OT:Bob [Archive] - SAWStudio / SAC User Group

trock

07-10-2005, 06:42 PM

Hmmmmmm

Well i was thinking about this while the Mulder thread was/is going on. Again i have nothing really technical to add, but i was thinking about this from a human perspective. and this is in no way pointed at mulder or anyone else who shakes us up

so

Please hear me out, i am not very good with expressing myself but i feel the need to say this.

I feel sorry for Bob.

Yep, i think thats it. You see it is human nature to tear down anything different or special or not understood. I think SAW users suffer thru this an inordinate amount. some of it is brought on by oursleves aas we always seem to be needing to go on the defensive when we say what we use (until most try it and love it)

but i am thinking about Bob here, and not in any type of way other than 1 person to another.

Bob develops this wonderful program to help himself and his art, he puts it out there for others and along with the accolades is the incredible amount of negativity he has heard over the years.

to put something you create out there takes courage no matter what. to keep it out there thru thick and thin, thru good times and bad, thru the compliments and the withering negativity is just something i would not want to do.

this is not saying SAW is the best ( i love it ) nor that Bob is the walking on water type :)

but 1 for one am glad you do this bob, you have made my art easier and better, you have made what was once an arduos and pain filled task a much more enjoyable one, you have given me back some sense that there are good people out there and you have yet to let me down ;)

i am really not sure what i am saying or where this is going. this is not cult like worship it is simply me acknowledging you probably go thru some painful ****, hurt feelings, etc along with your victories, high's and lows that would challenge anyone. Again we tend to tear down the unique individuals until we destroy them

so i am saying this and starting this thread to tell you simply, that i appreciate your product, what you do, how you do it, and i wish you great success and happiness in whatever you do with SAW down the road. i will be here as a satisfied customer, not becuase the 0's cancel, or PT is too expensive or Nuendo is better etc, i will be here because i like the product first, the man second, the support and family a close third and Robert tied into all those :)

i think thats it, most of you will get what i am trying to say. and in the end thats what counts

John Hernandez

07-10-2005, 07:03 PM

i think thats it, most of you will get what i am trying to say. and in the end thats what counts

That's the style, Trock! :)

Blessings,

Mitch

07-10-2005, 08:08 PM

...from one "blind follower" to another :o .... AMEN BRO ! Good post Trock ! :D

Mulder

07-10-2005, 08:59 PM

Guys, I'm an asshole here and a big one, granted.

But if you actually read through the rants you can see me stating that SAW has the potential to blow a lot of DAW's out of it's way, based upon my experience with working (and reviewing as a local journalist) the whole bunch for over twenty years. (Started behind the good old Atari.)

That's what I conclude based upon some simple facts (one man coding, assembly, small memory footprint, that stuff). But this whole cuddly 'artistic' approach around here..

Well, I'll keep my mouth shut for once.

SoundSuite

07-10-2005, 11:50 PM

Here here, trock...
Thanks a million, Bob!

Bob L

07-11-2005, 01:09 AM

Thanks Trock and others, I appreciate that sensitivity to the simple human issues that I have delt with from the stuff that does come at me from total strangers... it isn't fun sometimes and does get downright rude in many cases.

I do my best to maintain a professional attitude and not lash back in the face of direct personal insults thrown my way... that is a challenge sometimes to say the least.

I'm not perfect and I do slip from time to time... but I make no secret about my passion for my work... if being excited and passionate about SAWStudio and how it can enhance your audio experience is a crime, then I'm guilty as charged... oh well... forgive me my sins that I want to spread the word. :)

This kind of lashing that comes my way is by now a fairly old and boring story, but no matter how old it is, I still never quite get used to it and still really don't understand why people feel so compelled to prove SAWStudio and my methods wrong, instead of just moving on to other products that they do like and add positive energy in their direction rather than so much negative energy in my direction.

I guess this kind of thing just goes along with the territory of offering something different than the current standard of the day.

All in all though... I must say that the experience is an overall positive one... and I'm grateful for those that do support the effort and use and like my products.

I'm making a living doing what I love and creating my own tools that I get to use in my audio work as well... not everyone gets to make that claim. :D

Bob L

conleec

07-11-2005, 02:50 AM

You know what, Bob? You're truly a class act, man.

I tried to work with Nuendo for a while, but it wasn't working for what I needed it to do. Lot's of pops, clicks, and troubles integrating with my video cards. Then I find SAW and the demo works right away with my video needs. Oh, and it's only about 4MB in size. Oh, and it's incredibly fast and responsive, and sonicly pure. Oh, and I haven't seen it crash once yet.

Hey, it's about $1,000 bucks more than the other package. But you know what, you treat me with a little bit of trust and respect and you let me pay for it $100 at a time. No questions asked. Then I say that I could sure use 23.976 playback for some of the work I'm doing and you spend a bit of time on the weekends or whatever and you just throw that in for the heck of it.

Then some guy who doesn't even own the software pipes in that he thinks SAW could use some loop record thing that I don't even understand. You toss it around a bit, then you spend a few days of your weekend or whatever, and you decide to throw that in for the heck of it too.

Yeah, I can see why some folks would want to go with the other package.

Not...

Keep doing what you're doing. We're behind you, and we "get" it, and above all else we "appreciate" and "respect" your for it.

Thanks,
Chris

Bert

07-11-2005, 03:11 AM

Guess I was one of the guys who aksed for loop recording and I still haven't bought Saw :o

The reason I for one come back here and read some posts every once in a while is this:

Someone said in the other thread sawstudio was "cool". I think so, too. I can toally understand why people would use it and find it better for their needs.

While I found Mulder's test interesting (although not knowing if they prove anything), I don't think he treated the readers here whith the kind of respecz they deserve.

On the other hand, from the point of view of a person who is used to the central European way of describing products and services , some of the claims made in the videos for example sound a bit strange. I would just like you all to keep that in mind. Some of the features that are being described as "there is nothing like it" can of course be found in other software as well. Some features like midi are even better implemented in other packages.

Maybe this explains why someone can very well be tempted to use Saw while on the other hand being a bit reluctant.

Anyway, keep up the good work ;)

dhise

07-11-2005, 04:54 AM

You guys want to see some negative energy, hang out at the Cubase forum for awhile! Steinberg is a faceless company though and the insults get hurled at a corporation, while Bob is a one man show who must absorb the negativity on his own. I think our "cuddly and artistic approach" here is good therapy and certainly must contribute towards our excellent and numerous updates and customer service. I know I would be thrilled to provide the best product I could for such an enthusiastic user base as ourselves. As a sole proprietor myself, I know it can feel like a lonely world sometimes, but there's always a client or clients that make it all worthwhile. So keep up the good work Bob, we love ya for it!

-Doug
www.bigbblues.com

JKStone

07-11-2005, 05:47 AM

"from the point of view of a person who is used to the central European way of describing products and services , some of the claims made in the videos for example sound a bit strange."

Yes, Bob should show cultural sensitivity to each people group on the planet by offering a "skin" to each part of this forum that will help you identify with this product in a way that makes you feel comfortable.

You have made me realize that in our excitement about this product we have been making elitist statements. :rolleyes:

Mulder

07-11-2005, 06:32 AM

While I found Mulder's test interesting (although not knowing if they prove anything), I don't think he treated the readers here whith the kind of respecz they deserve.

I bounce back negative energy with an xtra (mega)jolt of my own and enjoy it in the progress, sometimes so much that I have to be stopped. I don't drink, smoke or do drugs, this sometimes becomes my outlet I guess and I can type as fast as I think or speak, that's classical pianotraning for you. But ofcourse you're right (as is Bob to kick my behind from this forum). Patronize me and I will dominate you. Not the act of a grownup man in your eyes I guess, but were I come from it's -I'm serious here- an everyday occurance. "Een dag niet gekankerd is een dag niet geleeft" we say in the Hague while wearing big smiles, which means as much as "a day without a good wordfight is a day without any living".

Anyway, enough of this.

On the other hand, from the point of view of a person who is used to the central European way of describing products and services , some of the claims made in the videos for example sound a bit strange. I would just like you all to keep that in mind. Some of the features that are being described as "there is nothing like it" can of course be found in other software as well. Some features like midi are even better implemented in other packages.

This is very good put into words and is why I had to react just once more. Bob, if you want/like sales in Europe change this. It's a cultural difference I guess, but overhere it puts you on the line with secondhand carsalespersons or bad nocturnal televisionads. After getting to know you people under these circumstances I'm heavily suprised that you actually live by this way of social interaction (and vice versa I guess=), didn't know that. And it's not 'a bit strange', overhere you get put aside as a funny little guy hyping his own work, banging his own drum, how do you call that. Like I said, I really think that's a pity because I believe this program has a life of its own inside itself. As one of my teachers put it: "You can recognize something good by its potential to grow".
SAW has, but not if you people protect it this much in its current state and create a family around it with values, rules, etcetera. Then its not a product anymore but a cult.

And everybody is free in doing so, normally I (try to) respect that, but it's for sale for a hefty price in comparison with the other DAWs so it can be seen as an common product of software'engineering, competing with the rest of the DAWworld.

In your own closed social environment overhere SAW is perfect for you folks, as is its service and stuff, in the industrial world I dear to state that it has to mature quite a bit. That is, if you want it to. That's what I fail to understand, you people welcome any growth in sales but only as it occurs from the 'art' point of view inside this closed environment. Bob, I really think you need someone to manage this product into the big league, but you clearly stated you don't want that. All this doesn't add up in my experience but ofcourse that doesn't have to. It's your code, your decision. I say let it go, let it roam free and give it a change to become a defacto standard according to already laid out industrial guidelines, workinghabits and mores.

I won't apologize for my ranting cos I think it would be quite unbelievable for you people.

Bob, I hope you can see my intention to deliver a positive critisism here, and ofcourse I cannot blame you in any way for not beeing interested in such.

Pedro Itriago

07-11-2005, 07:38 AM

I'll assume that our intentions are being reflected in the post's we made so I'm going to post back in an effort to try to solve some issues.

From what I gather (and have experienced in the real world many times), there seem to be a problem of cultural differences. So we all have to take baby steps in trying to be more patient when watching things from other places (and you may hate what I'm about tho say, but this is one of the many faces of respect).

This is one of the main problems of globalization and until we get used to it and if we don't pay attention, is gonna get worse instead of better.

Mulder, Bob has no intention of sounding to you like a car salesman. It was what he came up with to promote his soft. It's common practice to use adjectives to emphasize a feature, it doesn't have to be unique to be emphasized. This is just how it is. There are also people in the US that use these techniques as you commented, but that's when you have to step in and be as informed as you can to make your own decision.

I can understands Bob's attitude in his video. When I was making hardware audio units I also got very passionate about my stuff and how unique it was and how I wanted people to see how good it was. I never lied to people when I asked them "look how great it sounds" or "see how fast you can achieve this sound" and so on.

Now the world is global. Bob may or may not know how the people in Europe think or work. He just made some pieces of advertisement to show people his product which he has stated many times that is his vision, that it is best if people adjusts to his vision than he to adjust to X number of customer visions. And many times he bends this whenever he finds it's ok to get it in his "baby".

Believe me, if you watch an American ad or product or way of conducting bussiness, or way to interact, you have to first compare it and have some time to adjust to it because, even inside one culture, there are many different type of people and how they interact, which can or cannot be the norm. There's also the "Snake Oil" salesman cliche about americans that has to be delved with.

I work with a German company. Their main competition nowadays is an American company an a Dutch company. The american company is known to bent facts from time to time & depending the customer to generate sales when lowering preices doesn't cut it. But the Dutch company is known for also (from time to time & depending the customer) not only "twisting" facts to make a sale but also selling options that are not yet available as available and once the systems are installed it can take literally years (if the customer puts up with it) until that option gets installed. Will I compare every dutchman I find by the behavior of the guys responsible for both the marketing & the sales of that compny? I think not (I have dutch friends). Germans are very reserved people that at first glance seem very unapprochable. But all they are is putting a little barrier to the world, most of the times is not who they are.

Same goes for middle eastern people where a simple normal thing could be interpreted as an offence. Or far east people. We now have to deal with so many different people that we had no other way to interact before but if they had immigrated to our countries and assimilated our cultures first. I know you may already know all this but I thought I took the chance to make it noted.

The other thing is that he doesn't want to lose control of Saw, and that's why he keeps his company the way it is, an small one trying to make as much asles as it can. I buy fruitcakes from a bakery in Kansas. They do what they do. I may tell them to turn into the next Pillsbury so I can buy their cakes from my supermarket's aisle, but I bet they don't want to change.

Globalization is bringing all sort of things. Good (like getting to know a product like Saw which is nothing more than a town bakery, it would have gone unnoticed merely 20 years ago) & bad (like that pest of terrorism filled with obsessed uneducated fearful people with their opportunistic leaders), so lets not try and turn a good one into a bad one.

Carlos Mills

07-11-2005, 08:12 AM

Very good post Trock,

I want also to express my support to Bob and to the extraordinary software he creates. For me, you are a true artist Bob!

On the other hand, I would like to call my colleague's attention to the waste of time being spent in answering such a negative person. This has nothing to do with cultural differences. This has everything to do with lack of respect, egocentrism and other psychological deviations. This types just spread their negativity around and feed from whoever gives them attention. They don't deserve our time.

Bert

07-11-2005, 08:30 AM

Globalization is bringing all sort of things. Good (like getting to know a product like Saw which is nothing more than a town bakery, it would have gone unnoticed merely 20 years ago) & bad (like that pest of terrorism filled with obsessed uneducated fearful people with their opportunistic leaders), so lets not try and turn a good one into a bad one.

Good post Pedro :)

Carl G.

07-11-2005, 08:30 AM

Cary B. Cornett

07-11-2005, 10:10 AM

ce..I have found both Pedro's and Mulder's comments in this thread interesting and worthwhile. In response to Mulder,

"Een dag niet gekankerd is een dag niet geleeft" we say in the Hague while wearing big smiles, which means as much as "a day without a good wordfight is a day without any living".

Here we have an example of a cultural difference that can easily be misunderstood. I sometimes find a good "wordfight" about ideas stimulating and informative, as well as, occasionally, a way to get myself to better understand, formulate, and express my own ideas. OTOH, beyond a certain point I also find it to be very wearing, so there are often times when I simply leave it alone as not "worth the effort" on that day.

As one of my teachers put it: "You can recognize something good by its potential to grow".
SAW has, but not if you people protect it this much in its current state and create a family around it with values, rules, etcetera. Then its not a product anymore but a cult.

I think that you are confusing the product with its user/support base. I think that, to a large degree, what we are really protecting is our own self-interest. A common thread that binds us together here is that we have found a tool that we really like, and we do not want to lose it. All of us have had the experience of seeing truly fine products disappearing from the market with nothing equally good coming in to replace them.

Perhaps we also react to what we see as the vulnerability of SAW to, er, catastrophe. If a software developer at Steinberg or Cakewalk gets tired of the hassle and quits, the programming team re-groups and closes the gap. Both companies have probably lost some programmers over time, but the products go on. If Bob quits or is otherwise taken out of action (as could too easily have happened when his house burned down fairly recently), that is the END of SAW, and we ultimately lose a tool that some of us feel would be EXTREMELY difficult and painful to replace (and I'm not just talking about money cost here). So, far from being some misty-eyed cult of worship, we are looking to a very hard-nosed practical matter of enlightened self-interest.

As far as your idea that we "protect the product", a number of us have goaded Bob, sometimes fairly nagging him into making changes or including features that he did not originally want. In fact, we get what we want in the way of changes/iimprovements quite a bit more often than I have ever seen with any other product, even something as easily updated and improved (compared to, say, an automobile) as software.

In your own closed social environment overhere SAW is perfect for you folks, as is its service and stuff, in the industrial world I dear to state that it has to mature quite a bit. That is, if you want it to. That's what I fail to understand, you people welcome any growth in sales but only as it occurs from the 'art' point of view inside this closed environment.

Sales is not the only important form of "growth" for a product. Some of us here have watched the product that we originally purchased because of its then impressive capabilities grow in complexity and power beyond anything we could have imagined when we first "bought in" to the SAW concept. The original SAW that I bought now seems hopelessly primitive and puny compared to the SawStudioLite package that I now own and use.

Bob, I really think you need someone to manage this product into the big league, but you clearly stated you don't want that. All this doesn't add up in my experience but ofcourse that doesn't have to.

Some of us here have lived to see multiple examples of products that started out with small beginnings, started to become successful, and then were taken over by "trained managers" who subsequently ruined the companies they took over by abandoning the founders' original vision as "dated and impractical". If RML Labs were "managed" in the way you suggest, we would be unhappily waiting for its almost inevitable destruction or change into something that would no longer work for us.

It's your code, your decision. I say let it go, let it roam free
Actually Bob HAS let it "roam free" rather than tethering and enslaving it to some management-driven vision of conventional uniformity.

and give it a change to become a defacto standard according to already laid out industrial guidelines, workinghabits and mores.

