What I stated was that CONVERTERS aren't discussed enough as an argument in soundquality. Benchmark and Swissonics if placed on a SONAR system, would obviously increase the quality from a standard card, which is a subjective thing, that's why you pay $400 a channel for Benchmarks. That's great, I know that! I never said that Digidesign native converters are the standard or best. You simply assumed this. Please don't do that. That is subjective, honestly, I always try to get good converters in gear for everything I do. In fact, cheaper converters can "colour" your sound better to get a specific sound out of a synth you want, etc.The hardware interfaces that Digidesign manufacture sound better than a lot of third-party cards. God feels that this is a critical element in a system which isn't discussed enough.
ok....you lost me right about here:headbang: :crazy:Originally posted by vitaminman
My comment about the converters was made under the assumption that they are one and the same as interfaces. If I'm not mistaken, convertors are the electronic elements found in an audio interface which do the actual a/d and d/a conversion; the audio interface is the the entire package in a metal housing consisting of 8 a/d convertors and 8 d/a convertors, along with some other exciting stuff like buttons and lights. I assume that if one buys an RME interface, it is not designed to have its convertors swapped out with ones from a different manufacturer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
beat making softwares trust me i used this it's free https://www.illmuzik.com/threads/good-free-software-for-beginners.39887/Dear Vitaminman:
You are putting assumptions on my part into the argument as you've claimed to decipher my post. I do not mean to be accusatory, but simply hope that what I will say will facilitate positive discussion further.
1. Your obvious misquote is stated in the following, and I don't think you understood what I actually said:
What I stated was that CONVERTERS aren't discussed enough as an argument in soundquality. Benchmark and Swissonics if placed on a SONAR system, would obviously increase the quality from a standard card, which is a subjective thing, that's why you pay $400 a channel for Benchmarks. That's great, I know that! I never said that Digidesign native converters are the standard or best. You simply assumed this. Please don't do that. That is subjective, honestly, I always try to get good converters in gear for everything I do. In fact, cheaper converters can "colour" your sound better to get a specific sound out of a synth you want, etc.
I'm trying to show the upside and downsides of BOTH programmes.
If you look at what I was saying, I actually was supporting SONAR if you want "good sound quality" if you have good converters. That's also why I assume you didn't form your argument on sound quality on the way too-high sample rate of 192kHz that TDM 6.x has. You stayed out of that quite nicely, when it is obvious I understand that Digidesign keeps making insane sample rates which are beyond the range of human hearing in order to foster consumer mentality. Thus, I have a good grasp on the garbage sound quality argument that is a subjective thing and I refuse to get into the "warm" or "better" sound argument.
2. I think you overlook "stability" massively. If I have a huge recording session with a band or an artist, I will choose HD because it is more stable. True PT software crashes, but not nearly as much as Native Softwares do. You have to agree with me on that, Vitaminman. That's why, if there is money on the line, and I have a time frame to get X down, then HD is more stable and that's what I choose.
3. My understanding that this was about SONAR w/o any other DSP allocation. If you want to redefine the situation, then do it. I think that using other rack-mounted computers to run VST instruments, etc., and have it allocated off the system the native software is using, is a good thing that ALL people using Native Softwares (like Cubase, SONAR) should consider, since computers are cheaper now, and many of the older computers can relegate processes to their systems without taxing the master computer.
4. I process a lot of effects, and you make it seem like a secondary thing that is not "as necessary." I have a lot of things running, and do not want to be limited by the amount of audio channels I can use, because my computer can't handle it. I want to isolate different cymbals etc, on different channels, and HD lets me do that without problem.
What were the most tracks running w/processing you've used on a Native Software, before you had to start bouncing tracks or throwing stuff around? I don't want to deal with the time wasted on that. I want it to do everything I want it to do real time, all at once, and not deal with incidences that cut into my time.
5. I also made it clear that Digidesign offers a planned obsolescence that is very expensive and sucks people into it. In the culture I am in, where I have to learn to use what the studio owners, or a band wants me to use because their contract has the garbage stated in it (Believe It!) I have to know how to use it. So, I AM FORCED, to use it. So, I have to use it, even though I DO KNOW that I can do everything in SONAR, CEP, or any sequencer, because I am confident in my skills.
Here's a visual:
PT introduced--------------Native Softwares get better-------Parity Almost
early 90's---------------------mid/late 90's--------------------------2003
When PT was introduced, it was great, and people bought into the system. And through its evolution, as Native Softwares got better, then there was competition from the lower end... this parity is almost reduced, and Digidesign has to cater to this market, as well as make the high end gear seem better. Digidesign then introduces 192kHz which is unnecessary, and all "pros" wanting to be different, and also, to have the "larger phallus" purchase this. Therefore, people need to know how to use it, and I sit in my studio with a beer, and figure it out, when the version before was fine with me.
I still think that stability is an issue. I've run HD for really long tenures, w/o crashing.
SONAR IS A BETTER VALUE, it is the future. But if I have the resources and money to have HD now, because I find SONAR to be inconvenient, then I will go with HD.
Digidesign is the past, but has advantages over Sonar, due to Farmcards and stability, which will soon become less pronounced if processors get faster and better, and handle the computations in the code better.
You still have to admit that any allocation of resources from CPU to a DSP will always be better than having it based on the native CPU. Maybe it will get so small, that it won't matter. I wait for the day.
Trust me, Digidesign is a great marketer, it's got a lot of people brainwashed with their low-end stuff. I am skeptical of you saying that SONAR is better than HD, and you can say I'm "brainwashed" with the HD... no, hopefully what I've said is a way of saying that both are great programmes. Costwise, Sonar is a better value, but if I have the money, then why have to bother with limiting my audio tracks because of lack of CPU power? Your way of recording is different than mine, and each producer has a different way... is there a problem if I run too much real-time FX processing from Farmcards that SONAR w/o help from a rack-mount computer to allocate resources can't handle?
I'm with you, from a common sense perspective, if you start allocating resources out to DSPs from SONAR... then well, DIGIDESIGN has a PROBLEM, and can't charge $40K for their garbage.
I still use Sonar 8 PE for actual recording/composition and I have an old copy of PT M-Powered 7.3 I use for sending out projects.Talk about bringing back an old thread, but we know who won this battle. Sonar is a dead product even with band labs involvement and pro tools still rules the world.