"dub kult" <dub@k...> wrote: > > the only thing i'm not too sure about is what is a decent video > > card to use? does it really matter that much even? > > i don't want to spend silly money. i'm thinking about the order > > of 100 quid - hopefully under. i'm only going to be using 1 > > 19" monitor "gordonmurrison" <gordon.murrison@t...> wrote: > Matrox Millennuim G450 or G550 Rock solid performance for 2d > applications, well proven with Logic systems everywhere. Not > expensive and they're all dual head which is something well worth > considering for the future. One exception for the Matrox cards: DSP-based card systems such as UAD, Creamware, Oasys etc, suffer from the Millenium's excessive use of the PCI bus. Supposedly NVidia chipsets (GeForce3 and 4) are more desirable for such applications. Gabriel

Hi Marc, > Ummm, in response to my own most recent post, upon reading it > again I realize it might have sounded a little rude, so I > apologize & want to soften the message by saying that I didn't > mean to imply that someone who doesn't know much about Mac OSX > is stupid or deficient in some way. No offense taken. so, Do NOT worry. What I know about OSX is this; It is UNIX based OS which was completely new and ported to APPLE machines. It also has some new bells and whistles for AUDIO. Also as an OS it can handle Multi (Dual or QUAD don't KNOW) CPUs much better than OS 9.2. Actually, I would not mind if you could BRIEFLY explain what else is new. If you have the time of course. My point was not exactly comparing 9.2 to OSX vs. ME to XP. It was rather to point out that you can NOT really compare PC user's excitement to MAC users since they both have their own view and care about the other platform less than their own.(Which is OK and expected) My other point was, Logic already worked very stable and utilized Dual CPUs on MAC OS9.2 So from Logic User's pointview they would Double their Machines performance or more stable. I have seen OSX and I like the new icons and the wat the OS feels. SO that is also understandable. If there is something totally newer than all these, I would like to know if you could explain briefly. Thanks Yavuz AKYAZICI Guitar Player http://home.earthlink.net/~yavuza

>i thought it might be easier to just sync them and keep midi apps in >logic and audio in protools, and not bounce the midi tracks til I >was done (or at certain points). > >since only one program can use the digi001 output though I was >wondering what my options were for the audio out in this scenario... > >do people do this? You can start Logic without an audio engine running, and only use it for MIDI, but I guess that you need the audio running in Logic for softsynths. I have heard of people using Korg Oasys PCI cards along side the 001 in the same computer and sending signal from the Oasys card to the 001 card using the ADAT lightpipe connectors. So I guess it can be done, but I would think that a processor intensive application such as Logic Audio running a softsynth might have trouble running at the same time and on the same CPU as Protools. In the Korg Oasys situation the softsynths are running on the Oasys DSP chips rather than the Mac CPU, so there might not be as much CPU load in that case. Have you tried setting up Logic so that it uses the Mac sound output for it's audio and then plugging that into the 001 for Protools. Simon Canberra AUSTRALIA

"gordonmurrison" <gordon.murrison@t...> wrote: > > Matrox Millennuim G450 or G550 Rock solid performance for 2d > > applications, well proven with Logic systems everywhere. Not > > expensive and they're all dual head which is something well worth > > considering for the future. Gabriel wrote: > One exception for the Matrox cards: DSP-based card systems such as > UAD, Creamware, Oasys etc, suffer from the Millenium's excessive se > of the PCI bus. Supposedly NVidia chipsets (GeForce3 and 4) are > more desirable for such applications. Hmmm... Do AGP cards even use the PCI bus? I thought that was the advantage of AGP over PCI. So as long as you're using an AGP version (which is pretty standard) of a Matrox card you should be just fine, no? Cheers, Jeremy

--- In logic-users@y..., "realman10us" <realman10@l...> wrote: > I've been using the Quattro for 6 months now and never > missed a bit. > I'm very satisfied with the drivers and the A/D converters. What's the minimum ASIO buffer size you can run, and is there noticeably higher CPU use at lower buffer sizes? Any problems doing 24-bit 4-in and 4-out simultaneously? John Pitcairn

