Hi Luggers, Need a question answered: Which RME package will give me 8 analogue I/O and at least 16 lightpipe I/O and maybe spdif at the same time? George ________________________________________________________ www.utopiaparkwaymusic.com Mac AND PC: The only way to fly 8-}

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "Maurits van de Kamp" <maurits@b...> wrote: > > --- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Nick Batzdorf <recording@e...> wrote: > opinions. We > > agree that there IS without a doubt a sonic difference between these > programs. > > That wasn't actually what this discussion was about. (It was about the > influence of a digital bus on the sound, not different DAWs.) But if you > have to bring it up again, here's the simple answer that has to be > concluded from all the previous times the summing discussion came up: > I went back an re-traced the entire thread - and realized the error of my post - sorry to drive you nuts with that - However also in the mean time I made so calls to people who I know and have worked with in the past that are very, very knowledgeable about this - including being on the Board of AES to set standards and guidelines for all this type of stuff. It is true, summing is summing. End of story - I need to apologise for 'starting this up again' especially after heading the post down the wrong path. What I found is that the reallity is how ANY digital console/DAW or whatever compensates for distortion(as bit resolution declines, like in a fade situation) and the emense amount of data and how it is truncated or dithered. The reality is that a 24 bit file "plus" another 24 bit file does not yeild another 24 bit file - so where and how does the manufacturer start to dither? It is clear that early PT rigs merely truncated it(this was from them - not me). Now that is no longer an 'acceptable' means. It is also how the computer/program compensates for timing things in every aspect - things as simple as processing left and right channels, how it filters off the frequencies above and below limit of sampling frequency. I mean geeze, I just got three totally different opinions on how to handle the phaze issues of different digital consoles. I got "absolute phaze should be the determining factor" then I got "no - we must have a way to adjust/align sub-samples to make adjustments for distortions(which are of course random)" I will leave that alone, it made my head hurt and I couldn't write it down fast enough. I was also referenced to an article in this months (actually I am not sure if that is March or April) Mix magazine - it is by Steve St. Croix and it is actually on HD video - I quote one of the guys I spoke with "read that article, it is the same idea in audio, it is all how you get there (to the end)...." "Six guys all in the woods all needing to get to out. Several different paths all lead to the same end result, getting out." As far as the FTP transfer and the loss of data - I wasn't comparing it to the original source. I just needed a common reference for these DAW's. I would love, and I am not trying to be a jerk, to see/hear the results of where " Logic and PT have been mathematically proven to provide 100% identical summing results when all plugins andmix settings are the same." I will not be able to do this in my current set up for a while, and I am sure that a test like this would have to have the results documented and stored somewhere. Thanks again, sorry for the anquish. Any further comment I will take to AHOT. Aaron Swihart

I am trying to connect my good old Unitor 8 ( not the MKII ! ) to a G5 via a USB to serial adapter... No luck so far... Does the Unitor 8 work under MacOs X ??? Thank you... JY

> To summarize: I'm not saying I've witnessed 1+1 = 3, nor am I saying > that the sum of two reciprocals doesn't equal zero. What I witnessed > was a difference that five people described the same way but can't > explain. I also witnessed pretty convincing proof that *audible* (not > mathematical) cancellation of two files doesn't mean that they're > identical. this is a critical point. this comes up too often to be totally poo poo'd by phase inversion and pedantic math rants. while we all obviously already know about the subjectivity of perception, i remember hearing the same math related arguments when digital was younger and had problems that we were later able to find, test, and prove. i simply think this shows that there are things going on in digital audio that we don't yet have the right test and controls for. and i used to side with the math folks, saying all those luddites who claimed vinyl was better were nostalgic old fools. that is until i found out that their complaints about digital audio were later proven to be correct. i for one am glad it's improved, with better clocking and conversion and more accurate math digital is growing up, but i am in the business of trusting my ears. and anything else is somewhat irrelevant. even though i am using a daw, i'm using my ears more. the theory is interesting, but the long posts about math aren't totally compelling anymore as we've been through these arguments earlier on with digital audio and they didn't pan out at the time because they didn't take into account the fact that the wrong tests were being used and that people with great ears tended to say the same thing. i've heard arguments about sonic differences from too many people i do trust to ignore. and while i am not interested in perpetuating untruthful information on digital audio, i say the jury is still out on what is causing us to hear differences. and i don't think that it's all some psychological hoo haa. i think we should be curious as to if there are differences there somehow that we haven't been able to account for yet. cheers, paul pounce international http://marsh.prosoundweb.com/ - keyboard forum moderator

