[Mike Rivers]

On 3/22/2012 10:52 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

I'd put it a little differently; with real world analog sources you get the
warts along with the rest of it. Reducing or removing the warts is not quite
the same as sound design, but it does require precise control. With the
level of control availble today, we don't have to put up with nearly as many
warts as in years past.

I'll trade the warts for getting the project done and out of
there quickly. You makin' money? Then any way you want to
work is good. You losin' time or sleep tweaking the sounds?
Then that's not good.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/22/2012 10:57 AM, Luxey wrote:

I think all cheapo manufacturers could engage freelancers
on contract once in 2 years to overwiev and rewrite
drivers. Couple 1000$ once in a while won't hurt them.

Hell, they won't even contract with free-lancers (like me)
to write or revise or update their manuals. They say they'd
love to but they don't have the money and have to make do
with their in-house staff.

They can publish those as beta without responsibility
whatsover, and I think most people would be gratefull. I
would. If it's not working, who cares, I'll switch back.

It's not hard to downgrade to an earlier version of a
driver, but a lot of this stuff gets firmware updates over
its lifespan, either to add new features or fix old
problems, and you have hell to pay if you back down to the
previous version of firmware once you've updated. I don't
know why, but they just don't seem to offer the tools to do
it except with special dispensation from the pope of
technical support.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:57 AM, Luxey wrote:

I think all cheapo manufacturers could engage freelancers
on contract once in 2 years to overwiev and rewrite
drivers. Couple 1000$ once in a while won't hurt them.

Hell, they won't even contract with free-lancers (like me)
to write or revise or update their manuals. They say they'd
love to but they don't have the money and have to make do
with their in-house staff.

If manufacturers would provide real manuals that provided actual technical
details of the interface, then third-party people could write their own
drivers. This would mean other operating systems would be able to support
the device. It means the device could be supported far longer than the
vendor wished to support it.

Twenty years ago when you bought a device, you expected it to come with
technical details about the interface which would allow you to write a
driver for it. These days, it's a matter of getting an NDA at the very
least and for most manufacturers it's completely impossible even for a
large volume buyer who wants to incorporate it into their product.

A whole lot of devices out there are only supported in less popular
operating systems because people took the time to reverse-engineer them.
I think it's shameful that anyone should have to do such a thing.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/22/2012 5:06 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:

Unfortunately drivers must often change from one version of an OS to the next,
since they communicate intimately with both the hardware and the OS itself.

And there's the rub - users upgrade their operating systems.
Why? Well, some just want to, some want to run new
software that requires and upgrade. And some buy a new
off-the-shelf computer that has a new operating system
pre-installed.

. . . manufacturers in many cases choose to abandon
hardware more than a few years old that was designed when a
previous operating system was in vogue.

The wisdom of that is questionable, since often there is a huge installed base
on the older OS. Windows XP is alive and well, for example, so any vendor
dropping support for XP is leaving a lot of money on the table.

They don't drop support for XP as such, they just don't
write drivers for new hardware with the intention that it
will be run under XP. It might, but they don't test it
extensively and they don't do much to help users who want to
use it. Same with software. I don't know what features of
Win7 that Pro Tools 10 requires, but it simply won't work
under XP. It sees what OS you're running and won't even
installa. At least that's what I've been told. I've never
tried it. But since it's stated that XP isn't supported,
there isn't much point in me trying to make it work under
XP. On the other hand, the PreSonus AudioBox USB VSL
interfaces don't claim to be supported (in the marketing
materials) under XP, but you go to the downloads section of
the web site and there's an installer that covers XP (as
well as Vista and Win7) and it seemed to work just fine.

The point is that if a manufacturer doesn't claim to support
an operating system, he doesn't consider it an obligation to
help a customer get it working under that unsupported OS.
And the truth is that, at least in the community of bedroom
audio users, which are by far the largest segment of the
population of audio users, most keep up to date with their
computers because they use them for other things than audio,
much against the advice of "experienced" users.

how far
would 10% of a $300 M-Audio interface go toward supporting
it, even if they sold 5000 a year?

That would be $1.5 million, enough to pay for 2 engineers.

OK, you get a D in arithmetic. That's $150,000 according to
my abacus. Even if that would pay for 2 engineers, compare
one engineer to support 10 users to 2 engineers to support
5,000 users.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Neil Gould]

Richard Webb wrote:
On Thu 2012-Mar-22 10:39, Scott Dorsey writes:
snip
There's no reason to have full parametrics with high-Q filters on
every channel, since you don't use them on every channel and they
cost a lot of money to do well.

YEp, which was a point I was going to make. Acknowledging
NEil's point about 'warts and all" but often I can solve the warts by
a different mic, a different placement, a ground lift to eliminate
the hum in that guitar amp, etc.