Hey... Found this picture of our illustrious moderator at Musikmesse Frankfurt 2002, visiting the RME booth (presumably to get his payoff for pimping RME cards on the list :-) j/k) Nice to put a face on the names sometimes. http://www.rme-audio.de/messe/ffm6.htm 3rd picture down... -- Bryce Fischer <vbfischer@...>

I'm trying to make an object that will send a cc everytime a note hits that will cycle through from the minimum value to the max in X hits. I was planning on dividing the difference between min & max by X (max-min/x) and adding that to the cc every hit till it reaches the max and then cycling back to 0. Unfortunatly it seems you cannot control the division transformer using meta events for any value over 1, making it pretty useless :( Anybody have an idea for a workaround?

threbbit wrote: >Anyone here using a high quality word clock, and how much difference >does it make? > >My set-up: >G4/400 LAMP 5.00 MOTU 2408 Unitor 8 serial into G-port serial port >03D. > >I use MOTU internal clock sync transmitted to the 03D via ADAT >lightpipe. >I have always assumed that even if your reference is not totally >stable, as long as everything moves the same, it is alright, but I >have recently been assured that using a high quality word clock will >improve as much, if not more, than upgrading from 16 bit to 24 bit >working. Any boffs or experienced users care to comment? > >RJ > > I was obliged to use the Word clock to synchronize a Digimax with a Motu system (2048MKII + 24i + 1296) and a Lexicon The 1296 gives the clock to everybody (I was told my MOTU's guru, Magic Dave, to do so ; the clock of the 1296 is better than the 2048 and the 24i ) Works fine 99% of the time (rarely the Lexicon get confused or cannot catch up the Spdif Sync, just need to power Off and On) My only reproach to this system is that often I have to reconfigure (use internal clock of the 1296 and main out to 1&2 of the 1296) Best -- Cyril Blanc ______________________________________________________ mailto:blanc.cyril@... 92350 Plessis Robinson France The box said 'Requires Windows 95, or better.' So I bought a Macintosh.

Hmm....you are correct, it would take up pci bandwidth. To be perfectly honest with you, I am not sure if it would impair audio recording. You can check how many tracks you can run with this program : http://www.sesa.es/us/dskbench/dskbench.htm It even checks how much cpu you use on your machine with certain drives and block sizes, etc. Pretty nice stuff if you want to redo your HD and optimize it for audio recording. rob robertnederhorst visual effects http://throb.net engineeringfreak www.pamelanewlands.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Murray McDowall [mailto:murraymc@...] > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 10:25 AM > To: logic-users@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [LUG] [LAW] My LOGIC workhorse... > > > There is potentially a downside of using a RAID controller as > I understand it. Most X86 chipsets have the IDE controller > built into on the Southbridge -- which like the USB ports -- > is not on the PCI bus. So ATA traffic does not load the PCI > bus which is then free to handle audio traffic -- to your > sound card or any DSP cards like Pulsar, UAD or Powercore. > > On the other hand, RAID controllers, whether integrated into > the board or installed as a PCI card, are sitting on the PCI > bus and competing with the Audio cards for bandwidth. Is > this a real world issue for DAWs using RAID or, in practical > situations, is there more than enough bandwidth to go around? > > Regards, > Murray

--- In logic-users@y..., Ned Bouhalassa <ned@n...> wrote: > Has anyone had good or bad experiences with the > combination of LAPM 5 or 4.xx and Midiman's > M-Audio Quattro 4x4 USB interface? <excessive quotes trimmed by admin> I tried this on my friends machine and the latency was unbarable. I would not by this. We used it on a 700 mhz G3 iMac. I don't know what machine your planning on using this on, but I would really look into a PCI or Firewire card. I know the firewire cards are pretty expensive, but you can get a good PCI card without a breakout box for a pretty good price. Good Luck

Hi Is it possible to use SoundBlaster audigy platinum ASIO drivers on LAWP 5.1 ??? Softsynts work fine but audio track gets ASIO overload message. MME drivers works okay on softsynts and audio but with a latency of 40millisec.

