Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » the last paris app we need?
| the last paris app we need? [message #101890] |
Sun, 04 January 2009 09:23  |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
hey guys :-)
after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
still using paris? is it even one hundred?
ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc yada
yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
most ex-paris users feel that way.
so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
to focus on something entirely different?
like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
like files in use and position info and would convert
that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
(OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
continous wave files that get their data from the project file
and the associated pafs?
or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
where you then could ressurrect your files.
i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work thats
currently being done (and that is exactly
what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
working paris computer in the second control room but its
collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
(and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
impossible).
i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
wrong.
thanks for listening :-)
derek
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101892 is a reply to message #101890] |
Sun, 04 January 2009 10:48  |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
wrong."
I don't take any offense to your questions, although I really don't do anything
paris related anymore.
Chuck
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>hey guys :-)
>
>
>after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
>again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
>quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
>it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
>how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
>and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
>
>
>with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
>platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
>put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
>more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
>still using paris? is it even one hundred?
>
>ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
>platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
>going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
>integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
>sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc
yada
>yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
>is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
>most ex-paris users feel that way.
>
>so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
>for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
>to focus on something entirely different?
>like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
>and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
>that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
>like files in use and position info and would convert
>that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
>(OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
>target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
>continous wave files that get their data from the project file
>and the associated pafs?
>
>or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
>that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
>EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
>you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
>software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
>dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
>whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
>get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
>a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
>where you then could ressurrect your files.
>
>i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work thats
>currently being done (and that is exactly
>what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
>make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
>
>to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
>is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
>whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
>working paris computer in the second control room but its
>collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
>outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
>the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
>
>and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
>at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
>great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
>in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
>(and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
>fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
>for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
>
>not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
>in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
>more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
>paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
>machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
>impossible).
>
>
>i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
>people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
>wrong.
>
>
>thanks for listening :-)
>derek
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101893 is a reply to message #101890] |
Sun, 04 January 2009 13:51 |
Ted Gerber
Messages: 705
Registered: January 2009
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Derek -
Thanks for the comments. All worthwhile from a source who has
earned respect here over the years. I don't think anyone will take offense.
There are 2 reasons why I stick with PARIS:
1. The sound
2. The cost of a significant change
I use Logic for the things that it does well and all the reasons
you cited, (convenience/productivity issues) and PARIS for tracking/stem
mixing and final bounce.
Summing from Logic out through an analog board gives results that
I like. Summing through PARIS without an analog board gives me
results I like even more. AD converters currently available are
more clear, detailed, smooth etc than the PARIS ones, but I would have to
sink a bunch more cash into this, and would rather not.
Engineer/Producer friends of mine, who are a lot more experienced
than me, and have a lot more invested than I do, are consistently pleased/surprised/blown
away by the sonic character of what I can do in PARIS. In fact, on a CD we
just finished, I took the final mixes from Logic, summed out through analog
to tape, that my mix guy had done, and dropped them into PARIS with no gain
change, panned L R and re-bounced them. Everyone involved
preferred the PARIS bounces 100% of the time.
So for me, PARIS right now is still my best choice.
Peace,
Ted
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>hey guys :-)
>
>
>after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
>again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
>quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
>it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
>how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
>and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
>
>
>with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
>platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
>put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
>more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
>still using paris? is it even one hundred?
>
>ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
>platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
>going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
>integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
>sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc
yada
>yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
>is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
>most ex-paris users feel that way.
>
>so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
>for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
>to focus on something entirely different?
>like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
>and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
>that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
>like files in use and position info and would convert
>that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
>(OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
>target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
>continous wave files that get their data from the project file
>and the associated pafs?
>
>or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
>that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
>EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
>you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
>software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
>dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
>whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
>get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
>a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
>where you then could ressurrect your files.
>
>i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work thats
>currently being done (and that is exactly
>what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
>make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
>
>to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
>is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
>whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
>working paris computer in the second control room but its
>collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
>outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
>the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
>
>and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
>at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
>great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
>in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
>(and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
>fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
>for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
>
>not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
>in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
>more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
>paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
>machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
>impossible).
>
>
>i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
>people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
>wrong.
>
>
>thanks for listening :-)
>derek
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101894 is a reply to message #101893] |
Sun, 04 January 2009 14:07 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I too have Logic and PT and Reaper and so on. I record rock and roll, I'd
like midi and all that, but I really don't need midi, I actually record musicians
playing instruments. What I seek is the best sound.
Hey if you like to send me all your old Paris stuff, I'd be glad to pay for
the shipping...; )
James
"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Derek -
>
>Thanks for the comments. All worthwhile from a source who has
>earned respect here over the years. I don't think anyone will take offense.
>There are 2 reasons why I stick with PARIS:
>
>1. The sound
>2. The cost of a significant change
>
>I use Logic for the things that it does well and all the reasons
>you cited, (convenience/productivity issues) and PARIS for tracking/stem
>mixing and final bounce.
>
>Summing from Logic out through an analog board gives results that
>I like. Summing through PARIS without an analog board gives me
>results I like even more. AD converters currently available are
>more clear, detailed, smooth etc than the PARIS ones, but I would have to
>sink a bunch more cash into this, and would rather not.
>
>Engineer/Producer friends of mine, who are a lot more experienced
>than me, and have a lot more invested than I do, are consistently pleased/surprised/blown
>away by the sonic character of what I can do in PARIS. In fact, on a CD
we
>just finished, I took the final mixes from Logic, summed out through analog
>to tape, that my mix guy had done, and dropped them into PARIS with no gain
>change, panned L R and re-bounced them. Everyone involved
>preferred the PARIS bounces 100% of the time.
>
>So for me, PARIS right now is still my best choice.
>
>Peace,
>
>Ted
>
>
>"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>hey guys :-)
>>
>>
>>after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
>>again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
>>quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
>>it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
>>how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
>>and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
>>
>>
>>with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
>>platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
>>put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
>>more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
>>still using paris? is it even one hundred?
>>
>>ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
>>platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
>>going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
>>integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
>>sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc
>yada
>>yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
>>is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
>>most ex-paris users feel that way.
>>
>>so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
>>for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
>>to focus on something entirely different?
>>like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
>>and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
>>that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
>>like files in use and position info and would convert
>>that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
>>(OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
>>target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
>>continous wave files that get their data from the project file
>>and the associated pafs?
>>
>>or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
>>that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
>>EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
>>you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
>>software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
>>dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
>>whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
>>get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
>>a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
>>where you then could ressurrect your files.
>>
>>i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work
thats
>>currently being done (and that is exactly
>>what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
>>make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
>>
>>to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
>>is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
>>whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
>>working paris computer in the second control room but its
>>collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
>>outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
>>the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
>>
>>and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
>>at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
>>great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
>>in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
>>(and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
>>fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
>>for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
>>
>>not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
>>in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
>>more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
>>paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
>>machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
>>impossible).
>>
>>
>>i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
>>people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
>>wrong.
>>
>>
>>thanks for listening :-)
>>derek
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101895 is a reply to message #101893] |
Sun, 04 January 2009 13:06 |
TC
Messages: 327
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I agree with everything Ted said.
I'm using Paris at the moment for summing because of the sound, period.
To put it in perspective, I have a PTHD2 accel system and a native Logic
system that I use for recording/midi composition etc.
I also have a Shadow Hills Equinox, and also prior to that had 2 Rolls
folcroms with 2 API 512c's that were used as a summing mixer.
I love the Equinox for summing, but Paris is now filling that role. I
can automate my mix in paris and use some eds inserts on channels, so
I'm still using Paris' biggest strengths. Now that Mike's drivers are
out, it makes this route even more appealing.
My Equinox cost around 4k, I've spent a few grand on Paris stuff over
the last couple months (Ok, I went a bit overboard, but I'm planning to
use this for another 10 years). The Paris stuff that I'm actually using
now that everything is set up was maybe $1600.00, and it's a big ass
paris rig.
I don't think native paris would sound the same. The mojo with Paris is
a sum of all parts, hardware and software.
The sound is the only reason why Paris still lives. If it sounded like a
PT mix system, it would be long dead and buried. You just have to know
it's strengths as well as it's limitations.
Cheers,
TC
Ted Gerber wrote:
> Hi Derek -
>
> Thanks for the comments. All worthwhile from a source who has
> earned respect here over the years. I don't think anyone will take offense.
> There are 2 reasons why I stick with PARIS:
>
> 1. The sound
> 2. The cost of a significant change
>
> I use Logic for the things that it does well and all the reasons
> you cited, (convenience/productivity issues) and PARIS for tracking/stem
> mixing and final bounce.
>
> Summing from Logic out through an analog board gives results that
> I like. Summing through PARIS without an analog board gives me
> results I like even more. AD converters currently available are
> more clear, detailed, smooth etc than the PARIS ones, but I would have to
> sink a bunch more cash into this, and would rather not.
>
> Engineer/Producer friends of mine, who are a lot more experienced
> than me, and have a lot more invested than I do, are consistently pleased/surprised/blown
> away by the sonic character of what I can do in PARIS. In fact, on a CD we
> just finished, I took the final mixes from Logic, summed out through analog
> to tape, that my mix guy had done, and dropped them into PARIS with no gain
> change, panned L R and re-bounced them. Everyone involved
> preferred the PARIS bounces 100% of the time.
>
> So for me, PARIS right now is still my best choice.
>
> Peace,
>
> Ted
>
>
> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>> hey guys :-)
>>
>>
>> after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
>> again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
>> quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
>> it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
>> how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
>> and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
>>
>>
>> with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
>> platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
>> put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
>> more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
>> still using paris? is it even one hundred?
>>
>> ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
>> platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
>> going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
>> integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
>> sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc
> yada
>> yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
>> is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
>> most ex-paris users feel that way.
>>
>> so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
>> for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
>> to focus on something entirely different?
>> like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
>> and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
>> that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
>> like files in use and position info and would convert
>> that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
>> (OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
>> target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
>> continous wave files that get their data from the project file
>> and the associated pafs?
>>
>> or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
>> that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
>> EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
>> you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
>> software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
>> dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
>> whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
>> get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
>> a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
>> where you then could ressurrect your files.
>>
>> i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work thats
>> currently being done (and that is exactly
>> what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
>> make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
>>
>> to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
>> is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
>> whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
>> working paris computer in the second control room but its
>> collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
>> outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
>> the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
>>
>> and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
>> at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
>> great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
>> in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
>> (and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
>> fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
>> for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
>>
>> not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
>> in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
>> more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
>> paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
>> machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
>> impossible).
>>
>>
>> i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
>> people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
>> wrong.
>>
>>
>> thanks for listening :-)
>> derek
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101897 is a reply to message #101890] |
Sun, 04 January 2009 15:26 |
mike audet[1]
Messages: 129
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Derek,
No offense taken. Would it make more sense to put effort into writing software
to convert PARIS projects to something else? Not for me. I use PARIS.
I couldn't care less about porting projects out.
