Anybody here working in video with their audio computers?

[Roger W. Norman]

I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether I should build
another computer, or simply upgrade this one to do both jobs. The video
capture card is a Canopus and I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have
serious video requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which I'll
then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.

I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to be secondary and
typically use needle drop libraries more than trying to combine multitrack
digital mixes with video, so anybody even just playing with it right now
would be welcome to comment.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

[Andrew M.]

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether I should build
> another computer, or simply upgrade this one to do both jobs. The video
> capture card is a Canopus and I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have
> serious video requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which I'll
> then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
>
> I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to be secondary and
> typically use needle drop libraries more than trying to combine multitrack
> digital mixes with video, so anybody even just playing with it right now
> would be welcome to comment.
>
Although I believe that audio and video can work fine on the same
computer, I would get a second one just for video because of the
rendering time.

[Steve King]

"Andrew M." > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether I should build
> > another computer, or simply upgrade this one to do both jobs. The video
> > capture card is a Canopus and I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have
> > serious video requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which
I'll
> > then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
> >
> > I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to be secondary
and
> > typically use needle drop libraries more than trying to combine
multitrack
> > digital mixes with video, so anybody even just playing with it right now
> > would be welcome to comment.
> >
> Although I believe that audio and video can work fine on the same
> computer, I would get a second one just for video because of the
> rendering time.
>

Rendering time may be important or it may not. Your present computer should
capture, edit, render, and output the video you described successfully. If
you are going to buy the video software and you already have the hardware,
it costs nothing to load it onto your present computer and see if you are
happy with the results. You can always remove the software and move it to a
faster machine if you are not satisfied.

Steve King

[Richard Crowley]

> > Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > > I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether
> > > I should build another computer, or simply upgrade this one
> > > to do both jobs. The video capture card is a Canopus and
> > > I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have serious video
> > > requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which
> > > I'll then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
> > >
> > > I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to
> > > be secondary and typically use needle drop libraries more
> > > than trying to combine multitrack digital mixes with video,
> > > so anybody even just playing with it right now would be
> > > welcome to comment.

I don't think that is a fair evaluation! :-) The reason production
music is discussed so regularly there is because of the licensing
complexities, not necessarily because of the technical issues.
I think even video people with a serious interest in audio come
here to ask their audio questions.

> "Andrew M." wrote ...
> > Although I believe that audio and video can work fine on the same
> > computer, I would get a second one just for video because of the
> > rendering time.


"Steve King" wrote ...
> Rendering time may be important or it may not. Your present
> computer should capture, edit, render, and output the video you
> described successfully. If you are going to buy the video
> software and you already have the hardware, it costs nothing to
> load it onto your present computer and see if you are happy with
> the results. You can always remove the software and move it to
> a faster machine if you are not satisfied.

Agree. As long as none of the video hardware/software interferes
with the audio functionality, go for it. You may run out of disk space
before the end of the week, however! :-)

I do both audio (Alesis HD24, etc.) and video (multi-camera, live
switched location productions, etc.) I have separate computers for
doing audio and video post, but that is as much a matter of different
requirements and concurrent operation as any issue with compatibility.

Here are some pix of my larger video production setup...
http://www.rcrowley.com/LocVideo/index.htm

[Roger W. Norman]

I guess the obvious reply would be that I'd rather not screw with a fully
functional audio computer just to end up removing hardware and software,
which is always a burden on a system. Oh well, I've got a couple of boxes
around, neither which would be optimal, but for basic video transfers might
do the trick. Plus, since I don't have an operational video system yet,
even a screw up won't bring down my audio service. I may hate working on
computers, but building them is one heck of a lot easier than trying to fix
a broken one!

Thanks guys. The answer should have obvious anyway.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Steve King" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrew M." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Roger W. Norman wrote:
> >
> > > I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether I should build
> > > another computer, or simply upgrade this one to do both jobs. The
video
> > > capture card is a Canopus and I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have
> > > serious video requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which
> I'll
> > > then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
> > >
> > > I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to be secondary
> and
> > > typically use needle drop libraries more than trying to combine
> multitrack
> > > digital mixes with video, so anybody even just playing with it right
now
> > > would be welcome to comment.
> > >
> > Although I believe that audio and video can work fine on the same
> > computer, I would get a second one just for video because of the
> > rendering time.
> >
>
> Rendering time may be important or it may not. Your present computer
should
> capture, edit, render, and output the video you described successfully.
If
> you are going to buy the video software and you already have the hardware,
> it costs nothing to load it onto your present computer and see if you are
> happy with the results. You can always remove the software and move it to
a
> faster machine if you are not satisfied.
>
> Steve King
>
>

[Steve King]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...
> I guess the obvious reply would be that I'd rather not screw with a fully
> functional audio computer just to end up removing hardware and software,
> which is always a burden on a system.

That can happen; however, your original question was, paraphrased, is this
computer fast enough to capture video in the way you described. That's the
question I answered. It wasn't so obvious that you didn't want to do what
you asked would work.

Steve King

[John Marsden]

I do this every day on a Mac system (ya, I know - Apples and Oranges...),
and the MOST important aspect of this is that your audio and video stuff can
NOT reside on the same harddrive. I have a dedicated hard drive JUST for
video. Oh yeah, and they need to be miminum of 7200 rpm drives. Video also
takes up a huge amount of room so you need big drives for that.

If all you want to do is lock your video to audio so you can do audio post,
I say you can do it on the same machine as long as your audio program
supports movie windows (like ProTools, Digital Performer, etc.). For
anything fancier video-wise, you'll need a program like Premiere, etc.

Hope that helps.


--
John Marsden
Little-Big Sound
audio for video, film & digital media; graphics & software solutions
www.lbsound.com

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...
> I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether I should build
> another computer, or simply upgrade this one to do both jobs. The video
> capture card is a Canopus and I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have
> serious video requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which I'll
> then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
>
> I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to be secondary and
> typically use needle drop libraries more than trying to combine multitrack
> digital mixes with video, so anybody even just playing with it right now
> would be welcome to comment.
>
> --
>
>
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
>
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

"Steve King" > wrote in message
...
> That can happen; however, your original question was, paraphrased, is this
> computer fast enough to capture video in the way you described. That's
the
> question I answered. It wasn't so obvious that you didn't want to do what
> you asked would work.

No, and I wasn't negating your answer, I don't believe. But I guess I
forgot to yet once again run through all the components of my system and
what I use it for, which is ONLY audio at this point. The one game I have
on here is Pinball that comes with NT. I have MS Office, but other than
studio support, there's nothing on this computer but audio.

I have 24 simultaneous tracks of 24/48 recording with Samplitude and that's
this computer's main function. So I am looking to add video, but I
certainly wouldn't want to do it at the expense of an operational DAW, so
you kinda made me realize that it's just plain smarter to build another
computer.

But there's a thank you in that reply, too, you know! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

>
> Steve King
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> I don't think that is a fair evaluation! :-) The reason production
> music is discussed so regularly there is because of the licensing
> complexities, not necessarily because of the technical issues.
> I think even video people with a serious interest in audio come
> here to ask their audio questions.
>
> Agree. As long as none of the video hardware/software interferes
> with the audio functionality, go for it. You may run out of disk space
> before the end of the week, however! :-)
>
> I do both audio (Alesis HD24, etc.) and video (multi-camera, live
> switched location productions, etc.) I have separate computers for
> doing audio and video post, but that is as much a matter of different
> requirements and concurrent operation as any issue with compatibility.
>
> Here are some pix of my larger video production setup...
> http://www.rcrowley.com/LocVideo/index.htm
>

Your setup is not much different than what we run in the main ballroom,
Richard, with 4 3ccd video cameras, DVPro recorder (now switching over to a
DVD recorder), 6 5" b&w monitors for the switching console (some new Panny
unit but when I was working the main room it was an Amiga with Video
Toaster) along with a Sony 1350 13" color and now a Samsung 32" LCD or
plasma, not sure which one. Full telecomm system including FOH, green room
and stage monitor positions, etc.

So I'm only in the most new of newbie states, with a Panny 3ccd MiniDV, a
couple of the JVC industrial S-VHS units and a Sony 13" color monitor. But
like I said on RVP, you gotta start somewhere. I'll have to have tons of
money to spend if I'm going to do anything on a pro level, plus I've got to
go back into my 25 year old video experience and start pulling up memories I
haven't used in years, like TBC and color processing, genlock switchers,
etc.