Just to be clear, I'm not one of those folks that think things SHOULD always
be fixed in post, but the real world doesn't agree with my opinion about
that.

IF not,
I know there might be some warts, but if it's really glaring I'll
patch in an outboard para to get what I need. OTherwise, channel
strip eq is something I touch a little
bit to help get a musical blend, if I must.

Like you, I'm a "cut" rather than "boost" type for live recordings, and much
of the time, the EQ is out of the chain. But, there are times when I need to
cut at a higher Q or in more places than an analog EQ will allow.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:57 AM, Luxey wrote:

I think all cheapo manufacturers could engage freelancers
on contract once in 2 years to overwiev and rewrite
drivers. Couple 1000$ once in a while won't hurt them.

Hell, they won't even contract with free-lancers (like me)
to write or revise or update their manuals. They say they'd
love to but they don't have the money and have to make do
with their in-house staff.

If manufacturers would provide real manuals that provided actual
technical details of the interface, then third-party people could
write their own drivers. This would mean other operating systems
would be able to support the device. It means the device could be
supported far longer than the vendor wished to support it.

Hmmm. Some kinds of devices are not so hard to write drivers for, but audio
products are typically so complex that you'd have to know about everything
there is to know about the design to write a driver, which is why companies
like RME have teams of folks constantly working on their drivers.

A whole lot of devices out there are only supported in less popular
operating systems because people took the time to reverse-engineer
them.

And the results are sometimes less than optimal, with only some very basic
functionality supported.

I think it's shameful that anyone should have to do such a
thing. --scott

Well, open-source software never did become all that supporters hoped it
would, so why would specialized devices fare any better?

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

Well, open-source software never did become all that supporters hoped it
would, so why would specialized devices fare any better?

A manufacturer of hardware has little to lose by publishing technical
specifications detailed enough to permit third parties to write drivers. In
fact, the more drivers that are available, the easier it is to sell the
hardware. The problem is that many vendors don't understand this, and think
that the specifications need to be kept secret.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

They don't drop support for XP as such, they just don't
write drivers for new hardware with the intention that it
will be run under XP. It might, but they don't test it
extensively and they don't do much to help users who want to
use it.

If they published the specs, some volunteer (or commercial third party) could
write drivers for earlier operating systems.

Same with software. I don't know what features of
Win7 that Pro Tools 10 requires, but it simply won't work
under XP. It sees what OS you're running and won't even
installa.

What that probably actually means is that it will run under XP, but they
explicitly check for XP (or non-W7) in the installation procedure and block
it.

Sony Vegas Pro 11 is the same way. As a result, I won't be upgrading to Sony
Vegas Pro 11, no matter what features it offers. There's no way I'm going to
install a completely new operating system just to run one application.

But since it's stated that XP isn't supported,
there isn't much point in me trying to make it work under
XP.

If they let it install, it might still be useful. If it doesn't have any bugs,
it might still run, unless the product uses features specific to Windows 7.
But most products don't, it's just that vendors don't want to provide any
technical support for an earlier OS (even if a trillion people around the
world are still using it).

On the other hand, the PreSonus AudioBox USB VSL
interfaces don't claim to be supported (in the marketing
materials) under XP, but you go to the downloads section of
the web site and there's an installer that covers XP (as
well as Vista and Win7) and it seemed to work just fine.

Sometimes vendors choose to allow an earlier OS, but without formal support.
That's often a better choice than just abandoning the customer base.

The point is that if a manufacturer doesn't claim to support
an operating system, he doesn't consider it an obligation to
help a customer get it working under that unsupported OS.
And the truth is that, at least in the community of bedroom
audio users, which are by far the largest segment of the
population of audio users, most keep up to date with their
computers because they use them for other things than audio,
much against the advice of "experienced" users.

I find that the best results are obtained when computers are "upgraded" as
rarely as possible. You get a stable release of each application that you want
to use, and then you stick with it, forever if possible. Any time you
"upgrade" anything, there is usually a snowball effect that can easily force
you to spend thousands of dollars on new software and hardware.

OK, you get a D in arithmetic. That's $150,000 according to
my abacus.

Well, if the cost of an engineer is $80,000 (as mentioned in the same post, if
I recall), then $150,000 is about 2 engineers.

Even if that would pay for 2 engineers, compare
one engineer to support 10 users to 2 engineers to support
5,000 users.

If the product is well written, you can support 5,000,000 users with one
engineer. The better you design and write the product, the less support it
requires. Every dollar spent on design and coding potentially eliminates
thousands of dollars spent on support. Unless you treat support as a profit
center, which many vendors do, despite the obvious conflict of interest.

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 22, 11:02*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Mike Rivers writes:
They don't drop support for XP as such, they just don't
write drivers for new hardware with the intention that it
will be run under XP. It might, but they don't test it
extensively and they don't do much to help users who want to
use it.