I like PARIS the way it is. Also, I refuse to use anything that is host
based, and that leaves Pro Tools and PARIS. I refuse to give even one more
dime to Digidesign, so that leaves PARIS.
I synch Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 to PARIS via MTC. I use a EMU ESI2000 sampler.
If I'm going to spend money on a major upgrade, it will be for a U87 or
better mic preamps.
Why should anyone spend thousands of dollars on a new system that may make
things easier, but won't make one's recordings sound any better? Also, consider
that when in a few years, that system will be worth a few hundred dollars,
if that. The depreciation on DAW hardware is worse than on a car. For me,
it makes way more sense to use PARIS to its best potential and use the "upgrade"
money for things that hold their value and actually deliver a better final
product.
Here's an example: I bought three UAD1 cards (for around $100 each) planning
to "upgrade" my EQ to the Cambridge. The PARIS EQ sounds better. Imagine
if I had spent $3000 on that same digital hardware just a few years ago chasing
the latest/greatest? What a waste of money.
As it is, I LOVE the Dp/Pro Hall. My Lexicon MPX1 isn't even plugged in
right now. I love the PARIS Eq. I love having no latency when I'm recording.
I love my new Grace m101 that I wouldn't have been able to afford if I had
bought a ProTools HD rig.
I will eventually be porting at least some of the effects to VST, but I've
got PARIS to run the effects right now, so VST isn't a priority. ASIO is
a priority. With ASIO, I'll be able to use the PARIS hardware with newer
software when it makes sense to do so. I love the spectral editing in Audition.
Getting that working makes sense to me.
I'm glad you're happy with whatever you are using now. But, so are many
of us.
All the best,
Mike
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>hey guys :-)
>
>
>after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
>again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
>quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
>it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
>how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
>and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
>
>
>with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
>platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
>put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
>more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
>still using paris? is it even one hundred?
>
>ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
>platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
>going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
>integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
>sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc
yada
>yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
>is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
>most ex-paris users feel that way.
>
>so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
>for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
>to focus on something entirely different?
>like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
>and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
>that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
>like files in use and position info and would convert
>that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
>(OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
>target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
>continous wave files that get their data from the project file
>and the associated pafs?
>
>or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
>that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
>EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
>you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
>software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
>dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
>whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
>get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
>a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
>where you then could ressurrect your files.
>
>i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work thats
>currently being done (and that is exactly
>what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
>make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
>
>to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
>is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
>whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
>working paris computer in the second control room but its
>collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
>outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
>the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
>
>and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
>at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
>great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
>in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
>(and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
>fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
>for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
>
>not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
>in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
>more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
>paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
>machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
>impossible).
>
>
>i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
>people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
>wrong.
>
>
>thanks for listening :-)
>derek
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101898 is a reply to message #101893] |
Sun, 04 January 2009 17:04 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
i see, The Summing Issue it is :-)
as you might remember, i sailed on that ship quite a few
years too, and i know exactly what youre talking about.
having said that though, of course there is no magic
to the paris sound, its just a combination of things if you ask me:
1. simple, straightforward clipping and truncating
2. the ensoniq converters and their awesome coloring
(a longtime ensoniq virtue, i.e. also the ASR and ASRX samplers
sounded simply amazing whatever you threw at them)
3. the fact that you run a mix using only nice ensoniq
algorithms (and boy, did they have a hand for good sounding
yet simple effect algorithms)
4. (often underestimated) the "direct" feel of the low
latency interface and (here comes the only thing i would
give ID credit for and not ensoniq) the smart mouse behaviour
when i.e. dragging eq values. oh, and the interface and
its color does help too.
thats pretty much it. and while it is a bunch of stuff, its
a. nothing that cant be done elsewhere and
b. no summing rocket science. actually the mere summing
of paris is quite normal, easily testable with the
usual phase cancellation tests im sure we all have done.
so after years of limiting myself to paris because of the
supposedly magic sound character, it really didnt take me
very long to get right back to this point with another system.
i color my stuff with my pres (and i kept some ensoniq AD/DAs
around for a while), i have a million ways of clipping,
i only use nice plugins (doh!) and with todays machines,
latency isnt an issue anymore. my dual quad machine lets me open many times
more stuff than a fully expanded paris would do while
running at 1.5ms latency.
so, speaking longterm and sound quality only, for a list of things that can
really can be had elsewhere
too if you invest a little time, you give up so many other things
that have a true impact on sound, like proper grouping,
sample precise latency correction, processing on group and
master channels of any kind you wish, group based ducking,
100% generation loss free bouncing etc etc.
at the end of the day, personally i find this just a bad
deal not only featurewise, but *also* soundwise. these days
im doing things in nuendo i could not dream of doing in paris.
and i had that system very much pushed to the limit. i did
drumsubgroup compression over the aux bus (what a pain in the...!). i avoided
rendering stuff because it didnt sound
right. i made heavy use of the fun ways to clip and distort
stuff in paris all the time, id even go as far and claim
that i was one of the few people that eventually somewhat figured out
the slightly weird paris compressor lookahead behaviour ;-)
not trying to "convince" anyone here, i know i wont and
i dont intend to. just consider it FYI, if you will :-)
"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Derek -
>
>Thanks for the comments. All worthwhile from a source who has
>earned respect here over the years. I don't think anyone will take offense.
>There are 2 reasons why I stick with PARIS:
>
>1. The sound
>2. The cost of a significant change
>
>I use Logic for the things that it does well and all the reasons
>you cited, (convenience/productivity issues) and PARIS for tracking/stem
>mixing and final bounce.
>
>Summing from Logic out through an analog board gives results that
>I like. Summing through PARIS without an analog board gives me
>results I like even more. AD converters currently available are
>more clear, detailed, smooth etc than the PARIS ones, but I would have to
>sink a bunch more cash into this, and would rather not.
>
>Engineer/Producer friends of mine, who are a lot more experienced
>than me, and have a lot more invested than I do, are consistently pleased/surprised/blown
>away by the sonic character of what I can do in PARIS. In fact, on a CD
we
>just finished, I took the final mixes from Logic, summed out through analog
>to tape, that my mix guy had done, and dropped them into PARIS with no gain
>change, panned L R and re-bounced them. Everyone involved
>preferred the PARIS bounces 100% of the time.
>
>So for me, PARIS right now is still my best choice.
>
>Peace,
>
>Ted
>
>
>"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>hey guys :-)
>>
>>
>>after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
>>again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
>>quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
>>it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
>>how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
>>and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
>>
>>
>>with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
>>platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
>>put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
>>more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
>>still using paris? is it even one hundred?
>>
>>ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
>>platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
>>going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
>>integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
>>sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc
>yada
>>yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
>>is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
>>most ex-paris users feel that way.
>>
>>so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
>>for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
>>to focus on something entirely different?
>>like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
>>and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
>>that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
>>like files in use and position info and would convert
>>that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
>>(OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
>>target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
>>continous wave files that get their data from the project file
>>and the associated pafs?
>>
>>or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
>>that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
>>EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
>>you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
>>software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
>>dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
>>whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
>>get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
>>a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
>>where you then could ressurrect your files.
>>
>>i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work
thats
>>currently being done (and that is exactly
>>what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
>>make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
>>
>>to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
>>is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
>>whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
>>working paris computer in the second control room but its
>>collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
>>outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
>>the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
>>
>>and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
>>at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
>>great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
>>in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
>>(and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
>>fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
>>for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
>>
>>not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
>>in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
>>more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
>>paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
>>machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
>>impossible).
>>
>>
>>i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
>>people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
>>wrong.
>>
>>
>>thanks for listening :-)
>>derek
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101899 is a reply to message #101897] |
Sun, 04 January 2009 16:47 |
Tom Bruhl
Messages: 1368
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
~ Hi Derek,
I think what you're finding is a bunch of fairly content users.
That doesn't mean we wouldn't want more if it became
available. Being a new quadcore Paris user allows the
plugin counts you're talking about within Paris. Latency
is compensated for with one click using Faderworks.
Mike's ports of the DP Pro have been awesome but certainly
not state of the art. The newest UAD software works fine
in Paris. Most pros that mix in the box probably have one
of those too.
I agree that Paris is gone as far as new users are concerned.
The few that remain are a dedicated bunch as you well know.
Mike has taken the exact path that was needed to make Paris
still contend on most levels with the current crop of DAWs
albeit using a MIDI DAW in tandem.
On my wish list for Paris are patch points (DX/VST - hardware)
at the group outs and the Master. This would make all kinds of
pro routing schemes possible as you suggested.
Being a Cubase user has shown me the many options that new DAWs
have. I remain with Paris for cost but more for sonic reasons.
I still blame you for interesting me in softsynths. Now I'm
loaded with really cool stuff. Thanks!!!
~ Tom
"Mike Audet" <mike@....> wrote in message news:49613783$1@linux...
>
> Hi Derek,
>
> No offense taken. Would it make more sense to put effort into writing
> software
> to convert PARIS projects to something else? Not for me. I use PARIS.
> I couldn't care less about porting projects out.
>
> I like PARIS the way it is. Also, I refuse to use anything that is host
> based, and that leaves Pro Tools and PARIS. I refuse to give even one
> more
> dime to Digidesign, so that leaves PARIS.
>
> I synch Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 to PARIS via MTC. I use a EMU ESI2000
> sampler.
> If I'm going to spend money on a major upgrade, it will be for a U87 or
> better mic preamps.
>
> Why should anyone spend thousands of dollars on a new system that may make
> things easier, but won't make one's recordings sound any better? Also,
> consider
> that when in a few years, that system will be worth a few hundred dollars,
> if that. The depreciation on DAW hardware is worse than on a car. For
> me,
> it makes way more sense to use PARIS to its best potential and use the
> "upgrade"
> money for things that hold their value and actually deliver a better final
> product.
>
> Here's an example: I bought three UAD1 cards (for around $100 each)
> planning
> to "upgrade" my EQ to the Cambridge. The PARIS EQ sounds better. Imagine
> if I had spent $3000 on that same digital hardware just a few years ago
> chasing
> the latest/greatest? What a waste of money.
>
> As it is, I LOVE the Dp/Pro Hall. My Lexicon MPX1 isn't even plugged in
> right now. I love the PARIS Eq. I love having no latency when I'm
> recording.
> I love my new Grace m101 that I wouldn't have been able to afford if I had
> bought a ProTools HD rig.
>
> I will eventually be porting at least some of the effects to VST, but I've
> got PARIS to run the effects right now, so VST isn't a priority. ASIO is
> a priority. With ASIO, I'll be able to use the PARIS hardware with newer
> software when it makes sense to do so. I love the spectral editing in
> Audition.
> Getting that working makes sense to me.
>
> I'm glad you're happy with whatever you are using now. But, so are many
> of us.
>
> All the best,
>
> Mike
>
>
> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>hey guys :-)
>>
>>
>>after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
>>again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
>>quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
>>it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
>>how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
>>and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
>>
>>
>>with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
>>platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
>>put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
>>more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
>>still using paris? is it even one hundred?