Thoughts from the mind of joshuabates23, 11-05-2002: >I'm trying to make an object that will send a cc everytime a note >hits that will cycle through from the minimum value to the max in X >hits. I was planning on dividing the difference between min & max by >X (max-min/x) and adding that to the cc every hit till it reaches >the max and then cycling back to 0. Unfortunatly it seems you cannot >control the division transformer using meta events for any value >over 1, making it pretty useless :( Anybody have an idea for a >workaround? Here's a clue: if you want to divide by something >1, you can also multiply by something <1. I.e. in order to multiply use the DIV operator, and to divide, use the MULT operator. Silly, I know, but it works... The remaining (and biggest) problem will be one of resolution: when using meta events to set the multiplication factor ("operation 1st parameter" meta-event), a meta-event value of e.g. 25 is "translated" by the transformer to "multiply by 25/127". So when you need a "divide by 2" you're out of luck: this would have to become a "multiply by 0.5", but using integers, you can't make x/127 to be 0.5. The closest you can get is either 63/127 or 64/127. Bummer... Related problem: you'll probably have e.g. a "steps" fader, so you can say you want the ramp from min to max to take e.g. 16 steps. So you take the diff = max-min, and want to divide that by 16. That means you have to multiply by 1/16. But then you have to find a way to automatically map the 1/16 to the closest approximation of the form x/127 (since that is what will eventually be used). That means making a mapping transformer, I suppose. Note that this is a different but related problem to the previous, which was concerned with the rounding errors. This is about "automatically" finding the best approximation. All in all it means: with input (=diff) "x" (0-127), you have to find output "y", such that 1/x = y/127. Or y = 127/x. With x between 0 and 127, y will always be fractional and so you can only approximate the proper result. Due to the nature of this relationship (a hyperbola, which "flattens out" at the end), you'll also find lots of input values yielding the same rounded output value. E.g. with x from 37 to 50, you'll always get y = 3 (assuming proper mathematical rounding -- not sure how Logic treats this exactly: 127/37 = 3.43 and 127/50 = 2.54, both rounding to 3). Getting practical this means that if you have a range from 0-127 (diff7), and you wanted to cover that range in 37 steps, Logic would tell you to use a stepsize of 3. But 3 x 37 is less than 127... Likewise, if you wanted to have 50 steps, Logic would still tell you to use a stepsize of 3. But 3 x 50 is more than 127. Deadlock... Sigh... your idea sounds cool and it can be done, within limits, but it's not at all trivial, I'm afraid. However, if you don't care too much about exactness, your idea can certainly be implemented... If you need more brainstorming or whatever, feel free to write me privately. -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

yavuz@... writes: >What I know about OSX is this; >It is UNIX based OS which was completely new and ported to APPLE >machines. It also has some new bells and whistles for AUDIO. Also as >an OS it can handle Multi (Dual or QUAD don't KNOW) CPUs much better >than OS 9.2. Actually, I would not mind if you could BRIEFLY explain >what else is new. If you have the time of course. UNIX is actually an older and very high end and stable OS. It's only new to Apple, in terms of building their own OS around it. OS 9 and before were NEVER multi-CPU savvy. OSX is the first one to be. That's not saying that applications themselves couldn't be written as multi-CPU savvy, but the OS itself was never. I'm guessing that single-CPU Macs will eventually he relegated to only the lower end models, and that dual (or more) CPU Macs will be the professional standard and not just the highest end. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants (Tastes awful, but it works) Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!"

>What I know about OSX is this; > >It is UNIX based OS which was completely new and ported to APPLE >machines. It also has some new bells and whistles for AUDIO. Also as >an OS it can handle Multi (Dual or QUAD don't KNOW) CPUs much better >than OS 9.2. Actually, I would not mind if you could BRIEFLY explain >what else is new. Well, you are correct that it is a Unix OS, but perhaps underestimating the significance. That is a huge change! This is basically a completely new operating system. Things that are similar to OS 9 were more or less recreated under the new OS, not just passed along (if that made any sense). Multi-CPU support being better than in OS 9 (and I've heard also much better than in Windows 2000/XP) is just a small piece of things. And the audio system, for many many reasons, is a dream come true for computer musicians. It's all a dream-come-true OS for developers, for anyone just wanting a solid, reliable, beautiful, & fun to use OS, and... Heh heh, now you're pushing me towards the edge of getting carried away like I tend to do & blab on & on about all the lovely changes & why I fall deeper in love with OS X every day, but it's really off-topic, I don't think it's appropriate... ;) >My point was not exactly comparing 9.2 to OSX vs. ME to XP. >It was rather to point out that you can NOT really compare PC user's >excitement to MAC users since they both have their own view and care >about the other platform less than their own.(Which is OK and >expected) Yeah, probably most Windows users are going to be more excited about XP & most Mac user are more excited about OS X. I guess I just meant that, if you have no platform bias & are just into operating systems in general, you would feel like OS X is a much more exciting change. It's definitely a much bigger change, there's no arguing that. Sorry, I won't post any more about this, it's trailing away from the original purpose of this thread & getting off-topic, I know... Marc Poirier -- [ Destroy FX - http://www.smartelectronix.com/~destroyfx/ ]

