R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Mastering in OSX?  (Read 23783 times)

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2009, 12:41:42 PM »

TotalSonic wrote on Fri, 03 April 2009 11:39

To me it would be way easier and a good bit cheaper simply to trouble shoot your PC DAW to make it more stable than having to learn a whole new DAW app (that at this point would still have less features than Sequoia) and purchase a new system.  

Done that. both rigs are bare bones and really quite stable, it's just when Windoze craps the bed, it does so in Grand Fashion. I prefer OSX.
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

jdg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 950
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2009, 12:55:08 PM »

btw, DSPQ 3 is now out with its new playlist editor that is almost exactly like waveburner.

i have yet to use it, but i own it. too cheep not too.

Logged
john mcCaig
-Mothery Earworks Clarifold Audipure

finetuner

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2009, 04:01:00 PM »

Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 03 April 2009 15:45

...The CD-Text is included in the TS file in the DDP folder. But for some reason the Eclipse software at replication doesn't access that... should be an easy fix... go figure...


A neighbor ME who runs Pyramix, had issues with DDP w Text as well, since (one of ?) the latest updates of Eclipse.
So much for standards.
Anyway it shows that SB can't help everything it gets blamed for.

This may be the answer to why Sonic Studio didn't implement in their 'flagship' what they did in PMCD. It used to frustrate me a lot as there has been an update of SB since, but i'm beginning to understand.
Logged
Peter van't Riet
FineTune Mastering

Andy Krehm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 611
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2009, 05:54:30 PM »

Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 03 April 2009 03:30

Brad, I think you already know where I stand!

Pro Tools HD and soundBlade, 100% happy with my workflow. Many hours of daily use here.

I keep using PT HD because of it's flexibility in routing, for surround and stem projects, and the occasional use of  Phoenix TDM plug-in.

The GUI of sB is elegant, quite powerful, and designed from the ground up for mastering and restoration work.  The occasional use of an ITB DeEssing or EQ plug-in works fine. I was under the impression that Sequoia was modeled after Sonic HD, which is very similar to sB. I've watched the online Samplitude mastering videos, and the workflow seems very similar to Sonic sB.

as far as sB goes:

DDP import/export - Yes, it works great.
Multitrack support - Yes.
Decent plugin support - Yes.
Rock-solid stability - Close, depends on what type of rock you mean  : - )

It seems the choices for Mac OSX CD authoring apps are growing, the current line up:

Sonic Studio soundBlade (& PMCD) with NoNoise II...
Bias Peak Pro (vastly improved Playlist)
Audiofile Engineering Wave Editor (the Layered approach)
DSP Quattro 3.0 (due to arrive any day, seems to very easy to use)
Apple WaveBurner (gulp)
Toast/Jam (limited features but still usable for assembly)
Studio One from PreSonus (still in development iirc)

I think that's about it.

So if you decide to give sB a run, I'll wager that many of us here are willing to help in any way.

Heck, if I can learn sB, surely someone younger and smarter can...

Cheers - JT

Hey JT:

When it comes to sb, I'm thinking I must be older AND dumber
Crying or Very Sad !

Matt_G

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2009, 09:08:23 PM »

fwiw.. I've owned WaveEditor for sometime & while it shows promise I think it's still a ways off to becoming useful as a complete mastering solution. Having said that the latest beta build 1.4.5b15 has taken a major leap forward in terms of speed.

One of the things that always bugged me about WE is the constant slow waveform redraws. This seems to have been fixed in the new beta, along with complete DDP recall that is compatible with the DDP standard. I use it to open sonic PMCD DDP image files. They've also added the fade menu to the contextual drop down menu (right click) which has improved speed for editing. I've always like the fade models in WE, very flexible.

Matt

Logged
Matthew Gray Mastering

Brisbane Australia

bigaudioblowhard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1314
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2009, 11:01:56 PM »

sB burns a nice little Red Book Master, very reliable.  Also, because we use PT for playback (Macbook), a backup burner is always available should there be any issue with burning on the sB rig.

