Am I insane?

sinix · Post by **sinix** » Thu Sep 06, 2001 5:49 pm

This is my current setup:

Virus-B
Mw XT
Andromeda
e6400 (non-ultra)
xbase09
rme-hammerfall
Yamaha 02r

I do almost everything in VST/32 with a good mixture of hardware and native synths.

The current rig has brought out a bunch of great tracks, remixes and production credits for several artists including myself.

Truth be told, I'm sick of it! I'm tired of the clutter, cables, noise and endless sysex dumps and sampler archives after every track is done.

I'm looking to simplify my life, streamline the setup and go back to enjoying production rather than dreading the work involved.

Setup I'm thinking about:

Selling EVERYTHING but the Andromeda.

2 17" LCD screens
Dual 1.4ghz Amd
500+ mb ram
Pular II v3
UAD-1
Houston control surface
rme-multiface dsp

Am I nuts? Is the Pulsar II capable of backing up the Andromeda providing the rest of what I'd be missing?

Questions:

Is it still possible to get a healthly mix of native (VST) synths along side a Pulsar
II in Cubase?

My tracks arent heavily loaded with a 1,000 layers of sounds.. I generally run about 10 tracks of audio with 3-4 synths and drums.

Since I'm selling the 02r as I really don't need it just to input 1 "real" synth, my line of thinking is to use the RME card as a input for the synth AND pulsar card because of its ability to monitor directly with no real latency.

I'm wondering if this mix of product would/will come together with a good synergy.

Your thoughts and input are welcomed.

Thanks -

sinix

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Thu Sep 06, 2001 7:21 pm

no, you are quite sane to go the comp approach. i love the ability to switch synths with a few button clicks instead of getting up and fudgin with cabling. (i'd hold on to some of them synths though - pulsar has it's own sound - it will not replace things like the waldorph).

pulsar has I/O so need for the RME, and pulsar can monitor direct too (dsps, bro!). to do what you need to do, you will likely need more than a PulsarII dsp wise. although you are getting UAD and other stuff, so that might help. considering the money you'll get for all of that nice gear, you could get a scope SRB and a pulsar II probably. or maybe just scope SP, but that depends on your needs. pulsar hardly taxes the CPU at all (cuz of the DSP), so you can use all of your VSTi's like normal. pulsar even runs in weak systems. it is good that you are getting dual monitors, and a Houston, cuz interface is key on the computer scene. . . . and watch out for MOBOs! search the site for info's, as the issue has been bludgened to death.

PabloFasan · Post by **PabloFasan** » Thu Sep 06, 2001 7:55 pm

I'm not so optimist about the possibility of to reduce a hardware based production enviroment to a computer and a pair of good boards.

1)Each hardware instrument has a particular "sound colour" due they use different DAC's and preamps and the output circuits have different default equalizations.

2)Is very difficult to record complex scores using only software (and I have a lot).

3) In general the MIDI implementation of the hardware synths is much more complete.

4) You can use multiport MIDI interface for to reduce to a minimum the MIDI latency, this really works in the REAL reality, in the virtual instruments software based world is a promise for the future.

5) Mics require high quality/low noise preamps, this is impossible regarding the noisy enviromment that is a computer inside.

6) I agree with you about your comment about cables, but up to this time there's not a standard way of connection that could replace them.

Attempts like Yamaha's mLan have problems and will require much more time for to work as expected.

7) The "realtime" response of a hardware synth to commands is in general more precise and has less latency.

Is impossible with a computer to get the sound quality of an Oberheim Matrix 12 (or with any digital circuit), for to give a classic example.

9) The preamps of a "real hardware console" have a completely different response that those that a computer board have.

The REAL headroom concept is "unknown" in the digital world, the best you can get are floating point designs, but they are far to emulate what happens, for example in a Neve preamp.

Finally none of those recordings of acoustic or electronic music that sound impressive are done with a computer.

For some reason SSL and Neve continue selling consoles and Neumman selling microphones.

With a computer you can get excellent demos, well played, but if you really want quality , look at this monster studios that appear in Mix magazine and think why they exist.

