re: Windows 10, or not?

[Jack Ryan]

::Will you free upgrade and why?

No. You get what you pay for.

Well, it's been awhile since I've poked around RAP. I see some people are having issues with
Windows10. I highly recommend you do your homework/research before you update to
Windows10. Most of the sic, older posters here will know the same song and dance with MS' products.
I think with audio it has been proven if it's not broke why fix it and besides most of the --RAP-- use
alternative OS's like Apple, Linux and MS on a non internet computer. (A WindowsXP with
a service2 pack on a current PC as backup is recommended).

1. If you're considering installing Win10 -- do your backups before you upgrade.
But before you do -- read on.
2. Backup, backup, backup will save a lot of heartbreaks.

With that said be forewarned. I don't agree with MS downloading --MALWARE-- into computers
so that they can use their telemetry and virtual spyware. I've been on this issue since July, and
I'm surprised audio and video software and hardware manufactures are not taking the Windows10
Malware situation seriously. On the other hand, I do believe the Windows 10 Pro package
allows the user to disable the privacy/telemetry crap but at a cost. In terms of
microsoft's attitude towards its user base? As in the Wizard of
Oz's Wicked Witch says, "Well, my little party is just beginning."

So. No. I'm going to wait. I've fined tuned my OS by researching all of the KB0000000 updates
that is, know what to update. Since Windows95 MS users have been slow cooked into
complacency of doing windows updates many of them only benefit microsoft and not to your
benefit.

I highly recommend for you users of MS applications and hardware
to read and bookmark http://www.ghacks.net .
Martin Brinkmann is one of the leading advocates against the
games operating system vendors play on their customers.
In addition to the mounting war with computer browsers IE, Firefox.

One of the most pressing issues with Windows10.

Beware, latest Windows 10 Update may remove programs automatically
By Martin Brinkmann on November 24, 2015
http://www.ghacks.net/2015/11/24/beware-latest-windows-10-update-may-remove-programs-automatically

These are heads up articles for users who have already downloded or considering Windows10.

Comparison of Windows 10 Privacy tools
http://www.ghacks.net/2015/08/14/comparison-of-windows-10-privacy-tools

Improved GWX Control Panel does an even better job at keeping Windows 10 off your PC
Martin Brinkmann on November 17, 2015
http://www.ghacks.net/2015/11/17/improved-gwx-control-panel-does-an-even-better-job-at-keeping-windows-10-off-your-pc

I'd be very cautious in building any app that is going to benefit microsoft.
Literally microsoft has gone --- soft.

Happy thanksgiving everybody.

[Luxey]

Funny, just yesterday I bite the bullet and "upgraded" one of my office machines.
It's an oldie, AMD Athlon XP 3000+ with 1GB (or was it 0.75?!) of memory,
GeForce2 MX 400 with 32MB, or maybe 64MB of own RAM ...

Overall, it feels a bit slower, but at the same time smoother, less hick-ups and
sudden looooong freezes on opening apps and so on.
Or, if you look from bad perspective, you could say it freezes more in absolute
nuber of hick-ups, in effect, it freezes a bit on each operation, but always for
the proportional ammount of time, not for too long and almost predictable.

The only "problem": Windows Mail did not work (same as it did not on W7) but
instead of hacking it (like I did on W7) I decided to go for Windows Live Mail,
which I already installed on other couple of office machines (one same oldie
and couple more modern lap tops. Also we have 2 machines still on XP, one with
Outlook 2003, the other strictly web mail).

Anybody did it on "Audio" comp?

[geoff]

On 27/11/2015 9:38 a.m., Luxey wrote:
> Funny, just yesterday I bite the bullet and "upgraded" one of my office machines.
> It's an oldie, AMD Athlon XP 3000+ with 1GB (or was it 0.75?!) of memory,
> GeForce2 MX 400 with 32MB, or maybe 64MB of own RAM ...
>
> Overall, it feels a bit slower, but at the same time smoother, less hick-ups and
> sudden looooong freezes on opening apps and so on.
> Or, if you look from bad perspective, you could say it freezes more in absolute
> nuber of hick-ups, in effect, it freezes a bit on each operation, but always for
> the proportional ammount of time, not for too long and almost predictable.
>
> The only "problem": Windows Mail did not work (same as it did not on W7) but
> instead of hacking it (like I did on W7) I decided to go for Windows Live Mail,
> which I already installed on other couple of office machines (one same oldie
> and couple more modern lap tops. Also we have 2 machines still on XP, one with
> Outlook 2003, the other strictly web mail).
>
> Anybody did it on "Audio" comp?
>

Yeah. Seems to work not significantly differently to 7 on a reasonably
low-spec laptop - Core2 with 4GB.

But I'm surprised it would even attempt to install on a machine with
such puny RAM ! Surely even XP would struggle with 1GB ?

geoff

[Luxey]

четвртак, 26. новембар 2015. 21.49.58 UTC+1, geoff је написао/ла:
> On 27/11/2015 9:38 a.m., Luxey wrote:
> > Funny, just yesterday I bite the bullet and "upgraded" one of my office machines.
> > It's an oldie, AMD Athlon XP 3000+ with 1GB (or was it 0.75?!) of memory,
> > GeForce2 MX 400 with 32MB, or maybe 64MB of own RAM ...
> >
> > Overall, it feels a bit slower, but at the same time smoother, less hick-ups and
> > sudden looooong freezes on opening apps and so on.
> > Or, if you look from bad perspective, you could say it freezes more in absolute
> > nuber of hick-ups, in effect, it freezes a bit on each operation, but always for
> > the proportional ammount of time, not for too long and almost predictable.
> >
> > The only "problem": Windows Mail did not work (same as it did not on W7) but
> > instead of hacking it (like I did on W7) I decided to go for Windows Live Mail,
> > which I already installed on other couple of office machines (one same oldie
> > and couple more modern lap tops. Also we have 2 machines still on XP, one with
> > Outlook 2003, the other strictly web mail).
> >
> > Anybody did it on "Audio" comp?
> >
>
> Yeah. Seems to work not significantly differently to 7 on a reasonably
> low-spec laptop - Core2 with 4GB.
>
> But I'm surprised it would even attempt to install on a machine with
> such puny RAM ! Surely even XP would struggle with 1GB ?
>
> geoff

I think MS must have changed the policy, since just couple of weeks ago,
on check up, it advised me one other machine was not compatible, but now
upgrade is ready on that one as well?! I mean, I don't know and do not really
care. In prospect, it's all disposable junk anyway.