If they published the specs, some volunteer (or commercial third party) could
write drivers for earlier operating systems.

Same with software. I don't know what features of
Win7 that Pro Tools 10 requires, but it simply won't work
under XP. It sees what OS you're running and won't even
installa.

What that probably actually means is that it will run under XP, but they
explicitly check for XP (or non-W7) in the installation procedure and block
it.

Sony Vegas Pro 11 is the same way. As a result, I won't be upgrading to Sony
Vegas Pro 11, no matter what features it offers. There's no way I'm going to
install a completely new operating system just to run one application.

But since it's stated that XP isn't supported,
there isn't much point in me trying to make it work under
XP.

If they let it install, it might still be useful. If it doesn't have any bugs,
it might still run, unless the product uses features specific to Windows 7.
But most products don't, it's just that vendors don't want to provide any
technical support for an earlier OS (even if a trillion people around the
world are still using it).

On the other hand, the PreSonus AudioBox USB VSL
interfaces don't claim to be supported (in the marketing
materials) under XP, but you go to the downloads section of
the web site and there's an installer that covers XP (as
well as Vista and Win7) and it seemed to work just fine.

Sometimes vendors choose to allow an earlier OS, but without formal support.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2012-Mar-22 10:39, Scott Dorsey writes:
snip
There's no reason to have full parametrics with high-Q filters on
every channel, since you don't use them on every channel and they
cost a lot of money to do well.

YEp, which was a point I was going to make. Acknowledging
NEil's point about 'warts and all" but often I can solve the warts by a different mic, a different placement, a ground
lift to eliminate the hum in that guitar amp, etc. IF not,
I know there might be some warts, but if it's really glaring I'll patch in an outboard para to get what I need.
OTherwise, channel strip eq is something I touch a little
bit to help get a musical blend, if I must.


In the digital world the same thing is happening inside the box...
often the EQ routine isn't called at all and it's not in the signal
path until you use it. Different routines get plugged in as you
want different things. It's just that in the digital world it
happens automatically and you don't get to see it, because in the
digital world the UI is separated from what goes on inside the box.

Yes, that it is, but it's as easy for me to grab a cable
from the patchbay and patch where I want as it is for me to
deal with a menu on a screen I can't see.
Although many like the added control, I like more confidence in what I'm controlling, instead of wondering why as I try
to adjust this eq to carve that notch I'm not hearing any
result in what i"m concentrating on, and I'm having to
lsiten for what I've messed up now. Decades of habits and
work flow. Thsi old dog could probably learn some new
tricks, but i'd need a lot more time behind one of those
consoles, and then there'd always be those moments of unh
oh at gigs.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:25:37 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

But Pro Tools started out as a pop music production aid... and as time has
gone by it has become more and more generalized with a lot more features that
are designed for specific kinds of projects.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

I think Pro Tools is generalized in the same way Microsoft Word is. You can
use Word to write a poem, or a novel, or a corporate report... each one with
different printing requirements, different fonts, different styles, different
users. But it'll do the job.

Note that Digidesign authorizes many training companies to teach music-only
production with Pro Tools, film-only production with Pro Tools, and I think
there's also some MIDI classes as well. So a lot depends on the direction in
which you intend to go. The specific classes go into work methods,
shortcuts, and a lot of other tips designed to get things done fast without
compromise. That's hugely important in the film and TV business, where
deadlines and client expectations are more challenging than ever.

In addition to the bit-for-bit compatibility, at least Avid has addressed a
long-standing critique of the company: they cut the price quite a bit. I
think the educational version is down to $295, and a lot of people can afford
that.



But some of it isn't so good, when it adds stuff that clutters up the user
interface.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Eh, it's like anything else: you get used to it. I compare it to page
layout tools -- Pagemaker back in the 1980s and 1990s was tinkertoys, and
Adobe has changed it almost beyond belief when it was re-tooled as inDesign.
I can hobble around in it to some degree, but it's kludgy. No question, if I
spent more time with it, I'd do better. But I can do what needs to be done.

--MFW

[Mxsmanic]

Marc Wielage writes:

I think Pro Tools is generalized in the same way Microsoft Word is. You can
use Word to write a poem, or a novel, or a corporate report... each one with
different printing requirements, different fonts, different styles, different
users. But it'll do the job.

The tendency of all software applications is to bloat into something that
tries to do everything for everyone.

In addition to the bit-for-bit compatibility, at least Avid has addressed a
long-standing critique of the company: they cut the price quite a bit.

Competition does that. And eventually a company learns that 10 million units
at $200 makes a lot more money than 10,000 units at 2000.

I compare it to page layout tools -- Pagemaker back in the 1980s and 1990s
was tinkertoys, and Adobe has changed it almost beyond belief when it was
re-tooled as inDesign.