[ This Message was edited by: PabloFasan on 2001-09-06 21:18 ]

JoeKa · Post by **JoeKa** » Thu Sep 06, 2001 9:51 pm

I´d sell the Yamaha mixer and the RME, maybe the E 6400 and even the XT, but keep the rest of it, take a pulsar2 with triple-ADAT I/Os and a Motu 24i and a Swissonic 8ch DA converter. Then you have streamlined at least the core of the setup and can use the Synths you know and can rely on. Keep the andromeda for its sound, the Virus for the fat bunch of voices and the Jomox for specially morphing beats...

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 2:00 am

You don't need the Hammerfall if you have a Pulsar.
1 Pulsar card is a bit low on DSP you'd better get 2 or a Scope.
What you MUST do is to check out the motherboard thouroughly. I'm no expert on the PC side but i don't think there are any good mobo:s that support dual AMD processors for the moment. If you buy the wrong mobo your in a world of hurt. Trust me on this one.
Check out http://www.infinitevortex.com
This guy knows what he's talking about.

Peezahj · Post by **Peezahj** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 7:55 am

My kit list:

3xPulsar
Oasys
UAD-1
e5000 ultra
k2500
Virus Indigo
Q Rack
Microwave XT
Pulse+
ATC-1
Pro-1
Oberheim OBX-a
Oberheim Matrix-1000
etc.

I hardly ever use the hardware synths at all, most of my work is done w/ Pulsar & Oasys specifically because of the exact issues you bring up (constant re-patching/pain of backing up programs). In fact, I used to have many more hardware synths & an 01V but ditched them for this way of working. It must be said, though, that VST instruments don't compare, don't believe the hype until you hear how flat they sound yourself.

Peezahj · Post by **Peezahj** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 8:18 am

This deserved a separate post:

On 2001-09-06 20:55, PabloFasan wrote:

1)Each hardware instrument has a particular "sound colour" due they use different DAC's and preamps and the output circuits have different default equalizations.

Different DAC's don't make any kind of difference unless you're talking about 'vintage' digital synths.

2)Is very difficult to record complex scores using only software (and I have a lot).

Most complex scores are done with samplers mixed with real instruments, the STS samplers give you all that you'll need to cover the samplers end (there's a reason the studio world has switched over to Gigastudio!).

3) In general the MIDI implementation of the hardware synths is much more complete.

But you're limited to their fixed designations whereas Pulsar allows you to assign controllers, obviously a superior method (I prefer assigning pulsar controllers to programming my pc1600x any day).

4) You can use multiport MIDI interface for to reduce to a minimum the MIDI latency, this really works in the REAL reality, in the virtual instruments software based world is a promise for the future.

What are you talking about??? That doesn't even begin to be an issue with virtual ports, if you're having midi problems then they're due to something else entirely!

5) Mics require high quality/low noise preamps, this is impossible regarding the noisy enviromment that is a computer inside.

Console pre's suck, I'd keep my rack of Focusrite/Trident/Avalon front-ends regardless of whether using Pulsar or a hardware console (including an SSL, nobody uses them for their sound).

6) I agree with you about your comment about cables, but up to this time there's not a standard way of connection that could replace them.

Attempts like Yamaha's mLan have problems and will require much more time for to work as expected.

All Pulsar cables are virtual.

7) The "realtime" response of a hardware synth to commands is in general more precise and has less latency.

Are you not talking about Pulsar now? It's synths have no more latency than any other virtual analog, they're all built with the same stuff, hardware-wise.

Is impossible with a computer to get the sound quality of an Oberheim Matrix 12 (or with any digital circuit), for to give a classic example.

The Pulsar Pro-1/Oasys Pro Synth have completely replaced my real Pro-1.

9) The preamps of a "real hardware console" have a completely different response that those that a computer board have.

Look at any 'monster studio' in the world, you'll see racks full of mic pre's because outboard will always be superior to what's in a console/soundcard. Of course there are reasons for monster studios & a quality that will never be achievable in a small project studio, but the reasons that you list are not the right ones. Try proper acoustic design &, especially, superb engineers; these guys could probably make great mixes on_anything_.

