Did any of you Hammerfall users consider Pulsar before purchasing ? Or Pulsar users consider Hammerfall before purchasing ? What sold you on either ?? Thank You ! Victor Champney http://www.mp3.com/JanetStruck http://www.mp3.com/AsaGregard LAWP 4.6.1 PIII 450 320RAM ES1 DR005 10 fingers 7/8ths of a brain > -----Original Message----- > From: studio [SMTP:demian@...] > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 5:48 AM > To: logic-users@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [LUG] Gen Is anyone using an RME Hammerfal or > Hammerfall LE card with Law > > Hi > > It is amazing, it seems as if almost everybody is switching over to the > RME Hammfall. > > We just changed one of our machines from a DSP Factory to the Hammerfall > 9652. > The Hammerfall works great with Logic and a 01V. > > We have between 35 - 45 tracks ( 24bit) in our songs, and no problems with > the card. All this is going into one old UW 4gig SCSI drive, no problems > there. > We couldn't get the 1.5 latency, it started to work at 3ms but to play all > 45 tracks on our machine we had to set it higher. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Joost Gransjean > To: logic-users@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 10:00 PM > Subject: [LUG] Gen Is anyone using an RME Hammerfal or Hammerfall LE > card with Law > > > I am thinking of buying one and i was wondering of the 1,5 ms latency > they advertise with is really reachable. > Can someone tell me how they like the card and the pro´s and con´s of it > > > Thnx > > Joost G

Very good question, I am about to get a card for my new G4 tower next month, Pulsar does not specify the latecny, RME seems to have better technical implementations for a straightforward I/O card, "judging from there site and users|", I am waiting on the new Hammerfall DSP with the multi-face to be released next month, I think I will get that..... Have emagic gotten there act together and released a simple 24 bit 8/8 card I would be the first costumer to pre-order it..... > Did any of you Hammerfall users consider Pulsar before purchasing ? > Or Pulsar users consider Hammerfall before purchasing ? > > What sold you on either ?? > > Thank You !

When I bought the RME Hammerfall few months ago, I had spent a quite amount of time comparing them. What it came down to in the end was a very simple point. I don't belive in dedicated DSP hardware nor closed plugin standards. At first PULSAR was a killer with it's 4 SHARCS compared to the normal Pentium processor which was at that time running @ 200-300Mhz. Now the average PC has a CPU speed near 1Ghz which is far more improvement in speed than CreamWare can keep up with using their dedicated DSP chips. It's also obvious that they are aware of this and are therefore moving their software more into VST territory. The same goes for Digidesign which are now laying the ground for host based DSP systems with ProTools LE and their (closed) RTAS standard. DSP manufactures just can't keep up with the mass production power and low price of standard processors manufactures like Intel or AMD. I am aware of the fundamental difference between dedicated DSP and a computer CPU but I think every Logic user realises the power a modern CPU has to offer for handling of DSP related tasks like digital audio. I choose to go for Logic with RME, running on PII500 and this system has been running like a dream from day one. The best thing about my setup is that next year I will walk to my nearest computer dealer, upgrade my CPU to a 1 - 1.5Ghz processor and run 2-3 times more effects and synts for a much less cash than I would have to pay for a few SHARCs more. just my 2 icelandic krona Jonas Sig > > Did any of you Hammerfall users consider Pulsar before purchasing ? > Or Pulsar users consider Hammerfall before purchasing ? > > What sold you on either ?? > > Thank You ! > Victor Champney > >

Jonas Sigurdsson wrote: > At first PULSAR was a killer with it's 4 SHARCS compared to the > normal Pentium processor which was at that time running @ 200-300Mhz. Now > the average PC has a CPU speed near 1Ghz which is far more improvement in > speed than CreamWare can keep up with using their dedicated DSP chips. Yeah, I can second this. A friend of mine uses a Pulsar I on his P450 and of course for him it makes perfect sense in terms of additional mixing capabillities and the use of Creamwares synths. But, when comparing the raw power of that setup with my new Athlon1gHz I found my machine to be almost on par. Actually, IMO it's only worth getting a Pulsar if you really like those synths. In opposite to almost all VST synths they have smooth filters too (while with VSTis you usually hear some stepping through the cutoff stages on automated sweeps). > It's > also obvious that they are aware of this and are therefore moving their > software more into VST territory. Actually that's an interesting approach if you ask me (well, as long as it works... in Frankfurt Pulsar XTC looked quite buggy). If they will ever sort out their latency issues I'm sure I'm gonna get one because a) I don't have that much external MIDI stuff and b) I like the thought of integration into Logics mixer and total recall scheme without even having to open any further applications (as you have to do with plain Pulsars). I would only use it for the synths though, I think it's quite something you're getting for your money. Sascha