Historically, products have often become standards, not by imitating their competition, but rather by charting new territory and challenging old established notions. "Professional Management" is too often the enemy, rather than the engine, of the innovation that has ever been America's lifeblood (we are not, of course the only people to innovate, but our society has made innovation an important part of our culture, and this is not always true elsewhere in the world).

Mulder, I am sure that you mean well, but IMO there are some important aspects of what is happening here that you fail to fully appreciate. Perhaps some of it may involve a cultural difference...

jeromee

07-11-2005, 10:58 AM

My .02

Hi all
I have been reading the threads and come to the conclusion that for me, saw is going to do everything I would hope and expect a software product to do for me.
1. Give me the convience of automation
2. Allow me to travel with my work
3. A user friendly interface
4.The tools to impress my clients
And most importantly
5. THE SOUND OF A REAL CONSOLE !!!!
I have used cubase/Samplitude8/protools and others. I can't explain why saw sounds better to me, but it does. I really don't care about tests and comparisons and such. I create music with my ears not with my eyes. I don't need to see tests/comparisons of audio apps. I have been searching for this software for years now. Nothing ever sounded as good as mixing on my console, until now! Just as, for my ears, samplitude sounded better than cubase and (don't laugh) N track studio sounded better than samplitude. I am just here to make & record music not debate whether my app is worthy or can hold up to the big guys. I have 6 bands scheduled to record in late july and all of august. They will be impressed!!! I will deliver the best product I have ever done and that I am sure of. That is why I am purchasing saw today.:D
J

Bob L

07-11-2005, 11:15 AM

One thing that seems to always stick out in these discussions is the fact that I make certain claims about my products that are not provable...

Why does something like "There's nothing else quite like it" have to be proven... and how? And why is that a bad thing to say... that's how I feel about the product... many people feel that way about the sound of one synth over another... can they prove anything there... is their statement bogus?

Take these statements at face value... I am simply saying... working with this product is quite a different and wonderful experience... and there really is nothing else out there that delivers the same experience...

If that offends certain people, I would suggest the issues lie with them, not with my video presentations.

I'm tired of hearing... "Other products have that same feature"... of course they do... I have never claimed to be the only person who can do a splice edit non-destructively... but any claims in my videos are simply attempting to state "this can be a wonderful experience for you also"... give it a try.

Why is it that a dissenter can make the claim that the Sony Oxford Eq sounds better than the Massenberg as proven fact, but I can't make a similar claim about my Eq without being wrong and accused of lying and hyping the market.

Why do I have to present proof... but they don't... and how do you really prove that one Eq or Mic Pre or guitar or synth sounds better than the next... at any price?

It's simply a statement to say... I am claiming this Eq is of a certain accepted standard of excellence... it is not a toy... try it... and decide for yourself if my claim has any merit.

And the testing to prove that other DAWS can zero out a reversed phase signal... what is this really about? Let's go one step further and say... good, now the dissenters themselves have proven that since the results of this test is the same for both Pro Tools and SAWStudio, that SAWStudio sounds exactly the same and is as good as Pro Tools... great news... thanks for the endorsement... An average Pro Tools costs about $50,000 and SAWStudio Full costs $2500... which is the smarter purchase.... and SAWStudioBasic delivers the exact same provable performance and it costs $300...

Hello!!!!! Can we say xsx***xcs###$$fcafcff? :)

Bob L

Bert

07-11-2005, 11:33 AM

If that offends certain people, I would suggest the issues lie with them, not with my video presentations.

I didn't say it offends me. I tried to explain why this might be of no interest to Americans at all and why it might sound unfamiliar to Germans for that matter.

If you can't take at least this bit of questioning I am sorry I wrote that. Don't mean to disturb the peace here.

Take care

Mulder

07-11-2005, 11:37 AM

From what I gather (and have experienced in the real world many times), there seem to be a problem of cultural differences. So we all have to take baby steps in trying to be more patient when watching things from other places (and you may hate what I'm about tho say, but this is one of the many faces of respect).

I did some time thinking about all this, picturing it in my head after reading your post. This program is beeing sold to the world thanks to modern communication. It lands on a global market which has already major players. It is (tries to be) equal in most perspective, but has some big differences. At first, it's a one-man codingproject and that creator has the talent to write in assemblycode. This is a big thing because it means that the development takes place in one brain overseeing it all which can give a serious impact on productiontime & energy. Second (and proving the first point IMO), the program is written (& runs) very streamlined where the competition needs a lot of handles and whistles. These two points are major differences with the competition.

But then I see this local hardwarestore in a local town with a bunch of local people forming a tight community, all very excited about 'their' store (were they meet eachother to exchange expierences) and the products they buy inthere, having a good personal contact with the local inventor behind the counter who directs most of his attention and sales to that local market, advertising in the local newspaper.
This is indeed how I experienced this community when I was reading this forum to gather information. Great program, but locked up in its own community. If you buy this program while beeing an outsider of that community you have to 'integrate' in the community to gain acces to the techtalk, the helpdesk and so on. Some people like that, others don't. I personally prefer a more industrial approach, I buy the software, not the lifestyle, and reading across the net about SAW I notice other people feel this way.

This is what I think keeps SAW small. It doesn't say anything about its quality, but a lot about how many 'outsiders' (companies) will take it in consideration as their next DAW.

I keep seeing SAW as a tool, not as a piece of art since art has already a clear definition and coding brilliant software just doesn't fit in that category. I really don't mean to be rude here but as a conservatorygraduate I have been taught about this, coding is engineering.
It's a tool, and again I make the (blunt) comparison with a screwdriver, if it slips from my fingers at a bad moment and I turn sour because it rips the wallpaper I get more frustrated when the local community demands that I leave my 'negative attitude' at home while complaining about it's ergonomics. That's simply not professional.

I think this art/tool thing is were it comes together. People here get angry at me because I disrespect the local artist, and if Bob was indeed a Michelangelo they were totally right. (they're also right about me disrespecting for fun ofcourse, but like I said, enough about that). But an engineer is just an engineer, and if he's brilliant he can call himself a 'nerd' at most..
I'm both in some respect, but do my very best to keep them apart, not in the last place because I have had many 'clients' whos musical abillities were so small that a low profile was the best thing to maintain but then again, some of those artists had a great sexappeal and for some musicgenres that's the most important. (vocalign, autotune, hire 'stunt'vocals, endure their blatant stupidity, sooth their frustration, tolerate the A&Rcokesnorters, ow what a terrible world the musicbizz can be. I assume you are familiar with the 'Mixerman diaries')

So here we have a good DAW beeing sold to the world, but from the counter of a local hardwarestore. Were the 'locals' have their own ideas about how to look at their favorite inventor and demanding that mores from the newcomers as part of their integrationprocess.

I don't think Digidesign -nor Steinberg or Magix- could have come were they are now by following this businessmodel.

I really wouldn't be suprised if the Great Gates -allow me one lill' pun- offers Bob an Island in the pacific to get his hands on the code of SAW, just like Apple did with Gerhard Lengeling, the coder of Emagic (who started his career at Steinberg). When a product is written that good it can serve and evolve an industry. Keeping it for yourself is -sorry for beeing blunt- a bit protective at least.

The other thing is that he doesn't want to lose control of Saw, and that's why he keeps his company the way it is, an small one trying to make as much asles as it can. I buy fruitcakes from a bakery in Kansas. They do what they do. I may tell them to turn into the next Pillsbury so I can buy their cakes from my supermarket's aisle, but I bet they don't want to change.

But this cake is being offered to a global market, and is beeing compared with the competition all the time, so the symptoms of a Bob who wants to grow bigger are there. And we're not talking about feelgoodfood here, but about inventions that can help evolve the recordingindustry. a Great oppertunity for the inventor as I see it if he understands the business, and otherwise there are plenty of people who do so that can be hired.

Globalization is bringing all sort of things. Good (like getting to know a product like Saw which is nothing more than a town bakery, it would have gone unnoticed merely 20 years ago) & bad (like that pest of terrorism filled with obsessed uneducated fearful people with their opportunistic leaders), so lets not try and turn a good one into a bad one.

Ofcourse. =) Dunno why I love the role of the local heretic that much, I guess tar & feathers just look great on me. ;)

But I think Bob has a change here do to the musicindustry what Makita did to the screwdriverworld, and I personally get excited by such a vision. But rotating a screw isn't an emotional -nor philosophical- experience and people who -loudly- claim so look rather odd in a company of carpenters looking for tools to fill their shed.

Jay Q

07-11-2005, 11:40 AM

Nick,

The following post would be more appropriate in the "Excerpt from recording.org..." thread, but it appears that thread is about to be removed, so I'm posting here.

I think you've made some interesting points, and I don't share many of my SAW cohorts' views about censoring you, despite your sometimes brusque presentation of your views. I think it's critical in any discussion to have nay-sayers. And as flame wars go, that other thread seems more like a matchstick joust than a flame war; I've seen much worse.

I am not a Bob Lentini devotee... I'm not even really a SAW devotee, though I'm very glad to have it as the heart of my DAW, and I think it's a fantastic piece of software. I greatly admire Bob's work, but I don't think he or SAW is perfect. As Cary pointed out, some of us have been critical of SS (and even Bob's approach) over the years, but I've also been extremely supportive of his efforts because, for me, SAW is simply the best choice there is, and I've come to see that Bob's support is unparalleled. I want to see it succeed mainly for selfish reasons, I guess. :)

However, like yourself, I don't buy into hype, and, in fact, I'm a very critical, skeptical person -- essentially a scientist at heart. Before entering the DAW world, I had never heard of SAW and had no significant experience with any audio apps other than SoundForge. I did my own set of tests -- different from yours (tried Logic, Cakewalk, Vegas, and some others I can't recall). I did actual stereo mixes (i.e., panned mono files) using the apps' built-in EQ and the only reverb I had at the time which was Sonic Foundry's. Whether it was the quality of the summing or the EQ or the handling of plugins, I don't know, but I know what I heard, and SAW simply sounded best to me. I had no reason whatsoever to prefer it -- in fact, I had reason *not* to since it was more expensive than my other options.

That said, I question your conclusions because you posit your test as a scientific one when it was not scientific. I assume you've studied calculus and other high-level math, and you've had to go through the arduous process of writing proofs. You know how hard it is to prove something is *always* true. Your test merely proves that with the files and settings you chose, you were unable to hear differences... or perhaps even you were able to verify that the phased file zeroed out the non-phased file. But others claimed to do similar tests and found their two files did not zero out. It only takes one exception to show that something isn't always true.

If you were to produce a set of strenuous tests on, say, five stylistically different stereo mixes and you posted your original files as well as all other details of settings, etc., and the results supported your claims, then I'd be all ears ;) , because this would make me wonder why I heard a difference in my initial DAW-comparison tests years ago. And while still not a truly scientific conclusion, it'd be a heck of a lot closer. But as it stands, I can no sooner take your claim as a blanket truth than I could take the claim of someone who did a similar single test to prove that SAW always produced different/superior results.

I assume you accept the fact that different people with different ears and brains will have different preferences about sound. Given that, why do you suppose that there are people who are fans of SAW's or Nuendo's or whatever app's sound? Do you think it's possible that under certain circumstances there are differences in the sound of different apps? Surely, every audio app maker isn't using the same algorithms, so why do you think it's not possible for there to be sonic differences?

Please note that none of my questions to you are rhetorical attacks. I'm very interested to hear your stance and your rationale.

BTW, have you already read this paper from Rane (http://www.rane.com/pdf/note153.pdf)? What do you think of it?

Jay

Mark Stebbeds

07-11-2005, 12:41 PM

Very good post Trock,

On the other hand, I would like to call my colleague's attention to the waste of time being spent in answering such a negative person. This has nothing to do with cultural differences. This has everything to do with lack of respect, egocentrism and other psychological deviations.

Actually, it started out to be about DAW engine "sound quality", and delvolved into a argument about religion, in more ways than one.

Mark

trock

07-11-2005, 12:47 PM

Hey Mark

this totally wasn't pointed at mulder at all, whom i thought had a legit test he was sharing on another forum.

i was posting this cause i was thinking that it takes guts to put anything you create out there for public consumption. no matter what it is.

thats it.

Mark Stebbeds

07-11-2005, 01:26 PM

Mark Stebbeds

07-11-2005, 01:48 PM

Let's go one step further and say... good, now the dissenters themselves have proven that since the results of this test is the same for both Pro Tools and SAWStudio, that SAWStudio sounds exactly the same and is as good as Pro Tools... great news... thanks for the endorsement... An average Pro Tools costs about $50,000 and SAWStudio Full costs $2500... Bob L

OK, here we go again. You are continually misinforming your forum on the cost of PT. You're incorrect, and your deciples :eek: are running around the internet quoting you.

I don't know what you consider "average", but my PT HD2 system cost $11.5K OUT THE DOOR, and included an extra DSP card, 8 channels of analog 192khz and 8 digital I/O, support for 64 channels of I/O, and 192 simultaneous tracks. The bundle included over $4,000 worth of native and popular third party plug-ins, looping software, virtual synths, yada, yada, yada.

Approx. $8.5K will get you an HD1 system, with the same 192 I/O audio interface, but with one card, will only support 32 channels of I/O and give you 92 tracks. In retrospect, I could have probably gone with the HD1 and not run out of DSP. I just finished mixing 75 song with an average of 72 tracks, and did not even get close to taxing the DSP.

So if you going to compare PT to SS, you should get your facts right.

Yes, the guys that are mixing Star Wars and War Of The Worlds have more expensive systems because they have racks and racks of I/O and more DSP.

[/QUOTE]which is the smarter purchase.... [/QUOTE]

Depends on what you're going to do with it, and who's paying you to do it.

mark

mikebuzz

07-11-2005, 02:23 PM

Mulder

07-11-2005, 02:38 PM

Hi Guys, Hi Bob,

Not much time now, answer a few tomorrow.

Bob, if you wanna corner the market code a freezeble (is that an english word?) TDM-SAW wrapper inside SAW so all HDplugins can run inside SAW.
PT is ofcourse more then just a 50k program, it allows people to run (a whole bunch of) killerplugins. Nobody has suceeded in doing this, Digi doesn't give any info so you have to backwardengineer it. But if you can accomplish this SAW will be put on every map in every studio fer sure.

Oh, and you will be the guy that hacked PTHD. Imagine what kinda attention that will attrack. :D

Bob L

07-11-2005, 02:50 PM

Mark,

Thanks for setting me straight on some of the current Pro Tools pricing. I am sorry for not being aware of the possible entry level into these current systems.

But I have truly discussed Pro Tools investments with many studio Pro Tools owners and have gotten their figures of $50, 000 to $60,000 for their particular system investments. I have also sat side by side doing SAWStudio demos with a Pro Tools system that was quoted at around $90,000 for all their included bells and whistles... forgive me if any of that is incorrect information.

In general, most people using serious Pro Tools rigs have told me they have spent much more than the figures you have quoted.

All good information to be aware of... but it still doesn't negate my original statement that SAWStudio still seems like a great buy in comparison.

If industry compatibility is not a concern, then I still feel SAWStudio represents a great alternative to anything Digi or the rest of the industry offers. :)

That's just my opinion... please allow me that, even if you don't agree.

Bob L

Mark Stebbeds

07-11-2005, 02:59 PM

Marj I just checked pricing on the PT HD2 system heres the cost from Sweetwater ( who claims to have the best price on most things )

1. HD2 core system $10,995.00
2. 192khz analog interface 16ch 14x192 = $3,999.00
3. 192 digital i/o = 16ch = $2,495

According to my math thats $17,489.00 Buzz

First of all, Bro, you need EITHER the 192khz analog interface (which has digital connections to expand) OR the digital interface, NOT BOTH. You obviously are unfamiliar with Digidesign products.

Secondly, your prices are LIST PRICE as advestised on the Digi website, where you will see the "bundles" availiable if you took the time. I just checked, and the bundle that still comes with HD2 is valued at $4,030 retail. Your Sweetwater price is a joke, and NO ONE in their right mind would pay this much.

I paid $8k flat for the HD2 Accell pack with the software bundle. Just checked the receipt. I paid $3080 for the 192 interface. Looking at receipt now.

I was wrong. I only paid $11,080 TOTAL. Sorry.

I will admit I got a special price on the HD2 pack, but that's what negotiating is all about, and being a repeat customer. I estimate a stranger off of the street could walk out for about $600-$700 more than I paid. That's still a few bucks over $11.5K.

It should be noted that the build quality and extensive features of the hardware, including headroom, TDIF, lightpipe, AES/EBU, clocking options, etc.is well beyond your typical RME or other music store variety items.

[/QUOTE]
So you really need to check out pricing as well Bro
Later
Buzz[/QUOTE]

No, I don't need to check anything out, you do. You need to read my post more thoroughly. It's not an estimate from some website. It's what I paid, Bro. It's sitting right here.

