On Apr 17, 2005, at 18:46, Dave Shirk wrote: > Per! > > That is no problem. That is what I used first to listen to this > signal (Logic) and that is easy. What I am doing is routing the > audio out of an XM radio into the audio in on the Mac G5. > All I want to do is hear the audio With Out bringing up Logic > etc. > > Any Help?? > > Dave S Ahh, I see. I.e. using the G5 as an amplifier? I'm afraid I don't know how to do that without using some audio application. Greetings from Sweden Per Boysen --- http://www.looproom.com (international) http://www.boysen.se (Swedish site) http://www.cdbaby.com/perboysen

On Apr 17, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Per Boysen wrote: > Ahh, I see. I.e. using the G5 as an amplifier? I'm afraid I don't know > how to do that without using some audio application. > > Greetings from Sweden > > Per Boysen Thanks Per: Seems kind of odd to me?!? But for the life of me I could find no way to do it. I am using Garage Band - just because it loads faster. But you are right - Logic works fine. Just seems like overkill, just to get the audio input sent over to the audio output - LOL! Thanks again Dave S

On 4/17/05 1:37 PM, "Dave Shirk" wrote: > > > On Apr 17, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Per Boysen wrote: > >> Ahh, I see. I.e. using the G5 as an amplifier? I'm afraid I don't know >> how to do that without using some audio application. >> >> Greetings from Sweden >> >> Per Boysen > > Thanks Per: > > Seems kind of odd to me?!? But for the life of me I could > find no way to do it. I am using Garage Band - just because > it loads faster. But you are right - Logic works fine. Just seems > like overkill, just to get the audio input sent over to the audio > output - LOL! > > Thanks again > http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/18987

On Apr 17, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Andy Tarpinian wrote: > > Thanks Per: > > > > Seems kind of odd to me?!?  But for the life of me I could > > find no way to do it.  I am using Garage Band - just because > > it loads faster.  But you are right - Logic works fine.  Just seems > > like overkill, just to get the audio input sent over to the audio > > output - LOL! > > > > Thanks again > > > > http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/18987 > > Andy! Thanks! Exactly what I needed! Dave S

I Recieved this message from another yahoo group. I thought it may be of some interrest to those of you concerned by security on the web: Yahoo is now using something called "Web Beacons" to track Yahoo Group users around the net and see what you're doing and where you are going similar to cookies. Yahoo is recording every website and every group you visit. Take a look at their updated privacy statement: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy About half-way down the page, in the section on cookies, you will see a link that says web beacons. Click on the phrase web beacons. That will bring you to a paragraph entitled "Outside the Yahoo Network." In this section you'll see a little "click here to opt out" link that will let you "opt-out" of their new method of snooping. Once you have clicked that link, you are exempted. Notice the "Success" message on the top of the next page. Be careful because on that page there is a "Cancel Opt-out" button that, if clicked, will *undo** the opt-out. Feel free to forward this to other groups. Thanks to whoever sent this on the crystal user group. Phil - Mtl ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Phil Nad <phnad@...> wrote: >I Recieved this message from another yahoo group. >I thought it may be of some interrest to those of you >concerned by >security on the web: >Yahoo is now using something called "Web Beacons" to >track Yahoo >Group users around the net and see what you're doing >and where you are going similar to cookies. Yahoo is >recording every website and every group you visit. Take a look at their updated privacy statement: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy thanks for posting

"gswerner2002" <gswerner2002@y...> wrote: > > What are the options on your sound card from the computer? I have a > pair of Bose connected to my PC with built in power, about 30 watts, > I've used for a long time. They have a stereo jack and they're great > for working with arrangements without having to turn all sorts of > stuff on, initially. > > I'm not sure about your soundcard's capabilities and your M1's, with > reference to power, so that's an issue to address, but my experience > with the Bose speakers has been without any problems. Also, what > about your tascam unit? Will it receive audio input from the > computer? Does it have audio out for speakers? > Gary Hi, thanks a lot for your response. The Tascam US-122 is a MIDI/Audio interface with two analogue L/R jack outputs. I guess what I am after is a cheap, good mixer. I will be recording part by part, so don't need too many inputs for vocals, guitar, bass, keys, etc. Is this any help for you to help me? All the best, Phil.