>>
>>ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
>>platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
>>going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
>>integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
>>sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc
> yada
>>yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
>>is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
>>most ex-paris users feel that way.
>>
>>so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
>>for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
>>to focus on something entirely different?
>>like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
>>and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
>>that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
>>like files in use and position info and would convert
>>that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
>>(OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
>>target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
>>continous wave files that get their data from the project file
>>and the associated pafs?
>>
>>or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
>>that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
>>EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
>>you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
>>software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
>>dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
>>whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
>>get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
>>a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
>>where you then could ressurrect your files.
>>
>>i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work
>>thats
>>currently being done (and that is exactly
>>what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
>>make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
>>
>>to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
>>is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
>>whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
>>working paris computer in the second control room but its
>>collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
>>outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
>>the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
>>
>>and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
>>at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
>>great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
>>in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
>>(and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
>>fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
>>for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
>>
>>not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
>>in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
>>more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
>>paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
>>machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
>>impossible).
>>
>>
>>i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
>>people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
>>wrong.
>>
>>
>>thanks for listening :-)
>>derek
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101900 is a reply to message #101898] |
Sun, 04 January 2009 18:49 |
Ted Gerber
Messages: 705
Registered: January 2009
|
Senior Member |
|
|
No -
the sonic/summing issue was only half of the 2 reasons I listed.
The second was the cost of making a significant change.
Nuendo 4, (which I believe I like better than Logic) costs $1900
CDN right now. CuBase 4 costs $700 CDN. I would also need to spend $2000
for 8 channels of decent converters, plus a soundcard to accept the new signal.
My current PARIS rig cost me $450 CDN total, and I'm happy with it.
I have no doubt that fantastic results are achieved with other
systems, (in fact I know this to be true) but since I'm happy with what I
can do in PARIS, I don't want to spend the money needed to make any change
at this time.
Peace,
Ted
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>i see, The Summing Issue it is :-)
>
>as you might remember, i sailed on that ship quite a few
>years too, and i know exactly what youre talking about.
>having said that though, of course there is no magic
>to the paris sound, its just a combination of things if you ask me:
>
>1. simple, straightforward clipping and truncating
>2. the ensoniq converters and their awesome coloring
>(a longtime ensoniq virtue, i.e. also the ASR and ASRX samplers
>sounded simply amazing whatever you threw at them)
>3. the fact that you run a mix using only nice ensoniq
>algorithms (and boy, did they have a hand for good sounding
>yet simple effect algorithms)
>4. (often underestimated) the "direct" feel of the low
>latency interface and (here comes the only thing i would
>give ID credit for and not ensoniq) the smart mouse behaviour
>when i.e. dragging eq values. oh, and the interface and
>its color does help too.
>
>
>thats pretty much it. and while it is a bunch of stuff, its
>a. nothing that cant be done elsewhere and
>b. no summing rocket science. actually the mere summing
>of paris is quite normal, easily testable with the
>usual phase cancellation tests im sure we all have done.
>so after years of limiting myself to paris because of the
>supposedly magic sound character, it really didnt take me
>very long to get right back to this point with another system.
>i color my stuff with my pres (and i kept some ensoniq AD/DAs
>around for a while), i have a million ways of clipping,
>i only use nice plugins (doh!) and with todays machines,
>latency isnt an issue anymore. my dual quad machine lets me open many times
>more stuff than a fully expanded paris would do while
>running at 1.5ms latency.
>
>
>so, speaking longterm and sound quality only, for a list of things that
can
>really can be had elsewhere
>too if you invest a little time, you give up so many other things
>that have a true impact on sound, like proper grouping,
>sample precise latency correction, processing on group and
>master channels of any kind you wish, group based ducking,
>100% generation loss free bouncing etc etc.
>
>at the end of the day, personally i find this just a bad
>deal not only featurewise, but *also* soundwise. these days
>im doing things in nuendo i could not dream of doing in paris.
>and i had that system very much pushed to the limit. i did
>drumsubgroup compression over the aux bus (what a pain in the...!). i avoided
>rendering stuff because it didnt sound
>right. i made heavy use of the fun ways to clip and distort
>stuff in paris all the time, id even go as far and claim
>that i was one of the few people that eventually somewhat figured out
>the slightly weird paris compressor lookahead behaviour ;-)
>
>
>not trying to "convince" anyone here, i know i wont and
>i dont intend to. just consider it FYI, if you will :-)
>
>
>
>
>"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Derek -
>>
>>Thanks for the comments. All worthwhile from a source who has
>>earned respect here over the years. I don't think anyone will take offense.
>>There are 2 reasons why I stick with PARIS:
>>
>>1. The sound
>>2. The cost of a significant change
>>
>>I use Logic for the things that it does well and all the reasons
>>you cited, (convenience/productivity issues) and PARIS for tracking/stem
>>mixing and final bounce.
>>
>>Summing from Logic out through an analog board gives results that
>>I like. Summing through PARIS without an analog board gives me
>>results I like even more. AD converters currently available are
>>more clear, detailed, smooth etc than the PARIS ones, but I would have
to
>>sink a bunch more cash into this, and would rather not.
>>
>>Engineer/Producer friends of mine, who are a lot more experienced
>>than me, and have a lot more invested than I do, are consistently pleased/surprised/blown
>>away by the sonic character of what I can do in PARIS. In fact, on a CD
>we
>>just finished, I took the final mixes from Logic, summed out through analog
>>to tape, that my mix guy had done, and dropped them into PARIS with no
gain
>>change, panned L R and re-bounced them. Everyone involved
>>preferred the PARIS bounces 100% of the time.
>>
>>So for me, PARIS right now is still my best choice.
>>
>>Peace,
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>
>>"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>hey guys :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
>>>again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
>>>quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
>>>it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
>>>how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
>>>and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
>>>
>>>
>>>with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
>>>platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
>>>put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
>>>more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
>>>still using paris? is it even one hundred?
>>>
>>>ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
>>>platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
>>>going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
>>>integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
>>>sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc
>>yada
>>>yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
>>>is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
>>>most ex-paris users feel that way.
>>>
>>>so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
>>>for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
>>>to focus on something entirely different?
>>>like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
>>>and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
>>>that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
>>>like files in use and position info and would convert
>>>that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
>>>(OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
>>>target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
>>>continous wave files that get their data from the project file
>>>and the associated pafs?
>>>
>>>or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
>>>that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
>>>EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
>>>you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
>>>software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
>>>dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
>>>whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
>>>get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
>>>a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
>>>where you then could ressurrect your files.
>>>
>>>i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work
>thats
>>>currently being done (and that is exactly
>>>what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
>>>make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
>>>
>>>to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
>>>is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
>>>whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
>>>working paris computer in the second control room but its
>>>collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
>>>outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
>>>the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
>>>
>>>and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
>>>at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
>>>great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
>>>in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
>>>(and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
>>>fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
>>>for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
>>>
>>>not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
>>>in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
>>>more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
>>>paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
>>>machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
>>>impossible).
>>>
>>>
>>>i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
>>>people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
>>>wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>thanks for listening :-)
>>>derek
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101901 is a reply to message #101898] |
Sun, 04 January 2009 18:29 |
|
|
> not trying to "convince" anyone here, i know i wont and
> i dont intend to. just consider it FYI, if you will :-)
LOL.
If you can find me a zero latency DAW that permits tracking at that zero
latency through FX, includes a dedicated and high-quality hardware control
surface with automation and a shuttle wheel, has internal mixing
capabilities, expandable I/O at about $150 per eight extra channels and
killer fat-sounding sonics overall I admit I might be extremely interested
and might consider it as an upgrade.
Of course, it's also got to be under six hundred bucks US, which is about
what I paid for all those capabilities - my double Bundle III *and* the
computer to run it. Whaddya got that'll get me those features at that price
point?
:D
- K
"... being bitter is like swallowing poison and waiting for the other guy to die..." - anon
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101902 is a reply to message #101898] |
Sun, 04 January 2009 20:24 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I don't think anybody that is still using Paris is not aware of what they
can do with other softwares. Most of us have other softwares to do the kind
of work that they can do. Investing in a system that we already know, and
a system that works for us is not a bad investment. Paris is not done yet!
Mike and the paris users here prove that. Not everybody that uses paris
is here on this board either, there are many paris users that don't even
know about this NG. In the last month or so there have been new paris users
asking questions here.
Mike has made it possible to run Paris on new quad core PCs, that alone extends
the life of paris. Paris is unique and kind of boutique in a studio. Paris
sounds good and to me that's what really matters.
For some music, all the midi stuff is over kill. For some music it's about
capturing a great performance with really good sounding equipment, that's
Paris. Unfortunately MP3s are becoming the standard, until things really
change, I personally don't see a need to spend a bunch of money trying to
get better sound when Paris already sounds good.
Paris doesn't cost me any thing now. If and when I switch over to PC I won't
have a problem paying Mike for his work, it's much appreciated. I'm not
in Europe, or Asia, I'm in north America, right now I'm personally not too
keen on sending any more money to Asian companies. I'd rather spend my money
in my own backyard. It's tuff in Detroit these days, soon to come to a city
near you.
Some of us here are not running commercial studios anymore, and just don't
find it necessary to chase their tails on the upgrade trail. Why spend the
money when we already own paris, besides what would I get for it now anyways.
I guess we'll upgrade when it is really necessary. Many of us are just
going to drive paris right in to the ground; )
I know your point is about function, but Paris still functions for many of
us, and the price is right.
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>i see, The Summing Issue it is :-)
>
>as you might remember, i sailed on that ship quite a few
>years too, and i know exactly what youre talking about.
>having said that though, of course there is no magic
>to the paris sound, its just a combination of things if you ask me:
>
>1. simple, straightforward clipping and truncating
>2. the ensoniq converters and their awesome coloring
>(a longtime ensoniq virtue, i.e. also the ASR and ASRX samplers
>sounded simply amazing whatever you threw at them)
>3. the fact that you run a mix using only nice ensoniq
>algorithms (and boy, did they have a hand for good sounding
>yet simple effect algorithms)
>4. (often underestimated) the "direct" feel of the low
>latency interface and (here comes the only thing i would
>give ID credit for and not ensoniq) the smart mouse behaviour
>when i.e. dragging eq values. oh, and the interface and
>its color does help too.
>
>
>thats pretty much it. and while it is a bunch of stuff, its
>a. nothing that cant be done elsewhere and
>b. no summing rocket science. actually the mere summing
>of paris is quite normal, easily testable with the
>usual phase cancellation tests im sure we all have done.
>so after years of limiting myself to paris because of the
>supposedly magic sound character, it really didnt take me
>very long to get right back to this point with another system.
>i color my stuff with my pres (and i kept some ensoniq AD/DAs
>around for a while), i have a million ways of clipping,
>i only use nice plugins (doh!) and with todays machines,
>latency isnt an issue anymore. my dual quad machine lets me open many times
>more stuff than a fully expanded paris would do while
>running at 1.5ms latency.