But for now, it's just the idea of dumping tape into the computer, slide in
a good mix from multitrack digital, and put it out the DVD hole in my
computer! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

>

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message...

> I have MS Office, but other than
> studio support, there's nothing on this computer but audio.

You're lucky that Office hasn't somehow managed to bite you. If you
have any of the MDAC (MS direct access) components installed,
you can expect slowdowns.

DM

[Roger W. Norman]

"John Marsden" > wrote in message
...
> I do this every day on a Mac system (ya, I know - Apples and Oranges...),
> and the MOST important aspect of this is that your audio and video stuff
can
> NOT reside on the same harddrive. I have a dedicated hard drive JUST for
> video. Oh yeah, and they need to be miminum of 7200 rpm drives. Video also
> takes up a huge amount of room so you need big drives for that.
>
> If all you want to do is lock your video to audio so you can do audio
post,
> I say you can do it on the same machine as long as your audio program
> supports movie windows (like ProTools, Digital Performer, etc.). For
> anything fancier video-wise, you'll need a program like Premiere, etc.
>
> Hope that helps.

Since I don't mix FOH to video on all of the shows we do at the Jazz
Festival, I want to be able to transfer the video and take a completed
multitrack mix and fly into the video app and burn a really nice video. Now
whether I can get anything to lock with VHS as the video base, I doubt it.
I guess I could dub SMPTE onto an audio track and then transfer it to the
computer. At least that would give me reference points.

But hey, it's all a big new playground and I don't know which of the toys to
play with first. I do know that I have some sessions which should have made
it obvious to me that I can't screw with the audio machine, so I'll look at
building another machine. Luckily I have a couple of decent cases with good
400 watt power supplies, an extra dual head video card, more hard drives,
etc., already lying around, so Athlon 2800+ here I come.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

>
>
> --
> John Marsden
> Little-Big Sound
> audio for video, film & digital media; graphics & software solutions
> www.lbsound.com
>
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether I should build
> > another computer, or simply upgrade this one to do both jobs. The video
> > capture card is a Canopus and I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have
> > serious video requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which
I'll
> > then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
> >
> > I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to be secondary
and
> > typically use needle drop libraries more than trying to combine
multitrack
> > digital mixes with video, so anybody even just playing with it right now
> > would be welcome to comment.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Roger W. Norman
> > SirMusic Studio
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Romeo Rondeau]

> I don't think that is a fair evaluation! :-) The reason production
> music is discussed so regularly there is because of the licensing
> complexities, not necessarily because of the technical issues.
> I think even video people with a serious interest in audio come
> here to ask their audio questions.

Do any video people have a serious interest in audio? Usually they are
treated like the wicked step-child :-)



"Oh yeah, the audio... well, I'm sure you'll think of something!"

[Romeo Rondeau]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...
> I guess the obvious reply would be that I'd rather not screw with a fully
> functional audio computer just to end up removing hardware and software,
> which is always a burden on a system. Oh well, I've got a couple of boxes
> around, neither which would be optimal, but for basic video transfers
might
> do the trick. Plus, since I don't have an operational video system yet,
> even a screw up won't bring down my audio service. I may hate working on
> computers, but building them is one heck of a lot easier than trying to
fix
> a broken one!
>
> Thanks guys. The answer should have obvious anyway.

How long did it take you to get a DAW functioning to your liking? Why
wouldn't you expect it to at least take that long to do it with video?
Either way, I'll bet your system can handle it just fine, but it would
depend on what you were trying to do with it. My system over here is a 2.8
P4, handles it just fine. Can even surf the web while I capture audio and
video at the same time.

[Roger W. Norman]

Not at all. I turn off all the components, including fast find, etc., and
it never gets in the way. Nothing MS Office related in the task manager.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message...
>
> > I have MS Office, but other than
> > studio support, there's nothing on this computer but audio.
>
> You're lucky that Office hasn't somehow managed to bite you. If you
> have any of the MDAC (MS direct access) components installed,
> you can expect slowdowns.
>
> DM
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote in message
...
>
> How long did it take you to get a DAW functioning to your liking? Why
> wouldn't you expect it to at least take that long to do it with video?
> Either way, I'll bet your system can handle it just fine, but it would
> depend on what you were trying to do with it. My system over here is a 2.8
> P4, handles it just fine. Can even surf the web while I capture audio and
> video at the same time.

Other than finding out that the KT266 chipset again didn't like the MOTU,
even after VIA had fixed the problem in the KT133 I didn't have any
problems. But I had to drop to a KT133A chipset and it limited my CPU
upgrades. Right now my wife's game computer beats mine, but mine does
everything audio I need it to, so I think it makes sense to move up to a
2800+ for the video and leave my audio system just like it is. With
sessions coming in the last thing I want to do is have a system not
functioning correctly.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

>
>

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> You're lucky that Office hasn't somehow managed to bite you. If you
> have any of the MDAC (MS direct access) components installed,
> you can expect slowdowns.

I'm always curious when someone posts a zinger like this as if we all
know what MDAC is, how gets installed, what it does, and how to
un-install it (and what will happen then). Care to inform?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> whether I can get anything to lock with VHS as the video base, I doubt it.
> I guess I could dub SMPTE onto an audio track and then transfer it to the
> computer. At least that would give me reference points.

That's about all you'd get unless you're lucky. The time code
reference really needs to come from the video and get put on to the
audio in real time in order for them to really be in sync. The luck
might come from the fact that both the video and audio are digital and
therefore neither will drift very much over the duration of the song.
As long as there aren't any tight shots on a drumstick, it'll probably
turn out OK.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:
>> > Roger W. Norman wrote:
>> > > I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether
>> > > I should build another computer, or simply upgrade this one
>> > > to do both jobs. The video capture card is a Canopus and
>> > > I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have serious video
>> > > requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which
>> > > I'll then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
>> > >
>> > > I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to
>> > > be secondary and typically use needle drop libraries more
>> > > than trying to combine multitrack digital mixes with video,
>> > > so anybody even just playing with it right now would be
>> > > welcome to comment.

Roger,

Just moving that way here. G5 Mac dual 2 GHz. Final Cut Express. Still
learning waht the buttons do, but I have my second client already (at
reduced beginner dummy rates).

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message news:znr1077235384k@trad...
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > You're lucky that Office hasn't somehow managed to bite you. If you
> > have any of the MDAC (MS direct access) components installed,
> > you can expect slowdowns.
>
> I'm always curious when someone posts a zinger like this as if we all
> know what MDAC is, how gets installed, what it does, and how to
> un-install it (and what will happen then). Care to inform?


Holy bejeebees Mike.... No, I don't care to inform.... I've just seen the
results prevent successful audio from happnin' on a PC with lots of
Office stuff going on. Here's some gibberish on MDAC that you'ld
have to peruse piece at a time and puzzle it together. Please, don't
take the time <g> :

http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?st=b&qu=MDAC&view=en-us

I really can't describe it like I know some folks around here probably
can, but it's a set of components that comes into play when there
are several pieces of software installed that invoke querry language
to one another (SQL)... like filling in certain forms, importing from
one application to another, etc.. No help? Didn't think so.

It also plays around with any software that requires the Microsoft.net
Framework. (A recent 'critical' update that carried the warning not
to download unless you have components that require it). I think this
is mostly server oriented stuff, but educational software - think class
room - requires all of that hooplah... MSQL, Java JIT Compiler, ODBC,
the MS.net Framework http://www.microsoft.com/net/ and more.

Needless to say, the stuff doesn't belong in an audio 'puter, but much
of it can be used or needed by Office-type software. The last thing
one wants to figure out is an "Unhandled Exception Error" caused by
this potential mess of interleaved office stuff. I'd be happy to e-mail
you a copy of the 'error report' from the first time I ran into this snag.
It's only about 30K and 15 pages @ 10pt type.

By the way... did you know that the 'JIT' in JIT Compiler stands for
"just in time"? No joke.

I guess, if you *really* want an answer, it won't be coming from me.
When I run into this stuff on a machine someone wants to dedicate
to audio, I just reformat.

