Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
"Noah Roberts" wrote in message ups.com... Scott Dorsey wrote: Just get a tape machine and be done with it. It works just fine. You do realize of course that analog systems are just not ready for proffessional application. I just don't know what to say. Maybe after the wounds heal. They are not at all compatible with the standard for today's pro recording studios: Pro Tools. I wouldn't have gotten my last decent label deal if I had not been able to supply a 2" analog machine. There was a lot of talk about post editing in ProTools, but thanks to good players, the project never left the reels throughout the entire process. If someone calls up and asks if you have Pro-Tools you will have to say no Personally, they don't call me for ProTools or any other gear... they call for me. If they want ProTools, we'll find ProTools. and you will loose all your customers. The only customers that I've really lost are those that wanted to be lost... as in those who purchased some type of studio-in-a-box and moved home. It's also not surprising that most of those either called me to mix or never completed that or any other project. I don't like to say no, either, so I've only recently learned the basics of PT, but I can legitimately say that I've never lost a pre-existing client or a prospect because I (until recently) wasn't a PT user. Clients want to know that you can dependably get the job done, Exactly... regardless of the gear. and the only way they know that is that you have the standard tools to get the job done right. All I can say is that I think you're somewhat off-base on this one. ProTools may be the most globally compatible working standard within the industry, but it's not *the* industry. -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s.com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:
"Noah Roberts" wrote in message .... snip ... Clients want to know that you can dependably get the job done, Exactly... regardless of the gear. and the only way they know that is that you have the standard tools to get the job done right. All I can say is that I think you're somewhat off-base on this one. ProTools may be the most globally compatible working standard within the industry, but it's not *the* industry. Go and hire my daughter: http://www.heygrace.com -- "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson |
#523
|
|||
|
|||
"CBFalconer" wrote in message ... "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote: "Noah Roberts" wrote in message Clients want to know that you can dependably get the job done, Exactly... regardless of the gear. and the only way they know that is that you have the standard tools to get the job done right. All I can say is that I think you're somewhat off-base on this one. ProTools may be the most globally compatible working standard within the industry, but it's not *the* industry. Go and hire my daughter: http://www.heygrace.com Very cool website... I love the toggles. Have your daughter call me for engineering on her next production arrangement. ;-) DM |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:00:26 -0700, Noah Roberts wrote:
You do realize of course that analog systems are just not ready for proffessional application. You do realize of course that Noah Roberts is just not ready for intelligent discourse. |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dana
wrote on Fri, 10 Jun 2005 18:13:37 -0400 : On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:10:28 +0000, David Morgan (MAMS) wrote: "CBFalconer" wrote in message ... "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote: "Noah Roberts" wrote in message Clients want to know that you can dependably get the job done, Exactly... regardless of the gear. and the only way they know that is that you have the standard tools to get the job done right. All I can say is that I think you're somewhat off-base on this one. ProTools may be the most globally compatible working standard within the industry, but it's not *the* industry. Go and hire my daughter: http://www.heygrace.com Very cool website... I love the toggles. Have your daughter call me for engineering on her next production arrangement. ;-) DM I agree, that is a very well done website. It's nice to see ladies in the audio profession. I'm not sure I'm all that thrilled with the metaphor but acknowledge her inherent superiority to me in the area of drawing such things. :-) I'm lucky if I can draw circles. The Javascript looks a bit odd in spots (MM_preloadImages() is passed two paramters which aren't used) and could be a touch clearer (there's not that much of it, which is a plus). CSS2 might be useful here. The band links look a bit hodgepodgeish, and the space utilization could be better there (a table instead of a list). A subtly textured background might be a nice addition, and part of CSS2 as well. Otherwise, a nice clean design from an HTML standpoint, and not all that bad from a pure visual standpoint. -- #191, It's still legal to go .sigless. |
#526
|
|||
|
|||
Agent 86 wrote:
Noah Roberts wrote: You do realize of course that analog systems are just not ready for proffessional application. You do realize of course that Noah Roberts is just not ready for intelligent discourse. Two Studer here have less forced downtime in 30 years than do my DAW's in the past two years. Ther are lots of things for which Noah is not ready. -- ha |
#527
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
perso wrote: Hi I'm actually thinking about a project of home studio, linux based. Do you think Ardour could be a serious choice for a personal but "serious" home studio ? I think it could be. Two observations I'd make: Once you have a linux system configured for your application, it's generally a very smooth and consistent experience from that moment forward. As long as you don't have habits such as, to install every VSTi plugin you find, it should be a good choice. Ardour is a pretty good recorder and editor, and there are some good MIDI sequencers and realtime effects available. Personally, I am a linux fanatic, yet my home studio runs on WindowsXP, Adobe Audition, energyXT, and this is mainly because I want to use certain VSTi instruments and I would prefer not to struggle with emulation. But if I were strictly recording Audio, Ardour would certainly be worth considering. Linux agnula Sure -- a "turnkey solution" Delta 1010 or RME Hammerfall I can tell you with certainty that any ICE1712-based Delta card will work very, very well under linux. With a kernel that's been tweaked for audio performance, it may even give you lower latency than the same card with ASIO drivers under Windows. |
#528
|
|||
|
|||
In article znr1117293005k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
When will you have time to do any recording, or make any music? Mike the OP is referring to a turnkey solution, which, if it supports his sound device, is actually quite easy to run, requires a minimum of fuss. I agree that linux is an "adventure" and can be maddening, but I wonder, have you actually tried Agnula and Ardour? It's pretty decent from the user's perspective, once it's installed. If you want to talk about *before* it's installed, Windows doesn't exactly win any prizes here either. A turnkey linux solution passes the "grandma test" very easily. |
#529
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
perso wrote: I was talking about Agnula Demudi: ready for music. Mike has my deep respect, but with all due respect, I'm sure he's never tried that. |
#530
|
|||
|
|||
In article znr1117314028k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
Commendable, but how many people who ask on an audio newsgroup if Linux is a reasonable platform are really savvy enough to build a dedicated audio workstation? I'm not saying it can't be done, just not advisable for anyone who still needs advice. Do you actually have any experience with Agnula and DeMudi? Because if you don't, it's very much like someone giving advice about something that they have no expertise in. You've got worlds of studio experience, I realize fully, but does that qualify you to bash a system that you don't use? |
#531
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
reddred wrote: I'm not sure that it's very much cheaper. I'm sure it's not cheaper. I'm not going to address the end of the spectrum that uses a pirated version of Cubase, because that doesn't even count. But, even the typical setup, with a Behringer mixer, an 8 channel sound card, a midi controller, and a P4, still costs more than an 8 track digital recorder would cost. But, I'm not trying to be a "studio producer", I'm a musician. In my world, the computer is a musical instrument which happens, as a side-effect, to be a very good recorder. And for a musician, I believe it does turn out to be much cheaper, with much more economy of space, to use the DAW as a musical instrument. I still have a rack of hardware synths and three keyboards on my rig plus my piano, but I could do quite a bit with just a controller and the PC. It's expensive, by hobbyist standards, and some aspects are a great deal of work. For somebody who is recording vocals and mic'd or DI instruments, it is almost certainly a better value to invest in one of the many multitrack recorders out there. Those things are all 24bit, and some of them even have decent preamps and fx. They don't have noisy fans, the whole thing fits in a mixer rack case, and since it's purpose-built, it will "just work". The more people experience the reality, the more the word will spread. I suspect there's a different focus for a keyboard player these days, since there is this crazy huge world of software synthesizers that makes me go all Bob Ross about what a joy it is to be alive. But then, I'm a *musician* and a *composer*, and my opinion on recording is, I need to be able to record well enough to take my ideas to others, so that if I create something worthwhile, we can go someplace like Mike's studio and do it right, with the SSL, and the really nice room, and so on. On the other other hand, some styles of music are quite well served with the simple homebrew DAW. People are doing exactly this with success... lots of people, making music that stands up to some pretty critical evaluation. I have no delusions about quality, but I must say, the quality of my recorder is such that I cannot blame my tools for being in my way! |
