anyone willing to volunteer details of their current version of Cubase and sound card mine's SX 3.0.2 and a 2198 MHz AMD processor but I'm in the final stage (hopefully) of selling my house so, will have money for long-overdue upgrades -- http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
Gill Smith a écrit : > anyone willing to volunteer details of their current version of Cubase and > sound card Here I use: Intel core2 quad Q9550@2.86GHz SX 1 (the latest and last version) + Win XP SP2 x86 or,according to the project I'm working on: Cubase 5 (latest version wich is 5.1.1/2, I think) + Win7 x64 Sound card wise, its a RME Multiface II. Huey
Gill Smith <> wrote: > details of their current version of Cubase and > sound card Cubase 4 Steinberg CI2 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3 Mac mini OSX 10.6.5 -- New CD "Breaking Habits" http://www.cdbaby.com/AlbumDetails.aspx?AlbumID=clausrogge Music for free: http://tinyurl.com/73efjm
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:29:37 -0000, "Gill Smith" <> wrote: Win XP SP3 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 4 GB DDR3 Cubase Studio 5 Creamware scope home (3 DSP's) AKG C414 mic Matrox Millennium P750 graphics card 3 22" Philips monitors
Maybe old but still enough: - AMD Athlon 64 - Windows 2000 SP4 - Cubase LE 1.? - Yamaha TG100 (+ Kawai MDK 64 as Masterkeyboard) - Behringer UCA202 for Audio-in-and-out
On Nov 27, 6:29 am, "Gill Smith" <> wrote: > anyone willing to volunteer details of their current version of Cubase and > sound card > > mine's SX 3.0.2 and a 2198 MHz AMD processor > > but I'm in the final stage (hopefully) of selling my house > > so, will have money for long-overdue upgrades > > --http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/ I am using a mac laptop with a tascam 122L and cubase 5. I use to have a huge system and it was fun to say I had it but this is easier and gets my work done. Cubase 5 is cool but I don't use 99% of what it has to offer. I'd bet most of us don't. I still long for the days of my tape machine. I'd like to have it back and then drop stuff onto computer if I need to edit something.
Danny T <> wrote: > I still long for the days of my tape machine. I'd > like to have it back and then drop stuff onto computer if I need to > edit something. I just got an analog setup working ... got a Fostex M80 8track machine and a Tascam M308 mixer on ebay. I do the recording on that equipment and mixdown to the computer in order to convert to mp3. It´s fun to touch real knobs and faders in stead of using a mouse pointer again! These devices that I used to dream of in the seventies go real cheap now (not if you want High End equipment of course ... there´s a steep drop in quality from my digital setup). -- New CD "Breaking Habits" http://www.cdbaby.com/AlbumDetails.aspx?AlbumID=clausrogge Music for free: http://tinyurl.com/73efjm
On Nov 28, 12:42 am, (Claus Rogge) wrote: > Danny T <> wrote: > > I still long for the days of my tape machine. I'd > > like to have it back and then drop stuff onto computer if I need to > > edit something. > > I just got an analog setup working ... got a Fostex M80 8track machine > and a Tascam M308 mixer on ebay. I do the recording on that equipment > and mixdown to the computer in order to convert to mp3. It s fun to > touch real knobs and faders in stead of using a mouse pointer again! > > These devices that I used to dream of in the seventies go real cheap now > (not if you want High End equipment of course ... there s a steep drop > in quality from my digital setup). > > -- > New CD "Breaking Habits"http://www.cdbaby.com/AlbumDetails.aspx?AlbumID=clausrogge > Music for free:http://tinyurl.com/73efjm Your M80 is a late 80's almost 90's recorder. I didn't even bother dreaming of the machines they are giving away now. I've thought many times that I'd by a studer or mci 24 track but between the tapes and maintenance, and the fact that people these days have van gogh's ear for music, i just stick with digital. I admit I was sitting there listening to my old tunes the other night thinking my 8 track from the 80's sounds better then my 24 bit stuff today. Its a hard call but then if you want to make a living at music, you have to provide what the consumer wants. I'm on that thin line where I found another way to make money a few years back so I'm almost to the point that I don't give a rats a$$ anymore and I'll get that 24 track and do it my way. Everything I hear is completely autotuned to hell and crunched to the point of zero dynamics. I've radio stations tell me my song is to quiet and asked if there might be something wrong with the track! (I do a trop-rock thing and stations actually come to me- not that there is any money in it)
On Nov 29, 10:01 am, Danny T <> wrote: > On Nov 28, 12:42 am, (Claus Rogge) wrote: > > > > > > > Danny T <> wrote: > > > I still long for the days of my tape machine. I'd > > > like to have it back and then drop stuff onto computer if I need to > > > edit something. > > > I just got an analog setup working ... got a Fostex M80 8track machine > > and a Tascam M308 mixer on ebay. I do the recording on that equipment > > and mixdown to the computer in order to convert to mp3. It s fun to > > touch real knobs and faders in stead of using a mouse pointer again! > > > These devices that I used to dream of in the seventies go real cheap now > > (not if you want High End equipment of course ... there s a steep drop > > in quality from my digital setup). > > > -- > > New CD "Breaking Habits"http://www.cdbaby.com/AlbumDetails.aspx?AlbumID=clausrogge > > Music for free:http://tinyurl.com/73efjm > > Your M80 is a late 80's almost 90's recorder. I didn't even bother > dreaming of the machines they are giving away now. I've thought many > times that I'd by a studer or mci 24 track but between the tapes and > maintenance, and the fact that people these days have van gogh's ear > for music, i just stick with digital. > > I admit I was sitting there listening to my old tunes the other night > thinking my 8 track from the 80's sounds better then my 24 bit stuff > today. Its a hard call but then if you want to make a living at music, > you have to provide what the consumer wants. I'm on that thin line > where I found another way to make money a few years back so I'm almost > to the point that I don't give a rats a$$ anymore and I'll get that > 24 track and do it my way. > > Everything I hear is completely autotuned to hell and crunched to the > point of zero dynamics. I've radio stations tell me my song is to > quiet and asked if there might be something wrong with the track! (I > do a trop-rock thing and stations actually come to me- not that there > is any money in it)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Maybe it's the kind of music you listen to.