Mark

Mark Stebbeds

07-11-2005, 03:12 PM

Mark,

In general, most people using serious Pro Tools rigs have told me they have spent much more than the figures you have quoted.

All good information to be aware of... but it still doesn't negate my original statement that SAWStudio still seems like a great buy in comparison.

If industry compatibility is not a concern, then I still feel SAWStudio represents a great alternative to anything Digi or the rest of the industry offers. :)

That's just my opinion... please allow me that, even if you don't agree.

Bob L

I am in total agreement with you that SS is an excellent product and alternative. As a consumer who recently bought PT, I just wanted you to be clear on the pricing.

If you know guys that claim to have spent more, it would be for extra hardware I/O ($3.2K per 8 channels of 192), hardware sync options, and the $50,000 worth of plug-ins that they claim to have purchased, but are all cracked and ubiquitous, just like in the PC world, but we don't talk about it.

The "cracked" plug-ins problems in previous PT versions seem to have been somewhat solved with HD and iLock.

Just like in SS, PT comes with a whole array of native plug ins "built in" that aren't listed as "plug-ins" cuz they're not third party.

Mark

Bob L

07-11-2005, 05:18 PM

Thanks for the info Mark... I'll be more careful in the future.

Bob L

trock

07-11-2005, 05:39 PM

Mark

do you have any examples of your work with your PT's rig?? i want to hear the difference between my 300$ SAW basic/RME to your 11.5K PT set up.

Since you have the accel HD version that is pretty much the top of the line isn't it? I want to hear how much better your stuff is gonna sound then mine is. PT is the defacto standard and top of the line recording investment so by my calcualations it should be about 500% better than my recordings

my total investment in my crappy home studio is about 3K

instrument/vocal ->peluso 251 mic ->API 512 pre ->RNC comp ->RME FF 800 ->SAW Basic

that is it, totally crappy room, 8 windows, carpet, hardwood wall, drywall on other 3, hell it is an old family room, no treatment whatsoever

crap i haven't even finished a song yet, but i will post my acoustic track i just cut raw, why don't you dig up your best acoustic guitar sound and post it. i need to hear your magic man.

I am a home hobbyst who gets maybe 4 hours a week to do this and has no idea about the technical side of things, but i will throw my stuff out for you to hear. hell i have trouble cabling my stuff right. just learned my RNC is unbalanced and that was screwing my input into SAW from the API. you should be able to smoke me bad.

mulder had some nice points i thought and was entertaining (till some of it went over the edge on both sides), but i tried to be polite and nice, your just kind of rude. so lets hear what you have, if it is in the mutt lange or terry mannig league or Brian Eno then i will be impressed and i will sing your praises but if you can't even cut something better than little old me that you have alot of explaining to do.

Mark Stebbeds

07-11-2005, 05:42 PM

My .02
<snip>
And most importantly
5. THE SOUND OF A REAL CONSOLE !!!!
I have used cubase/Samplitude8/protools and others.

<snip> samplitude sounded better than cubase and (don't laugh) N track studio sounded better than samplitude.

<snip>That is why I am purchasing saw today.:D
J

Give me a freakin' break.

trock

07-11-2005, 05:54 PM

see there you go.

"give me a freakin break"

now is that nice?? come on MUTT lets hear your stuff. i am thinking with your attitude you must be doing this as a living and must have been on some of the big albums or CD's of our time, i am searching for credits on google now...............hmmmmmm nothing on Mark Stebbolds

DAMNIT! how can that be?

you have the PT HD rig but do you have any talent?? do you have a natural ear?? with your attitude can you actually keep people in your state of the art studio?? what do you charge??

True Story: i actually know a guy who has spent like 225K on his studio, PRo Tools HD 3 or something like that, and that cool console for PT's that is like 25K, all the top out board gear, all the rooms and acousitcs. his stuff is horrible cause he has no talent, just money to spend and and ego like you wouldn't believe. man that is a sad thing isnt it??

i am assuming you are one of the worlds top talents in the recording field, up there with Katz, lange, eno, manning, etc.

i NEED to hear your acoutic guitar NOW!!

please !!

PLEASE!!

trock

07-11-2005, 05:55 PM

ah sorry stebbeds

DAMNIT!!!

there you are!!

crap you have tons of credits!!

richard Marx?? well it appears i am about to eat my words. i still need to hear your best acoustic

trock

07-11-2005, 05:58 PM

DAMNIT AGAIN!!

were you on "american fool"???

CRAP!! i LOVE John Cougar and that is a classic

man can i pick the battles or what??!!

HAHAHAHA

man, only me

sheesh

i quit

Pedro Itriago

07-11-2005, 06:17 PM

I bet you it gives you a closer sound to a console than my beloved Icon, around 30K (is it?), just a fraction of the price of a real analog console!!!!! now, where do I connect this mic cable?

Give me a freakin' break.

Mark Stebbeds

07-11-2005, 06:20 PM

Mark

<snip>

your just kind of rude. so lets hear what you have, if it is in the mutt lange or terry mannig league or Brian Eno then i will be impressed and i will sing your praises but if you can't even cut something better than little old me that you have alot of explaining to do.

No, I don't have any explaining to do to anyone, nor do I give a rat's ass as to what you think of my work, nor will I ever feel the need to explain my background to you.

I will say that your post calling me out requesting samples of my work to justify the expense of a Pro Tools is childish, unprofessional, immature, and just plain idiotic and stupid.

Now why don't you go back to your room and compose more posts on how SS made your guitar sound better, when Cubase could not, to further demonstrate your credibility.

mark

jeromee

07-11-2005, 06:24 PM

Give me a freakin' break.

:( :( :( :( :(

trock

07-11-2005, 06:29 PM

believe me i have no credibility, i am usually lost onthe most basic and rudimenty elements of recording

however i think it could be a valid point to hear a PT rig like that against a SAW basic? just in a general sense.

I see that you have a ton of credits with some very major players and some classic albums. this is usually how my luck goes. Since it won;t make any difference to you i still would like to say i am sorry for posting while peeved. you just sounded rude is all. even with all these credits and obviously your history why all the negative comments and sniping??

i would think you could add so much to those of us who will never reach those leagues or really do much more than try our best in our home studio's?

I read some of your other posts here and you have given some really good info, stuff i don't understand.

i guess it is to late to start over here, i am sure other members who have been around along time know you and that i have stuck my foot in my mouth. i will just go back to my room and not post again

damn

Mark Stebbeds

07-11-2005, 06:30 PM

:( :( :( :( :(

Hey Jerome,

Nothing personal, you may or may not have seen a recent thread challanging whether or not one DAW engine can "sound better" than another. It turned into flame wars so Bob deleted it.

Too bad, it was a good read. Before people started bringing religion into it to somehow justify their opinion, it had some very good points, if you could read through the crap.

Mark

jeromee

07-11-2005, 06:54 PM

Okay

None taken!
I breezed through some of that thread, but I avoid negative juju, so I didn't read it all. Over the last 15 years of buying gear I have acquired about 50k worth of stuff. Otari 1" and various other dinosaures(boards, tape machines & outboard) and was just stating that for me SAW was going to meet my needs better than I expected. I contacted Magix customer support twice and guess how many times they wrote back."zero,zilch,none" and I lost all respect for that company. Granted I am sure other customers have not had that problem but I did. Someone like Bob I can really respect, he is here when you have questions and suggestions. "Stay healthy Bob" because I'm just getting started on my saw journey. Like I said earlier The sound I was getting with saw really improved my mixes. No I have never mixed on a million dollar board but I have on a 10k one. My studio partner's last CD was done @ Abbey Road and I am converting him from cubase to saw:)

Peace to all and watch out for that bad juju:D
J

Bob L

07-11-2005, 07:08 PM

danickstr

07-11-2005, 07:25 PM

I just read in a lab manual that I stole from MIX magazine that 4 out of 5 people surveyed like a SAW mix much better than an Alsihad pile of grumble-jumbo. But they like gumbo better than SAW balaya. go figger.:)

cheers

Tree Leopard

07-11-2005, 08:45 PM

Jeromee - great to see you've "tuned" into SAW. :)

Bob - there you have it - one computer at a time, all the way to St Johns Wood... ;)

Andre

11thour

07-11-2005, 10:07 PM

SAW has, but not if you people protect it this much in its current state and create a family around it with values, rules, etcetera. Then its not a product anymore but a cult.

I guess I would prefer it to be a cult then..I don't want it to be like the rest of the DAW world.. I think this is what makes it so special.. I think Bob would be happy if the rest of the DAW community SAW;) things his way.. But they don't and thats fine.. You choose the platform that fits the way you want to work..

Saw is Awesome the way it is! The engine sounds great. and as soon as you get used to it, the easier it gets ..

I don't see the problem with the graphics in Saw.. Many people complain..So the F*@# what! (sorry) There are demos. You like, you buy..You don't like, don't buy.

As far as price..Well, there's a price point for anyone.. I have sawstudiobasic.. I personally feel that no other program can touch it at that price.. I was using Sonar 3 and 4.and I had a lot more money invested in Sonar than SAW..I am fairly new to SAW, but I'm getting work done much faster and better sounding than ever before..

I'll be the first to admit I'm not bright enough:D to debate null tests and such..And honestly, I don't care about that.. All I care about is how the music sounds.. If it sounds good, it is good..

Mulder, you are obviously very, very .knowledgable I can't wait for you to become a SAW user..;) You would be a great asset to this community!

Kevin

jeromee

07-11-2005, 10:16 PM

Welcome to the family Jeromee.

If SAW helps you do better mixes, in your opinion, then don't let anyone bully you into thinking otherwise... let it be you who decides something else can do better for you if and when that time comes. :)

Bob L
THANKS!!! Bob
I am proud to be a saw user:D I know you are trying to be politically correct by making no claims but my bandmates will also thank you because after messing with wav files for 28 months I have finally settled on a sound that I like.
Now we can have a hell of a bonfire with the 3000 rough mix cd's that I have made in that time:D

John Hernandez

07-11-2005, 11:10 PM

I didn't say it offends me. I tried to explain why this might be of no interest to Americans at all and why it might sound unfamiliar to Germans for that matter.

If you can't take at least this bit of questioning I am sorry I wrote that. Don't mean to disturb the peace here.

Take care

Bert,

I don't believe Bob was referring to you. Others mentioned offense taken to Bob's video presentations.

HTH,

John Hernandez

07-11-2005, 11:21 PM

I don't know what you consider "average", but my PT HD2 system cost $11.5K OUT THE DOOR, <snip>
Approx. $8.5K will get you an HD1 system

Still a heckuva lot more than $2500, Mark.

John Hernandez

07-11-2005, 11:33 PM

Since it won;t make any difference to you i still would like to say i am sorry for posting while peeved. you just sounded rude is all. even with all these credits and obviously your history why all the negative comments and sniping??

There is no reason, Trock. You have a valid point here.

I don't care if one's bio is a mile long...common courtesy and decency goes a long way.

You keep finding that good ol' acoustic sound, bud. I like what I'm hearing!

Sincerely,

mako

07-12-2005, 03:15 AM

>snip<
but my bandmates will also thank you because after messing with wav files for 28 months I have finally settled on a sound that I like.
>snip<

my truth too jeromee - though, in my case, not band mates but me personally and others I record for. It's been a long road but I'm now happy and confident.

cheers

mako

Mark Stebbeds

07-12-2005, 08:57 AM

Still a heckuva lot more than $2500, Mark.

You're forgetting that's the price of Bob's sofware. The $11,080 I spent included the 192kHz, 8 channel audio interface, and core card.

When you add hardware of comparable quality and features onto the SS price (and there are MANY features not available on MOST popular hardware), then you have to add on another $4500 or more, so you're at least $7,000. Still cheaper, but the difference is only about $4,000. And no, a simple RME box falls short in build quality, headroom, connections, and features.

I agree that $4K is still a big chunk of change, making SS a good value, but if you run a business, one must ask if there is a return on investment, and in my case, it has already paid off in a few months.

As I have clearly stated dozens of times, the PT interface leaves a lot to be desired, but it works just fine "when you learn it", like any DAW. And quite frankly, the learning curve is easy.

Mark

mike_da_min

07-12-2005, 10:15 AM

Hey Mark You are saying that you paid 11,000 for you system right?

When you go to a restaurant and ask for a glass of water, they usually bring it right? And the cost to you the consumer is nothing. However the quentessential question is: was it really free? The answer is no because it costs the restaurant to GET the following items

THE GLASS
THE ICE MACHINE (and the water, electrical, and maintenance bills that come with it)
THE Napkin they place it on
THE Straw
and most importantly
THE wage for the guy who served you.

Now that's alot of involvement for a free glass of water.
You are probably saying what in the Hell is this guy saying?
Well my "FORMER" job had the same idea that you had and they went out and got almost an identical setup to what you had and guess what it costs about 12,000. YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE MONEY
AHHHH BUT WAIT......

THE ARGOSY DESK THEY ORDERED TO HOLD ALL OF THE PT STUFF COSTS ANOTHER 3000.00

THE CABLES THEY ORDERED TO ENSURE ULTIMATE SOUND QUALITY WERE ANOTHER 500.00

THE COMPUTER THEY HAD TO GET TO RUN THIS JOKER WAS A A G5 MAC DUAL 2.0 SYSTEM WITH 3 GIGS OF RAM AND TWO 19IN FLAT PANEL MONITORS ANOTHER 5000

OF COURSE WE CAN'T GET A PT SYSTEM AND JUST RUN OUR VOCALS THROUGH A RODE MIC "WE NEED A NUEMANN" 1200.00

3 VERY HIGH END FURMAN POWER JOINTS 600.00

NEW LACIE HARDDRIVES 3 TO BE EXACT 700.00

THE TECHIE WHO CAME AND HOOKED UP ALL THAT JAZZ 1000.00

SHIPPING 200.00 (IT CAME FREIGHT)

THE COMPUTER TECH WHO SERVICED THE BRAND NEW MAC AFTER IT CRASHED TWICE 250.00

OF COURSE YOU CANNOT HAVE ALL THIS STUFF WITHOUT MONITORS...SO GUESS WHAT WE GOT THE 1000.00 JBL MONITOR SYSTEM WITH THE 500.00 SUBWOOFER YOU KNOW THE ONE WITH THE ROOM CALIBRATION KIT????THE KIT THAT NO MATTER WHAT THE ROOM SOUNDED LIKE IT WOULD USE A RADAR THINGY TO HUNT DOWN THE STANDING WAVE FREQUENCY THAT WERE OUT OF WACK AND AUTOMATICALLY REDUCE THEM UPON THE SIMPLE PUSHING OF A BUTTON

THEY ALSO BELIEVED THAT THEY HAD TO SOUND TREAT THE ROOM AND THAT WAS TRUE AURALEX SUPER ROOMINATOR KIT 900.00

THE SOUND BOARD TO ADD TO THE WALLS 200.00

THE COCK GUN AND EXTRA GLUE 100.00

NOW IF YOU ARE THE PROFESSIONAL YOUR CREDENTIALS WOULD SUGGEST, I AM POSITIVE THAT YOU DID NOT PUT ALL OF THIS STUFF IN YOUR BEDROOM :D

SO LET ME GUESSK, MUCH LIKE THE CHATON STUDIOS HERE IN PHOENIX WHERE YOU CAN LOOK UP ON THE INTERNET, YOU STUDIO WAS ERGONOMICALY DESIGNED TO ENSURE PROPER SONIC LEVELS DURING THE ACCUMULATION OF VARIOUS WAVEFORMS AND/OR ACQUISTIONS OF MUSIC COMPOSITIONS THAT IN THE FUTURE WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC (MAN I SOUND SMART). IF YOU PUSH THE WINDOWS KEY GO TO ACCESSORIES AND SELECT THE CALCULATOR PROGRAM WE CAN ADD ALL THIS UP....
....
...
...
....
AND WE GET (WITHOUT THE COST OF SOUND TREATMENT TO THE BUILDING)
AN ADDITIONAL 16 THHHHOOOOUUUUUSSSSANNNNDDD DOLLARS.
(BY THE WAY OUT TOTAL BILL CAME TO 46,400 I LEFT OUT THE OTHER STUFF "THEY" FELT WE NEEDED" AND THEY GOT IT FINANCED TO BRING THE FINAL "WOUND" TO 80,000.00)

NOW I'M A NEWBIE WITH 6000.00 WORTH OF GEAR INCLUDING ALL INSTRUMENTS A FIREFACE 800, STOCK LAPTOP WITH PCMCIA CARD, TR5 EVENT MONITORS, 6 X 5 VOCAL BOX BUILT AT A COST OF 200.00, 300.00 WORTH OF HOMEMADE BACK ALLEY WALL TREATMENT AND JUST FOR KICKS I AM GOING TO ORDER SAW AGAIN FOR ANOTHER REMOTE LOCATION AT MY CHURCH. I WILL GUARANTEE YOU IF YOU GIVE ME THE TOTAL MONEY
YOU SPENT ON YOUR RECORDING BEAST (TO MY CALCULATIONS ABOUT ($30,000 IF I'M WRONG LIST ALL YOU GEAR ON PAPER AND ADD UP THE FIGURES DON'T SAY YOU BOUGHT ALL THE GEAR AND JUST PLUGGED IT UP AND PUSHED RECORD :mad: )AND SAID HEY MIKE BUILD ME A SYSTEM MY SETUP WOULD WHOOP YOUR TAIL. AND I HAVE ENOUGH MONEY LEFT OVER TO BUY ALL OF THE SAW USERS CAKE AND ICE CREAM AFTER WE'VE ALL HAD A BIG FAT 24OZ. PORTERHOUSE STEAKS AND LOBSTER TAILS FOR AN APPETIZER.