"superstyler234" <superstyler234@y...> wrote: > > Hi, thanks a lot for your response. The Tascam US-122 is a > MIDI/Audio interface with two analogue L/R jack outputs. > > I guess what I am after is a cheap, good mixer. I will be recording > part by part, so don't need too many inputs for vocals, guitar, > bass, keys, etc. > > Is this any help for you to help me? > > All the best, > > Phil. I've always used Logic for MIDI info only. I have all outboard instruments connected to a Unitor. From that, I connect to all instruments and then audio all instruments out to an outboard mixer and then to a 24 trk HDR. I'm really happy with the results because I can control dynamics pretty good at the PC and my mixer is automated, as well as having plug-in cards for sound effects. So far, so good. Gary

Is a Mac system UNIX based the same way the old Windows systems were DOS based?

On 02/05/2005, at 7:52 AM, gswerner2002 wrote: > Is a Mac system UNIX based the same way the old Windows systems were > DOS based? Yes if you are referring to OS X.

Hey there gswerner2002, Sorry to disagree with Kurt (although he's not wrong), your question should probably be a bit more pointed. If you're referring to the user's experience with the interface, the answer to your question is no. Rather, the gorgeous user interface we have come to know and love as Mac OS X appears to be an integral part of the UNIX variant that runs it. The user is very insulated from UNIX. Even after a kernel panic (a serious low-level system crash), control is passed to a routine that politely dims the screen, and displays a window (in multiple languages, BTW) indicating a reboot is in order. I remember working with early versions of Windows that, after a crash, would throw me back into DOS (I would be staring at a DOS command prompt). Duh! Early beta versions of Mac OS X would crash and sometimes throw some UNIX junk on the screen. At that point, the Mac would only accept UNIX commands, but that was early versions of OS X. The refinements to the OS have kept the user away from UNIX. What you will not see with Mac OS X, is UNIX stuff coming up early on in the boot stages (as early Windows OS's would do with text-based DOS stuff, giving you the feeling you were working in some graphic user interface that was simply a stand alone program running in the DOS environment). Rather, OS X will yield just the opposite feeling: to get a UNIX command prompt, you must run a program (Terminal) that would give you access to a UNIX command line prompt. To answer your question with any further degree of detail, would require an extremely intimate knowledge of Mac OS X (at the component level), which few people have. Is it that you're just curious about Mac OS X, or do you have some deeper need for this info? Stephen Laianca - Just up the road from the Bada Bing - Fugedaboudit! ... --

Kurt Otto wrote: >On 02/05/2005, at 7:52 AM, gswerner2002 wrote: > >> Is a Mac system UNIX based the same way the old Windows systems were >> DOS based? > >Yes if you are referring to OS X. It always used to amuse me the way some Mac types I encountered over the years thought the fact that DOS underpinned Windows was some sort of dirty little secret. It was as if they thought Mac OS8 or 9 was nifty vector graphics all the way down to the silicon or something. Anyone who has the slightest understanding of computation will be aware that a CPU does not natively understand "drag and drop" and other graphical interface operations. At the machine level it can only deal with really basic things - reading or writing data to or from memory locations or to disk, adding and multiplying - nuts and bolts stuff. Everything going on at the user level needs to be translated by the lower levels of the OS into instructions the CPU can actually perform. In a graphical system with no command line interface available to the user (pre OSX Mac), anything that has not been set up as a GUI controlled operation cannot be done AT ALL. Now that the Mac OS has a CLI this obvious benefit (from a computer savvy user/programmer point of view) is now perceived as a selling point rather than a detriment. Regards, M

Murray, Your point is well taken. But remember, Apple's marketing line years ago was that the Mac was a 'computer for the rest of us'. Most people aren't programmers, so when they see a command line, they freak out. Apple's success with the Mac has been built largely on keeping the user away from the under-the-hood stuff. This can be seen both ways. If the software is good, the user never needs to go near low-level stuff. If the software is bad, low-level access is a plus. Mac software for the most part, has been outstanding. The need for low level access is a mute point for all but programmers. My frustrations with Windows bouncing back to DOS was more for the folks that were helpless with the DOS command line. Programmers and savvy computer folk were ok, but the average person is left scratching his head with the DOS command line. All this points to the average user's experience with the machine. Most people don't want a machine with more than one 'personality'. DOS command line prompts are fairly hostile for newbies and the masses in general (it's the reason Microsoft did 'Windows'). I've been in both worlds and prefer a platform that yields an experience that doesn't require low-level tinkering. Stephen Laianca - Just up the road from the Bada Bing - Fugedaboudit! ... --