[Gray_Wolf]

On 11/26/2015 2:49 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 9:38 a.m., Luxey wrote:
>> Funny, just yesterday I bite the bullet and "upgraded" one of my office machines.
>> It's an oldie, AMD Athlon XP 3000+ with 1GB (or was it 0.75?!) of memory,
>> GeForce2 MX 400 with 32MB, or maybe 64MB of own RAM ...
>>
>> Overall, it feels a bit slower, but at the same time smoother, less hick-ups and
>> sudden looooong freezes on opening apps and so on.
>> Or, if you look from bad perspective, you could say it freezes more in absolute
>> nuber of hick-ups, in effect, it freezes a bit on each operation, but always for
>> the proportional ammount of time, not for too long and almost predictable.
>>
>> The only "problem": Windows Mail did not work (same as it did not on W7) but
>> instead of hacking it (like I did on W7) I decided to go for Windows Live Mail,
>> which I already installed on other couple of office machines (one same oldie
>> and couple more modern lap tops. Also we have 2 machines still on XP, one with
>> Outlook 2003, the other strictly web mail).
>>
>> Anybody did it on "Audio" comp?
>
> Yeah. Seems to work not significantly differently to 7 on a reasonably low-spec
> laptop - Core2 with 4GB.
>
> But I'm surprised it would even attempt to install on a machine with such puny
> RAM ! Surely even XP would struggle with 1GB ?
>
> geoff

I ran XP on an AMD single core 1.6 GHz with 1 GB ram and it did fine.
The main reason I upgraded to a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 2.6GHz was
the older machine was unbearably slow working with 5.5 MB raw photo files in
Lightroom. Every time I'd zoom in or out I'd have to wait for it to catch up. It
worked fine with jpg's. I have 6GB on this machine and I have to work at it to
use most of the ram. Like loading some GB photo pano files. My nephew is running
something like 32GB ram and I'm wondering what he does with it.
He's a programer so maybe that matters? He doesn't do video AFAIK.

[geoff]

On 27/11/2015 11:01 a.m., gray_wolf wrote:

>
> I ran XP on an AMD single core 1.6 GHz with 1 GB ram and it did fine.
> The main reason I upgraded to a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 2.6GHz was
> the older machine was unbearably slow working with 5.5 MB raw photo
> files in
> Lightroom. Every time I'd zoom in or out I'd have to wait for it to
> catch up. It worked fine with jpg's. I have 6GB on this machine and I
> have to work at it to use most of the ram. Like loading some GB photo
> pano files. My nephew is running something like 32GB ram and I'm
> wondering what he does with it.
> He's a programer so maybe that matters? He doesn't do video AFAIK.
>
>


Generally accepted (and bourne out in practice), that the biggest thing
you can do to make Win go faster is to add RAM. It's not an application
space thing, it's Win itself.

Can't imagine why any XP machine hasn't got 4GB in it - it's not like
those sticks cost anything these days ! Try it and see if Lightroom
doesn't just 'fly' in comparison ;-)


geoff

[Trevor]

On 27/11/2015 7:49 AM, geoff wrote:
> But I'm surprised it would even attempt to install on a machine with
> such puny RAM ! Surely even XP would struggle with 1GB ?

Why would you say that? My XP laptop still has 1GB RAM, upgraded from
500MB. And it even worked fine with 500MB, if you don't have too many
programs open, or try to do video editing. :-)
I see people buying computers now with 16GB RAM and only using them for
internet browsing where they usually have 15GB RAM unused. :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 27/11/2015 5:15 PM, geoff wrote:
> Generally accepted (and bourne out in practice), that the biggest thing
> you can do to make Win go faster is to add RAM. It's not an application
> space thing, it's Win itself.

Yep, faster as in 1 or 2%, unnoticeable if your applications are not
using it. XP itself works fine with 500MB for simple applications.


>
> Can't imagine why any XP machine hasn't got 4GB in it - it's not like
> those sticks cost anything these days !

We are talking about old computers where 4GB RAM *IS* either expensive,
unobtainable any longer, or won't fit the computer.
A NEW computer with less than 4GB RAM OTOH is both rare and silly
whatever OS you are running.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 27/11/2015 7:33 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 7:49 AM, geoff wrote:
>> But I'm surprised it would even attempt to install on a machine with
>> such puny RAM ! Surely even XP would struggle with 1GB ?
>
> Why would you say that? My XP laptop still has 1GB RAM, upgraded from
> 500MB. And it even worked fine with 500MB, if you don't have too many
> programs open, or try to do video editing. :-)
> I see people buying computers now with 16GB RAM and only using them for
> internet browsing where they usually have 15GB RAM unused. :-)
>
> Trevor.
>
>

Trev - sometimes I think you disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.
Especially with me. Or maybe I'm just so wrong about everything, cos I
haven't ever been there, done that, and haven't got the T-shirt. Or
maybe I actually have.

Your 500K laptop is probably thrashing the swap-file just to run
Windows, let alone petty applications, or more-so significant ones.
Jeeze I had more ram than that in my ZX81.

Maybe 16GB RAM in a new computer is the cost-effective solution should
they ever consider doing something radical and unusual like editing
video or large images ?

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 27/11/2015 06:33, Trevor wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 7:49 AM, geoff wrote:
>> But I'm surprised it would even attempt to install on a machine with
>> such puny RAM ! Surely even XP would struggle with 1GB ?
>
> Why would you say that? My XP laptop still has 1GB RAM, upgraded from
> 500MB. And it even worked fine with 500MB, if you don't have too many
> programs open, or try to do video editing. :-)
> I see people buying computers now with 16GB RAM and only using them for
> internet browsing where they usually have 15GB RAM unused. :-)
>
When XP first came out, it would run well in on a 500 MHz Pentium with
64Meg of RAM, with not much swapping, even on large (for the time) image
files. Then SP1, SP2 and SP3 came along, and each needed more RAM and a
faster processor, until in normal use doing web browsing and using an
office suite, it struggled to do the job with a 1GHz processor and a
single Gigabyte of RAM.

