chowdhury wrote;

Hello, I was just wondering if one is using Cubase or a DAW for mixing
can it do a good enough job. Cause when I use Cubase for mixing I have
lets say 12 tracks, and for each track I use the EQ, then I have 3 or 4
reverbs running in sends, and I have 8 or 9 different insert effects,
then I have then I have 6 or 7 software synths/samplers running.

Can a simple PC Pentium-4, 2.4 GHz with 1 gig memory do all this mixing
and still produce PRO quality sound? It real life it can do all this but
will the sound quality be effected even though the computer can handle
all this (it produces clean sound with no clicks etc). Can it produce
pro quality sound assuming you use the best effects and synths and have
very good audio tracks.

Steve Morse mixed at least an album of his with Cubase.

Hello, I was just wondering if one is using Cubase or a DAW for mixing
can it do a good enough job. Cause when I use Cubase for mixing I have
lets say 12 tracks, and for each track I use the EQ, then I have 3 or 4
reverbs running in sends, and I have 8 or 9 different insert effects,
then I have then I have 6 or 7 software synths/samplers running.

Can a simple PC Pentium-4, 2.4 GHz with 1 gig memory do all this mixing
and still produce PRO quality sound? It real life it can do all this but
will the sound quality be effected even though the computer can handle
all this (it produces clean sound with no clicks etc). Can it produce
pro quality sound assuming you use the best effects and synths and have
very good audio tracks.

chowdhury wrote:

Hello, I was just wondering if one is using Cubase or a DAW for mixing
can it do a good enough job. Cause when I use Cubase for mixing I have
lets say 12 tracks, and for each track I use the EQ, then I have 3 or 4
reverbs running in sends, and I have 8 or 9 different insert effects,
then I have then I have 6 or 7 software synths/samplers running.

Can a simple PC Pentium-4, 2.4 GHz with 1 gig memory do all this mixing
and still produce PRO quality sound? It real life it can do all this but
will the sound quality be effected even though the computer can handle
all this (it produces clean sound with no clicks etc). Can it produce
pro quality sound assuming you use the best effects and synths and have
very good audio tracks.


Jimmy Buffett records or at least recorded albums on a PC with Cakewalk
and I believe even James Taylor is doing it now. I guess if those old
school guys do it, it works well enough. Cakewalk sucked then too so
today's stuff will work great in comparison.

Hello, I am about to buy a sound card and trying to make a decision
between the 2. Is there any difference in sound quality from them.

I am aware that the 2496 has only 2 inputs, but its has midi and digital
.. That's good enough for me, I don't need 4 inputs and outputs. I also
have a pre-amp so i don't really need an outside box like in delta (if
that helps). I am mainly interested in the sound quality.

Does anyone know if the delta is better in sound quality. Qucik response
will be greatly appreciated cause I am about to buy one as soon as i can
(today). Thanks.



Danny Taddei wrote:



chowdhury wrote:

Hello, I was just wondering if one is using Cubase or a DAW for mixing
can it do a good enough job. Cause when I use Cubase for mixing I have
lets say 12 tracks, and for each track I use the EQ, then I have 3 or
4 reverbs running in sends, and I have 8 or 9 different insert
effects, then I have then I have 6 or 7 software synths/samplers running.

Can a simple PC Pentium-4, 2.4 GHz with 1 gig memory do all this
mixing and still produce PRO quality sound? It real life it can do all
this but will the sound quality be effected even though the computer
can handle all this (it produces clean sound with no clicks etc). Can
it produce pro quality sound assuming you use the best effects and
synths and have very good audio tracks.


Jimmy Buffett records or at least recorded albums on a PC with Cakewalk
and I believe even James Taylor is doing it now. I guess if those old
school guys do it, it works well enough. Cakewalk sucked then too so
today's stuff will work great in comparison.

"chowdhury" wrote in message
...

Hello, I am about to buy a sound card and trying to make a decision
between the 2. Is there any difference in sound quality from them.

I am aware that the 2496 has only 2 inputs, but its has midi and digital
. That's good enough for me, I don't need 4 inputs and outputs. I also
have a pre-amp so i don't really need an outside box like in delta (if
that helps). I am mainly interested in the sound quality.

Does anyone know if the delta is better in sound quality. Qucik response
will be greatly appreciated cause I am about to buy one as soon as i can
(today). Thanks.


probably should have started a new subject with this one...rather than
replying to that one...

But I think you'll be pleased with the 2496. It uses the same AD & DAs as
the delta 44 card.

Can a simple PC Pentium-4, 2.4 GHz with 1 gig memory do all this mixing
and still produce PRO quality sound? It real life it can do all this but
will the sound quality be effected even though the computer can handle
all this (it produces clean sound with no clicks etc). Can it produce
pro quality sound assuming you use the best effects and synths and have
very good audio tracks.
Yes - I think it can but I'm somewhat biased. I've done it on my last
two CDs although I use nTrack not Cubase.

Mike Cressey
Custom made, quiet DAWs - http://www.MusicIsLove.com.

chowdhury wrote:
Hello, I was just wondering if one is using Cubase or a DAW for mixing
can it do a good enough job. Cause when I use Cubase for mixing I have
lets say 12 tracks, and for each track I use the EQ, then I have 3 or
4 reverbs running in sends, and I have 8 or 9 different insert
effects, then I have then I have 6 or 7 software synths/samplers
running.

