Burwen TNE 7000A setup
Hank
digitize analog audio from several 50-60 year old sources. One of the
suggestions for phonograph records was to use a Burwen TNE 7000 in the
analog line to reduce clicks and noise.
I was able to locate one of these at a place in Mass. that buys and
refurbishes these units. It arrived about a week ago. But I am not
getting results from trying to use---indeed, it only makes things
worse. I'm not sure I've got the drill down on how to use it.
My basic setup uses a Tandberg 3008A preamp. Phono cartridge (Stanton
681 EEE Mk II) to the preamp phono in. Preamp variable out to the
digitizing computer line in, and one tape line out to a monitor amp for
direct monitoring. Computer line out goes to a line level tape input on
the monitor amp, so I can easily monitor either directly or through
the digitizing computer. All of that works well.
I put the TNE in the system by moving the phone cartridge out to the
TNE input, and connected the TNE output to a line-level input on the
preamp. Tape in and out jacks on the TNE are unused.
My understanding of the TNE operation is:
1. Both Sensitivity and Threshold controls counterclockwise, Defeat
and Tape buttons out.
2. With a record playing, advance Sensitivity until the left LED
extinguishes. That part works OK. I don't hear any change in the sound
through the monitors when I do that. Set point is about midpoint in
the knob range.
3. Advance Threshold until the right LED flickers on clicks. That
isn't happening. I can hear the click sound change as I advance the
control, but the LED doesn't light at all. The click sound appears
sonically to change from high-frequency spikes to broadened low
frequency thunks, and if I advance the control a bit more, I now get
definite thunks for clicks that were almost inaudible. In short, it
sounds as thought I'm getting oscillations rather than blanking.
So, what am I doing wrong here. Or did this unit show up here with
problems. It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
just making a bad thing worse.
Hank
William Sommerwerck
> out to the TNE input, and connected the TNE output to a
> line-level input on the preamp. Tape in and out jacks on the
> TNE are unused.
I don't understand how you can connect the output of the Tandberg's phono
preamp to the TNE 7000's input, then the output of the TNE 7000 to a
high-level input on the preamp -- and expect to hear anything. On most
preamps, you cannot simultaneously select one output and a different input.
If you're not using the tape monitor circuit, from where are you getting the
phono-preamp signal?
Unless you need the tape monitor for something else, you normally connect
signal-processing devices to the tape-monitor circuit. This isn't the only
way to hook up the TNE 7000, but it's simple and IT WORKS.
> 3. Advance Threshold until the right LED flickers on clicks. That
> isn't happening. I can hear the click sound change as I advance the
> control, but the LED doesn't light at all. The click sound appears
> sonically to change from high-frequency spikes to broadened low
> frequency thunks, and if I advance the control a bit more, I now get
> definite thunks for clicks that were almost inaudible. In short, it
> sounds as thought I'm getting oscillations rather than blanking.
Assuming the LPs have been carefully cleaned, preferably with a vacuum
machine...
The TNE 7000 is not intended to remove big scratches. It removes (or
reduces) medium-to-small pops and ticks.
If pops and clicks are converted to "thumps", either the unit is grossly
defective, or you've got things set up wrong.
I have a TNE 7000, and it works fine. Do this... Set up the TNE 7000
correctly -- that is, put it in the tape-monitor circuit -- and try it
again, and tell us what happens. (You can connect the monitor amp to the
Tape Out jack of the TNE 7000.)
Frank
in article <Burwen TNE 7000A setup>,
han...@blackhole.lostwells.net (Hank) wrote:
Hank, did I misread what you wrote above, or do really have the output
of your phono cartridge connected to the line inputs on the TNE 7000?
If so, that's wrong, as the TNE 7000 does not contain a phono preamp
circuit.
I have a late-model KLH TNE 7000A, along with a KLH DNF 1201A Dynamic
Noise Filter, a dbx SNR-1 Single Ended Source Noise Reduction unit, an
SAE 5000A Impulse Noise Reduction unit, and a Phase Linear Model 1000
Series Two Noise Reduction/Dynamic Expander unit and the way to use
any of these devices is to insert them into your tape monitor or
external processor loop. I happen to be using an old Apt Holman preamp
in my current setup, but almost bought a 3008A back in the day.
All of these devices also have, in addition to their line in and line
out jacks, a pair of tape in and tape out jacks that are intended to
replace the tape monitor circuit that you've used on your preamp to
attach the external device/s. In your case, with just a single device
(your old Burwen TNE 7000), just stick it into a tape monitor loop.
You could, if you really wanted, put it inline with your preamp's main
output, but then every time you changed the preamp's volume control
setting, you would have to readjust the settings on the TNE 7000, so
you're really better off using a tape monitor loop.