My main machine now is a 64 bit laptop running Windows 8.1, and in
normal use, the processor speed varies under system control from 500MHz
to 2.3GHz, and the amount of RAM in use is between 1.5 and 3 gigabytes,
while editing HD video or a multitrack audio project with a few effects,
it`s maxed out on 4 Gig of RAM and full speed processing with all four
cores.

This machine is a tablet running a real version of Windows 8.1, and the
only reason I don`t suffer too much from swapping on 2 Gig of RAM is
that the system is set up for minimal swapfile use, and the flash drive
is a *lot* faster than spinning rust.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 27-11-2015 12:14, geoff wrote:

> On 27/11/2015 7:33 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 7:49 AM, geoff wrote:

>>> But I'm surprised it would even attempt to install on a machine with
>>> such puny RAM ! Surely even XP would struggle with 1GB ?

>> Why would you say that? My XP laptop still has 1GB RAM, upgraded from
>> 500MB. And it even worked fine with 500MB, if you don't have too many
>> programs open, or try to do video editing. :-)
>> I see people buying computers now with 16GB RAM and only using them for
>> internet browsing where they usually have 15GB RAM unused. :-)

>> Trevor.

> Your 500K laptop is probably thrashing the swap-file just to run
> Windows, let alone petty applications, or more-so significant ones.
> Jeeze I had more ram than that in my ZX81.

1 gigabyte ram is fine for xp sp2. It is when you step up to sp3 you
really should have 2 gigabytes.

> Maybe 16GB RAM in a new computer is the cost-effective solution should
> they ever consider doing something radical and unusual like editing
> video or large images ?

Early 2014 we agreed on a policy that all new workstations on my then
dayjob should be bought with 16 gb ram for installation longevity since
it is becoming more and more difficult to get additional ram for less
and less old computers.

> geoff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gray_Wolf]

On 11/27/2015 7:26 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 27-11-2015 12:14, geoff wrote:
>
>> On 27/11/2015 7:33 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2015 7:49 AM, geoff wrote:
>
>>>> But I'm surprised it would even attempt to install on a machine with
>>>> such puny RAM ! Surely even XP would struggle with 1GB ?
>
>>> Why would you say that? My XP laptop still has 1GB RAM, upgraded from
>>> 500MB. And it even worked fine with 500MB, if you don't have too many
>>> programs open, or try to do video editing. :-)
>>> I see people buying computers now with 16GB RAM and only using them for
>>> internet browsing where they usually have 15GB RAM unused. :-)
>
>>> Trevor.
>
>> Your 500K laptop is probably thrashing the swap-file just to run
>> Windows, let alone petty applications, or more-so significant ones.
>> Jeeze I had more ram than that in my ZX81.
>
> 1 gigabyte ram is fine for xp sp2. It is when you step up to sp3 you really
> should have 2 gigabytes.
>
>> Maybe 16GB RAM in a new computer is the cost-effective solution should
>> they ever consider doing something radical and unusual like editing
>> video or large images ?
>
> Early 2014 we agreed on a policy that all new workstations on my then dayjob
> should be bought with 16 gb ram for installation longevity since it is becoming
> more and more difficult to get additional ram for less and less old computers.
>
>> geoff
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Here's some DDR2:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145184

[Trevor]

On 27/11/2015 10:14 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 7:33 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 7:49 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> But I'm surprised it would even attempt to install on a machine with
>>> such puny RAM ! Surely even XP would struggle with 1GB ?
>>
>> Why would you say that? My XP laptop still has 1GB RAM, upgraded from
>> 500MB. And it even worked fine with 500MB, if you don't have too many
>> programs open, or try to do video editing. :-)
>> I see people buying computers now with 16GB RAM and only using them for
>> internet browsing where they usually have 15GB RAM unused. :-)
>>
>
> Trev - sometimes I think you disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.

Nope, I disagree when I disagree with what is said. You can always
present a *reasoned* argument why you think I am wrong IF you want. I
simply stated *actual* experience over many years running XP with both
500MB and 1GB.
Those who simply disagree by ad-hominem attack as you have done, have
already lost the argument.



> Especially with me. Or maybe I'm just so wrong about everything, cos I
> haven't ever been there, done that, and haven't got the T-shirt. Or
> maybe I actually have.

So present some facts or stop bitching.


> Your 500K laptop is probably thrashing the swap-file just to run
> Windows, let alone petty applications, or more-so significant ones.
> Jeeze I had more ram than that in my ZX81.

IF you don't understand the difference between 500kB and 500MB, don't
put it into print for everyone to see how stupid you are!

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 29/11/2015 8:32 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>
> So present some facts or stop bitching.
>
>
>> Your 500K laptop is probably thrashing the swap-file just to run
>> Windows, let alone petty applications, or more-so significant ones.
>> Jeeze I had more ram than that in my ZX81.
>
> IF you don't understand the difference between 500kB and 500MB, don't
> put it into print for everyone to see how stupid you are!
>
> Trevor.
>

And I said my ZX81 was 16MB. Geeze I must be stupid. Or you are missing
something. Mainly humour.

That being said, I ran XP for many years and clung on as long as I could
on my audio (and video) PCs. I'm typing right now on an P4 XP computer.
This one is stuck at 2GB because the mobo doesn't seem to play nice
with any 4 x 1GB sticks I have floating around.

On any of my zoopier XP computers running anything but trivial software
upgrading RAM was always the biggest benefit for performance - far more
than faster HDDs .

I am pleased for you that you find your lesser-RAM computer fully
satisfying. But don't try and tell me I imagined the benefit from a
relatively minor thing like a RAM upgrade, because it was very easily
quantified, and seems to be quite general knowledge, judging by
resources that should know.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 30/11/2015 9:28 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 29/11/2015 8:32 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>> So present some facts or stop bitching.
>>
>>> Your 500K laptop is probably thrashing the swap-file just to run
>>> Windows, let alone petty applications, or more-so significant ones.
>>> Jeeze I had more ram than that in my ZX81.
>>
>> IF you don't understand the difference between 500kB and 500MB, don't
>> put it into print for everyone to see how stupid you are!
>>
>
> And I said my ZX81 was 16MB. Geeze I must be stupid. Or you are missing
> something.