MY SYTEM WOULD RUN MORE EFFICIENT
MY SOUND (ACCORDING) TO MISTER MULDER WOULD SOUND THE SAME :D
MY PLUGINS WOULD BE JUST AS EFFICIENT
MY DOWNTIME WOULD BE MINIMAL (A WEEK AT BEST, MY "FORMER" JOB TOOK A MONTH TO GET UP AND RUNNING)
AND GOD FORBID EVEN IF I HAD NOT EVER SEEN SAW IN MY LIFE, WITH THE ONLINE TUTORIALS AND THIS FORUM IT WOULD TAKE ME 3 DAYS TO START AND FINISH A SONG. THAT'S HOW SIMPLE SAW IS

IF YOU SAY THAT I AM WRONG PLEASE BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO MY CLAIMS POST ALL THE GEAR YOU HAVE AND WHAT YOU NEEDED TO RUN THE SYSTEM COMPLETELY NOT JUST THE PROTOOLS RIG

SAW WILL RUN ON A CRAPPY COMPUTER PT WON'T

jeromee

07-12-2005, 10:16 AM

Hi Mark

You have a great resume:) I still pull out my grand funk vinyl to give a listen.
I bet it was fun sometimes on your sessions. Thanks for sharing comments.
J

Bob L

07-12-2005, 10:42 AM

In truth... all that really should be recognized here is the fact that for the same or much less money SAWStudio is a good alternative to the high end systems that get all the praise and attention in the press.

If you want, you can build a more expensive SAWStudio system than many PT rigs... especially with the information Mark has shared about the current pricing scheme... but if you do, you will have the absolute top of the line component for every part of the system. A big difference is the choice factor... you can build a rig with the same editing power for a lot less if your budget does not allow you to buy the most expensive converters and computer etc...

So, putting anyone on the spot to quote how much money his complete system cost is not really meaningful in my opinion... we will all have thousands of dollars spent on audio accessories and tools that are outside the actual DAW environment... in the end I still say SAWStudio can fill a huge need or desire for many serious audio enthusiasts and professionals to have an opportunity to do the same or better quality work... faster and with less cash outlay than most of the other systems.

I do disagree however with the statement about the RME being a less than interface... sorry, but with a digiface box there is no inherent sound... the choice is yours to use $230 Behringer converters or very expensive apogee or whatever converters to get the audio quality you desire and can afford... but isn't it also nice to have a choice to fit any budget. :)

And with the Sydec offerings, there are many features in a tiny box that I don't believe leave anything to be desired over a PT rig.

Its even unfortunate that these discussions always come down to one rig being better or cheaper than the next... it probably will never change... and with SAWStudio being the marketing underdog, I seem to always be forced into a perpetual state of defending myself... I wish that could change... take the marketing power and industry standard conversation away and SAWStudio can stand up to any system I've ever seen anywhere... of course that's simply my opinion. :D

Bob L

Pedro Itriago

07-12-2005, 10:46 AM

...Will Mark reply this post? :eek:
...what will he reply? :rolleyes:
...will the Icon get inclided in the deal fo r both Pt & saw :confused:

Be back here at same bat time
...and same bat thread
for the continuation of...

"Does it cancel out if I pay more?" or...
"Let me alone, I love my crap"

Boy much more interesting than Monster Garage or While You Where Out, I'm so tempted to put soldering my own cables with spare wire & sing "Freeebie, Zilch, Nada"

Mulder

07-12-2005, 10:48 AM

MY SOUND (ACCORDING) TO MISTER MULDER WOULD SOUND THE SAME :D

It looks like you have a headroomproblem to me.

(And I only tested PTLE at 16/44 on a Digi 001. Far cheaper then SAW, including hardware)

Mark Stebbeds

07-12-2005, 11:04 AM

Hey Mark You are saying that you paid 11,000 for you system right?

<snip>

IF YOU SAY THAT I AM WRONG PLEASE BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO MY CLAIMS POST ALL THE GEAR YOU HAVE AND WHAT YOU NEEDED TO RUN THE SYSTEM COMPLETELY NOT JUST THE PROTOOLS RIG

SAW WILL RUN ON A CRAPPY COMPUTER PT WON'T

Wow, what is your point, dude? I snipped out all of meaningless crap in your message. Of course I have other gear that I have accumualted over the years, but it has nothing to do with a DAW price comparison.

The numbers are correct, and your message is without merit. Nothing else is needed to run the PT system, just like nothing else is need to run SS other than an audio interface.

By the way, PT runs largely off of DSP chips on PCI cards, and as result does not require a powerful computer at all. HD is running on 850mHz computers all over the world, much "crappier" than the average off the shelf computer used on the average SS system.

The fact that you consider a "crappy" computer an advantgage, says a lot.

Mark

Mulder

07-12-2005, 11:05 AM

I do disagree however with the statement about the RME being a less than interface... sorry, but with a digiface box there is no inherent sound... the choice is yours to use $230 Behringer converters or very expensive apogee or whatever converters to get the audio quality you desire and can afford... but isn't it also nice to have a choice to fit any budget. :)
THe ADA8000 is pretty ok, people around here flip out the caps and replace them with Black Gate elco's. The chips used are Alesis with just a simple buffer behind it. If you skip balanced cabling the signal goes only through one opamp (at the DA section) and that can be replaced -if you want to- with some highend fast low IMDthingie for about $20 and a skilled solderinghand. Pretty cool box for the money.

And with the Sydec offerings, there are many features in a tiny box that I don't believe leave anything to be desired over a PT rig.
Plugins dear Watson, Plugins.. (code a wrapper!)

and with SAWStudio being the marketing underdog, I seem to always be forced into a perpetual state of defending myself... I wish that could change...
Well, then take off its leach, let it out of its doghouse and train it to run with the wolves.

take the marketing power and industry standard conversation away and SAWStudio can stand up to any system I've ever seen anywhere... of course that's simply my opinion. :D
Yeah Bob, let's take away the standards in industry, that's the solution. ;)
I guess some bit of extra coding would be easier but that ofcourse is -like all- just my opinion.

ffarrell

07-12-2005, 11:13 AM

OK I'm in

Guys lets stop worrying about what Pt will do or SAW will do or even the price paid. Most people here found SAW to there liking. Others found other software to there liking. Thats a free market at work.

We the SAW people see the value in Bob's software but I would not fault anyone who does not see it. It's better to let people see for themself.

As for Bob's statements about price and value. I know Bob does not go out shopping for PT rigs or other software on a daily or monthly basics.

I see the value from Bob's personal attention in coding, supporting and educationing US, his SAW family not forgetting his software competes, performance wise at least, with ALL software/hardware DAW in the market today.

I personaly would like sales of SAW to be as much as Bob needs to live but not to the existent IQS becomes a faceless softwear vendor.

With so many people ( old and new ) hearing the buzz of SAW and SAW radio I hope they might understand that the masses here REALLY LOVE THIS SOFTWARE and at time sing the praises of SAW Studio. This forum is NOT a debate for other software users to challenge but to exchange Ideas on using SAW and share tips ( I.E. recording and computer hardware ).

There are other forums that are topical for DAW debates.

Let's keep the vibe positive.

thanks
fvf

mike_da_min

07-12-2005, 11:29 AM

YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!!

I BOUGHT A USED CARS THREE MONTHS AGO. IT WAS A CUTLASS SIERRA. 1996 WITH 90,000 MILES ON IT THREE GRAND

MY BROTHER GOT A USED CAR 1995 MERCEDES BENZ 100,000 MILES ON IT
SAME PRICE

BOTH CARS ARE USED WHITE AND HAVE ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF MILES ON THEM. IN THE PUBLIC EYE BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH IN IMMACULATE CONDITION THE MERCEDES WOULD SEEM TO HAVE BEEN THE BETTER BUY, HOWEVER WITH GAS BEING 2.50 A GALLON IN MY STATE AND HIS CAR WILL ONLY RUN ON PREMIUM, HIS CAR TAKES MORE MONEY TO RUN. AND IF IT BREAKS DOWN IT WILL TAKE MORE MONEY TO FIX. HIS INSURANCE IS HIGHER AND HIS CAR ACCORDING TO STATISTICS WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GET STOLEN BEFORE MY CUTLASS (GOD FORBID)
THE QUESTION IS NOT JUST ABOUT WHICH IS SONICALLY MORE EFFICIENT BUT IT IS ALSO ABOUT USABILITY. THE TERM DAW SIGNIFIES THAT YOU NEED A COMPUTER TO RUN THE PROGRAM. TRY RUNNING CUBASE, SONAR, SAMPLITUDE, ABLETON, N-TRACK, PRO-TOOLS, OR ANY OTHER DAW WITHOUT A COMPUTER AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOU WILL GET

THIS:

DID YOU HEAR THAT? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THE GEAR YOU NEED TO RUN PRO-TOOLS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS PRO-TOOLS ITSELF. IF YOU PUT THE WRONG GAS IN MY BROTHERS CAR IT AIN'T GOING NOWHERE. (WE FOUND THAT OUT THE HARDWAY :D) I AM NOT ATTACKING YOUR CHARACTER OR ANYTHING ELSE, HOWEVER WHEN PEOPLE COME TO THE SAW FORUM WITH FIGURES AND DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND CLAIMS, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE THE CLAIMS AND "TESTS" SO THAT I COULD GET BETTER AT WHAT I DO WITH THE TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN THE MUSIC WORLD. HOWEVER IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT FROM MY EXPERIENCE (USAGE OF PT, CUBASE, SONAR AND NOW SAW) THEN OF COURSE I QUESTION IT SO THAT I COULD GET A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING.
DAW PRICE COMPARISON TAKES INTO ACCOUNT NOT JUST THE PRICE OF THE DAW BUT THE PRICE YOU PAY TO RUN IT, THE PRICE YOU PAY TO MAINTAIN IT, TO PRICE YOU PAY TO GET UPDATES, THE PRICE YOU CHARGE YOU CLIENTS SO "YOU" CAN MAKE A PROFIT IN THE LONG RUN AND OTHER FACTORS. THROW IN THE FACT THAT YOU WANT A QUALITY PRODUCT THEN YOU ALSO CONSIDER REPUTATION PRFESSIONALISM AND OTHER FACTORS.
SO IT IS NOT JUST A 2500.00 VS. 11,000 COMPARISON IT'S A I'VE JUST SPENT 2500 NOW WHAT ELSE DO I NEED? WHAT ELSE WILL THIS COST ME? WHAT MORE DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET THIS 2500.00 PRODUCT WORKING SO THAT IT SOUNDS GOOD? YOU'VE BEEN BLESSED TO HAVE A "PHAT" RESUME SO YOU PROBABLY MADE THE MONEY BACK, BUT AS FOR ME I'M TAKE MY 6000.00 STUDY, WORK HARD, PRAY, PRACTICE AND LEARN HOW WITH SAW I CAN GO IN THE STUDIO AND GET BIIIIIIZZZZZYYY!!!! :D :D :D

NOBODY FROWNS ON YOU BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESITON ABOUT HOW MUCH THE "WHOLE PT SETUP COSTS" I THINK BOB IS RIGHT. ALL OF THE INTANGIBLES OF A "INDUSTRY STANDARD" SETUP WOULD COSTS MORE 11,080 AND YOUR TWO CENTS
THAT'S ALL BUDDY MY PANCAKES ARE WARM AND ON THE TABLE.

Mulder

07-12-2005, 11:34 AM

SO IT IS NOT JUST A 2500.00 VS. 11,000 COMPARISON IT'S A I'VE JUST SPENT 2500 NOW WHAT ELSE DO I NEED?
a New keyboard.

WHAT ELSE WILL THIS COST ME?
$10

Naturally Digital

07-12-2005, 11:37 AM

I didn't notice a reply to this post in the thread. Is it here? Who's Nick?

Thanks.
Dave.

Nick,

The following post would be more appropriate in the "Excerpt from recording.org..." thread, but it appears that thread is about to be removed, so I'm posting here.

I think you've made some interesting points, and I don't share many of my SAW cohorts' views about censoring you, despite your sometimes brusque presentation of your views. I think it's critical in any discussion to have nay-sayers. And as flame wars go, that other thread seems more like a matchstick joust than a flame war; I've seen much worse.

I am not a Bob Lentini devotee... I'm not even really a SAW devotee, though I'm very glad to have it as the heart of my DAW, and I think it's a fantastic piece of software. I greatly admire Bob's work, but I don't think he or SAW is perfect. As Cary pointed out, some of us have been critical of SS (and even Bob's approach) over the years, but I've also been extremely supportive of his efforts because, for me, SAW is simply the best choice there is, and I've come to see that Bob's support is unparalleled. I want to see it succeed mainly for selfish reasons, I guess. :)

However, like yourself, I don't buy into hype, and, in fact, I'm a very critical, skeptical person -- essentially a scientist at heart. Before entering the DAW world, I had never heard of SAW and had no significant experience with any audio apps other than SoundForge. I did my own set of tests -- different from yours (tried Logic, Cakewalk, Vegas, and some others I can't recall). I did actual stereo mixes (i.e., panned mono files) using the apps' built-in EQ and the only reverb I had at the time which was Sonic Foundry's. Whether it was the quality of the summing or the EQ or the handling of plugins, I don't know, but I know what I heard, and SAW simply sounded best to me. I had no reason whatsoever to prefer it -- in fact, I had reason *not* to since it was more expensive than my other options.

That said, I question your conclusions because you posit your test as a scientific one when it was not scientific. I assume you've studied calculus and other high-level math, and you've had to go through the arduous process of writing proofs. You know how hard it is to prove something is *always* true. Your test merely proves that with the files and settings you chose, you were unable to hear differences... or perhaps even you were able to verify that the phased file zeroed out the non-phased file. But others claimed to do similar tests and found their two files did not zero out. It only takes one exception to show that something isn't always true.

If you were to produce a set of strenuous tests on, say, five stylistically different stereo mixes and you posted your original files as well as all other details of settings, etc., and the results supported your claims, then I'd be all ears ;) , because this would make me wonder why I heard a difference in my initial DAW-comparison tests years ago. And while still not a truly scientific conclusion, it'd be a heck of a lot closer. But as it stands, I can no sooner take your claim as a blanket truth than I could take the claim of someone who did a similar single test to prove that SAW always produced different/superior results.

I assume you accept the fact that different people with different ears and brains will have different preferences about sound. Given that, why do you suppose that there are people who are fans of SAW's or Nuendo's or whatever app's sound? Do you think it's possible that under certain circumstances there are differences in the sound of different apps? Surely, every audio app maker isn't using the same algorithms, so why do you think it's not possible for there to be sonic differences?

Please note that none of my questions to you are rhetorical attacks. I'm very interested to hear your stance and your rationale.

BTW, have you already read this paper from Rane (http://www.rane.com/pdf/note153.pdf)? What do you think of it?

Jay

mike_da_min

07-12-2005, 11:39 AM

HEY MULDER NOT TO START ANY NEW DRAMA HOW DID YOU GET YOUR WAVEFORMS RECORDED INTO YOUR TEST?
OR SHOULD I SAY WHAT DID YOU USE EQUIP WISE?

Bob L

07-12-2005, 11:39 AM

Yeah Bob, let's take away the standards in industry, that's the solution. ;)
I guess some bit of extra coding would be easier but that ofcourse is -like all- just my opinion.

Mulder, it sounds like just a little extra coding to duplicate one more standard feature would be a simple thing... but after 12 years of doing this... it turns out, that its not... at least in my experiences.

I started out with the original SAW doing that.... people said, just make it SoundBlaster compatible and we can sell millions of them... so I did... then next they said, oh now, the ProMedia card is the rage, so make it compatible with that... so I did... and on and on... and each time I dove into each new api and bizzarre coding protocols, they came up with one more addition needed to satisfy the masses...

I quickly realized how this game was being played and decided to go my own way and stop chasing what the rest were doing.

The result was the SAWPlus engine and the rest that followed that made me a millionaire many times over in the old days.

But even that game was too stressful for my tastes... all the shackles and chains imposed upon me by the distributers and dealers and magazines and trade shows and the masses were just a bit ridiculous to keep up with.