>
>
>so, speaking longterm and sound quality only, for a list of things that
can
>really can be had elsewhere
>too if you invest a little time, you give up so many other things
>that have a true impact on sound, like proper grouping,
>sample precise latency correction, processing on group and
>master channels of any kind you wish, group based ducking,
>100% generation loss free bouncing etc etc.
>
>at the end of the day, personally i find this just a bad
>deal not only featurewise, but *also* soundwise. these days
>im doing things in nuendo i could not dream of doing in paris.
>and i had that system very much pushed to the limit. i did
>drumsubgroup compression over the aux bus (what a pain in the...!). i avoided
>rendering stuff because it didnt sound
>right. i made heavy use of the fun ways to clip and distort
>stuff in paris all the time, id even go as far and claim
>that i was one of the few people that eventually somewhat figured out
>the slightly weird paris compressor lookahead behaviour ;-)
>
>
>not trying to "convince" anyone here, i know i wont and
>i dont intend to. just consider it FYI, if you will :-)
>
>
>
>
>"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Derek -
>>
>>Thanks for the comments. All worthwhile from a source who has
>>earned respect here over the years. I don't think anyone will take offense.
>>There are 2 reasons why I stick with PARIS:
>>
>>1. The sound
>>2. The cost of a significant change
>>
>>I use Logic for the things that it does well and all the reasons
>>you cited, (convenience/productivity issues) and PARIS for tracking/stem
>>mixing and final bounce.
>>
>>Summing from Logic out through an analog board gives results that
>>I like. Summing through PARIS without an analog board gives me
>>results I like even more. AD converters currently available are
>>more clear, detailed, smooth etc than the PARIS ones, but I would have
to
>>sink a bunch more cash into this, and would rather not.
>>
>>Engineer/Producer friends of mine, who are a lot more experienced
>>than me, and have a lot more invested than I do, are consistently pleased/surprised/blown
>>away by the sonic character of what I can do in PARIS. In fact, on a CD
>we
>>just finished, I took the final mixes from Logic, summed out through analog
>>to tape, that my mix guy had done, and dropped them into PARIS with no
gain
>>change, panned L R and re-bounced them. Everyone involved
>>preferred the PARIS bounces 100% of the time.
>>
>>So for me, PARIS right now is still my best choice.
>>
>>Peace,
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>
>>"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>hey guys :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
>>>again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
>>>quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
>>>it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
>>>how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
>>>and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
>>>
>>>
>>>with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
>>>platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
>>>put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
>>>more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
>>>still using paris? is it even one hundred?
>>>
>>>ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
>>>platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
>>>going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
>>>integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
>>>sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc
>>yada
>>>yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
>>>is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
>>>most ex-paris users feel that way.
>>>
>>>so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
>>>for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
>>>to focus on something entirely different?
>>>like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
>>>and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
>>>that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
>>>like files in use and position info and would convert
>>>that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
>>>(OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
>>>target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
>>>continous wave files that get their data from the project file
>>>and the associated pafs?
>>>
>>>or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
>>>that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
>>>EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
>>>you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
>>>software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
>>>dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
>>>whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
>>>get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
>>>a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
>>>where you then could ressurrect your files.
>>>
>>>i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work
>thats
>>>currently being done (and that is exactly
>>>what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
>>>make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
>>>
>>>to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
>>>is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
>>>whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
>>>working paris computer in the second control room but its
>>>collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
>>>outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
>>>the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
>>>
>>>and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
>>>at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
>>>great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
>>>in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
>>>(and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
>>>fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
>>>for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
>>>
>>>not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
>>>in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
>>>more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
>>>paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
>>>machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
>>>impossible).
>>>
>>>
>>>i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
>>>people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
>>>wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>thanks for listening :-)
>>>derek
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101903 is a reply to message #101890] |
Sun, 04 January 2009 21:16 |
|
|
I've read all the other responses and can't really add much except to second
the emotion. Paris still sounds awful good to me and I know it inside and
out. I do still run a small commercial studio and I know I've lost business
for not having Protools but it just doesn't make sense for me to spend the
cash to chase that business, especially in this economic climate. It would
cost me about $35K to replace my Paris system (3 EDS cards in my main computer
w/ 2 MECs and 32 channels in/16 channels out PLUS a second computer w/ 1
EDS + 1 MEC w/ 16 in/8 out). I just can't justify the expense for a business
that's making about half the money it used to make. I use Digital Performer
for MIDI synced to Paris and I can use the DP machine for outboard FX w/
Waves IR-1 reverbs. I've given serious thought to switching my system to
PC (been a Mac guy for my whole career!) to be able to run new Waves and
UAD-1 plugins. I've contemplated Logic w/ the Apogee Symphony stuff but
again - why spend the money when Paris works? My clients don't care. They
just want their recordings to sound good!
Gantt
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>hey guys :-)
>
>
>after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
>again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
>quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
>it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
>how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
>and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
>
>
>with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
>platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
>put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
>more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
>still using paris? is it even one hundred?
>
>ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
>platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
>going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
>integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
>sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc
yada
>yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
>is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
>most ex-paris users feel that way.
>
>so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
>for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
>to focus on something entirely different?
>like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
>and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
>that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
>like files in use and position info and would convert
>that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
>(OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
>target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
>continous wave files that get their data from the project file
>and the associated pafs?
>
>or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
>that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
>EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
>you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
>software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
>dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
>whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
>get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
>a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
>where you then could ressurrect your files.
>
>i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work thats
>currently being done (and that is exactly
>what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
>make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
>
>to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
>is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
>whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
>working paris computer in the second control room but its
>collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
>outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
>the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
>
>and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
>at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
>great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
>in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
>(and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
>fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
>for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
>
>not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
>in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
>more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
>paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
>machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
>impossible).
>
>
>i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
>people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
>wrong.
>
>
>thanks for listening :-)
>derek
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101906 is a reply to message #101897] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 03:31 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
"Mike Audet" <mike@....> wrote:
>Hi Derek,
>
>No offense taken. Would it make more sense to put effort into writing software
>to convert PARIS projects to something else? Not for me. I use PARIS.
>I couldn't care less about porting projects out.
that sure makes a lot of sense :-)
bad luck for me, but good for you :-)
>I like PARIS the way it is. Also, I refuse to use anything that is host
>based,
im tempted to say youre doing yourself a disservice here.
i can see how one could come to the conclusion that native
systems were bullshit in the past, but IMO this has
changed recently. to me - and im a heavy plugin user - the
magic moment was somewhere when pcs went past 4 cores running at
above 2 GHZ, to use a simplified picture. i currently use a
dual quadcore (8 cores at 2.33ghz) and its the first machine where i can
NOT
max out the CPU, no matter what i throw at it.
as absurd as it is, my new bottleneck now is memory. i run
out of memory just by opening effect plugins before i run
out of CPU power.
so, while i too considered native systems to be shaky bitches
with high latency for years, these days i say - not anymore. not by
a long shot. these things rule big time now.
oh, and they run in circles even around fully expanded
protools HD rig too now. i remember that time where they
benchmarked some new waves plugin and it
ran on around 180 instances on a huge PTHD setup, which
sounded impressive until you heard that a dual quadcore
xeon ran the same algorithm in VST some 650 times (!!)
and that leaves Pro Tools and PARIS. I refuse to give even one more
>dime to Digidesign, so that leaves PARIS.
im fully with you on that digidesign sentiment ;-)
>I synch Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 to PARIS via MTC. I use a EMU ESI2000 sampler.
thats the kind of stuff that really sounds like a headache
to me. triple project maintenance, longer sound path, realtime
bouncing of tracks, EMU samplers (i had an e4k for a while
in the studio and compared to the ensoniq sound it...did not
sound as good ;-)
>Why should anyone spend thousands of dollars on a new system that may make
>things easier, but won't make one's recordings sound any better?
see my previous post. i want to stress that im not saying
this in hopes to "convert" you, i really am not. i know
the feeling of being in love with ye olde ensoniq puppy :-)
but just on the basis of a what-sounds-good-and-what-doesnt
discussion between people that dig good sound, i still have
to disagree. its simply NOT only about ease of use.
it also is very much about sound. (copying from my
other post) proper grouping,
sample precise latency correction, processing on group and
master channels of any kind you wish, group based ducking,
100% generation loss free bouncing etc etc. all make a difference
in sound, and a huge one at times.
i would go even further and argue that even "ease of use"
can make a difference in sound. in paris, how many times had i
thought to myself "do i give myself the headache of
a drum submix compression through the aux bus? or do i need
it to be compressed by some other compressor, so do i do a submix
now? am i ready for that to be submixed at all?" and then sometimes going
through with it
(taking a lot of time), sometimes not because of the amount
of work involved. in a modern system, its a no brainer.
you just do it when your engineer instinct demands it,
and you choose the compressor with the characteristics you
need on the spot, and if you then think that the compression
stresses the basedrum a bit too much, you simply move
that fader. all that results in good sound.
or using UAD. come on, how often have you thought "am i really
willing to go through this whole manual latency compensation
business for just that one more UAD effect"? on a modern
system, a no brainer. you just open the plugin you want to
open.
of stuff that simply is completely impossible to do...i.e.
where i live, vocals need to be louder than a typical US mix
by an average of around 1.5db (due to our language
being less easy to understand in a thick mix than english).
that of course has an impact of
how "fat" the playback comes accross of course.
but you can get almost an entire db of that back by doing
subtle ducking on anything that is in the vocals frequency
range, i.e. all guitars, keyboards, but not drums or base
being ducked by the lead vocal.
of course such a thing is virtually impossible to plan
in advance (believe me ive tried ;-). its really only possible
if you have completely free routing and can route anything
anywhere at anytime.
this is not ease of use stuff. its about sound.
Also, consider
>that when in a few years, that system will be worth a few hundred dollars,
>if that. The depreciation on DAW hardware is worse than on a car.
thats true for any digital system of any kind of course.
>Here's an example: I bought three UAD1 cards (for around $100 each) planning
>to "upgrade" my EQ to the Cambridge. The PARIS EQ sounds better.
well uh...why did you use the cambridge eq of all things???
thats more or less a modern version of the waves q10, an
analytic digital eq, not a "character" eq like the paris one
is. UAD has a couple of very nice eqs, the pultecs and neves
are awesome, and the precision mastering eq is simply the
best digital eq ive ever heard with to my ears an almost
perfect mix of character and smoothness on the one hand,
yet still dead accurate precision and "bite" when needed
on the other hand. i fall in love again and again every time
i open this one. "best-eq-ever" ;-)
i love the paris eq, but its really in another league here.
its very easy to dial in nice and cool settings, but its not
without its flaws, being a little wishy washy in the highs,
being a little phasey in the low range. still a super
cool channel eq though, thats for sure.
>As it is, I LOVE the Dp/Pro Hall. My Lexicon MPX1 isn't even plugged in
>right now. I love the PARIS Eq.
second all of that :-)
> I love having no latency when I'm recording.
modern native rigs dont have any noticable latency when recording
while still offering multiple times the plugin beef.
even a mortal single quadcore from the intel consumer line
would give you dozens of decent plugins at 1.5ms.