#532
|
|||
|
|||
In article znr1117569660k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
1. Linux applications, no matter how good, are of no use without computers running Linux. You're just being a Nay-sayer Mike. The OP in this case came to the newsgroup and stated the application he wanted to use, which does exist, and is in fact, pretty good. It's not Sonar, it's not Nuendo, it's not DP, it's not PTHD, and it's not even eXT or FruityLoops. But it's complete enough to get certain kinds of things done. On some systems you could make a case that LADSPA is a better subsystem for audio than ASIO. 2. There aren't many computers running Linux More than OS2 ever had, and that was considered a solid market not many years ago. Digidesign, Steinberg, Magix, and Cakewalk may decide to port their flagship products to Linux some day, but not until they can make money at it. I doubt that your typical Linux user would be willing to pay, say $5,000 for a copy of Nuendo, just to avoid using Windows. You *are* kind of the guy in the ivory tower, in your famous studio and all... You realize how condescending you sound, right? I'll shut up totally if you tell me that you actually booted a machine with an Agnula CD and ran Muse, Audacity, or Ardour one single time before dismissing the whole platform out of hand. It's not fair to even mention Nuendo in a response to someone using free softwae. |
#533
|
|||
|
|||
In article znr1117621676k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
If the potential user decides that a Unix audio application is the one he wants to run, then he needs a computer that can run Unix. But with the rest of the professional audio community leaning heavily towards ProTools, which still doesn't come in a Unix version, why would he make the decision to use Unix, or Linux? There's a growing community of independent musicians who don't bother to check with the professional community first before going ahead and doing their thing anyway. Very few of them are even interested in making money, they want to express their art. I'm one of them! The *very last* thing I could justify for myself is Digi/PT *anything*. There's no point, and it would be a giant step in the wrong direction. I couldn't walk in *your* shoes with my DAW (Audition, energyXT, and so on), but that's not on the table anyway. |
#534
|
|||
|
|||
In article znr1117645948k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
That's great - no user interaction with the operating system at all. How does he even know that it's Linux? *exactly* |
#535
|
|||
|
|||
Muse Receptor, which some guitarists are discovering for it's ability to host VST FX in a decent form factor. |
#536
|
|||
|
|||
Linux and audio pro
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:05:43 +0000, james wrote:
In article , perso wrote: I was talking about Agnula Demudi: ready for music. Mike has my deep respect, but with all due respect, I'm sure he's never tried that. Possibly one out of a hundred comments on Linux audio here come from people who have actually used any of the software. It's interesting that if I were to post a comment on pro-tools here, starting with "Well, I've never actually used pro-tools, but here are my impressions", it would be laughed at. To do the same with Linux/Ardour is acceptable for some reason. The idea that a certain operation might actually be faster or more pleasant in Ardour than $BELOVED_DAW is complete anathema. The way Jack works to interconnect applications is incomprehensible as there is no real equivalent on other operating systems to compare it to. Many people have not gone through the nightmare of recovering ten year old projects made with proprietary software, so the benefits of open file formats and storing session data as human readable XML files mean nothing to them. Yet. Still, some of the criticism is valid even without direct familiarity with the software. One thing stands out for me: that if there was a system with Linux and Ardour that really was free, trivial to install, and supported a wide range of audio cards then we would see a lot less uninformed comments. Though not necessarily any glowing reviews either. |
#537
|
|||
|
|||
Linux and audio pro
In article .com,
Marko Shindler wrote: Interesting is fine, but if you are a musician your burning desire is to create music and Linux will hinder that big time. If you're a musician whose day job is developing software, or if you're a CS major with a music minor, that's totally wrong. Here's the thing: I'm a musician whose day job is developing software, and I majored in CS with a minor in music, and get this, I know many others who are one of those, and a few others who can say both. It's not uncommon at all -- in fact, it's very, very common for people who are into music to also be into electronics, math, physics, and computer programming. |