I use the above devices, in various combinations, when transferring
old 33-1/3 and 45 rpm vinyl records, and sometimes open reel or analog
cassette tape, to computer. Which device or devices I use is a
decision based upon the particular problem/flaw that I'm trying to
address, usually based upon the condition of the original recording.
My usual workflow is to try to resolve the major problems in the
analog domain, digitize the material into the computer, and then do
any final clean-up in the digital domain using various plug-ins...
Waves (X-Click, X-Crackle, X-Hum, and X-Noise) Virtos Noise Wizard,
and several others including the noise reduction that's built-in to
Adobe Audition as well as the Sony Noise Reduction plug-in.
I also have a BBE 882 Sonic Maximizer and an Aphex 204 Aural Exciter,
both the subject of a recent thread in this newsgroup, that I
sometimes use to add air to recordings. I also have the BBE Sonic
Maximizer in software (plug-in) form, so I have more flexibility with
the BBE than I do with the Aphex which is hardware-only.
Hope this helps.
--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
[also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX].
Audio Empire
(in article <hp2ufh$e12$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
If you have a computer, I suggest the following:
Download "Audacity" from the internet for your particular computer platform.
Transfer your records to digital using your usual method and save it as a
"WAV" file. Open the resultant file in Audacity and use that program's
"click filter" and other tools to clean the file up. This takes time, but it
is pretty easy to do and the results are worth it.
Dick Pierce
> It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
> just making a bad thing worse.
Assuming, for the moment, that it IS hooked up properly,
this one sentence summarizes very well my impression
of this unit from back when they were new.
--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
William Sommerwerck
>> just making a bad thing worse.
> Assuming, for the moment, that it IS hooked up properly,
> this one sentence summarizes very well my impression
> of this unit from back when they were new.
I think you're confusing the Burwen with the one whose brand name begins
with S. (Can't think of it.)
I've owned one for over 30 years, and normally leave it connected when
playing LPs. The only deleterious effect I've found is that it subtly
darkens the sound, a common problem with devices using op amps.
If it's in proper working order, it will remove almost all the
small-to-medium pops and clicks. It is particularly effective when using a
wideband pickup on a high-quality arm/table that does not "smear"
transients.
Hank
Frank <fr...@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:08:17 +0000 (UTC), in 'rec.audio.pro',
>in article <Burwen TNE 7000A setup>,
>han...@blackhole.lostwells.net (Hank) wrote:
>
>
>Hank, did I misread what you wrote above, or do really have the output
>of your phono cartridge connected to the line inputs on the TNE 7000?
>If so, that's wrong, as the TNE 7000 does not contain a phono preamp
>circuit.
>
TNE, then in to the preamp.
>I have a late-model KLH TNE 7000A, along with a KLH DNF 1201A Dynamic
>Noise Filter, a dbx SNR-1 Single Ended Source Noise Reduction unit, an
>SAE 5000A Impulse Noise Reduction unit, and a Phase Linear Model 1000
>Series Two Noise Reduction/Dynamic Expander unit and the way to use
>any of these devices is to insert them into your tape monitor or
>external processor loop. I happen to be using an old Apt Holman preamp
>in my current setup, but almost bought a 3008A back in the day.
>
>All of these devices also have, in addition to their line in and line
>out jacks, a pair of tape in and tape out jacks that are intended to
>replace the tape monitor circuit that you've used on your preamp to
>attach the external device/s. In your case, with just a single device
>(your old Burwen TNE 7000), just stick it into a tape monitor loop.
>You could, if you really wanted, put it inline with your preamp's main
>output, but then every time you changed the preamp's volume control
>setting, you would have to readjust the settings on the TNE 7000, so
>you're really better off using a tape monitor loop.
>
I reconnected it across a tape monitor loop, and am now getting results
more-or-less along the lines of what I had expected.
Quite frankly, I wasn't too sure of the instructions I'd gotten. The
part of the operation manual that I found online only talks about
setting the knobs, not about where to connect the unit.
The 3008A preamp has the advantage of having two tape inputs/outputs
and a cross-dubbing feature. Can't remember for sure where I got it,
but it was maybe fifteen years ago, and may have been a pawn shop
special. It's been in storage for some time, so I had some work to do
with Caig Deoxit and Faderlube to get it up to snuff.
>I use the above devices, in various combinations, when transferring
>old 33-1/3 and 45 rpm vinyl records, and sometimes open reel or analog
>cassette tape, to computer. Which device or devices I use is a
>decision based upon the particular problem/flaw that I'm trying to
>address, usually based upon the condition of the original recording.
I posted here about a month ago because the family has been asking me
to transcribe a whole bunch of stuff that has been in the family since
the 1950's. Using something like the TNE 7000 in the signal path
before trying to use digital techniques was one of the
recommendations.
And, after due consideration, I went anead and bought a Nitty Gritty
Record Master, so the phono records are being washed and vacuumed.