>I will eventually be porting at least some of the effects to VST, but I've
>got PARIS to run the effects right now, so VST isn't a priority. ASIO is
>a priority. With ASIO, I'll be able to use the PARIS hardware with newer
>software when it makes sense to do so. I love the spectral editing in Audition.
> Getting that working makes sense to me.
i hope it comes accross that i discuss all of this in good
spirit and just on a from-geek-to-geek basis ;-)
having said that, may i still slip in a super theoretical question: if you
really are able to do something
that high tech as an asio driver for the MEC hardware, would
that "fake driver to start the paris app without actual hardware
to save projects from extinction even where no hardware is
present" be within your technological reach?
you know, strictly theoretically speaking,
maybe for that time in ten years when you finally
decide to move on and stuff ;-)
>I'm glad you're happy with whatever you are using now. But, so are many
>of us.
i dont doubt it for a second. ive been a paris user from
late 97 till...2005 i believe. loved the system, adored the
company. what a loss that was when they were eaten by
%%&/%(%$/ creative and merged into nonexistance by emu :-(
best,
derek
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101908 is a reply to message #101901] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 03:58 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
Kerry Galloway <kg@kerrygalloway.com> wrote:
>> not trying to "convince" anyone here, i know i wont and
>> i dont intend to. just consider it FYI, if you will :-)
>
>LOL.
aw come one man, no reason to "lol" into anyones faces here :-)
all in good spirit. i used to be a paris zombie too (i even go
as far back to know that the term paris zombie is a positive one :-)
>If you can find me a zero latency DAW that permits tracking at that zero
>latency through FX
there is no such thing as zero latency. of course paris
has a latency, i dont remember the measurements exactly but they
circled around this NG too. i think it was something like
2.something milliseconds for one signal trip through mixing engine and converters
(=what you hear when you track a signal).
making a "no latency at all in paris versus some latency elsewhere" argument
that seems like a comparison of
absolutes is being dishonest to yourself. the reality is more a gradual one
like 2 milliseconds versus 3 milliseconds (my converters are nicely
fast and partly make up for the 1.5 milliseconds the VST
engine loses in comparison to the paris engine).
>, includes a dedicated and high-quality hardware control
>surface with automation and a shuttle wheel,
....with no motorfaders and potentiometers that start to skip
randomly after a while like unfortunately most late ensoniq
gear did (that was a really bad shipment of potis they got
there in their late days, the ASR and ASRX suffered from
that problem too) :-)
but yeah, the c16 was cool. the shuttlewheel ruled.
of course it was slightly pointless because its only
application that made sense was to move the now line around
(editing was faster and more precise with the mouse,
scrubbing was too unreliable) and you might as well use
two keys to move the now line around, but it sure was FUN
to use it. i think i have FOUR c16s in the closet, and
most of them have that cool spot where the black color completely
wore of between the transport and the wheel.
they say "ive been USED a LOT, so i must have been useful" :-)
has internal mixing
>capabilities,
which daw doesnt have that? :-)
here id argue that as far as the featureset of internal mixing
goes, paris loses the battle against almost anything else
these days, in terms of flexibility and routing not to mention
in terms of anything more advanced like object volume or,
god forbid, the awesome object based mixing capabilities of
hosts like samplitude and sequoia.
my personal "heureka" moment was when at some point i realized
that 1. i didnt want to live with the bugs of paris 3 anymore and
2. i wanted to route stuff to groups and do sum processing
on groups damnit! i mean, thats like one of the most essential
mixing techniques there is!
expandable I/O at about $150 per eight extra channels and
>killer fat-sounding sonics overall
again, cant argue with the price of a dead system. and
the I/O that shipped with wonderful doses of ensoniq-ness
in sound for so little money per 8 channels was already a steal
when they were still sold full price brandnew.
you wont get any argument there from me, ever :-)
as i said, i used to keep some ensoniq ADDA around just
for the fun and coolness of it. eventually i switched to
do all my coloring via pres, but it doesnt mean i lost
my love for the ensoniq magic there :-)
>Of course, it's also got to be under six hundred bucks US, which is about
>what I paid for all those capabilities - my double Bundle III *and* the
>computer to run it. Whaddya got that'll get me those features at that price
>point?
>
>:D
nothing, but then, it also wouldnt come with all the limitations
and with IDs paris 3.0 software bugfest. in that sense, the
old "you get what you pay for" rule applies as always.
best,
derek
p.s.: i really did not want to turn this into a "paris pro and con" discussion.
for now i keep going as long as its all good
clean fun, but if anyone is annoyed, one word and i will stop
this immediately. its not what i came here for :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101910 is a reply to message #101898] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 03:03 |
Erling
Messages: 156
Registered: October 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi to you all,
Allways good to hear from you, Derek. I understand really well your
behavings have gone another route than Paris but....
.....some behavings are yet to record the real stuff with use of old tape
recording machines.
Have been away from the district here in Norway for over 20 years, but the
leading studio here
are living well with their 24 channel taperecorder and the TL Audio VTC
tube-mixing desk.
Had a long phonetalk with him right before Christmas and shall visit him one
of the coming days.
Have talked with some old clients here, from the early years of '80, that
have used his studio for years now.
There are plenty of producers and clients yet, that's hating much of what's
coming out from the industry today. So I believe Paris is the only computer
recording system that will satisfiy some of these "old" ears.
I have both Cubase 4.5 and the new Pro Tools 8 here. Using Cubase a lot and
ProTools is just if someone ask what I have, just to get some extra
clients - and then convert them for the "dead Paris-route";-)
Summasumarum, for what I need to record, it's still Paris. It's the only
computer-system that have "the old sound" and have behavings in the "old
style", with a modern computer-way of working....
.....so, I believe Paris isn't dead before most of us here have got our
graveyard-stone..... ;-)
Thanks for listening
Erling
"derek" <a@b.com> skrev i melding news:49614e91$1@linux...
>
> i see, The Summing Issue it is :-)
>
> as you might remember, i sailed on that ship quite a few
> years too, and i know exactly what youre talking about.
> having said that though, of course there is no magic
> to the paris sound, its just a combination of things if you ask me:
>
> 1. simple, straightforward clipping and truncating
> 2. the ensoniq converters and their awesome coloring
> (a longtime ensoniq virtue, i.e. also the ASR and ASRX samplers
> sounded simply amazing whatever you threw at them)
> 3. the fact that you run a mix using only nice ensoniq
> algorithms (and boy, did they have a hand for good sounding
> yet simple effect algorithms)
> 4. (often underestimated) the "direct" feel of the low
> latency interface and (here comes the only thing i would
> give ID credit for and not ensoniq) the smart mouse behaviour
> when i.e. dragging eq values. oh, and the interface and
> its color does help too.
>
>
> thats pretty much it. and while it is a bunch of stuff, its
> a. nothing that cant be done elsewhere and
> b. no summing rocket science. actually the mere summing
> of paris is quite normal, easily testable with the
> usual phase cancellation tests im sure we all have done.
> so after years of limiting myself to paris because of the
> supposedly magic sound character, it really didnt take me
> very long to get right back to this point with another system.
> i color my stuff with my pres (and i kept some ensoniq AD/DAs
> around for a while), i have a million ways of clipping,
> i only use nice plugins (doh!) and with todays machines,
> latency isnt an issue anymore. my dual quad machine lets me open many
> times
> more stuff than a fully expanded paris would do while
> running at 1.5ms latency.
>
>
> so, speaking longterm and sound quality only, for a list of things that
> can
> really can be had elsewhere
> too if you invest a little time, you give up so many other things
> that have a true impact on sound, like proper grouping,
> sample precise latency correction, processing on group and
> master channels of any kind you wish, group based ducking,
> 100% generation loss free bouncing etc etc.
>
> at the end of the day, personally i find this just a bad
> deal not only featurewise, but *also* soundwise. these days
> im doing things in nuendo i could not dream of doing in paris.
> and i had that system very much pushed to the limit. i did
> drumsubgroup compression over the aux bus (what a pain in the...!). i
> avoided
> rendering stuff because it didnt sound
> right. i made heavy use of the fun ways to clip and distort
> stuff in paris all the time, id even go as far and claim
> that i was one of the few people that eventually somewhat figured out
> the slightly weird paris compressor lookahead behaviour ;-)
>
>
> not trying to "convince" anyone here, i know i wont and
> i dont intend to. just consider it FYI, if you will :-)
>
>
>
>
> "Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Derek -
>>
>>Thanks for the comments. All worthwhile from a source who has
>>earned respect here over the years. I don't think anyone will take
>>offense.
>>There are 2 reasons why I stick with PARIS:
>>
>>1. The sound
>>2. The cost of a significant change
>>
>>I use Logic for the things that it does well and all the reasons
>>you cited, (convenience/productivity issues) and PARIS for tracking/stem
>>mixing and final bounce.
>>
>>Summing from Logic out through an analog board gives results that
>>I like. Summing through PARIS without an analog board gives me
>>results I like even more. AD converters currently available are
>>more clear, detailed, smooth etc than the PARIS ones, but I would have to
>>sink a bunch more cash into this, and would rather not.
>>
>>Engineer/Producer friends of mine, who are a lot more experienced
>>than me, and have a lot more invested than I do, are consistently
>>pleased/surprised/blown
>>away by the sonic character of what I can do in PARIS. In fact, on a CD
> we
>>just finished, I took the final mixes from Logic, summed out through
>>analog
>>to tape, that my mix guy had done, and dropped them into PARIS with no
>>gain
>>change, panned L R and re-bounced them. Everyone involved
>>preferred the PARIS bounces 100% of the time.
>>
>>So for me, PARIS right now is still my best choice.
>>
>>Peace,
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>
>>"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>hey guys :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>after seeing how much work is put into the paris project
>>>again lately (hats off to mike) ive been thinking about this
>>>quite a bit and until now dont quite know how to say it without
>>>it coming accross a bit offensive. but since i still am not sure
>>>how to put it, i told myself, i might as well just go ahead
>>>and just put this excuse in advance on top of it ;-) so here goes:
>>>
>>>
>>>with so much manpower going into paris, an essentially dead
>>>platform, one has to wonder, wouldnt it be smarter to
>>>put this manpower into something thats, how shall i put it,
>>>more essential in practical use? exactly how many people are
>>>still using paris? is it even one hundred?
>>>
>>>ive been one of the most enthousiastic supporters of the
>>>platform but for the life of me, i could not imagine ever
>>>going back to it after years in the world of full midi and video
>>>integration, VSTI support, total and complete latency compensation,
>>>sample precise editing, rendering that actually works, compability, etc
>>yada
>>>yada. no amount of DP4 algorithm ports
>>>is going to change that, and i would assume that many if not
>>>most ex-paris users feel that way.
>>>
>>>so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
>>>for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
>>>to focus on something entirely different?
>>>like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
>>>and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
>>>that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
>>>like files in use and position info and would convert
>>>that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
>>>(OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
>>>target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
>>>continous wave files that get their data from the project file
>>>and the associated pafs?