So you are still saying 16MB is more than 500MB? (You are the only one
who ever mentioned 500kB) You are the one seems to be missing brain
cells not me.


> That being said, I ran XP for many years and clung on as long as I could
> on my audio (and video) PCs. I'm typing right now on an P4 XP computer.
> This one is stuck at 2GB because the mobo doesn't seem to play nice
> with any 4 x 1GB sticks I have floating around.

And as I said I ran XP for MANY years with 500MB. Worked fine for the
internet computer. Just don't try video editing!


> On any of my zoopier XP computers running anything but trivial software
> upgrading RAM was always the biggest benefit for performance - far more
> than faster HDDs .

Biggest benefit was always optimizing Windows, but most people can't do
that so they simply throw RAM, HD's and faster CPU's at the problem. But
in most cases internet speeds are still the limiting factor for surfing
the internet, not the amount of RAM.


> I am pleased for you that you find your lesser-RAM computer fully
> satisfying. But don't try and tell me I imagined the benefit from a
> relatively minor thing like a RAM upgrade, because it was very easily
> quantified, and seems to be quite general knowledge, judging by
> resources that should know.

Yep, as always "general knowledge" and fact have little or nothing in
common. But naturally spending more money will usually make a computer
faster, all else being equal. No one said it wouldn't. Unlike you
however I know how to keep track of the RAM being used, and know when it
is adequate, or not enough for the required job.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 30/11/2015 2:19 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>
>
> And as I said I ran XP for MANY years with 500MB. Worked fine for the
> internet computer.

For most of us here the normal usage is a bit more than web-surfing.

> Just don't try video editing!

Not to mention HD video. Or large audio files. Or sophisticated and
(sometimes but not necessarily) large applications and plugins. And etc
etc etc . Call it bloatware if you like, but if that's what you need to
use, you need to use it.

>> On any of my zoopier XP computers running anything but trivial software
>> upgrading RAM was always the biggest benefit for performance - far more
>> than faster HDDs .
>
> Biggest benefit was always optimizing Windows, but most people can't
> do that so they simply throw RAM, HD's and faster CPU's at the
> problem. But in most cases internet speeds are still the limiting
> factor for surfing the internet, not the amount of RAM.

Sure, all the Win optimisations for real-time audio applications are a
given, whatever RAM you have in. Possibly less necessary now than
earlier days when brute force and speed were not relatively trivial costs.

> Yep, as always "general knowledge" and fact have little or nothing in
> common.


Many specialised and reputable resources seemed to agree....

> . No one said it wouldn't. Unlike you however I know how to keep track
> of the RAM being used, and know when it is adequate, or not enough for
> the required job.

... and when its not ?

geoff

[Trevor]

On 30/11/2015 1:33 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 30/11/2015 2:19 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>> And as I said I ran XP for MANY years with 500MB. Worked fine for the
>> internet computer.
>
> For most of us here the normal usage is a bit more than web-surfing.

Which is why I specified that all along! The claim was XP would not even
run properly by itself with 1GB, which is total BS as I said. Runs just
fine with 500MB.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 11/30/2015 4:32 PM, Trevor wrote:
> On 30/11/2015 1:33 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 30/11/2015 2:19 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>>> And as I said I ran XP for MANY years with 500MB. Worked fine for the
>>> internet computer.
>>
>> For most of us here the normal usage is a bit more than web-surfing.
>
> Which is why I specified that all along! The claim was XP would not even
> run properly by itself with 1GB, which is total BS as I said. Runs just
> fine with 500MB.
>
> Trevor.
>
>


Who said that? Not me.

geoff

[JackA]

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 9:33:38 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 30/11/2015 2:19 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> >
> >
> > And as I said I ran XP for MANY years with 500MB. Worked fine for the
> > internet computer.
>
> For most of us here the normal usage is a bit more than web-surfing.
>
> > Just don't try video editing!
>
> Not to mention HD video. Or large audio files. Or sophisticated and
> (sometimes but not necessarily) large applications and plugins. And etc
> etc etc . Call it bloatware if you like, but if that's what you need to
> use, you need to use it.
>
> >> On any of my zoopier XP computers running anything but trivial software
> >> upgrading RAM was always the biggest benefit for performance - far more
> >> than faster HDDs .
> >
> > Biggest benefit was always optimizing Windows, but most people can't
> > do that so they simply throw RAM, HD's and faster CPU's at the
> > problem. But in most cases internet speeds are still the limiting
> > factor for surfing the internet, not the amount of RAM.
>
> Sure, all the Win optimisations for real-time audio applications are a
> given, whatever RAM you have in. Possibly less necessary now than
> earlier days when brute force and speed were not relatively trivial costs.
>
> > Yep, as always "general knowledge" and fact have little or nothing in
> > common.
>
>
> Many specialised and reputable resources seemed to agree....
>
> > . No one said it wouldn't. Unlike you however I know how to keep track
> > of the RAM being used, and know when it is adequate, or not enough for
> > the required job.
>
> ... and when its not ?
>
> geoff

I just mixed (19) audio tracks simultaneously, XP Home, .5GB RAM. Acer laptop (2003?) 1.6GHz, Works fine!!

Jack

[geoff]

On 1/12/2015 2:29 a.m., JackA wrote:
> I just mixed (19) audio tracks simultaneously, XP Home, .5GB RAM. Acer laptop (2003?) 1.6GHz, Works fine!!
>
> Jack


Pleased for you.

Clearly we've all be sold a crock of ****, needlessly investing in new
computers and software.

geoff

[Frank Stearns]

geoff > writes:

>On 1/12/2015 2:29 a.m., JackA wrote:
>> I just mixed (19) audio tracks simultaneously, XP Home, .5GB RAM. Acer laptop (2003?) 1.6GHz, Works fine!!
>>
>> Jack

>Pleased for you.

>Clearly we've all be sold a crock of ****, needlessly investing in new
>computers and software.

Guffaw. Good one, Geoff.

Simply mixing 19 tracks, at 44.1K, is pretty trivial DSP.