Hi group, > Maurits van de Kamp <maurits@...> replied & wrote : > Subject: Re: Totalmix vs CueMix > >> . . . files >> canceled each other out audibly . . . > In that case the sound is positively absolutely indisputably identical. > >> Independently, we all wrote down the same descriptions of what we >> heard. It was very subtle but real . . . . this proves to me that . >> . . >> something else is going on to make them sound different > The only thing (phase cancellation) doesn't reveal is what's going on > in the mind of the > listener. >> some fool out there is going to say that this >> was all psychological The solution may be far simpler. I was trying to replicate a mix a few years ago - had all the fader levels, tone settings etc. all set up the same. I played the original mix from DAT, and the re-setup mix from the desk. I A-B-ed them with both running from the same start-point. Switching from one to the other you got a continuous song, but they sounded different. (Ignore the DAT being ever-so-slightly different on playback, this was a LOT different it seemed to me.) The solution was not to A-B two synchronous tracks. The original set up would look like this : MIX 1 A B C D E F G H MIX 2 A B C D E F G H so you listened to the CAPS part of MIX 1, and the CAPS part of mix 2: MIX 1 A b C d E f G h MIX 2 a B c D e F g H I then time slipped one mix so I heard part "A" of mix 1; and then part "A" of mix 2 immediately. Thus: MIX 1 A b C d E f G h MIX 2 A b C d E f G h The mixes now sounded identical. It's especially noticeable when switching in the middle of a smooth piece of audio - a chord perhaps - no change, assuming your switch is silent. The time gap was less than 4 seconds. Anything much longer and my brain / ears could not compare with any accuracy at all. Maybe this is what's happening? I concur with Maurits - identical digital == same sound, exactly, every time. Regards, Mike. from Mike Levon ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ H O L Y G R O U N D R E C O R D S EnglandÕs 1st independent record label www.holyground.co.uk ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ

From: "George Leger III" <george3@...> > Hi Luggers, > Need a question answered: Which RME package will give me 8 analogue > I/O and at least 16 lightpipe I/O and maybe spdif at the same time? > > George RME Fireface. Regards: Darth

"f-erenc szabo" <zerobeat@...> wrote > Michael Levine <mlmusic@...> previously wrote: >> ivan's recent post about reverse playback made me think about a >> ProTools function I really miss in Logic > This technique isn't as hard as you suggest, although I certainly > wish Logic had varispeed... a wish I've had since 1993. Is it possible to sync Logic to a SMPTE-like time code which can be manipulated? Even better, can a simple MTP box be built which would allow variable speed output? I'd buy one straight away! Regards, Mike. from Mike Levon ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ H O L Y G R O U N D R E C O R D S EnglandÕs 1st independent record label www.holyground.co.uk ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ&Uac ute;ÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ

> > Hi Luggers, > Need a question answered: Which RME package will give me 8 analogue > I/O and at least 16 lightpipe I/O and maybe spdif at the same time? > > George George - I'm using a fireface with a similar configuration BUT without the high lightpipe requirements. BTW - you'll need connectors/convertors from them if you do this. The pre-amps are pretty good and the system configures like a dream. I ended up going to an AES-16 by Lynx for the other I/O and connecting the Fireface through an AES connector along with some Liquid Channel Pres. You might consider something similar where you route the lightpipes into an outboard box and then use the AES for a matrix/router. Brian

In a message dated 3/31/05 6:17:06 AM, rory_horan@... writes: > Hi all, I'm new to computers, newer to Mac's and even newer to Logic 6 > so please forgive the very basic Q's. I started 30hrs ago. I'm running > Logic 6 on a G5 with Roxio Toast. I've mixed live band recordings to > two tracks but don't know how to burn it. Do i need to save or export > it in a particular format? Or am i way off the mark?! > Reply's are much appreciated. > You need to bounce it to your hard drive as a Stereo File (typically SDII) using Logics' Stereo outputs 1/2. The resulting file is the one you drag into Toast and burn as an Audio file.

