After Comments on SAW Studio - Any Good?
Simon Monsour
others I'd be grateful for them. It sounds like it's worth looking at on
the specs.
Cheers,
Simon.
ken
it's priced accordingly), and it has been refined over the last few years.
Some of it's methods and conventions are quirky, but if you accept them and
learn to use them, the thing is very powerful
SAW is quite popular with people who do pro work (commercials, radio, sound
for picture) - they find it very stable and productive.
Try the demo!
(If you want an inexpensive package for foolin around, nTrack is good. )
Simon Monsour
I'm doing pro work. Unfortunately there's no demo so I'm relying on comments
like yours.
Chhers,
Simon.
Roger W. Norman
Studio because the engine is different than Pro, but I've been a SAW user
since the (now) Classic product. There are a couple of things you may find
interesting about IQS that could help you make a decision. First, Bob
Lentini - the developer and the President of the company, is reachable on
his newsgroup daily. He's quick to respond with technical information,
tips, and workarounds (if necessary). He also generally has reported bugs
fixed within days, assuming he can recreate the bugs. All in product
upgrades are free for life. And often you can call IQS and he'll actually
answer the phone. Even if he doesn't, you can usually reach him directly.
He responds, that's what I like about IQS, but the product line itself has
always been as good as the competition, and no, I don't mean Cool Edit Pro
or Cakewalk, I mean the higher priced spread. I just upgraded (finally) my
1997 purchase of SAWPlus to SAW Pro. Software wise, it was the most
complete upgrade I've seen of virtually any product, and I spent 20 years in
computers, both hardware and software. SAWStudio is not an upgrade to
SAWPro, it's a complete redesign of the underlying engine. You'd do
yourself a favor by calling Bob directly and discussing what your projects
are, how you work and what you expect of a product. I think you'll be
impressed.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
www.SirMusicStudio.com
Roger....@verizon.net
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
www.mp3.com/buddywhite
www.mp3.com/thelivewireband
"guys, it takes a lifetime to just get just a BIT closer..."
George Massenburg
"Simon Monsour" <en...@uq.net.au> wrote in message
news:3B197C29...@uq.net.au...
Roger W. Norman
you just bought a MQS32 or whatever and could easily lay in SMPTE/MTC
running both apps, even under Windows 3.1. I don't have a clue what people
would use today. I don't do ANY midi although I've set up a midi computer
in the keyboards area of the live room. Hard enough keeping the control
room clean, maintained and up and running.
Pretty amazing to get such a strong audio application all in the size of one
floppy! There's definitely no code bloat with Bob's work.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
www.SirMusicStudio.com
Roger....@verizon.net
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
www.mp3.com/buddywhite
www.mp3.com/thelivewireband
"guys, it takes a lifetime to just get just a BIT closer..."
George Massenburg
"pH" <hi...@cidity.level> wrote in message
news:19glhtc73ok3q7087...@4ax.com...
> I had one of the SAW demos... forget which one, exactly, but I found
> it thoroughly impressive in every respect Though it was completely
> outside my price range, at that time, I also needed/need midi support,
> which, if I'm recalling correctly, it didn't include (browsing the forum
> now, I see the suggestions for using SAW with a sequencer...)
>
> Something that I've been harping about for *years*, is people who
> refuse to (or can't) code in Assembler, opting instead for the bloat
> producing performance hobbling compiled languages that have become
> the near universal norm. I think Bob and IQS serve as a model that
> all software writers would do well to follow. Anyone who scoffs at
> the notion of using Assembler--have a look, see how it's done, and
> prepare to be amazed at just how fast a large application can be up
> and running (you'll have time to blink, about once, and it'll be waiting
> on you).
>
> A few months ago, I spent some time with Nuendo, and pretty much
> decided, that's where I'm headed (and it *is* impressive, and has at least
> enough midi support, for me, to comfortably compose with). Having had
> a look at the SAW Studio pages... Bob wouldn't have any trouble getting
> me to part with $2500.
>
> I *would* like to see him eventually include midi, though, and don't fully
> understand the reluctance there (I wonder if it's more of a general
perception
> issue). I mean, if it works well using two completely separate
applications,
> why wouldn't it work as well (or better, in my mind) in _one_
application...
> And I'm sure, in Bob's hands, it'd be done right.
>
> Jeff
>
> http://www.nb.net/~jetrn/home.html
>
>
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 07:45:35 -0000, "Roger W. Norman"
<rno...@compuserve.com>
Milton Finks
upgrades for life and their one of a kind tech support can not be beat!
Milton Finks
Mike Rivers
> Download a sample off their site. See for yourself. All this plus free
> upgrades for life and their one of a kind tech support can not be beat!
Well, maybe you just haven't lived long enough yet. It's free
upgrades FOR THE LIFE OF THE PRODUCT. When they came out with a
32-bit version, they didn't give me a free upgrade from my 16-bit
version, they just declared the current version a new product.
I still use my old SAW on my Win3.1 computer and it still works just
as good as ever. I like the company and their products, but honestly
I haven't been following them for the past few years. I just don't
need what they have to offer. (and they've stopped sending me free
stuff other than their newsletter)
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Roger W. Norman
versions have been significant improvements over the previous version, and
things like SAWPlus32 are still available and being upgraded. I just
upgraded to SAWPro and like it a lot, although I wish I could have afforded
the upgrade to SAWStudio. These products are killer and worth a serious
look. The prices say "serious" too. Pro and Studio are not your normal
$399 tools.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
www.SirMusicStudio.com
Roger....@verizon.net
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
www.mp3.com/buddywhite
www.mp3.com/thelivewireband
"guys, it takes a lifetime to just get just a BIT closer..."
George Massenburg
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr993730324k@trad...
Chris Smith
wrote:
>If anyone has comments on how the SAW range of products compares to
>others I'd be grateful for them.
The products are an enigma. They do some things extremely well and
others extremely poor. There are many standards issues that are not
addressed as well as compatibility concerns. Since the products are
the result of one person's efforts they most clearly represent what
that one person thinks is important. If that one person doesn't feel a
particular feature is important it will normally take a threat to the
product's continued existence in order to get it implemented. Such was
the case with DirectX plugin support, after months of refusing to
implement such support the author finally realized that the lack of it
would be the death of the product line and finally capitulated to user
demands.
