[Dream] Timestretch

[Doofus McFluoro]

whats netiquette?

On 2/21/07, Mark <dream at primatesynthesis.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/21/07, Doofus McFluoro put forth:
> >  >>>If you are doing live sound, or people are paying
> >  > you by the hour, you can't have the sort of computer problems that
> >  > most people producing their own music, on their own time, have now
> >  > learned to accept.
> >
> >
> >Its a point but not a great point in this context...Real instrument
> >bands obviously need real instruments to play on and hardware rigs
> >are going to be more reliable for live shows. The general
> >nature computers is that they are unstable.  I make make my living
> >of that fact.
>
> OK :)
>
> >But we are getting of the point... the subject line is on
> >timestretching and we were discussing the merits of timestretching
> >on computers vs hardware.  That is a different subject altogether.
> >I dont know many (any) live bands doing on the fly sampling and
> >timestretching.
>
> Admittedly, the subject of the thread has changed.  However,
> considering good netiquette in that the listowner is one of its
> participants, I left changing the subject field to his discretion.
> I'm old school like that :)
>
> On 2/20/07, UnderTow put forth:
> >Well the efficiency part isn't relevant any more because there is so much
> >processing power available on a general purpouse CPU. That was my point.
> >It doesn't need to be fully optimised to be much more powerfull than a
> >fully optimised bespoke chip.
>
> Not that dedicated hardware doesn't use general purpose
> microprocessors as well, but yes, the CPU's in Macs and PC are much
> more powerful.  They also have much more to do.  They have to run OS
> X or Windows and whatever else is installed.  Running DSP on
> dedicated hardware avoids all sorts of problems that can occur due to
> software and hardware conflicts.
>
> >Not at all. My point is that the best algorythms available are not always
> >in dedicated hardware any more.
>
> OK :)
>
> >But that is besides the point. You made the point that the very best
> comes
> >in dedicated hardware because the best developers don't want their
> >intellectual property abused by crackers and thieves. I am arguing that
> >the loss of a percentage of sales is now often completely swamped by the
> >potential increase in sales and profit of developing software instead of
> >hardware.
> >
> >It doesn't have to cost 15000$ to run a reverb algorythm and I'm not even
> >sure that is a valid business model anymore.
>
> Well, it certainly appears to be.  For example, TC Electronics, a
> company famous for its DSP hardware, released Spark XL -- a DSP and
> editing application that ran native. It was an awesome program, imho,
> way better than Peak or using the editor in Pro Tools.  According to
> them, they discontinued development and stopped selling it because of
> piracy.   Yet, they continue to sell Powercore, which requires
> dedicated hardware.  Eventide and Lexicon have followed similar
> paths.  Even companies traditionally known for top-shelf analogue,
> such as Focusrite, Universal Audio, and SSL, have introduced DSP
> products that work with DAW's but still require dedicated hardware.
>
> >  > Regardless, hardware is head and
> >  > shoulders above software in stability.
> >
> >Not head and shoulders.
>
> Stand-alone DSP is so much more stable it's not even funny.  Even
> with systems that use both PC's and dedicated hardware, the problem
> is almost always with the software functions that run on the PC's
> hardware.
>
> >Mark, you seem out of touch with the current market. I earn my living
> >being paid by the hour to work on ProTool rigs running inside general
> >purpouse computers!
>
> No, you don't.  Well, it runs *inside* a computer.  It doesn't run on
> it.  ProTools runs on bespoke, dedicated, specifically designed
> hardware that you can only get from them.  We are talking about DSP,
> not the GUI or file management.  All the DSP runs on their hardware.
> Which has all three advantages I've been writing about:
>
> 1.  The software is optimized for the hardware.
> 2.  While cracking the ProTools software might evade an update fee,
> it cannot be run without the hardware.
> 3.  The hardware is optimized for specific tasks.
>
> >Many many professionals are using general purpouse computers as the core
> >of their studios. I would say for every pro running dedicated hardware
> >there are 10 pros running on PCs.
>
> And I would say that 9 out of those 10 are running ProTools using
> dedicated hardware installed in a Mac.
>
> >For live sound you have a good point. On the other hand, arn't most live
> >shows in this scene playing from a laptop? :)
>
> Yes, but if I had to pick a number, I'd say psy-trance is around
> .001% of the DSP market :)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DreamWeavers mailing list
> DreamWeavers at enabled.com
> http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/dreamweavers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.enabled.com/pipermail/dreamweavers/attachments/20070221/d4d7fa5a/attachment.html