Samplitude Pro X2 Suite
Version: 13.1.3.176 | Filesize: 60.03 MB
Sequoia 13
Version: 13.1.3.176 | Filesize: 101.78 MB
Comments
Hi, pcrecord! I'm just someone stuck in an adult body :coffee:
Hi, pcrecord!
I'm just someone stuck in an adult body :coffee: but driven by a childlike soul :ROFLMAO: - thanks God for that! :love:
My profession has nothing to do with music. However, since childhood I changed all my toys for stereos and other paraphernalia related to music. I have some rooms in my house completely crowded with old tapes k7 containing what I always liked to do since I was a fetus: compilation of songs. Honestly, I do not know why I like that. But I love. :confused:
After many years using SONY and ROXIO products, I found in MAGIX the perfect playground to disconnect me from stressful routines.
So, I'm not a sales representative of MAGIX, or anyone. I'm just a happy fan who met this forum the ideal place to share some modest experiences about these programs. The official forum of MAGIX is unimpressive, but I really respect the work of Tim Dolbear and Kraznet Montpelier there - thanks to them (and a dose of expensive investment), I'm here.
In my life, music is just an expensive hobby that gives me well-being. It's my drug, my beer... :eek:
Thank you for your interest, I hope I have not disappointed you... :)
DigitaLWizarD, post: 429218, member: 48955 wrote: Hi, pcrecord!
DigitaLWizarD, post: 429218, member: 48955 wrote: Hi, pcrecord!
I'm just someone stuck in an adult body :coffee: but driven by a childlike soul :ROFLMAO: - thanks God for that! :love:
My profession has nothing to do with music. However, since childhood I changed all my toys for stereos and other paraphernalia related to music. I have some rooms in my house completely crowded with old tapes k7 containing what I always liked to do since I was a fetus: compilation of songs. Honestly, I do not know why I like that. But I love. :confused:
After many years using SONY and ROXIO products, I found in MAGIX the perfect playground to disconnect me from stressful routines.
So, I'm not a sales representative of MAGIX, or anyone. I'm just a happy fan who met this forum the ideal place to share some modest experiences about these programs. The official forum of MAGIX is unimpressive, but I really respect the work of Tim Dolbear and Kraznet Montpelier there - thanks to them (and a dose of expensive investment), I'm here.
In my life, music is just an expensive hobby that gives me well-being. It's my drug, my beer... :eek:
quite make sense.
Thank you for your interest, I hope I have not disappointed you... :)
what you say here and what you have [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]posted in other threads[/]="http://recording.or…"]posted in other threads[/] doesn't jive to my mind. that's quite a detailed explanation for a person who claims to be only making "compilation(s) of songs" and engaging in "an expensive hobby". every feature is precisely described. i could live with software for a year and not be able to explain it in that much detail. .... i smell a shill.
DigitaLWizarD, post: 429223, member: 48955 wrote: I am a huge fa
DigitaLWizarD, post: 429223, member: 48955 wrote: I am a huge fan of Samplitude/Sequoia and I'm very happy to be here.
+1
No worries posting as much as you want about samplitude. The software kicks the shit out of everything I've used in decades.
The reason i don't need all this extra gear now is solely because I use Samplitude. The world would be a better musical place if more people we're using this software than not. It reduses the need to keep spending.
I see absolutely no problems with someone who is excited about a
I see absolutely no problems with someone who is excited about a certain program or workflow coming out and saying so. It doesn't really matter to me what a person uses a program for, or which they choose to use, as long as it was obtained legitimately. And whether it's just for "playing around" and compiling songs for your own personal enjoyment, or for recording and mixing a fully produced project, makes no difference. Use what you want, and feel free to tell people if you like it.
Samplitude has been a game-changer for me... and I haven't been
Samplitude has been a game-changer for me... and I haven't been all that quiet about it, either - and to my knowledge , I've never caught any flack about saying that it's the best DAW platform I've ever worked with... ( It's what steered me towards creating the Samplitude Tricks and Tips section).
Some of us make some money in this biz, but many don't make much at all, and do it simply because they love to do it.
If we can't talk about the tools that we use, and discuss our mutual love for all things audio (which includes DAW's) then what the hell are we all doin' here? o_O
DigitaLWizarD, post: 429218, member: 48955 wrote: So, I'm not a
DigitaLWizarD, post: 429218, member: 48955 wrote: So, I'm not a sales representative of MAGIX, or anyone. I'm just a happy fan who met this forum the ideal place to share some modest experiences about these programs. The official forum of MAGIX is unimpressive, but I really respect the work of Tim Dolbear and Kraznet Montpelier there - thanks to them (and a dose of expensive investment), I'm here.
I'm thinking RO should be the public forum for this software, that's how much I love this software. In fact, if Avid gave me a full HDX system, I would sell it in a heartbeat.
Samplitude Pro X2 Suite Version: 13.2.0.205 | Filesize: 70.24 MB
Samplitude Pro X2 Suite
Version: 13.2.0.205 | Filesize: 70.24 MB
Sequoia 13
Version: 13.2.0.205 | Filesize: 105.62 MB
Changelog attached (Samplitude).
Attached files Readme_EN.pdf (39.4 KB)
@ anyone who's used both versions. Are you finding the differen
@ anyone who's used both versions. Are you finding the difference between x1 suite and x2 suite significant? It's a $ 300 upgrade, which is not super cheap or super expensive. I'm a brand new user, just waiting for some things to tie up before I unbox my new cpu. I know this software kills already. I just don't wanna clutter up my cpu with unnecessary stuff. So if pro X2 is deemed 'must have' I'm gonna upgrade now/soon before I start installing and optimizing.
The VCA faders and multi channel pitch sound enticing. And I'm all for easier automation.
Any thoughts on this fellas? I know Donny is still using pro x1. At least last time I checked.
Duly noted. I'm gonna start w my copy of x1. Sequoia is priced
Duly noted. I'm gonna start w my copy of x1. Sequoia is priced a bit more real world than it used to be, I'm interested in its broadcasting features. Pro X1 suite seems pretty well appointed. Between that, xara web designer, and xara movie maker premium, I'll have plenty to learn. Very excited about magix software.
When I build the custom PC, I'm gonna strongly consider sequoia. Maybe in about 2 years.
Also I meant to ask you specifically audiokid how exactly you went about modeling all your analog gear. Perhaps some of that might be applicable to me, having acces to my buddy's and the studios analog. Specifically the summit tla, and the 1176 down there. Mucho gracias, I've been waiting a long time to get Sam in the mix lol
kmetal, post: 434762, member: 37533 wrote: Sequoia is priced a b
kmetal, post: 434762, member: 37533 wrote: Sequoia is priced a bit more real world than it used to be, I'm interested in its broadcasting features
Sorry, I can see how my wording is confusing (as usual lol)
I'm not suggesting to get Sequoia, Its just that Sequoia has it all so I'm clueless to the other option in Sam. Which can all be added into Sam to become almost what Sequoia includes. If you are into Broadcasting/ A/V... then Sequoia is the bomb. Sequoia also is tweaked a bit better for mastering, 4 point editing and the mastering suite. But you can add almost all of Sequoia into Sam.
Follow?
In other words, you can get Pro X and the suite with independence. I just don't want you to think it may be worth the $ for that, and imho, its not worth my time.
All the plug-ins and Spectral editing is well worth it>
I don't know what bundles are available for Sam today because I use Sequoia, no need for me to know. Make sense?
So, just saying.. (y)
kmetal, post: 434762, member: 37533 wrote: Also I meant to ask y
kmetal, post: 434762, member: 37533 wrote: Also I meant to ask you specifically audiokid how exactly you went about modeling all your analog gear. Perhaps some of that might be applicable to me, having acces to my buddy's and the studios analog. Specifically the summit tla, and the 1176 down there. Mucho gracias, I've been waiting a long time to get Sam in the mix lol
..., long topic there. Let me think about the wording and how I came about "learning how to do this" with perfect reason never to use outboard gear (except for the Bricasti) to mix or master again.
In the mean time, let me put it simple.
Nothing is better than a stellar analog rig for tracking. The more you have to pick and choose, the better. However, nothing makes me more happy than an UALA2A, 1176LN, Pulse Technique Pultec's and a Millennia M-2b.
Nothing makes me more happy to hear a lane with those analog products in the mix, to later mix the session into a master with a Bricasti in between the two DAW system I rave about.
I'm pretty sure I could be happy with one DAW but 2 DAW's makes it more fluid and fun. Plus, there is something really sweet that happens when you pass a session through a Bricasti in the analog mode and capture that on DAW2. Its subtle but convincing enough that I will be buying more Bricasti's over much else. Digital audio rocks. A Bricasti is digital audio but you can't get all that in a plugin. The analog pass is just enough of a change to take the edge off > Gluing
audiokid, post: 434758, member: 1 wrote: But, what ever you get,
audiokid, post: 434758, member: 1 wrote: But, what ever you get, don't buy into the Independence. Its meh in comparison to better and it bloats your DAW.
The debate as to whether or not Independence is worth the extra money (or not) really all boils down to it being entirely relative to what you do, what you like, what you need for whatever style(s) you work in.
It's difficult to make that decision for someone... because we're all different in our styles, and what we require for our productions.
I don't think that Independence is the best sample library out there.... but it's also by no means the worst I've ever heard, either.
I tend to agree with Chris that it's kinda "meh" sounding ...Not great, not terrible. I've heard nothing about it that was jaw-dropping, or that had a "wow" factor; but again, that's a personal perception thing. It's certainly not the "everything you'll ever need, end all be all" sample library... (but then again, does a library such as this really even exist anyway?)
It's hard to say what "the best" is, just as hard to say about the worst as well, because it's all completely relative to what you require ...
An example: A lot of guys loved the Yamaha DX7 when it first came out back in the mid 80's ... there were umpteen thousands of them sold during the period ( I know, I was working part-time music retail in those days; we'd order 25 of them every month for an entire year ( '85/'86 ) and we still couldn't keep them in stock for longer than just a few weeks at a time )... but, I personally never saw the big deal with it. I was never a fan of FM synthesis, anyway; I always thought it to sound thin, gritty, and sterile.
I remember in the late 70's and early 80's, when guys were going crazy over New England Digital's Synclavier; ( I think the Synclavier was the first commercially available FM synth, it pre-dated the DX7 by about 6 years or so) and it too was used on all sorts of records at the time ... but it never "did" anything for me personally. FM was simply not a sound that I cared for.
I was much happier with real Wurli's, Rhodes, Clavs and Hammonds - along with fat and warm sounding Analog synths like the Roland Jupiter, the Korg Poly, Sequential Circuits' Prophet Five, the Oberheim OB-8, and even the early 8 and 12 bit samplers from Ensoniq and Emu sounded much better - to me - than FM synthesis did.
But, that opinion sure didn't stop 25 Cleveland/Akron area musicians from buying a new one every month for that year, (and that was just one music store out of 12 in the area); nor did my opinion affect the hundreds of hit records released during that time that had the DX7 all over them; being used as a primary synth on more records than one could count ( especially the DX7 "Rhodes"patch ... ( Man, I still shudder when I hear that preset :X3:).
Jan Hammer helped to make it famous - and highly sought after - almost overnight; after stating in an interview that the DX7 was one of the synths he used to record the Miami Vice theme.
(Contrary to myth, it was not the only synth he used for that recording).
My point ? No one can really say what's good or bad, because everyone is different in what they do and what they like. You might find Independence to be a useful library for your production/compositional style. Or you may find it to be exactly what Chris described... mediocre sounds; and computer bloat that isn't worth the storage space.
I can say - personally - that there are a few Independence samples I do like... I think their "American Soul" bass guitar samples are pretty decent, along with some of their analog synth pads; but their pianos are "just okay", and their Organ samples are downright God-Awful; it doesn't even come close to NI's B4, which by the way, IMO, sounds outstanding. Their "Rhodes" sample is very similar to the DX7; it's far too "chimey" and bell-sounding; which, to anyone who has ever heard a real Rhodes, knows that it doesn't sound even close to the real thing.
But, I didn't make the conscious decision to buy Independence. It came stock with Pro X Suite, so, I take it for what it's worth. I've found some of the samples to be decent, others not so much; but I'm not sure that the same thing couldn't also be said for any other "general" sample library of sounds as well.
When you get a library like Independence, which is not a "tailor made" library that focuses on one particular specialized use ( like the Alan Parsons Grand Piano Collection, or Vienna Strings, etc.), you kinda take the good with the not-so-good, because its intention is to provide a cross-section of many different sounds and samples. It's kinda like going to a cheap buffet for $10, where you can get pretty much anything you want, but none of it is particularly all that good.... as opposed to going to a fine restaurant that does one or two things very well ... and in that regard, I would say that Independence is probably about par for the course with most other "buffet style" libraries. ;)
IMHO of course.
-d.
DonnyThompson, post: 434774, member: 46114 wrote: ...Not great,
DonnyThompson, post: 434774, member: 46114 wrote: ...Not great, not terrible. I've heard nothing about it that was jaw-dropping, or that had a "wow" factor; but again, that's a personal perception thing. It's certainly not the "everything you'll ever need, end all be all" sample library... (but then again, does a library such as this really even exist anyway?)
Back in the days when I first started to play drums, the keyboard players had 3 or more make of keyb on their stand because every company was better at something...
audiokid, post: 434764, member: 1 wrote: Sorry, I can see how my
audiokid, post: 434764, member: 1 wrote: Sorry, I can see how my wording is confusing (as usual lol)
I'm not suggesting to get Sequoia, Its just that Sequoia has it all so I'm clueless to the other option in Sam. Which can all be added into Sam to become almost what Sequoia includes. If you are into Broadcasting/ A/V... then Sequoia is the bomb. Sequoia also is tweaked a bit better for mastering, 4 point editing and the mastering suite. But you can add almost all of Sequoia into Sam.
Follow?
In other words, you can get Pro X and the suite with independence. I just don't want you to think it may be worth the $ for that, and imho, its not worth my time.
All the plug-ins and Spectral editing is well worth it>
I don't know what bundles are available for Sam today because I use Sequoia, no need for me to know. Make sense?So, just saying.. (y)
Gothcha. Broadcasting, AV, remote realtime mixing and recording (via source connect) is basically my future business plan. One step at a time I'm going to add capability and the associated software and learning curve. I'd like to possibly break into the podcast hosting/editing market. I've never really liked live recordings much, always felt it was be of those 'ya had to be there moments'. But if a video is accompanied I think is more marketable. Since almost any digital mixer has Ethernet (or Ethernet optima at least), it's gonna make it possible with a few iPhones to broadcast c and d level touring bands. I want in on that, and work it all from my living room mix suite. I'm going to spend some time w Sam pro x1, my lisense has the suite included.
As far as samples go, I'm only using top notch specialized collections like Vienna, Alan parsons pianos (which I didn't know about till Donny mentioned it), BFD, Ect.
Even with those collections I'm not going crazy with the add ons. Only what I truly NEED, on a daily basis as I get back into playing and composing. I think I can do some background tracks and 3 sec intros for peoples YouTube channels.
My new mantra is minimalist with a focus on top notch quality. It's the only way I see as an affeodable way to cut thru the medoicrity, and let myself stand out. The exception being things that are intentionally gimmicky and Lo fi. One of the reasons I like Vienna is each collection is it's add on packs are focused, which makes it easy and expensive to build a sample collection where I actually know, and use most of the samples. That said I also have reasonable access to some killer drum kits over at the studio. So I'll balance that type of thing too.
audiokid, post: 434765, member: 1 wrote: ..., long topic there. Let me think about the wording and how I came about "learning how to do this" with perfect reason never to use outboard gear (except for the Bricasti) to mix or master again.
In the mean time, let me put it simple.Nothing is better than a stellar analog rig for tracking. The more you have to pick and choose, the better. However, nothing makes me more happy than an UALA2A, 1176LN, Pulse Technique Pultec's and a Millennia M-2b.
Nothing makes me more happy to hear a lane with those analog products in the mix, to later mix the session into a master with a Bricasti in between the two DAW system I rave about.
I'm pretty sure I could be happy with one DAW but 2 DAW's makes it more fluid and fun. Plus, there is something really sweet that happens when you pass a session through a Bricasti in the analog mode and capture that on DAW2. Its subtle but convincing enough that I will be buying more Bricasti's over much else. Digital audio rocks. A Bricasti is digital audio but you can't get all that in a plugin. The analog pass is just enough of a change to take the edge off > Gluing
Slowly building my tracking rig from the conversion/monitoring backwards.
So are you saying you actually put reverb on the tracks in between the 2 daws? Or are you using it as a sort of analog summing thing, just for the analog circuitry?
I agree digital is cool, it's really starting to sound good now. The new rock records/songs I've been hearing from the past year or so, sound massive, and clear with some depth now. Less swirl and digi crunch. It's finally getting there. I gotta up my chops again!!! Lol every time I almost catch up....
DonnyThompson, post: 434774, member: 46114 wrote: The debate as to whether or not Independence is worth the extra money (or not) really all boils down to it being entirely relative to what you do, what you like, what you need for whatever style(s) you work in.
It's difficult to make that decision for someone... because we're all different in our styles, and what we require for our productions.
I don't think that Independence is the best sample library out there.... but it's also by no means the worst I've ever heard, either.
I tend to agree with Chris that it's kinda "meh" sounding ...Not great, not terrible. I've heard nothing about it that was jaw-dropping, or that had a "wow" factor; but again, that's a personal perception thing. It's certainly not the "everything you'll ever need, end all be all" sample library... (but then again, does a library such as this really even exist anyway?)
It's hard to say what "the best" is, just as hard to say about the worst as well, because it's all completely relative to what you require ...An example: A lot of guys loved the Yamaha DX7 when it first came out back in the mid 80's ... there were umpteen thousands of them sold during the period ( I know, I was working part-time music retail in those days; we'd order 25 of them every month for an entire year ( '85/'86 ) and we still couldn't keep them in stock for longer than just a few weeks at a time )... but, I personally never saw the big deal with it. I was never a fan of FM synthesis, anyway; I always thought it to sound thin, gritty, and sterile.
I remember in the late 70's and early 80's, when guys were going crazy over New England Digital's Synclavier; ( I think the Synclavier was the first commercially available FM synth, it pre-dated the DX7 by about 6 years or so) and it too was used on all sorts of records at the time ... but it never "did" anything for me personally. FM was simply not a sound that I cared for.
I was much happier with real Wurli's, Rhodes, Clavs and Hammonds - along with fat and warm sounding Analog synths like the Roland Jupiter, the Korg Poly, Sequential Circuits' Prophet Five, the Oberheim OB-8, and even the early 8 and 12 bit samplers from Ensoniq and Emu sounded much better - to me - than FM synthesis did.But, that opinion sure didn't stop 25 Cleveland/Akron area musicians from buying a new one every month for that year, (and that was just one music store out of 12 in the area); nor did my opinion affect the hundreds of hit records released during that time that had the DX7 all over them; being used as a primary synth on more records than one could count ( especially the DX7 "Rhodes"patch ... ( Man, I still shudder when I hear that preset :X3:).
Jan Hammer helped to make it famous - and highly sought after - almost overnight; after stating in an interview that the DX7 was one of the synths he used to record the Miami Vice theme.
(Contrary to myth, it was not the only synth he used for that recording).My point ? No one can really say what's good or bad, because everyone is different in what they do and what they like. You might find Independence to be a useful library for your production/compositional style. Or you may find it to be exactly what Chris described... mediocre sounds; and computer bloat that isn't worth the storage space.
I can say - personally - that there are a few Independence samples I do like... I think their "American Soul" bass guitar samples are pretty decent, along with some of their analog synth pads; but their pianos are "just okay", and their Organ samples are downright God-Awful; it doesn't even come close to NI's B4, which by the way, IMO, sounds outstanding. Their "Rhodes" sample is very similar to the DX7; it's far too "chimey" and bell-sounding; which, to anyone who has ever heard a real Rhodes, knows that it doesn't sound even close to the real thing.
But, I didn't make the conscious decision to buy Independence. It came stock with Pro X Suite, so, I take it for what it's worth. I've found some of the samples to be decent, others not so much; but I'm not sure that the same thing couldn't also be said for any other "general" sample library of sounds as well.
When you get a library like Independence, which is not a "tailor made" library that focuses on one particular specialized use ( like the Alan Parsons Grand Piano Collection, or Vienna Strings, etc.), you kinda take the good with the not-so-good, because its intention is to provide a cross-section of many different sounds and samples. It's kinda like going to a cheap buffet for $10, where you can get pretty much anything you want, but none of it is particularly all that good.... as opposed to going to a fine restaurant that does one or two things very well ... and in that regard, I would say that Independence is probably about par for the course with most other "buffet style" libraries. ;)
IMHO of course.
-d.
Good point d. Fortunately my buddy is wealthy and has a thirst for old analog synths and speakers. He's very generous. He actually has most of the synths you cited. He has a wurly and/or a Rhodes too. An some moog stuff yada yada. At some point I'm going to sample them thru some top notch conversion, because he runs motu. It'll be a sort of 'next best' thing. Although most times I'll just send him the project and he'll put the real thing on. Beauty is indeed in the we of the beholder.
Fwiw the pro x suite includes some metering and mastering based things that are really what have me interested. I'm going invest in a couple drum machines (like an mpc, and a Roland), and a korg triton/Yamaha motif, but those are about 5 years away or so.
kmetal, post: 434821, member: 37533 wrote: I want in on that, an
kmetal, post: 434821, member: 37533 wrote: I want in on that, and work it all from my living room mix suite.
right on
kmetal, post: 434821, member: 37533 wrote: So are you saying you actually put reverb on the tracks in between the 2 daws?
yes
kmetal, post: 434821, member: 37533 wrote: Or are you using it as a sort of analog summing thing, just for the analog circuitry?
no, but in the analog pass, its sweet and does a really natural augmentation
kmetal, post: 434821, member: 37533 wrote: I agree digital is cool, it's really starting to sound good now.
indeed, and only getting better.
I bought 2 M7's and experimented with them along with a long lis
I bought 2 M7's and experimented with them along with a long list of some of the worlds most sot after analog mixing and mastering gear. I did extensive tests comparing each piece in and out in every direction, before and after on aux's, bus's, mono and stereo including M & S.
imho, one Bricasti and Samplitude replaces an entire mixing arsenal. There is no doubt in my mind, that is all I need for outboard hardware processing now.
The new M7 builds are coming this year. I am suspecting they will change the game for even more people. The future of captured audio is all about preserving or emulating space in a virtual world.
There really is no reason to invest in analog mixing and mastering gear again. Its all ITB. The only reason Bricasti isn't ITB is because it uses an entire 8 core for a 2 channel reverb. As CPU increases, so will the realism of the Bricasti.
audiokid, post: 434824, member: 1 wrote: I bought 2 M7's and exp
audiokid, post: 434824, member: 1 wrote: I bought 2 M7's and experimented with them along with a long list of some of the worlds most sot after analog mixing and mastering gear. I did extensive tests comparing each piece in and out in every direction, before and after on aux's, bus's, mono and stereo including M & S.
imho, one Bricasti and Samplitude replaces an entire mixing arsenal. There is no doubt in my mind, that is all I need for outboard hardware processing now.
The new M7 builds are coming this year. I am suspecting they will change the game for even more people. The future of captured audio is all about preserving or emulating space in a virtual world.
There really is no reason to invest in analog mixing and mastering gear again. Its all ITB. The only reason Bricasti isn't ITB is because it uses an entire 8 core for a 2 channel reverb. As CPU increases, so will the realism of the Bricasti.
audiokid , Hey Chris
I'm just curious to know if you only use the Bricasti's in your analog pass between DAWs or as an external insert to the DAWs at times or both/more?
I'm still on a steep curve, lurking and learning! Someday I may own one but for now I have enough to learn and practice with.
Namaste
OOPS! DUH! You addressed this later in the thread! That'll teach me to not pull the trigger so fast, or not....Later!
kmetal, post: 434946, member: 37533 wrote: I might have missed w
kmetal, post: 434946, member: 37533 wrote: I might have missed where he said if he uses it as a hardware instert on channels or not. If so how does the setup deal w any sort of latency? Automatic?? I'd question conversion but where talking bricasti and prism, sooooo. Lol
Hey Kyle I think you are right! I don't see a reference to using as an external insert to either DAW. audiokid So Chris????
There is zero latency with any gear OTB, in line going one direc
There is zero latency with any gear OTB, in line going one direction. Its no different than the old days, meaning. Was there any latency inserting a processor into a console, listening on headphones or the mains?
The time there is latency is when you are doing a round trip or when you are monitoring OTB while tracking ITB, especially if your monitor controller is located wrong or if it lacks the ability to monitor the various locations of your workflow (See Dangerous Monitor ST). This is why you invest in a 3 point monitor controller.
Also. If you use excellent interfacing (PCIe ), latency is so minimal, its very tolerable. Cheap interfacing, poor CPU is where everyone suffers intolerable latency and frustration. Not to mention, a good converter that has just as good interaction with the interface is paramount.
The Bricasti has an awesome ADDA, but I like the sound of it in its analog mode, like you'd use it in a console, on a stereo bus or even more simple, in a M/S matrix or right before you capture a mixdown on the second DAW.
The Neos as an example, is like the Bus section of the super big rail summing section. There really is nothing better on the planet the I know out perform that beast. But, I found I didn't need it anymore. A console is going backwards.
My discussion on this can get really deep but in a nut shell, no matter what we use OTB, its still being controlled in part by the Aux or Bus' of the DAW.
No matter what I do in a mix, if I use 20 analog products or one.... All the audio stays together in the pass, meaning, I never round trip a few tracks while others remain in the box. If I send one bus out to analog, it all all goes out and returns back in one piece. Even if some tracks do nothing more than go along for the ride with no processing. This sis why I prefer a transparent summer. You can bus 16 lanes out and choose to only add a tranny to example, the drum and guitar bus's. (another topic)
As for the Bricasti, you can use it like an reverb send but I prefer to mix an entire session into it and capture it back on the second DAW.
This is imho... Extremely affordable, super high end mixing and mastering quality.
Hope that helps. My time here is so limited right now. Can't even edit ...
audiokid, post: 434959, member: 1 wrote: There is zero latency w
audiokid, post: 434959, member: 1 wrote: There is zero latency with any gear OTB, in line going one direction. Its no different than the old days, meaning. Was there any latency inserting a processor into a console, listening on headphones or the mains?
The time there is latency is when you are doing a round trip or when you are monitoring OTB while tracking ITB, especially if your monitor controller is located wrong or if it lacks the ability to monitor the various locations of your workflow (See Dangerous Monitor ST). This is why you invest in a 3 point monitor controller.
Also. If you use excellent interfacing (PCIe ), latency is so minimal, its very tolerable. Cheap interfacing, poor CPU is where everyone suffers intolerable latency and frustration. Not to mention, a good converter that has just as good interaction with the interface is paramount.
The Bricasti has an awesome ADDA, but I like the sound of it in its analog mode, like you'd use it in a console, on a stereo bus or even more simple, in a M/S matrix or right before you capture a mixdown on the second DAW.
The Neos as an example, is like the Bus section of the super big rail summing section. There really is nothing better on the planet the I know out perform that beast. But, I found I didn't need it anymore. A console is going backwards.My discussion on this can get really deep but in a nut shell, no matter what we use OTB, its still being controlled in part by the Aux or Bus' of the DAW.
No matter what I do in a mix, if I use 20 analog products or one.... All the audio stays together in the pass, meaning, I never round trip a few tracks while others remain in the box. If I send one bus out to analog, it all all goes out and returns back in one piece. Even if some tracks do nothing more than go along for the ride with no processing. This sis why I prefer a transparent summer. You can bus 16 lanes out and choose to only add a tranny to example, the drum and guitar bus's. (another topic)As for the Bricasti, you can use it like an reverb send but I prefer to mix an entire session into it and capture it back on the second DAW.
This is imho... Extremely affordable, super high end mixing and mastering quality.
Hope that helps. My time here is so limited right now. Can't even edit ...
Thanks for taking the time Chris. Hope things smooth out for you over time.
Kyle it seems to me like the answer is yes it can be utilized as an insert yet he is finding the most benefit, most of the time, on the whole 2-bus at various pass stages (2-bus ITB+/OTB) as well as just individual buses in the analog pass between DAWs on specific stems, be they individual tracks or groups.
Is this what you get Kyle? I don't have anywhere near the practical experience you and others here do and I'd like your take on this if you would? I don't want to bother Chris further as he sounds really up against it right now. I don't want to derail the thread either.
Thanks ahead of time
Namaste
I think I can answer for Chris, and if I make a mistake, then he
I think I can answer for Chris, and if I make a mistake, then he'll correct it... but I'm pretty sure that he puts the whole mix through the Bricasti on its way to the second "capture" DAW; and he is using it to provide a sense of 'organic" space to the whole mix, as if the instruments were all recorded in the same space at the same time. The Bricasti is, as far as I'm concerned, the best of the best when it comes to being able to provide these "natural" sounding spaces.
In most cases, you don't even need to use a lot of it... I suppose you could if you wanted to, but mostly just enough to "open things up", and to provide a sense of a great-sounding room in which all the instruments were tracked at the same time.
And because he's not inserting this into DAW 1's workflow via an OB send/return, he's not dealing with the potential for phase/latency on the return, which is common in may "hybrid" setups. Chris has alleviated the potential problems involved in the 1 DAW send/return workflow by using 2 DAWs... which means he doesn't deal with the bottleneck that can occur at the master bus during ITB rendering, which also means he doesn't need a fancy expensive clock, which means he doesn't have to worry about jitter, which means...
( ...He can fill in the rest. ;) )
In simplest terms, it's really not all that much different than what we used to do when we used to insert a reverb into a console bus or aux return during a final-mix pass to a 2 track tape deck ( for those of us old enough to have worked on actual consoles, and using OB peripheral gear LOL).
I get the sense that Chris looks at DAW 1 as the Multi Track Deck, and DAW 2 as the 2-Track Deck; and he can insert anything he wants between the two in a strictly analog workflow, eliminating potential phase, latency and digital clock issues (there are some who prefer to use an external analog hi-voltage rail summing mixer, with inserts in order to add FX for this
"2 DAW" method), except that mostly, as far as I know, the Bricasti is the only piece he uses between the two decks, and because the Bricasti's sonic quality is so off the charts fantastic, he's not picking up any wizzly artifacts, just the sense of natural space... I think this is why he doesn't use a multi-channel analog summing mixer in-between anymore, because he doesn't need it using just the Bricasti.
He'd have to chime in on that part though... he may in fact still use a Dangerous Summing Mixer in between the DAW's.
That's the way I've interpreted his current workflow.
FWIW
d.
DonnyThompson, post: 434965, member: 46114 wrote: I think I can
DonnyThompson, post: 434965, member: 46114 wrote: I think I can answer for Chris, and if I make a mistake, then he'll correct it... but I'm pretty sure that he puts the whole mix through the Bricasti on its way to the second "capture" DAW; and he is using it to provide a sense of 'organic" space to the whole mix, as if the instruments were all recorded in the same space at the same time. The Bricasti is, as far as I'm concerned, the best of the best when it comes to being able to provide these "natural" sounding spaces.
In most cases, you don't even need to use a lot of it... I suppose you could if you wanted to, but mostly just enough to "open things up", and to provide a sense of a great-sounding room in which all the instruments were tracked at the same time.
And because he's not inserting this into DAW 1's workflow via an OB send/return, he's not dealing with the potential for phase/latency on the return, which is common in may "hybrid" setups. Chris has alleviated the potential problems involved in the 1 DAW send/return workflow by using 2 DAWs... which means he doesn't deal with the bottleneck that can occur at the master bus during ITB rendering, which also means he doesn't need a fancy expensive clock, which means he doesn't have to worry about jitter, which means...
( ...He can fill in the rest. ;) )In simplest terms, it's really not all that much different than what we used to do when we used to insert a reverb into a console bus or aux return during a final-mix pass to a 2 track tape deck ( for those of us old enough to have worked on actual consoles, and using OB peripheral gear LOL).
I get the sense that Chris looks at DAW 1 as the Multi Track Deck, and DAW 2 as the 2-Track Deck; and he can insert anything he wants between the two in a strictly analog workflow, eliminating potential phase, latency and digital clock issues (there are some who prefer to use an external analog hi-voltage rail summing mixer, with inserts in order to add FX for this
"2 DAW" method), except that mostly, as far as I know, the Bricasti is the only piece he uses between the two decks, and because the Bricasti's sonic quality is so off the charts fantastic, he's not picking up any wizzly artifacts, just the sense of natural space... I think this is why he doesn't use a multi-channel analog summing mixer in-between anymore, because he doesn't need it using just the Bricasti.He'd have to chime in on that part though... he may in fact still use a Dangerous Summing Mixer in between the DAW's.
That's the way I've interpreted his current workflow.
FWIW
d.
Great clarification Donny!
Thanks!
audiokid, post: 434959, member: 1 wrote: My discussion on this c
audiokid, post: 434959, member: 1 wrote: My discussion on this can get really deep but in a nut shell, no matter what we use OTB, its still being controlled in part by the Aux or Bus' of the DAW.
No matter what I do in a mix, if I use 20 analog products or one.... All the audio stays together in the pass, meaning, I never round trip a few tracks while others remain in the box. If I send one bus out to analog, it all all goes out and returns back in one piece. Even if some tracks do nothing more than go along for the ride with no processing. This sis why I prefer a transparent summer. You can bus 16 lanes out and choose to only add a tranny to example, the drum and guitar bus's. (another topic)
That's the key statement for me. Most people use the hardware as a send and return into the daw. That's where latency and phase issues come in.
That fact that he sends all out at once, in groups/buses even with no processing is key. Even if it is limiting in a sense by the amount of quality adda.
Lol it really does explain is love/preference of transparent. Which I always felt had a place, even tho I err towards color peices at this point. It make much sense. Glad the burl DA section is designed to be transparent, and is transformer less.
Using the bricasti as an adda is a bonus, and a big one. Never thought of that.
vibrations1951, post: 434963, member: 34341 wrote:
Kyle it seems to me like the answer is yes it can be utilized as an insert yet he is finding the most benefit, most of the time, on the whole 2-bus at various pass stages (2-bus ITB+/OTB) as well as just individual buses in the analog pass between DAWs on specific stems, be they individual tracks or groups.
Namaste
That's exactly how I understood it sir. Also been meaning to ask for a long time what does namaste stand for???? Lol
DonnyThompson, post: 434965, member: 46114 wrote: I think I can answer for Chris, and if I make a mistake, then he'll correct it... but I'm pretty sure that he puts the whole mix through the Bricasti on its way to the second "capture" DAW; and he is using it to provide a sense of 'organic" space to the whole mix, as if the instruments were all recorded in the same space at the same time. The Bricasti is, as far as I'm concerned, the best of the best when it comes to being able to provide these "natural" sounding spaces.In most cases, you don't even need to use a lot of it... I suppose you could if you wanted to, but mostly just enough to "open things up", and to provide a sense of a great-sounding room in which all the instruments were tracked at the same time.
And because he's not inserting this into DAW 1's workflow via an OB send/return, he's not dealing with the potential for phase/latency on the return, which is common in may "hybrid" setups. Chris has alleviated the potential problems involved in the 1 DAW send/return workflow by using 2 DAWs... which means he doesn't deal with the bottleneck that can occur at the master bus during ITB rendering, which also means he doesn't need a fancy expensive clock, which means he doesn't have to worry about jitter, which means...
( ...He can fill in the rest. ;) )In simplest terms, it's really not all that much different than what we used to do when we used to insert a reverb into a console bus or aux return during a final-mix pass to a 2 track tape deck ( for those of us old enough to have worked on actual consoles, and using OB peripheral gear LOL).
I get the sense that Chris looks at DAW 1 as the Multi Track Deck, and DAW 2 as the 2-Track Deck; and he can insert anything he wants between the two in a strictly analog workflow, eliminating potential phase, latency and digital clock issues (there are some who prefer to use an external analog hi-voltage rail summing mixer, with inserts in order to add FX for this
"2 DAW" method), except that mostly, as far as I know, the Bricasti is the only piece he uses between the two decks, and because the Bricasti's sonic quality is so off the charts fantastic, he's not picking up any wizzly artifacts, just the sense of natural space... I think this is why he doesn't use a multi-channel analog summing mixer in-between anymore, because he doesn't need it using just the Bricasti.He'd have to chime in on that part though... he may in fact still use a Dangerous Summing Mixer in between the DAW's.
That's the way I've interpreted his current workflow.
FWIW
d.
Well said as usual d. I think that the multitrack/mixdown analogy is the easiest analogy to understand. The difference being bypassing the master bus, and sending 2 tracks or multiple groups. The master bus basically is the capture (mixdown daw as I refer to it) AD section.
As for Chris's monitoring matrix I think it's basically multi track, in between the two daws (summing section) and then the mixdown two track. I belive he puts the mastering effects on as well in the 2 track, and 'mixes into' the mixdown/mastering bus. Exactly what features are necessary in the '3 point' monitor controller, I'm foggy on. And I may be incorrect, or oversimplifying it.
I think also, there's better phase continuity, and perhaps headroom by not using a console foe summing.
Pcie seems to be the lowest latency available w .7 ms In The PTHD card, but who wants to use those? Lol
Not sure how the RME specs out which I think Chris is using.
With Ethernet I think your talking around 2ms at the gigabit/10gb speeds. It gets interesting at 100gb speeds. Although not matter how I tried, I couldn't get a solid answer from forums or the Dante (Ethernet a/v protocol) rep. It basically has two limiting factors. Network speed, and the cpu power, and whether you use dante or Yamaha's dedicated pcie offering, or just a standard gigabit port (via audiodante driver $ 40). Edit- lol guess that's 3 limiting factors.
I've been weighing pcie/madi vs pcie/Ethernet vs standard Ethernet for quite some time.
Ethernet has an edge in network/remote capability. And it can handle audio/video/data, as well as varying formats (MP3, wma, Ect) 'asynchronously' i.e., all at the same time.
The downside is its super new, so assuming less reliable, and since its networked it's more in the realm of IT. Tho audiodante I/o has the typical io matrix we all are used to in our daw io setting menu. It also can send a single track to multiple different places (multing?) eliminating the need to have duplicates of the same track to do this. I think, samplitude pro x2 has added multiple simultaneous outputs of the same track also. When doing surround, this is a huge feature, and cpu saver.
Madi has high track counts, tried and true performance, and is audio more than IT. It is aging tho, but will not be phased out in the near future as I can guess.
Sorry I got off topic, also to not want to hijack thread.
Well when I was shopping around for a controller a while back yo
Well when I was shopping around for a controller a while back you seemed to feel the dangerous had features specific to your workflow, relative to others. That's where I'm a bit foggy. In other words is there something in particular (to the ST) that allows your pre/mid/post monitoring. Is this what you mean by '3 point'?
Thnx Chris
kmetal, post: 434982, member: 37533 wrote: Well when I was shopp
kmetal, post: 434982, member: 37533 wrote: Well when I was shopping around for a controller a while back you seemed to feel the dangerous had features specific to your workflow, relative to others. That's where I'm a bit foggy. In other words is there something in particular (to the ST) that allows your pre/mid/post monitoring. Is this what you mean by '3 point'?
Thnx Chris
yes.
The monitoring was one of the biggest insights into all this. The ST was really when my eyes opened up. Chris Muth is brilliant.
I think the ST is the perfect monitoring controller. Others may have more of one thing or the other, But the ST is exactly what I needed.
kmetal, post: 434982, member: 37533 wrote: That's where I'm a bi
kmetal, post: 434982, member: 37533 wrote: That's where I'm a bit foggy. In other words is there something in particular (to the ST) that allows your pre/mid/post monitoring.
Its really hard to explain a monitor controller until you use one.
I had no idea what it would do for me when I got it. In fact, it sat in a rack unused until I set up two DAW's. I've never seen anyone do the two DAW thing like me so it was by fluke I use the ST for the second DAW. I'm lucky I had extra gear flouting around and thought, I wonder if I added a second converter and DAW to this on that second insert of the ST. It was like a light bulb went on in my head! I remember running around my house so happy, my wife was just smiling and trying to understand what it was I was so ecstatic about lol.
Two DAW's is not just about sound quality, its about being able to hear what your pass is doing and comparing it to the "before and after" as well. Two DAW's is the ultimate way to hear cause and effect, and more.
So simple but so unique . Having the ability to listen to a mix at three stages, recording, mixing and mastering, all switchable via a relay.
SOLD!!!!! (In a year to so lol) can't belive i missed that the f
SOLD!!!!! (In a year to so lol) can't belive i missed that the first time around. It may have been outruled due to cost maybe at the time? Either way I'm in!! I didn't like the idea of the Colman not having remote control. The ST is super cool because if/when I get into Dolby atmos or auro 3D they get into 11+ channels.
This thing is the ballz.
Trying to visualize the setup. I understand the main and mix dow
Trying to visualize the setup. I understand the main and mix down as it seems fairly typical. I. The middle say w the bricasti for example do you have a mirrored set of outputs? So you can hear the same output directly into the ST then send the same thing into the mixdown for the actual recording/SRC. ? No hurry I understand your busy.
@DigitaLWizarD : Every posts you've done was about Samplitude, a
DigitaLWizarD : Every posts you've done was about Samplitude, are you one of their reps ?
If not, I'd like to know more about what you do, other gear you use and why you've chosen them ;)