DM

[Richard Crowley]

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote ...
> > I don't think that is a fair evaluation! :-) The reason production
> > music is discussed so regularly there is because of the licensing
> > complexities, not necessarily because of the technical issues.
> > I think even video people with a serious interest in audio come
> > here to ask their audio questions.
>
> Do any video people have a serious interest in audio? Usually they
> are treated like the wicked step-child :-)

Of course there are SOME video people that care about audio.
Just as there are SOME audio people that care about video! :-)

[Steve King]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1077235384k@trad...
> >
> > In article >
writes:
> >
> > > You're lucky that Office hasn't somehow managed to bite you. If you
> > > have any of the MDAC (MS direct access) components installed,
> > > you can expect slowdowns.
> >
> > I'm always curious when someone posts a zinger like this as if we all
> > know what MDAC is, how gets installed, what it does, and how to
> > un-install it (and what will happen then). Care to inform?
>
>
> Holy bejeebees Mike.... No, I don't care to inform.... I've just seen the
> results prevent successful audio from happnin' on a PC with lots of
> Office stuff going on. Here's some gibberish on MDAC that you'ld
> have to peruse piece at a time and puzzle it together. Please, don't
> take the time <g> :
>
> http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?st=b&qu=MDAC&view=en-us
>
> I really can't describe it like I know some folks around here probably
> can, but it's a set of components that comes into play when there
> are several pieces of software installed that invoke querry language
> to one another (SQL)... like filling in certain forms, importing from
> one application to another, etc.. No help? Didn't think so.
>
> It also plays around with any software that requires the Microsoft.net
> Framework. (A recent 'critical' update that carried the warning not
> to download unless you have components that require it). I think this
> is mostly server oriented stuff, but educational software - think class
> room - requires all of that hooplah... MSQL, Java JIT Compiler, ODBC,
> the MS.net Framework http://www.microsoft.com/net/ and more.
>
> Needless to say, the stuff doesn't belong in an audio 'puter, but much
> of it can be used or needed by Office-type software. The last thing
> one wants to figure out is an "Unhandled Exception Error" caused by
> this potential mess of interleaved office stuff. I'd be happy to e-mail
> you a copy of the 'error report' from the first time I ran into this snag.
> It's only about 30K and 15 pages @ 10pt type.
>
> By the way... did you know that the 'JIT' in JIT Compiler stands for
> "just in time"? No joke.
>
> I guess, if you *really* want an answer, it won't be coming from me.
> When I run into this stuff on a machine someone wants to dedicate
> to audio, I just reformat.
>
> DM

Interesting. But, not very. I've been running a DAW connected to the
Internet, loaded with MS Office (starting with whatever version was current
in the early nineties and 'now 2000) on four different Pentium based
machines ranging from 300 MHz CPU to the 2.6 GHz I'm running now,
multi-tasking like crazy and have never had interference with audio or video
operations. I have tweaked the various Windows operating systems starting
with Win 95 through 98 and 98SE to XP-Pro now with the conventional, and
readily available, stuff.

There may be substance to these tales of audio glitches caused by non-audio
software, but I have never seen it in almost a decade of daily use of my DAW
functions, which makes me believe that the problem, if it exists, is not as
pervasive as the myth.

Steve King

[Roger W. Norman]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
...

>
> Roger,
>
> Just moving that way here. G5 Mac dual 2 GHz. Final Cut Express. Still
> learning waht the buttons do, but I have my second client already (at
> reduced beginner dummy rates).

Haven't even gotten that far. Can do some basic filming, but don't have a
way to transfer MiniDV to the computer with this camera, so it's either get
a cheap MiniDV with DV out, or find a small desktop MiniDV playback deck. I
find that to be almost criminal of Panasonic. Why build a digital camera
and not have digital outs? Damned nice image, though.

That's one problem of many, but I'm still iffy about messing with my audio
computer, or building another one. I probably wouldn't care so much about
building another computer but this festival ended up taking a lot from my
bank account to fill equipment slots that I may or may not have needed to
fill right then. I mean, it can't hurt to have another 16/4 100' snake, but
as it worked out I didn't need it right then. And Bev is bound and
determined to buy a baby grand this week.

And then there are accessories that are pretty rich, like a decent video
tripod with a nice fluid head.

But I guess I'm going to have to bite the bullet one way or the other, which
could easily mean a two camera setup with some switcher that I know will
cost a ton of bucks.

Plus, I'm also testing some ServoDrive Triks this weekend (John V did the
Baltimore Sci-Fi show with them last weekend). Looking for something to
work at the DC Council of Art outdoor concert series we are involved with.
But by the time I apply 4 of those babies and two subs along with power amps
I'm looking at about $18k.

Geez, I'm talking myself out of it already! <g> Musta picked the wrong week
to quit sniffing glue!

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
> click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
>

[Roger W. Norman]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
...

>
> Holy bejeebees Mike.... No, I don't care to inform.... I've just seen the
> results prevent successful audio from happnin' on a PC with lots of
> Office stuff going on. Here's some gibberish on MDAC that you'ld
> have to peruse piece at a time and puzzle it together. Please, don't
> take the time <g> :
>
> http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?st=b&qu=MDAC&view=en-us

Ah, now see, I didn't say that it's Office 2000. It's Office 97, and that's
my final install version because it doesn't have .net services and ODBC can
be turned off and about the only thing left is to disable fast find on all
drives. I currently run Outlook all the time for calendaring, Outlook
Express for mail/newsgroups (don't ask), and Samplitude is usually up for
weeks at a time. But Office never sticks it's ugly head in the way.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

[Roger W. Norman]

I guess we'll see. I don't plan to go to any exhorbitant methods right now,
but I have the base material to come up with a plan. Then it's a matter of
whether 'tis cheaper to suffer the slings of outrageous timecode problems or
just buy a DVD recording deck and be done with it. Of course, there's
always the slop of having my digital tapes a 44.1 and my video audio at 48
kHz, but I guess I could always change the Tascam over to 48 on the next
sessions I use it. With DVD being the target media I guess it doesn't
matter.

Too many things to think about! <g> Guess I didn't pick a good week to quit
shooting heroin! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1077235527k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > whether I can get anything to lock with VHS as the video base, I doubt
it.
> > I guess I could dub SMPTE onto an audio track and then transfer it to
the
> > computer. At least that would give me reference points.
>
> That's about all you'd get unless you're lucky. The time code
> reference really needs to come from the video and get put on to the
> audio in real time in order for them to really be in sync. The luck
> might come from the fact that both the video and audio are digital and
> therefore neither will drift very much over the duration of the song.
> As long as there aren't any tight shots on a drumstick, it'll probably
> turn out OK.
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Andrea]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message >...
> I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether I should build
> another computer, or simply upgrade this one to do both jobs. The video
> capture card is a Canopus and I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have
> serious video requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which I'll
> then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
>
> I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to be secondary and
> typically use needle drop libraries more than trying to combine multitrack
> digital mixes with video, so anybody even just playing with it right now
> would be welcome to comment.

Roger, we have a very efficiant and inexpensive set up for video post.
I'm in NoVa, e mail me if you would like to see what it can do, before
you go out and buy more software for your PC. We also have the current
incarnation of NewTeks Video Toaster the VT3,We've had them since many
years ago when we ran everything from hybrid Amigas, the VT3 is
running on another machine, but yes you can get everything to work on
one computer.
Andrea

[Roger W. Norman]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> Of course there are SOME video people that care about audio.
> Just as there are SOME audio people that care about video! :-)

That's true. But, you must admit, if the idea is to start in video, that
audio interest doesn't seem to be as high as would the image quality issue
for someone that's spent 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars on audio. In
other words, some people are visually creative and some are aureally
creative, so one usually goes with their strengths. Not everybody can
compose the soundtrack to John Carpenter's The Thing and have one note
compositions actually work! <g>

In the case of the jazz festival I've now worked for eight years, video has
been on the back burner in all of the co-stages, which I manage and provide
equipment for. For the past few years I've at least upped the ante to
having FOH being pumped into a VHS Hi-Fi recorder in each room because video
mics just didn't cut it, and all of the performers have VHS. Bad enough to
have a static picture of a performance, but worse yet to have it sound just
as bad as the picture. This year we stepped it up in two rooms, running
video and FOH to DVD with the JVCs being safety recordings, plus I'd bet
that about 50% of the performers don't have DVD players yet.

