[Mark]

That's because they haven't actually measured it. *I did measure it,
admittedly almost a decade ago, and I decided against it.
--scott
--


how and what did you measure?

and what results did you get?

Mark

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Because they have to learn something new.

Or moreover... once a damned machine works right, why freaking
follow the never-ending 'upgrade' paths? Leave it alone... build
another machine for the 'experiment' and the guinea pig beta-testing.

Agreed.


Learning something new is irrelevant... being thrown a basket full
of unwanted BS for the sake of "upgrading" is hogwash.

:-|

Or you could learn what you are doing before you throw in a disk and
double click on "install" :-)

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:11:55 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
/Odm wrote:

Speaking of the Mac GUI... they guys at the studio are still trying to
tweak out the ridiculous VISTA Impersonation characteristics of
the new OS. It magically sucks wind.... or is it just stupid of me to
believe that I really don't need to see a rotating image of a freaking
folder shown in full-screen mode, and be stuck with i-Tunes crap
internet bloat scattered all over the place?

At least in Vista you can easily turn all that stuff off. Does the
Mac os allow you to?

The guru's are finally getting it together... but now a number of
formerly perfectly functioning items are out of kilter. Is it just me
(can't be, because I've convinced the PT powers-that-be in our
place who've finally seen the same 'issues'), or is anyone else having
a problem with the latest version of Autotune not operating correctly?
We got a license extension on the last version with no questions asked,
so apparently we aren't the only one's having an issue. There are still
some audio suite, i-Tunes and Toast Titanium configuration/conflict
issues as well... but the brunt of the changeover pains are going away.

Why would iTunes be installed on a PT machine?

[hank alrich]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote...
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:11:55 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
/Odm wrote:

Speaking of the Mac GUI... they guys at the studio are still trying to
tweak out the ridiculous VISTA Impersonation characteristics of
the new OS. It magically sucks wind.... or is it just stupid of me to
believe that I really don't need to see a rotating image of a freaking
folder shown in full-screen mode, and be stuck with i-Tunes crap
internet bloat scattered all over the place?

At least in Vista you can easily turn all that stuff off. Does the
Mac os allow you to?

The guru's are finally getting it together... but now a number of
formerly perfectly functioning items are out of kilter. Is it just me
(can't be, because I've convinced the PT powers-that-be in our
place who've finally seen the same 'issues'), or is anyone else having
a problem with the latest version of Autotune not operating correctly?
We got a license extension on the last version with no questions asked,
so apparently we aren't the only one's having an issue. There are still
some audio suite, i-Tunes and Toast Titanium configuration/conflict
issues as well... but the brunt of the changeover pains are going away.

Why would iTunes be installed on a PT machine?

Folks on the DAW-Mac list sometimes discuss how they use iTunes and PT
to accomplish certain things. I don't use PT so I knoweth not from the
Shinola about it.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark wrote:

That's because they haven't actually measured it. =A0I did measure it,
admittedly almost a decade ago, and I decided against it.

how and what did you measure?

Sine wave file generated by Matlab. Loaded into PT as a .wav file, one
edit made, exported as a .wav file. No summing, no fancy stuff. Inspected
in Matlab (and with od(1)) afterward.

and what results did you get?

Looked like rounding error to me.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[rakmanenuff]

On Sep 6, 2:07*am, acousticism wrote:
What do you like or dislike about current DAW's such as ProTools and
Cubase? What would you like your DAW to do that it cant at the present
time? Is simple better, or is having a garage of options and windows?

More preference options.

You learn one way of working,
then they go and change their software to something
slower and less efficient? When you try to get back to
your previous, optimal settings you realize it's become
impossible.

Being able to customize menus to the point where
everything is where you want it, not in default folders
called AU/VST/Logic/Project/Bounces/IK multimedia
etc. And... having to deselect stupid default settings/
paths every time is annyoing.

Being able to customize and access your grooves/quantize
settings more easily. To hell with 16C or 100%.

Being able to use the mouse as a hardware controller,
in record mode. Is this possible?

Being able to load samples into synths. OK, the sampler
is a synth too, but what it you have created a cool
synth setting and want to replace the saw wave with
an oboe? Alternatively, being able to cut and paste
ADSR and filter settings between synths and samplers.

Being able to save instrument plugins as channel
strips with the effects, but without the instrument.

Keeping old arrange pages as an option in newer
versions. Backwards and forwards compatibility
preserved.

