe it or not) speed of mixing with the mouse.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The sad truth with moast if not all native solutios is that
>>>>>>>>>>> it has forced a big$$$ third party solutions market, inwhic
>>>>>>>>>>> native
>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>> are going back to purchase , talk back units, better than average
>>>>>>>>>>> converters..All
>>>>>>>>>>> to chase the dsp systems way of working..in the end, the native
>>>person
>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>> not realize that they have spent just as much, if not more than
>>>they
>>>>>>>> could've
>>>>>>>>>>> gotten with a dsp based DAW.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A native system will be more flexible, you'll have more developers
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> choose from to enhance your system, and if one of the developers
>>>goes
>>>>>>>>>> under, your system will not hit a dead end.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Over the last decade I've spent way less than, for example, a
>>>>>>>>>> ProTools
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> system would have cost and am getting, I think, comparable
>>>>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Having used nuendo sice it's inception (2000, ),logic audio,
Ican
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> hesitation,
>>>>>>>>>>> that it takes a lot of $$$ to bring those apps up to pro specs,
>>>and
>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>> be known, steinbergs way of integrating hardware leaves a lot
to
>>>be
>>>>>>>>>>> desired..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A Quad PowerMac with extra RAM and HD, MOTU Digital Performer,
a
>>>MOTU
>>>>>>>>>> Firewire i/o box or two and some third party plugins...even a
24
>>>moving
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> fader controller and you're well under 10K.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It all comes down to individual needs and preferences, so I'm
not
>>>really
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> saying you're wrong for what you're looking for. But for what
I'm
>>>>>>>>>> looking for, a native system is pretty compelling.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OTOH, had PARIS MIDI support been better, had they hung around
>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>> enough to support OSX and AU plugins, I'd still be using PARIS.
>> Even
>>>>>>>>>> with the limitation of 44.1 or 48 sampling.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>>>>>> Lamont
>>>>>>>>>>> take care
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I dunno. Why lock into developing a new DSP system when native
>>>CPUs
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> so fast now (fast enough for tons of tracks/plugins) and just
>> getting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> faster?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The folks on gearslutz will always be chasing ways to spend
more
>>>>> money
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> on their systems (no matter what systems they have, native or
>> DSP).
>>>>>>>>>>>> There's no real cure for that. :^)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's true the Mac Intel transition will take time. It's not
a
>> five
>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, though. Over the next six months there will likely be
>>>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> choices for audio production that run on both Intel and PPC,
>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> starting with Logic around March/April as a $50 upgrade, so
they
>>>>> say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the next year the Mac Intel hardware choices will expand
>> into
>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> laptop and desktop choices as Intel's series of chips hit the
>> market.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The roadmap is pretty much known at this point. If you want
to
>>>go
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Intel, pick your best time for the transition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to make music using OSX right away there are plenty
>>>of
>>>>>> PPC
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> choices that work today, all the way up to the quad PowerMac
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> more muscle than you probably need. Available now and they'll
>> continue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to work after the Intel transition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guys, Some thoughts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone noticed that since our beloved Paris
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAW($2700list)there
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pro DAW for under 10k??? Why??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know we have the Cubases ($499) Nuendo's ($1,500), Logic(1k),
>>>>> DP(699)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> &
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sonar($400). There are all very good naitive systems that will
>>>yield
>>>>>>>>> pro
>>>>>>>>>>>>> results. However, I can't belive thatthere is not one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manufacture
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Digidesign that want's to producer a DSP based DAW?? It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>> 6 years
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since the plug was pulled on Paris! Yes, I did not forget about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Soundscape..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My Point in this post is to bring to ligh that Paris was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> served
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "Middle ground" studio. Now, looking back, it's price point
>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> revolutionary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AND That's the point..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today, if you're shelling out at least 10k for a PT HD system,
>>>your
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other alternative is do a naitive system..Again, I'm not saying
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> naitive's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are bad, but we all know that there's nothing like a cool DSP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAW..Even
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> more,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a knwon fact that, if you wew to build your naitive system
>>>>> up
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pro
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards (AD/DA converters,mixer,DSP FX cards) you'd actually
>>>come
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has to be a manufactuer that will stand up and fill in
>> the
>>>>>> gap
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PT HD & the Naitives. Any company has the balls??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today my dream DAW would come from Mackie:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -The MAckie DBX digital mixer (Dual touch screens)that also
had
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> capability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to record up to 128 24/96 audio tracks. Using the same cool
>>>>>>>>>>>>> editing
>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in their earlier Hard disk recorder MDR2496. The mix has the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to add up to 3or 4 UAD cards, as well as third party FX for
the
>>>>> mixer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a ground breaking product. Even though Tascam tried
>> it,
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SX-1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was cool, but was too limited. Actualy, the SA-1 was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ensoniq/EMU
>>>>>>>>>>>>> product
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first, then made it's was over to Tascam..I digress..
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still hoping that the Yamaha/Steinberg marrige would yield
>> a
>>>very
>>>>>>>> cool
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DM2000 metts Nuendo or 02R-96 meets Cubase sx . All in one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> units..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As things stands now in our current state of Personal computers
>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DAW,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we really have not had any ground breaking technology save
for
>>>newer
>>>>>>>>> faster
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cpus.. Inwhich, I for one am tired of chasing the speed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> demon.Enough
>>>>>>>>> already..I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say this and I work as a IT Network Consultant.. Okay :) i
>>>>>>>>>>>>> digress
>>>>>>>>>>>>> again..:)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess this post grew out of neverending post over on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.gearslutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about Ribbon mics, Summing buss's, 5k mics, 4k pre-amps, 4k
>>>>>>>>>>>>> converters..
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking, why do I want to keep sinking good money into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "dressing
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a naitive DAW to try to sound as good as Paris does for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2,700.00
>>>>>> Orginal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> list)??? Those guys, bless their hearts are into dreaming that
>>>if
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> sink
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another 5-10k in analoge summing gear, tey will have that magic
>>>>> ssound..
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I'm thinkink, 'Why have we gone backwards in this dAW
>>>>>>>>>>>>> game??
>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Digi has such a strangle hold on the industry,that they can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictate
>>>>>>>> jsut
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much cool stuff reaches the lowered of the spectrum. What
>>>I
>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PT LE is just enough to get frustrated to only dream and save
>>>up
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> HD..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, we have this Apple fiasco..New machines, with new CPUS,
>> little
>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support. do they really think that thisi was good move now??
>> I'm
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a current Mac owner and I agonise for MAc lovers and users.
If
>>>I
>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> them,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would not upgrade for at leat 3-4 years. I digress again
..:)
>>>>> Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, calling on all new and current manufactures..You a vast
>>>market
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pro users and studios that needs more juice and pro features
>> than
>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> offereing, but we don;t want to spend 20k for it.. Soemthing
>> along
>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3-15k
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would do it..
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay end of rant..LaMont
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Dec 03 05:41:39 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02963 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