So the idea is to bring the co-stages up to the level of the main room, sans
the multi-camera angles, switching, etc. It's bad enough doing two formats
of video but there's also the multitrack digital recordings going on in each
of the three rooms. So while I want to get a certain level of video quality
(like, it wouldn't hurt to have a little interest in the camera views rather
than a static picture), that is going to fall second to getting good audio
since it's a music performance. I'm no different than anybody else! <g>
What I'd like to do and what I can realistically provide are another $20k
apart.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

>
>

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > > have any of the MDAC (MS direct access) components installed,

> it's a set of components that comes into play when there
> are several pieces of software installed that invoke querry language
> to one another (SQL)... like filling in certain forms, importing from
> one application to another, etc.. No help? Didn't think so.

It sounds like something I don't need. There's something that keeps
showing up in the Startup tab from msconfig that has to do with
checking for updates for Microsoft Works (WkDetect.exe). I turn it off
by unchecking the box and it and it turns itself back on. I could
probably live without Works (I occasionally use WordPad but don't
really need it) if uninstalling it is the only way to get rid of
checking for updates, but I don't now if this ever gets in the way
anyway.

> I'd be happy to e-mail
> you a copy of the 'error report' from the first time I ran into this snag.
> It's only about 30K and 15 pages @ 10pt type.

No thanks. <g>

> By the way... did you know that the 'JIT' in JIT Compiler stands for
> "just in time"? No joke.

Never heard of the JIT compiler, but "JIT parts" is pretty common with
companies that build electronic equipment. They don't keep parts on
the shelf, they order them "just in time" to get the equipment built
in time to meed the contracted delivery date. Sometimes it doesn't
work.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Roger W. Norman]

Actually, I'm afraid to even open my computer to look and see if I have
space for another card! <g> I have a UW2940 with a CD-R and 2 18 GB 10k rpm
SCSI drives, a FiberChannel card with a 33 GB 10k SCSI drive, a 6 gig boot
with a DVD-RAM/R burner on IDE0 and a 30 gig and 80 gig on IDE1, so that's
all the room for internal hard drives. The good thing is the Canopus
ADVC-1394 has firewire, so I'm looking at firewire drives now.

I doubt seriously I will be doing video and audio at the same time. I think
that I'll try this board in my current computer first. I'll probably be
back in a few minutes yelling and screaming, but I'm anxious to at least
give it a try.

Hit me with an email and phone number or I'll give you mine on a return
email. It might take someone to help talk me through this.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Andrea" > wrote in message
om...
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
>...
> > I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether I should build
> > another computer, or simply upgrade this one to do both jobs. The video
> > capture card is a Canopus and I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have
> > serious video requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which
I'll
> > then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
> >
> > I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to be secondary
and
> > typically use needle drop libraries more than trying to combine
multitrack
> > digital mixes with video, so anybody even just playing with it right now
> > would be welcome to comment.
>
> Roger, we have a very efficiant and inexpensive set up for video post.
> I'm in NoVa, e mail me if you would like to see what it can do, before
> you go out and buy more software for your PC. We also have the current
> incarnation of NewTeks Video Toaster the VT3,We've had them since many
> years ago when we ran everything from hybrid Amigas, the VT3 is
> running on another machine, but yes you can get everything to work on
> one computer.
> Andrea
>

[Roger W. Norman]

I didn't address that compatibility issue, and raw power requirements, which
were some of the things I was referring to. Let's see, non mpegged video
eats what, 30 megs a minute? So even though I have 187 GBs of storage on
the audio computer, I can't seem to keep it clean enough to do a new session
without dumping stuff to DVD, so obviously I need more hard drive space. I
have no more internal space, so that would require either external SCSI,
Firewire or USB 2.0. Any of those are available easily enough. You
mentioned your ADVC100 on RVP as being quite adequate to the task. The
Let's Edit card has no analog video out, but that's fine for right now. I
can think of several work arounds.

But raw CPU power is a concern. I've now been looking at a FIC mobo with
SiS 748 chipset that will run a 2800+ Barton Athlon, but now I'm talking 1
GB of ram, and haven't addressed a video card. I have a Matrox 64 MB dual
head sitting here, but then I noticed a lot of newer dual heads with lots of
processing power. I could easily throw a system together, but that's
without a budget.

So, again Richard, could you kinda identify what I should expect to put a
computer together? The Videoguys link was ok, but you have a better idea of
what I want to do and what I currently have. Makes more sense to be able to
directly question you.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> > > Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > > > I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether
> > > > I should build another computer, or simply upgrade this one
> > > > to do both jobs. The video capture card is a Canopus and
> > > > I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have serious video
> > > > requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which
> > > > I'll then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
> > > >
> > > > I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to
> > > > be secondary and typically use needle drop libraries more
> > > > than trying to combine multitrack digital mixes with video,
> > > > so anybody even just playing with it right now would be
> > > > welcome to comment.
>
> I don't think that is a fair evaluation! :-) The reason production
> music is discussed so regularly there is because of the licensing
> complexities, not necessarily because of the technical issues.
> I think even video people with a serious interest in audio come
> here to ask their audio questions.
>
> > "Andrew M." wrote ...
> > > Although I believe that audio and video can work fine on the same
> > > computer, I would get a second one just for video because of the
> > > rendering time.
>
>
> "Steve King" wrote ...
> > Rendering time may be important or it may not. Your present
> > computer should capture, edit, render, and output the video you
> > described successfully. If you are going to buy the video
> > software and you already have the hardware, it costs nothing to
> > load it onto your present computer and see if you are happy with
> > the results. You can always remove the software and move it to
> > a faster machine if you are not satisfied.
>
> Agree. As long as none of the video hardware/software interferes
> with the audio functionality, go for it. You may run out of disk space
> before the end of the week, however! :-)
>
> I do both audio (Alesis HD24, etc.) and video (multi-camera, live
> switched location productions, etc.) I have separate computers for
> doing audio and video post, but that is as much a matter of different
> requirements and concurrent operation as any issue with compatibility.
>
> Here are some pix of my larger video production setup...
> http://www.rcrowley.com/LocVideo/index.htm
>
>

[Ted Spencer]

<< Geez, I'm talking myself out of it already! <g> Musta picked the wrong week
to quit sniffing glue!

Roger W. Norman >><BR><BR>

LOL!


Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown

[Richard Crowley]

"Roger W. Norman" wrote ...
> I didn't address that compatibility issue, and raw power
> requirements, which were some of the things I was referring to.
> Let's see, non mpegged video eats what, 30 megs a minute?

The standard most of us seem to use these days is DV which
takes 13Gb per hour.

> So even though I have 187 GBs of storage on the audio
> computer, I can't seem to keep it clean enough to do a
> new session without dumping stuff to DVD, so obviously
> I need more hard drive space.

HD space/$ is dropping at such a tremendous rate that it is
cheaper to buy hard drives at the neighborhood vendor than
to drive downtown to buy ADAT tapes. I can buy disk drive
drawers that are identical to the ones in my Alesis HD24 at
my neighborhood store for $15 each. This is my solution for
both audio and video production (and now storage) space.

> I have no more internal space, so that would require either
> external SCSI, Firewire or USB 2.0. Any of those are
> available easily enough.

Disk drive drawers are cheaper and more reliable, IME.
And interchangable with ADAT HD24 if you buy the right
ones.

> You mentioned your ADVC100 on RVP as being quite adequate
> to the task. The Let's Edit card has no analog video out, but that's
> fine for right now. I can think of several work arounds.

The ADVC-100 requires a firewire port on the computer.
This means another card unless your computer already has
a Firewire port.

> But raw CPU power is a concern. I've now been looking at a
> FIC mobo with SiS 748 chipset that will run a 2800+ Barton
> Athlon, but now I'm talking 1 GB of ram, and haven't addressed
> a video card. I have a Matrox 64 MB dual head sitting here, but
> then I noticed a lot of newer dual heads with lots of processing
> power. I could easily throw a system together, but that's without
> a budget.
>
> So, again Richard, could you kinda identify what I should expect
> to put a computer together? The Videoguys link was ok, but you
> have a better idea of what I want to do and what I currently have.
> Makes more sense to be able to directly question you.

Disclaimer: Since I work for Intel (we develop the transistors and
manufacturing processes for all the major microprocessor products
and have produced "first silicon" for everthing since the i386(TM)
in the fab next door to my office), I can't help you with any questions
about CPUs from "Brand-A" :-) I've never used them and know only
what I've read on Usenet (which anyone can look up in Google Groups.)