But try doing, say, 90 or 100 tracks, at 48K. Add a dozen instances of high-quality
reverb, perhaps EQ instances wrapped around compression on each channel. Maybe add
in a high-quality but compute-intensive mix bus compressor. Given that load, the
old laptop would start crying for its mommy (assuming it didn't catch fire first).

My newer 8-core 64-bit machine could handle such a load, but just barely. In fact,
on one of the tunes I had to do the bus compression separately, as part of a faux
mastering step. The Slate FG-X was soaking up 20% of my CPU power. Sounds good,
though, so it's well worth it.

(My old 4 core XP machine with 4 Gbyte of RAM would never have made it. The disk IO
demands alone would have buried it.)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Trevor]

On 30/11/2015 6:20 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 11/30/2015 4:32 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> On 30/11/2015 1:33 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2015 2:19 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>>>> And as I said I ran XP for MANY years with 500MB. Worked fine for the
>>>> internet computer.
>>>
>>> For most of us here the normal usage is a bit more than web-surfing.
>>
>> Which is why I specified that all along! The claim was XP would not even
>> run properly by itself with 1GB, which is total BS as I said. Runs just
>> fine with 500MB.
>
>
> Who said that? Not me.

What I actually responded to, before you chimed in with your inability
to tell 500MB from 500kB.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/12/2015 8:10 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 1/12/2015 2:29 a.m., JackA wrote:
>> I just mixed (19) audio tracks simultaneously, XP Home, .5GB RAM. Acer
>> laptop (2003?) 1.6GHz, Works fine!!
>
> Pleased for you.
>
> Clearly we've all be sold a crock of ****, needlessly investing in new
> computers and software.


Which is probably very true for the 50% of the population who never uses
a computer for anything but surf the net.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/12/2015 8:40 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> geoff > writes:
>> On 1/12/2015 2:29 a.m., JackA wrote:
>>> I just mixed (19) audio tracks simultaneously, XP Home, .5GB RAM. Acer laptop (2003?) 1.6GHz, Works fine!!
>
>> Pleased for you.
>
>> Clearly we've all be sold a crock of ****, needlessly investing in new
>> computers and software.
>
> Guffaw. Good one, Geoff.
>
> Simply mixing 19 tracks, at 44.1K, is pretty trivial DSP.
>
> But try doing, say, 90 or 100 tracks, at 48K. Add a dozen instances of high-quality
> reverb, perhaps EQ instances wrapped around compression on each channel. Maybe add
> in a high-quality but compute-intensive mix bus compressor. Given that load, the
> old laptop would start crying for its mommy (assuming it didn't catch fire first).
>
> My newer 8-core 64-bit machine could handle such a load, but just barely. In fact,
> on one of the tunes I had to do the bus compression separately, as part of a faux
> mastering step. The Slate FG-X was soaking up 20% of my CPU power. Sounds good,
> though, so it's well worth it.
>
> (My old 4 core XP machine with 4 Gbyte of RAM would never have made it. The disk IO
> demands alone would have buried it.)
>

So you are saying different people have different demands, whoever would
have guessed! :-)

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 1/12/2015 1:05 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> .
>>
>>
>> Who said that? Not me.
>
> What I actually responded to, before you chimed in with your inability
> to tell 500MB from 500kB.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

Not to mention my 16MB ZX81 and you apparent lack of perception of humour.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 1/12/2015 11:11 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 1/12/2015 1:05 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>>>
>>> Who said that? Not me.
>>
>> What I actually responded to, before you chimed in with your inability
>> to tell 500MB from 500kB.
>>
>
> Not to mention my 16MB ZX81 and you apparent lack of perception of humour.


So your claim that 16MB was greater than 500MB was humour? Well yes we
are all laughing AT you anyway! :-)

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 4:40:44 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
> geoff > writes:
>
> >On 1/12/2015 2:29 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >> I just mixed (19) audio tracks simultaneously, XP Home, .5GB RAM. Acer laptop (2003?) 1.6GHz, Works fine!!
> >>
> >> Jack
>
> >Pleased for you.
>
> >Clearly we've all be sold a crock of ****, needlessly investing in new
> >computers and software.
>
> Guffaw. Good one, Geoff.
>
> Simply mixing 19 tracks, at 44.1K, is pretty trivial DSP.
>
> But try doing, say, 90 or 100 tracks, at 48K. Add a dozen instances of high-quality
> reverb, perhaps EQ instances wrapped around compression on each channel. Maybe add
> in a high-quality but compute-intensive mix bus compressor. Given that load, the
> old laptop would start crying for its mommy (assuming it didn't catch fire first).
>
> My newer 8-core 64-bit machine could handle such a load, but just barely. In fact,
> on one of the tunes I had to do the bus compression separately, as part of a faux
> mastering step. The Slate FG-X was soaking up 20% of my CPU power. Sounds good,
> though, so it's well worth it.
>
> (My old 4 core XP machine with 4 Gbyte of RAM would never have made it. The disk IO
> demands alone would have buried it.)
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
> --
> .

Excuse me, I have managed to mix 30 tracks. It was Pumped Up Kicks by Foster The People! My ol' Acer struggled, but it came through.

Jack

[geoff]

On 1/12/2015 1:38 p.m., JackA wrote:
> Excuse me, I have managed to mix 30 tracks. It was Pumped Up Kicks by Foster The People! My ol' Acer struggled, but it came through.
>
> Jack

Fine if you are playing around for fun (well, actually not even fine for
many people). But if anything vaguely professional, 'struggling' just
doesn't cut it.

geoff

[geoff]

On 1/12/2015 1:23 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> On 1/12/2015 11:11 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 1/12/2015 1:05 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who said that? Not me.
>>>
>>> What I actually responded to, before you chimed in with your inability
>>> to tell 500MB from 500kB.
>>>
>>
>> Not to mention my 16MB ZX81 and you apparent lack of perception of
>> humour.
>
>
> So your claim that 16MB was greater than 500MB was humour? Well yes we
> are all laughing AT you anyway! :-)
>
> Trevor.
>

Fine by me. You just keep using your 500MB , 1GB, or whatever XP machine
and I'll use what I have, and we can all be happy knowing that neither
of us could do anything in any way better.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 1/12/2015 12:13 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 1/12/2015 1:23 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>> On 1/12/2015 11:11 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2015 1:05 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Who said that? Not me.
>>>>
>>>> What I actually responded to, before you chimed in with your inability
>>>> to tell 500MB from 500kB.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not to mention my 16MB ZX81 and you apparent lack of perception of
>>> humour.
>>
>>
>> So your claim that 16MB was greater than 500MB was humour? Well yes we
>> are all laughing AT you anyway! :-)
>>
>
> Fine by me. You just keep using your 500MB , 1GB, or whatever XP machine
> and I'll use what I have, and we can all be happy knowing that neither
> of us could do anything in any way better.