At 03:20 AM 5/2/05 -0400, you wrote: >Murray, > >Your point is well taken. But remember, Apple's marketing line years ago >was that the Mac was a 'computer for the rest of us'. Most people aren't >programmers, so when they see a command line, they freak out. They must have really hated the Apple II then :-) >Apple's success with the Mac has been built largely on keeping the user away >from the under-the-hood stuff. This can be seen both ways. If the software >is good, the user never needs to go near low-level stuff. If the software >is bad, low-level access is a plus. Mac software for the most part, has >been outstanding. <cough> >The need for low level access is a mute point for all but >programmers. > >My frustrations with Windows bouncing back to DOS was more for the folks >that were helpless with the DOS command line. Programmers and savvy >computer folk were ok, but the average person is left scratching his head >with the DOS command line. I was really talking about Win95 and onward here - the 3 years or so (shudder) of Win 3.x involved lauching (largely)16 bit Windows from the command prompt on your 16 bit DOS machine. GPFs were the order of the day. After that, PCs had a (largely) 32 bit OS with memory protection and proper multi-tasking. Mac didn't get this stuff till OSX. It was during this period, when Win95 based PCs were reducing the Mac market share down to single figures, that the sort of "it's still DOS underneath" campaign was running. How fondly I remember those bits of bombast like "Win95 = Mac 88". Underneath the GUI of OS 7 - 9 was a massive kludge that Apple spent the better part of a billion dollars trying to replace with their own new generation of code and then they gave up and bought Next for 400 large. M$ did a similar thing but sooner - they brought the author of Digital's VMS operating system over for a serious chunk of change and got him to create the WinNT which is the progenitor of M$s consumer OS versions post Win2k. >All this points to the average user's experience with the machine. Most >people don't want a machine with more than one 'personality'. DOS command >line prompts are fairly hostile for newbies and the masses in general (it's >the reason Microsoft did 'Windows'). > >I've been in both worlds and prefer a platform that yields an experience >that doesn't require low-level tinkering. You must get a real kick out of repairing your permissions then ;-)

> Is it that you're just curious about Mac OS X, or do you have some deeper > need for this info? > > > Stephen Laianca > My non specific questioning about the subject comes from the fact that I've always been a Windows and have never been in contact with a Mac. Without being a programmer, I'm very knowledgeable about that environment and have a nice studio environment built around it. I'm wanting to expand my studio in the near future and would like to incorporate the latest facilities available when I assemble it all. Presently I have Logic 5 because of the Windows environment and I like that since I use outboard recording and mixing, but there's no new version for Windows and I'd really like to remove myself from the Bill Gates snare if possible. I've not been impressed with anything by Microsoft since 98SE. Thanks for the info. Gary

Hello, Anyone know how I can get my Logic software key/toggle fixed or replaced? Still using PC with ver 5.3. THANKS!, Chuck

Gary, Gotcha on the 'Gates snare' sentiment. I've done a lot of tech support and training (corporate & private) over the years and in all my experience, I can't say I know of anyone who willingly left the Mac platform for a Windows solution. The one that comes to mind was a media attorney with 5 machines in her office. It cost her a small bundle to move to Windows, but she did so, largely because she got tired of converting documents for the Windows-centric legal profession. When I asked about her plans as she nears retirement, she looked at me stone cold and said, "On that day, I will dump all these PCs and get a Macintosh." Hmmm... Let's make some general observations about human nature: 1. Switching platforms is always awkward, regardless of platform. (You felt empowered via your familiarity with your existing platform.) 2. Any new platform will remove that comfort level... you will feel un-empowered ...until you learn your way around the new system. 3. People resent change, especially as they get older. 4. The learning process is a humbling one that requires effort. Humans don't like to exert effort. 5. The Sopranos is the greatest work for television, to date. (er, a, um.. sorry about that, I lose focus sometimes). The platform wars will always be there. There will always be people who are entrenched in their world and can't understand the attraction to anything else. Apple has always been focused on the user experience. This vital aspect seems to have been relegated to 2nd priority on other platforms. What is magical about Mac OS X is that user's don't even have to know how to spell UNIX and yet they can be served by its power and capabilities. To be able to interface with UNIX via a plush, sophisticated interface makes one feel like they've put one over on the natural laws of the universe. I guess it's time to bow to Steve Jobs and his technology people on this one. They truly have pulled off something no less than pure magic. You will not be disappointed by a Mac, unless you get a low end unit that is not appropriate for Logic, etc. (Even the low-end G5 tower would do the trick). However, I always tell folks (especially in the music biz) to buy as much hardware muscle as their budget will allow, and they'll be happy for a longer time). The difference between Logic 5 and Logic 7 is enormous. The new features alone will make you happy you put bucks down for a new system. The world of Mac OS X will be a relief to have gotten away from the 'Gates snare'. A few caveats: The OS X version of Logic only supports AU plug-ins. If you're heavily invested in other plug-in formats (VST, etc.) you'll need to update those. Although, you'd be updating those anyway, if you're switching platforms. You'll need to get the Mac version of the drivers that support any external equipment you have (audio, MIDI interfaces, other equipment, etc.). Give the group some feedback after you make the switch. Stephen Laianca - Just up the road from the Bada Bing - Fugedaboudit! ... --