And remember what happened to Quark.

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/23/2012 4:53 AM, Marc Wielage wrote:

But some of it isn't so good, when it adds stuff that clutters up the user
interface.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Eh, it's like anything else: you get used to it.

Some people do, some people (like me) don't. Some people
have the patience to understand the full vocabulary and the
full user interface and the full tool set and customize the
interface so that it offers selected "views" which are less
cluttered and are dedicated to specific tasks.

I want someone to do that for me. For free!


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/22/2012 8:13 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

If manufacturers would provide real manuals that provided actual technical
details of the interface, then third-party people could write their own
drivers. This would mean other operating systems would be able to support
the device. It means the device could be supported far longer than the
vendor wished to support it.

I don't expect that they'd ever go that far, but if they
provided complete manuals with block diagrams, good callouts
on controls and connectors, and a certain amount of
tutorial material for beginners (who are the largest
customer base) there would be fewer basic teaching that
would need to be done by technical support departments.

Mackie manuals from 15 years back were a good example of a
reasonable manual for this sort of gear but writing a manual
even at that level for a program like Pro Tools, or even
something as complex as a multi-functional handheld recorder
(remember what this thread was originally about?) is a much
larger job than writing a manual for a straightforward
analog mixer.

Twenty years ago when you bought a device, you expected it to come with
technical details about the interface which would allow you to write a
driver for it.

Maybe 40 years ago. Time flies when you're getting old.
I remember having to get an NDA for an ADM-3A terminal in
the mid 1970s just so we could service them in house.

A whole lot of devices out there are only supported in less popular
operating systems because people took the time to reverse-engineer them.
I think it's shameful that anyone should have to do such a thing.

That's a good description of Linux support of the audio
interfaces that I own. And there aren't as many people doing
that sort of work (or maybe the challenge is greater) than
it used to be. Like you might get a driver that supports
audio going in and out, but not the companion routing and
mixing application that goes along with the manufacturer's
supported version.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/22/2012 10:53 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:

A manufacturer of hardware has little to lose by publishing technical
specifications detailed enough to permit third parties to write drivers.

Apparently they think they have a lot to lose, to
competitors who might find something that would help them
make a better competing product. That's why they have NDAs,
but they don't give one to everyone who asks.

in fact, the more drivers that are available, the easier it is to sell the
hardware.

Apparently they don't have a problem selling what they make
because there are plenty of customers who can use it. Which
is why they decided to make it the way they did. "Other
users" really aren't a large enough segment of the market to
worry about. They;d rather not have those sales than have
stronger competition.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/22/2012 9:03 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

Just to be clear, I'm not one of those folks that think things SHOULD always
be fixed in post, but the real world doesn't agree with my opinion about
that.

Welcome to the unreal world. There are a lot of us out here.
I know I'm never going to make a recording that sells a
million copies, particularly because of technical
perfection. Why worry about having the tools that can do that?

Like you, I'm a "cut" rather than "boost" type for live recordings, and much
of the time, the EQ is out of the chain. But, there are times when I need to
cut at a higher Q or in more places than an analog EQ will allow.

I suppose there are times when I could do a better job with
better tools, but I can't charge more money for doing it.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
Marc Wielage writes:

I think Pro Tools is generalized in the same way Microsoft Word is. You can
use Word to write a poem, or a novel, or a corporate report... each one with
different printing requirements, different fonts, different styles, different
users. But it'll do the job.

The tendency of all software applications is to bloat into something that
tries to do everything for everyone.

In addition to the bit-for-bit compatibility, at least Avid has addressed a
long-standing critique of the company: they cut the price quite a bit.

Competition does that. And eventually a company learns that 10 million units
at $200 makes a lot more money than 10,000 units at 2000.


Top line is not bottom line. Maybe it really does not make more
money. Maybe it costs 1000 times as much to get there, and
now you have a much larger moving mass of NRE.

Assuming a firm scales linearly with sales is a very basic
management mistake.

I compare it to page layout tools -- Pagemaker back in the 1980s and 1990s
was tinkertoys, and Adobe has changed it almost beyond belief when it was
re-tooled as inDesign.

And remember what happened to Quark.

What, did Odo finally get him?

--
Les Cargill

[Neil Gould]

Jeff Henig wrote:

Okay, this is where my ignorance shows: what is an NDA?

Non-Disclosure Agreement.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/22/2012 9:03 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

Like you, I'm a "cut" rather than "boost" type for live recordings,
and much of the time, the EQ is out of the chain. But, there are
times when I need to cut at a higher Q or in more places than an
analog EQ will allow.

I suppose there are times when I could do a better job with
better tools, but I can't charge more money for doing it.