Not at all, you probably *could* do better than that ZX81 you know!
:-)

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>Fine by me. You just keep using your 500MB , 1GB, or whatever XP machine
>and I'll use what I have, and we can all be happy knowing that neither
>of us could do anything in any way better.

500MB is more than enough to run my accounts receivable system. That's
the important stuff.

The audio? We have an Ampex for that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Luxey]

After switching off update and indexing, it runs like a dream. Just for laughs,
at the moment I have no page file - 1GB RAM is all there is and it still have to
show "you're low on memory". I know it will, in short notice, but still ...

[Gray_Wolf]

On 12/1/2015 9:18 AM, Luxey wrote:
> After switching off update and indexing, it runs like a dream. Just for laughs,
> at the moment I have no page file - 1GB RAM is all there is and it still have to
> show "you're low on memory". I know it will, in short notice, but still ...
>

What version of Windows is this? Turning off update made my Win7 new again.
I need indexing but I set the priority to 'below normal' or 'low'.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 11:32:12 AM UTC-5, gray_wolf wrote:
> On 12/1/2015 9:18 AM, Luxey wrote:
> > After switching off update and indexing, it runs like a dream. Just for laughs,
> > at the moment I have no page file - 1GB RAM is all there is and it still have to
> > show "you're low on memory". I know it will, in short notice, but still ...
> >
>
> What version of Windows is this? Turning off update made my Win7 new again.

Yeah, it probably polls ever few microseconds for "updates", burdening CPU. Their updates are crap, they never fix a thing, just annoying and wasteful!!

Jack


> I need indexing but I set the priority to 'below normal' or 'low'.

[JackA]

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 8:08:12 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 1/12/2015 1:38 p.m., JackA wrote:
> > Excuse me, I have managed to mix 30 tracks. It was Pumped Up Kicks by Foster The People! My ol' Acer struggled, but it came through.
> >
> > Jack
>
> Fine if you are playing around for fun (well, actually not even fine for
> many people).

Where are these "many" people? I'm guessing what's best for them is to learn how to utilize computers. Really.

Jack

But if anything vaguely professional, 'struggling' just
> doesn't cut it.
>
> geoff

[John Williamson]

On 01/12/2015 16:32, gray_wolf wrote:
> On 12/1/2015 9:18 AM, Luxey wrote:
>> After switching off update and indexing, it runs like a dream. Just
>> for laughs,
>> at the moment I have no page file - 1GB RAM is all there is and it
>> still have to
>> show "you're low on memory". I know it will, in short notice, but
>> still ...
>>
>
> What version of Windows is this? Turning off update made my Win7 new again.
> I need indexing but I set the priority to 'below normal' or 'low'.
>
>
>
It is possible to run Windows XP on a machine with 2 gigabytes of RAM
and a 850mHz processor, using a 4 gigabyte SSD for the OS, and an SD
card for data and program storage. Swap needs to be disabled, which
makes it whine about not having enough memory, but it does run (sort
of), and while it doesn't crash spectacularly, it s l o w s r i g h t
d o w n as things get busier.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 11:48:58 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/12/2015 16:32, gray_wolf wrote:
> > On 12/1/2015 9:18 AM, Luxey wrote:
> >> After switching off update and indexing, it runs like a dream. Just
> >> for laughs,
> >> at the moment I have no page file - 1GB RAM is all there is and it
> >> still have to
> >> show "you're low on memory". I know it will, in short notice, but
> >> still ...
> >>
> >
> > What version of Windows is this? Turning off update made my Win7 new again.
> > I need indexing but I set the priority to 'below normal' or 'low'.
> >
> >
> >
> It is possible to run Windows XP on a machine with 2 gigabytes of RAM
> and a 850mHz processor, using a 4 gigabyte SSD for the OS, and an SD
> card for data and program storage. Swap needs to be disabled, which
> makes it whine about not having enough memory, but it does run (sort
> of), and while it doesn't crash spectacularly, it s l o w s r i g h t
> d o w n as things get busier.
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

I was using Windows ME while others quickly switched to XP, and then applauded the "Restore" feature that ME initially had (how observant people actually are). People would CRY, ME would hang/crash too much! I continued to use it, why waste money on "updates"?. And if it did "hang", and since it was DOS based, I could reboot ten times faster than XP could! I had it (custom) built with CD and DVD players. Found video (DVD) a bit erratic. Took it on my own to allow DMA, and smoothed those video to HD!

Why I FEEL, people need computers like what AOL once offered, You Got Mail, push this button. People are the weakest link when it comes to computers. People need more memory, not their computers!

Jack

[Luxey]

уторак, 01. децембар 2015. 17.32.12 UTC+1, gray_wolf је написао/ла:
> On 12/1/2015 9:18 AM, Luxey wrote:
> > After switching off update and indexing, it runs like a dream. Just for laughs,
> > at the moment I have no page file - 1GB RAM is all there is and it still have to
> > show "you're low on memory". I know it will, in short notice, but still ...
> >
>
> What version of Windows is this? Turning off update made my Win7 new again.

