Fairlight-CMI

Dear Peter,

I would need the outputs as even today with the huge process in sound 
quality in digital people STILL use hardware compressors, Mic Preamps, 
effects etc due to their sound. What you want to create would only be 
a "protools" system based on fairlight workflow and technology. But 
Protools offers inputs and outputs exactly for this purpose. If you 
want to do the mixing inside CC-1 card you can by an existing DREAM or 
Xynergi system. The CMI was about the sampling, the sound and in my 
opinion many (if not all by a few exceptations) will integrate a new 
CMI into their existing system and connect it to a mixing desk. 

I agree that emulating analog circuits is possible but you will never 
get the real feeling. And have a look at todays analog hardware 
emulations, Arturia is doing a very good job there but have a look at 
the consumption of CPU power they need... please do not underestimate 
this. 

And... if you do Midi you surely want to trigger external synths and 
to get them into the system I personally would like to have them all 
connected to the system so I do not have to patch. That's why I also 
want many inputs and outputs as option... ;-) 

All the best,

Michael

--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Vogel" <peter.vogel@...> 
wrote:
>
> Thanks for your thoughts Michael. 
>  
> I think it will be possible to emulate the random things qualities 
of the
> original analog circuits. Of course analog parts do it easily but 
with
> suffuicuent processing power I think it can be done, perhaps with a 
control
> that lets you select from 100% analog sound to 100% digital sound?
>  
> Regarding your cost calculation, I'm not sure why you would want all 
the
> analog i/o.  I expect the CMI-4 would do all the mixing in the CC-1 
and
> output direct to disk or digital interface to teh outside world.
>  
> I would hope the whole kit including CC-1, I/O for Midi, a couple of 
analog
> channels for monitoring, including software, would be included in 
the $5k
> price.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
> Peter
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Fairlight-
CMI@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Michael
> Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2008 9:21 AM
> To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Fairlight-CMI] Re: Some more thoughts, Fairlight CMI 
series IV?
> 
> 
> 
> Great thoughts Tobias and great idea to think about a CMI IV Peter,
> please let me give some thoughts, too... 
> 
> Basing the original CMI operating system and features on a CC-1 will
> be definitely nice. But nowadays there are much more possibilities
> regarding workflow and GUI design as it was necessary in those days.
> Of course the limitations led to special solutions which should be
> remembered when designing the "new" GUI. 
> 
> But the main point will be the sound... the sound of the CMI was
> created by its hardware components which was the best available. 
Today
> you get better components for less money but are you sure you want
> this? To have a clean and sterile sound? It is a different thing
> emulating a "vintage" sound or having the original hardware as you 
all
> will agree. You cannot emulate the small electric and chaotic things
> which happen in analog hardware. By the way, having REAL good
> converters is still very expensive (and you are not sure if you will
> have the dynamics and the sound of the old machines)...
> 
> Lets have a small calculation:
> 
> 5000$ - cc-1 card
> 3000$ - 8 channel AD conversion (benchmark Apogee AD-16)
> 3000$ - 8 channel DA conversion (benchmark Apogee DA-16)
> 2000$ - rack mount case for modules (height 8U)
> ????$ - fee for software development, service, warranty, 
shipping,...
> 
> Now get your "dream system"... having e.g. 8 inputs and 24 outputs
> would generate a system of minimum 20k$... 
> 
> Just being able to use the old Fairlight sounds is not a big thing,
> but having the real sound quality of the machines will be very hard 
to
> reach. 
> 
> Greetz,
> 
> Michael 
> 
> P.S. The BIG and rich sound of the old systems came from the fact 
that
> each output was dedicated to ONE voice so the quality will lose the
> power when you will try to get more than one voice mixed/multiplexed
> to a single output.
>