>>>
>>>or maybe a completely different approach, a "hardware driver"
>>>that fools the paris software into believing a fully functioning
>>>EDS card with attached audio interface is present - so that
>>>you can launch paris 3.0 on any computer and use the paris
>>>software to convert projects into OMFs. you know, just a
>>>dead end that on the other end pretends to the software
>>>whatever the software asks for during boot to actually
>>>get to the project window. no actual audio support, just
>>>a fake hardware so that you can get to the software level
>>>where you then could ressurrect your files.
>>>
>>>i know suggesting something like this is kind of an insult to the work
> thats
>>>currently being done (and that is exactly
>>>what i would want to avoid), but can you see how that would
>>>make a lot more sense to a lot more people?
>>>
>>>to me, these days, the most important thing about paris
>>>is the question of how i get past projects off that platform
>>>whenever i need to work on them again. i still have a
>>>working paris computer in the second control room but its
>>>collecting dust, the system is slowly fading away as only
>>>outdated pre-XP windows systems were able to do, and
>>>the hardware side doesnt look to promising either.
>>>
>>>and same thing about the effects: porting the awesome and
>>>at times timeless effects from ensoniq effect history is
>>>great - but why on earth do it for this outdated platform?
>>>in the real world i know zero paris users that still use paris
>>>(and i used to know a LOT), but i know lots and lots of
>>>fans of the good old ensoniq stuff that would pay hard cash
>>>for VST ports of some of the ensoniq algorithms.
>>>
>>>not to mention that you would be able to use those effects
>>>in paris then too, on modern computers probably in 50 times
>>>more instances than on the EDS card, if you just take the
>>>paris eq VST plugin as orientation (try to max out any current
>>>machine by opening instances of that plugin - its more or less
>>>impossible).
>>>
>>>
>>>i feel like i have to state that again, i so much admire you
>>>people who do all this, so please dont get these suggestions
>>>wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>thanks for listening :-)
>>>derek
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101912 is a reply to message #101906] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 06:29 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don't rule out Creamware for card DSP. :)
AA
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote in message news:4961e19b$1@linux...
>
> "Mike Audet" <mike@....> wrote:
>>Hi Derek,
>>
>>No offense taken. Would it make more sense to put effort into writing
>>software
>>to convert PARIS projects to something else? Not for me. I use PARIS.
>
>>I couldn't care less about porting projects out.
>
>
> that sure makes a lot of sense :-)
> bad luck for me, but good for you :-)
>
>
>>I like PARIS the way it is. Also, I refuse to use anything that is host
>>based,
>
>
> im tempted to say youre doing yourself a disservice here.
> i can see how one could come to the conclusion that native
> systems were bullshit in the past, but IMO this has
> changed recently. to me - and im a heavy plugin user - the
> magic moment was somewhere when pcs went past 4 cores running at
> above 2 GHZ, to use a simplified picture. i currently use a
> dual quadcore (8 cores at 2.33ghz) and its the first machine where i can
> NOT
> max out the CPU, no matter what i throw at it.
> as absurd as it is, my new bottleneck now is memory. i run
> out of memory just by opening effect plugins before i run
> out of CPU power.
>
> so, while i too considered native systems to be shaky bitches
> with high latency for years, these days i say - not anymore. not by
> a long shot. these things rule big time now.
> oh, and they run in circles even around fully expanded
> protools HD rig too now. i remember that time where they
> benchmarked some new waves plugin and it
> ran on around 180 instances on a huge PTHD setup, which
> sounded impressive until you heard that a dual quadcore
> xeon ran the same algorithm in VST some 650 times (!!)
>
>
>
>
> and that leaves Pro Tools and PARIS. I refuse to give even one more
>>dime to Digidesign, so that leaves PARIS.
>
>
> im fully with you on that digidesign sentiment ;-)
>
>
>
>>I synch Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 to PARIS via MTC. I use a EMU ESI2000
>>sampler.
>
>
> thats the kind of stuff that really sounds like a headache
> to me. triple project maintenance, longer sound path, realtime
> bouncing of tracks, EMU samplers (i had an e4k for a while
> in the studio and compared to the ensoniq sound it...did not
> sound as good ;-)
>
>
>>Why should anyone spend thousands of dollars on a new system that may make
>>things easier, but won't make one's recordings sound any better?
>
>
> see my previous post. i want to stress that im not saying
> this in hopes to "convert" you, i really am not. i know
> the feeling of being in love with ye olde ensoniq puppy :-)
> but just on the basis of a what-sounds-good-and-what-doesnt
> discussion between people that dig good sound, i still have
> to disagree. its simply NOT only about ease of use.
> it also is very much about sound. (copying from my
> other post) proper grouping,
> sample precise latency correction, processing on group and
> master channels of any kind you wish, group based ducking,
> 100% generation loss free bouncing etc etc. all make a difference
> in sound, and a huge one at times.
>
> i would go even further and argue that even "ease of use"
> can make a difference in sound. in paris, how many times had i
> thought to myself "do i give myself the headache of
> a drum submix compression through the aux bus? or do i need
> it to be compressed by some other compressor, so do i do a submix
> now? am i ready for that to be submixed at all?" and then sometimes going
> through with it
> (taking a lot of time), sometimes not because of the amount
> of work involved. in a modern system, its a no brainer.
> you just do it when your engineer instinct demands it,
> and you choose the compressor with the characteristics you
> need on the spot, and if you then think that the compression
> stresses the basedrum a bit too much, you simply move
> that fader. all that results in good sound.
>
> or using UAD. come on, how often have you thought "am i really
> willing to go through this whole manual latency compensation
> business for just that one more UAD effect"? on a modern
> system, a no brainer. you just open the plugin you want to
> open.
>
> of stuff that simply is completely impossible to do...i.e.
> where i live, vocals need to be louder than a typical US mix
> by an average of around 1.5db (due to our language
> being less easy to understand in a thick mix than english).
> that of course has an impact of
> how "fat" the playback comes accross of course.
> but you can get almost an entire db of that back by doing
> subtle ducking on anything that is in the vocals frequency
> range, i.e. all guitars, keyboards, but not drums or base
> being ducked by the lead vocal.
>
> of course such a thing is virtually impossible to plan
> in advance (believe me ive tried ;-). its really only possible
> if you have completely free routing and can route anything
> anywhere at anytime.
>
> this is not ease of use stuff. its about sound.
>
>
> Also, consider
>>that when in a few years, that system will be worth a few hundred dollars,
>>if that. The depreciation on DAW hardware is worse than on a car.
>
>
> thats true for any digital system of any kind of course.
>
>
>
>>Here's an example: I bought three UAD1 cards (for around $100 each)
>>planning
>>to "upgrade" my EQ to the Cambridge. The PARIS EQ sounds better.
>
>
> well uh...why did you use the cambridge eq of all things???
> thats more or less a modern version of the waves q10, an
> analytic digital eq, not a "character" eq like the paris one
> is. UAD has a couple of very nice eqs, the pultecs and neves
> are awesome, and the precision mastering eq is simply the
> best digital eq ive ever heard with to my ears an almost
> perfect mix of character and smoothness on the one hand,
> yet still dead accurate precision and "bite" when needed
> on the other hand. i fall in love again and again every time
> i open this one. "best-eq-ever" ;-)
>
> i love the paris eq, but its really in another league here.
> its very easy to dial in nice and cool settings, but its not
> without its flaws, being a little wishy washy in the highs,
> being a little phasey in the low range. still a super
> cool channel eq though, thats for sure.
>
>
>
>>As it is, I LOVE the Dp/Pro Hall. My Lexicon MPX1 isn't even plugged in
>>right now. I love the PARIS Eq.
>
>
> second all of that :-)
>
>
>
>> I love having no latency when I'm recording.
>
>
> modern native rigs dont have any noticable latency when recording
> while still offering multiple times the plugin beef.
> even a mortal single quadcore from the intel consumer line
> would give you dozens of decent plugins at 1.5ms.
>
>
>
>>I will eventually be porting at least some of the effects to VST, but I've
>>got PARIS to run the effects right now, so VST isn't a priority. ASIO is
>>a priority. With ASIO, I'll be able to use the PARIS hardware with newer
>>software when it makes sense to do so. I love the spectral editing in
>>Audition.
>> Getting that working makes sense to me.
>
>
> i hope it comes accross that i discuss all of this in good
> spirit and just on a from-geek-to-geek basis ;-)
> having said that, may i still slip in a super theoretical question: if you
> really are able to do something
> that high tech as an asio driver for the MEC hardware, would
> that "fake driver to start the paris app without actual hardware
> to save projects from extinction even where no hardware is
> present" be within your technological reach?
>
> you know, strictly theoretically speaking,
> maybe for that time in ten years when you finally
> decide to move on and stuff ;-)
>
>
>>I'm glad you're happy with whatever you are using now. But, so are many
>>of us.
>
>
> i dont doubt it for a second. ive been a paris user from
> late 97 till...2005 i believe. loved the system, adored the
> company. what a loss that was when they were eaten by
> %%&/%(%$/ creative and merged into nonexistance by emu :-(
>
>
>
>
> best,
> derek
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101913 is a reply to message #101890] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 07:44 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>so if you operate on this basic assumption (just follow me here
>for the sake of the argument), would it not make much more sense
>to focus on something entirely different?
>like, i would imagine the biggest hit among ex-paris users
>and soon-to-be-ex-paris users would be a conversion application
>that reads paris projects, just the most basic stuff
>like files in use and position info and would convert
>that into...dunno...an OMF maybe? maybe too complicated
>(OMFs crossplatform compability seems to be a constantly moving
>target and suck big time)..maybe just a bunch of rendered
>continous wave files that get their data from the project file
>and the associated pafs?
Hey Derek... if your main need with regard to Paris is being
able to port stuff out of it into other apps, would it not
make sense to simply acquire a few ADAT cards & lightpipe
the songs out in real-time? For mega-channel projects where
even several ADAT cards might not be enough to do it in one
pass, all you'd have do is to make sure that each machine was
started at the very beginning point of each project & then nudge
or slide the incoming DAW tracks to the starting point... IOW,
you would even have to worry about syncing the two DAW's - as
long as they were either word-clocked together or you had the
incoming DAW set to lightpipe sync, you'd be fine. I can't
imagine that even on large multi-song projects, this would add
more than a couple or three hours of transfer time to the
client's bill... probably not much more than a software-based
exporting application would take, considering the rendering,
copying to whatever transfer media you chose, then importing
into the new DAW app, etc.
Just a suggestion for you... heck, maybe this is what you're
doing already, for all I know. :)
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101916 is a reply to message #101908] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 12:08 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Derek since you mentioned the C-16, FYI, Paris maybe getting a new control
surface with moving faders, thanks to Doug W. Paris still lives!
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>Kerry Galloway <kg@kerrygalloway.com> wrote:
>>> not trying to "convince" anyone here, i know i wont and
>>> i dont intend to. just consider it FYI, if you will :-)
>>
>>LOL.
