|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: UAD1_noneed to wrap_just use free FFX4 [message #58868 is a reply to message #58849] |
Sat, 08 October 2005 07:32   |
Cujjo
Messages: 325
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
> http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?p=450412#post4504 12
Zombies, eh?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............brains!I made mine by putting Paris in record at the desired sample rate, looping a
digital input to a mixer in the patchbay for Paris and feeding it no audio.
AA
"Cujo" <chris@applemanstudio.com> wrote in message news:43485317$1@linux...
>
> Hey D,
> Thanks for the Email.
> I am going to bombard you wiht questions soon.
> I need to make a ghost of my sytem first.
> How do you mak a silent PAF file?
> Sorry if this is a dumb question.
>
> "Dimitrios" <musurgio@otenet.gr> wrote:
>>He,
>>Yeah well,
>>I didn't mean to make any harm to your system....
>>
>>EDSTransfer 8,16 is better and more relaxed than 8,8.
>>I use this for 4-5 months now ,no problem at all.
>>The 8,8 causes slow disk transfers with many tracks.
>>
>>Yes your old UAD1 wraps are 16384 samples long....
>>Chainer is a way to go.
>>But download this Spinaudio lite for free to wrap around chainer to lower
>>the latency to 4096 samples.
>>That is 1/4 of your "working" latency.
>>If you are adventureous inserts the FREE multifxvst inside chainer and
>>then
>>load UAD to go down to 2048 samples ! latent around 40ms...
>>Not bad right ?
|
|
|
|
| Re: UAD1_noneed to wrap_just use free FFX4 [message #58895 is a reply to message #58868] |
Sun, 09 October 2005 19:20 |
Miguel Vigil [1]
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>> I have done orchestras straight to 44.1 / 16 bits that have been
>> as smooth and sweet and detailed as anyone could expect and way
>> better sounding than any vinyl record could ever be.
>>
>> 2. It is not a matter of hearing the higher frequencies. We don't.
>> What we may hear is the transient response being better. One of the
>> things I learned from my power amp design friends is that you need
>> frequency response out to 250K or so for the transients to be
>> well reproduced. This may be an issue in digital also.
>>
>> 3. What many people are claiming to hear is not more highs, but
>> more detail. I hear more detail at very low levels on classical, where
>> you start running out of bits at 16. This is a real issue, but less
so
>>
>> for pop music since with most pop, the waveform is so compressed
>> it looks like a solid bar instead of a waveform.
>>
>> 4. There's always some placebo effect, and there have been a LOT
>> of bad sounding boxes sold on their high sample rates while the
>> bozo designers simply forgot about things like mic-pre quality,
>> component quality, basic circuit design and interface issues.
>>
>>
>> Recording engineers we have to be able to do 4 things well:
>>
>> Never yell with headphones on
>>
>> Coil cables properly
>>
>> Hear where to EQ
>>
>> Have minimal placebo effect. Yes, this can be learned.
>>
>>
>> In the end, I would rather engineer well, with good gear (and never in
>> the Pro Tools mix buss!) at red-book spec than use hi-rez stuff
>> that has less attention paid to the quality of each piece.
>>
>> All things being equal, hi-res is better. But less than they say.
>>
>> BTW, with the amazing popularity of iPods and the like, it seems as
>> if hi-res is no longer an issue since we can't even get beyond MP3
>> let alone red-book. I disagree. Right now, there are iPods with 60
>> gigabytes!
>>
>> Now, a CD can only 700meg, so we could easily have iPods holding
>> 86+ CD's of uncompressed audio! No MP3 crap! It's mainly an
>> access speed issue at this point, but I think it will happ
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
