Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bill.Park

  1. Well, it has accepted me today without any problems. Did exactly the same procedure though. Thanks again.
  2. Hmm, well I just filled out the required lines and the 4 letter security line last night. Did you hit this page? https://plugin-allia...gistration.html Yes, and the security codes were very easy to read, but it kept refusing my entries.
  3. thanks for the heads up, but the registration failed on me 8 times before I gave up.
  4. Hi Tom!!

    Great to hear from you. I sent out a broadcast when I left facebook. Oct 1, when they added their new tracking system which tracks you even when you are not signed in, I canceled my account. You can always reach me at BillPark01@gmail, and I'm on google+. Thanks for asking.

  5. I can't speak to lesser versions of Samp/Sequoia. I use Sequoia. I have used Digicheck Record on some mission-critical recordings (multi-million dollar productions of operas, you got one shot at it, then it is gone forever...stuff like that. No excuses will do.) I've also used Samplitude in those same situations. Either works. The advantage to using Samplitude is that you can burn the CDs directly from Samplitude, and handle a lot of quick cleanups and edits. Personally, I suggest that you not multitrack your recording beyond a few tracks at most unless it is a special occasion that may need some really critical editing. For example, one of the operas had about 60 channels of audio. We submixed it all down to 16 for recording purposes. For most church services, I'd just mix it live to two track. Then editing is quick, and you can start burning CDs quickly. Samp is set up for fast multitrack editing, but the problem arises in that with a bunch of tracks, we can't resist the urge to mess with them. If there are only two, much time is saved. So my suggestion: Digicheck Record is fine. But it will be worth the while of the church to invest in a full-blown Samp license to achieve their goals. You can also use Fiero software to control multiple CD recorders at once... you could construct a tower with five CD recorders in it with most any old computer, it doesn't have to be fancy or powerful. Digicheck Record is basically like an old Studer multitrack tape deck. Samplitude is the tape deck, console, and outboard gear plus two track deck and other stuff that had not been thought of in the days of the old Studers.
  6. I've heard the difference among playback engines going as far back as 1994. I used to beta test gobs of DAWS and had a lot of them running at once, and I used the same test bed of audio files to check them all. One to another there are differences. Could you pick that difference out when listening to any single file on it's own? No. So it is a distinction without a point. Heinz catsup is distinct and unique and any other catsup on your burger will not taste the same. The mixes created in any DAW is not, on your radio or CD player or media player, going to be obviously from any particular vendor. That said, a lot of mastering engineers love Samp.... and I'm talking about guys still using version 7 so they have not even gotten the newer tools and capabilities of the following versions or Sequoia. I mention mastering engineers because they tend to have the superior listening situations and the most critical ears.
  7. <br /><br />Cheers Brawd! - off to do the install now !<br /><br /><br /><br />Indeed, enjoy. Bill
  8. I came to Sequoia for a similar reason.... I had been using packages that required me to have other packages to complete tasks. Over the years I used and/or beta tested for most of the major players, all the while mostly using a more obscure product. I had looked at Samplitude back in the mid 1990s, but went with Sound Forge at the time as a part of the whole list of programs that I had to use to get anything done. Eventually I just wanted it all in one program. I looked around, and a friend was pushing Samp on me. I tried it out, did not 'get it' and rejected it. Then I looked at Sequoia and something clicked (plus, Sequoia had the tools that I needed). From my experience for the work that I do, Sequoia is the answer. Yes, a lot of things are not obvious. But the range of features is just fantastic. So I've found that if I just swallow my pride and ask here on the forum, someone (usually more than one...) will show up with one if not two or three different ways to do what I need to do. It makes me feel terrifically stupid at times, but there ya go. I have often asked for a manual with examples. I learn from books, I'm an old school guy. draying through on line or windows help files gets me nowhere, and I'm always opening and closing windows, whereas if I had the book in my lap I would not only learn to do what I need to do, but I would also see other things while looking at my original search. The next best thing is Kraznet's (and others...) videos. Step by step instructions. A new program is always going to be daunting. I don't know that 30 days is enough time to get totally comfortable with a product as complex as Samplitude, but you should know by that time if this is the format for your work. Another thing that might help to open your eyes would be to get to see a more experienced user handle the program. I was amazed at how facile Tom Sailor was with the demos, standing in front of a crowd asking him, "okay, but how do you..." and seeing him arrive at the answer almost before they'd finished the question. The program is seriously deep and powerful, deceptively so.