The only thing that really requires raw CPU horsepower is rendering
video effects. (Rendering means re-calculating every frame that you
have changed: added titles, reframed, color corrected, applied
transitions like wipes, dissolves, etc.) And the only disadvantage
of a slow processor is waiting a few more seconds/minutes for the
calculations to complete. Even the slowest CPU (as long as it is
compatible with the software) will produce just *good* a product
as the fastest CPU, but it may take *longer* to render. Unless you
are doing several projects/day, letting them render overnight is a
viable workaround for a slow CPU.

Transfering *DV* from VCR/camcorder to HD requires no CPU
horsepower, capturing analog video MIGHT require CPU cycles
depending on the particular capture card. Some of the newer video
products (like the latest version of Adobe Premiere) require the
extra instructions we included in the latest versions of the Pentium(R)
processors but I have seen reports that there are software work-
arounds for that.

I produced a one-hour instructional video on a music conducting
topic that is selling around the world (transcoded into PAL for
those in the PAL-territories! :-) I did it on my old 300 MHz P2
machine with 256Mb of RAM and four 9Gb disks. Rendering the
entire timeline took overnight (while I was sleeping), but otherwise
indistinguishable from what you could do on a 4-5 GHz machine
next year.

When I put a machine together, I start with the software I want
to use. The software requirements will dictate what CPU,
motherboard, RAM, video I/O, etc. to use. I prefer assembling
computers from generic components from the neighborhood
computer parts store because it makes the parts individually
upgradable without worrying about compatibility with
custom, proprietary parts from "name-brand" computer
vendors.

It seems to me that your biggest issue is whether your current
CPU and existing audio applications are compatible with the
video softare you want to install. It is easy enough to look up
CPU compatibility, but compatibility with other applications
is quite possibly something you can only determine by a live,
in-vivo experiment. (Be sure you can recover your audio data
and software by having a curent backup!!!)

RAM should be easy to expand if you need it. Just takes $$

Disk space is easily solved with plug-in disk drawers, at least
in my world.

[Roger W. Norman]

Welp, that didn't work for a good ****. Out of 5000 computers you'd think
I'd learn. Never mess with an operational computer.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Andrea" > wrote in message
om...
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
>...
> > I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether I should build
> > another computer, or simply upgrade this one to do both jobs. The video
> > capture card is a Canopus and I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have
> > serious video requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which
I'll
> > then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
> >
> > I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to be secondary
and
> > typically use needle drop libraries more than trying to combine
multitrack
> > digital mixes with video, so anybody even just playing with it right now
> > would be welcome to comment.
>
> Roger, we have a very efficiant and inexpensive set up for video post.
> I'm in NoVa, e mail me if you would like to see what it can do, before
> you go out and buy more software for your PC. We also have the current
> incarnation of NewTeks Video Toaster the VT3,We've had them since many
> years ago when we ran everything from hybrid Amigas, the VT3 is
> running on another machine, but yes you can get everything to work on
> one computer.
> Andrea
>

[Roger W. Norman]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> The standard most of us seem to use these days is DV which
> takes 13Gb per hour.

Well, it's like 1227000 MB per hour, so yeah, that's what I got using the 30
megs per minute, properly adjusted for 1024000 bytes equalling 1 MB.

> HD space/$ is dropping at such a tremendous rate that it is
> cheaper to buy hard drives at the neighborhood vendor than
> to drive downtown to buy ADAT tapes. I can buy disk drive
> drawers that are identical to the ones in my Alesis HD24 at
> my neighborhood store for $15 each. This is my solution for
> both audio and video production (and now storage) space.

I know hard drives are cheap, but geez, there are times when it's right to
spend money and times when it's necessary to do what you have to do. Right
now, since I can't get that card to work in my computer, it's a moot point.
I will start assembling a new one after I get back from outside evaluation
of the ServoDrive Unity Trik speakers that SPL was so kind to loan me. I've
got a number of upcoming outside events for the DC Council of Arts that
require a little more throw than what I have, so that's also Mo' Money, Mo'
Money.

> I produced a one-hour instructional video on a music conducting
> topic that is selling around the world (transcoded into PAL for
> those in the PAL-territories! :-) I did it on my old 300 MHz P2
> machine with 256Mb of RAM and four 9Gb disks. Rendering the
> entire timeline took overnight (while I was sleeping), but otherwise
> indistinguishable from what you could do on a 4-5 GHz machine
> next year.

Then from what you're saying, I should (SHOULD) be able to dump this
ADVC1394 into an older Athlon Slot A board (850 MHz) and do exactly what I
want to, barring memory and hard drive limitations, which is certainly
workable for me. A 30 Gig boot and three 80 gig drives and I can capture
what I want, then do network transfers to my audio computer, run the Ulead
DVD Authoring software and burn DVDs.

That works for me. Now I just hope I didn't totally screw up my audio
computer in just trying to install this ADVC1394 board. Seems my computer
didn't like it at all, and that's with a 475 watt PSU.

Thanks again, Richard.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

[James Perrett]

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:
>
> I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether I should build
> another computer, or simply upgrade this one to do both jobs. The video
> capture card is a Canopus and I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I don't have
> serious video requirements, just transfers of concerts off VHS which I'll
> then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
>

I'm going through this too at the moment on an Athlon 1700 machine.
DVCam is no problem - I bought a cheap firewire card and a Plextor DVD
writer. The video software that came with the DVD writer (Pinnacle
Studio) recognised the firewire card and worked straight away. I then
wanted to capture analogue video which caused more problems. I bought a
Pinnacle card which came with really poor software and wasn't recognised
by Pinnacle Studio but I eventually found that there was a new version
on the website which did recognise the card. Before finding the new
version I scoured dvdrhelp.com and doom9.org for alternative software
and it appears that Virtual Dub is the program that everyone is talking
about. I get the impression that Video on a PC is at the same stage as
audio was 10 years ago - you can do it but you need to jump through a
few hoops first.

Cheers.

James.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message ...

> There's something that keeps
> showing up in the Startup tab from msconfig that has to do with
> checking for updates for Microsoft Works (WkDetect.exe). I turn it off
> by unchecking the box and it and it turns itself back on. I could
> probably live without Works

Don't act without confirmation, but you could always do a 'find files'
on this and delete the .exe.... or search the registry for the same
and delete the registry key. This, "HI, I'm back" stuff is why I so
despise on-board anti-virus and virtually anything that requires
auto-updates that can't be shut off without tampering in the
registry.

> (I occasionally use WordPad but don't
> really need it) if uninstalling it is the only way to get rid of
> checking for updates, but I don't now if this ever gets in the way
> anyway.

If you mean Word, it's not that bad outside the ODBC & fast find.
If you seriously meant WordPAD, wordpad and notepad are parts
of the OS and pretty much stand-alone apps that don't get in the way.
After a little experience, I never re-installed Works or Word on any
of my machines. I find that I can do everything but spreadsheets in
WordPad, from business cards to stationery, etc.. If not there, then
in an HTML editor. In any case, for me, I'd rather dedicate another
box to office stuff and internet, than take the chance.

As Steve mentioned earlier, he rests assured that he can accomplish
his audio goals on a bloated machine, and Romeo too has mentioned
severe multitasking while working in audio. I know a lot of people though,
who have taken their PC 'power' for granted and actually had problems
that weren't easily recognizable. I admire that determination, but don't
recommend it if you *must guarantee* your audio work to your clients.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message ...

> Of course, there's
> always the slop of having my digital tapes a 44.1 and my video audio at 48
> kHz, but I guess I could always change the Tascam over to 48 on the next
> sessions I use it. With DVD being the target media I guess it doesn't
> matter.

Only if you plan to burn plain old CDA discs for anyone. May as well stay
at 44.1 in that case. They will still sync in your video editor.

DM

[Steve King]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
...
>
SNIP

> As Steve mentioned earlier, he rests assured that he can accomplish
> his audio goals on a bloated machine, and Romeo too has mentioned
> severe multitasking while working in audio. I know a lot of people
though,
> who have taken their PC 'power' for granted and actually had problems
> that weren't easily recognizable. I admire that determination, but don't
> recommend it if you *must guarantee* your audio work to your clients.
>

That last line is important, and I should have qualified myself better. If
I were offering to clients audio or video services at hourly or daily rates
(as I once did), I would keep my tools as lean and free of risk from the
computer gremlins as possible. I would network them only to the extent that
was necessary to pass files within my own operation and only when the
machines I was networked with were offline as far as the Internet, and I
would keep them logged off the LAN except when specifically necessary for
files transfer, etc. However, in my case, I'm my own client for audio and
video, I'm careful to back-up, and I have my last generation DAW/Video
Editing computer as a back-up ready to go with a few patch cables, so I
feel free to be less conservative in my computer use.

