Jump to content

Walt Graham

Samplitude Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Walt Graham

  1. https://vimeo.com/132408379
  2. What happens if you need to, um, type something? Like a track name or the name of a file? Walt
  3. Interesting article: http://www.wired.com/2015/02/joseph-grado-gallery/#slide-id-1732903 I remember Grado phono cartridges but I had no idea the company is still in business! Walt
  4. I know a couple of beta testers. They say it's an improvement. Microsoft has a history of releasing solid products following clunkers like Windows ME and Vista.
  5. WOW, indeed! When I bought the G11 I thought it was productivity tool -- not an investment! Cheers, Walt
  6. I've been using a similar Logitech keyboard for years. I think the current version is the G510S. It's a huge help. I found programming macros was actually easier with AutoHotKey so instead of using the keyboard software to create macros I create them in AHK and assign one of the 18 programmable keys to the AHK keystrokes. Works great. The Logitech has 3 banks of 18 programmable keys but I haven't gone past the first one yet. Walt
  7. Who's being naive? And about what? Your post makes no sense.
  8. Yes, you can hear artifacts in music today, but rest assured that they are far less prominent than the hiss, clicks, pops, distortion, crackle, skipping and general noise of the now-glorified LP's. Look at the whole picture: for many years, the average person listened to music in terrible-sounding little radios. The great artists of the past were recording in less-than-optimal conditions, their recordings released in products that began to sound worse with every play and their music being played in bad stereo (or mono) systems. Again, this misses the point. I didn't say music sounded better back then. The difference, I believe, is that the artifacts of the past (clicks, hiss, etc.) were easily recognizable. People were aware of them and people simply lived with them. Today's listeners aren't even aware that the music they're listening to has no dynamic range, for example, nor do they care. Squirrely sounding compressed files are the norm today and people think they sound great. I wasn't making a deep scientific statement ... just pointing out an irony. No matter how pristine a recording may be at the start, the quality is generally reduced to the lowest common denominator at the point of distribution. It was true in the old days and it's true now.
  9. That may be true, but I hear the artifacts that I quoted all the time -- in downloaded files, on satellite radio, on terrestrial radio. Years ago people would jump through hoops to get good sound. In the early days of the LP they'd pay more for stereo vs. mono! The so called "audiofile" spent megabucks on stereo systems. Those guys are still around but their numbers are fewer. People today pick an online music store or streaming service -- iTunes, Pandora, whatever -- but the choice is based on price, convenience, listening habits, etc. -- not sound. Good sound is pushed by a desire to create good work, not pulled by public demand, IMO. But the point of my original post is that the artifacts I quoted often occur at the point of distribution, not during the creative process and not as the result of using a non-Magix DAW.
  10. I think you missed my point. Even the most pristine recordings will ultimately be compressed into downloadable files, which is how most folks listen to music these days. People don't demand great audio as they did a couple of decades ago -- they're busy, they're multi-tasking, they're distracted, they're lazy, they don't know the difference or they just don't care. I'm not saying it's not important to strive for the best possible sound -- on the contrary. I'm just pointing out the irony when it comes to today's real world. Walt
  11. I can't help pointing out that this is exactly what most people today happily listen to on their iPods, etc. Walt
  12. Miller Brewing Company's sales had been dropping gradually and steadily, so recently according to a Bloomberg Businessweek article: "The brand replaced the blue cans that have been in beer aisles since 2001, and an unexpected thing happened: Miller Lite sales immediately increased in the U.S. Aside from standing out on shelves, the new design also has the effect of making people think they’re not buying the same old Miller Lite (it is, in fact, exactly the same old Miller Lite). “A lot of people said, ‘I think the beer even tastes better,’” says Ryan Reis, senior director for Miller’s family of brands." So there you have it -- don't trust your eyes! Walt OMG! I'm OT. I'd better go post this in the Beer forum.
  13. Matt, I think this stems from a change Microsoft made to font rendering some time ago. I used to disable "Clear Type" and "font smoothing" because, ironically, they made things look blurry to me. (A Google search showed I wasn't alone.) Then when some websites started complying with the new rendering standard I was forced to turn Clear Type back on. I've actually gotten used to it, but it took awhile. You might want to try playing with the settings for Clear Type and font smoothing in Windows, and font smoothing in Chrome. If you turn off Clear Type, some sites in Chrome may look less blurry but others may develop ragged looking fonts that are very difficult to read. At least that was my experience. Regards, Walt
  14. What I was thinking is that Samplitude might be ignoring those registry entries while Reaper acknowledges them. If that's the case it could indicate that the Reaper coders are adhering more closely to Windows GUI standards (or maybe the Samp devs just wanted to avoid any menu delay.)
  15. Any chance one of these Windows tweaks could help? http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/1884-mouse-hover-time-change.html http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/731-menu-show-delay-time.html Regards, Walt
  16. I'm in complete agreement that the null test is only valid for simple I/O comparisons, and that any ITB activity (mixing, EQ, plugins, rendering, etc.) is likely to sound "different" from DAW to DAW. But I'm not a fan of "listening tests." Years ago a friend of mine who worked for a very well known and well respected speaker company was doing an A-B test of two pairs of speakers when I stopped by. He asked my opinion. I said, "What's wrong with your phono cartridge?" There was a distinct mechanical "rattle" coming from his expensive Grado cartridge on his high-end Thorens turntable. He was so focused on the nuanced differences between the speakers that he hadn't even noticed until I pointed it out! I think the only way to evaluate the differences in DAWs is to listen for problems. If you hear a specific artifact such as, clipping, graininess, phase distortion, metallic sound, etc. then there's a problem. If not, I wouldn't worry about it. Sometimes a glass of wine tastes terrific because everything else about the evening is just right. Another time the same bottle isn't so great.
  17. Digital recording shouldn't "sound" like anything other than the source. What goes in should come out and null perfectly. What I think does contribute to a DAW's "sound" is how audio elements are mixed, processed and rendered. I don't know of any way to objectively test that. Walt
  18. If there were a Samplitude interface I'd download it in a split second. I'm so entrenched in the Sampliface, especially the Universal Mousemode, that at this point it would be difficult to switch. Or even to cheat. Walt
  19. I'll bet it works fine with instruments or vocals that will be mixed with other tracks. With raw narration there's nothing to cover up the artifacts. In the couple of instances I tried the artifacts were unfortunately more distracting than the room tone. Walt
  20. After a little more analysis I've decided to pass on this one. Like so many single-purpose plugins with well-chosen presets it seems impressive at first -- like it might be an easy solution to a specific problem. But in this case I find the attack a little too tight (maybe no look-ahead?) so the clarity of speech suffers as a result. I'm finding I can get the same de-verbing results with a good gate without as much sacrifice of clarity. Walt
  21. I just downloaded and tested the demo on some echoey narration. Very nice! It managed to remove the room tone without sounding like a gate. Pretty impressive ... good tool to add to the toolkit. Thanks for the recommendation, Resistorman! Walt
  22. Interesting choice of activation methods including storing the license on an ordinary USB stick! Unlike what most of us are used to, ACTIVATION is quite flexible. THE MANUAL is clear, concise and shows a good understanding of the needs of professionals.
  • Create New...