To punctuate my point, Warner Bros. has over 100 02R's in their studios (which are built on DSP's, just like Pulsar).

claes · Post by **claes** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 9:05 am

"For some reason SSL and Neve continue selling consoles and Neumman selling microphones. "

ha! did you think we are ditching neumann because we got a cheapo $2 lard-ass mic with our soundblasters?

Post by **garyb** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 7:11 pm

yeah you'll still want at least a couple of NICE mic pres,but if you go with scope or at least an srb there'll be no problem with a comp system to replace all that hardware.and put some of that money you save

lore · Post by **lore** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:38 pm

I have some analogue synths, drummachines,samplers , mac g3 /pulsar 2, yamaha 01 ,
: DON'T sell your yamaha 02 your synths,sampler,drummachine because as someone already said each machine has is own "colour".
Maybe you can sell the hammerfall.
If you are tired of cables try to buy a patch bay and plug all your stuff into it in order to have just a bunch of little cables floating in front of you rack.
cheers

peripatitis · Post by **peripatitis** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:59 pm

Sinix
I dont understand why with only 5 hardware
synths and samplers you have such a problem with cables and sysex dumps ,e.t.c.
If i were in your shoes i would do a quick drastic movement ,why dont you just buy a pulsar 3 and see how this works for you and if you are happy then sell your hardware and
expand your system.However at this stage i
dont believe that a fully software system could provide neither the reliability nor the complexity of it's hardware equivelant's
As for the andromeda i disagree that it's
an ireplacable synth ,perhaps an omega 8 would be or real analog modular ,but a not
completely analog synth?i dont know.
One suggestion:
If you are deeply involved with
sampling and you dont use it for emulating
orchestral instruments ,stick with it.
A software system has many advantages , however with such a setup i would thing twice
before taking a radical decision.

PabloFasan · Post by **PabloFasan** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 7:17 pm

To Peezahj and claes:

Hi:
If you don't like what I think is not necessary to begin an idelogic war against me, most because I will not change what I think regarding the type of repplies you post.

I don't know how many years old are you, but by my part I have 26 year working as professional musician composer and conductor.

I know a lot of high end studios arround the world and be sure that they sound different than a computer.

If you enjoy working only with software synths, better for you.

A particular comment to Peezahj: You don't know what is a hardware multiport MIDI interface?.
How much do you know about the MIDI protocol, regarding your repply I think that you'r needing to keep the books again.

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 7:56 pm

pablo, i am gonna have to jump to Peezahj's defense on this one.

On 2001-09-08 20:17, PabloFasan wrote:
I will not change what I think regarding the type of repplies you post.
I have 26 year working as professional musician composer and conductor.

You always seem to post replies which involve an implicit argument like: "I am in the audio business, and have a lot of years of experience, therefore, what i say is right." and per the quote above, you won't change your views, regardless of what other people have to say. I would like to think that the views of rational creatures like ourselves would change according to the best evidence available. I know that Eric (peezahj) works at an audio store, has some phat gear, extensive experience, and generally knows what the hell he is talking about. this does not mean to take everything he says as infallible dogma which is not subjectable to criticism, but that he has a valuable, learned opinion and is more than likely correct. I think that Eric's replies did a quite excellent job of discounting all of the objections which you raised. I remember in another post here that you have issues with CW as a company, and Pulsar as a product and that you hang around the list still just to see what is going on. when you do speak up, you give similar, mostly empty criticisms of pulsar/scope. surely, there are valid criticisms to raise (Win2K drivers, PCI overflow, ad naseum), but these have pretty much been bludgened to death. i am sure that you are quite knowledgable about things audio, but when i read your #'d post above, it is pretty clear that you can still err.

don't take yourself so seriously.

[ This Message was edited by: algorhythm on 2001-09-08 21:08 ]

Peezahj · Post by **Peezahj** » Sun Sep 09, 2001 5:17 pm

Thanks Joel!

I don't actually work at a music store but run a label/studio called Just Roots Records. At some point in time, we started using our buying power to purchase gear for our artists &, consequently, ended up with a lot of gear extra that we'd sell on our web shop (you can't just order one of anything from a distributor). Thus, JRR Shop (Just Roots Records Shop) was born.