Back on the subject of the TotalMix in-the-hardware summing sounding better (or at least different) to Logic's summing, here's my take on why: Logic: 32-bit floating point math for summing, ie 24 bits of precision at any sample value. TotalMix: RME CoreAudio driver is supplied 32-bit floating point data by Logic, and the driver is responsible for converting this to the format required by the hardware - RME uses 40-bit FIXED POINT math for summing, ie precision depends on actual sample value. The precision is greater than 32-bit float down to -96dBFS (low 24 bits used, high 16 bits zeroed), less than 32-bit float below that. In other words, there's mathematical room for the two summing processes to produce different results. John Pitcairn ----------------------------------------------------------------- LC Xview software LC display, LC Xmu Logic Control emulation, Logic environments & stuff: http://www.opuslocus.com -----------------------------------------------------------------

Op Thursday 31 March 2005 20:07, schreef paul kavicky: > and i don't think that it's all > some psychological hoo haa. As long as you close yourself off to parts of the scope like this, don't expect a sensible discussion or a usable result. The chain of events is this: Digital domain -> D/A conversion -> Analog domain -> ears -> brain The digital domain is perfectly calculatable and repeatable, bar transmission errors etc. (Note that all examples so far of digital "imperfection" where not in this stage, but the next one!!) D/A conversion: Pretty critical, a lot known but it is a never ending science. Analog domain: Influenced by anything that makes noise and anything that induces signal to the path. Ears: Idem Brain: Almost totally unknown. And this is where we do our measurements. Now anyone who searches for mysteries in the first domain, and discards any psychological influence as "hoo haa" has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. Maurits.

Op Friday 01 April 2005 00:06, schreef John Pitcairn: > In other words, there's mathematical room for the two summing > processes to produce different results. Agreed, in this case there is a clear mathematical difference. (Not that anyone would really hear that) ;o) Maurits.

From: Mike Levon <mike@...> >The solution was not to A-B two synchronous tracks. >The original set up would look like this : > >MIX 1 A B C D E F G H >MIX 2 A B C D E F G H > >so you listened to the CAPS part of MIX 1, and the CAPS part of mix 2: > >MIX 1 A b C d E f G h >MIX 2 a B c D e F g H > >I then time slipped one mix so I heard part "A" of mix 1; and then >part "A" of mix 2 immediately. Thus: > >MIX 1 A b C d E f G h >MIX 2 A b C d E f G h > >The mixes now sounded identical. It's especially noticeable when  >switching >in the middle of a smooth piece of audio - a chord perhaps - no change, >assuming your switch is silent. The time gap was less than 4 seconds. >Anything much longer and my brain / ears could not compare with any >accuracy at all. Maybe this is what's happening? Nope. We were looping the same section. >I concur with Maurits - identical digital == same sound, exactly, every >time. That's what they call *stating the bleeding obvious* in the art world. :) The actual equation to describe this heavy scientific experiment is: *Should be* identical digital == different sound every time. Therefore *should be* ‚ *is*. -- Nick Batzdorf - editor Virtual Instruments magazine (the world of softsynths and samplers) www.Virtualinstrumentsmag.com 1-877 VImagzn (846-2496), 818/905-9101, cell 590-9101

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Maurits van de Kamp <maurits@b...> wrote: > Agreed, in this case there is a clear mathematical difference. (Not > that anyone would really hear that) ;o) Well, I don't know about that. The difference I hear is that summing in TotalMix sounds somewhat more open & transparent, with a better-defined stereo image. It's not a massive difference, ie nothing like the difference in going from 16- to 24-bit, or even from Multiface to Fireface converter quality, but it's enough that I'd think it worth setting up and using for the final master on some material. John Pitcairn ----------------------------------------------------------------- LC Xview software LC display, LC Xmu Logic Control emulation, Logic environments & stuff: http://www.opuslocus.com -----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi All, After having done a couple of long sessions I have found two annoying bugs; that I am wondering if anyone can corroborate. The first time you set the record path, everything is fine. You hit record and get the little progress bar counting down the remaining time, as expected. As soon as you switch screen sets though, two strange things happen. First, the recording progress bar no longer appears. There's no way to get it back without rebooting Logic. And second, when you are in the set record path dialogue box, hitting return or enter no longer works to OK a dialogue box. It does work at the beginning, but disappears when the progress bar disappears. The second thing; L7 doesn't seem to be happy when I have to open many songs during a session. Sure enough after about the seventh or eighth song, Logic crashes upon trying to open subsequent songs. When I restart logic, the count restarts again, but it just won't open beyond a certain number of songs. And it doesn't matter wether they are opened via double clicking in the Finder, or by navigating through the "open" hierarchy. Anyone else have this??? -------- Eli Krantzberg http://www.nightshiftorchestra.com Almat Productions

On Mar 31, 2005, at 1:24 PM, Darth wrote: > > > From: "George Leger III" <george3@...> >> Hi Luggers, >> Need a question answered: Which RME package will give me 8 analogue >> I/O and at least 16 lightpipe I/O and maybe spdif at the same time? >> >> George > > RME Fireface. > Regards: > Darth > > RME Fireface or RME Multi face (No mic Pre's though) Ciao Gio