The author is accepted by many as a programmer's programmer but his
audio views don't seem to get any noted backers from the audiophile
community. His views on dither(1) and sample rate conversion(2), as an
example, run counter to accepted and proven digital audio theory.
In general the products are very fast and very stable. Most bugs are
fixed quickly and bugs that affect program stability are put on the
front burner and fixed as rapidly as possible and updates made
available.
Because of it's speed and stability the product line is very good
(maybe the best) as a multitrack "slicer/dicer", ie. creating, sizing,
moving regions(clips) to create a finished project, as well as
bulletproof multitrack recording.
Most of the built-in efx are OK, some users rate them so-so, others
think they're great. SAWPro's DirectX implementation leaves a lot to
be desired, with Studio's a bit better but still there have been
compatibility issues reported.
As to the user interface, it seems that one either loves or hates it.
All agree it is non-standard, but like a Dvorak keyboard layout it
still can be useful once you learn it. Most users I know think the
graphics are way to extreme and over the top, bordering on ugly (or
actually there). Not just the colors but the font choices as well. To
me it's like looking at the Las Vegas strip in all of it's neon
"glory". Clearly a user preference issue but other products present
much more elegant user interfaces.
In general whenever the SAW products don't work correctly with
something else IQS places the blame on the other product.
A couple of examples:
When the Waves 3.0 DX plugins couldn't be seen by SAW until the user
went into the registry to edit out the "..." after each and every
Waves plugin name. Apparently every other DX capable product had no
problem using the Waves package but yet this couldn't be a SAW issue.
And with SAWStudio now past version 2 and Windows 2000 practically 2
years old and at SP2 you still can't maximize the SAWStudio window in
Windows 2000 without losing the ability to see the taskbar. Even
though every other program I know of works fine with the Windows 2000
taskbar. Guess what? It's a Microsoft issue. They really should look
at fixing their OS one of these days.
The line only works with correctly one type of .wav file. Other
standard types of .wav such as those that contain descriptive text
information (RIFF chunks) are loaded incorrectly so that the text
becomes noise in the file. Despite user requests the ability of the
line to properly examine the wav header and properly load these files
has never been deemed important by the author.
Another standards issue is the inability to work with an audio card's
driver in the 24 bit packed format. Those cards that only handle 24
bit transfers in this standard fashion are left out. IQS's point is
that it's slower, but so what. So you get one less track, but you get
to use your current card, and it is still a standard!
Some of the things we generally take for granted as working OK simply
don't. In some cases they are probably design decisions due to bias,
etc., in others it's probably a case of no staff to verify proper
sonic operation.
The dithering and sample rate conversion functions in the line should
never be used. In fact the programs should ship with a warning label
for both, especially the sample rate conversion.
There are also cases where the products introduce DC offset.
For those that do video the IQS AVI viewer product is hopelessly dated
as it needs access to an API that Microsoft dropped support of about 4
years ago. This product should have been updated long ago.
They do offer a fairly active support newsgroup but messages are
regularly trimmed (read: highly censored) at IQS's discretion to put
them in whatever light they choose to be seen in at the time or for
any other purpose whatsoever.
So my take is that there is some very, very good, and some very, very
bad. I also think that SAWStudio is way too expensive. Like everything
else there are some tradeoffs. Choose what works best for you.
*
(1) From Bob's Soapbox: "... if you want to add noise that sounds like
tape hiss to your project, simply record an extra track of cassette
hiss onto the SAW MultiTrack and mix the volume way down to -79 db."
(2) From the IQS newsgroup: "SAW does not apply any built-in hi freq
cutoff... so, if you want to control any hi-end aliasing, you should
place a hi cut filter at the half freq mark for the destination rate
in line before the conversion.
It is not forced into the algorithim, because in many cases you can
stretch the hi-end beyond that with good results, using your ears,
depending on the music content."
*
Michael McInnis
"Chris Smith" <ch...@realcomputerguy.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:du7pjtsoi1bsimpc3...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:33:53 +1000, Simon Monsour <en...@uq.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >If anyone has comments on how the SAW range of products compares to
> >others I'd be grateful for them.
>
> standard types of .wav such as those that contain descriptive text
> information (RIFF chunks) are loaded incorrectly so that the text
> becomes noise in the file. Despite user requests the ability of the
> line to properly examine the wav header and properly load these files
> has never been deemed important by the author.
SAW Studio has fixed the header issue and added Broadcast wave support.
> Some of the things we generally take for granted as working OK simply
> don't. In some cases they are probably design decisions due to bias,
> etc., in others it's probably a case of no staff to verify proper
> sonic operation.
> The dithering and sample rate conversion functions in the line should
> never be used. In fact the programs should ship with a warning label
> for both, especially the sample rate conversion.
The real time multitrack sample rate & bit depth conversions are very handy
for sound design projects where the sounds are sourced from many different
places. It never has been presented as mastering quality by IQS. I believe
it is up to the user to understand the strengths & weaknesses of any audio
tool. This is a huge timesaver for me on many projects and I chose to avoid
ALL digital sample rate conversion for serious mastering applications.
> They do offer a fairly active support newsgroup but messages are
> regularly trimmed (read: highly censored) at IQS's discretion to put
> them in whatever light they choose to be seen in at the time or for
> any other purpose whatsoever.
Many find the user forum one of their best information resources on the net.
Chris himself has made many positive contributions. His more acidic
commentaries are made under the pseudonym "Darth Fader". The forum is here:
news://iqsoft.com/iqsforum
The censorship has always been when posts get abusive. I feel it has been
fair moderation. Then again, my posts have never been censored and Chris'
have.
The author responds directly to his clients on the forum. I recently
requested a new solo mode for the program and it was implemented and
released five days later. For me, this type of client support is far more
important to me than 47 dither choices within the software. IQS support is
the best I've experienced from any audio company in the twenty years I've
been working in studios.