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Laianca <slaianca@e...> wrote: > Gary, > > Gotcha on the 'Gates snare' sentiment. Thanks for the feedback, I'm fully expecting to have my hands full learning the new OS and as of yet I haven't reached the point where I'm feeling to old to enjoy a new adventure. I just wanna take full advantage of the Logic environment when I upgrade my studio and I'd surely like nothing more than to leave Bill Gates in the dust!! Gary

That's OK Stephen, I disagree with myself often, and whenever I can. ;-) On 02/05/2005, at 4:37 PM, Stephen Laianca wrote: > Sorry to disagree with Kurt (although he's not wrong), your question > should > probably be a bit more pointed.

If MAC OSX is Unix Based (FreeBSD?) Could Logic versions 6 or greater Theoretically run on Linux or FreeBSD? -- peace. derby "Everything I know results in one mentality and that is that I know nothing". derby@... derby604@... AIM: derbyTS Y!: derby604 ICQ: 294986138 http://touchsamadhi.com http://chilluminati.org

I just received my Mac G5 2.3 yesterday. I have only used Macs in other studios where using Logic was all there was to it. Now I have to work out everything, are there any good sites for picking up advices. Oh and another thing, what do you guys use for burning DVD/CD for backup. Is there a program that I need or is it all in Tiger.

Hi, I'm looking at the new Macs and wondering if the construction is completely controlled by them and if any and/or all variations are also distributed by them. By variation, I mean less powerful compared to more powerful. I've only had experince with PC's and have built many for myself and others through the years and the gathering of parts has been as easy as walking through a computer parts shop and deciding how powerful I need it to be. All reference to Mac's has been as completely assembled units and my curiousity leads me to ask how far into the future the hardware that's incorporated with the units will go. Also, is the hardware different from that of a PC. Ex.. motherboard, processor, etc.. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Gary

"gswerner2002" <gswerner2002@...> wrote: >I'm looking at the new Macs and wondering if the construction is >completely controlled by them and if any and/or all variations are also >distributed by them. By variation, I mean less powerful compared to >more powerful. >I've only had experince with PC's and have built many for myself and >others through the years and the gathering of parts has been as easy as >walking through a computer parts shop and deciding how powerful I need >it to be. >All reference to Mac's has been as completely assembled units and my >curiousity leads me to ask how far into the future the hardware that's >incorporated with the units will go. Also, is the hardware different >from that of a PC. Ex.. motherboard, processor, etc.. Apple outsources constuction of Mac desktops and laptops to the same companies in Taiwan and China that major PC distibutors like Dell and HP use. They are made from the same hard drives, DVD drives,RAM,Video cards, display hardware as PCs and even some chipset components like Firewire/hypertransport are derived from the PC side of the business. Some of their monitors use some non-standard connectors (ie not DVI) but there are usually some third party parts to connect them to PCs and to connect PC monitors to Macs. The Mac motherboards themselves and the designs of the cases etc are specced by Apple and are not interchangable with PC parts at all. Power supply units likewise. If you need to replace these out of warranty you will not be looking at PC hardware prices (eg Mobo for $100) - not even close. There are no variations or second sources for Apple compatible hardware besides the range of models at different price/performance points that Apple sells. Apple has often hobbled the lower end models by stripping out CPU caches etc to create performance differentials between high and low end models. If you buy a Mac you will have little or no CPU upgrade options unless you can perhaps get a third party CPU upgrade kit at some later stage - I don't know if any such things have been marketted for the G5 series. If something goes wrong with your Mac you will be getting it fixed by Apple because they are the sole source of many spares except for things like the drives, the mouse and perhaps monitors and video cards too. If you are a DIY kind of guy the Mac is not really made with you in mind - it is designed more for people who want to buy an appliance and never break open the case except perhaps to admire the insides ;-).

Hi All, I'm running an old Mac G3. The beige variety. I'm told that it will support an early version of OSX. Does anyone have particular knowledge of which version I should look for? I've also heard that it won't run OSX at all... Thanks. -- Doug

Am 06.05.2005 um 13:52 schrieb Doug Slick: > I'm running an old Mac G3. The beige variety. I'm told that > it will support an early version of OSX. Does anyone have particular > knowledge of which version I should look for? I'm running OS X 10.2.8 on a PB G3 Wall Street, the first of those pretty round ones. So I think that should work with yours too. Cheers Hans