Payroll expenses and building expenses and tech support for thousands of calls from people not understanding anything about basic audio concepts or even what the File Manager in Windows was... etc... not a fun game in my opinion. Being the boss of a growing corporation... what a joke that became... most of my time was now spent baysitting company issues and worrying about financial staements and distribution deals... almost zero time left for designing and doing audio... not fun.

So, I stand here today with SAWStudio... the evolution of the things I found useful in my audio engineering work... quite different from the rest... but by design... the rest did not satisfy my needs... and I find out more and more everyday, how others are feeling the same way after going from DAW to DAW.

Now with the internet being commonplace in millions of homes and with this forum and the Radio Network, I feel I can reach all the people I really need to reach. Little by little, SAWStudio recognition is growing, and there is no need to turn it back into a huge corporation with all the pitfalls of the past experience, or of the current experiences I see in the rest of the products on the market today.

Teams of developers... not an efficient idea in my opinion... when I look at the other products that's one of the things that sticks out to me... scattered designs, inconsistencies, products using code libraries that were not written by the developers themselves... huge, inefficient, overbloated code... all translating into a 'less than' product as far as I'm concerned.

My work is my work... the sole focus of one mind... if you don't like my vision, then its easy to move on... but for those that do happen to like the way I think, then its a unique and powerful experience for all of us, because the code remains more consistent in its overall operation... the code is much more compact and controllable... the code is changeable within hours if I decide to make changes... no board of directors meetings to plow thru... the decisions are mine to make...

The idea of direct developer interaction with caring customers is an awesome addition to the game... I find this kind of thing extremely valuable... and I love seeing more and more of it with the smaller plugin developer approach... the large namless coprporation to me is a bad thing about our society... they are more generally uinreachable and uncaring than not... the security of buying a product from a large corporation is an illusion as many have found out as these giant entities are bought and sold every month, and your product and support goes further into the black hole as code is dumped from one development team to the next... usually people in the new team don't have any care about their new assignment because they weren't involved in the original design.

I have been developing the SAW product for a solid 13 years... one mind... one focus... I'm still developing it... I am intimately in touch with every aspect of its operation and every line of its code... I use it on a daily basis doing all kinds of audio session work from studio production to live recording to large production show music composing, engineering and show control programming and installing... all this is part of the package the customer buys when he joins the SAWStudio family.

To some on the outside, perhaps they feel I don't do things correctly... to most on the inside, nothing could be further from the truth. :)

Bob L

Mulder

07-12-2005, 11:40 AM

I didn't notice a reply to this post in the thread. Is it here? Who's Nick?.

That's me and you're right, lemme get some (more) coffee..

Bob L

07-12-2005, 11:42 AM

David, that thread got quickly out of hand and turned into quite the bar room brawl... so I decided to remove it.

It is a shame, because there were some interesting concepts that if explored without all the insults and rudeness most likely would have offered some useful information and understandings.

Bob L

bcorkery

07-12-2005, 11:54 AM

Thanks for keeping the peace.

trock

07-12-2005, 11:59 AM

maybe i can interject a dumb question here, and anyone can answer as they see fit and with any experience they have. this is a little off topic but now that i know there is quite a range of experience here from everyone, def including mulder and Mark i was wondering this

Ok basically at the ad/da compnent you have many choices. i had a M-Audio 410 back in the day and it worked for me, cheap to right??

so i jump into the RME FF 800 for substantially more and if i run an acoustic taylor direct i can't hear all that much different. but i like all the inputs etc.

HOWEVER

when you get into the Apogee range etc or higher, what should you really expect on your investment??

to my RME if i got a Dan Lavry Blue series or Gold series would i hear a HUGE difference or are we talking subtle inflections?

the PT 192 is there top of the line correct?? so has anyone A/B'd it against the RM FF 800?? or an Apogee rosetta 200 or a dan lavry Blue etc??

i really am just curious if you can actually go hear these resuolts somewhere??

and to add to htat, and again this is supposed to be a srious question from someone who doesn;t know. Mark i know you are hating me right now but back in the days of say the "american" fool album what was used for your front end? because it was analog did you just have Pre's etc?? you didn't need digital converters etc so what was atypical front end chain back then??

Thanks!

Pedro Itriago

07-12-2005, 12:15 PM

Hey Mark You are saying that you paid 11,000 for you system right?

AHHHH BUT WAIT......

THE ARGOSY DESK THEY ORDERED TO HOLD ALL OF THE PT STUFF COSTS ANOTHER 3000.00

THE CABLES THEY ORDERED TO ENSURE ULTIMATE SOUND QUALITY WERE ANOTHER 500.00

THE COMPUTER THEY HAD TO GET TO RUN THIS JOKER WAS A A G5 MAC DUAL 2.0 SYSTEM WITH 3 GIGS OF RAM AND TWO 19IN FLAT PANEL MONITORS ANOTHER 5000

OF COURSE WE CAN'T GET A PT SYSTEM AND JUST RUN OUR VOCALS THROUGH A RODE MIC "WE NEED A NUEMANN" 1200.00

3 VERY HIGH END FURMAN POWER JOINTS 600.00

NEW LACIE HARDDRIVES 3 TO BE EXACT 700.00

THE TECHIE WHO CAME AND HOOKED UP ALL THAT JAZZ 1000.00

SHIPPING 200.00 (IT CAME FREIGHT)

THE COMPUTER TECH WHO SERVICED THE BRAND NEW MAC AFTER IT CRASHED TWICE 250.00

OF COURSE YOU CANNOT HAVE ALL THIS STUFF WITHOUT MONITORS...SO GUESS WHAT WE GOT THE 1000.00 JBL MONITOR SYSTEM WITH THE 500.00 SUBWOOFER YOU KNOW THE ONE WITH THE ROOM CALIBRATION KIT????

THEY ALSO BELIEVED THAT THEY HAD TO SOUND TREAT THE ROOM AND THAT WAS TRUE AURALEX SUPER ROOMINATOR KIT 900.00

THE SOUND BOARD TO ADD TO THE WALLS 200.00

THE COCK GUN AND EXTRA GLUE 100.00

The possibility of disscussing this points to death...priceless. :cool:

P.S.: This is not to pick on you Mike, is just that I can't help myself

MMP

07-12-2005, 12:21 PM

I recently added a Lavry Gold MkII. I notice a world of difference between it and my RME Multiface, or Layla24 converters.

But, I haven't done a null test yet, so this is totally attributable to my deification of Dan Lavry.http://www.sawstudiouser.net/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

Regards,

MM

Mark Stebbeds

07-12-2005, 12:24 PM

when you get into the Apogee range etc or higher, what should you really expect on your investment??

to my RME if i got a Dan Lavry Blue series or Gold series would i hear a HUGE difference or are we talking subtle inflections?

the PT 192 is there top of the line correct?? so has anyone A/B'd it against the RM FF 800?? or an Apogee rosetta 200 or a dan lavry Blue etc??

i really am just curious if you can actually go hear these resuolts somewhere??
<snip>
because it was analog did you just have Pre's etc?? you didn't need digital converters etc so what was atypical front end chain back then??

Thanks!

Don't get bent out of shape over converters. When you need new ones, you will know. There is more to a converter package than the brand of converter itself. There are eletronic circuits on either side of it, with amplification, etc, and it all effects the sound. Whether one sounds better than another, is all a matter of opion, although there is a consensus among pros. None of it is as important as the source material.

the PT 192 is not considered "top of the Line". It sounds damn good, and you need it to run PT, or another Digidesing authorized box. PT will not run unless it "sees" an authorized piece of hardware. That's how they make money. It is in the category of "more headroom" as compared to some of the semi pro stuff.

Regarding the album you referred to, it was simply an MCI recording console and analog tape machines with Ampex tape. No fancy preamps that I remember. Lot's of good mics, good outboard gear, and most importantly, good songs and musicians.

Mark

Mark Stebbeds

07-12-2005, 12:25 PM

I
But, I haven't done a null test yet, so this is totally attributable to my deification of Dan Lavry.

ROTFLMAO

mikebuzz

07-12-2005, 12:29 PM

Well said Frank I for one chose Saw BECAUSE of the support it provided as well as the people at this forum how support the product . I came from using xxxxx products and just got sick and tired of no OS updates no ability to interface with other systems etc. Large Corp. mentality , Hell I even started a petition to get some help/OS updates and was blown off ( 800+ signers )

So I went Saw , I looked at PT , SOnar , Dp etc. but they did'nt make much sense to me ( I'm from old school desks and tape machines ) I admit I am also a non-working eng . I do this for personal use mainly ( I have been asked many times to eng. for others but choose not to )

Saw just acted like a desk to me very familiar , I had never used Daws prior to Saw in any capacity .

So thats where I'm from and I really appreciate Bobs software and his DIRECT support NO WHERE ELSE will you get that IMO

Later
Buzz

PS: Bob having the ability to select the returns or outputs as inputs on the record tracks would be a nice addition ( just used to doing it that way !! old school again printing verbs ,comp drums etc. )

See we can even ask for updates/changes and he listens ( most of the time :)

John Hernandez

07-12-2005, 12:37 PM

I agree that $4K is still a big chunk of change, making SS a good value, but if you run a business, one must ask if there is a return on investment, and in my case, it has already paid off in a few months.

And that's Bob's point: namely that SS is a good value. You're the one that came down on him because of figures...to me and my tight budget $4K and $50K are pretty much equal (read: way out of my league).

Your points on included hardware with Digi are well taken. But can you honestly say there's even $4K of improvement over the sound of SS with comparable hardware?

Sincerely,

TotalSonic

07-12-2005, 12:38 PM

when you get into the Apogee range etc or higher, what should you really expect on your investment??

to my RME if i got a Dan Lavry Blue series or Gold series would i hear a HUGE difference or are we talking subtle inflections?

Considering that the Lavry Gold or something like the Prism stuff is 5x the price of the Lavry Blue (or similar range such as Apogee Rosetta, Mytek, Benchmark, etc) there is indeed a law of diminishing returns at a point - where you pay a lot more just to get subtly better. But to me when you get into the around $1g range per stereo pair you do indeed end up with a better sounding final product.

For my mastering work I use the Mytek Stereo96 as I found it to be pretty "transparent" in that it was very close to the source when tested by A/Bing against a 1/4" 2 track analog source. At a little less than a g for the box I think it offers a ton of bang for the buck - and they also make an 8 channel unit to the same specs for cheaper per channel. http://www.mytekdigital.com

For those looking for a converter that "warms" or "colors" the sound I think they would want to look into other units though.

I ended up going with the Lavry Blue's for DAC's though - the transients just play with a lot more "3d"ness than other units I tried to my ear with them. obviously with any of this stuff what sounds "good" is very subjective and the best thing is to do a/b's with various models in your room before making a decision.

I think in general good AD converters are most noticeable as an "accumulative" effect where you start hearing the differences after stacking a lot of tracks run through them.

the PT 192 is there top of the line correct?? so has anyone A/B'd it against the RM FF 800?? or an Apogee rosetta 200 or a dan lavry Blue etc??

I just used the PT192 converters to track a 24/88.2 session of my string quartet and thought they did a very good job. Bob Katz posted a little bit back though that he did a shoot out between the PT192 and the Apogee AD16X and that pretty much everyone in the room was agreeing that the Apogee's were sounding better at 44.1 than the PT's were sounding at 88.2. Not having been there you can take this as hearsay though.

i really am just curious if you can actually go hear these resuolts somewhere??

One way is to pick up the "ADCD" from 3D Audio which gives you some direct comparisons -
http://www.3daudioinc.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/31?osCsid=232ff47c48835da126ed30e6699602dd

There are also some listening samples on Mytek's site comparing it with PT192, PT888. Lavry (aka dBtech). Prism & Apogee PSX100:
http://www.mytekdigital.com/listening_test.htm
http://www.mytekdigital.com/8x96compare.htm

so what was atypical front end chain back then??

I can't speak regarding what was used for "American Fool" - but in general recording chains "back in the day" were usually just used whatever pre's were built into the console - and from there they went through the console channel strips to the inputs of the tape deck. Neve & SSL were among the more popular boards in the bigger studios. MCI, Calrec, Helios, and others were also seen. I just did a tracking session at Excello recently and gotta say that the pre's in their Calrec board were pretty slamming.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Mulder

07-12-2005, 12:43 PM

-snip-That said, I question your conclusions because you posit your test as a scientific one when it was not scientific. I assume you've studied calculus and other high-level math, and you've had to go through the arduous process of writing proofs. You know how hard it is to prove something is *always* true. Your test merely proves that with the files and settings you chose, you were unable to hear differences... or perhaps even you were able to verify that the phased file zeroed out the non-phased file. But others claimed to do similar tests and found their two files did not zero out. It only takes one exception to show that something isn't always true.

Hi Jay!
The 'sience' in this little test only goes as far as knowing that two equal digital audiofiles zero eachother when one is phase-reversed and both are summed, pretty obvious. I did study some math though as part of my education, but I guess that's different in the States, I hear the USAstudents have a fair amount of freedom when choosing which subjects they can study, I didn't here in Holland while studying Music Registration so I had to graduate in "Signal & System Analysis" given by Stan Tempelaars of the faculty of Sonology from the university of Utrecht overhere. He did a great job in explaining & training me, but it felt like having a wrench on my head trying to get into the abstractions about filtercalulations & other timevariant stuff..

So I'm far from some sort of codinggenius here, only some sort of 'overtrained' mixerman in that respect..

If you were to produce a set of strenuous tests on, say, five stylistically different stereo mixes and you posted your original files as well as all other details of settings, etc., and the results supported your claims, then I'd be all ears ;) , because this would make me wonder why I heard a difference in my initial DAW-comparison tests years ago. And while still not a truly scientific conclusion, it'd be a heck of a lot closer. But as it stands, I can no sooner take your claim as a blanket truth than I could take the claim of someone who did a similar single test to prove that SAW always produced different/superior results.

Well, there is this strange subjectivity that's at the root of the high-end consumeraudiobiz which fascinates me a lot. How does it come that people can hear differences in audio when there is none to hear? I'm not steering towards trashing Saw here, but the students at my old school (http://www.koncon.nl/public_site/220/MRmain.html) were I do a small bit of teaching (http://www.studiegids.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?c=17&t=3&q=aWQ9MTA5NzE=&v=&k=10971) right now did some research into this phenomena and concluded that a big part is makebelieve and blatant fraud. But then why is it so popular, and why do people fork vast amounts of money over to become part of that elite community?
The students took a black epoxybox apart that was in the middle of some esoteric loudspeakercable, excuse me, 'inter-friggin-connect'. That lump concealed some mysterious electronics that made the electrons move with more grace & style or whatever, but after the chainsaw did its work it turned out that the lump was just what is was: a Lump, being a fairly expensive one since the lumped cable's price ran into 4 numbers. Incredible.
Still people buy it.

There's happening something with our audioperception that makes us more focused when applying some sort of change in our equipment if we are convinced that it will better the signalchain. That simple fact makes you listen better, hear more, and then ofcourse you hear a difference. The problem is that that phenomena can only be 'measured' by multidimensional scaling (http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stmulsca.html) since it is rather intrusive to peel the inner ears of the testingsubjects apart and there are few rats or guinypigs with a known taste of music and a longing for better soundreproduction.

So it can't be measured at this moment, only by looking how great the role of the 'convincing' part is in such an audiosetup.

Well, in this community there are some truly 'convinced' people, so that got me off. ;)

But then again, I'm just another person as all of 'us' overhere, when I sit behind a system that allows me to work in a fashion that opens my perception I will also be able to produce better results since my 'perceptionconcentration will last longer, endure less stress or listeningfatique. Those factors do count, only AFAIK we don't know yet in which amount. But it does explain why people tend to get furious while defending their food, wife, deodorant or audioequipment since all those phenomena can't be measured objectively. But the more furious they get, the more uncertain they are about the assumed qualities of the latter.

I assume you accept the fact that different people with different ears and brains will have different preferences about sound. Given that, why do you suppose that there are people who are fans of SAW's or Nuendo's or whatever app's sound? Do you think it's possible that under certain circumstances there are differences in the sound of different apps? Surely, every audio app maker isn't using the same algorithms, so why do you think it's not possible for there to be sonic differences?

I dunno yet, have to do some real indepth testing, this only involved some short monofiles at 16/44. At first there was a difference, turned out PT has this panningthing that made me had to add 2.5dB to the inverted bouncefile. Then in SX there was some difference, turned out I forgot to switch off dither in PT. And then there was silence were I expected some sort of residu that came forth out of better impulsehandling & stuff..

So I wrote that on Andy Sneap's forum, beeing rather urinated off with all these 'highendguys' with their hands in my wallet. (sorry Bob, talk to you in a second)

Please note that none of my questions to you are rhetorical attacks. I'm very interested to hear your stance and your rationale.

Well, here they are. ;)

BTW, have you already read this paper from Rane (http://www.rane.com/pdf/note153.pdf)? What do you think of it?

Jay

Yeah I know that, that's what got me curious.