[John Williamson]

On 01/12/2015 21:34, Luxey wrote:
> уторак, 01. децембар 2015. 17.32.12 UTC+1, gray_wolf је написао/ла:
>> On 12/1/2015 9:18 AM, Luxey wrote:
>>> After switching off update and indexing, it runs like a dream. Just for laughs,
>>> at the moment I have no page file - 1GB RAM is all there is and it still have to
>>> show "you're low on memory". I know it will, in short notice, but still ...
>>>
>>
>> What version of Windows is this? Turning off update made my Win7 new again.
>> I need indexing but I set the priority to 'below normal' or 'low'.
>
> It is Win10 32bit, as proposed in OP and follow ups. Yes, normally, I also set
> indexing to the lowest priority. Now I've disabled it just to see what happens.
> There was no much difference. I don't know what would happen in the long run? Tomorrow, I'll switch it back on.
>
All that will happen in the long run is that it will take slightly
longer to do a search of your hard drive. If it's set to a low priority
anyway, you'll hardly notice the processing or memory demands while it's
being done, as it uses spare processing cycles. The only noticeable
demand on the system is the HD space taken up by the index files.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 1/12/2015 2:33 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>> Fine by me. You just keep using your 500MB , 1GB, or whatever XP machine
>> and I'll use what I have, and we can all be happy knowing that neither
>> of us could do anything in any way better.
> 500MB is more than enough to run my accounts receivable system. That's
> the important stuff.
>
> The audio? We have an Ampex for that.
> --scott


Yeah, and you on everything you could possibly need with 1/4" tape in
any version.

geoff

[Frank Stearns]

Nil > writes:

>On 01 Dec 2015, Luxey > wrote in rec.audio.pro:

>> It is Win10 32bit, as proposed in OP and follow ups. Yes,
>> normally, I also set indexing to the lowest priority. Now I've
>> disabled it just to see what happens. There was no much
>> difference. I don't know what would happen in the long run?
>> Tomorrow, I'll switch it back on.

>The search feature in Windows 7 and later is much improved over that in
>XP. In XP the indexing seemed to never end and would noticeably bog
>down system performance. Since 7, after the initial indexing operation
>(which can take a very long time,) I find the performance penalty to be
>practically unnoticeable. However, I don't like the way built-in search
>feature works, so I have it shut off for that reason. There are other
>search tools I like better.

In Win7, there is a terrible flaw in file name searching. The wild cards don't fully
understand substrings.

Thus, a NAME search for the substring "*mix*" in the file name string
"my_bigmixer.txt" returns nothing. (In XP, such substring matches worked.)

But, if you search for "*big*", a match will be found because "_" is apparently
understood. But this general substring fault is one of the more idiotic things
MS has done.

If you have a 3rd party file browser for Win7 with filename substring searching that
works, would love to hear about it. (Yes, I have UNIX tools but they need to run in
a shell and it's then something of an annoyance to "do something" with your matches,
compared to if they appear in an explorer window.)

Thanks,

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

-snips-

>Frank, we come from two different schools of music appreciation. I enjoy th=
>ose audio engineers who demand real-time recordings. I began losing interes=
>t in (Pop) music due to drum machines and such. I mean, I really enjoyed re=
>al drummers like Buddy Rich. I like talent, musicians and audio engineers, =
>those who could accomplish so much with so little.

My ultimate appreciation is acoustic live -- NO transducers to be found anywhere; NO
amplified instruments on stage. This often means unamplified
Bluegrass/folk/singer-songwriter, chamber music, instrument and voice recitals,
choral and orchestral (but watch out; often reinforcement has been brought in by
stealth).

I like that aesthetic; and clients have told me that's one reason they keep coming
back. Even with lots of production "behind the scenes" that some mixes call for, I
strive to create a sense of that live experience. Hard to do with pop and rock
(almost by definition); that's why I typically avoid such projects.

But you can *still* extract a mix that will give you that feel, if first you know
what "acoustic live" sounds like to begin with, and second know how to make your
production tools do that.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Nil[_2_]]

On 01 Dec 2015, Frank Stearns >
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> In Win7, there is a terrible flaw in file name searching. The wild
> cards don't fully understand substrings.

I didn't know about that. My objection to Windows's search is that you
have to explicitly configure it to search the whole disk - by default
it only searches some common areas of the disk - and that indexing is
so damn slow, and that the search syntax is so obscure and un-standard.

> If you have a 3rd party file browser for Win7 with filename
> substring searching that works, would love to hear about it.

I use two different ones. For searching by file name only (which is 99%
of my searches) I like Everything Search (http://www.voidtools.com/).
It creates its own self-maintaining index, which takes only a minute,
and searches are nearly instantaneous. You can search using common
regular expressions.

In the rare event that I need to search for file content, I use Agent
Ransack (http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/). It doesn't create an
index so it has to search files one by one, and so is slower than
Everything. But it's very thorough and accurate.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Nil wrote:
> On 01 Dec 2015, Frank Stearns >
> wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
>> In Win7, there is a terrible flaw in file name searching. The wild
>> cards don't fully understand substrings.
>
> I didn't know about that. My objection to Windows's search is that you
> have to explicitly configure it to search the whole disk - by default
> it only searches some common areas of the disk - and that indexing is
> so damn slow, and that the search syntax is so obscure and un-standard.
>
>> If you have a 3rd party file browser for Win7 with filename
>> substring searching that works, would love to hear about it.
>
> I use two different ones. For searching by file name only (which is 99%
> of my searches) I like Everything Search (http://www.voidtools.com/).
> It creates its own self-maintaining index, which takes only a minute,
> and searches are nearly instantaneous. You can search using common
> regular expressions.
>
> In the rare event that I need to search for file content, I use Agent
> Ransack (http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/). It doesn't create an
> index so it has to search files one by one, and so is slower than
> Everything. But it's very thorough and accurate.
>

http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/

Then you too can

%u%\find . -name "*pat*.ex*" | xargs grep "something"

( the %u% is a trick you have to use to defeat the command prompt's
interpreter's handling of "find" as an internal command or something )

--
Les Cargill

[Frank Stearns]

Nil > writes:

>On 01 Dec 2015, Frank Stearns >
>wrote in rec.audio.pro:

>> In Win7, there is a terrible flaw in file name searching. The wild
>> cards don't fully understand substrings.

>I didn't know about that. My objection to Windows's search is that you
>have to explicitly configure it to search the whole disk - by default
>it only searches some common areas of the disk - and that indexing is
>so damn slow, and that the search syntax is so obscure and un-standard.

Amen.

>> If you have a 3rd party file browser for Win7 with filename
>> substring searching that works, would love to hear about it.

