R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools  (Read 69751 times)

timrob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #105 on: October 28, 2005, 01:37:00 PM »

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21




Regarding latency.  Is'nt this a moot point if we are talking about "pro" studios that all have consoles?  No latency issue when tracking through a console.

In fact the console could be a Berhinger if all its used for is monotoring (using outboard quality pre's in the recording chain of course).



Certainly, if all you use is console pres. I generally go mic->pre->comp(if needed)->input. In this case, there is no way to avoid some latency. Even on a ProTools system there will be some.
Actually, the only way would be to mult the output of the pre or compressor, but then when you have to punch-in you have to change your monitor path.
Logged
Tim Roberts
Waterknot Music
Nashville


---------------------------
Ours is not to understand.
Ours is just to record the band.
-Unknown

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #106 on: October 28, 2005, 01:57:21 PM »

timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21




Regarding latency.  Is'nt this a moot point if we are talking about "pro" studios that all have consoles?  No latency issue when tracking through a console.

In fact the console could be a Berhinger if all its used for is monotoring (using outboard quality pre's in the recording chain of course).



Certainly, if all you use is console pres. I generally go mic->pre->comp(if needed)->input. In this case, there is no way to avoid some latency. Even on a ProTools system there will be some.
Actually, the only way would be to mult the output of the pre or compressor, but then when you have to punch-in you have to change your monitor path.


Yes you record through the quality pre and mult that to the console.... No issues with punch in.  I have used Neves while monitoring through a Berhinger.....

No need to use the console pre's at all.!

I agree with an earlier poster about not posting unless you know your statements to be fact..... Too many myths getting started this way.

I record all day, every day, with the setup I mentioned above,,,, no latency no issues of any kind... works exactly the same as a tape machine studio... Let the "tape" run and hit the record button (mouse) when you want to punch.....
Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

Ive done stuff I'm not proud of.. and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting ~ Moe Sizlack

"There is no crisis in energy, the crisis is in imagination" ~ Buckminster Fuller

Rob Darling

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #107 on: October 28, 2005, 02:15:41 PM »

timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 17:38

blairl wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 11:06

These are my understandings.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  The buffer on native systems is now able to go as low as 64 samples in some cases.  This is the 1.5 ms latency being talked about here.  In addition to this buffer latency, you need to consider the inherent latency in AD and DA converters.  Generally speaking, the better sounding the converter, the more latency involved due to the requirements in filtering.  So for a decent converter you are looking at around 18 to 20 samples each way for a total of 36 to 40 additional samples of latency.  This would put the monitoring latency at around 2 milliseconds.  All of this is based on a 48k sampling rate.  This is all good.  Now here is where I start to question the latency.  Even in speaking with the folks at Steinberg, they tell me that this 64 sample buffer is limited, even with fast multi-core computers.  The more tracks you add and the more plug-ins you add, the more likely you will have to up the buffer to 128 samples.  My questions is where is this limit?  How many tracks with plug-ins can I have in the real world before I need to up the buffer and in turn bump the latency to around 3.5 milliseconds?


Now you're talking about the real world. I've worked on some pretty powerful native systems. They all fall down on the latency issue while tracking. This is precisely the reason that RME uses TotalMix and MOTU uses CUEMIX...etc. A large tracking session would not be possible without some add on mixer, whether internal or external. In the near future we may see computers capable of low latency monitoring within the host application, but I haven't witnessed one yet.


In a very real world situation, I am able, with three RME Firefaces (which I use for brute connectivity and flexibility) to do fairly large tracking dates at 64 samples. I recently did 5 days of basic tracking with a constant recording of 32 channels.  It sounds excessive, but I needed to move fast and get a very produced sound quickly, so I had 24 mics and 8 channels of compressors that were on sends.  They were all always being recorded so that in the space of a few takes while warming up an arrangement I could have a big sound that was inspiring to the band while maintaining flexiblity at the mix.

Would I do a full mix at this level- probably not.  As the mixer gets more and more complicated, it is not feasible.

But I also still have a three year old single P4 3.02 on an Intel motherboard with an SATA drive- one of the the new 16meg buffer drives.  Nothing even remotely exotic or close to what new systems can do.

The flip side of brute force recording, in terms of real-world necessity, is that in something so track-heavy, you probably don't do that much mixer stuff in a tracking date.  Hell, it's all you can do to make sure everything goes down right, and you can't get that far ahead of yourself before you head into the next song because things will be completely different.  A complicated mixer might have filters active on a number of channels, a few high boosts, a delay, and a couple of reverbs.  Not too demanding, really.
Logged
____________________
rob darling
rob@robdarling.net
www.robdarling.net

Rob Darling

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #108 on: October 28, 2005, 02:18:34 PM »

zetterstroem wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:42

punkest wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 03:42

 Hey, I agree with most of what you said, but I understand that using a second CPU via Teleport results in a very noticeable latency, true?? I know so with the powercore and the UAD cause I have both, and with ADC there is no problem when mixing, but to record a big session monitoring through plugins you need at most 2 ms. so Teleport, UAD, Powercore and all that is out of the question, right??

Anybody talking about the new CPU's and chipsets can come up with an actual real world experience from a large session handled natively with 2 ms. latency or less with plugs??

 Any opinions on the new G5 quad? Four 64 bit processors at 2.5 Ghz. 16 Gb expandable RAM.

Cheers

Hans Mues




as i said.... expect 10-20 ms when using uad cards or audio via ethernet....

uad has 512samples latency..... wormhole has 512+ each way.....

unusable for monitoring.....




Actually, the card follows the latency you're using- it's like a hardware insert.  So at 1.5, it only adds 3ms, for a total of under 9 with ad/da, which, in fact, most people will never notice.  Keep in mind that most people always stand a good 10 feet away from drums if they are sane.  And 10 feet is 10 ms.

The problem with something like fx teleport at low latencies is that tcp/ip is very system dependent and will be much more variable to system usage than a dedicated dsp like the UAD or Powercore.
Logged
____________________
rob darling
rob@robdarling.net
www.robdarling.net

Rob Darling

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #109 on: October 28, 2005, 02:42:32 PM »

It's funny how things change so fast and people forget.

Five years ago, I put together a traveling PT system for a Jazz/Classical producer.  

On the inaugural day, a Wayne Shorter record at Avatar, it was me, his engineer, the assistant, two techs, and his Protools engineer (remember when they had those for about six months?) in the room making sure everything was ok.  I said "Jesus, is this what it felt like to be the Fairlight guy twenty years ago?" and no one got it.   I promptly started looking to broaden my gigs.

Things change, they change fast.

Logged
____________________
rob darling
rob@robdarling.net
www.robdarling.net

Dennis Allen Cupp

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #110 on: October 28, 2005, 02:43:23 PM »

Terry,

I hope you dont mind that i am using an arsenal of Lucas Limiters and EQ's on my PC Nuendo system...do ya?

I used to beat my chest about Nuendo and how it was a PT killer.
At the end of the day, does it really matter?

You can cut a record with a pocket knife, if you know what your doing!

If your client is smiling when you hand them the final mixes, then you've done your job......on what ever platform it was tracked on.

Terry: As for your need for mass-quantities of inputs, shure Nuendo married to some nice RME hardware can easily do it on a single system. Ive got a buddie in the UK that just built a mamoth of a system.

Wolf Stevens had a Nuendo rig at Muscle Shoals and at home prior to him selling the place. He loves it.
Elliot Scheiner always makes it a point of starting off discussion with "Let me tell you why i use Nuendo over PT". I think he was quoted last month saying that yet again.

Both are fine platforms. I use nuendo cuz it was easier to get into financially, and i it grew with me. I was not committed to any hardware, i could swap and see for myself. It was flexible where PT was not. It made sense for me.

If i were owner and operator of Compass Point, i'd have the fanciest PT rig money would allow. Its the giant out there, its become the Xerox, the Coke, the Hoover of the Audio world. Is it better? Who cares. If clients ask for PT, you better deliver. In my little traking universe, its of no issue. You said it best, no one has asked for nuendo at your place, so why bother?

I think Steinbergs marketing team has been a sleep. They have the toys and the tools to really rival PT, i just dont think they have done a decent job. Tech Support of Steiny in the USA is stellar.

also, terry, your old place of employment on madison avenue is basically giving studio time away....thats the word on the street.

Dennis
Memphis, TN
Logged

blueboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #111 on: October 28, 2005, 03:12:53 PM »

I think the one thing missing from this discussion is the issue of setting up and maintaining peak peformance, and lack of support on a non-integrated native audio system.

While it has been quite a while since I specialized in audio engineering, I have spent a considerable amount of time using computers and software for various multimedia applications and am very comfortable with the technologies involved. The impression I am getting from these forums is that there is not a consistent level of computer literacy in the audio world. While some may "use" computers, I'm not so sure that the majority is at the level where they are able to support "cutting edge" native systems that "may" rival integrated systems like ProTools for demanding sessions.

While I am a big fan of native solutions for their cost effectiveness, and for having the freedom to choose components, I also feel there is a downside to this in terms of reliability. While I may be comfortable designing, building and troubleshooting a system, some may not. No matter much how I don't like to admit it, relying more on a native computer environment and its operating system is more "risky" than an integrated solution that has been time tested and certified to perform .

There are so many variables when combining components from different manufacturers that unless you are building and supporting your own system, or buying a custom system from a company that has a proven track record...you are on your own.

I'd be willing to do it, but I think people should think twice before reading this thread and thinking that a new motherboard chipset, using a new dual core cpu, with new ASIO drivers on a new OS service pack update is going to be the holy grail of reliability.

For a session like Terry described, I'd probably be more comfortable renting a proven ProTools rig.

For my less demanding multimedia requirements, I'm perfectly happy to build, support and play with my own cutting edge "toys".

By the way, FX Teleport is great, but it involves TCP/IP networking, and anyone who knows anything about networking knows how reliable and easy it is to maintain..... Smile

Use it for mixing, forget it for tracking.

YMMV.

JL
Logged
"Only he who attempts the absurd can achieve the impossible." ~ Manuel Onamuno

timrob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #112 on: October 28, 2005, 04:30:19 PM »

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:57

timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21




Regarding latency.  Is'nt this a moot point if we are talking about "pro" studios that all have consoles?  No latency issue when tracking through a console.

In fact the console could be a Berhinger if all its used for is monotoring (using outboard quality pre's in the recording chain of course).



Certainly, if all you use is console pres. I generally go mic->pre->comp(if needed)->input. In this case, there is no way to avoid some latency. Even on a ProTools system there will be some.
Actually, the only way would be to mult the output of the pre or compressor, but then when you have to punch-in you have to change your monitor path.


Yes you record through the quality pre and mult that to the console.... No issues with punch in.  I have used Neves while monitoring through a Berhinger.....

No need to use the console pre's at all.!

I agree with an earlier poster about not posting unless you know your statements to be fact..... Too many myths getting started this way.

I record all day, every day, with the setup I mentioned above,,,, no latency no issues of any kind... works exactly the same as a tape machine studio... Let the "tape" run and hit the record button (mouse) when you want to punch.....


Rick,
Perhaps you could describe your setup in greater detail. I'm using both ProTools and Nuendo w/ ProTools hardware. So, I don't have to deal with the latency issue unless I'm using another studio's rig.

I wasn't trying to spread misinformation, only speaking from experience that I have had working with Native systems(Primarily, Nuendo and Logic) in other studios.

BTW, I helped build one of the systems on your long list of Nuendo users. In that particular case, he uses an O2R96 for I/O and monitoring.

It took about two years to get all the bugs worked out of the system. Custom built P4 with all the bells and whistles. Finally with Nuendo 3 the system is stable and truly functional.

I'm not anti-native. I just haven't come across a system that has the kind of low latency that my ProTools TDM hardware has monitoring straight thru the box. Even 64 samples is still way more than I get in PT. I'd love find another platform that was actually cheaper, sounded as good, and left me with most of my hair at the end of the day. Oh and fits in my front pocket, too. Smile
Logged
Tim Roberts
Waterknot Music
Nashville


---------------------------
Ours is not to understand.
Ours is just to record the band.
-Unknown

Rob Darling

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #113 on: October 28, 2005, 05:02:15 PM »

[quote title=timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 21:30][quote title=rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:57][quote title=timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37]
rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21


Even 64 samples is still way more than I get in PT.



are you sure about that?
Logged
____________________
rob darling
rob@robdarling.net
www.robdarling.net

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #114 on: October 28, 2005, 05:20:37 PM »

Dennis Allen Cupp wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 14:43

Terry,

I hope you dont mind that i am using an arsenal of Lucas Limiters and EQ's on my PC Nuendo system......


If you're using Lucas, you can record on a wire recorder and get a good sound!

Thanks!

Quote:


I think Steinbergs marketing team has been a sleep. They have the toys and the tools to really rival PT, i just dont think they have done a decent job.


I agree.  They should make good, inexpensive, pro-interfacing hardware to go with the software.

Quote:


also, terry, your old place of employment on madison avenue is basically giving studio time away....thats the word on the street.


Hopefully not.
Logged

timrob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #115 on: October 28, 2005, 05:59:48 PM »

[quote title=robdarling@mail.com wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 16:02][quote title=timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 21:30][quote title=rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:57]
timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21


Even 64 samples is still way more than I get in PT.



are you sure about that?



Quite frankly, No. Please, enlighten.

I should have said It seems lower, because when I am recording myself on different platforms I feel the delay more than I do when recording in TDM. Even when set at 64.
Logged
Tim Roberts
Waterknot Music
Nashville


---------------------------
Ours is not to understand.
Ours is just to record the band.
-Unknown

Glenn Bucci

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #116 on: October 28, 2005, 06:04:12 PM »

Read http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/showthread.php?t=6770" target="_blank">this...http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/showthread.php?t=6770

ANother reason why I am happy I stayed with Cubase.

Interesting that not much said about Logic. They have much better plug ins over Steinberg's, and the layout of their mixer is better too. However the learning curve is bigger, and not as striaght forward to do some things.
Logged

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #117 on: October 28, 2005, 06:17:03 PM »

[email

robdarling@mail.com[/email] wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 09:05]Sorry to be a ballbuster, Ivan.  I'm sure you mean well, but reading all the way through a thread and paying attention to what someone is saying when you answer a question in a thread is a courtesy you should exercise.  The discussion is how to use native systems in a full tracking environment with plugins in the same way PT can.  512 is not at all useful in a tracking environment.  And "shottin in the dark" is not going to make people happy in a 56 channel recording date.  And "I don't know that much about it" isn't very useful.

Don't take this personally- this should be a public sticky. The fact is that this site is no different from being in the studio.  Before you talk, figure out who you are talking to.  Go do a search a bit and find out who compasspnt, the person asking the question you are answering, is. You will maybe want to think twice before giving a half-cocked answer to something you don't know much about.

Alright, rant over.  I just want this place to feel like a real studio, not a bunch of guys at home playing with toys.  The PSW forums are the last place that maintain this level of professionalism and I want to keep it that way.

 


I know who Terry is. And I do take this very personally. It's like this sir. It is only relatively recently that people like ME who can play  FOUR instruments very very fucking WELL and can hear as well as MOST people YOU will ever meet have had to learn how to FUCK AROUND with computers instead of using industrial TOOLS to COLLECT Audio. I don't know who the fuck you are but I'll tell you this. I was recording and playing music EVERY day by the time I was 12 years old.

What an ASS hole. You're gona piss on my skill? Your talking about fucking computers? and your  gona piss on MY chops????  You want this thread to be like a what#$%^& Studio? OK then, lets talk about stuff that makes the records sound good. Mic's, Pre's Tunes, Players, Arrangers, Rooms, The right Comps in the right place AT the right time. What time of day it is. Don't spit your bullshit at me about how I don't know anything because I can't Fucking Compute!!!

I came here hoping to learn some thing. That's what "shootin in the dark "" meant. Not useful,?? Tell ya what fuck wad. If you want me to be useful, I start at $250.00 to show up. Last year my rate for PLAYING ONE GUITAR PART ON A FUCKING RECORD WAS $300.00 . It has gone up now. I get  $750.00 per day as MY rate plus food and rooms. This gets my whole skill set. Which Right this second, does not happen to include using Chinese mother boards and over priced audio ,,, e-hem, "hard ware" Remember now, your the one who implied I was some bed room kid. I play Guitar, drum kit. Bass, Key's {my keyboard chops are not what they should be.} I sing and I can use microphones TOO.

Useful??? this just pisses me off!!

If I want to learn , really Learn how to do 60 inputs on a fucking computer, I'll learn it right quick. If some one needs to go out and build a rig in any format, they can. This is not new at all. In the grand scheme of things,it is a detail only. If you can't get 56 tracks moving well enough to make a record that sounds good, your either not trying hard enough or you suck. My god. It's hardware man!! Period. Stuff that remembers what people play. It isn't the music. It isn't the people. It's a computer. And your suddenly "towering over me" is just bull shit!!

Man, some fucking jack off you are..

I'm out!!!


Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

blueboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #118 on: October 28, 2005, 06:17:53 PM »

If anyone has actually built (not just heard about) and is using a newer dual core or dual CPU system I'd appreciate it if you would post some specs.

The info I'm looking for is:
..........................................................

Choice of CPU
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core - Socket 939 or Dual Opteron
or
- Intel Pentium D LGA775

Which is the current top performer for audio applications?

CPU speed - which offers current best bang for the buck.

Cooling system - (CPU & case) make, model, type

Ram - brand, amount and latency (Is CAS 2.0 worth extra $$ for audio applications?)

Motherboard & chipset
- make and model
- PCI type and # of slots
- Raid
- Firewire (400 or 800)
- On board networking (chipset, 10/100 or Giga?)

Video card - make, model, video ram (no fan)

Power supply - make, model, wattage, low noise?

Drives
- Does SATA offer any advantages for audio?
- Anybody using SCSI? External firewire (400/800)?
- Good removeable drive racks

Audio interface
- make, model, I/O
- PCI, firewire

OS & Apps

.........................................................

I'd just like to get some reliable info from end users as I am planning to build a new dual core system soon. I have checked out a number of audio PC "custom build" sites, but I am looking for some real world benchmarks on particular combinations of components, with the emphasis on low latency and high plug-in count (VST & VSTi).

This info would greatly help those of us considering "native" options that can compare with PT HD systems.

Thanks.

JL









Logged
"Only he who attempts the absurd can achieve the impossible." ~ Manuel Onamuno

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #119 on: October 28, 2005, 06:48:13 PM »

timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 13:30

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:57

timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21






In fact the console could be a Berhinger if all its used for is monotoring (using outboard quality pre's in the recording chain of course).



Certainly, if all you use is console pres. I generally go mic->pre->comp(if needed)->input. In this case, there is no way to avoid some latency. Even on a ProTools system there will be some.
Actually, the only way would be to mult the output of the pre or compressor, but then when you have to punch-in you have to change your monitor path.


Yes you record through the quality pre and mult that to the console.... No issues with punch in.  I have used Neves while monitoring through a Berhinger.....

No need to use the console pre's at all.!

I agree with an earlier poster about not posting unless you know your statements to be fact..... Too many myths getting started this way.

I record all day, every day, with the setup I mentioned above,,,, no latency no issues of any kind... works exactly the same as a tape machine studio... Let the "tape" run and hit the record button (mouse) when you want to punch.....


Rick,
Perhaps you could describe your setup in greater detail. I'm using both ProTools and Nuendo w/ ProTools hardware. So, I don't have to deal with the latency issue unless I'm using another studio's rig.

I wasn't trying to spread misinformation, only speaking from experience that I have had working with Native systems(Primarily, Nuendo and Logic) in other studios.

BTW, I helped build one of the systems on your long list of Nuendo users. In that particular case, he uses an O2R96 for I/O and monitoring.

It took about two years to get all the bugs worked out of the system. Custom built P4 with all the bells and whistles. Finally with Nuendo 3 the system is stable and truly functional.

I'm not anti-native. I just haven't come across a system that has the kind of low latency that my ProTools TDM hardware has monitoring straight thru the box. Even 64 samples is still way more than I get in PT. I'd love find another platform that was actually cheaper, sounded as good, and left me with most of my hair at the end of the day. Oh and fits in my front pocket, too. Smile



Hi Tim,

Well the method I use when using outboard pre's with a console is pretty straight forward:

On the Neves we rent they have both XLR's and TRS 1/4" outs for the 8 pre's. (This is a custom rack of 8 pre's put together with power supply and a bunch of IO options on the rear of the rack)....  I simply plug the mic into the input, the XLR out goes to the recorder (RME Multiface analog interface/ converters).  The other out for that strip (TRS 1/4") is routed to the Berhinger board channel in for monotoring only...

The two channel (2buss) out from Nuendo / RME also goes to the board for monitoring whats already on tape.  

SO all the recorded tracks are coming into the Berhinger from Nuendo in stereo, and the tracks that are recording go straight into the RME I/O, with a split coming into channels on the Berhinger to blend with the in the box mix.... 0 Latency, with any pre.... (Or even the highest sample settings)I imagine you could also use a ballanced splitter on the back of any pre that dosent have 2 or more outs (Most of mine do)

The simplicity of this system in use is pretty much identical to using tape with an analog board.

This costs me about the same as a Mackie big knob with tons more functionality, such as aux sends , seperate cue mixes, effects to the cans only etc.... (While the "to tape" path is pristine....)

I use a Berhinger MX9000 (24/48 into 8 buss)... Basicaly a Mackie 2408 rippoff.  (You can get them for $400.00 on Ebay)

GAWD  I'm admitting to using a Berhinger board on this forum... I will never be able to show my face again.  Embarassed


PS:  Tim please accept my appologies for my comments earlier... It was "BC"  (Before Coffee).... All the best... respect.

PPS:  As others have stated, My native system was built by myself with a decade of experience in building and trouble shooting my own sytems... Past systems were fraught with troubleshooting headaches etc.  But this current system that I built 6 months ago went together like leggo and has had zero issues... not even one hang....  

I don't like the IBM stuff, Tim (P4)... I stick with ASUS MoBo's and Athlon chips.... Avoid VIA Southbridge Chipsets...

The best way to build a system is to buy the software, then the interface that is proven to work well with the software (Nuendo/RME example)... only then start to purchase computer components that both the Software and Hardware suppliers BOTH recomend and agree on.... Problems are more likely if you use any old computer and then stick some software on it. If your goods are recent with recent drivers then it should be a breeze.....  Tim's freind with the O2r having problems was two years ago.... (two years ago we were all still having issues)

Terry:  Nuendo does have dedicated hardware.  RME makes boxes that are designed for use with Steinberg DAWS...  (I don't have them though)


Once again:  Wicked thread.  I am soooo glad that the Nuendo crew has a chance to show our enthusiasum without persecution!

PPSS:  Saw, Samp, and Logic are all wicked apps as well... I love the way Logic sounds but can't dig the interface...
Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

Ive done stuff I'm not proud of.. and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting ~ Moe Sizlack

"There is no crisis in energy, the crisis is in imagination" ~ Buckminster Fuller
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 16   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 21 queries.