[Mark]

On Sep 9, 11:14*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Mark wrote:

That's because they haven't actually measured it. =A0I did measure it,
admittedly almost a decade ago, and I decided against it.

how and what did you measure?

Sine wave file generated by Matlab. *Loaded into PT as a .wav file, one
edit made, exported as a .wav file. *No summing, no fancy stuff. *Inspected
in Matlab (and with od(1)) afterward.

and what results did you get?

Looked like rounding error to me.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

ok thanks Scott...

looks like this has been discussced before

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a9e7273133e9b2

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark wrote:
On Sep 9, 11:14=A0am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Looked like rounding error to me.

looks like this has been discussced before

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...ead/bd632a7c7=
e7b05d6/a6a9e7273133e9b2?hl=3Den&lnk=3Dgst&q=3Drounding+er ror#a6a9e7273133e=
9b2

Yes, but it's been a while. And I'll say again that the tests I performed
were nearly a decade ago, and PT has changed their internal representation
since then. So my tests may well not apply in any way to the new version,
but I'm a lot less apt to bother trying it anymore.

In the meantime, the Ampex is paid for.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message ...


Because they have to learn something new.

Or moreover... once a damned machine works right, why freaking
follow the never-ending 'upgrade' paths? Leave it alone... build
another machine for the 'experiment' and the guinea pig beta-testing.

Agreed.


Learning something new is irrelevant... being thrown a basket full
of unwanted BS for the sake of "upgrading" is hogwash.

:-|

Or you could learn what you are doing before you throw in a disk and
double click on "install" :-)

Unfortunately, that part is not my gig.... and invariably, just about
the time I get seriously comfortable with the last set of changes,
along comes another F***ing 'upgrade' in either the OS or the
software.


(I'm not sure if I'll see this or any responses... Verizon in Dallas
is COMPLETELY screwed up with their news server. It was
down for a couple of days; then showed a half a million unread
messages; then 0; this morning told me to unsubsubscribe and
then resubscribe, which revealed 20 thousand messages in
cache... but only let me download 1200 before suddenly showing
a quarter million cached messages again. By the time I filtered
through all of the trash from the 1200 I downloaded and marked
as read all of the BS, it stopped allowing me to see my posts
and again shows nothing new available.)

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message ...
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:11:55 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
/Odm wrote:

Speaking of the Mac GUI... they guys at the studio are still trying to
tweak out the ridiculous VISTA Impersonation characteristics of
the new OS. It magically sucks wind.... or is it just stupid of me to
believe that I really don't need to see a rotating image of a freaking
folder shown in full-screen mode, and be stuck with i-Tunes crap
internet bloat scattered all over the place?

At least in Vista you can easily turn all that stuff off. Does the
Mac os allow you to?

The guru's are finally getting it together... but now a number of
formerly perfectly functioning items are out of kilter. Is it just me
(can't be, because I've convinced the PT powers-that-be in our
place who've finally seen the same 'issues'), or is anyone else having
a problem with the latest version of Autotune not operating correctly?
We got a license extension on the last version with no questions asked,
so apparently we aren't the only one's having an issue. There are still
some audio suite, i-Tunes and Toast Titanium configuration/conflict
issues as well... but the brunt of the changeover pains are going away.

Why would iTunes be installed on a PT machine?

It is now a permanent part of the Mac OS.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote...
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:11:55 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
/Odm wrote:

Speaking of the Mac GUI... they guys at the studio are still trying to
tweak out the ridiculous VISTA Impersonation characteristics of
the new OS. It magically sucks wind.... or is it just stupid of me to
believe that I really don't need to see a rotating image of a freaking
folder shown in full-screen mode, and be stuck with i-Tunes crap
internet bloat scattered all over the place?

At least in Vista you can easily turn all that stuff off. Does the
Mac os allow you to?

The guru's are finally getting it together... but now a number of
formerly perfectly functioning items are out of kilter. Is it just me
(can't be, because I've convinced the PT powers-that-be in our
place who've finally seen the same 'issues'), or is anyone else having
a problem with the latest version of Autotune not operating correctly?
We got a license extension on the last version with no questions asked,
so apparently we aren't the only one's having an issue. There are still
some audio suite, i-Tunes and Toast Titanium configuration/conflict
issues as well... but the brunt of the changeover pains are going away.

Why would iTunes be installed on a PT machine?

Folks on the DAW-Mac list sometimes discuss how they use iTunes and PT
to accomplish certain things. I don't use PT so I knoweth not from the
Shinola about it.

TBOMK, it's now the default stereo playback engine in the latest OS.