>
>
>aw come one man, no reason to "lol" into anyones faces here :-)
>all in good spirit. i used to be a paris zombie too (i even go
>as far back to know that the term paris zombie is a positive one :-)
>
>
>>If you can find me a zero latency DAW that permits tracking at that zero
>>latency through FX
>
>
>there is no such thing as zero latency. of course paris
>has a latency, i dont remember the measurements exactly but they
>circled around this NG too. i think it was something like
>2.something milliseconds for one signal trip through mixing engine and converters
>(=what you hear when you track a signal).
>
>making a "no latency at all in paris versus some latency elsewhere" argument
>that seems like a comparison of
>absolutes is being dishonest to yourself. the reality is more a gradual
one
>like 2 milliseconds versus 3 milliseconds (my converters are nicely
>fast and partly make up for the 1.5 milliseconds the VST
>engine loses in comparison to the paris engine).
>
>
>>, includes a dedicated and high-quality hardware control
>>surface with automation and a shuttle wheel,
>
>
>...with no motorfaders and potentiometers that start to skip
>randomly after a while like unfortunately most late ensoniq
>gear did (that was a really bad shipment of potis they got
>there in their late days, the ASR and ASRX suffered from
>that problem too) :-)
>
>but yeah, the c16 was cool. the shuttlewheel ruled.
>of course it was slightly pointless because its only
>application that made sense was to move the now line around
>(editing was faster and more precise with the mouse,
>scrubbing was too unreliable) and you might as well use
>two keys to move the now line around, but it sure was FUN
>to use it. i think i have FOUR c16s in the closet, and
>most of them have that cool spot where the black color completely
>wore of between the transport and the wheel.
>they say "ive been USED a LOT, so i must have been useful" :-)
>
>
> has internal mixing
>>capabilities,
>
>
>which daw doesnt have that? :-)
>here id argue that as far as the featureset of internal mixing
>goes, paris loses the battle against almost anything else
>these days, in terms of flexibility and routing not to mention
>in terms of anything more advanced like object volume or,
>god forbid, the awesome object based mixing capabilities of
>hosts like samplitude and sequoia.
>my personal "heureka" moment was when at some point i realized
>that 1. i didnt want to live with the bugs of paris 3 anymore and
>2. i wanted to route stuff to groups and do sum processing
>on groups damnit! i mean, thats like one of the most essential
>mixing techniques there is!
>
>
>
> expandable I/O at about $150 per eight extra channels and
>>killer fat-sounding sonics overall
>
>
>again, cant argue with the price of a dead system. and
>the I/O that shipped with wonderful doses of ensoniq-ness
>in sound for so little money per 8 channels was already a steal
>when they were still sold full price brandnew.
>you wont get any argument there from me, ever :-)
>as i said, i used to keep some ensoniq ADDA around just
>for the fun and coolness of it. eventually i switched to
>do all my coloring via pres, but it doesnt mean i lost
>my love for the ensoniq magic there :-)
>
>
>
>>Of course, it's also got to be under six hundred bucks US, which is about
>>what I paid for all those capabilities - my double Bundle III *and* the
>>computer to run it. Whaddya got that'll get me those features at that price
>>point?
>>
>>:D
>
>
>nothing, but then, it also wouldnt come with all the limitations
>and with IDs paris 3.0 software bugfest. in that sense, the
>old "you get what you pay for" rule applies as always.
>
>
>best,
>derek
>
>
>p.s.: i really did not want to turn this into a "paris pro and con" discussion.
>for now i keep going as long as its all good
>clean fun, but if anyone is annoyed, one word and i will stop
>this immediately. its not what i came here for :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101930 is a reply to message #101906] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 20:53 |
Rod Lincoln
Messages: 883
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i would go even further and argue that even "ease of use"
>can make a difference in sound. in paris, how many times had i
>thought to myself "do i give myself the headache of
>a drum submix compression through the aux bus? or do i need
>it to be compressed by some other compressor, so do i do a submix
>now? am i ready for that to be submixed at all?" and then sometimes going
>through with it
>(taking a lot of time), sometimes not because of the amount
>of work involved. in a modern system, its a no brainer.
>you just do it when your engineer instinct demands it,
>and you choose the compressor with the characteristics you
>need on the spot, and if you then think that the compression
>stresses the basedrum a bit too much, you simply move
>that fader. all that results in good sound.
I would have to agree with you on that one
>or using UAD. come on, how often have you thought "am i really
>willing to go through this whole manual latency compensation
>business for just that one more UAD effect"? on a modern
>system, a no brainer. you just open the plugin you want to
>open.
While I agree that auto latency compenstaion is a no brainer, for me the
manual thing is almost automatic anyway. for a UAD plug, 4 clicks on the
100 button and click on my appropriate sample slide preset. Drum tracks across
submixes, same thing, except I have a little note on my sample slide preset
reminding me to move it 1 or 2 ms. I'm used to it, and never have the thought
you mentioned. I know others use the faderworks and like that alot also.
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101931 is a reply to message #101917] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 20:54 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Derek... I gotcha. BTW, FWIW, your recent posts look
STAGGERINGLY familiar to some posts I made few years back when
I bailed on paris for the Native world... welcome to the Dark
Side, my Jedi friend. lol
;)
Neil
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>"Neil" <OIUIOU@OUI.com> wrote:
> heck, maybe this is what you're
>>doing already, for all I know. :)
>
>
>i tried that route for a while, until i realized
>that within the time i take for all the routing,
>troubleshooting and restarts because of hiccups of
>one kind or the other, i might as well just export
>selections of tracks within paris at a time.
>
>
>my interest is not so much in saving a few man hours.
>its more for the times when the hardware will eventually
>bite the dust. and that day is coming. not to mention
>the slowly fading software compability etc. already today,
>my only chance of opening a project as is with all
>settings and plugs in place it to actually maintain
>my win 98 machine from back then. and that just feels like
>a ticking bomb to me.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101932 is a reply to message #101931] |
Mon, 05 January 2009 20:41 |
|
|
I use both, myself. Logic Pro 8 and RME for the features and modernity,
PARIS for what I'm looking for sonically.
- K
On 1/5/09 8:54 PM, in article 4962d602$1@linux, "Neil" <OIOIU@oiu.com>
wrote:
>
> Derek... I gotcha. BTW, FWIW, your recent posts look
> STAGGERINGLY familiar to some posts I made few years back when
> I bailed on paris for the Native world... welcome to the Dark
> Side, my Jedi friend. lol
>
> ;)
>
> Neil
>
>
> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> "Neil" <OIUIOU@OUI.com> wrote:
>> heck, maybe this is what you're
>>> doing already, for all I know. :)
>>
>>
>> i tried that route for a while, until i realized
>> that within the time i take for all the routing,
>> troubleshooting and restarts because of hiccups of
>> one kind or the other, i might as well just export
>> selections of tracks within paris at a time.
>>
>>
>> my interest is not so much in saving a few man hours.
>> its more for the times when the hardware will eventually
>> bite the dust. and that day is coming. not to mention
>> the slowly fading software compability etc. already today,
>> my only chance of opening a project as is with all
>> settings and plugs in place it to actually maintain
>> my win 98 machine from back then. and that just feels like
>> a ticking bomb to me.
>>
>
"... being bitter is like swallowing poison and waiting for the other guy to die..." - anon
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101934 is a reply to message #101905] |
Tue, 06 January 2009 06:33 |
Ted Gerber
Messages: 705
Registered: January 2009
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>>the sonic/summing issue was only half of the 2 reasons I listed.
>
>
>so i take it you then agree with the points i made there? ;-)
>
What I agree with is the certainty that you can produce fantastic results
with many other combinations of software, hardware and technique. I also
agree with you that
"convenience" advantages in other software can have a direct impact on sonics.
What I have difficulty with personally is getting the same sonic
results from other software/hardware combos without investing
significant time and money. I have been happy with results from CuBase or
Logic summed through an analog board to tape. But I have been happier with
those same mixes summed in Paris by itself. In fact, saying that I could
get "the same" sonic results from other approaches (after investing said
time and money) is speculation on my part, since I have not actually been
able to - I am taking the word of folks like you.
As far as the idea that the Paris summing/bounce "magic" is easily replicated
in other systems and "proven" using phase
cancelling tests, I'm not sure what you mean by this (this is what I think
you're saying, if I'm misinterpreting, I apologize). Even if you could take
the same mix and bounce it from both Paris and Nuendo, then take both bounces
and line them up in either software and flip phase on one, and largely cancel
the other out, phase cancellation speaks only to panning and frequency. But
sonics and our perception of sound, to my mind,
have more to them than frequency response alone (beating an old drum here).
How many companies are pushing their new audio components - mics, tape emulators,
amp simulators - as exact replicas of the originals they are trying to replace
(at much lower cost and greater convenience) by shoving EQ response curves
in our faces? "See, our product has virtually the same curve as the product
we are trying to unseat, therefore it must be as good" and then we listen
to it, or use it, and find it doesn't sound nearly the same enough? For me,
other things like 3 dimensionality (depth) and accurate time alignment -
affects attack - are important (when digital first hit the scene everyone
talked about it being cold, using EQ terms of reference, yet I knew as a
piano technician that the piano concertos I was listening to on CD had much
less problem with EQ - any piano can be "bright" - than they did with the
attack of the hammers striking the strings, it was just plain "unrealistic").
The thing is, currently we have the technology to measure EQ, but we don't
really have the means to measure depth and the psycho-acoustic effects of
the more "intangible" items.
>
>>The second was the cost of making a significant change.
>
>
>totally true: cant argue with the price point of a dead system.
Yikes! Dead? Using this descriptor is prejudicial, "leading the witness"
so to speak. A variety of dictionaries define "dead"
with phrases like - lacking life, devoid of usefulness, unable to function.
I understand in your paradigm, PARIS is dead (and I
totally respect that, for most of the reasons you've cited), but PARIS is
no more dead than any other piece of gear that's been
discontinued by its manufacturer yet still serves the function for which
it was intended.
A friend recently mixed a semi-major-label disc (more than 400,000 copies
sold) and one song needed a final, final, final tweak at a time when it was
problematic to get back into the studio and use the gear the album had been
mixed on. After A/B-ing to the label and artist, with their permission he
was able to largely match the sonics of the rest of the CD, (summed in an
SSL through Apogees DA16s to tape), by summing through an obsolete board
(out of production for 18 - 20 years), with 8 year old DAs and a new Alan
Smart C1 to tape. The current value of the gear in the other studio is $120K
CDN. The current value of his own gear is $6K CDN (his ADDAs really need
to be upgraded...).
This little vignette illustrates in a nutshell why I'm happy to
use PARIS - it's not dead, but it is effective and cheap.
Take care and thanks for the dialog, I appreciate it.
Ted
>its why i would never sell my (pretty big) paris rig, it would go for ridiculously
>low prices so id rather keep it.
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101936 is a reply to message #101930] |
Tue, 06 January 2009 07:57 |
Tom Bruhl
Messages: 1368
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rod, Get Vertex Faderworks. One click, done. List of all
your latencies and names of plugs right there always.