I hope I made myself a bit clear, english isn't my native language. Did google quite a few words to get this finished. ;)

Nice talking though.

Cheers,

Nick Mulder
the Netherlands

John Hernandez

07-12-2005, 12:43 PM

Hey Mark You are saying that you paid 11,000 for you system right? <snip>
SAW WILL RUN ON A CRAPPY COMPUTER PT WON'T

:D :D :D ROFLMBO!!!!!!!:D :D :D

Aw Mike...ya crack me up <snif, snif, GUFFAW!!!>

Mulder

07-12-2005, 12:57 PM

HEY MULDER NOT TO START ANY NEW DRAMA HOW DID YOU GET YOUR WAVEFORMS RECORDED INTO YOUR TEST?
OR SHOULD I SAY WHAT DID YOU USE EQUIP WISE?

I took this thing called 'compact disc', ripped a track and sliced poor Peter Gabriel in four short monoparts.

John Hernandez

07-12-2005, 12:58 PM

YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!!
<snip>
YOU'VE BEEN BLESSED TO HAVE A "PHAT" RESUME SO YOU PROBABLY MADE THE MONEY BACK, BUT AS FOR ME I'M TAKE MY 6000.00 STUDY, WORK HARD, PRAY, PRACTICE AND LEARN HOW WITH SAW I CAN GO IN THE STUDIO AND GET BIIIIIIZZZZZYYY!!!! :D :D :D

NOBODY FROWNS ON YOU BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESITON ABOUT HOW MUCH THE "WHOLE PT SETUP COSTS" I THINK BOB IS RIGHT. ALL OF THE INTANGIBLES OF A "INDUSTRY STANDARD" SETUP WOULD COSTS MORE 11,080 AND YOUR TWO CENTS
THAT'S ALL BUDDY MY PANCAKES ARE WARM AND ON THE TABLE.

<snortle, GUFFAW!!!> :D :D :D !!

Gosh, dude...you oughta quit the audio biz and go into comedy!

(PS: wachit...you said "blessed" and "pray"...you're gonna take this thread into a religious crapshoot agin...;) )

BLESSINGS IN CHRIST,

MMP

07-12-2005, 01:02 PM

And just so you all don't think I have really deep pockets, I bought my Lavry Gold used after checking out its repair/owner history.

MM

Considering that the Lavry Gold or something like the Prism stuff is 5x the price of the Lavry Blue (or similar range such as Apogee Rosetta, Mytek, Benchmark, etc) there is indeed a law of diminishing returns at a point - where you pay a lot more just to get subtly better. But to me when you get into the around $1g range per stereo pair you do indeed end up with a better sounding final product.

Mark Stebbeds

07-12-2005, 01:02 PM

But can you honestly say there's even $4K of improvement over the sound of SS with comparable hardware?

Sincerely,

Nope. Never did. Never will.

It was a business decision to buy PT, and one that has certainly paid off.

mark

Mark Stebbeds

07-12-2005, 01:03 PM

I took this thing called 'compact disc',

I bought one of those, and it wouldn't plaly on my turntable. What a piece of junk.

Mark

Mark Stebbeds

07-12-2005, 01:29 PM

YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!![QUOTE=mike_da_min]

Yes, I did.

[QUOTE=mike_da_min]
SO IT IS NOT JUST A 2500.00 VS. 11,000 COMPARISON IT'S A I'VE JUST SPENT 2500 NOW WHAT ELSE DO I NEED? [QUOTE=mike_da_min]

Yes, it is. You need a crappy computer. PT does not require CPU power because it runs off DSP cards.

[QUOTE=mike_da_min]ALL OF THE INTANGIBLES OF A "INDUSTRY STANDARD" SETUP WOULD COSTS MORE 11,080 AND YOUR TWO CENTS
THAT'S ALL BUDDY MY PANCAKES ARE WARM AND ON THE TABLE.

No, it doesn't cost more. It cost $11,080 for 192 tracks and 8 channel 192kHz. OK, maybe a few hundred bucks more if you don't know where to shop, but not much.

Mark

John Hernandez

07-12-2005, 01:31 PM

Well, there is this strange subjectivity that's at the root of the high-end consumeraudiobiz which fascinates me a lot. How does it come that people can hear differences in audio when there is none to hear? I'm not steering towards trashing Saw here, but the students at my old school (http://www.koncon.nl/public_site/220/MRmain.html) were I do a small bit of teaching (http://www.studiegids.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?c=17&t=3&q=aWQ9MTA5NzE=&v=&k=10971) right now did some research into this phenomena and concluded that a big part is makebelieve and blatant fraud. But then why is it so popular, and why do people fork vast amounts of money over to become part of that elite community?

Then again, the "educators" themselves could be involved in makebelieve and blatant fraud...masquerading their own subjective conclusions as science...

Look, I'm an educator myself, and I fail to see how the "lump" test conclusively relates to the sound quality difference of high-end gear. It's an interesting theory, to be sure...

I'm not an audio genius, but I know what sounds different. I hear recordings made with state of the art equipment, and <choke> I hear the stuff I put out. Night and day. Am I brainwashed by the labels? Hardly.

In like manner, I hear a mix in Samplitude, and the same mix in SAW. Again, different. Sure, I could lie, and say they are exactly the same...but I know what I hear. There is an obvious difference.

When I added an Apogee converter to my system, there was a difference in sound. Did I hear it because I forked out the bills for the piece, wishfully thinking I made a sound investment? Rather, I heard a difference...and wondered whether it justified the expense. But nobody can tell me that the difference isn't there. They'd be lying. The "emperor's new clothes" syndrome can work both ways (i.e., "you aren't hearing a difference in sound...you just want to hear that difference"...boulderdash and poppycock...in fact, TALL poppycock :p )

Well my two coins to add to the discussion...and hey, I didn't even mention any religious crap! Wow.

Sincerely,

John Hernandez

07-12-2005, 01:35 PM

Whether one sounds better than another, is all a matter of opion,

Ah...so that's the problem...doin' too much opion...:)

John Hernandez

07-12-2005, 01:37 PM

Nope. Never did. Never will.

It was a business decision to buy PT, and one that has certainly paid off.

mark

Fair enough.

John Hernandez

07-12-2005, 01:38 PM

I bought one of those, and it wouldn't plaly on my turntable. What a piece of junk.

Mark

LOL...you got me on that one, Mark.

Pedro Itriago

07-12-2005, 01:44 PM

Mulder, that you?

Wow seems like a different person. I enjoyed this post, really did

Mulder

07-12-2005, 01:53 PM

Then again, the "educators" themselves could be involved in makebelieve and blatant fraud...masquerading their own subjective conclusions as science...

Well, this educator was ofcourse on a mission to have a good time at the cost of anyone trying to diss him. ;)

Look, I'm an educator myself, and I fail to see how the "lump" test conclusively relates to the sound quality difference of high-end gear. It's an interesting theory, to be sure...

It's not only the lump, there are far more stories, facts. Pricing stuff up with 35% so that some idiots are made happy that there is at last something in their 'pricerange', ampboxes like 'gaincard' (http://www.sakurasystems.com/products/47amp.html) that cost an arm & a leg and only house a single LM3875 module, that sort of stuff. It sells like heaven ;) ..

When I added an Apogee converter to my system, there was a difference in sound.

Yes, but that's actually measurable without the need of sawing your head open and (try to) examen your braincells and cochlea.

Well my two coins to add to the discussion...and hey, I didn't even mention any religious crap! Wow.

And I respect you for that. :)

Cheers,

NM

Jay Q

07-12-2005, 02:30 PM

I dunno yet, have to do some real indepth testing, this only involved some short monofiles at 16/44.If you should decide to do a more exhaustive test (on *stereo* mixes!), please do post your results here. I must be honest, however, and say that even if it was some bizarre phenomenon that made me think SAW sounded better way back when, the fact that the support is the best I've seen from *any* software company would keep me with this software. After all, if all things truly were equal, it makes sense to go with the company that provides the best support. I know, I know... that's a different discussion.

But, seriously, if you were able to show that a wide variety of different material mixed in different apps using inline EQ produced identical results, I would frankly be astounded and would love to see/hear the results. If you want to take each app's built-in EQ out of the equation, then I guess the question is merely whether different apps sum differently, a less interesting question to me, but still worth knowing, I guess.

BTW, have you already read this paper from Rane (http://www.rane.com/pdf/note153.pdf)? What do you think of it?

Jay Yeah I know that, that's what got me curious.Okay, but can you tell me what you think of the paper? The results are verifiable, so I'm wondering what you make of their points.

Jay

TotalSonic

07-12-2005, 02:52 PM

And just so you all don't think I have really deep pockets, I bought my Lavry Gold used after checking out its repair/owner history.

MM

:D
Now you got me totally green with envy on that find! It's very rare you ever see any of the Lavry stuff on the used market - especially the "Gold" stuff. Great to hear you were able to get a deal on one.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

SoundSuite

07-12-2005, 03:17 PM

school (http://www.koncon.nl/public_site/220/MRmain.html) were I do a small bit of teaching (http://www.studiegids.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?c=17&t=3&q=aWQ9MTA5NzE=&v=&k=10971) right now
Do they know you have a knack for doing research on incorrect products and then teaching others of your findings?

I dunno yet, have to do some real indepth testing, this only involved some short monofiles at 16/44.
Before you post of findings as 'abrupt' as 'yours', you should insure testing has been 'indepth'.

At first there was a difference, turned out PT has this panningthing that made me had to add 2.5dB to the inverted bouncefile. Then in SX there was some difference, turned out I forgot to switch off dither in PT. And then there was silence were I expected some sort of residu that came forth out of better impulsehandling & stuff..
Ok, that makes sense, so you did adjust the parameters to insure a null.

I took this thing called 'compact disc', ripped a track and sliced poor Peter Gabriel in four short monoparts.
How did you do this...

What software did you rip with?
I assumed you then imported this wav, but into which DAW?
Which DAW did you do your editing and submixing in to get the mono files, each individual, or all in DAW1?

Assuming you ripped it with appA...
...imported into DAW1 and did all submixing in DAW1 while building to mono files...
...imported those mono audio files into DAW1,2,3 and then adjusted a few parameters to make them match each other...
...built mixes and then imported into DAW1 for comparison/inversion.

Yeah, I can see this test 'prooving' all DAW's outputs can be nulled to each other.
Go, Go, Gadget brain, thanks for exposing your methodology.
You yourself said you had to adjust parameters to make it match.
Would a true researcher hypothesize these changes 'needing to be made' are because they are actually DIFFERENT (from the test result) vs adjusting the parameters to insure they are when they should not be?

What you have done (basically, not literally) is turn up the volume on a crappier stereo and shown the potential customer both are the same, while ignoring the tuning abilities of the device. We'll have no more from you conserning marketing or sales tactics, please.

I apologize, again, I do not have multiple DAW platforms to test on, but I see how the test ended in null now.

Strike 1- Testing and comparing wrong product (SAWEQ vs JMSDXEQ)
Strike 2- Testing for a null, and touching ANYTHING in ANY APP to adjust ANYTHING to forge your own results. I would think the findings should have exposed the differences, and if it were so drastic of a difference in the panninglaw of DAWx, to expose that, vs altering the test to conclude no difference in the findings.

Say I nail1 a 2" nail, 1" into a board,
and nail2 a 3" nail 1.5" into the board, which is taller?
(O, crap, they aren't the same, lemme tap this nail2 in another 1/2")
I know publish my findings which say...
They are the same, both the 3" nail and the 2" nail stick out of the wood the same amount, there is no difference between the two when you want a 1" protrusion from your wood.
Just don't tell anyone about the hidden 2" vs 1" in the wood.
This is simple stupidity or common slander, we'll let the jury decide, but I'm in court either way the first time a contractor uses my nail based on my falsified report stating the nails are identical.

Here's what I propose for a test...
Rip the stereo wav file at 44.1/16bit
Open up each DAW, import the stereo wav and buildmix to new soundfile (in each daw term, of course)
Listen to each one, played back thru all DAWs and pick your preference of DAW from this.
It would be purely subjective this way, but more scientific than your previous attempt of testing just the engine of each app.

Compound this, record your own wavs in the MT...
Work with the apps for more than a day each, figure it out and make it go...
Get used to using it if possible, then playback this mix, listen to each and pick which sounds purist to your ear as an artist.
...Now THAT is a test :D

Most of the time I see someone say DAWx sounds like ____, they have given it all of 2 hours using, and do not even know they have to enable the channel eq to hear the adjustments they are making.

Mulder

07-12-2005, 03:34 PM

Okay, but can you tell me what you think of the paper? The results are verifiable, so I'm wondering what you make of their points.

Jay

The paper brought back the wrenchvisions, so I skipped to the tabel were the deviations were shown (trusting this guy knows his stuff), and at the moment I have this gutfeeling I have to use a much longer file to get some of the differences to surface. The whole eq thing I have to do over again, but need somebody else for that who's not around. But eq's from different manufacters don't zero in general, eq is all about phaseshifting and impulsebehaviour and -I guess you know that- each manufacturer has its own tradeoff. Some have this hidden math that makes the filtering sounds fantastic and leaves us wondering how they did it (Weiss, Massenberg etc).

Mulder

07-12-2005, 03:39 PM

You yourself said you had to adjust parameters to make it match.

Yes. Protools -and some other programs- attenuates a monofile when the panning is in the middle, so you have to compensate for that. That also means that you will have -in this case- 2.5 dB extra noise that will not cancel at the noisefloor, almost a whole bit (like in 1/8 byte).

Thanks for bolding your conclusion btw, saves a lot of time!

Cheers,

NM

edit: Darn, it's ofcourse 1/16 byte! ..stupid me..

mikebuzz

07-12-2005, 03:44 PM

Mark Stebbeds

07-12-2005, 03:47 PM

[QUOTE=SoundSuite

Most of the time I see someone say DAWx sounds like ____, they have given it all of 2 hours using, and do not even know they have to enable the channel eq to hear the adjustments they are making.[/QUOTE]

Oddly engough, I have never heard anyone with experience claim one DAW app sounds BETTER than another, other than on this forum, and then only by a few entry level guys.

Mark

mike_da_min

07-12-2005, 04:15 PM

So this is a totally scientific quesition to mulder even though most of his replies are ASSENINE

You took an already MASTERED Digital CD and rebounced the tracks from PT. Phase inverted one and got a total silence.

HMMM, it seems as though BOB's product talks about the sonic differences in RECORDING not ripping.

A few questions:

which audio ripper did you use
what is the speed of you CD drive
Who mastered the CD and what equipment did they use
would you get the same results from a RECORDED NON-mastered vocal take like some scratch background vocals?

Just some questions. I hadn't realized until now that you hadn't recorded anything into any of these programs. That would seem to provide a whole lot more components to the test such as

mic used
mic placement
mic volume
distance between vocalist/instrumentalist and mic
room acoustics
mic pres
computer noise (fans)

I understand a waveform is a waveform, but the waveform you used is not the waveform that a vocalist/rapper/instrumentalist or for the most part any other person who records music, can capture on a first take and if you know someone who can sing a perfectly mastered, egineered, compressed, and mixed background vocals please tell them I have immediate work for them to do TODAY :D

It seems as though you took a +1 (the already perfect waveform from the CD) made is a -1 (phase cancellation or inversion??) and somehow got 0

As to not flood this post with CRAP, please send the reply Private Message. This question could get out of hand

Hey Mark You said that you only needed to spend a few hundred extra BUCKS huh?

From the Digidesign Website
192 I/O
US List Price: $3,995
192 I/O, the flagship of the Pro Tools|HD interface family, is the best-sounding audio interface ever offered from Digidesign, rivaling similar products costing more than twice its price. In addition to support for up to 16 channels of analog and digital input and output, 192 I/O features a wide range of analog and digital I/O options to choose from, including 8 channels of high-definition, pristine-quality analog I/O, 8 channels of AES/EBU, 8 channels of TDIF, 16 channels of ADAT, and 2 additional channels of AES/EBU or S/PDIF digital I/O.

what does the word INTERFACE mean? Since all you needed was the PT gear and maybe a few hundred extra bucks, what is your PT gear INTERFACING with? And where do the PCI CARDS plugin to?

Are you saying when you bought your rig (computer) it was already stocked up with the external hard drives, tape machines, and memory needed to run the program

According to your resume and Digidesign you would need at least 1.5G to 2.5G for your computer to handle a 75 track song.
http://www.digidesign.com/compato/osx/panther/hd/

at a cost of $90.00 512mb to $200.00 1 G there goes your few hundred bucks

How much exteral media was/is used when recordings? And I know you ain't usin no SAMSON studio monitors. :eek: :eek:

Just reply to Private Message when you get a reply.

Mulder

07-12-2005, 04:44 PM

So this is a totally scientific quesition to mulder even though most of his replies are ASSENINE

Ah.. Passion.. ;)

Dude, you can take recordings of your dog farting to prove this, it doesn't matter (be sure to use a popscreen (http://www.jakeludington.com/podcasting/20050321_build_your_own_microphone_pop_screen.html ) though).