Pablo, please qualify your statement, how does a multi-port hardware midi interface have any advantage over a well designed software midi interface? btw, there's nothing stopping use from using a separate midi interface with Pulsar, just go in through the pulsar midi input (if you're like me, you'll have 3 separate pulsar midi in's, one for each card).

This isn't an ideological war, a lot of what you originally posted was wrong & you know it. Twice you attacked Pulsar on the quality of it's mic pre's when it doesn't even have pre's at all, & there are so many alternatives to using the Pulsar convertors (thanks to ADAT, spdif, aes/ebu, & z-link inputs) that the issue of the noisy computer can easily be removed from the argument. After all, don't you have an Alesis ai-3 for a reason?

As I said, a great engineer can make anything sound great as long as the monitoring environment is correct, if someone's not getting the results they want then it's their fault, not the gear.

Air_PoLLo · Post by **Air_PoLLo** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 4:32 pm

Peez, I have never liked pablofasan's amateurish opinions.

The MIDI timing on the softsynts are as good as my hardware stuff connected to my midisport 8X8 (USB and of course, MAC)

To pablo: go to the specs area in this site and check the charts, you'll find lotsa good latency issues.
Also have this in mind: "Everything is math" , get it?

[ This Message was edited by: Air_PoLLo on 2001-09-10 17:34 ]

PabloFasan · Post by **PabloFasan** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 5:12 pm

Dear Peezahj:

I never said that Pulsars have input preamps, read carefully, yes they have input circuits that's not the same.

Probably they have some type of preamp in the analog outputs, due the maximum level that the signal could reach surpase the standard output of a DAC, but it has not the minimum importance.

The cold fact is that studios completely based in computers are used only for pure electronic music.

I know that you like too much this type of music, good!, but other approachs exist.

Why you can't accept in peace a wrong opinion.

If I'm wrong and I live in peace with my error, what's the problem?

When I speak about your age is not from a superiority point of view , otherwise trying to show that I have a different experience, that's mainly based in generational differences.

Probably we hear different types of music and like different composers and that's not bad.

Some of the words that you hear arrogant are the result of lots of training courses that I have received from the multiple instrument manufactures that I have been representing since 15 years ago.

If you want to talk about this I prefer to do it in private , not for to hide information, otherwise due I don't want to show myself as a man that knows everything.

If not let me live in peace, when I post I try to put my best intentions and knowledge.

I believe very few in the charts, the conditions of the measurements can modify for complete the results.

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 5:30 pm

On 2001-09-10 18:12, PabloFasan wrote:
The cold fact is that studios completely based in computers are used only for pure electronic music.

gee - that is bullshit if I ever smelt it before. I just recorded 2 acoustic guitars and 2 voice tracks in my computer studio. oh, but i get it! folk music is electronic! my mistake!

On 2001-09-10 18:12, PabloFasan wrote:
I don't want to show myself as a man that knows everything.

you don't have to worry about that . . .

On 2001-09-10 18:12, PabloFasan wrote:
I believe very few in the charts, the conditions of the measurements can modify for complete the results.

well, i think the test methods were identical between HW and CW - this is a crucial condition for achieving objective results from the scientific method . . .

[ This Message was edited by: algorhythm on 2001-09-10 18:31 ]

PabloFasan · Post by **PabloFasan** » Tue Sep 11, 2001 6:59 pm

Hi:

Do you enjoy posting this type of repplies or is a sport.

Don't lose your time with me, use it for create music.

I have with CW people a much more creative dialog in private, sometimes we agree others we disagree, but up this point we know each other and since a lot of time we don't fight more.

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Wed Sep 12, 2001 4:24 am

On 2001-09-11 19:59, PabloFasan wrote:
Do you enjoy posting this type of repplies or is a sport.
Don't lose your time with me, use it for create music.

neither - i, and others, are just trying to provide clear information to other pulsar users.

i do not doubt your experience, but your judgements. i do not think i am alone on this.

i am losing no time with you, i cannot make music at work . . .

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Wed Sep 12, 2001 4:26 am

please show us that you are correct - reply to peezahj's lengthy post, explain to me how i cannot produce folk music on my DAW, and tell me how J. Cooper's testing is biased.