> Hi Luggers, > Need a question answered: Which RME package will give me 8 analogue > I/O and at least 16 lightpipe I/O and maybe spdif at the same time? > Hi Georggers The FireFace800 will give you this out of the box. For a cheaper version, you could go for the Hammerfall DSP (HDSP) 9652 - this has 3 sets of ADAT I/O and an SPDIF I/O. You can attached an Alesis AI-3 or Behringer ADA8000 to one of the ADAT I/Os to provide the analogue side. I can strongly recommend the RME interfaces - extremely good performance! Best wishes, -- The best of times to you all... Pants

On 31/03/2005, at 6:16 AM, Brian Mikiten wrote: > I'm getting an odd effect where the entire mix shifts to the left > channel > using PSP and then back again over time. Do you see this as well? I'm > only > using it on the final mix channels. It's called phasing and it's caused by latency. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Paul Najar Jaminajar Music Production www.jaminajar.com

On 31/03/2005, at 5:05 AM, Peter Duemmler wrote: > > Logic´s native mixer only has pre-pan sends... (Pro, eh?). > Send the tracks to the busses with the Vintage Warmers through their > outputs, not through sends. > Or use the I/O Helper plug-in for the panning in the tracks (THAT > affects the aux sends), but be careful, then there´s NO pan-law... You will also run into phase issues caused by latency doing it the way you describe because there is not plugin delay compensation on busses yet so if you're mixing dry tracks with bus processing at the outputs the signals will arrive at different times. A more phase coherent way would be to not have any dry signal and control the amount of the Vintage warmer you want in the plugin itself. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Paul Najar Jaminajar Music Production www.jaminajar.com

On 01/04/2005, at 12:50 AM, Joe Frey wrote: > > > All, Is there an easy way to do a pr-pr-pr-pre-echo on vocals? The ones > that are sort of a ramp up to the beginning of the vocal line? TIA. > JoeF Record your vocal through a normal reverb to a track. Reverse it in the sample editor and move the resultant audio earlier in the track till you get what you want. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Paul Najar Jaminajar Music Production www.jaminajar.com

Hey can anybody help out here. Im having troubles when Im playing midi tracks. My setup: Logic Platinium 5.5.0 Lots of plugins Soundcard: Audiophile 2496 I tried to set my buffer size up, but it didnt solve the problem. Anybody Thanks Mikkel

On Mar 31, 2005, at 1:29 PM, logic-users@yahoogroups.com wrote: > Re: Saving audio from Logic to burn with Roxio Toast > Stereo File (typically SDII) Not so much anymore. I am weaning myself from this file type as it is by far the least compatable of the bunch. I am standardizing on AIFF due to it's interoperability. AES standards call for .WAVs on FAT32 volumes which are not compatable with Macintosh in my experience.

Hi to all. I got Logic pro 6.4.1 (OS 9.2, G4 466, Digi 001 board, MT4 MIDI interface, 120 G Firewire HD and 20 G SCSI HD). With logic plat 4.3.7.I have done all the time sysex bulkdump from my sound modules to the sequencer without any problem, but with logic pro I cant do it because the data its wrong recorded ( I can see it on the event edit window were the sysex data from my roland jv 2080 its mixed with data from other manufactures sound modules ) when i try to send this data to the jv2080 it give me an error on the sound module display . When I do it on a empty song (just the deafult song not my autoload song) the sysex its recorded correctly, but all get wrong when the song its filled with sequences, and plugings. It seems that the problem with the sysex recording began when the song have a lot of data. (Plug-ins, midi data, an audio) Any idea about that? Can you please reproduce it on your systems?

>-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Frey [mailto:joe.frey@...] >Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 6:51 AM >To: logic-users@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [LUG] Easyway to do a pre echo on a vocal? > > > >All, Is there an easy way to do a pr-pr-pr-pre-echo on vocals? >The ones that are sort of a ramp up to the beginning of the >vocal line? TIA. JoeF Joe, Reverse the track you want the effect on, set up your reverb or delay (any time based effect works), Bounce the output of the effect to another track, reverse original and the bounced effect(forward again), mix to taste. Mmmmmmm! You can bounce the original and effect pre-mixed, but having them separate will allow you more freedom to dial the effect in. b o y d p o s t </> s o u n d d e s i g n </> c o m p o s i t i o n </> s u r r e a l s o f t w a r e

IS there a way of bouncing QT instruments (as they dont go to an output) or do you have to do it in external software to Logic? cheers Tom