It's about summing on different DAW's, integer vs floating point.

bcorkery

07-12-2005, 04:50 PM

(be sure to use a popscreen (http://www.jakeludington.com/podcasting/20050321_build_your_own_microphone_pop_screen.html ) though)Maybe a POOP screen would work better here.

trock

07-12-2005, 04:59 PM

Hey mark

thaks for that info, i really meant it when i said that album is one of my fav's. maybe in another thread you could post some of the session history?? if you wanted

since i don;t have anything to add to the testing questions going on, let me ask this, in another bit of OT questioning

1) Is SAW designed after a particualr console or were they all pretty much like this channel layout??

2) Is SAW they only DAW out there designed in this fashion? namel these channels emulating an analog console?? I have only used SX 2-3 and it was nothing like this layout.

3) Mulder - Angus Young Lives in Holland and is currently or has just finished his new home, any idea where he lives?? idol of mine you know

4) Mark - I am sure you have fav sessions from back in the day, aside from john C do you have any good session stories?? i am really am VERY interested in what went on in the studio back in the day.

- Mark, this is probably dumb, you obviously know SAW well and have been around, but you bought PT for the industry work you do, do you use SAW still??

THANKS - the Dummy will now shut up :o

Jay Q

07-12-2005, 05:10 PM

OK interesting I just did a test in Saw I took 2 mix's ( stereo tracks complete mix of all instruments ) put them in the mt and inverted 1 of them , I listened back to Silence .

So I then went and did a build mix to a new file , the file contained nothing no samples etc. ???? so I guess it was silent ????

I'm going to try and look at the file with a data viewer to see whats in it

Later
Buzz

:eek:Hey Mike/Buzz (which do you prefer?),

Any app should zero out a file summed with its own polarity-inverted version -- if it didn't, the programmers definitely made a fundamental mistake!

Jay

Mark Stebbeds

07-12-2005, 05:19 PM

[COLOR=Blue]
<snip>
Hey Mark You said that you only needed to spend a few hundred extra BUCKS huh?

From the Digidesign Website
192 I/O
US List Price: $3,995

<snip>
what does the word INTERFACE mean? Since all you needed was the PT gear and maybe a few hundred extra bucks, what is your PT gear INTERFACING with? And where do the PCI CARDS plugin to?

Are you saying when you bought your rig (computer) it was already stocked up with the external hard drives, tape machines, and memory needed to run the program

According to your resume and Digidesign you would need at least 1.5G to 2.5G for your computer to handle a 75 track song.
http://www.digidesign.com/compato/osx/panther/hd/

<snip>

First off, I didn't say that at all. I was very clear on what I spent, and indicated I saved a few hundred bucks by tough negotiation.

You are a genius. Yes, PT, like SS, needs a computer to run on. No, it doesn't have to be powerful because PT uses DSP PCI cards, and does not require much CPU power. This seems to be something that folks here have a hard time understanding. Any computer you would buy new to run SS will run PT just fine. You are misinformed or simply confused if you believe otherwise. Like SS, 512mb RAM is required, more is recommended. There is not a minimum CPU speed called for, although any new computer surpasses 2.5Gb anyhow.

No, my computer does not have tape machines like you indicate are required. :confused:

I have been advised it would run just fine on my old clunker 2.4Ghz. HD systems are running fine all over the world on much slower computers that were available two years ago when HD came out. I bought a Mac, but was advised I didn't need to. I wanted the two platforms.

mark

Mulder

07-12-2005, 05:37 PM

3) Mulder - Angus Young Lives in Holland and is currently or has just finished his new home, any idea where he lives?? idol of mine you know

That's a funny one, he lives in Aalten (http://www.aalten.nl/Prod/aalten/aalten.nsf), in a sort of province that's called 'de Achterhoek' which means as much as 'the backroom' in a bar or restaurant. It's a place infested with farmers and beer, and lots of rockmusicians who were born out of drunk weddingnights.

I played their once (in "Lichtenvoorde", nearby Aalten, the hometown of "Normaal", Hollands most popular farmersband) and it was unbelievable, 2500 'rednecks' I guess you call'em, totally drenched in beer. So much all the equipment was packed in black plastic -guitaramps, speakers- and the FOHdesk was under a plexiglass lid with two openings so you could get your hands at some faders. I was standing behind the stage, next to the monitormixer with my keyboardrig -which couldn't be wrapped in plastic ofcourse- watching the rest of the band dive when some projectiles zoomed at their head:

While playing all the farmers ripped eachothers shirts off (http://normaal.op.het.net/foto/buhne98/buhne.htm), soaked them in beer, put a knot in it and threw them at the stage towards the musicians, a local folklore. After the show their was a pile of wet shirts collected by the roadies of about 5 meters high. We played as an openingact for Normaal who first covered the stage in hay and the whole place went beserk. Afterwards you could swim to the exit in an interesting mix of stomachrejected beer and sweat.

Nice place to retire for a guitarplayer.

trock

07-12-2005, 05:51 PM

HAHAHAHAHA

i just finished laughing, that must have been one CRAZY gig!!

did your keyboard make it thru ok?

so is someone like angus and approachable person?? or is he behind large walls and gates??

the pic i saw of his house seemed like it was right on a street

Mark Stebbeds

07-12-2005, 05:51 PM

1) Is SAW designed after a particualr console or were they all pretty much like this channel layout??

I think it's Bob's design.

2) Is SAW they only DAW out there designed in this fashion? namel these channels emulating an analog console?? I have only used SX 2-3 and it was nothing like this layout.

They all have the same concept to be like an analog channel. They all implement the concept differently, mostly in the graphics. I'm not familiar with Cubase, but in Nuendo the big difference is you open and close sections of the channel strip as you choose, to take up less room in the mixer window.

3) Mulder - Angus Young Lives in Holland and is currently or has just finished his new home, any idea where he lives?? idol of mine you know

You're kidding right? Stupid question. This is not a fan club...er..nevermind.

4) Mark - I am sure you have fav sessions from back in the day, aside from john C do you have any good session stories?? i am really am VERY interested in what went on in the studio back in the day.

I have great stories from that session, other sessions and from the road, but if I told you, I'd have to kill you.

- Mark, this is probably dumb, you obviously know SAW well and have been around, but you bought PT for the industry work you do, do you use SAW still??

I occasionally use Saw Pro for a recurring project that started out in SP. I don't use SS because I was at the roll out at the NAMM show in 2000 discussed today in another thread, and the demo kept freezing and skipping without resolve, even after reboots. The Nuendo demo did not freeze or crash with a few dozen tracks working hard, plus it opened OMF files.

If it were to happen today, I'm sure the story would be much different.

Mark

danickstr

07-12-2005, 05:59 PM

hey it looks like this thread is settling down to intelligent people talking and debating each other's comments in a civilized manner...what the heck happened?

And would the all caps guy please consider taking cap lock off? I hate reading stuff in all caps.:)

cheers

trock

07-12-2005, 06:03 PM

ok, i know its not a fan club, i was just injecting a human element to the conversation

i mean we can discuss the technical stuff AND get to know each other better right?

thats interesting it had issues in 2000, were you the spokesperon for the booth?? or just there as an observor??

Did that experience sour you for good on SS?

here is a quick story, not technical

i live near reb Beach, ex guitarist from winger. I got to jam with him one day at his townhouse (yes not much money from winger, mgmt got it all and the keyboard player who wrote "miles away", and kip)

ANYWAY

we are jammin and this is oh in the mid 90's and i ask him, so what happened to you guys? i know nirvana came out and killed 80's rock but you guys literally dropped off the face of the planet.

he looks at me and says

did you watch beevus and butthead? and i say "not really" but i know the characters.

he says

"do you rememebr the little fat one they picked on"?

i say "yes"

he said

They had him in a winger shirt, with that move, that one cartoon character we lost our entire career. we were on tour, doing well on the third album, then this comes out, we laugh at first, then it catches on that winger is a loser, we try and sue, lose, get made fun off and perceptions change and we literally got dropped from the tour right in the middle of it, and it was our tour.

needless to say i felt bad for him. he is a nice guy.

trock

07-12-2005, 06:09 PM

hey mulder , here is a pic, i have no idea what the articel says. about how much is a home like this over there??

http://www.xangadix.nl/images/Angus%20in%20Aalten.jpg

Tree Leopard

07-12-2005, 09:03 PM

... This forum is NOT a debate for other software users to challenge but to exchange Ideas on using SAW and share tips ( I.E. recording and computer hardware ).

There are other forums that are topical for DAW debates.

Let's keep the vibe positive.

thanks
fvfThats exactly it, Frank. I'm scratching my head wondering what heck is all the fuss about???

re: Stebbeds - at any time he can upgrade to one or other SS package and let that ride happily within his production flow. It just might turn out that SS could be the perfect app to run a on laptop for "out of studio" sessions, who knows? Let him find out.

re: Mulder @ Royal Conservatory at The Hague. If and when Mulder gets authorization from his supervisor, he can purchase SS to run in his lab - even as an example "for research purposes" of a unique DAW hand coded in assember. They can run tests. He can report back.

For the SAW users here - you've got what you need - perhaps even more than that. Why all these absurd justifications? Use the forum to expand technique and knowledge.

Andre

UpTilDawn

07-12-2005, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Mark S: Any computer you would buy new to run SS will run PT just fine. You are misinformed or simply confused if you believe otherwise. Like SS, 512mb RAM is required, more is recommended. There is not a minimum CPU speed called for, although any new computer surpasses 2.5Gb anyhow.

Say Mark,
I find this very confusing. As recently as last month, I (and others at a project meeting) was told that a PT rig (maybe this is only the case in Windows???), the 002 no less, REQUIRES a very specific and very small range of equipment to run on a pc, leaving very little in the way of hardware options.

Even Digidesign's website is quite specific as to what will and will not work with PT.

This person (actually two) was not trying to bolster a sale by jiving us about the requirements, was himself, likely to be involved in the project and knew that the budget was extremely limited, yet he was very insistent.

What do you know that this guy evidently is missing? I'm flustered, myself, over the very limited information I can find about PT....

It's been very hard for me to have any kind of informed conversation with someone who uses PT because I haven't been able to learn anything about it for myself. PTfree wouldn't work on any system I tried it, PTle I'm told will only run on XP (on a pc) and will set me back over 5 bills just to get the hardware...... er, I mean program, let alone setting up another computer to run and learn it.

I'm also told that PT MUST NOT run on a computer with other programs because it is so very specific in its needs, so there's no way I'm about to mess up one of my established systems trying to load PT.

How is it possible for a person to evaluate and learn how PT compares to other recording systems? There's nothing in available print about the software design/makeup for a person to evaluate either.

Given all this, it's natural that people's perceptions of PT are based soley on what they've been told unless they are willing to shell out the bucks to buy a new hardware system/PT, or are fortunate enough to find a buddy that will let them sit at their PT rig and get to know it for a month or two.

Can you help clarify these points for me?

Ignore the rambling parts..... it's latenight, fuzzy stream of thought.

DanT

jeromee

07-12-2005, 10:19 PM

Hey Dan

I used PT free on crappy windows me computer

and it sort of worked:confused: I have been told many times that I have ADD so I didn't really take the time with it. It would freeze up on the machine so I went back to my cubase5:)

RobertV

07-13-2005, 01:10 AM

Mulder;

Not being able to control our sarcastic tongue must be a dutch character treat!
Being originally from Holland and having lived in Australia for a long time now, I still have trouble controlling it. Living in Australia one learns that a lot of people originating from other cultures tend not to understand and be offended by it!

However, I am very interested in the scientific approach, when it comes to debunking the myths of differences (or not) claimed by all sorts of (audio)solutions.
Very often the question is: are we measuring the correct thing? When we hear a difference, and the measurement says there is none, I have learned to question what it is we are measuring.

The differences between SS and other DAW from my understanding has something to do with the mixing engine.
Unfortunately the original post where you explained the method you used has been deleted, and therefore I cannot check if your adopted approach involved summing a reasonable number of tracks (i would suggest at least 20) at various levels to a single output.

Comparing these outputs obtained by the same methods on various DAWs following your method of inverting one of those files and summing
this file with an other (assuming that the program you were using to do this with had at least the resolution as the DAWs producing the output files) seems to me to be a valid approach. One would have to be careful to be only comparing the processing of the software and none of the hardware / software surrounding the DAW software products.

From the conversation going on, it is obvious that you know your stuff, unfortunately you seem to have trouble resisting the temptation to tease!
I personally found it very disturbing that you have managed to upset so many of the SawStudio User family members, which when you consider how many different nationalities are present, represent one of the most understanding, helpful and caring bunch of people I have had the good fortune to get to know via this forum.

Regards.......Robert V

conleec

07-13-2005, 01:10 AM

I've been thinking about Mulder's test lately, having done some coding myself over the years, and a few things have come to mind. Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here, (haven't had time to follow much of the ensuing threads lately) but here goes. Anybody have any thoughts?

1) There's more to any given DAW than it's summing engine. In order to test a DAW's "sound' one should truly do a controlled recording session using identical mic positions, pres, mics and settings. The math involved in capturing is equally as important as the math in summing. However, this truly makes for an impossible empirical test, as no musicians will ever play identically twice in a row.

2) Given this limiting factor, we're left with a test similar to Mulder's to determine the "difference" between DAWs and their signature sounds. Therefore, if we take a given WAV file and import it into multiple applications and perform an exactly identical operation on that file then invert the result and compare it to the non-inverted result from any other DAW, the resulting file represents the sonic difference (if there is any) between each application's summing engine.

3) I find it hard to believe Mulder's assertion that any two applications will exactly cancel each other for the following reasons:

a) Programmers are not perfect. Even if they're reading the same theory from the same textbook, the likelyhood of each programmer (and each compiler) dealing with rounding issues the same way is not, well, likely. Especially if one coder is using floating point math and another is using integer math. The tester cannot simply listen to the resulting data stream to make a definitive declaration of cancellation in this case -- one has to closely examine the results on a bit by bit basis. A difference of a bit or two of "noise" riding on a a clean signal, while "silent" in and of itself, can indeed create a noticable effect to the signal as a whole. For proof, refer to the ongoing debate about dither, where the aural effects of somewhat random low-level noise are debated ad infinitum it seems.

b) For the test to be accurate and dependable, the manipulation of the WAV has to be exact in each application. This presupposes no miscalculation on the tester's part, and absolute calibration between the two applications. Not a likely scenario, I have to say, especially if you're relying upon EQs or other plugins from different manufacturers. The variables, in this case, become far too complex for fair and accurate comparison.

c) In order for two or more applications to completely and utterly phase cancel each other, it means each manufacturer/coder has to have consciously made an effort not to "colorize" their sound. While Bob has on several occasions stated that he shoots for sonic perfection, with no discernable "SAW sound," who's to say the other's don't? Who's to say that Bob doesn't secretly bump the low end a tad, 'cause that's what sounds right to him? Maybe they all try to be as transparent as possible, but knowing human nature, I think it's likely that each programmer brings a little somethin' to the table. I would. :rolleyes:

4) In short, I'd like to see the results of Mulder's test with my own eyes. Not because it matters (I'll continue to use SAW because it offers capabilites and workflow the others don't on a "good faith" $100/month budget), but because I'm interested as a programmer. I'd also like to know exactly the parameters, so I can make an informed decision about the test's merits because, frankly, the more I think about it, the more I think it's absolute BS.

Bert

07-13-2005, 01:26 AM

...

Naturally Digital

07-13-2005, 06:49 AM

Cary B. Cornett

07-13-2005, 09:28 AM

Yeah Bob, let's take away the standards in industry, that's the solution. ;)
I guess some bit of extra coding would be easier but that ofcourse is -like all- just my opinion.

The thing about "industry standards" is that they are not based on, nor are they expressions of, immutable law. Many industry standards are established by whoever "got there first" (bringing the technology to the marketplace). Sometimes said standards are established by whoever had the best marketing campaign. Occasionally standards are established by groups of professionals trying to define the best "presently attainable" methods in hope that those methods will work well in the future.

None of the above methods of establishing standards guarantees that the result will even be good, let alone the best way to do a thing. Occasionally a standard reaches the point where so many people recognize its flaws that it is abandoned. The transition from the old government-mandated "sealed beam" headlamps in cars to the current technologies is an excellent case in point (I won't go into details here, but some of the in-between steps required by law got pretty stupid... like having to promise that one day your car would BECOME a garbage truck so that you could legally buy and install halogen headlamps!)

I remember when Ampex tape recorders were practically THE industry standard for professional audio; They haven't been manufactured for decades now (although I own a couple...). "Top dogs" have been dethroned before, and often by upstarts who, rather than slavishly following established conventions, blazed new trails. In many of these cases the "authorities" on the industry involved flatly declared that the new upstart had "no chance" to topple the then established leaders of the field.