At this point, I'm only interested in jobs that require special knowledge,
skills and expertise with advanced tools. My free time is worth more to me
than the rest are willing to pay.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Mackie manuals from 15 years back were a good example of a
reasonable manual for this sort of gear but writing a manual
even at that level for a program like Pro Tools, or even
something as complex as a multi-functional handheld recorder
(remember what this thread was originally about?) is a much
larger job than writing a manual for a straightforward
analog mixer.

The manual for the DR-40 is of similar quality to the old Makcie manuals.
It's a booklet, about 117 pages long, and is well-organized (I write and
publish tech manuals as my primary income). Everythng seems to be covered,
from basic setup and operation through the messages that the unit can
generate and troubleshooting procedures. It took all of about an hour to
read the manual to learn the controls and various options for the unit.

This morning I took it out before dawn for a quick test of recording bird
calls. I was able to operate it in the dark by touch before the backit
screen came on, so I think the unit is fairly well thought-out. Later today
I'll try to connect it to my DAW via USB to see whether it supports Win2k
even though it supposedly only supports XP through Win7.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers wrote:

Mackie manuals from 15 years back were a good example of a
reasonable manual for this sort of gear but writing a manual
even at that level for a program like Pro Tools, or even
something as complex as a multi-functional handheld recorder
(remember what this thread was originally about?) is a much
larger job than writing a manual for a straightforward
analog mixer.

The manual for the DR-40 is of similar quality to the old Makcie manuals.
It's a booklet, about 117 pages long, and is well-organized (I write and
publish tech manuals as my primary income). Everythng seems to be covered,
from basic setup and operation through the messages that the unit can
generate and troubleshooting procedures. It took all of about an hour to
read the manual to learn the controls and various options for the unit.

This morning I took it out before dawn for a quick test of recording bird
calls. I was able to operate it in the dark by touch before the backit
screen came on, so I think the unit is fairly well thought-out. Later
today
I'll try to connect it to my DAW via USB to see whether it supports Win2k
even though it supposedly only supports XP through Win7.

If you've got enough service packs on Win2k, its USB storage device support
should be pretty good.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers writes:

Unfortunately there isn't money for sustaining engineering
in the world that most of us in the audio community live in,
so the manufacturers in many cases choose to abandon
hardware more than a few years old that was designed when a
previous operating system was in vogue.

The wisdom of that is questionable, since often there is a huge installed
base
on the older OS. Windows XP is alive and well, for example, so any vendor
dropping support for XP is leaving a lot of money on the table.

IME people are still writing XP drivers for new hardware by the boatload.

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

If manufacturers would provide real manuals that provided actual
technical details of the interface, then third-party people could
write their own drivers. This would mean other operating systems
would be able to support the device. It means the device could be
supported far longer than the vendor wished to support it.

Hmmm. Some kinds of devices are not so hard to write drivers for, but audio
products are typically so complex that you'd have to know about everything
there is to know about the design to write a driver, which is why companies
like RME have teams of folks constantly working on their drivers.

That's sometimes true. In a lot of cases, it's because so much of the actual
work of the device is being done in software rather than in hardware.

But really, audio devices are usually less complicated than video cards or
disk controllers, from the perspective of the driver author. There's usually
some fancy stuff in there but mostly it's just reading from a port and writing
to a port. Sometimes there's a lot more when there's embedded dsp, it's true.

A whole lot of devices out there are only supported in less popular
operating systems because people took the time to reverse-engineer
them.

And the results are sometimes less than optimal, with only some very basic
functionality supported.

Yes, and this is sad. However, I'd be happy if the vendors would provide
at least information on how to get basic functionality out of their devices.

I think it's shameful that anyone should have to do such a
thing.

Well, open-source software never did become all that supporters hoped it
would, so why would specialized devices fare any better?

It might not have become with RMS hoped it would, but he's a lunatic. I've
been using open-source software for more than forty years now and it's
certainly made me happy for the most part.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

Mackie manuals from 15 years back were a good example
of a reasonable manual for this sort of gear...

Forgive me, but I disagree.

I owned Mackie mixers (which were used a mic preamps), and was not happy
with the manuals.

The quality of the writing itself was outstanding. The manuals were
friendly, conversational, and a pleasure to read. But...

The organization and presentation were poor. The manuals assumed the reader
already knew what mixers did, and how they were to be used. When you write a
user manual -- especially for products often purchased by customers who have
no technical background -- you do not assume /anything/ -- except gross
ignorance.

I suggested to Mackie that the manual start by showing how a single
microphone is connected, and its level set and monitored. The material would
then progress through the use of multiple sources, panning, signal
processing, etc. (The process of starting from the basics and increasing in
complexity, with each step building on what has previously been presented,
is usually the correct way of explaining any subject.)

They wouldn't hear of it. The manuals were perfectly fine as they were. So
much for my efforts to help businesses meet their customers' needs.