  9. Most often it is a 44.1 file being played back at 48.
  10. That is what brought me to Sequoia. And it just keeps getting better.
  11. A newer, faster computer should really rock. But very often they come preinstalled with a lot of junk that runs in the background, and drivers that produce unacceptable latencies for playback. It can be most anything, but a trip to the task Manager to see what is running might help, and there is a free program called HiJack This! that will show you what is running that you might not know about. Plus, the DPC Latency Checker will tell you if you have some drivers that cause latency, though you are left to discover which ones those are.
  12. My problem with EZ was that the software decided that I wasn't authorized to use it anymore. I lost a session, had to contact them, wait for a new auth code which did not work, and got shunted to some pay service for support. I removed the program from my system. Its around here somewhere, if you want it I'll sell it cheap.
  13. The RME interfaces are some of the best, with the least problems with most any software that is properly coded. (Killer? Seriously?)
  14. I know that it is no help when you want to do it a different way, but I too use the matrix outputs of the Fireface (and before that, the Multiface and Digiface) to feed headphone mixes without routing through the computer and using the resources. Personal preference I know, but I prefer to keep the headphone mixes out of the recording software.
  15. I don't know the answer, but since I moved to Sequoiatude I rarely touch my Mackie controller. I believe that you can manually create a control setup for most any controller, if you want to take the time to do the work. Some years ago I fooled around with that concept a bit with a 24 channel controller that I was going to review, but it seemed like a lot of work for me to put into a product that I wasn't even going to keep, so I didn't bother to finish. If your piece can emulate the Mackie control set, which many do, you can probably use the Mackie definition. Bill
  16. There is also an upgrade path, so if you start with Samplitude and decide that you need the additional feature set that Sequoia provides, your investment in Samplitude is not lost. I don't know the details, so check it out first to see if it seems reasonable to you. Bill
  17. DB, a couple of points here... I used my first dongle back in the old Sequencer Plus II days. There is nothing inherently wrong with a dongle. They just fell out of favor due to some dongle companies being poor at their jobs. Sonar and SAWStudio are pretty unique in that they don't require serious security. I know Greg, and I've always applauded his position. But it is not shared by many other manufacturers. I was a beta tester for Greg, way back in the Cakewalk 3.n, 4.n days. I'd always used SAWStudio for the bulk of my work, but I have at times either been a tester for or tried most of the major audio applications available. So I may be able to help you with a few suggestions. First, Bob's workflow does not mimic yours. I guarantee it. He has been a guide and a font of information to me over the years. I'm sure that you are not doing what he does in the way that he does it. The hardest part of changing softwares is to get over the fact that you already know how to do something. Because chances are, in the new software, you don't. This is very frustrating. There are still times when I have to ask how to do something in Samp/Sequoia (I use Sequoia now, and have for several years...). One of the great strengths to Sonar is that it has tried to be everything to everybody, and has a very full-featured set of tools from which to work. Samplitude is similar, in that it can do many, many things. It differs in that it started life as an audio application, not a MIDI application (yes, I know that Sonar started as a hybrid, but it's roots are still in Cakewalk) so it is audio-centric. Easier for me, an old tape/audio guy, to grasp. Most major softwares do the job. Some are better in some areas than others, others have different strengths. I compare them to running shoes... you like Rebocks, I like New Balance, the next guy prefers Nikes... it is a 'fit and feel' issue. But at the end of the day, we all manage to get down the road. I found the 'fit and feel' of Sequoia to suit me rather well once I got over the fact that it did not look and feel like SAWStudio, Sound Forge, Vegas, Wavelab, or Sonar, and allowed it to be what it is, instead of trying to force it to be one of those other products. I'm not going to lie to you... there are some quirks, and some bumps. But I don't confront them daily, they only show up occasionally and do not usually interfere with workflow. The conveniences and things that I -can-do in the interface that I could not with other softwares far outweigh the occasional PITA that most all audio softwares seem to have. And the dongle? Has not been a problem in any way that I can tell, and has allowed me to load the sofware onto several machines (my studio amchine and a couple of laptops) and use whatever is convenient and appropriate for the job at hand. Anyway, good luck whatever you decide. But to be successful at any major change, you have to be open to the differences. If you are, then you will eventually find 'your' software. If you are not, you'll never be happy with any product. Bill