The point I was trying to make was not to recommend a risky approach but to
point out that the computers that have been available to us for the last few
years can function essentially glitch free even when great demands are
placed on them, particularly after a few simple tweaks have been applied to
turn off the worst offending "automatic" software functions. Memory and
storage are so cheap and so fast that we can easily achieve functionality
that just wasn't possible a few years ago.

My DAW has become bloated because I'm just too lazy to keep it isolated and
walk to the other side of the studio to go on-line with either of two fairly
capable PCs that mostly sit idle. Maybe I've just been lucky.

Steve King

[EganMedia]

I haven't read all the responses to this thread yet, so someone else may have
mentioned this: Rendering output makes a dedicated video machine a necessity.
The second time you have to cancel an audio session becuse the machine is busy
rendering effects you'll end up buying a dedicated machine anyway, so avoid the
delay and just do it now.



Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > There's something that keeps
> > showing up in the Startup tab from msconfig that has to do with
> > checking for updates for Microsoft Works (WkDetect.exe).

> Don't act without confirmation, but you could always do a 'find files'
> on this and delete the .exe.... or search the registry for the same
> and delete the registry key.

No problem finding the .exe file or the registry key. They're clearly
identified in the Startup table. I'd just like like to know what it
really does and what will happen if I get rid of it. I don't mind
deleting files (I can always save a copy, or simply rename it) but I
don't like to muck with the registry since that changes on its own. If
I save a copy of the old registry, delete the entry, and don't find
something that immediately doesn't work, I might not be able to put
things back the way they were in a week or two.

> If you mean Word, it's not that bad outside the ODBC & fast find.

No, I mean Wordpad, which I thought was part of Microsoft Works, the
cheap version of Office. I also have Word and Excel installed on that
computer. I have Fast Find turned off (I think) but I don't know what
ODBC is, or even what it stands for.

I don't really use this computer for audio seriously, but I just
wonder what's going on when I see the disk activity light blinking and
I'm not doing anything.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Roger W. Norman]

AND, here's what happened. I installed the card, fixed my system so that I
could get it past post, installed software, ran what seemed to be a few
hundred tests and got one, I repeat, ONE, video transfer out of it. And
although I selected the base DVC extention on the file it came up as a .AVI
and wouldn't load into the software for playback, however it would playback
via Windows Media Player 9, so screw it, I'm going to a local computer show
tomorrow, buying some parts and building a new computer for video.

What frustration. Had my dog been down in the studio I would have kicked
him, several times.

Like I said, don't **** with a working computer that has an application
specific function. It's just not, repeat, NOT worth it.

But thanks to all that have responded, and I appreciate it. To me building
a new computer is far easier than having to find out why an older one
doesn't want to do the job.

Since I'm only transferring video, the new system is going to be an older
850 Mhz Slot A Athlon, with 1 gig of memory and a 30 gig hard drive for
boot, and 120 gig hard drive for transfers. That should suffice.

Thanks again to all that have responded. No telling what's going to work
until you actually try it.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Steve King" > wrote in message
...
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> SNIP
>
> > As Steve mentioned earlier, he rests assured that he can accomplish
> > his audio goals on a bloated machine, and Romeo too has mentioned
> > severe multitasking while working in audio. I know a lot of people
> though,
> > who have taken their PC 'power' for granted and actually had problems
> > that weren't easily recognizable. I admire that determination, but
don't
> > recommend it if you *must guarantee* your audio work to your clients.
> >
>
> That last line is important, and I should have qualified myself better.
If
> I were offering to clients audio or video services at hourly or daily
rates
> (as I once did), I would keep my tools as lean and free of risk from the
> computer gremlins as possible. I would network them only to the extent
that
> was necessary to pass files within my own operation and only when the
> machines I was networked with were offline as far as the Internet, and I
> would keep them logged off the LAN except when specifically necessary for
> files transfer, etc. However, in my case, I'm my own client for audio and
> video, I'm careful to back-up, and I have my last generation DAW/Video
> Editing computer as a back-up ready to go with a few patch cables, so I
> feel free to be less conservative in my computer use.
>
> The point I was trying to make was not to recommend a risky approach but
to
> point out that the computers that have been available to us for the last
few
> years can function essentially glitch free even when great demands are
> placed on them, particularly after a few simple tweaks have been applied
to
> turn off the worst offending "automatic" software functions. Memory and
> storage are so cheap and so fast that we can easily achieve functionality
> that just wasn't possible a few years ago.
>
> My DAW has become bloated because I'm just too lazy to keep it isolated
and
> walk to the other side of the studio to go on-line with either of two
fairly
> capable PCs that mostly sit idle. Maybe I've just been lucky.
>
> Steve King
>
>

[Romeo Rondeau]

> As Steve mentioned earlier, he rests assured that he can accomplish
> his audio goals on a bloated machine, and Romeo too has mentioned
> severe multitasking while working in audio. I know a lot of people
though,
> who have taken their PC 'power' for granted and actually had problems
> that weren't easily recognizable. I admire that determination, but don't
> recommend it if you *must guarantee* your audio work to your clients.

It really all depends on how well you know your machine, software and both
of their limitations. I haven't said too much about the MS Office thing, but
if you look at my workstation...it ain't on there :-) The owner of the
studio (who doesn't really know **** from shinola about all this equipment)
wanted me to put Office on the control room computer, I wouldn't let him. I
run a lot of stuff over here on this PC that many people say not to put on
your machine (of course thinning down some installations to remove bloatware
and TSR's), but Office ain't gonna be one of them. :-)

[Romeo Rondeau]

> I don't really use this computer for audio seriously, but I just
> wonder what's going on when I see the disk activity light blinking and
> I'm not doing anything.

Ah! That would be Microsoft reading the contents of your drive and storing
everything on their huge centrally located super-computer Muahahahaha! :-)

[Romeo Rondeau]

"EganMedia" > wrote in message
...
> I haven't read all the responses to this thread yet, so someone else may
have
> mentioned this: Rendering output makes a dedicated video machine a
necessity.
> The second time you have to cancel an audio session becuse the machine is
busy
> rendering effects you'll end up buying a dedicated machine anyway, so
avoid the
> delay and just do it now.

I don't think he's talking about doing that kind of video work. I think he's
just talking about transferring video and audio, editing and then laying
back.

[RB]

ODBC = Open Database Connectivity. An API (application programming
interface) that allows programmers to write programs to talk to databases
without regard to which actual database is being used. On the database side
of the ODBC API, one would either use one of the standard database drivers
installed with Windows, or a driver supplied by the database manufacturer.
For example, there are a number of ODBC drivers installed with MS Office
also, including one for MS Access and a real basic one for Oracle. Using
ODBC, the back-end database (Access, Oracle, Sysbase, etc.) can be changed
without having to change your application code.

RB

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1077311053k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > > There's something that keeps
> > > showing up in the Startup tab from msconfig that has to do with
> > > checking for updates for Microsoft Works (WkDetect.exe).
>
> > Don't act without confirmation, but you could always do a 'find files'
> > on this and delete the .exe.... or search the registry for the same
> > and delete the registry key.
>
> No problem finding the .exe file or the registry key. They're clearly
> identified in the Startup table. I'd just like like to know what it
> really does and what will happen if I get rid of it. I don't mind
> deleting files (I can always save a copy, or simply rename it) but I
> don't like to muck with the registry since that changes on its own. If
> I save a copy of the old registry, delete the entry, and don't find
> something that immediately doesn't work, I might not be able to put
> things back the way they were in a week or two.
>
> > If you mean Word, it's not that bad outside the ODBC & fast find.
>
> No, I mean Wordpad, which I thought was part of Microsoft Works, the
> cheap version of Office. I also have Word and Excel installed on that
> computer. I have Fast Find turned off (I think) but I don't know what
> ODBC is, or even what it stands for.
>
> I don't really use this computer for audio seriously, but I just
> wonder what's going on when I see the disk activity light blinking and
> I'm not doing anything.
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Ah! That would be Microsoft reading the contents of your drive and storing
> everything on their huge centrally located super-computer Muahahahaha! :-)

Well, let it try. This computer isn't connected to the Internet.
Unless they secretly have Internet over the power lines working,
they're out of luck.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message news:znr1077311053k@trad...
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > > There's something that keeps
> > > showing up in the Startup tab from msconfig that has to do with
> > > checking for updates for Microsoft Works (WkDetect.exe).