[Neil Gould]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

This morning I took it out before dawn for a quick test of recording
bird calls. I was able to operate it in the dark by touch before the
backit screen came on, so I think the unit is fairly well
thought-out. Later today
I'll try to connect it to my DAW via USB to see whether it supports
Win2k even though it supposedly only supports XP through Win7.

If you've got enough service packs on Win2k, its USB storage device
support should be pretty good.

The DAW is running the "latest" set of service packs, so I'm hoping that
they'll be sufficient for the DR-40. If not, I'll just have to either use
the DR-40 with one of my newer computers, or read the SD card to transfer
files directly.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

If manufacturers would provide real manuals that provided actual
technical details of the interface, then third-party people could
write their own drivers. This would mean other operating systems
would be able to support the device. It means the device could be
supported far longer than the vendor wished to support it.

Hmmm. Some kinds of devices are not so hard to write drivers for,
but audio products are typically so complex that you'd have to know
about everything there is to know about the design to write a
driver, which is why companies like RME have teams of folks
constantly working on their drivers.

That's sometimes true. In a lot of cases, it's because so much of
the actual work of the device is being done in software rather than
in hardware.

I'd say MOST of the actual work is being done in software. The DSPs are
often general-use and found in several products. It's the software that
makes them unique.

But really, audio devices are usually less complicated than video
cards or disk controllers, from the perspective of the driver author.
There's usually some fancy stuff in there but mostly it's just
reading from a port and writing to a port. Sometimes there's a lot
more when there's embedded dsp, it's true.

That's the thing... most of the devices that folks would want drivers for
are DSP-based. The basic USB items often will work with their original
drivers across several OS and Mobo updates.

A whole lot of devices out there are only supported in less popular
operating systems because people took the time to reverse-engineer
them.

And the results are sometimes less than optimal, with only some very
basic functionality supported.

Yes, and this is sad. However, I'd be happy if the vendors would
provide
at least information on how to get basic functionality out of their
devices.

The better ones do just that.

--
Neil

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Mackie manuals from 15 years back were a good example
of a reasonable manual for this sort of gear...

Forgive me, but I disagree.

I owned Mackie mixers (which were used a mic preamps), and was not
happy with the manuals.

The quality of the writing itself was outstanding. The manuals were
friendly, conversational, and a pleasure to read. But...

The organization and presentation were poor. The manuals assumed the
reader already knew what mixers did, and how they were to be used.
When you write a user manual -- especially for products often
purchased by customers who have no technical background -- you do not
assume /anything/ -- except gross ignorance.

I would argue that folks that don't know what a mixer is or what it does
should be doing something else with their money besides buying mixers.
Investing in some basic audio recording books would be a good start. There
are just too many issues to be covered to expect them to appear in a user
manual, and as a knowledgeable user, I don't want to have to wade through
all those elementary things to find out what I need to know about a device.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:25:37 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

But Pro Tools started out as a pop music production aid... and as time has
gone by it has become more and more generalized with a lot more features that
are designed for specific kinds of projects.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

I think Pro Tools is generalized in the same way Microsoft Word is. You can
use Word to write a poem, or a novel, or a corporate report... each one with
different printing requirements, different fonts, different styles, different
users. But it'll do the job.

Microsoft word is the WORST example ever of the kind of bloat that we're
talking about. When Word came out, it was a simple word processor with
few features, but now it has millions of specific features for different
kinds of documents.

In addition to the bit-for-bit compatibility, at least Avid has addressed a
long-standing critique of the company: they cut the price quite a bit. I
think the educational version is down to $295, and a lot of people can afford
that.

Right, but what if I don't like the UI and I want to use some other editing
system or recording system, then I want to transfer the data to Pro Tools?
Avid makes this deliberately hard, although of course I can see why they
might want to do that. Still, it's possible.
--scott

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

[Neil Gould]

Jeff Henig wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote:
Jeff Henig wrote:

Okay, this is where my ignorance shows: what is an NDA?

Non-Disclosure Agreement.

?

Sounds more like a contract than a technical manual.

I just went and Googled it. Looks like something they might send out
with, say, source code or schematics or something rather than the
actual tech manual itself.

Am I on the right track?

Exactly, except that they don't send out source code or schematics *before*
you've signed. The NDA is a legal document that protects a company's
intellectual property from competitors. It's very common for those who write
user manuals or deal with the "innards" of a company's products and
processes to have to sign NDAs. The PITA factor is that they are not all
well-written, so you have to wade through a lot of fine print to make sure
that you don't screw yourself.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Marc Wielage wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:25:37 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

But Pro Tools started out as a pop music production aid... and as
time has gone by it has become more and more generalized with a lot
more features that are designed for specific kinds of projects.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

I think Pro Tools is generalized in the same way Microsoft Word is.
You can use Word to write a poem, or a novel, or a corporate
report... each one with different printing requirements, different
fonts, different styles, different users. But it'll do the job.