dub@...: > i've been reading the list (well trying to keep up with the > traffic!) and > done some archive searches. i've got a pretty good idea what sort > of spec > i'm after for a new machine. > > the only thing i'm not too sure about is what is a decent video > card to use? does it really matter that much even? > > i don't want to spend silly money. i'm thinking about the order of > 100 quid - hopefully under. i'm only going to be using 1 19" monitor > > cheers > > dub HiHo ! My advice is to go for a Matrox G 450 dual head card. They are selling quite cheap now (because of the newer models,G 550), and you will have the benifit of a second monitor-output for the future use ... If you´re on a budget, try to get a "bulk" version (which comes without a printed manual, without some accessoirs, just with the software/drivers cd). The best : this card has no fan ... !!! no noise added .... ;-) The driver support on the Matrox site is very good, and they also have microsoft certified drivers up ... Greetz Harald

Hi All, The logic manual (yes, I RTFM!) recommends that you don't alter the tempo of a track after it's been recorded, but what I want to know is this. Is there a reasonably straight forward way to record a live band (separate tracks) at any tempo, then find a way to create a tempo map that follows the audio so that MIDI can be programmed afterwards, to fit the arrangement? At the moment I chop the audio up at (many) musically valid points, work out the tempo with the "set tempo by object length" function, program a tempo map into a new song according to info that I've gathered from this, then import the (unedited) audio from the live recording into the new song and start the tedious job of "tweaking" the tempo map to actually fit. It's boring and inaccurate and I hoped someone might know a better way. Many Thanks for any help. Gareth.

Hello All, I know that the function exists to derive MIDI info from audio, but can anyone recommend the best way to do this for drums? I obviously only want one MIDI note to be created for each track (drums are recorded separately) but I very much want to keep the dynamics (velocity info). Never tried this before and (being lazy) hoped someone else's experience could shorten my learning curve. Many Thanks Gareth

"gordonmurrison" <gordon.murrison@t...> wrote: > > > Matrox Millennuim G450 or G550 Rock solid performance for 2d > > > applications, well proven with Logic systems everywhere. Not > > > expensive and they're all dual head which is something well worth > > > considering for the future. Gabriel wrote: > > One exception for the Matrox cards: DSP-based card systems such as > > UAD, Creamware, Oasys etc, suffer from the Millenium's excessive use > > of the PCI bus. Supposedly NVidia chipsets (GeForce3 and 4) are > > more desirable for such applications. Jeremy wrote: > Hmmm... Do AGP cards even use the PCI bus? I thought that was the > advantage of AGP over PCI. So as long as you're using an AGP version > (which is pretty standard) of a Matrox card you should be just fine, > no? Hm, now that I think of it maybe it's one of the bridges (south) around the CPU that the AGP and PCI busses share? I forget where exactly the bottleneck occurs. Regardless GeForce cards allow lower audio latency for dsp-systems according to Creamware. Gabriel

From: "wil1870" <Billypain@...> > Anyone using an external hard drive with Logic? If so what kind and > how does Logic respond to it. Firewire or USB. I curious because I > seen it my Logic Video that Emagic sent this week. The weird part is > I didn't order it. Maybe they got tired of me calling asking stupid > questions, anyhow It's much appreciated. <excessive quotes trimmed by admin> Hi Billy, I've been using a LaCie Ultra Wide extenal SCSI hard drive ,with an UW card in one of my PCI slots and it works seamlessly with Logic Platinum 4.8.1 on my G3. I just have to set my audio record path in my audio menu and I send all my audio files to this hard drive, and keep all my Logic files, (songs, plugins, audio instruments etc on my internal drive.Works a treat. I'm sure it would be just the same with firewire. Hope this helps, Paul

