Emu XL-7 & MP-7 User's Group

Yeah, I just read the review of PT6 in Sound On Sound, and it was about as 
boring as you can get for a software sequencer.  Some of the "new" 
features just floored me.  I mean, you couldn't undo midi quantization 
changes until now?  Icky, icky, icky!  :)

rEalm




Stay away from slotools... stay away.... It's still the worlds most
expensive and cumbersome pile of crap.








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The thing that keeps PT a mainstay is the portability.  Every studio has to
have it so that they can transport to other studios.  Most studios these
days are using logic, but mix in protools... or somthing like that...

I'm a faithful cubase user...  Anyone know of Neundo is that much better?

----- Original Message -----
From: <erik_magrini@...>
To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 1:53 PM
Subject: [xl7] Slotools


> Yeah, I just read the review of PT6 in Sound On Sound, and it was about as
> boring as you can get for a software sequencer.  Some of the "new"
> features just floored me.  I mean, you couldn't undo midi quantization
> changes until now?  Icky, icky, icky!  :)
>
> rEalm
>
>
>
>
> Stay away from slotools... stay away.... It's still the worlds most
> expensive and cumbersome pile of crap.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

The thing that keeps PT a mainstay is the portability. 

>>>I'd say the biggest draw is Stability, though I can see what you're 
saying too. <<<

I'm a faithful cubase user...  Anyone know of Neundo is that much better?

>>>Nuendo is more or less SX with a lot of additional post-production 
features added, as well as much more surround sound support.  Nuendo 2 
(due out any day now) will have a lot more features compared to SX, but 
only until SX 2 comes out later this year.  Then the two programs will be 
more or less comparable as they are now.  If you're happy with SX/SL, then 
switching to Nuendo really won't get you anything unless you're doing 
sound to picture work, or other post-intensive operations.

rEalm(SX user all the way)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "David" <spec@s...> wrote:
> The thing that keeps PT a mainstay is the portability.  Every 
studio has to
> have it so that they can transport to other studios.  Most studios 
these
> days are using logic, but mix in protools... or somthing like 
that...
> 

Or you can just dub waves out to separate tracks.

Or, if you are working with Video editors who need protools files, 
you can download slotools Free, and prep your dubbed waves there. (I 
hear there is a 32 track version of it available from, uhh, various 
sources)

Unless you are a doing this for all day, and not only that but 
spending a great deal of time commuting to different studios, I don't 
see how the portability matches out the usability factor. 

> I'm a faithful cubase user...  Anyone know of Neundo is that much 
better?
> 

At first perusal, Cubase SX and Nuendo seem to be indentical, apart 
from the Nuendo surround stuff and the Cubase midi channels. I could 
be wrong though - I don't have Nuendo, and have only played with it 
at a friends.

bIz


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <erik_magrini@B...>
> To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 1:53 PM
> Subject: [xl7] Slotools
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I just read the review of PT6 in Sound On Sound, and it was 
about as
> > boring as you can get for a software sequencer.  Some of the "new"
> > features just floored me.  I mean, you couldn't undo midi 
quantization
> > changes until now?  Icky, icky, icky!  :)
> >
> > rEalm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Stay away from slotools... stay away.... It's still the worlds 
most
> > expensive and cumbersome pile of crap.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >

I've used nuendo before, and now Cubase SX.  I might want to try to switch
to nuendo, but still not sure.  Post production stage of things sounds
interesting.  We'll see what happens

----- Original Message -----
From: <erik_magrini@...>
To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [xl7] Slotools


> The thing that keeps PT a mainstay is the portability.
>
> >>>I'd say the biggest draw is Stability, though I can see what you're
> saying too. <<<
>
> I'm a faithful cubase user...  Anyone know of Neundo is that much better?
>
> >>>Nuendo is more or less SX with a lot of additional post-production
> features added, as well as much more surround sound support.  Nuendo 2
> (due out any day now) will have a lot more features compared to SX, but
> only until SX 2 comes out later this year.  Then the two programs will be
> more or less comparable as they are now.  If you're happy with SX/SL, then
> switching to Nuendo really won't get you anything unless you're doing
> sound to picture work, or other post-intensive operations.
>
> rEalm(SX user all the way)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I agree that the MIDI capabilities of ProTools leave a lot to be 
desired.  But as a 10-hour-per-day user of ProTools for audio 
purposes, I gotta say it's the best in terms of power, functionality 
and sound quailty.  For the money, very few D/A/A/D converters 
out there can even come close (be it the 888 interfaces or just 
the Digi001).  Even the AMIII card outperforms most other 
converters I've heard.  And while it's cumbersome when you first 
pick it up, most of the functions become second nature after a 
while.

Nuendo is definitely a close second, though.  After all, Alan 
Parsons' software of choice can't suck (-;

Clay

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, erik_magrini@B... wrote:
> Yeah, I just read the review of PT6 in Sound On Sound, and it 
was about as 
> boring as you can get for a software sequencer.  Some of the 
"new" 
> features just floored me.  I mean, you couldn't undo midi 
quantization 
> changes until now?  Icky, icky, icky!  :)
> 
> rEalm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stay away from slotools... stay away.... It's still the worlds most
> expensive and cumbersome pile of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>purposes, I gotta say it's the best in terms of power, functionality
>and sound quailty.  For the money, very few D/A/A/D converters
>out there can even come close (be it the 888 interfaces or just
>the Digi001).  Even the AMIII card outperforms most other
>converters I've heard.  And while it's cumbersome when you first
>pick it up, most of the functions become second nature after a
>while.

I had exactly the opposite experience! :> I haven't heard the HD stuff, but
the pre-HD A/D converters sound don't please me at all, especially the
earlier 16-bit ones. Which ones have you compared it to?

>Nuendo is definitely a close second, though.  After all, Alan
>Parsons' software of choice can't suck (-;

Yes, Steinbergs midi offerings are better than their audio functions though
it is still very capable.Have you tried Vegas? It's my DAW system of choice,
when I'm not using midi. Video too. Very intuitive.

bIz

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, <biz@g...> wrote:

> I had exactly the opposite experience! :> I haven't heard the HD 
stuff, but
> the pre-HD A/D converters sound don't please me at all, 
especially the
> earlier 16-bit ones. Which ones have you compared it to?


Well, I've used the AudioMedia III, the Digi001, the 888 and HD 
interfaces.  I typically record at 48KHz/24bit.  To my ears anyhow 
(ah, subjectivity), all sound better than, say, a MOTU 2408.  I've 
also compared to the Yamah O2R and DM2000, and the 
ProTools gear sounds better to me.  Granted, the analog audio 
always goes through high-end preamps (Neve, Focusrite, or 
Avalon) before getting to the A/D converter, so that helps, I guess.

Clay

>Well, I've used the AudioMedia III, the Digi001, the 888 and HD
>interfaces.  I typically record at 48KHz/24bit.  To my ears anyhow
>(ah, subjectivity), all sound better than, say, a MOTU 2408.  I've
>also compared to the Yamaha O2R and DM2000, and the

Yes - yamaha A/D/As aren't nice. Neither are the preamps. You can compare to
almost anything and be happier - the pre's on my 'live' Mackie sounded
better. I haven't tried the motu stuff.

>ProTools gear sounds better to me.  Granted, the analog audio
>always goes through high-end preamps (Neve, Focusrite, or
>Avalon) before getting to the A/D converter, so that helps, I guess.

mmm... high end preamps ...  mmmm.....

<drool, drool>

I suppose that might help _a bit_ :>

bIz