> > Don't act without confirmation, but you could always do a 'find files'
> > on this and delete the .exe.... or search the registry for the same
> > and delete the registry key.

> No problem finding the .exe file or the registry key. They're clearly
> identified in the Startup table. I'd just like like to know what it
> really does and what will happen if I get rid of it.

You can querry one of the Microsoft Groups or search the file name
in their database to be sure that it's just for initiating auto-updates.
If in fact that's all it is, you should be able to make a copy of it and
it's file path, then delete.

> > If you mean Word, it's not that bad outside the ODBC & fast find.

> No, I mean Wordpad, which I thought was part of Microsoft Works, the
> cheap version of Office. I also have Word and Excel installed on that
> computer. I have Fast Find turned off (I think) but I don't know what
> ODBC is, or even what it stands for.

You've got an answer for the ODBC thingy, but I can't be certain if
Works may have put some other version of word'PAD' in the system.
I haven't seen a version of MS Works in several years.

TTBOMK, wordpad and notepad are standard, harmless accessories
to the OS. Wordpad is like a stripped-down version of 'Word'... and
Notepad is a very cheesy, simple text only editor.

> I don't really use this computer for audio seriously, but I just
> wonder what's going on when I see the disk activity light blinking and
> I'm not doing anything.

That's always bothered me too.... 'inquiring minds', you know.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

[Kurt Albershardt]

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> Not at all. I turn off all the components, including fast find, etc., and
> it never gets in the way. Nothing MS Office related in the task manager.

I still use Office 97--haven't found a feature in the newer versions I need all that badly and it's lean and mean comapred to the newer stuff.

I can also recommend installing the MS viewers for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint which really speed things up (and reduce your chances of virii.)

[Kurt Albershardt]

Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> Ah, now see, I didn't say that it's Office 2000. It's Office 97, and that's
> my final install version because it doesn't have .net services and ODBC can
> be turned off and about the only thing left is to disable fast find on all
> drives.

You can ignore my last post--we think alike.

The rest of them should seriously consider Office 97, though...

[Geoff Wood]

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether I should build
> another computer, or simply upgrade this one to do both jobs. The
> video capture card is a Canopus and I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I
> don't have serious video requirements, just transfers of concerts off
> VHS which I'll then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
>
> I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to be
> secondary and typically use needle drop libraries more than trying to
> combine multitrack digital mixes with video, so anybody even just
> playing with it right now would be welcome to comment.

Roger,

I'm using Veags 4, which is as adept at video as it is audio, and vice-versa
as Dorothy says.

The same Win optimisations apply to video as to audio, so there should be no
reason to not use the same PC whatever your app.

BTW, DV is such a breeze compared to analogue. Plug the DV-cam into
FireWire, and XP senses and installs everything without even needing a
CD-ROM. Vegas recognises the cam too, and the only parameter to set is PAL
v. NTSC. Vegas rec/rew/play/etc buttons drive the camera - I would imagine
it would be the same with other apps.

You'll need a bigger HDD though ....

geoff

[Roger W. Norman]

"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote in message
...
>
> Roger,
>
> I'm using Veags 4, which is as adept at video as it is audio, and
vice-versa
> as Dorothy says.
>
> The same Win optimisations apply to video as to audio, so there should be
no
> reason to not use the same PC whatever your app.
>
> BTW, DV is such a breeze compared to analogue. Plug the DV-cam into
> FireWire, and XP senses and installs everything without even needing a
> CD-ROM. Vegas recognises the cam too, and the only parameter to set is
PAL
> v. NTSC. Vegas rec/rew/play/etc buttons drive the camera - I would
imagine
> it would be the same with other apps.
>
> You'll need a bigger HDD though ....

Problem A is that it's a Panny AG-EZ1 camcorder, which is MiniDV, but only
analog out, so I've got to buy yet another, perhaps cheaper camera just to
play it back with digital outs. Now the Canopus ADVC1394 has S-Video and
composite video ins, along with firewire (real firewire connector) and a DV
in, so if/when I decide to buy yet another camera or get some type of MiniDV
desktop player, I'll have the digital transfer option. But as for right now
I'm stuck with taping to a couple of SVHS JVC industrial recorders. Nice
heavy duty units, but it ain't digital.

I did install the board on Friday and got one tape transferred, but at best
it was an iffy process. Seems that the best I could get it to work was to
do a shutdown before each transfer, which is absolutely not an acceptable
situation. So I've got this older Athlon Slot A 850 MHz system upstairs
doing nothing, and since I won't be doing any major editing, I'm going to
slap the board in there, go to a computer show today and pick up a couple of
decent sized drives, and I'll have to depend on network transfers to get the
video into the audio machine, which also has the DVD burner. Although, I
may just pick up one of the $99 DVD -R/+R 8X burners I've seen on
Tigerdirect.com. If I really wanted to spend the time, I've got an old
Athlon 1.2 GHz system that just stopped booting, which I could figure out,
and if I had the desire for more power I'd probably just get a mobo combo of
a Mach Speed/2800+ for $145 from Tiger, but then that means different
memory, probably going with an even bigger power supply (I'm using a 475
watt dual fan PSU on my audio machine), and possibly even moving into the
more expensive SATA drives, so option A seems a less expensive move.

Two reasons for doing it this way. One is that I don't believe I can
convince The Videoguys that I know what I'm doing by installing the board in
the audio computer, and Two, I have the extra computer and it's not all that
expensive to get it back to operational. In fact, it is operational, it's
just that my wife upgraded her game system to a faster system than I'm even
working with, but for video direct transfers the old system should work
fine. It will also allow me to put my new Plexstor 52X CD burner into play,
which has been over to JohnnyV's house for a few months and now sits lonely
under my console desk. Hey, I spent good money on it so it might as well
get used!<g>

But thanks, Geoff. I kinda wouldn't mind having everything on the one
machine, but with TWO SCSI boards (a 2940 and a Fibrechannel), a dual head
video, the MOTU PCI 324, and a 10/100 network card, there's only one slot
and no more hard drive space and I don't believe the ADVC1394 liked living
there.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

>
> geoff
>
>

[Blues_Jam]

I have to ring in here with two big thumbs up for Vegas 4 with DVD architect
for anyone interested in doing any kind of video editing but especially if
they are considering going to a higher level of video production than is
being discussed here. I will go so far as to say that it is the single app
that keeps me from moving to the Mac platform. It is extremely powerful,
full featured, very stable, and even EASY to use once you get a handle on a
couple of basic concepts such as PAN/CROP and TRACK MOTION.

Sonic Foundry (the creators of Vegas Video and Sound Forge) was recently
purchased by Sony so there may have been name changes to the software...
sorry, I just don't know. There is also a "Vegas Lite" though that is not
what it is called... If anyone is interested and has trouble finding info I
will find links to post.