I'm not saying that Bob is going to bulldoze Digidesign (although that could be interesting), nor do I believe that is part of his intent. Changing fundamental aspects of the way the UI of SAW works to satisfy the marketing gurus (self-appointed or otherwise) could well badly damage its value to many of its users (present and future). Remember the "New Coke"?

Note that the changes that Bob HAS made to the UI (and other things) were in answer to the requests of his existing customer base, not some ad hoc "focus group" who might never buy the product. Was a strange idea.... a product that actually evolves with the requests of its users..... Nah. Never happen. :eek:

Jay Q

07-13-2005, 10:26 AM

but I'm guessing that as the complexity of the mix goes up, there should be differences in the LSB's. I'm also not sure it is "fair" to rule out the dither, noiseshaping and resolution settings when judging the *sound* of a DAW.My point exactly. It's hard to believe number of tracks and stereo don't matter (and my ears told me different which was why I bought SAW). And also remember built-in EQ (I only stray from SAW's when I need to do fine-tuning). Again, if the only thing being tested is summing, it's somewhat useful to know, but not a particularly practical comparison when considering actual DAW use.

Jay

Mark Stebbeds

07-13-2005, 04:49 PM

Say Mark,
I find this very confusing. As recently as last month, I (and others at a project meeting) was told that a PT rig (maybe this is only the case in Windows???), the 002 no less, REQUIRES a very specific and very small range of equipment to run on a pc, leaving very little in the way of hardware options.

Even Digidesign's website is quite specific as to what will and will not work with PT.

<snip>
It's been very hard for me to have any kind of informed conversation with someone who uses PT because I haven't been able to learn anything about it for myself.
<snip>

I'm also told that PT MUST NOT run on a computer with other programs because it is so very specific in its needs, so there's no way I'm about to mess up one of my established systems trying to load PT.

How is it possible for a person to evaluate and learn how PT compares to other recording systems? There's nothing in available print about the software design/makeup for a person to evaluate either.

<snip>

You have some very good points. You are correct that Digi only "qualifies" two name brands PCs on their web site, the DELL and the HP. That's because you can buy this pre-configured PCs from a Digi dealer, as you can a Mac, and they gaurantee the computer to work. I can understand how this can be confusing.

If you follow the links, you will see that those two PCs are 64 bit Intel Xeon powered. You will also notice they only cost $1500. If you were to look awhile back, you would have seen Pentium 4 machines listed. If you do a search of the Digi User Conference, you will discover that the most common PC used is homemade with an ASUS motherboard with a Pentium 4, and Windows XP. Sound familiar? Intel seems to give better perfomance than AMD, according to the user group.

Yep, they recommend the latest and greatest (and sell them), but the system gets it's processing power from DSP cards, not the CPU. This is important to remember. It gains efficiency by using it's own proprietery hardware, and eliminates driver issues, etc.

Jumping into Pro Tools is not for the faint of heart. I jumped into this thread simply to set the record straight that it does not cost $50K to get into Pro Tools, and I spent $11K including the audio interface, not including computer. Your mileage may vary, but not by much. Every dealer in town has the same discount off MSRP, give or take a few bucks.

I decide to go for a Mac G5 for kicks, but I was advised I could have run in on my old clunker 2.4GHz PC with Intel motherboard.

An SS system with comparable high end audio interface would cost $7K, maybe more, not including computer. There is certainly more bank for the buck with an SS sytem if you are not concerned with compatabilty with the big show.

mark

Mark Stebbeds

07-13-2005, 04:52 PM

I'm also told that PT MUST NOT run on a computer with other programs because it is so very specific in its needs, so there's no way I'm about to mess up one of my established systems trying to load PT.

I forgot about this part of your post....

I have never heard this. Most of the folks I know running PT on their Macs have it loaded to the max like everyone else, with Logic Audio being the preferred midi sequencer.

Mark

TotalSonic

07-13-2005, 07:49 PM

An SS system with comparable high end audio interface would cost $7K, maybe more, not including computer. There is certainly more bank for the buck with an SS sytem if you are not concerned with compatabilty with the big show.

mark

Hey Mark -
Nice to see you here! Just wanted to play along with your post and spec out a more than equivalent system -

full Studio street price throught any VIP affiliate: $2000

Sydec Mixpander5 Power Pak LE: $2500
PCI card with onboard DSP allowing for 128 audio streams with zero latency input monitoring and true multiclient virtual routing - plus 24 channel 24bit/96kHz outboard AD/DA converter with 24 channel TDIF i/o for expansion

every native SAW plugin there is out there (including 2 comps, 3 reverbs, 2 eq's, multiband comp, 2 real time spectrum analyzers, phase correlation meter, K-meter, tone generator, flanger, phaseshifter, chorus-delay, chorus, tremelo, 9th order noiseshaped dither, brick wall limiter, batch conversion generator, cue sheet generator) - plus commercial DX Time Stretch/Compress & NR plugs (to cover tasks that can't be done with native or VST/DX freeware options) - AND Cuibono-Soft's EDL Convert so you can load & export OMFI & PT5 sessions, among many others AND Rail's BWF Helper so you can import/export Time Stamped broadcast wav files: $1855

Total: $6465

While not far below what you stated I speced out a 24 channel system vs. the 16 channel at 96kHz you have now - plus I included a number of possibly redundant plugins that most likely you would need to spend a bit extra for some in order to get TDM or RTAS equivalents - and I included any software needed for "compatabilty with the big show" - including compatibility with numerous workstations that PT is not directly compatible with. Plus - unlike PT you can create complete PQ & subcode layouts directly in this setup. And unlike PT, SAW gives you a license dongle free to synchronize 8 computers for remotes and extra processors/tracks.

Obviously - if you are in a commercial facility and $5g's doesn't mean much to you in terms of start up costs and you feel that the name recognition PT gives you will generate more than that in the year then go for it. For a project studio where the $5g's - especially if it is a start up - means a lot in terms of having the cash for extra mics and pre's and hardware comps for tracking - then I think SAW makes a lot more sense. But even a commercial facility that just wants to get work done and doesn't feel they need to be a sheep to an industry standard then to me SAW still offers a better value.

Funny story - I have a friend who works an Alpha tester for Digi. He was telling me that Avid corporate was actually making their coders spend hours entering into spread sheets how much time it would take them to a code various different proposed changes to PT - instead of just having them go ahead and do it! Personally I'd just rather have a guy like Bob who actually interacts regularly with his users and just goes ahead and codes what he thinks would be a good idea. Obviously ommv.

Each to his own. Right now I'm doing what I feel is great work using SAW - which I've found to be an indispensible tool towards making my work both better and more fun to do.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Carlos Mills

07-13-2005, 08:19 PM

Hi Mark,

Some of the times we have been in the same side of the fence, but here... :)

It gains efficiency by using it's own proprietery hardware, and eliminates driver issues, etc.

This hardware will be so proprietary that it will most certainly be incompatible with Digidesign's next generation release. And, as far as I know, you will have to buy all the plug ins again... :eek: I've seen people loosing some serious money by buying a complete PT system a few weeks before a new generation was on the streets...
Just to add to what some other people said here, I definetely hope Bob keeps riding on the alternative route... :)

Just two cents,

UpTilDawn

07-13-2005, 09:27 PM

Thanks Mark.
I'm either being yanked around or these people actually believe what they're saying.... Either way, their inability to give me straight facts doesn't help me understand how PT is different or the same....... frustrating.

I am totally happy with Saw..... loved working with it even before I could figure out how to do anything meaningful with it..... I mean, I was so new to desktop computers (something other than a standalone recording workstation) that I was afraid to open a file 'cause everything I did seemed to lock up the system or corrupt a program... I saw a lot of the BSOD in the first two months.... My neighbor, who got me started, moved out of town a month after I got my first computer and then refused to answer my emails within a month of moving because I pestered him so much with my woes. :eek: :eek: :eek:

I have been fighting this seeming war with people who are making decissions about what we should and shouldn't use where I work, so I've wanted to get to know PT a bit since my only exposure is from watching others work with it from a few years ago. That way I could at least know how to defend my position on the issues and I'd have another program I could say I was comfortable using.

But, with so little specific information on PT (other than hype and user newsgroups) and no simple way for me to try getting used to it....... well what can I say?

DanT

Mark Stebbeds

07-13-2005, 10:18 PM

Hey Mark -
Nice to see you here! Just wanted to play along with your post and spec out a more than equivalent system -

Total: $6465

While not far below what you stated I speced out a 24 channel system vs. the 16 channel at 96kHz you have now -

Hi Steve,

Good to see you here selling again. I'll make this brief.

Your Sydec converters are only 96K, and my system is 192kHz. That's twice as much.

Your Sydec converters, although good, fall short of the Digi 192 interface specs, particularly in headroom/dynamic range (about 10db, that's huge) and THD (closer to 15db I think). Excuse me if I'm off a few digits on the numbers. I was seriously looking at these a while back.

To compare hardware to the 192 digi box, you need to use something like the apogee Rosetta 8000, or the AD-DA 16s, although their metering sucks, something I've grown to appreciate on the 192. You would have to add a couple to several thousand dollars to your price.

And no, Cuibano does not replace compatabitly. I have Cuibano and have used it to import a SS session into PT, but unless you feel confident converting ss in PT and sending out the door without checking it, well, enough said. It's a good tool, but it not a full solution.

I have said several times in this thread that SS is more bang for the buck if you don't need to be compatable.

I bought it for business reasons. I live in Burbank, and there are probaby five PT systems on my block. Oddly enough, most of my work has been mixing 75 songs for a New York outfit. Go figure.

And yes, it's paid for itself more than once.

Mark

rioguy

07-14-2005, 06:39 AM

[Your Sydec converters, although good, fall short of the Digi 192 interface specs, particularly in headroom/dynamic range (about 10db, that's huge) and THD (closer to 15db I think).
To compare hardware to the 192 digi box, you need to use something like the apogee Rosetta 8000, or the AD-DA 16s, although their metering sucks, something I've grown to appreciate on the 192. You would have to add a couple to several thousand dollars to your price.

Please don't fall in the 'more numbers more quality' tale for comparing converters.
I used to have a Sony DMX and users back in our forum who work also with the PT converters said the Sony sounded better hands down. The Sony has 'only' 105 Db of dynamic range. Don't compare numbers compare sound.
The new released Aurora converters from Lynx for instance, with 117 db blows anyone in the market. It's all new technology and top quality components.
Sorry but I really don't believe the Mixpander converter stay behind the PT rig (Perry Barret please chime in here). Just because it's 10db behind in numbers this does not mean anything. Quality components are what dictate how a converter sounds.

Regards.

Mark Stebbeds

07-14-2005, 08:56 AM

Please don't fall in the 'more numbers more quality' tale for comparing converters.

<snip>

Don't compare numbers compare sound.
The new released Aurora converters from Lynx for instance, with 117 db blows anyone in the market.

I agree that sound quality is important, and never said that one "sounded better" than the other in any particular application. But this converstion is about PRICE POINT, and yes it is true that converters with higher output and lower internal distortion and more connectivity and flexibility cost more than others, whether or not someone can hear it.

And you are incorrect on the meaning of the numbers. The Aurora does not "blow" anyone :), but is in fact lower in the headroom department than the Digi and Apogee has has a lower maximum output, and hence, a much lower price point. Although you might prefer the sound of a cheaper unit, these simply have higher output and more headroom on the input before clipping, and that costs more.

I believe my RME ADI-8-DS has the same 117db headroom spec as the Aurora, and it's several years old. But I've used it on sessions hanging off of a Pro Tools rig via lightpipe, and it would clip well before the PT stuff, even the old 888/24s. Now to be fair, I didn't record wave files and use sophisticated test equipment, but the overload lights lit up like a Christmas tree long before the PT stuff. 3db is "twice" as much energy, or power.

So the point I'm trying to make is that of price. You pay more money for more headroom and higher output, for the same reason a Neve costs more than a Mackie, even though you can make a hit record on a Mackie. Rap guys do it every day.

mark

Marvin

07-14-2005, 09:52 AM

the overload lights lit up like a Christmas tree long before the PT stuff.

I'm not going to question your argumentation, just thought I'd add some facts about the RME converter. I have the ADI-8 Pro, and I assume that the Overload LED on the DS works the same way. The light up at -2dBFS for some extra safety. So the signal doesn't have to clip just because the red light went off.

Marvin

TotalSonic

07-14-2005, 09:55 AM

Hi Steve,

Good to see you here selling again.

Unfortunately (or maybe I should change that to fortunately!!) I've been a bit busier at the studio to have the time to do a lot of pursuing SAWStudio sales - but it's always fun to respond to your posts. Actually I was curious myself as to what the exact numbers for a "fully loaded" SAW system was.

Your Sydec converters are only 96K, and my system is 192kHz. That's twice as much.

So that must mean twice as good sounding too! :p :rolleyes:
the big question of course being - just how wrong was Nyquist??

To be honest I don't have enough direct experience with 192kHz vs. 96kHz to state these as conclusions that I've verified in any way whatsoever - but a very interesting read regarding why 192 might not necessarily be better at all is at -
http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

Those who question Dan Lavry's white paper point to their own non-scientific listening tests or that maybe he has an agenda here in that his own products don't go to 192. But the reason I take his viewpoints seriously is his own products sound really really really good. Obviously this is open for debate and opens big can of worms with it - but there certainly is good food for thought here.

But seriously - is anyone out there tracking and mixing at 192? In the past year I've mastered about 400 seperate projects and while I get a fair and growing percentage of mixes in at 88.2kHz or 96kHz I have yet to receive even an inquiry regarding whether I can accept 176.4 or 192. Polling other ME's at Brad Blackwood's PSW forum shows nearly all of them with similar experience. In fact my Mytek and Lavry stuff only goes up to 96kHz - but I'm not about to trade them in for a PTHD192!!

Your Sydec converters, although good, fall short of the Digi 192 interface specs, particularly in headroom/dynamic range (about 10db, that's huge) and THD (closer to 15db I think). Excuse me if I'm off a few digits on the numbers. I was seriously looking at these a while back.

Very good point. So based on this requirement I could spec out another Sydec system:
Apogee 8/96IO - 8 channel AD/DA at 24/96kHz - $2500
specs:
8-channel A/D converter

Frequency response: 10Hz to 20kHz, +/-0.025dB
Word length: 24bit
Sample Rate range: 44.1kHz to 96kHz +/-10%
THD + noise: -105dB
Dynamic range: 117dB (A-weighted)
Passband ripple: 0.001dB
Stopband attenuation: 110dB
Interchannel crosstalk: -120dB
Input levels (maximum): +24dBu/+20dBu/+5dBV (jumper selectable)
Clock jitter: <22ps

8-channel D/A converter

Word length: 24bit
Sample Rate range: 44.1kHz to 96kHz +/-10%
THD + noise: -103dB
Dynamic range: 116dB (A-weighted)
Passband ripple: 0.0002dB
Stopband attenuation: 115dB
Interchannel crosstalk: -120dB
Frequency response: 10Hz to 20kHz, +/-0.025dB
Output levels (maximum): -10dBV and +4dBu to -16dBFS, +24dBu/+20dBu/+5dBV (jumper selectable)
Clock jitter: <22ps

Mixtreme 192 - $400 - not as much onboard DSP as the Mixpander card - but you'd still have complete zero latency input monitoring built in.

So you've got fewer channels but higher quality for only $400 more than the other system I speced.

And no, Cuibano does not replace compatabitly. I have Cuibano and have used it to import a SS session into PT, but unless you feel confident converting ss in PT and sending out the door without checking it, well, enough said. It's a good tool, but it not a full solution.

Good point and I agree that EDL Convert is certainly not a perfect tool. It's a heckuva less expensive than Digi's OMFI Translator though.

As far as compatibility though - right now my string quartet is using a studio with a nice large live room & PT HD to track our new CD at 24bit/88.2 (and yeah - the PT192 converters are sounding good to me). I bring in my FAT32 external Firewire drive - the record engineer chooses PC compatibility and presses record. I bring the drive back to my place - open the folder in the Library view, select the wav files, press insert, and start mixing. Pretty simple.

When I've done soundtracks for a couple film scores that had the post done on PT rigs I've just Built Mix for whatever stems I need from 0:00 and send them in wav or aiff files. They open the files and everything is there.

Obviously if you are looking to mix at multiple facilities over the course of the sessions then being able to open a PT session file directly would make more sense - but the barriers between different DAW systems for the most part are certainly easily surmountable at this point.

I have said several times in this thread that SS is more bang for the buck if you don't need to be compatable.

And you get some brownie points for that! ;)

I bought it for business reasons. I live in Burbank, and there are probaby five PT systems on my block. Oddly enough, most of my work has been mixing 75 songs for a New York outfit. Go figure.

Got to do some work for some Cali outfits recently too. Guess the East/West war is over? :D

And yes, it's paid for itself more than once.

Does this mean you're buying the first round if you come out here for AES??
:D

Best regards,
Steve Berson