On Nov 29, 2:53 pm, XODDI <> wrote: > On Nov 29, 10:01 am, Danny T <> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 12:42 am, (Claus Rogge) wrote: > > > > Danny T <> wrote: > > > > I still long for the days of my tape machine. I'd > > > > like to have it back and then drop stuff onto computer if I need to > > > > edit something. > > > > I just got an analog setup working ... got a Fostex M80 8track machine > > > and a Tascam M308 mixer on ebay. I do the recording on that equipment > > > and mixdown to the computer in order to convert to mp3. It s fun to > > > touch real knobs and faders in stead of using a mouse pointer again! > > > > These devices that I used to dream of in the seventies go real cheap now > > > (not if you want High End equipment of course ... there s a steep drop > > > in quality from my digital setup). > > > > -- > > > New CD "Breaking Habits"http://www.cdbaby.com/AlbumDetails.aspx?AlbumID=clausrogge > > > Music for free:http://tinyurl.com/73efjm > > > Your M80 is a late 80's almost 90's recorder. I didn't even bother > > dreaming of the machines they are giving away now. I've thought many > > times that I'd by a studer or mci 24 track but between the tapes and > > maintenance, and the fact that people these days have van gogh's ear > > for music, i just stick with digital. > > > I admit I was sitting there listening to my old tunes the other night > > thinking my 8 track from the 80's sounds better then my 24 bit stuff > > today. Its a hard call but then if you want to make a living at music, > > you have to provide what the consumer wants. I'm on that thin line > > where I found another way to make money a few years back so I'm almost > > to the point that I don't give a rats a$$ anymore and I'll get that > > 24 track and do it my way. > > > Everything I hear is completely autotuned to hell and crunched to the > > point of zero dynamics. I've radio stations tell me my song is to > > quiet and asked if there might be something wrong with the track! (I > > do a trop-rock thing and stations actually come to me- not that there > > is any money in it)- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Maybe it's the kind of music you listen to. My music is called Trop Rock. Think along the lines of jimmy buffett or islandy james taylor or latin spiced rock. My style of music usually has a lot more dynamics then other styles and it is still overdone. The real problem is that people are use to everything being perfect. Country artists are auto tuning the hell out of their voices and wondering why people still say hank is the king. People don't get that imperfect makes real. You might wow someone with louder or perfect on the first go round but if there is no heart in it, everyone will get bored with it fast. In the old days, songs were meant to last a while but in the 80's the trend started changing for a fast hit. Produced didn't expect their song to live forever and they didn't care. it was actually good for biz to some extent because you had a lot of turn over and live band performances sold more merch so it meant more money fast. The result is that there are very few great songs anymore. Actually, it isn't that the songs suck but rather that the recording fatigue the ear. I doubt we will ever have another fleetwood mac album again, ever.
On Dec 3, 3:21 pm, Danny T <> wrote: > > I doubt we will ever have another fleetwood mac album again, ever.- Hide quoted text - If that means anything after "Bare Trees", I consider that a good thing. What do you think of T-Bone Burnette?
On Dec 4, 1:06 pm, XODDI <> wrote: > On Dec 3, 3:21 pm, Danny T <> wrote: > > > > > I doubt we will ever have another fleetwood mac album again, ever.- Hide quoted text - > > If that means anything after "Bare Trees", I consider that a good > thing. > > What do you think of T-Bone Burnette? Really? bare Trees was a great album but the Feetwood Mac and Rumors albums are awesome!