I'm seeing and getting NO new posts on Verizon Dallas since 09/08.
They've been on and off several times but with no new information.

I guess... if my posts of today actually make it to the group, that I'll
see you guys once the server is repaired. Unsubscribing and re-
subscribing just to get a hand full of old posts before complete
failure again isn't worth the time.

Cheers,

DM

[Richard Crowley]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...

It [iTunes] is now a permanent part of the Mac OS.

Oh, that's special. (not)

[Mike Rivers]

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

(I'm not sure if I'll see this or any responses... Verizon in Dallas
is COMPLETELY screwed up with their news server.

It's screwy here, too, in much the same way you describe. I'm using it
at the moment, but I was using The Dreaded Google earlier in the day.
That seems to work nearly all the time. Let me know if you can't see
this message. g



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Acousticism]

From a visual standpoint, how would you like the menu systems to be
set up?

[Geoff]

acousticism wrote:
From a visual standpoint, how would you like the menu systems to be
set up?

Very standard Windows paradigm. That way you don't need to learn each
system architects' own peculiar logic-flow.

"Logic' being the operative word here - so much power, obscured by design.
Seems a common theme most German software.

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

acousticism wrote:
From a visual standpoint, how would you like the menu systems to be
set up?

My first reaction is that I don't want a menu, but then I have a copy of
Tracktion which doesn't have menus in the traditional sense, and I have
a difficult time finding the buttons in that program. There are a number
of blocks where buttons appear that the designer thinks are appropriate
for whatever you happen to be doing, but it's easy to go off in the
wrong direction if the program isn't second nature, and then you KNOW
there's a button on there somewhere that does what you want, but it's
been put aside.

I know it's not very specific, but I'd like menus to appear where it
seems natural to me. For example, I want to see both the input and
output ports of a track or plug-in when I click on it (or in a "control"
area of the track.

I want it to do some dog work for me. I won't repeat the examples that
I've posted before, but I want the computer to do what it does best and
keep things organized for me.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Nick Delonas[_2_]]

In article ,
says...
acousticism wrote:
From a visual standpoint, how would you like the menu systems to be
set up?

Very standard Windows paradigm. That way you don't need to learn each
system architects' own peculiar logic-flow.

"Logic' being the operative word here - so much power, obscured by design.
Seems a common theme most German software.

geoff




I'll second that. Follow the classic Windows "standard," such as it is.

[Acousticism]

Is using the Reason approach of virtual cables and racks better than
textual I/O sends and returns used on individual tracks?

[Danny T]

On Sep 5, 8:07*pm, acousticism wrote:
What do you like or dislike about current DAW's such as ProTools and
Cubase? What would you like your DAW to do that it cant at the present
time? Is simple better, or is having a garage of options and windows?

If it could open my beer before it brings it to me that would be great!

[Geoff]

acousticism wrote:
Is using the Reason approach of virtual cables and racks better than
textual I/O sends and returns used on individual tracks?

I find that graphic sort of thing inane. Not sure why.

geoff

[Danny T]

On Sep 5, 8:07*pm, acousticism wrote:
What do you like or dislike about current DAW's such as ProTools and
Cubase? What would you like your DAW to do that it cant at the present
time? Is simple better, or is having a garage of options and windows?

On a serious note, there is one thing that I have never seen on any of
the DAWS and that is a menu that you can completely choose for
yourself.

I only use certain things and only use certain plugins. The coolest
thing I can think of would be a custom toolbar thing like most of the
email and browser programs have. (or MS Word).

Send that down the line to the designer folks if you can.

I just broke down and did what I swore I'd never do again.... bought
cubase 4. I'm only saying that as a confession of stupidity. SOmeone
else needs to come up with a good program that is easy to use. I
REALLY don't want to be tempted again. I'm not a Cubaholic - I just
know it better then others.

[Geoff]

Danny T wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:07 pm, acousticism wrote:
What do you like or dislike about current DAW's such as ProTools and
Cubase? What would you like your DAW to do that it cant at the
present time? Is simple better, or is having a garage of options and
windows?

On a serious note, there is one thing that I have never seen on any of
the DAWS and that is a menu that you can completely choose for
yourself.

I only use certain things and only use certain plugins. The coolest
thing I can think of would be a custom toolbar thing like most of the
email and browser programs have. (or MS Word).

All the major Sony app have completely configuarble toolbars ( detachable
and movable too).