> 3 questions.. > 1. I still have a Win98 SE boot running Logic 4.81 just incase > at the moment, if I convert my audio hard-drive to NTFS format > will my Win98 boot be able to read it and still access files? > or will have I have to delete that partition and full plump for > my new setup? > 2. Should I convert both my audio drive to NTFS and my Win XP boot > (on the other hard-disk) ? > 3. What was the command to type at dos promt to do the conversion? > - Dan Hi Dan, I can give some answers. 1. No. Win98 cannot read NTFS so you will have to mirror projects onto a FAT32 disk if you want to access then with V4.8.1. 2. Yes. LAW on XP works best if all drives are NTFS 3. I think you can do this from a menu using a system program, however I use Partition Magic for all these types of operations and it handles it fine. Use V7 for XP compatibility. Ray

Gabriel wrote: > > > One exception for the Matrox cards: DSP-based card systems > > > such as UAD, Creamware, Oasys etc, suffer from the > > > Millenium's excessive use of the PCI bus. Supposedly > > > NVidia chipsets (GeForce3 and 4) are more desirable for > > > such applications. Jeremy wrote: > > Hmmm... Do AGP cards even use the PCI bus? I thought that was the > > advantage of AGP over PCI. So as long as you're using an AGP > > version (which is pretty standard) of a Matrox card you should > > be just fine, no? "skabskine" <gabriel@d...> wrote: > Hm, now that I think of it maybe it's one of the bridges (south) > around the CPU that the AGP and PCI busses share? I forget where > exactly the bottleneck occurs. Regardless GeForce cards allow ower > audio latency for dsp-systems according to Creamware. Interesting.. but reglardless RME still has a Matrox AGP card listed in their reference PC (that can achieve 1.5 ms latency) so I'm not too worried, as on several occasions folks from RME have commented that building a PC with lots of PCI bus headroom is always a good idea. I'm going to double check with them about this statement from Creamware though... Thanks for the info! Jeremy

The info line, the useful line that appears when you hold the mouse down and change events and lots of other things has gone and I cantget it to show itself again. It may have something to do with the 2 monitor display. It may be something obvious but so far I haven't been able get it to operate again... Has anyone else had any problems with this?..thanks, smithy

LAPM and MOTU 1224 I am changing computers , now i have a G4 733 , want to know if i should change the cache settings...i remember diong this in a previous computer ... Thanks

--- In logic-users@y..., "matsc" <mats@n...> wrote: > Hi > > Is it possible to use SoundBlaster audigy platinum ASIO > drivers on LAWP 5.1 Hey, For what its worth... Piii800 intel VC820 mobo win98se Audigy plat ( w/emu asio driver ) wd5400 system drive+maxtor7200audio drive radeon ve dual head Logic 4.8.1 I get 4ms latency without too high a cpu load. I don't know why it wouldn't be better w/ winXP+LAWP 5.1...but it is a soundblaster card... sprawling

Hi gang, Last week there was a discussion between o.a. Colin Miller and David kickindaspeaker about how Logic lacks the ability to set up complete session in one go -- i.e. folders for Audio, Settings & such. Some suggested using Applescript, which indeed would be possible but tedious and not too flexible. Yesterday I hacked together a small program that tries to solve this problem. It's called Session Setup, and is available here: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/soft/soft.html#ss Documentation included. Currently Mac only. I might consider a Windows version if I feel like it and if anyone is actually interested in this... It creates a top-level folder that can contain a hierarchy of up to 16 folders (where each folder can contain some or all of the others). Special "wildcards" are provided, like "%s" which is replaced by your song's name. So a folder like "Audio %s" would automatically expand to e.g. "Audio my new song". There are wildcards for songname, year, month, day, and up to 8 user defined strings (like your initials or studio's name). Additionally a Logic template song (e.g. your Autoload) is automatically copied to the root of the structure, and renamed to the name of your new song. All settings (except songname of course) are automatically saved, so if you tend to use the same folder structure for each song, you only have to setup the structure & anmes once. Next time entering your song's name plus a simple mouseclick will be all there is needed. Hope someone out there likes it. You're all official beta-testers now :-). Feedback or suggestions for improvements are always welcome. cheers, HJ -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html