> (2) From the IQS newsgroup: "SAW does not apply any built-in hi freq
> cutoff... so, if you want to control any hi-end aliasing, you should
> place a hi cut filter at the half freq mark for the destination rate
> in line before the conversion.
> It is not forced into the algorithim, because in many cases you can
> stretch the hi-end beyond that with good results, using your ears,
> depending on the music content."
> *
Perhaps this can be summed up as...SAW products leave choices open to you,
so that as a skilled engineer, you can make the most intelligent choices
without them being made for you. Unfortunately, if you shop for software by
spec sheet SAW might not top your list. But, if you want to quickly edit &
mix audio, SAW Studio is a very powerful tool. YMMV.
Regards,
MM
--
Michael McInnis Productions
m...@mm-pro.com
www.mm-pro.com
Chris Smith
wrote:
>SAW Studio has fixed the header issue and added Broadcast wave support.
Must have been a recent Studio update, correct?
Maybe trickle down will finally work and SAWPro users wont have to pop
for the upgrade.
>> Some of the things we generally take for granted as working OK simply
>> don't. In some cases they are probably design decisions due to bias,
>> etc., in others it's probably a case of no staff to verify proper
>> sonic operation.
>> The dithering and sample rate conversion functions in the line should
>> never be used. In fact the programs should ship with a warning label
>> for both, especially the sample rate conversion.
>
>The real time multitrack sample rate & bit depth conversions are very handy
>for sound design projects where the sounds are sourced from many different
>places. It never has been presented as mastering quality by IQS.
It has never been presented as anything else. There is no disclaimer
(last I looked) that warns of the sad state of the sample rate
conversion. What you use it for may be OK, if, and only if, you
understand its limitations such as unwanted detuning and time
stretching. For long regions this would be the kiss of death for
timing.
In general almost everything has an upside, even in audio a buzzsaw is
a good thing, if you need the sound of a buzzsaw.
Since the capabilities of the SRC and dither are presented as equal to
all of the programs other functions then either none of the functions
are mastering quality, or the product is misrepresented.
> I believe
>it is up to the user to understand the strengths & weaknesses of any audio
>tool.
I believe that the manufacturer should properly test the product so
that it performs as the end user expects it to perform and if some
part of it is seriously lacking in functionality than it should be
revealed up front.
Just like cars and baby cribs, one day there will be many class action
lawsuits against software companies.
>Many find the user forum one of their best information resources on the net.
>Chris himself has made many positive contributions. His more acidic
>commentaries are made under the pseudonym "Darth Fader".
This is very incorrect. I have made both contrary statements as well
as other statements under both my own name and the nom de plume of
"Dark Phader". Never have I posted as "Darth Fader".
In every case much due diligence has always been exerted in order to
remain as accurate as possible in my posts.
>> (2) From the IQS newsgroup: "SAW does not apply any built-in hi freq
>> cutoff... so, if you want to control any hi-end aliasing, you should
>> place a hi cut filter at the half freq mark for the destination rate
>> in line before the conversion.
>> It is not forced into the algorithim, because in many cases you can
>> stretch the hi-end beyond that with good results, using your ears,
>> depending on the music content."
>> *
>
>Perhaps this can be summed up as...SAW products leave choices open to you,
>so that as a skilled engineer, you can make the most intelligent choices
>without them being made for you.
It is not an intelligent choice to attempt to resample information
above the Nyquist limit. It is absurd present this as a viable option
and the reason for not using an anti-aliasing filter.
Besides, most of SAW's SRC problems exist with or without the
filtering being done.
Chris Smith
wrote:
>The censorship has always been when posts get abusive.
Bullshit.
Your statement is patently false.
Although I don't believe you are personally purposely trying to
mislead anyone you just, apparently, do not have the facts.
Chris Smith
>Are you the same "Chris Smith" who used to sell computer systems, that
>were set up for Saw? Are you the infamous "Computer Guy" from the
>C-serve forums of years past? Inquiring minds want to know :>.
I am that person but my activities don't exist all in the past. I
still do offer DAW's set up for SAW as well as other systems.
Chris Smith
>FWIW I met and spoke W/Bob L. around 4-5 years ago and argued the
>virtues of C++ in comparison to Assembler. The man's a genius and has
>some very good programmers working for him (who are extremely
>proficient in the use of higher level languages BTW). If Bob and his
>team cant fix it, then I don't think there's anyone else who can.
There hasn't been a programming "team" for a long time. Hristo, the
guy who developed the reverb and AVI Viewer plugins and the only
programmer that I've known to work for Bob in the entire time I have
known him, probably left shortly after the time frame you speak of.
Michael McInnis
> >The real time multitrack sample rate & bit depth conversions are very
handy
> >for sound design projects where the sounds are sourced from many
different
> >places. It never has been presented as mastering quality by IQS.
> It has never been presented as anything else. There is no disclaimer
> (last I looked) that warns of the sad state of the sample rate
> conversion.
There is also no warning when you buy other products of what their
weaknesses may be. For me, multitrack realtime SRC is a useful tool...do
you suggest removing it?
> In general almost everything has an upside, even in audio a buzzsaw is
> a good thing, if you need the sound of a buzzsaw.
> Since the capabilities of the SRC and dither are presented as equal to
> all of the programs other functions then either none of the functions
> are mastering quality, or the product is misrepresented.
This is silly...does Alesis give warnings that some users may find their
compressors less useable than a UA? It is up to the buyer to find products
that work for them.
> I believe that the manufacturer should properly test the product so
> that it performs as the end user expects it to perform and if some
> part of it is seriously lacking in functionality than it should be
> revealed up front.
> Just like cars and baby cribs, one day there will be many class action
> lawsuits against software companies.
Yeah...time to sue! Why not record your material at the sample rate you are
going to edit with? Problem solved.
> >Many find the user forum one of their best information resources on the
net.
> >Chris himself has made many positive contributions. His more acidic
> >commentaries are made under the pseudonym "Darth Fader".
> This is very incorrect. I have made both contrary statements as well
> as other statements under both my own name and the nom de plume of
> "Dark Phader". Never have I posted as "Darth Fader".
> In every case much due diligence has always been exerted in order to
> remain as accurate as possible in my posts.
Sorry for the typo. Accurate maybe, caustic...almost every time.
> >Perhaps this can be summed up as...SAW products leave choices open to
you,
> >so that as a skilled engineer, you can make the most intelligent choices
> >without them being made for you.
> It is not an intelligent choice to attempt to resample information
> above the Nyquist limit. It is absurd present this as a viable option
> and the reason for not using an anti-aliasing filter.
Then use a filter...chose from IQS's, Direct X, or VST....or, keep EDLs at
one sample rate. Use the software for it's strengths. If you don't like
the SRC, avoid it.
Chris Smith
wrote:
>> >places. It never has been presented as mastering quality by IQS.
>
>> It has never been presented as anything else. There is no disclaimer
>> (last I looked) that warns of the sad state of the sample rate
>> conversion.
>
>There is also no warning when you buy other products of what their
>weaknesses may be. For me, multitrack realtime SRC is a useful tool...do
>you suggest removing it?
There's "in the ballgame" and "in the ball park" but musically SAW's
SRC isn't even near the ballpark's city limits.
I suggest fixing it or at least providing a disclaimer.
Maybe I'm wrong but for $2500 (for SAWStudio) it seems likely that
users should expect mastering quality from the program.
>> In general almost everything has an upside, even in audio a buzzsaw is
>> a good thing, if you need the sound of a buzzsaw.
>> Since the capabilities of the SRC and dither are presented as equal to
>> all of the programs other functions then either none of the functions
>> are mastering quality, or the product is misrepresented.
>
>This is silly...does Alesis give warnings that some users may find their
>compressors less useable than a UA? It is up to the buyer to find products
>that work for them.
Maybe that's why they've gone under.
>> I believe that the manufacturer should properly test the product so
>> that it performs as the end user expects it to perform and if some
>> part of it is seriously lacking in functionality than it should be
>> revealed up front.
>> Just like cars and baby cribs, one day there will be many class action
>> lawsuits against software companies.
>
>Yeah...time to sue! Why not record your material at the sample rate you are
>going to edit with? Problem solved.
For one thing you may not have recorded the material you're working
with. For another you may have a digital mixer that only outputs at
48kHz and you need to eventually get to a CD mix. I'm sure there's
many other cases where your simple solution doesn't fly. If you think
I'm wrong then your own statement about finding the SRC useful must be
suspect.
Again, for $2500 (and possibly for only a $100) a user should expect,
at a minimum, a musical and reasonable reference level of operation
for standard audio processes.
>> >Many find the user forum one of their best information resources on the
>net.
>> >Chris himself has made many positive contributions. His more acidic
>> >commentaries are made under the pseudonym "Darth Fader".
>> This is very incorrect. I have made both contrary statements as well
>> as other statements under both my own name and the nom de plume of
>> "Dark Phader". Never have I posted as "Darth Fader".
>> In every case much due diligence has always been exerted in order to
>> remain as accurate as possible in my posts.
>
>Sorry for the typo. Accurate maybe, caustic...almost every time.
You're still way wrong here, maybe caustic and almost every time mean
different things to you.
But I'm open to a fair bet on the percentage you think is almost every
time. Surely we can settle this without guess work since all of the
posts are available..
>> It is not an intelligent choice to attempt to resample information
>> above the Nyquist limit. It is absurd present this as a viable option
>> and the reason for not using an anti-aliasing filter.
>
>Then use a filter...chose from IQS's, Direct X, or VST....or, keep EDLs at
>one sample rate. Use the software for it's strengths. If you don't like
>the SRC, avoid it.
Well you can't use IQS's filter unless you're resampling to 30kHz or
less as the cutoff is at 15kHz.
And I repeat the part you ignored: Besides, most of SAW's SRC problems
exist with or without the filtering being done.
I thought that, except for the stat already noted, that my original
post presented a balanced view. I don't think the products weaknesses
should simply be glossed over. There are some serious sonic
compromises.
Your characterization of the IQS newsgroup censorship is in error and
your perceived tone of any of my posts on the IQS newsgroup really has
nothing to do with this discussion (but, as noted above, I'm willing
to let the record stand for itself). Frankly it surprises me that you
would attempt a low blow like this.
It is true that my reference point for posting on the IQS newsgroup
has changed, but if IQS had libeled you yours would have also.
Dean Richard
I'm not going to debate the merits of the Saw product line. You like it, I
don't, I'll leave it at that. But I take great exception to the comment that
Bob Lentini only censors his newsgroup when posts get abusive. That is simply
not true. As you know, Bob and I posted back and forth about various sound
quality issues a couple of years ago. I was never abusive, and there were no
personal attacks. I did, however, unrelentingly point out some audio
shortcomings of his product line. Unlike some of the other newsgroup
participants (that I think of as Lentini lemmings) I hope you are willing to
concede that pointing out shortcomings should not be considered abusive. Some
of my messages were direct quotes from esteemed audio professionals, and they
also were censored. What REALLY happens on the newsgroup is that Bob deletes
posts *he* finds offensive, even if the reason he finds them offensive is
because he doesn't agree with the post's message, or if he thinks it reflects
badly on his products.
Bob's newsgroup philosophy is not unique in the audio world. From what I've
heard, the situation is similar in the Digidesign newsgroup. I've heard that if
you post comments/info about Logic, Paris, etc. those posts will quickly
disappear. I can't confirm those reports.
The SAW newsgroup is sponsored by IQS, and Bob has a right to run it any way he
likes. But don't be so blind as to ignore how uses it. It is a marketing and
public relations tool, not an open forum.
Dean
In article <tjq0j38...@news.supernews.com>, m...@mm-pro.com says...
Dean Richard
Bob gets a lot of mileage out of his claims that he writes his products in
Assembler. I think people take that to mean he writes EVERYTHING in Assembler.
I'm skeptical that is the case. There have been statements by plugin developers
and ex-employees that Bob's claims of SAW being written entirely in Assembler
are exaggerated. Like most good programmers he probably codes much of the
product in a higher level language, then optimizes critical sections, either by
hand with Assembly, or by carefully tweaking high level code. That is my
speculation, not fact, but as someone who has been a Software Engineer for the
last 11 years, it is a highly educated guess.
Bob is quite good at marketing himself as a coding genius, and a lot of
gullible people believe it. I tend to believe that Bob's reputation is build on
his willingness to use coding shortcuts without regard for sound quality to
obtain speed, and his real genius is in marketing himself, not coding.
I think the time has come in the DAW world to understand that a program's
execution speed is no longer the issue it was when Bob first did a SAW product
quite a few years ago. Machines are fast, and there is no longer any reason to
compromise sound quality for speed.
Dean
In article <lldrjt0d6f967vejn...@4ax.com>, dbr...@mediaone.net
says...
>
>
>FWIW I met and spoke W/Bob L. around 4-5 years ago and argued the
>virtues of C++ in comparison to Assembler. The man's a genius and has
>some very good programmers working for him (who are extremely
>proficient in the use of higher level languages BTW). If Bob and his
>team cant fix it, then I don't think there's anyone else who can.
>Great product IMHO, and I do understand the need for the evolvement of
>the software, thus the capital, (price hikes), needed to get it there.
>I.E. Saw, Saw+, Saw32, Saw Pro and finally Saw Studio. The features /
>price ratio IMO wasn't that exorbitant. Allthough I've moved on to
>Paris (great in the spring time :>), I still use saw32 for editing
>mixes. It's a great editing program.
>
>
>Dan
>
>On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:35:15 -0400, "Michael McInnis" <m...@mm-pro.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
Roger W. Norman
and get the entire product to fit on one floppy.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
www.SirMusicStudio.com
Roger....@verizon.net
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
www.mp3.com/buddywhite
www.mp3.com/thelivewireband
"guys, it takes a lifetime to just get just a BIT closer..."
George Massenburg
"Dean Richard" <dric...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3b3dfba4$0$12829$272e...@news.execpc.com...
Chris Smith
<rno...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Hate to say it, but I'm pretty positive you can't write SAWPro/Studio in C++
>and get the entire product to fit on one floppy.
Not being a C++ programmer I couldn't say whether or not you're right
but I suspect some sharp C++ guy might be able to do it as long as he
doesn't use bloated pre-fabbed libraries like MFC.
I believe that Bob writes mainly in C and uses assembly routines where
he finds a benefit.
Even talented VB coders (I use VB as an example as it is generally
considered slow and bloated, apologies if I'm wrong) will use
profiling to locate the loops where the program spends most of it's
time and tune those parts, with assembly code if necessary, to obtain
the desired performance result.
The compressed SAWPro installation file fits on a floppy, not
SAWStudio's and the typical plugins that are standard on many programs
such as reverb are extra cost items and a separate install.
Regardless, it may have reasonably important 8-10 years ago to fit a
product on 1 floppy but much less so today. I also don't think that
the size of the compressed installation program, in and of itself,
says anything real about a product's capabilities. One has to install
it to find that out.
Michael McInnis
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 09:54:11 -0400, "Michael McInnis" <m...@mm-pro.com>
>For me, multitrack realtime SRC is a useful tool...do
> >you suggest removing it?
> There's "in the ballgame" and "in the ball park" but musically SAW's
> SRC isn't even near the ballpark's city limits.
> I suggest fixing it or at least providing a disclaimer.
> Maybe I'm wrong but for $2500 (for SAWStudio) it seems likely that
> users should expect mastering quality from the program.
> For one thing you may not have recorded the material you're working
> with. For another you may have a digital mixer that only outputs at
> 48kHz and you need to eventually get to a CD mix. I'm sure there's
> many other cases where your simple solution doesn't fly. If you think
> I'm wrong then your own statement about finding the SRC useful must be
> suspect.
> Again, for $2500 (and possibly for only a $100) a user should expect,
> at a minimum, a musical and reasonable reference level of operation
> for standard audio processes.
Please tell me where you can find a 72 track realtime sample rate converter
that is mastering quality at any price.
Now, would it be nice to have a two track mastering quality SRC in
SAW.....Yes! Many people would find it handy.
> I thought that, except for the stat already noted, that my original
> post presented a balanced view. I don't think the products weaknesses
> should simply be glossed over. There are some serious sonic
> compromises.
We just disagree on what is a weakness. For me the 72 track realtime SRC is
handy, even at its present quality...for you it isn't. FWIW, I don't like
the non-realtime SRC of many audio software products. I go a generation of
analog rather than use any of them for critical material.
> Your characterization of the IQS newsgroup censorship is in error and
> your perceived tone of any of my posts on the IQS newsgroup really has
> nothing to do with this discussion (but, as noted above, I'm willing
> to let the record stand for itself). Frankly it surprises me that you
> would attempt a low blow like this.
> It is true that my reference point for posting on the IQS newsgroup
> has changed, but if IQS had libeled you yours would have also.
You have the right to post messages and IQS has the right to censor them.
For the most part, however, the board is a place were people try to help
each other in a congenial manner. If you want to continue this part of the
conversation lets continue off the newsgroup..OK?
Michael McInnis
> Michael,
>
> I'm not going to debate the merits of the Saw product line. You like it, I
> don't, I'll leave it at that. But I take great exception to the comment
that
> Bob Lentini only censors his newsgroup when posts get abusive. That is
simply
> not true. As you know, Bob and I posted back and forth about various sound
> quality issues a couple of years ago. I was never abusive, and there were
no
> personal attacks. I did, however, unrelentingly point out some audio
> shortcomings of his product line. Unlike some of the other newsgroup
> participants (that I think of as Lentini lemmings) I hope you are willing
to
> concede that pointing out shortcomings should not be considered abusive.
O.K. seeming noone wants to be confused with a lemming, I think unrelenting
is the operative word in this case. Though the above mentioned threads were
ultimately stopped, I think everyone on the forum knows what your points
were. I firmly believe that endless bickering doesn't further anyone's
knowledge, sometimes its better to agree to disagree. However, (and this
WAS years ago) this is a case where I thought the group administration was
heavy handed. I still find the group to be of great value...but, mostly for
people that use the software.
As this is getting off topic, perhaps we should take any further discussion
of the censorship issue elsewhere.
Regards,
MM
--
Michael McInnis Productions
m...@mm-pro.com
www.mm-pro.com
.
Dean Richard
I didn't say C++, I said C. Tremendous difference, and if not using the
Microsoft Foundation Classes (Bob obviously isn't with his nonstandard
interface) it may well be feasible. People have been quoted as saying much of
SAW is written in C. I can't verify that.
Dean
In article <9hl5hp$4at$1...@suaar1ab.prod.compuserve.com>, rno...@compuserve.com
says...
Chris Smith
wrote:
>Please tell me where you can find a 72 track realtime sample rate converter
>that is mastering quality at any price.
Whatever the answer to this question might be it has no bearing and it
doesn't change the extremely poor quality of SAW's SRC, nor my
previous reply to your query regarding removal of it.
It's nice that you like it and that you find time-stretched, de-tuned,
frequency smeared audio useful. Like I said previously, a buzzsaw is a
good thing if a buzzsaw is what you want. I just don't think someone
should sell you a songbird and deliver a buzzsaw.
Until my post on the IQS newsgroup no one (that I know of) was even
aware of how bad this aspect of the product was, many probably still
don't know. How many years have SAW users relied on it's SRC without
realizing the damage they were doing?
That's why it should come with a disclaimer.
>> Your characterization of the IQS newsgroup censorship is in error and
>> your perceived tone of any of my posts on the IQS newsgroup really has
>> nothing to do with this discussion (but, as noted above, I'm willing
>> to let the record stand for itself). Frankly it surprises me that you
>> would attempt a low blow like this.
>> It is true that my reference point for posting on the IQS newsgroup
>> has changed, but if IQS had libeled you yours would have also.
>
>You have the right to post messages and IQS has the right to censor them.
>For the most part, however, the board is a place were people try to help
>each other in a congenial manner. If you want to continue this part of the
>conversation lets continue off the newsgroup..OK?
Do you have the right to make a claim as to the nature of the
censorship on the IQS forum ("The censorship has always been when
posts get abusive.") which is absolutely not true?
Do you also have the right to make unsubstantiated claims about the
nature of what I posted or the tone in how I posted it, put a value on
it ("almost every time"), yet provide no proof?
I think not and politely ask you to recant those points or prove them.
Sorry, no offline discussion.
Mike Rivers
> This is silly...does Alesis give warnings that some users may find their
> compressors less useable than a UA? It is up to the buyer to find products
> that work for them.
Bad example. If you know what a compressor does, in half an hour you
can tell whether one will suit your needs or not. People have
software for years without exploring all the possiblities, often
finding traps (and some pleasant surprises, too) months after they've
made their purchase and commitment to use. Software suffers greatly
from "featurits", making user evaluation very difficult.
Chris Smith
wrote:
>O.K. seeming noone wants to be confused with a lemming, I think unrelenting
>is the operative word in this case. Though the above mentioned threads were
>ultimately stopped, I think everyone on the forum knows what your points
>were. I firmly believe that endless bickering doesn't further anyone's
>knowledge, sometimes its better to agree to disagree. However, (and this
>WAS years ago) this is a case where I thought the group administration was
>heavy handed.
Attached is the thread the in question, It was "totally censored" in
that the whole thread was removed in its entirety. The IQS censors
choose, based on their current purpose, whether or not to just trim
messages from a thread or to delete an entire thread, whichever serves
their current purpose.
Forte Agent users can just import the txt file into a folder to see it
in its actual threaded form.
Chris Smith
<ch...@realcomputerguy.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>Attached is the thread the in question, It was "totally censored" in
>that the whole thread was removed in its entirety. The IQS censors
>choose, based on their current purpose, whether or not to just trim
>messages from a thread or to delete an entire thread, whichever serves
>their current purpose.
>
>Forte Agent users can just import the txt file into a folder to see it
>in its actual threaded form.
Scratch that - no attachments allowed.
File is available at http://64mustang.com
Very small. Size is under 10k.
Roger W. Norman
with MFC libraries. There's the bloat, and I'll admit that. And I'm not
trying to get involved with your -er- discussion with Michael as to the pros
and cons of Bob's coding practices. I will say that I've used SAW since
Classic and I'm now at Pro and I find it to be a perfectly acceptable
product. In fact, I really can't see where or why you're complaining about
it not being mastering quality. I don't know of many products that really
are in terms of multitrack recording/editing applications, except maybe
SADiE (in my limited experience) which is 4 times as expensive. And though
I haven't had experience with Studio and Win2K's WDM driver model, I often
wonder if most of the problems you mention aren't really involved with the
MME driver models moreso than the code that takes advantage of them.
I do know that you have a good rep for the systems you set up, even amongst
some of the guys from the IQS newsgroup, so apparently anything you've
written hasn't killed the rep. I'm just not sure whether you pointing out
problems that most people aren't concerned with makes it a bad product, or
some sore point with you. Personally, after 10 years of having my own
little dungeon here, and using SAW products since maybe 1994(?), I haven't
had one reason to apply any type of SRC to any of my projects, much less
real-time SRC. Seems like a moot point to me. SAW is fast to work with as
both a recording multitrack and editor, has absolutely no hooks into the
registry (which I like), no code bloat (whether it be C or assembler) and
Bob fixes most problems that his users point out. I don't know what kind of
service you'd expect from a software company in excess of what he provides,
but I'd never expect Microsoft to be so responsive, nor Sek'd, Cakewalk,
whomever.
Right now SAW Pro is what I have and could afford, but your arguments
notwithstanding I will be moving to Studio when finances allow. I'm a very
pleased customer.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
www.SirMusicStudio.com
Roger....@verizon.net
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
www.mp3.com/buddywhite
www.mp3.com/thelivewireband
"guys, it takes a lifetime to just get just a BIT closer..."
George Massenburg
"Chris Smith" <ch...@realcomputerguy.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:307sjt8cluagbd4mh...@4ax.com...
Roger W. Norman
specific piece of hardware. Either the hardware does what you want or it
doesn't. Software might do what you want, just not in the way you think it
should be done. And it's virtually impossible to do any testing on all the
possible features you'd want on a software application. Geez, most things
you don't find out won't work until 2 years into the software during that
one time you need that particular feature. I'd rather have good solid
functionality of those most used features than worry about things I may or
may not use. If needed, I'll buy an application specific product to take
care of functions that aren't workable in my main software. For instance,
the SRC that Chris is complaining about. I can't see any reason that if I
didn't like SAW's implementation, why I wouldn't just use another package on
the finished product rather than be concerned about real time SRC on 72
tracks of audio. Then again I'm a moron and can't even see the walls for
the layer of paint, so what do I know! <g>
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
www.SirMusicStudio.com
Roger....@verizon.net
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
www.mp3.com/buddywhite
www.mp3.com/thelivewireband
"guys, it takes a lifetime to just get just a BIT closer..."
George Massenburg
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr993926775k@trad...
Roger W. Norman
Hell, it's his server (and I mean his server at his location with his
internet connections), his newsgroup, he's entitled. I'm not picking on
you, but it's a moot point. Bob doesn't go online anywhere and tout the
advantages of his product over anyone else's and his users seemingly are
quite satisfied with his product. Who's to care about a single individual's
peculiarities? Hell, this whole group has plenty of us idjits with our
peculiarities, myself being one of the mainstays in this regard.
I am glad to see you here, and as pertains to your forte with building
quality DAWs along with your knowledge in other areas. I'd like to see you
become a continuing participant here, time allowing.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
www.SirMusicStudio.com
Roger....@verizon.net
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
www.mp3.com/buddywhite
www.mp3.com/thelivewireband
"guys, it takes a lifetime to just get just a BIT closer..."
George Massenburg
"Chris Smith" <ch...@realcomputerguy.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:2vatjtcmggisc1ogn...@4ax.com...
Michael McInnis
rate conversion to be a fairly destructive process. AFAIK, 48k was
introduced as a consumer digital audio format BECAUSE it made digital to
digital copies of 44.1k material difficult.
But, it is always the product that is at fault, not the people using it, in
today's world.
I believe buying a digital audio application doesn't make you a digital
audio engineer, anymore than buying a Cuisinart makes you a great chef.
(better analogy?)
It is SO easy to avoid using software SRC all together, that it seems like a
trivial matter to me.
YMMV.
Regards,
MM
--
Michael McInnis Productions
m...@mm-pro.com
www.mm-pro.com
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr993926775k@trad...
>
Michael McInnis
software author Bob Lentini was ridiculed by being called "Mr. Linguine".
Whatever.....
Regards,
MM
--
Michael McInnis Productions
m...@mm-pro.com
www.mm-pro.com
"Chris Smith" <ch...@realcomputerguy.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:2vatjtcmggisc1ogn...@4ax.com...
Chris Smith
<rno...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Chris, why do we care? OK, so you have a problem with Bob's censorship.
>Hell, it's his server (and I mean his server at his location with his
>internet connections), his newsgroup, he's entitled. I'm not picking on
>you, but it's a moot point. Bob doesn't go online anywhere and tout the
>advantages of his product over anyone else's and his users seemingly are
>quite satisfied with his product. Who's to care about a single individual's
>peculiarities? Hell, this whole group has plenty of us idjits with our
>peculiarities, myself being one of the mainstays in this regard.
I'm not saying you or anyone else does care. But if anyone does the
thread is available so that they can read it for themselves instead of
guessing what it might say by reading between the lines of Michael's
and Dean's posts.
It does also demonstrate that from practically day one posts that were
not abusive at all were being deleted, totally refuting Michael's
statement regarding the subject.
It adds fact where there was just "he said", "she said", previously.
Those who don't care can (and will) clearly ignore it. Nobody is
forcing them to read it.
>I am glad to see you here, and as pertains to your forte with building
>quality DAWs along with your knowledge in other areas. I'd like to see you
>become a continuing participant here, time allowing.
Thanks.
Chris Smith
wrote:
>Unfortunately, this new document replaces the previous one in which the
>software author Bob Lentini was ridiculed by being called "Mr. Linguine".
Yes, we're back to the old "kill the messenger" trick. It seems to
work quite a bit on the IQS newsgroup.
Unfortunately your knowledge is as poor as Perry Barrett's(1) on this
subject. And either you both never read my SAW tips(2) page (although
you had a link to it from your site) or you didn't put 1 and 1
together.
Let me refresh your memory of "The Linguine Maximizer" where I showed
a technique using the built-in peak limit and normalize functions I
learned from Bob. Funny that no one sent off emails and posts at that
point accusing me of such ridicule.
The fact is that "Linguine" was Bob's nickname, he coined it himself,
and it is how he identified himself many times when he called here. It
is also what we called him around the house.
As to document you refer to it was hastily thrown togethers and was
only there to share some information with a couple of close clients.
It was never meant for public consumption. I do not know the person
who posted the ural to it on the IQS newsgroup, nor did I have
anything to so with getting it into his hands. It was just one of
those "cat of the bag" things. If you feel it's important to any of
your points I will gladly make it available again.
(1)Perry Barrett wrote a fact-less steaming diatribe directed toward
me on the IQS newsgroup which I could never respond to and have it
last even 3 seconds before deletion.
(2)No longer available.
Chris Smith
<rno...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Unless you're going to write your own libraries you're pretty much stuck
>with MFC libraries.
I'm not sure that is true. I admit I don't really know. It would be
good to get some input from a C++ guru here.
>I'm just not sure whether you pointing out
>problems that most people aren't concerned with makes it a bad product, or
>some sore point with you.
I think my original post to this thread accurately (outside of the
mistake in my portrayal of Studio wav format support - apparently it
was recently upgraded) describes what I was trying to say and that it
was made in the spirit of the thread originators query. I believe it
was fairly balanced and I presented both positive and negative aspects
of SAW and the IQS experience.
Michael's first post took the thread personal. I guess it's what you
learn to do when you read the IQS newsgroup a lot.
>Personally, after 10 years of having my own
>little dungeon here, and using SAW products since maybe 1994(?), I haven't
>had one reason to apply any type of SRC to any of my projects, much less
>real-time SRC.
That's great for you.
Maybe you remember the SAMM product the IQS brought out to control the
Yamaha ProMix01 when it was introduced. Many SAW users bought these
devices, including yours truly as I wanted to demo the SAMM product as
well as the SAW line. The 01's digital output was 48kHz only. And the
SAW/SAMM users were led to believe that SAW's SRC would easily handle
the conversion to 44.1kHz. Well, guess what, I could never get a good
sounding mix, blamed it on the Yam and went back to Mackie. Years
later I know it was SAW's SRC, as many of my clients have just
recently found out as most all have believed, until this point, that
the SAW's SRC process was, at least, reasonably competent.
Those that have recently changed to another product to do SRC have
been delighted in the difference.
>SAW is fast to work with as
>both a recording multitrack and editor, has absolutely no hooks into the
>registry (which I like)
Actually I find his refusal to use the registry makes certain things
very awkward. For one, if you have many application and many drive
letters like I do, and you don't install the products to the default
C:\SAWPro directory than for all the myriad updates of not just the
main product but the all of the plugins you have to manually check for
install point and type it in. It's quite annoying and one of things
the registry is there for. He can have one place to check his install
path and save the user from work that the computer should be doing.
I think that it is also proper for applications that use DirectX
features to create the proper registry entries as well. It's possible
that the failure to do this is why some DX plugins don't work quite so
well in the SAW line.
Certainly there must be something useful in the registry as SAW code
certainly reads enough of it.
>Right now SAW Pro is what I have and could afford, but your arguments
>notwithstanding I will be moving to Studio when finances allow. I'm a very
>pleased customer.
And that's great. There are many very pleased customers of many fine
products. And if you know SAW's weaknesses up front you will make
better mixes. If you avoid SAW's dither and it's SRC and can live with
some occasional DC offset issues it certainly has a lot to offer.
Chris Smith
wrote:
>It is SO easy to avoid using software SRC all together, that it seems like a
>trivial matter to me.
And unfortunately due to the nature of the thread regarding this
subject on the IQS newsgroup many users think that we must avoid
software SRC altogether.
It seems whenever a weakness is found in SAW the consensus boils it
down to: If SAW can't do it right then no other product can either. We
must use real hardware to do it.
This simply isn't true. The Syntrillium products for one and some
others have pretty darn good SRC routines. Accurate and musical. I
would guess that for most users these products would create a better
re-sampled mix than a set of their "less than Apogee" converters.
Michael McInnis
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 09:04:16 -0400, "Michael McInnis" <m...@mm-pro.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately, this new document replaces the previous one in which the
> >software author Bob Lentini was ridiculed by being called "Mr. Linguine".
>
> Yes, we're back to the old "kill the messenger" trick. It seems to
> work quite a bit on the IQS newsgroup.
> Unfortunately your knowledge is as poor as Perry Barrett's(1) on this
> subject. And either you both never read my SAW tips(2) page (although
> you had a link to it from your site) or you didn't put 1 and 1
> together.
> Let me refresh your memory of "The Linguine Maximizer" where I showed
> a technique using the built-in peak limit and normalize functions I
> learned from Bob. Funny that no one sent off emails and posts at that
> point accusing me of such ridicule.
> The fact is that "Linguine" was Bob's nickname, he coined it himself,
> and it is how he identified himself many times when he called here. It
> is also what we called him around the house.
> As to document you refer to it was hastily thrown togethers and was
> only there to share some information with a couple of close clients.
Chris, I believe tone and context have a lot to do with meaning...
I have no idea what Bob likes to be called at home, but within the context
of your web page about SRC, I found it to be purposefully demeaning. Maybe
that was not your intent.
As I do not have access to the removed posts, you do have me at a
disadvantage. I personally read some of the posts before removal and found
them abusive. I also found some removed posts aimed at you abusive.
So I hereby declare that I was wrong and that some removed posts from the
IQS forum were not abusive. Some were IMHO.
I have no interest in further exploring your anger with IQS or in helping
you spread it in other forums. So feel free to have the last word.
Chris Smith
wrote:
>I have no interest in further exploring your anger with IQS or in helping
>you spread it in other forums. So feel free to have the last word.
I was quite surprised that you, of all people, took us down that road.
It was never my intent.
Roger W. Norman
with Cakewalk and then install sizes. Something's obviously different.
Somewhat reminds me of Turbo Pascal days.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
www.SirMusicStudio.com
Roger....@verizon.net
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
www.mp3.com/buddywhite
www.mp3.com/thelivewireband
"guys, it takes a lifetime to just get just a BIT closer..."
George Massenburg
"reap" <dbr...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:vc7ujt4is92oahavc...@4ax.com...
> Never alluded to that......of course anything written in asm is going
> to be much tighter code.
>
>
> Dan
Noel Bachelor
<m...@mm-pro.com> allegedly wrote something like:
> "Chris Smith" <ch...@realcomputerguy.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > The dithering and sample rate conversion functions in the line should
> > never be used. In fact the programs should ship with a warning label
> > for both, especially the sample rate conversion.
>
> The real time multitrack sample rate & bit depth conversions are very handy
> for sound design projects where the sounds are sourced from many different
> places. It never has been presented as mastering quality by IQS. I believe
> it is up to the user to understand the strengths & weaknesses of any audio
> tool. This is a huge timesaver for me on many projects and I chose to avoid
> ALL digital sample rate conversion for serious mastering applications.
Record a full bandwidth sweep tone at 48Khz and then load it into the SAW
multitrack window set to 44.1. The birdies you hear will assure you never
use that again. It seems it's not just an HF filtering matter, but a
sample timing issue as well, as the birdies start well down, and long
before the sweep gets near the 1/2Fs point.
I use and like SAW a lot, but it's sample rate conversion should never be
used.
Noel Bachelor nbachATozemailDOTcomDOTau
Language Recordings Inc (Darwin Australia)
remove 'oel' from userid in reply field