I just broke down and did what I swore I'd never do again.... bought
cubase 4. I'm only saying that as a confession of stupidity. SOmeone
else needs to come up with a good program that is easy to use. I
REALLY don't want to be tempted again. I'm not a Cubaholic - I just
know it better then others.

Try the free Acid or Vegas demo. Jeeze - you'd think I work for them or had
shares ( neither ;-) )

geoff

[Wecan do it]

I take old motivational tapes and make MP3's to listen to in
a little player. This is what I would love for the DAW to do
( I have Nuendo)

AUTOMATICALLY:

Somehow mixdown the long file so it is.
1) a series of one minute mono MP3 files
2) sequentially numbered
3) named

So a 120 minute Cassett named "I wish my DAW" would be 120
little one minute MP3 files named

001- I wish my DAW
002- I wish my DAW
etc
120- I wish my DAW

This way if I want to go back a little bit while listening in
the MP3 player I could just hit the back track and go back a
minute.

Next thing that would be great is if it could break close to
one minute when the speaker takes a breath rather than when
the clock ticks.


Peace
dawg

[Danny T]

On Sep 14, 11:52*pm, "geoff" wrote:
Danny T wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:07 pm, acousticism wrote:
What do you like or dislike about current DAW's such as ProTools and
Cubase? What would you like your DAW to do that it cant at the
present time? Is simple better, or is having a garage of options and
windows?

On a serious note, there is one thing that I have never seen on any of
the DAWS and that is a menu that you can completely choose for
yourself.

I only use certain things and only use certain plugins. The coolest
thing I can think of would be a custom toolbar thing like most of the
email and browser programs have. (or MS Word).

All the major Sony app have completely configuarble toolbars ( detachable
and movable too).

I just broke down and did what I swore I'd never do again.... bought
cubase 4. I'm only saying that as a confession of stupidity. SOmeone
else needs to come up with a good program that is easy to use. I
REALLY don't want to be tempted again. I'm not a Cubaholic - I just
know it better then others.

Try the free Acid or Vegas demo. Jeeze - you'd think I work for them or had
shares ( * neither ;-) * )

geoff

I've never used those. I'll check them out though so thanks for the
tip

[Acousticism]

Is portability a priority or commodity?

[Danny T]

On Sep 17, 1:34*am, acousticism wrote:
Is portability a priority or commodity?

I like to have my studio at my homes and my laptop with the same
software with me traveling (about 1/2 the time). I take my laptop and
do scratch tracks and charts while I'm out on my boat then come back
and record the real stuff over it later. I've had issues with cubase
not using my built in sound card which was a real problem for me since
I was in the bahamas and couldn't order anything.

I can't answer for others but I do have friends/partners that do the
same sort of thing laying down their scratch tracks at the beach and
then taking them home. the system has to transfer to a portable setup
but also needs to be professional in the studio.

[Mike Rivers]

acousticism wrote:
Is portability a priority or commodity?

It depends on what you consider "portable." I don't mind carrying a
mixer in one trip and a computer and interface hardware in a second
trip, unless there are mountains and Sherpas involved. But there's also
something nice about taking a recorder with built-in mics out of my
pocket and recording a show.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Acousticism]

Would you rather record in 24bit 192khz, or save space and use
something smaller?

[Arny Krueger]

"acousticism" wrote in message


Would you rather record in 24bit 192khz, or save space
and use something smaller?

Everybody with a brain and bills to pay will probably use something smaller.

192 KHz sampling is good for equipment measurements and dilettantes.

[Acousticism]

Everybody with a brain and bills to pay will probably use something
smaller.

192 KHz sampling is good for equipment measurements and dilettantes.

Is that because the storage space cost too much? Don't you want your
recordings to be the highest quality possible?

[hank alrich]

acousticism wrote:

Everybody with a brain and bills to pay will probably use something
smaller.

192 KHz sampling is good for equipment measurements and dilettantes.

Is that because the storage space cost too much? Don't you want your
recordings to be the highest quality possible?

There is little evidence that across the range of available converters
that such high sampling rates actually increase recording quality. I am
sure there are converters that do perform better at high rates, but do
they out-perform other convertors running at lower rates?

The issue of conversion quaity is not one of single-point anaysis. Many
factors contribute to differences in resulting audio quality, not the
least of whjich is the quality of the analog sections ahead of the ADC.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

acousticism wrote:

Everybody with a brain and bills to pay will probably use something
smaller.

192 KHz sampling is good for equipment measurements and dilettantes.

Is that because the storage space cost too much? Don't you want your
recordings to be the highest quality possible?