Blues

"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote in message
...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > I'm moving into digital video and was wondering whether I should build
> > another computer, or simply upgrade this one to do both jobs. The
> > video capture card is a Canopus and I'm using an Athlon 1600+. I
> > don't have serious video requirements, just transfers of concerts off
> > VHS which I'll then use with the audio from multitrack to create DVDs.
> >
> > I've been to other newsgroups, but most consider audio to be
> > secondary and typically use needle drop libraries more than trying to
> > combine multitrack digital mixes with video, so anybody even just
> > playing with it right now would be welcome to comment.
>
> Roger,
>
> I'm using Veags 4, which is as adept at video as it is audio, and
vice-versa
> as Dorothy says.
>
> The same Win optimisations apply to video as to audio, so there should be
no
> reason to not use the same PC whatever your app.
>
> BTW, DV is such a breeze compared to analogue. Plug the DV-cam into
> FireWire, and XP senses and installs everything without even needing a
> CD-ROM. Vegas recognises the cam too, and the only parameter to set is
PAL
> v. NTSC. Vegas rec/rew/play/etc buttons drive the camera - I would
imagine
> it would be the same with other apps.
>
> You'll need a bigger HDD though ....
>
> geoff
>
>

[Steve King]

"Blues_Jam" > wrote in message
news:9cf_b.42194$4o.59587@attbi_s52...
> I have to ring in here with two big thumbs up for Vegas 4 with DVD
architect
> for anyone interested in doing any kind of video editing but especially if
> they are considering going to a higher level of video production than is
> being discussed here. I will go so far as to say that it is the single
app
> that keeps me from moving to the Mac platform. It is extremely powerful,
> full featured, very stable, and even EASY to use once you get a handle on
a
> couple of basic concepts such as PAN/CROP and TRACK MOTION.
>
> Sonic Foundry (the creators of Vegas Video and Sound Forge) was recently
> purchased by Sony so there may have been name changes to the software...
> sorry, I just don't know. There is also a "Vegas Lite" though that is not
> what it is called... If anyone is interested and has trouble finding info
I
> will find links to post.
>

And several former users of Cool Edit Pro (still my personal favorite) have
switched their audio work entirely to Vegas Video, which has strong audio
capabilities. I haven't played with the audio side enought to have an
opinion, but on first glance, it doesn't seem to lend itself to music.

Steve King

[Geoff Wood]

Steve King wrote:
> "Blues_Jam" > wrote in message

> And several former users of Cool Edit Pro (still my personal
> favorite) have switched their audio work entirely to Vegas Video,
> which has strong audio capabilities. I haven't played with the
> audio side enought to have an opinion, but on first glance, it
> doesn't seem to lend itself to music.


Vegas no longer has the appendage 'Video' as it gave the mindset hat it was
the premiere audio app that it is. It lends itself to audio better than most
audio-only apps out there.

geoff

[Roger W. Norman]

Well, I'm not about to drop Samplitude as my audio application. It's just
too strong. And the ability to work with video is there in 7.x but I
haven't upgraded yet, and may not for a while unless I'm likely to lose my
upgradability due to missing a whole rev.

I just purchase ULead's Media Studio 6 which offers me an upgrade path to MS
7, but the Canopus product has some strengths itself and it came with the
card, so to speak. Or the card came with the software - whatever.

I have Vegas Video somewhere, but it's a limited version and certainly an
older one that I got along with SoundForge 6, I believe. I also have Adobe
Audition, which may have some ins with Adobe Premier, but I don't know.

So I've got enough to play with for the time being, assuming I can get the
board/software to work in the new computer.

But I do have a choice of either using a Matrox 550 dual head, or a GeForce
2MX with a secondary S-Video output. Either way the S-Video output from one
or the other will be going to my Sony 13" video monitor, so that's about the
only place I have any initial testing to do. Got to get the machine up
today and see which is best.

But I appreciate the info. I just don't believe I'd step backwards on the
audio aspect as I do a lot more audio recording than video. As long as I
can take full multitrack mixdowns into the video application and do edits
that match the video, I should be fine. Assuming I can get it to work at
all! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Steve King" > wrote in message
...
> "Blues_Jam" > wrote in message
> news:9cf_b.42194$4o.59587@attbi_s52...
> > I have to ring in here with two big thumbs up for Vegas 4 with DVD
> architect
> > for anyone interested in doing any kind of video editing but especially
if
> > they are considering going to a higher level of video production than is
> > being discussed here. I will go so far as to say that it is the single
> app
> > that keeps me from moving to the Mac platform. It is extremely
powerful,
> > full featured, very stable, and even EASY to use once you get a handle
on
> a
> > couple of basic concepts such as PAN/CROP and TRACK MOTION.
> >
> > Sonic Foundry (the creators of Vegas Video and Sound Forge) was recently
> > purchased by Sony so there may have been name changes to the software...
> > sorry, I just don't know. There is also a "Vegas Lite" though that is
not
> > what it is called... If anyone is interested and has trouble finding
info
> I
> > will find links to post.
> >
>
> And several former users of Cool Edit Pro (still my personal favorite)
have
> switched their audio work entirely to Vegas Video, which has strong audio
> capabilities. I haven't played with the audio side enought to have an
> opinion, but on first glance, it doesn't seem to lend itself to music.
>
> Steve King
>
>

[Steve King]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I'm not about to drop Samplitude as my audio application. It's just
> too strong.

I know how you feel. If something works for you, keep it. Keep it as a
fall-back even if you upgrade.

I had a recent computer incident, an intermittant hard-drive failure along
with some corrupted XP files that required a re-install. Lost no data, just
time. The point is that I went to my backup machine to keep a large audio
project rolling. It is a PII-300 Mhz with 256 Mb memory. I was reminded
how capable that machine still is for audio. The job went on seamlessly and
the work-flow was just as fast. If I had been doing video with lots of
rendering, it would have been a different story, of course.

Steve King

[Geoff Wood]

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> Well, I'm not about to drop Samplitude as my audio application.

Nothing wrong with Samplitude !


geoff

[Roger W. Norman]

Well, so far so good. I brought the old baby (850 Slot A Athlon) up on XP
Pro with a new ATA100 boot (40 gigs) and it installed the Matrox Dual Head
along with the ethernet and the ADVC 1394 with no problems. My wife had
left a couple of drives in it from her switchover, so ultimately it will
have about 230 gigs, since I've got the 40 plus a 120 SATA and a now a 40
ATA66 and a 30 ATA66. I can't believe my wife would leave 70 gigs of HD
space lying around, but I'll take it. Surprisingly I got the 120 SATA for
about $93, although this old board doesn't support SATA so I had to spring
for a raid controller. It also sat there with 512 MB ram, so for now the
system should be strong enough and have enough hd real estate to do some
video transfers.

As opposed to last Friday, I'm now looking forward to working with it. If I
have the same problems, then The Videoguys have no legs to stand on and I'll
move to something else, perhaps. One way or the other I'm going to be doing
video transfers by the end of the week! <g>

Thanks for all of you guys lending a hand.

Oh, and Geoff, no there's nothing wrong with Samplitude at all. I've been
happy since I bought it and it's handled everything I've asked it to do.
Can't be much better than that.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote in message
...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > Well, I'm not about to drop Samplitude as my audio application.
>
> Nothing wrong with Samplitude !
>
>
> geoff
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

And here on the 26th, after a few more trials and trevails, the system is
doing full transfers of about 40 gigs of show, which means about 1 gig per
minute with audio, and doing so just fine. But it's the rendering, which
Joe Egan mentioned, and that's taking way too much time, so I guess I'll
have to be rebuilding this computer to the 2800+ Athlon in order to gain
some type of advantage over just purchasing a DVD-R recorder and having done
with it at the show.

The nice thing is that the Canopus product has a reasonable feature set for
titling and desolves and wipes, etc., so I can do the basics that I want,
just not more than one per day, if this mp2 transformation is going to take
hours to do. But I bought a couple of programs, so I'll see.

Thanks again, my friends.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...
> Well, so far so good. I brought the old baby (850 Slot A Athlon) up on XP
> Pro with a new ATA100 boot (40 gigs) and it installed the Matrox Dual Head
> along with the ethernet and the ADVC 1394 with no problems. My wife had
> left a couple of drives in it from her switchover, so ultimately it will
> have about 230 gigs, since I've got the 40 plus a 120 SATA and a now a 40
> ATA66 and a 30 ATA66. I can't believe my wife would leave 70 gigs of HD
> space lying around, but I'll take it. Surprisingly I got the 120 SATA for
> about $93, although this old board doesn't support SATA so I had to spring
> for a raid controller. It also sat there with 512 MB ram, so for now the
> system should be strong enough and have enough hd real estate to do some
> video transfers.
>
> As opposed to last Friday, I'm now looking forward to working with it. If
I
> have the same problems, then The Videoguys have no legs to stand on and
I'll
> move to something else, perhaps. One way or the other I'm going to be
doing
> video transfers by the end of the week! <g>
>
> Thanks for all of you guys lending a hand.
>
> Oh, and Geoff, no there's nothing wrong with Samplitude at all. I've been
> happy since I bought it and it's handled everything I've asked it to do.
> Can't be much better than that.
>
> --
>
>
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
>
> "Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote in message
> ...
> > Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > > Well, I'm not about to drop Samplitude as my audio application.
> >
> > Nothing wrong with Samplitude !
> >
> >
> > geoff
> >
> >
>
>