See next thread about crackling burners.

bab

Jerry Tubb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2761
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #36 on: April 04, 2009, 12:06:55 AM »

Andy Krehm wrote on Fri, 03 April 2009 16:54


Hey JT:

When it comes to sb, I'm thinking I must be older AND dumber Crying or Very Sad !


Yo Andy my bro! actually I'm driving in Car 54 this year (and I'm certain that Heisenberg is not riding shotgun).

As to OSX mastering applications, it's good that there are many to choose from now.

One that makes immediate sense to ME #1, may not do it at all for ME #2, so it's truly is different strokes.

Some guys like beer, others drink wine, or some prefer a bottle of Pellegrino instead.

DSP Quattro 3.0 looks really promising as the interface reminds one of WaveBurner. I haven't tried it in the studio yet, just at home on my MacBook, reports are that it sounds really good, but we'd need to do the usual null tests, and find out which type of dithering they use : - )

The other DAW on the horizon is Studio One from Presonus. Apparently the designers had a lot to do with writing Nuendo. They're promising 64-bit processing and red book CD authoring for both OSX and Windows. Looks promising but we'll see if they deliver.

Ironically these other contenders may arrive as soundBlade hits full maturity, after tieing up many loose ends and releasing the UB version 2.0.

Best - JT  
Logged
Terra Nova Mastering
Celebrating 20 years of Mastering!

Sonovo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #37 on: April 05, 2009, 03:08:00 PM »

Brad,

why not go Vista?  Twisted Evil

If you're anywhere near Munich in May, we'll find a decent place for some beers and have a new go at sB, this time doing a 'real' session.

(before anyone starts to wonder, that's how pretty much all of our sessions are run, as live demos in bars, beer halls and what not. The pics on the website are 'for illustration purposes only'. Makes for a whole lot more fun than sitting in the same chair in the same room day in and day out.... And it really let's us focus on getting the mixes to translate Shocked)

Cheers,
Thor

Logged

Dave Davis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 437
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #38 on: April 06, 2009, 02:13:50 PM »

I think JT's right about timing, Brad: there will be mo' better choices this summer than there are today.  sB should be UB by then, creating a different "classic" Rosetta version that should finally have all the bugs shaken out as a byproduct.  Believe it or not Rosetta sB runs better today on Intels than native PPCs, so that's a safe bet.  As others have noted, DSP Quattro is UB now, and provides a new option –
Logged

e-cue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #39 on: April 06, 2009, 05:04:52 PM »

I suppose emailing them and requesting mac support in the future might be a waste of time but, meh... takes 20 seconds

http://www.magix.com/us/links/contact/


Logged
http://www.miamimusicstory.com/wp-content/ani_cone.gif

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #40 on: April 06, 2009, 05:43:28 PM »

e-cue wrote on Mon, 06 April 2009 16:04

I suppose emailing them and requesting mac support in the future might be a waste of time but, meh... takes 20 seconds

http://www.magix.com/us/links/contact/

I've talked directly with them on more than one occasion - they are 100% against it and unwilling to discuss it.
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

TotalSonic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3728
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #41 on: April 06, 2009, 08:37:45 PM »

bblackwood wrote on Mon, 06 April 2009 17:43

e-cue wrote on Mon, 06 April 2009 16:04

I suppose emailing them and requesting mac support in the future might be a waste of time but, meh... takes 20 seconds

http://www.magix.com/us/links/contact/

I've talked directly with them on more than one occasion - they are 100% against it and unwilling to discuss it.