The general answer is likely to be no. The issue is not just storage space,
consider also the processing and bandwidth requirement for say 48 channels
getting quadrupled. The recording industry is just that, an industry, and it
has to do things in a cost efficient manner. It would be great if we could
get 64 kHz sample rate as the overall standard, that would make me happy
because that will allow me to record the actual output from a violin via a
high quality microphone.

The issue you overlook in your consideration is that most people have tried
high bandwidth digital audio by now and know what the actual frequency
response of real world microphones is. If you want something to record with
192 kHz sample rate you need to use B&K 1/4 or possibly even 1/8 inch
microphones. Neither is a good choice on a string quartet due to their high
self noise.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

acousticism wrote:
Everybody with a brain and bills to pay will probably use something
smaller.

192 KHz sampling is good for equipment measurements and dilettantes.

Is that because the storage space cost too much? Don't you want your
recordings to be the highest quality possible?

I want my recordings to be the highest quality possible. Wider bandwith
doesn't mean higher quality... in fact it can mean a lot worse quality
because it makes clock jitter issues more severe and whenever you increase
your usable bandwidth you also increase your intermodulation distortion
problems.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:27:40 -0700 (PDT), acousticism
wrote:

192 KHz sampling is good for equipment measurements and dilettantes.

Is that because the storage space cost too much? Don't you want your
recordings to be the highest quality possible?

Sure. When you can show me that 192KHz sounds better I'll consider
using it.

[Arny Krueger]

"acousticism" wrote in message

Everybody with a brain and bills to pay will probably
use something smaller.

192 KHz sampling is good for equipment measurements and
dilettantes.

Is that because the storage space cost too much?

No, its because music is usually delivered at 44 KHz/16 bits.

Recording at higher rates than that has no audible benefits, in fact 44 KHz
is overkill.

Don't you want your recordings to be the highest quality
possible?

As a delivery format, 44/16 provides exactly that. - the best possible
audible sound quality.

[Danny T]

On Sep 20, 4:04*pm, "Peter Larsen" wrote:
acousticism wrote:
Everybody with a brain and bills to pay will probably use something
smaller.
192 KHz sampling is good for equipment measurements and dilettantes.
Is that because the storage space cost too much? Don't you want your
recordings to be the highest quality possible?

The general answer is likely to be no. The issue is not just storage space,
consider also the processing and bandwidth requirement for say 48 channels
getting quadrupled. The recording industry is just that, an industry, and it
has to do things in a cost efficient manner. It would be great if we could
get 64 kHz sample rate as the overall standard, that would make me happy
because that will allow me to record the actual output from a violin via a
high quality microphone.

The issue you overlook in your consideration is that most people have tried
high bandwidth digital audio by now and know what the actual frequency
response of real world microphones is. If you want something to record with
192 kHz sample rate you need to use B&K 1/4 or possibly even 1/8 inch
microphones. Neither is a good choice on a string quartet due to their high
self noise.

* Kind regards

* Peter Larsen

And pardon my bringing this up again but all anyone listens to anymore
is an MP3 format anyway.... I pick up my guitar or sit at my piano to
make art. I sell a product. I don't care if someone loves me for it, I
want my new car and a boat....

Give 'em an MP3 and keep the extra coin.

[Danny T]

On Sep 20, 6:29*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"acousticism" wrote in message



Everybody with a brain and bills to pay will probably
use something smaller.

192 KHz sampling is good for equipment measurements and
dilettantes.

Is that because the storage space cost too much?

No, its because music is usually delivered at 44 KHz/16 bits.

Recording at higher rates than that has no audible benefits, in fact 44 KHz
is overkill.

Don't *you want your recordings to be the highest quality
possible?

As a delivery format, 44/16 provides exactly that. *- the best possible
audible sound quality.

does anyone remember why 44.1/16 was adopted in the first place....
Didn't it have something to do with your ear not being able to hear
anything more then that anyway? That leaves processing as the only
reason to get into anything even in 44/1/24 and that has plenty of
extra room for the math.

[hank alrich]

Danny T wrote:

On Sep 20, 4:04 pm, "Peter Larsen" wrote:
acousticism wrote:
Everybody with a brain and bills to pay will probably use something
smaller.
192 KHz sampling is good for equipment measurements and dilettantes.
Is that because the storage space cost too much? Don't you want your
recordings to be the highest quality possible?