Microsoft word is the WORST example ever of the kind of bloat that
we're talking about. When Word came out, it was a simple word
processor with few features, but now it has millions of specific
features for different kinds of documents.

Well, just yesterday a client sent me material to update one of their
product catalogs using EXCEL(!?!) I couldn't even print it out without
paragraphs splitting and wrapping across pages. So, although Word is extreme
overkill for most folks, I welcome content sent to me in that format and
support for such things as custom chemical dictionaries is better than in
most other word processors.

--
Neil

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Mackie manuals from 15 years back were a good example
of a reasonable manual for this sort of gear...

Forgive me, but I disagree.

I owned Mackie mixers (which were used a mic preamps), and was not happy
with the manuals.

The quality of the writing itself was outstanding. The manuals were
friendly, conversational, and a pleasure to read. But...

The organization and presentation were poor. The manuals assumed the reader
already knew what mixers did, and how they were to be used. When you write a
user manual -- especially for products often purchased by customers who have
no technical background -- you do not assume /anything/ -- except gross
ignorance.

I suggested to Mackie that the manual start by showing how a single
microphone is connected, and its level set and monitored. The material would
then progress through the use of multiple sources, panning, signal
processing, etc. (The process of starting from the basics and increasing in
complexity, with each step building on what has previously been presented,
is usually the correct way of explaining any subject.)

They wouldn't hear of it. The manuals were perfectly fine as they were. So
much for my efforts to help businesses meet their customers' needs.

I don't think an equipment manual should be a tutorial on the activity
for which the equipment is to be used.

Would you have the manual for an aircraft also attempt to teach people
how to fly the airplane?

I think the Mackie manuals strike an appropriate balance between
explaining the tool and outlining the activities for which it may be
used.

If you do't know what a mic is, why are you buying a mixer?

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Luxey]

петак, 23. март 2012. 16.16.57 UTC+1, hank alrich је напи�ао/ла:

I don't think an equipment manual should be a tutorial on the activity
for which the equipment is to be used.

I agree, but have to add, all the equipment I ever bothered to look at the masnual, any kind of mixer, recorder, synth, whatever, was informative of intended use. I think every manual is inherently such.
Ther's at least basic hookup both described and ilustrated, and signal path, so you can follow the lines and numbers and conclude what it's all about.

[William Sommerwerck]

Microsoft Word is the WORST example ever of the kind of bloat
that we're talking about. When Word came out, it was a simple
word processor with few features, but now it has millions of specific
features for different kinds of documents.

I'm not sure that's true, but if it is, it's because users won't go to the
effort to learn how to format a document. For someone willing to put out the
initial effort, "Ventura" is both easy to use and incredibly powerful.

Most Word users have no idea how to create a template document. When I
started writing screenplays, I created one in about an hour -- and saved
$200 to $300 on custom scriptwriting software.

[hank alrich]

Luxey wrote:

?????, 23. ???? 2012. 16.16.57 UTC+1, hank alrich ?? ???????/??:

I don't think an equipment manual should be a tutorial on the activity
for which the equipment is to be used.

I agree, but have to add, all the equipment I ever bothered to look at the
masnual, any kind of mixer, recorder, synth, whatever, was informative of
intended use. I think every manual is inherently such. Ther's at least
basic hookup both described and ilustrated, and signal path, so you can
follow the lines and numbers and conclude what it's all about.

All of that and more is covered in the Mackie manuals to a greater
extent and at a higher quality of presentation than in any other manuals
I've ever seen for comparable products.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Fri 2012-Mar-23 07:18, Mike Rivers writes:
Just to be clear, I'm not one of those folks that think things SHOULD always
be fixed in post, but the real world doesn't agree with my opinion about
that.

Welcome to the unreal world. There are a lot of us out here. I know
I'm never going to make a recording that sells a
million copies, particularly because of technical
perfection. Why worry about having the tools that can do that?

Yeah, there's that, but I'm not sure if that million seller sold because of technical perfection either. See below.

Like you, I'm a "cut" rather than "boost" type for live recordings, and much
of the time, the EQ is out of the chain. But, there are times when I need to
cut at a higher Q or in more places than an analog EQ will allow.

I suppose there are times when I could do a better job with better
tools, but I can't charge more money for doing it.

No, but I can earn what I charge by having tools I can use
reliably to produce a good sounding result, at least as good as the folks at the business end of the microphones will let me g. That additional capability I'd gain would
probably be offset in a negative way by the different
interface between human and machine, which makes a
difference to me.

Since every time I go out i"m working with something
different I like my user interface with the console to be
extremely familiar to me. Were I gigging with the same act, and planning to tour though I'd have both the opportunity to get familiar and then store my preferred 'environment" or
whatever you wish to call it, so that if the os in the thing crashes I can just reload and be working again.
A related story, but ot ... I've got a vhf transceiver in my van which is a pita for old blind man to interact with,
except punch in the memory channel he wishes to operate on.
PRogramming a new memory is an adventure, with my lady
reading the book, punching buttons, turn the little selectro knob wheel thingy until the option she wants shows up on the display, hit the button to select it, find enxt menu item,
spin knob, lather rinse repeat.

i knew when I bought the radio that the ui sucked for folks
like me, but we were getting ready to do a lot of traveling, and i wanted something that would dump about 50 watts out
the antenna connection to the gain antenna on the roof of my van so that I had reliable comms, if I could hear it, I
could talk to it usually. My first thought was an amplifier where I could hook up my little portable from my belt, boost its 3.5 watts output to acceptable levels. The local dealer of ham gear told me he quit stocking them though because
users had reliability problems with those, and he ended up
returning them to the factory. The price was good, I had
money in my pocket and needed the radio so I bought it.
Luckily enough the stupid thing has 200 memory channels, so
I've got common frequencies for places wehre we go, pretty
much the length of the Mississippi river along routes we
travel already programmed into the thing. When we made a
trip to NOrfolk, Va. a few years ago on business we ended up stopping at a rest area, both to give the Rottweiler a potty break, and program radio g.

With all that, I've still got about 60 memory channels left
to be filled grin.

I can put up with something like that there, but, on the
gig, when it's for the money there's quite a bit of
reluctance to go there on my part, unless I've had plenty
of time to become very familiar when it's not for the money. So far that opportunity hasn't presented itself to me yet.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

Apparently they think they have a lot to lose, to
competitors who might find something that would help them
make a better competing product. That's why they have NDAs,
but they don't give one to everyone who asks.

Sounds like poor management. Any competitor who is really curious can
reverse-engineer the drivers.

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Henig writes:

Okay, this is where my ignorance shows: what is an NDA? It sounds somehow
more specific than saying "technical manual." Is it like a Chilton's manual
or is my guess way off?

NDAs are non-disclosure agreements, which are essentially contracts between an
employer and an employer (or between a subcontractor and his client) that
prohibit the employee or subcontractor from revealing certain information that
might be useful to competitors. NDAs are common in high-tech industries.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

Later today
I'll try to connect it to my DAW via USB to see whether it supports Win2k
even though it supposedly only supports XP through Win7.

USB storage devices are highly generic, so it will probably work with any
recent version of Windows, whether it be officially supported on that version
or not.

The same is true to nearly the same degree for USB microphones.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Dorsey writes:

Microsoft word is the WORST example ever of the kind of bloat that we're
talking about.

Unfortunately, Word is not unique, nor is it necessarily the worst.

Norton antivirus products are right up there, too, and so are many Adobe
products.

Just about all software eventually goes down this path.

When Word came out, it was a simple word processor with
few features, but now it has millions of specific features for different
kinds of documents.

Many of the features requested by users for Word are already in the product,
but the product is so bloated that users don't know about them.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Fri 2012-Mar-23 09:06, Neil Gould writes:
The quality of the writing itself was outstanding. The manuals were
friendly, conversational, and a pleasure to read. But...
The organization and presentation were poor. The manuals assumed the
reader already knew what mixers did, and how they were to be used.
When you write a user manual -- especially for products often
purchased by customers who have no technical background -- you do not
assume /anything/ -- except gross ignorance.

I would argue that folks that don't know what a mixer is or what it
does should be doing something else with their money besides buying
mixers. Investing in some basic audio recording books would be a
good start. There are just too many issues to be covered to expect
them to appear in a user manual, and as a knowledgeable user, I
don't want to have to wade through all those elementary things to
find out what I need to know about a device.

I'm with you there, but there's also live sound
reinforcement, and many folks buy a device without learning
enough except being told "you need a ... " and so they buy
one, having little understanding of how it owrks, or why it
works that way. Imho it's incumbent upon the user to learn
a bit about what he expects a piece of equipment to do, and
understanding a bit about the process before spending money, but it often doesn't work that way. After all, this isn't a saw or a drill, where its use and functions are quite
obvious from just looking at it. Even a very simple mixer
can confound the neophyte. I make funny noises about
manuals that go into "this is what you bought here' from the ground up and omit details I really want to know, but can
understand why they do.

YEars ago I bought a little Mackie 1202 VLZ to use for its
mic pres, and for a keyboard mixer on stage. My lady found
its manual very helpful in gaining an understanding of the
more complex consoles I worked with because it went into
such depth on the very basics. I otoh told her within the
first couple of pages of reading it aloud to me that it
wasn't telling me anything I didn't know about the unit. We could skip over looking at the manual, and she could read it herself when so inclined because it might further her audio
education g.



Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.