#538
|
|||
|
|||
Linux and audio pro
In article , Geoff Wood wrote:
UInless there are some real committed commie benelovent highly-skilled programmer-hobbiests out there. Actually, there are so many, enough that there's *competition*. Hey, did you read the news reports where Oracle bought InnoDB? |
#539
|
|||
|
|||
Linux and audio pro
In article 725oe.147$yS2.50@trnddc07,
David Morgan \(MAMS\) wrote: So do I. But a kid that can't afford a cheap version of PT, but has a car, a cell phone, an expensive 'puter, tuition paid by mom & dad, etc..... now that's a *real* anomaly. You don't know the half of it. Around here, the parents buy kids $250,000 two- and three- bedroom houses for school. (Tucson, Univ of Arizona). |
#541
|
|||
|
|||
Linux and audio pro
In article znr1117730761k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
The computer I'm using now (I bought it at a computer recycling store) had Open Office for Windows installed on it. I tried it - it sort of looks like Word, it sort of works like Word, it opens Word files, Word can open the files it creates, but what's the point? I have Word You are $229.00 poorer - the retail price of Word. A luxury that you had, and you do not see any reason to "switch" to the free alternative. You don't see the value of the free alternative, because you are able to afford the high priced product. You even see fit to campaign *against* the free product. Just out of curiosity, did you purchase a separate license for MS Office on that recycling store computer? |
#542
|
|||
|
|||
Linux and audio pro
In article ,
another viewer wrote: No warranty period or manufacturer applications support for Ardour or Audacity ? If the Nuendo EULA mentions warranties in any context other than to disclaim them, I will eat my hat. |
#543
|
|||
|
|||
Linux and audio pro
John wrote: In article TfU4f.2843$i%.2657@fed1read07, (james) wrote: In article .com, Marko Shindler wrote: Interesting is fine, but if you are a musician your burning desire is to create music and Linux will hinder that big time. If you're a musician whose day job is developing software, or if you're a CS major with a music minor, that's totally wrong. Here's the thing: I'm a musician whose day job is developing software, and I majored in CS with a minor in music, and get this, I know many others who are one of those, and a few others who can say both. It's not uncommon at all -- in fact, it's very, very common for people who are into music to also be into electronics, math, physics, and computer programming. that's nice. I know musicians who piddle around with computers in their spare time too. that doesn't make them professional programmers any more than you being a professional musician. enjoy your hobby but don't get confused about what you really do. -- Digital Services Recording Studios http://www.digisrvs.com Insult someone then put your company's URL in your sig? Do you consider that a smart business move? |
#544
|
|||
|
|||
Linux and audio pro
In article .com,
"Blood Money" wrote: John wrote: In article TfU4f.2843$i%.2657@fed1read07, (james) wrote: In article .com, Marko Shindler wrote: Interesting is fine, but if you are a musician your burning desire is to create music and Linux will hinder that big time. If you're a musician whose day job is developing software, or if you're a CS major with a music minor, that's totally wrong. Here's the thing: I'm a musician whose day job is developing software, and I majored in CS with a minor in music, and get this, I know many others who are one of those, and a few others who can say both. It's not uncommon at all -- in fact, it's very, very common for people who are into music to also be into electronics, math, physics, and computer programming. that's nice. I know musicians who piddle around with computers in their spare time too. that doesn't make them professional programmers any more than you being a professional musician. enjoy your hobby but don't get confused about what you really do. -- Digital Services Recording Studios http://www.digisrvs.com Insult someone then put your company's URL in your sig? Do you consider that a smart business move? If you consider my stating the facts of the matter insulting, then it also shows I could give a rats ass because I know neither he nor you would ever be a professional client of ours. Don't quit your day job. g jm -- Digital Services Recording Studios http://www.digisrvs.com |
#545
|
|||
|
|||
Linux and audio pro
John wrote:
that's nice. I know musicians who piddle around with computers in their spare time too. that doesn't make them professional programmers any more than you being a professional musician. enjoy your hobby but don't get confused about what you really do. You don't know much about free software. The first version of Linux was written by a guy piddling about in their spare time. Now IBM, HP and others sell Linux based solutions, based on its superior reliability and value. You can be sure that movie studios are exploiting Linux not just for video but audio as well. I'd not be surprised to find that digital mixers and so on are running embedded versions of Linux using JACK as the underlying interconnect architecture. It's already good enough for that. I've been writing software for DJing on Linux, and I would have been happy to use a Mac if JACK hadn't been so excellent to begin with, what with it having parametric EQ, reverb and just about any other effect I could ever ask for, already written for me. There are 3 major advantages to free softwa 1) you don't generally end up getting technical support from a screen reader in Bangalore. 2) If it doesn't do what you want, you can crack open the source code (or pay someone to) and make it do what you want, instead of waiting for a marketing droid to decide your must have feature is worthy of a developer's attention. Same goes for bug fixes. 3) Good free software projects usually develop cleaner, tighter, better software faster than commercial developers can. I predict that Audacity, etc. will catch up to and surpass their closed source equivalents within a couple of years at the outside. Not half bad for "hobbyist" work. |
#546
|
|||
|
|||
Linux and audio pro
In article ,
ceverett wrote: John wrote: that's nice. I know musicians who piddle around with computers in their spare time too. that doesn't make them professional programmers any more than you being a professional musician. enjoy your hobby but don't get confused about what you really do. You don't know much about free software. The first version of Linux was written by a guy piddling about in their spare time. Now IBM, HP and others sell Linux based solutions, based on its superior reliability and value. You can be sure that movie studios are exploiting Linux not just for video but audio as well. I'd not be surprised to find that digital mixers and so on are running embedded versions of Linux using JACK as the underlying interconnect architecture. It's already good enough for that. I've been writing software for DJing on Linux, and I would have been happy to use a Mac if JACK hadn't been so excellent to begin with, what with it having parametric EQ, reverb and just about any other effect I could ever ask for, already written for me. There are 3 major advantages to free softwa 1) you don't generally end up getting technical support from a screen reader in Bangalore. 2) If it doesn't do what you want, you can crack open the source code (or pay someone to) and make it do what you want, instead of waiting for a marketing droid to decide your must have feature is worthy of a developer's attention. Same goes for bug fixes. 3) Good free software projects usually develop cleaner, tighter, better software faster than commercial developers can. I predict that Audacity, etc. will catch up to and surpass their closed source equivalents within a couple of years at the outside. Not half bad for "hobbyist" work. that's a very nice fantasy you got there, hang on to it as long as you can. -- Digital Services Recording Studios http://www.digisrvs.com |
#547
|
|||
|
|||
Linux and audio pro
On 2005-10-19, John wrote:
In article , ceverett wrote: John wrote: [deletia] 3) Good free software projects usually develop cleaner, tighter, better software faster than commercial developers can. I predict that Audacity, etc. will catch up to and surpass their closed source equivalents within a couple of years at the outside. Not half bad for "hobbyist" work. that's a very nice fantasy you got there, hang on to it as long as you can. I recall when the naysayers were saying the same exact thing about what Audacity would replace. HELL, I recall when the naysayers weren't even aware of what Audacity would replace. You're a fool if you think that the commoditization process that has lead to the current state of things will magically stop at the current state of things. Expensive dongleware is always it's own best motivation. -- ....as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform. ||| / | \ |
#548
|
|||
|
|||
Linux and audio pro
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:46:43 -0500, John
wrote: In article , ceverett wrote: John wrote: I predict that Audacity, etc. will catch up to and surpass their closed source equivalents within a couple of years at the outside. Not half bad for "hobbyist" work. that's a very nice fantasy you got there, hang on to it as long as you can. Depends on the problem domain. Very few compilers are better than gcc, but I still want VisualBASIC when I'm developing a WINDOWS ONLY commercial app. (and Python for when I need cross platform) If you budget says "audacity" then install Audacity and get to work recording. So long as you can export .wav files, you can move to a new platform. OTOH if my budget said ProTools, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why Windows is Easier than Linux For An End User, Especially for Multimedia work. | Pro Audio | |||
The problem with Linux and digital audio. | Pro Audio | |||
Is there a non Linux audio group? | Pro Audio | |||
Is there a non Linux audio group? | Pro Audio | |||
Linux blows for any type of serious digital audio work. | Pro Audio |