Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #521   Report Post  
David Morgan \(MAMS\)
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
CBFalconer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
David Morgan \(MAMS\)
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Agent 86
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
The Ghost In The Machine
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Muse Receptor, which some guitarists are discovering for it's ability to
host VST FX in a decent form factor.


  #536   Report Post  
philicorda
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
james
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #544   Report Post  
John
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
ceverett
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
John
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
JEDIDIAH
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Charles Krug
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Windows is Easier than Linux For An End User, Especially for Multimedia work. rapskat Pro Audio 64 January 22nd 05 12:21 AM
The problem with Linux and digital audio. Pierre de le Sewer Pro Audio 6 May 17th 04 02:43 AM
Is there a non Linux audio group? Twist Turner Pro Audio 2 May 14th 04 12:32 AM
Is there a non Linux audio group? Twist Turner Pro Audio 0 May 13th 04 01:37 PM
Linux blows for any type of serious digital audio work. Rich.Andrews Pro Audio 0 May 12th 04 08:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"