The general answer is likely to be no. The issue is not just storage space,
consider also the processing and bandwidth requirement for say 48 channels
getting quadrupled. The recording industry is just that, an industry, and it
has to do things in a cost efficient manner. It would be great if we could
get 64 kHz sample rate as the overall standard, that would make me happy
because that will allow me to record the actual output from a violin via a
high quality microphone.

The issue you overlook in your consideration is that most people have tried
high bandwidth digital audio by now and know what the actual frequency
response of real world microphones is. If you want something to record with
192 kHz sample rate you need to use B&K 1/4 or possibly even 1/8 inch
microphones. Neither is a good choice on a string quartet due to their high
self noise.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

And pardon my bringing this up again but all anyone listens to anymore
is an MP3 format anyway.... I pick up my guitar or sit at my piano to
make art. I sell a product. I don't care if someone loves me for it, I
want my new car and a boat....

Give 'em an MP3 and keep the extra coin.

Suit yourself. You are quite wrong about that being all people listen
to, unless your market is basically ****ty pop music for people who
aren't really listening anyway.

Doug Sax and Bill Schnee are taking a different approach:

http://www.transaudioelite.com/atctoinnewdo.html

There are people who appreciate good music that also sounds good.

BTW, I've wanted to pick up on some of your tunes. Got pointers? Thanks.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Danny T]

On Sep 20, 8:30*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Danny T wrote:
On Sep 20, 4:04 pm, "Peter Larsen" wrote:
acousticism wrote:
Everybody with a brain and bills to pay will probably use something
smaller.
192 KHz sampling is good for equipment measurements and dilettantes.
Is that because the storage space cost too much? Don't you want your
recordings to be the highest quality possible?

The general answer is likely to be no. The issue is not just storage space,
consider also the processing and bandwidth requirement for say 48 channels
getting quadrupled. The recording industry is just that, an industry, and it
has to do things in a cost efficient manner. It would be great if we could
get 64 kHz sample rate as the overall standard, that would make me happy
because that will allow me to record the actual output from a violin via a
high quality microphone.

The issue you overlook in your consideration is that most people have tried
high bandwidth digital audio by now and know what the actual frequency
response of real world microphones is. If you want something to record with
192 kHz sample rate you need to use B&K 1/4 or possibly even 1/8 inch
microphones. Neither is a good choice on a string quartet due to their high
self noise.

* Kind regards

* Peter Larsen

And pardon my bringing this up again but all anyone listens to anymore
is an MP3 format anyway.... I pick up my guitar or sit at my piano to
make art. I sell a product. I don't care if someone loves me for it, I
want my new car and a boat....

Give 'em an MP3 and keep the extra coin.

Suit yourself. You are quite wrong about that being all people listen
to, unless your market is basically ****ty pop music for people who
aren't really listening anyway.

Doug Sax and Bill Schnee are taking a different approach:

http://www.transaudioelite.com/atctoinnewdo.html

There are people who appreciate good music that also sounds good.

BTW, I've wanted to pick up on some of your tunes. Got pointers? Thanks.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

You need to go back and read what I wrote. I like good music and when
I play it for me I want it to sound great. The majority of the world
can't hear it to save their life and if you think otherwise, it is you
who is wrong. I didn't say you had to like it, but fact is fact to
anyone that actually wants to make a living.

[hank alrich]

Danny T wrote:

On Sep 20, 8:30 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Danny T wrote:

And pardon my bringing this up again but all anyone listens to anymore
is an MP3 format anyway.... I pick up my guitar or sit at my piano to
make art. I sell a product. I don't care if someone loves me for it, I
want my new car and a boat....

Give 'em an MP3 and keep the extra coin.

Suit yourself. You are quite wrong about that being all people listen
to, unless your market is basically ****ty pop music for people who
aren't really listening anyway.

Doug Sax and Bill Schnee are taking a different approach:

http://www.transaudioelite.com/atctoinnewdo.html

There are people who appreciate good music that also sounds good.

BTW, I've wanted to pick up on some of your tunes. Got pointers? Thanks.

You need to go back and read what I wrote. I like good music and when
I play it for me I want it to sound great. The majority of the world
can't hear it to save their life and if you think otherwise, it is you
who is wrong. I didn't say you had to like it, but fact is fact to
anyone that actually wants to make a living.

Danny, you said:

all anyone listens to anymore is an MP3 format anyway.

In which case you are far more wrong than I am. You blew it when you
used the word "all". Nuff said.

Now, what tunes have you written? I am curious about your work. I'd like
to hear your stuff. If it affords you nice boats and such it must be
kinda cool. What and where is it?

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam