Recording software for Mac?
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Surely Jim you assemble your own PC?

No. Nor until the last year have I ever bought an 'IBM PC' type machine.
Just used ones from/at work for the minority of tasks that one was
needed for. Haven't had any interest in the hardware save as something
upon which to run software until recently. Most of my work was - and
still is - on hardware that isn't standard IBM PC/x86.

[snip]

Sadly I long since realised RISC OS wouldn't do everything I needed so
added a PC. Still use the old one for most things though. Couldn't be
bothered going down the linux route.

--
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Recording software for Mac?
 

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message


I did wonder about self build. But one snag was that I could not find
any reliable data for basic questions like if items would reliably
deliver bit perfect LPCM for spdif

They all do, or else they wouldn't work with DVD multichannel.

No doubt many do - particulary if used with Windows which can then access
the driver details which makers may keep confidential. But my experience
indicates that "all do" may be incorrect. The Shuttle I bought claims to
do multichannel IIRC. But insisted on outputting 44.1ksample/sec as 48k,
Similarly my new Acer laptop insists on outputting 48k as 44k via spdif.



or levels of THD, noise, etc, for analogue.

Think 80 dB or better dynamic range for on-board audio.

What I found was high levels of anharmonic distortion and a tendency to
clip at a different level to the digital output. As above, my experience
with *analogue* output from the computer's I have does not seem to
agree with the idea that "all" provide 80dB dynamic range.

Search for "Audio Rightmark" reports on various system boards.

Does that mean the hardware comes with open source drivers,
for the chosen soundcards, etc? Not clear to me if your statement
about "system boards" always includes a specific sound interface,
I'm afraid. Can you clarify?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Recording software for Mac?
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Surely Jim you assemble your own PC?

No. Nor until the last year have I ever bought an 'IBM PC' type
machine. Just used ones from/at work for the minority of tasks that
one was needed for. Haven't had any interest in the hardware save as
something upon which to run software until recently. Most of my work
was - and still is - on hardware that isn't standard IBM PC/x86.

[snip]

Sadly I long since realised RISC OS wouldn't do everything I needed so
added a PC. Still use the old one for most things though. Couldn't be
bothered going down the linux route.

Linux is easier and more convenient for me than Windows as I've already
been familiar with systems like Solaris. And I do prefer open source and
the ease of being able to work up simple apps for ROX with GCC. Dislike the
feeling Windows gives me that it is trying to control what I can do and
hide things from me. But I'm happy to agree that these things are largely a
matter of familiarity and 'colour of socks' personal preferences, so don't
expect everyone to share my own view. Each to their own.

The hardware-related problems caused by makers conspiring with MicroSoft to
keep details of drivers, etc, 'confidential' is a PITA. But as I've found
there is often a solution that provides decent bit perfect results.
Prefer sorting that out to having to find that MS forbid me to do things or
make them a pest.

The main problem with RO has been the very limited hardware, not the OS or
software. In this case the poor audio hardware on Iyonix which it is
impractical to change. But I still find it the easiest way to edit and work
with audio data. So I just record the audio with dedicated recording
systems - like the Tascam HD P2. Then edit and produce results mainly with
the Iyonix. I'm now doing some of this with Linux, but although it runs
faster I currently still find RO easier for quick work.

FWIW I've now got a decent RO app that can read the BWF files the tascam
records and converts then to more common WAV headered versions as it
copies them from the CF card to the HD.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Recording software for Mac?
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I had him binned on the old machine simply to help keep the peace in
here - I had a number of people whining at me about 'OT', 'blogging',
'winning debates' and **** know what else, so I binned them all.

Didn't you notice the peace and quiet? :-)

You've certainly got your own way - the signal to noise ratio is such with
off topic stuff from you that it's becoming like the mac group you're
complaining about. But of course can't see it.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Recording software for Mac?
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I had him binned on the old machine simply to help keep the peace in
here - I had a number of people whining at me about 'OT', 'blogging',
'winning debates' and **** know what else, so I binned them all.

Didn't you notice the peace and quiet? :-)

You've certainly got your own way - the signal to noise ratio is such with
off topic stuff from you that it's becoming like the mac group you're
complaining about. But of course can't see it.

Better to be signal in a group where other people are noise, than noise
in a group where other people are irritated by it.

More to the point, despite the presence of noise in uk.comp.sys.mac,
it's not hard to eliminate, and you'll actually get some answers there.

Daniele

Recording software for Mac?
 

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I had him binned on the old machine simply to help keep the peace in
here - I had a number of people whining at me about 'OT', 'blogging',
'winning debates' and **** know what else, so I binned them all.

Didn't you notice the peace and quiet? :-)

You've certainly got your own way - the signal to noise ratio is such
with off topic stuff from you that it's becoming like the mac group
you're complaining about. But of course can't see it.

Better to be signal in a group where other people are noise, than noise
in a group where other people are irritated by it.

I can't speak for others here, but I'm so irritated by the OT stuff from
one person that I only now glance at it. Although of course this topic is
perfectly ok.

More to the point, despite the presence of noise in uk.comp.sys.mac,
it's not hard to eliminate, and you'll actually get some answers there.

I'd have thought so - although I don't have a Mac. The RISC OS groups are
very good, though. Dunno why the audio groups all round the world suffer
in the same way.

Daniele

--
*60-year-old, one owner - needs parts, make offer

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Recording software for Mac?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
, Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message


I did wonder about self build. But one snag was that I
could not find any reliable data for basic questions
like if items would reliably deliver bit perfect LPCM
for spdif

They all do, or else they wouldn't work with DVD
multichannel.

No doubt many do - particulary if used with Windows which
can then access the driver details which makers may keep
confidential.

These days any self-respecting system board has to be able to be the core of
a HTPC.

But my experience indicates that "all do"
may be incorrect. The Shuttle I bought claims to do
multichannel IIRC. But insisted on outputting
44.1ksample/sec as 48k,

Video DVD multichannel runs on a 48K clock.

imilarly my new Acer laptop
insists on outputting 48k as 44k via spdif.

I said bit perfect, I didn't say bit perfect at every sample rate. ;-)

or levels of THD, noise, etc, for analogue.

Think 80 dB or better dynamic range for on-board audio.

What I found was high levels of anharmonic distortion and
a tendency to clip at a different level to the digital
output.

How much different. If the analog output clips within a dB of FS, that's
considerted to be a trivial issue.

As above, my experience with *analogue* output
from the computer's I have does not seem to
agree with the idea that "all" provide 80dB dynamic range.

I've measured it, lots.

Search for "Audio Rightmark" reports on various system
boards.

Does that mean the hardware comes with open source
drivers, for the chosen soundcards, etc? Not clear to me if your
statement about "system boards" always includes a specific sound
interface,

I'm afraid. Can you clarify?

I'm speaking in a windows context, which of course does not imply open
source. Open source drivers for *any* audio interface are like hen's teeth.

Recording software for Mac?
 

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message


But my experience indicates that "all do" may be incorrect. The
Shuttle I bought claims to do multichannel IIRC. But insisted on
outputting 44.1ksample/sec as 48k,

Video DVD multichannel runs on a 48K clock.

But CD Audio and the BBC iPlayer are 44.1ksample/sec.

imilarly my new Acer laptop insists on outputting 48k as 44k via spdif.

I said bit perfect, I didn't say bit perfect at every sample rate. ;-)

Noted. :-) Alas, I need systems that can work with more than one rate
whilst delivering bit perfect behaviour. For me the point of a general
computer is that it should do various things in accord with what programs
I give it to run, and data I give it to process.

So if I only want a box that plays DVDs and nothing else, then a DVD player
makes sense, and may well be easier and more reliable than a computer.
Ditto for a CD player for CD Audio as a single task.


or levels of THD, noise, etc, for analogue.

Think 80 dB or better dynamic range for on-board audio.

What I found was high levels of anharmonic distortion and a tendency
to clip at a different level to the digital output.