>I use two different ones. For searching by file name only (which is 99%
>of my searches) I like Everything Search (http://www.voidtools.com/).
>It creates its own self-maintaining index, which takes only a minute,
>and searches are nearly instantaneous. You can search using common
>regular expressions.

>In the rare event that I need to search for file content, I use Agent
>Ransack (http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack/). It doesn't create an
>index so it has to search files one by one, and so is slower than
>Everything. But it's very thorough and accurate.

Both look interesting -- thanks.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>
>Well, there are "tracks" and there are "music elements". Some music elements take
>one track (a lead voice, say), or lots of tracks, such as a drum kit, backing singer
>overdubs (multiple passes), or various percussion knick knacks.

For live recordings, often the PA guy will have a massive number of tracks
up there, but you only care about a few of them. I'll see guys with 96
channels at FOB, but it will be split up among three different bands so
that the opening acts can be set up and the channel strips left alone
and no console reset needs to be done between acts. As a recording engineer,
I might only care about 16 of those 96 channels at any given time, but
making sure I get the right 16 and in the right order can be an adventure.

Ironically in the digital world, the PA consoles all have scene recall and so
you don't see that any longer... people just store the state for the opening
acts and switch scenes in and out. On the other hand, it means that the
channel names all change when the acts change.

>When you think in terms of "musical elements" the process is far less daunting --
>and you can more quickly ascertain whether you have a good arrangement lurking under
>all those tracks. If so, then it's YOUR job as the mix engineer to bring out the
>music.

In the digital studio world, there's no reason to throw out a scratch track
or a scratch stem mix. Maybe the producer thought bongos would sound good,
and they laid down a bongo track but then decided to never use it. In the
analogue world where tracks are limited we'd wipe it, in the Pro Tools world
it just sticks around forever. So there might be a vast number of tracks
going into the mixing session that are never used.

>The first time I tackled a 110 track mix, I was overwhelmed. But the experience did
>nudge me square into thinking in terms of music elements. Mix quality went up for a
>given amount of time put in.

And I bet the more time you put in, the more stuff you cut out of the mix too.


>I'm now far less likely to condemn a high-track count session out of hand. I've
>learned to use such things to my advantage.

I'm still apt to condemn it, on the grounds that it's a sign that people are
not making decisions in the tracking session and passing those decisions on
to the mixing stage. I want to see decisions made as quickly as possible so
as little time as possible is wasted. This can be hard to do when the producer
has no vision about what it should sound like, or if his vision conflicts with
the band's vision. But that's another issue.
--scott

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

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>
>>Well, there are "tracks" and there are "music elements". Some music elements take
>>one track (a lead voice, say), or lots of tracks, such as a drum kit, backing singer
>>overdubs (multiple passes), or various percussion knick knacks.

>For live recordings, often the PA guy will have a massive number of tracks
>up there, but you only care about a few of them. I'll see guys with 96
>channels at FOB, but it will be split up among three different bands so
>that the opening acts can be set up and the channel strips left alone
>and no console reset needs to be done between acts. As a recording engineer,
>I might only care about 16 of those 96 channels at any given time, but
>making sure I get the right 16 and in the right order can be an adventure.

Sounds like fun. Fortunately, my live stuff is mostly single-show acoustic or
classical, 8-16 tracks, rarely more, though I do have one this Friday running 22
tracks.


>Ironically in the digital world, the PA consoles all have scene recall and so
>you don't see that any longer... people just store the state for the opening
>acts and switch scenes in and out. On the other hand, it means that the
>channel names all change when the acts change.

Some recalls might also change the soft patches. Then you're really in for a "good
time".

>>When you think in terms of "musical elements" the process is far less daunting --
>>and you can more quickly ascertain whether you have a good arrangement lurking under
>>all those tracks. If so, then it's YOUR job as the mix engineer to bring out the
>>music.

>In the digital studio world, there's no reason to throw out a scratch track
>or a scratch stem mix. Maybe the producer thought bongos would sound good,
>and they laid down a bongo track but then decided to never use it. In the
>analogue world where tracks are limited we'd wipe it, in the Pro Tools world
>it just sticks around forever. So there might be a vast number of tracks
>going into the mixing session that are never used.

>>The first time I tackled a 110 track mix, I was overwhelmed. But the experience did
>>nudge me square into thinking in terms of music elements. Mix quality went up for a
>>given amount of time put in.

>And I bet the more time you put in, the more stuff you cut out of the mix too.

That's what I'd expected, but it didn't happen as much as anticipated -- but then, I
haven't yet done a large number of these 100+ track mixes to get a good sense of
what typically happens, though I would expect underdubbing to be a mixer's best
friend.

Ironically, on a 98 track mix, after I'd spent of lot time making it "all work", the
producer dropped a single track, an electric piano, which cleaned up a lot of
things.

The larger irony is that I'd suggested dropping that piano track the first time I
heard it, but they said "no, see if you can make it work." Well, I did, but in the
end they did change their minds. I didn't change the bill for that mix, however. :)


>>I'm now far less likely to condemn a high-track count session out of hand. I've
>>learned to use such things to my advantage.

>I'm still apt to condemn it, on the grounds that it's a sign that people are
>not making decisions in the tracking session and passing those decisions on
>to the mixing stage. I want to see decisions made as quickly as possible so
>as little time as possible is wasted. This can be hard to do when the producer
>has no vision about what it should sound like, or if his vision conflicts with
>the band's vision. But that's another issue.

In the projects I've done, it's more of the latter and for that reason I'm probably
quicker to condemn "collaboration". J.S. Bach had a clear vision of what he was
doing and didn't tend to invite others to help; and I have the sense that Trevor
Rabin has a razor-sharp view of what he wants as well.

Now, if you want to bring in a hot-shot drummer to do what he does best, that's fine
-- the experienced producer knows what they might get. And I'm okay with 12-15
tracks to capture that drum session.

What could get ugly is the producer saying, "okay, let's do another pass, but lay it
back a bit more .... okay, now one more but lean into it a little more". Now I've
got 45 tracks of drums to deal with. (Still not completely the end of the world;
it's easy to group those three passes and jump around among them.)

But yes, I agree, a little more clarity going in makes for better music. But hey, if
they give me carte blanche to fix a mess (and the budget to match), I don't mind
jumping in with both feet.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--