  18. SAWStudio is also practically invisible to the rest of the machine. Bill
  19. You would probably be well advised to get hold of Tom sailor at Orange Hill. He knows the program as well as almost anybody and runs seminars and demos. The plus/minus is that under Samp/Sequoia you can do many things many different ways. I'll just try to equate some of what you describe to what I do in Sequoia... though I must say that my current needs are far less demanding than yours. I'm doing mastering and remixing. By the time I see a project, submixing and comping have been done. Seldom do I see more than 32-40 tracks total per VIP. So I cannot address your total track count needs, other than to say that most of the time NOBODY has 190 tracks running concurently, and most any software can run large numbers of tracks for short durations. Playlists: I use multiple VIPs (Sequoias' EDL) open all the time, and grab and copy Objects among them. There is also 3 and 4 point editing to consider, plus the Take Manager. Groups: Yes, multiple tracks can be grouped. But I don't know as to mixing, or even quite what you mean. Import session Data: Not a part of my world, but I believe so. Softsynths: Again, not my world. But when Magix was represented by Synthaxe, they also represented NI and Yellow Tools. I'd take that as a hint. Hardware: My own choice has been RME/Mytek. Lynx is good, too. Computer: this changes almost daily. You buy one, you takes your chances. Perhaps you want to approach a dedicated DAW computer box shop.... but my own foray down this path a few years ago was a disaster, and in researching it last year, I decided to build my own with the help and suggestions of some hard core Sequoia users. Control Surfaces: I've had the Mackie since it came out. I really don't use it much... doing much smaller projects, I haven't needed to do so. Looking at your proposed requirement, I'd want something though. There is a lot of power in the Sequoia/Samplitude format, but as you are changing horses in mid-stream, expect some growing pains. In the DAW world, few fearures are even referenced by the same name among applications, few function identically. To a man used to salmon, steak might taste a little strange at first. Bill
  20. I want to uderstand what you are saying as applies to the real world. Could you reference a file handled various ways so that we can actually hear what you are talking about? I see a lot of theoretical realities that are practical irrelevancies (to most of the world) when applied in the real world being argued to death on the net all the time. Personally, I started using MIDI since the DOS days of Sequencer Plus and the C-MU Midi Tool Kit....but I have not used it in years. When I did, I converted the MIDI to audio ASAP and handled it from there. It appears as though I'll be re-introducing MIDi to my rig sometime soon. So I guess I want to 'catch up'. Bill
  21. I have to say that if you are making your decision based upon money, you are making the wrong choices. Choose Sequoia because it is the right softrware for the job, not because you think that it costs less thAN SADiE or Pyramix. In the first place, SADiE ends up being much cheaper in total cost of ownership. You'll not replace your computer near as often... in fact, you may forget about replacing it for many years. As someone who had a well functioning rig and had no reason to change, and who could have gotten any rig that he wanted, I can tell you that the Magix guys converted me by showing me a superior product for my work flow. My choice was either SADiE or Sequoia, and I feel that I made the right choice (for me) by going with Sequoia. Your needs may differ. Now to be fair, Sequoia is a work in progress. This is not unusual, nor very different from typical DAW softwares. It has quirks and there are some user complaints. But I feel that the developers are always available to me, and always working to make the product better and address my concerns. I did not get that feeling from some of the other software choices, which is why they did not make the final cut for me. Others that were more 'finished' were limited in fuctionality and did not offer all the features that I neded in my work. (the reason that I changed systems at all...) I often compare audio software to running shoes... I like New Balance, you like Adias, the next guy likes Nikes, each with a different fit, feel, and finish, yet we all manage to get down the road. Why would there not be a single right answer? Because there is not a single right way of working. I find that Sequoia works for me, and my long time clients that have been with me from the begining are always amazed at what Sequoia brings to the table. Your milage may vary. Bill
  • Create New...