How much different. If the analog output clips within a dB of FS, that's
considerted to be a trivial issue.

IIRC The old laptop I have clips the analogue output at about -12dBFS
compared to what emerges from its spdif. To me that makes the analogue
essentially useless for serious general purpose work. All three of the 'PC'
type machines I now have booger up one sample rate or the other by poor
resampling. Although that is solvable with a DACMagic, that is then an
add-on to the computer as originally obtained.

As above, my experience with *analogue* output from the computer's I
have does not seem to agree with the idea that "all" provide 80dB
dynamic range.

I've measured it, lots.

Ah, well, "lots" != "all" returns TRUE :-)

I've measured all three of the 'PC's I have. None of them seem very
satisfactory to me for their analogue outputs. Certainly the 'wrong sample
rate' in each case tends to give anharmonic distortion that I'd not
personally make me happy to say they had a dynamic range of 80dB. The
older laptop also makes audible noises via the analog output which seem
PSU related.

Search for "Audio Rightmark" reports on various system boards.

Does that mean the hardware comes with open source drivers, for the
chosen soundcards, etc? Not clear to me if your statement about
"system boards" always includes a specific sound interface,

I'm afraid. Can you clarify?

I'm speaking in a windows context, which of course does not imply open
source. Open source drivers for *any* audio interface are like hen's
teeth.


As I commented some time ago, the root problem here is the way
anti-competitive practices tend to limit the 'free market' choice of
customers. In this case it shows that 'Audio Rightmark' may be worthless
unless you are prepared to buy into an effective quasi-monopoly in terms of
OS choice.

So slogans like "Audio Rightmark" seem to be worthless from my POV if what
you now say is true.

Fortunately there are some ways to deal with this, and I'm happy with the
systems I have. But I it does strike me that people in the USA and EU
should not be content with anti-competitive behaviours like these.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Recording software for Mac?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I had him binned on the old machine simply to help keep the peace in
here - I had a number of people whining at me about 'OT', 'blogging',
'winning debates' and **** know what else, so I binned them all.

Didn't you notice the peace and quiet? :-)

You've certainly got your own way - the signal to noise ratio is such
with off topic stuff from you that it's becoming like the mac group
you're complaining about. But of course can't see it.

Better to be signal in a group where other people are noise, than noise
in a group where other people are irritated by it.

I can't speak for others here, but I'm so irritated by the OT stuff from
one person that I only now glance at it. Although of course this topic is
perfectly ok.

More to the point, despite the presence of noise in uk.comp.sys.mac,
it's not hard to eliminate, and you'll actually get some answers there.

I'd have thought so - although I don't have a Mac. The RISC OS groups are
very good, though. Dunno why the audio groups all round the world suffer
in the same way.

They don't. Many people have left Usenet groups
like this one because of the restricted range of discussion,
In other words, they find it tediously repetive and boring!

And I know from e-mail correspondence that people who
lurk here get the impression that this is a pool of piranas, just
waiting for some poor unwary soul to mention valves, vinyl
or "better" speaker cables:-)

Iain

Recording software for Mac?
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I'd have thought so - although I don't have a Mac. The RISC OS groups are
very good, though. Dunno why the audio groups all round the world suffer
in the same way.

They don't. Many people have left Usenet groups
like this one because of the restricted range of discussion,
In other words, they find it tediously repetive and boring!

If you knew anything about it you'd find most have left because their ISP
no longer supplies news. And can't be bothered finding it from elsewhere.

And I know from e-mail correspondence that people who
lurk here get the impression that this is a pool of piranas, just
waiting for some poor unwary soul to mention valves, vinyl
or "better" speaker cables:-)

Surely this e-mail group you mention so often is ideal for the sharing you
seem to want among 'friends'? Especially as it seems to include so many
'nice' people who won't post here? One set up via Yahoo groups etc would
be ideal. Can be moderated too. I'm in several. But those tend to be
extremely strict about staying on topic, and rightly so. If I join a
group about, say, Rolls Royce I don't really want to read people saying
how good their Merc is, now, do I?

--
*How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.