Takes one slot though.
Tom
"Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4962d5b0$1@linux...
>
> i would go even further and argue that even "ease of use"
>>can make a difference in sound. in paris, how many times had i
>>thought to myself "do i give myself the headache of
>>a drum submix compression through the aux bus? or do i need
>>it to be compressed by some other compressor, so do i do a submix
>>now? am i ready for that to be submixed at all?" and then sometimes going
>>through with it
>>(taking a lot of time), sometimes not because of the amount
>>of work involved. in a modern system, its a no brainer.
>>you just do it when your engineer instinct demands it,
>>and you choose the compressor with the characteristics you
>>need on the spot, and if you then think that the compression
>>stresses the basedrum a bit too much, you simply move
>>that fader. all that results in good sound.
>
> I would have to agree with you on that one
>
>>or using UAD. come on, how often have you thought "am i really
>>willing to go through this whole manual latency compensation
>>business for just that one more UAD effect"? on a modern
>>system, a no brainer. you just open the plugin you want to
>>open.
>
> While I agree that auto latency compenstaion is a no brainer, for me the
> manual thing is almost automatic anyway. for a UAD plug, 4 clicks on the
> 100 button and click on my appropriate sample slide preset. Drum tracks
> across
> submixes, same thing, except I have a little note on my sample slide
> preset
> reminding me to move it 1 or 2 ms. I'm used to it, and never have the
> thought
> you mentioned. I know others use the faderworks and like that alot also.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101939 is a reply to message #101932] |
Tue, 06 January 2009 10:15 |
|
|
Hey Kerry,
How integrate the two systems?
Gantt
Kerry Galloway <kg@kerrygalloway.com> wrote:
>I use both, myself. Logic Pro 8 and RME for the features and modernity,
>PARIS for what I'm looking for sonically.
>
>- K
>
>On 1/5/09 8:54 PM, in article 4962d602$1@linux, "Neil" <OIOIU@oiu.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Derek... I gotcha. BTW, FWIW, your recent posts look
>> STAGGERINGLY familiar to some posts I made few years back when
>> I bailed on paris for the Native world... welcome to the Dark
>> Side, my Jedi friend. lol
>>
>> ;)
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> "Neil" <OIUIOU@OUI.com> wrote:
>>> heck, maybe this is what you're
>>>> doing already, for all I know. :)
>>>
>>>
>>> i tried that route for a while, until i realized
>>> that within the time i take for all the routing,
>>> troubleshooting and restarts because of hiccups of
>>> one kind or the other, i might as well just export
>>> selections of tracks within paris at a time.
>>>
>>>
>>> my interest is not so much in saving a few man hours.
>>> its more for the times when the hardware will eventually
>>> bite the dust. and that day is coming. not to mention
>>> the slowly fading software compability etc. already today,
>>> my only chance of opening a project as is with all
>>> settings and plugs in place it to actually maintain
>>> my win 98 machine from back then. and that just feels like
>>> a ticking bomb to me.
>>>
>>
>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101940 is a reply to message #101939] |
Tue, 06 January 2009 10:46 |
EK Sound
Messages: 939
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We have Nuendo, PTHD3 and Paris, all on separate computers. We integrate
them with a DM2000, a word clock generator and timecode.
David.
Gantt Kushner wrote:
> Hey Kerry,
>
> How integrate the two systems?
>
> Gantt
>
> Kerry Galloway <kg@kerrygalloway.com> wrote:
>> I use both, myself. Logic Pro 8 and RME for the features and modernity,
>> PARIS for what I'm looking for sonically.
>>
>> - K
>>
>> On 1/5/09 8:54 PM, in article 4962d602$1@linux, "Neil" <OIOIU@oiu.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Derek... I gotcha. BTW, FWIW, your recent posts look
>>> STAGGERINGLY familiar to some posts I made few years back when
>>> I bailed on paris for the Native world... welcome to the Dark
>>> Side, my Jedi friend. lol
>>>
>>> ;)
>>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>>>
>>> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>> "Neil" <OIUIOU@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>> heck, maybe this is what you're
>>>>> doing already, for all I know. :)
>>>>
>>>> i tried that route for a while, until i realized
>>>> that within the time i take for all the routing,
>>>> troubleshooting and restarts because of hiccups of
>>>> one kind or the other, i might as well just export
>>>> selections of tracks within paris at a time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> my interest is not so much in saving a few man hours.
>>>> its more for the times when the hardware will eventually
>>>> bite the dust. and that day is coming. not to mention
>>>> the slowly fading software compability etc. already today,
>>>> my only chance of opening a project as is with all
>>>> settings and plugs in place it to actually maintain
>>>> my win 98 machine from back then. and that just feels like
>>>> a ticking bomb to me.
>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101941 is a reply to message #101940] |
Tue, 06 January 2009 12:28 |
|
|
Hi David,
What role does Paris play in your system? Does your typical project use a
little of all three platforms or mostly only one?
Gantt
EK Sound <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote:
>We have Nuendo, PTHD3 and Paris, all on separate computers. We integrate
>them with a DM2000, a word clock generator and timecode.
>
>David.
>
>Gantt Kushner wrote:
>> Hey Kerry,
>>
>> How integrate the two systems?
>>
>> Gantt
>>
>> Kerry Galloway <kg@kerrygalloway.com> wrote:
>>> I use both, myself. Logic Pro 8 and RME for the features and modernity,
>>> PARIS for what I'm looking for sonically.
>>>
>>> - K
>>>
>>> On 1/5/09 8:54 PM, in article 4962d602$1@linux, "Neil" <OIOIU@oiu.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Derek... I gotcha. BTW, FWIW, your recent posts look
>>>> STAGGERINGLY familiar to some posts I made few years back when
>>>> I bailed on paris for the Native world... welcome to the Dark
>>>> Side, my Jedi friend. lol
>>>>
>>>> ;)
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Neil" <OIUIOU@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>>> heck, maybe this is what you're
>>>>>> doing already, for all I know. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> i tried that route for a while, until i realized
>>>>> that within the time i take for all the routing,
>>>>> troubleshooting and restarts because of hiccups of
>>>>> one kind or the other, i might as well just export
>>>>> selections of tracks within paris at a time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> my interest is not so much in saving a few man hours.
>>>>> its more for the times when the hardware will eventually
>>>>> bite the dust. and that day is coming. not to mention
>>>>> the slowly fading software compability etc. already today,
>>>>> my only chance of opening a project as is with all
>>>>> settings and plugs in place it to actually maintain
>>>>> my win 98 machine from back then. and that just feels like
>>>>> a ticking bomb to me.
>>>>>
>>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101944 is a reply to message #101941] |
Tue, 06 January 2009 13:34 |
EK Sound
Messages: 939
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It varies wildly.. to be honest, we don't use PARIS all that often, but
I have had great success with sending stems through the DM and summing
in PARIS. It all depends on the project and which sample rates are
involved. It has been a few years since I have used PARIS for tracking
and editing, Nuendo is SO much faster. My least favorite to use is PT,
but without it, we would not have had most of the sessions we did this
past year. The DM2K makes it really handy for porting stuff around, cue
mixing, and control room functions. Also, 24 really nice pre's.
David.
Gantt Kushner wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> What role does Paris play in your system? Does your typical project use a
> little of all three platforms or mostly only one?
>
> Gantt
>
> EK Sound <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote:
>> We have Nuendo, PTHD3 and Paris, all on separate computers. We integrate
>
>> them with a DM2000, a word clock generator and timecode.
>>
>> David.
>>
>> Gantt Kushner wrote:
>>> Hey Kerry,
>>>
>>> How integrate the two systems?
>>>
>>> Gantt
>>>
>>> Kerry Galloway <kg@kerrygalloway.com> wrote:
>>>> I use both, myself. Logic Pro 8 and RME for the features and modernity,
>>>> PARIS for what I'm looking for sonically.
>>>>
>>>> - K
>>>>
>>>> On 1/5/09 8:54 PM, in article 4962d602$1@linux, "Neil" <OIOIU@oiu.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Derek... I gotcha. BTW, FWIW, your recent posts look
>>>>> STAGGERINGLY familiar to some posts I made few years back when
>>>>> I bailed on paris for the Native world... welcome to the Dark
>>>>> Side, my Jedi friend. lol
>>>>>
>>>>> ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Neil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "derek" <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Neil" <OIUIOU@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>>>> heck, maybe this is what you're
>>>>>>> doing already, for all I know. :)
>>>>>> i tried that route for a while, until i realized
>>>>>> that within the time i take for all the routing,
>>>>>> troubleshooting and restarts because of hiccups of
>>>>>> one kind or the other, i might as well just export
>>>>>> selections of tracks within paris at a time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> my interest is not so much in saving a few man hours.
>>>>>> its more for the times when the hardware will eventually
>>>>>> bite the dust. and that day is coming. not to mention
>>>>>> the slowly fading software compability etc. already today,
>>>>>> my only chance of opening a project as is with all
>>>>>> settings and plugs in place it to actually maintain
>>>>>> my win 98 machine from back then. and that just feels like
>>>>>> a ticking bomb to me.
>>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: the last paris app we need? [message #101946 is a reply to message #101936] |
Tue, 06 January 2009 18:16 |
Rod Lincoln
Messages: 883
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I keep meaning to try it...but when I'm in the heat of battle, I end up going
with what I know...ya know. Then I forget about it till the next time.
Rod
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
>Rod, Get Vertex Faderworks. One click, done. List of all
>your latencies and names of plugs right there always.
>Takes one slot though.
>Tom
>
>
>"Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:4962d5b0$1@linux...
>>
>> i would go even further and argue that even "ease of use"
>>>can make a difference in sound. in paris, how many times had i
>>>thought to myself "do i give myself the headache of
>>>a drum submix compression through the aux bus? or do i need
>>>it to be compressed by some other compressor, so do i do a submix
>>>now? am i ready for that to be submixed at all?" and then sometimes going
>>>through with it
>>>(taking a lot of time), sometimes not because of the amount
>>>of work involved. in a modern system, its a no brainer.
>>>you just do it when your engineer instinct demands it,
>>>and you choose the compressor with the characteristics you
>>>need on the spot, and if you then think that the compression
>>>stresses the basedrum a bit too much, you simply move
>>>that fader. all that results in good sound.
>>
>> I would have to agree with you on that one
>>
>>>or using UAD. come on, how often have you thought "am i really
>>>willing to go through this whole manual latency compensation
>>>business for just that one more UAD effect"? on a modern
>>>system, a no brainer. you just open the plugin you want to
>>>open.
>>
>> While I agree that auto latency compenstaion is a no brainer, for me the
>> manual thing is almost automatic anyway. for a UAD plug, 4 clicks on the
>> 100 button and click on my appropriate sample slide preset. Drum tracks
>> across
>> submixes, same thing, except I have a little note on my sample slide
>> preset
>> reminding me to move it 1 or 2 ms. I'm used to it, and never have the
>> thought
>> you mentioned. I know others use the faderworks and like that alot also.
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Nov 19 05:28:30 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02322 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