Can a simple PC Pentium-4, 2.4 GHz with 1 gig memory do all this
mixing and still produce PRO quality sound? It real life it can do
all this but will the sound quality be effected even though the
computer can handle all this (it produces clean sound with no clicks
etc). Can it produce pro quality sound assuming you use the best
effects and synths and have very good audio tracks.

Yes.

geoff

In article writes:

Hello, I was just wondering if one is using Cubase or a DAW for mixing
can it do a good enough job.

It's not the software, it's the person doing the mixing. If it doesn't
get in the way of YOU doing a good job, then it's OK. If you depend on
the software doing the work for you, it won't.

Can a simple PC Pentium-4, 2.4 GHz with 1 gig memory do all this mixing
and still produce PRO quality sound?

In the hands of a PRO, yes. But if you have to ask, the answer is no,
or at least not yet.


--
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In the hands of a PRO, yes. But if you have to ask, the answer is no,
or at least not yet.

Lol, good answer

Thats a good answer but at least i know that i am working with something
that can do pro stuff and will not be always thinking in the back of my
mind is the sound bad because of the equipment. Thanks everyone for
participating.

David Grant wrote:

In the hands of a PRO, yes. But if you have to ask, the answer is no,
or at least not yet.


Lol, good answer

"David Grant" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...

In the hands of a PRO, yes. But if you have to ask, the answer is no,
or at least not yet.

Lol, good answer

Or simply an assumptive answer... what if the guy's been slaving away in
analog obscurity for some time now, and he's actually quite skilled at what
he does, but he's never messed with a DAW?
--


Neil Henderson
Saqqara Records
http://www.saqqararecords.com

OSPAM wrote:
"David Grant" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...

In the hands of a PRO, yes. But if you have to ask, the answer is
no, or at least not yet.

Lol, good answer

Or simply an assumptive answer... what if the guy's been slaving away
in analog obscurity for some time now, and he's actually quite
skilled at what he does, but he's never messed with a DAW?

.... and that he is so far removed from the real world that he is unaware of
the capabilities of DAW for the last 5 years or more ?

geoff

In article m OSPAM writes:

... what if the guy's been slaving away in
analog obscurity for some time now, and he's actually quite skilled at what
he does, but he's never messed with a DAW?

Then it will take him a little less time to become productive on a
DAW, but he'll make some mistakes and go slow for a while.

However, a skilled engineer would already know something about the
state of DAW technology even though he'd never used it, and would
realize that it wouldn't stand in the way of doing a good job once he
learned where all the controls were.

The mistake that a lot of beginners to mixing make when their first
exposure to the art is with a DAW is that they try to use every
feature to make their mix better when the basic mix really needs to be
better. This is what the skilled mixer would already know.



--
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On the question of is the computer good enough...yes...industry
leading studios used to run pro tools on much slower machines when the
technology wasnt as great as it is now...
ram is good...the faster the drives the better...
you should be fine running any software based recording rig you want
to...

the main thing to look at is your hardware and outboard gear..good
mics and cables are essential to getting a good sound...garbage in =
garbage out...most of the interfaces now offer quality A/D
converters...using the a/d converter on your motherboard's built in
soundcard probably wont cut it...invest a few hundred bucks in a
quality interface...a digi001 ..or aardvark has the q10 with 8
discrete preamps built in...heck you can mic up your whole drum kit
with out a board with that...
Make a point to use quality plugins you dont want to introduce digital
artifacts you dont want there...then a decent monitoring system...buy
a couple small monitors designed to reference quality audio...

As far as the sound of it all there are guidlines you can reference
but they are just that..guides...the sound all depends on you and what
sounds good to you...play with it till you like it...

To the computer its all just 1's and 0's...as long as its quick enough
to keep up your fine...and i know you are plenty fast with a p4
2.4ghz...
good luck
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ...
OSPAM wrote:
"David Grant" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...

In the hands of a PRO, yes. But if you have to ask, the answer is
no, or at least not yet.

Lol, good answer

Or simply an assumptive answer... what if the guy's been slaving away
in analog obscurity for some time now, and he's actually quite
skilled at what he does, but he's never messed with a DAW?

... and that he is so far removed from the real world that he is unaware of
the capabilities of DAW for the last 5 years or more ?

geoff

wrote in message
. com
"David Grant" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...

In the hands of a PRO, yes. But if you have to ask, the answer is
no, or at least not yet.

Lol, good answer

Or simply an assumptive answer... what if the guy's been slaving away
in analog obscurity for some time now, and he's actually quite
skilled at what he does, but he's never messed with a DAW?

He's in for a heck of ride, particularly if he's not that computer literate,
particularly if he tries to put together his own DAW.

I think the key is to try to walk before running.

How about this for a game plan?

(1) Start by learning basic PC operations, recording and non-linear editing
by transcribing some stereo tracks into a PC using its internal sound card
and editing with freebie DAW software like Audacity. Burn some CDs and
listen to them critically. Learn the basics of recording and editing, and
why the PC audio card interface is inadequate.

(2) Upgrade the PC with a good modestly-priced multichannel inteface and do
some introductory work with it based on simply replacing the PC's internal
audio interface with a good one. By now he has passed well beyond using the
DAW for just a multitrack recorder. Polish basic multirack recording and
mixing skills.

(3) Start getting his feet wet with serious complex multichannel recording,
mixing and editing, still with Audacity. Try some real-world projects. Be
critical with self and learn to separate problems due to inexperience from
problems due to use of simple, basic tools.

(4) Upgrade to a piece of mainstream DAW software based on real-world
experiences to date. Get much serious work done.

(5) Upgrade the audio interface, as required based on experiences with the
more complex projects.