[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/5/2013 8:43 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

I agree 100%. If you're financially dependent on the DAW, it should be
treated as any other piece of production hardware.

That's always the best policy. Modify your DAW about as often as you
modify your Studer A-800 and it won't need a lot of routine maintenance.
And if you keep the system static, as Trevor insists, it's a no-brainer
and not terribly expensive to replace the whole shebang when something
gets flaky. It's when the software changes frequently that makes it
necessary to diligently maintain two systems if you want your "spare
part" to be a valid replacement.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 7/5/2013 8:43 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
I agree 100%. If you're financially dependent on the DAW, it should be
treated as any other piece of production hardware.

That's always the best policy. Modify your DAW about as often as you
modify your Studer A-800 and it won't need a lot of routine maintenance.
And if you keep the system static, as Trevor insists, it's a no-brainer
and not terribly expensive to replace the whole shebang when something
gets flaky. It's when the software changes frequently that makes it
necessary to diligently maintain two systems if you want your "spare part"
to be a valid replacement.

Right, there is really no good reason to change the software "frequently" on
a real DAW. Using your analogy, change it like you change tape formulations
on your tape machine. When you do that you know you need to carefully
realign the bias and EQ for proper performance, (along with the usual clean
and checks) so don't expect to do it when you don't have the time for that.
And you don't want to get caught out finding the bias requirements are
higher than you deck can provide for instance, so you probably do a little
investigating first. Same with software updates IMO.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/6/2013 2:06 AM, Trevor wrote:

Right, there is really no good reason to change the software "frequently" on
a real DAW. Using your analogy, change it like you change tape formulations
on your tape machine. When you do that you know you need to carefully
realign the bias and EQ for proper performance, (along with the usual clean
and checks) so don't expect to do it when you don't have the time for that.

That isn't really a good analogy. When a client brings in a reel of
tape, I align for it. The customer pays the cost (whether he sees it as
a line item on the bill or not). And then when I use a reel of my own
tape stock afterward, I align for that (a cost that I usually absorb).
Tape deck alignment really isn't maintenance as such, it's more a part
of day to day operation that you can sometimes skip.

An analogy to upgrading software is more like moving out your analog
console and bringing in a new digital one. Or trading your Ampex 350 for
an AG-440.

And you don't want to get caught out finding the bias requirements are
higher than you deck can provide for instance, so you probably do a little
investigating first. Same with software updates IMO.

That's really easy to do with a tape deck (you can probably just ask if
you're among the right company), but harder to do with a software
update. It depends on how extensive the software update is. For example,
Pro Tools 11 requires a 64-bit OS, which would require me to change my
Windows version, and gawdonlyknows what else to go along with it. If a
client brings in a reel of his own tape that my tape deck can't bias,
I'll just tell him that I can't use that tape. He can go to another
studio, or use tape that works with my recorder.

We could also rent another tape deck, which will go away when his
project is finished, leaving the studio unscarred, assuming that I plug
everything back together correctly. I suppose that could be considered
the equivalent of renting a turnkey Pro Tools 11 system if that's what
the customer wanted to use. And there's your whole new computer.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
snip

And many run quite happily in a DOS window on XP anyway. Still run some DOS
games that way. My favourite is Blockout, a 3D version of Tetris.

Trevor.




Also
http://www.dosbox.com/

--
Les Cargill