I've been through this with the author of SAWStudio a few times as well with similar results - but he was willing to detail his reasons for it.  People need to realize that a port of an app the size and maturity of something like Sequoia is a huge task equivalent to writing an entirely new app.  Undertaking the port would most likely to force them to stop (or at the very minimum slow) development and support of the already existing app itself during the time they were writing the port.  For most coders I've spoken to it's a lot more appealing to make the existing product better than have to start from scratch to allow additional OS support.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

mcsnare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 958
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #42 on: April 06, 2009, 09:20:07 PM »

When I talked to them about doing a Mac version at AES about 2 years ago, the Magix guy sited exactly those reasons you mention, Steve. The thing that bugs me is they say they would REALLY like to grab a big slice of the American market, but the guy seemed to have no clue that Macs are the predominate platform for audio here.
I told him directly that unless they wrote a Mac version, Magix can forget about gaining a big market in the US.
Whatever dude.
I'm with Brad. I LOVE Sequoia. I HATE Windows. I have constant troubles with my PC's and that's even with regular maintenance.
I think about going Mac constantly but I really hate having to re-learn and put up with certain limitations of the other apps.

Dave

Garrett H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 406
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #43 on: April 07, 2009, 12:40:34 AM »

mcsnare wrote on Mon, 06 April 2009 21:20


I LOVE Sequoia. I HATE Windows.


If you sold t-shirts with on the front I'll bet you would make enough  money to buy a new GML EQ in 5 days. . .
Logged
Treelady Studios, Pittsburgh, PA
http://www.treelady.com
Senior Contributor, Tape Op Magazine
http://www.tapeop.com

Dave Davis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 437
Re: Mastering in OSX?
« Reply #44 on: April 07, 2009, 02:11:03 PM »

I think evidence of the wisdom of Magix position is found in soundBlade.  Sonic delayed moving to OSX for the same reasons... then they delayed moving to UB.  In both cases the change was as described: blowing up a mature, developed product for the port to a new OS.  Once they fell behind the curve by delaying the port to OSX, the issues metastasized through Apple's shift to Intel.  Suddenly they were developing TWO functionally identical apps, with entirely separate code bases.  And still supporting an unrelated and obsolete third! Hopefully they'll be back in sync soon with a kick ass UB version.  But in the meantime, we run PPC code under Rosetta on MacIntels, really killing the performance of the application.  Supporting these separate applications is tough: things that are bug in one language work fine on the other code.

I read a lot of smack about SonicStudio's products here an elsewhere.  I'll be the first to fault them for delaying the transition to X far too long, creating many of the issues they're facing.  Yet as a small business owner, I'm pretty sympathetic to the broader plight... they're selling to a very tiny, picky and bizarrely price sensitive market (we'll spend thousands on cables, but bitch about upgrade licenses on specialized, critical tools no one else needs).  Apple's move to Intel makes sense, but kills tiny developers of specialized code in the short run.  All the things that make soundBlade special/different rely on talking directly to hardware, so when the hardware is abstracted from the app, things get weird.

I have a feeling all that is true for Magix.  Device drivers and hardware-level communication is heavy stuff.  I'm sure they could write a Mac version that works at a higher level of abstraction without too much pain.  But if you want it to sound better than Core Audio, and you want the app to grip and dictate it's terms to the hardware, well, that's a lot harder and more expensive.  This is what separates soundBlade from Waveburner Pro or Wave Editor or to some extent, Peak.  It might be what separates Sequoia from Wavelab and other apps that rely on Windows to supply transport, routing and DSP.

Having lived through a couple of these shifts, I wouldn't wish the growing pains Sonic's users have endured on Magix users.  Yeah, I love the mac, and have no doubt you guys might agree with Brad's main points regarding benefits of OSX.  But porting to a new platform represents a huge cost for a small company, and the bill isn't just money.  You bleed customers, reputation and time as well.  The benefits of a slightly more stable OS are out-weighed by those costs in such a small market.  If soundBlade went away, I'd move to Sequoia on PC before considering Waveburner Pro or Peak, simply because I trust/prefer a true mastering audio engine to a generic audio transport in a wild environment.

-d-
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 19 queries.