Can't say I can hear too much difference, but they are visually much
cleaner after a pass or two through the Nitty Gritty. And I also just
received an M-Audio Audiophile 192 card (192 Khz 24-bit), which isn't
installed yet, though I have the proper driver for it (OSS) compiled
and tested on one machine.
>
Hank
Hank
Audio Empire <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>If you have a computer, I suggest the following:
>
>Download "Audacity" from the internet for your particular computer platform.
>Transfer your records to digital using your usual method and save it as a
>"WAV" file. Open the resultant file in Audacity and use that program's
>"click filter" and other tools to clean the file up. This takes time, but it
>is pretty easy to do and the results are worth it.
>
I have enough computers around here, running every operating system
EXCEPT Microsoft Windows. I've been posting about aspects of this
project of mine in various newsgroups.
The target computers for doing the work are Sun manufacture. The one
I'm using to get things up is an Ultra 20 M2 running Solaris 10 10/09.
The hardware is just a high-end version of an AMD64 PC with Nvidia
chip set.
I also have several Sun Sparcs (Ultra 1, 2, 10, 60) and there is some
reason to believe the U2 or U60 might be better hardware than a Wintel
PC. I've gone through the exercises needed to get rid of hum and
noise in all of my analog devices, but have been advised that PC power
supplies are too noisy. And, thus far, I'm hearing a high noise floor
in the PC. The Ultra 60's are PCI machines, so I should be able to
use an add-on 24-bit PCI card with the OSS driver. I need to run some
tests to see if a U60 power supply (which is huge, compared to PC
supplies) is quieter.
I've made some attempts to compile and run both Audacity and Gnome
Wave Cleaner (gwc) on Solaris x86. I think I'm close to getting gwc
functional---there is one bug in how it reads .wav files, and I've had
to install Debian 5.0.4 linux ("lenny") on another Sparc box to support
the porting effort. That install did not go at all smoothly. Yet to go
is an install of Debian on PC hardware, which (I'm hoping) will present
less problems than the Sparc install did.
The Audacity build tree is a plumber's nightmare. I've spent some
time with two versions, 1.2.6 and 1.3.11. Someone on another group
supplied me with a 1.2.6 Sparc build, but I'll have to recompile it
to use it on my hardware. Fortunately, most of the support libraries
needed are available pre-built from download sites, although I'm doing
my own compiles as well.
Probably should mention here that I'm a 75-year-old retired
hardware-software engineer who had enough "careers" over 45 years that
I can work hardware and software issues without getting too far off my
turf. I'd expected more and better pro-level audio processing software
to be available in the open source world. Certainly somebody who is
trying to earn an income doing pro audio isn't going to be able to
devote the time and effort I can to getting a good stable alternative
to the Windows stuff---which has plenty of problems of its own.
Hank
Hank
Dick Pierce <dpi...@cartchunk.org> wrote:
>Hank wrote:
>> It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
>> just making a bad thing worse.
>
>Assuming, for the moment, that it IS hooked up properly,
>this one sentence summarizes very well my impression
>of this unit from back when they were new.
>
hooked up properly. Now that I've reconnected it, it seems to do a
good job of at least reducing the artifacts coming out of the analog
chain for digitization.
Hank
Audio Empire
(in article <hp3o89$8rt$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
Most people have more mainstream computers, Windows (yecchhh) Mac or Linux.
There is a ready-to-go Audacity version for all three of those. It's still
the cheapest and easiest solution for what you want to do. I have transferred
some old 78 RPM classical albums (like the first recording ever made of
Holst's "The Planets" (1932) with the composer conducting. With Audacity, I
was able to stitch all 8 12" 78RPM sides together seamlessly and get rid of
the surface noise, ticks and pops and was able to EQ the recording so that
even sounded like a more modern recording) to CD using audacity with great
results (as well a many LPs).
Peter Larsen
> I have enough computers around here, running every operating system
> EXCEPT Microsoft Windows. I've been posting about aspects of this
> project of mine in various newsgroups.
There are two hardware/OS platforms that together have 99.9999 percent of
the relevant audio tools, you have the appearance of insisting to use
anything but.
I have a completely suitable winxp box as experiment box which I bought for
DKK 250 including XP professional license, it would be usable for your
project and you would be productive with an over the counter version of
Audition 3 for a total budget that is about USD 500, I even think that
budget would allow putting an extra harddisk in that box. Your approach to
solving this strikes me as extraordinarily peculiar in case your objective
is to get some audio digitized in a reasonably productive manner.
> Probably should mention here that I'm a 75-year-old retired
> hardware-software engineer who had enough "careers" over 45 years that
> I can work hardware and software issues without getting too far off my
> turf.
OK, your doing it for fun, interesting quest then.
> I'd expected more and better pro-level audio processing
> software to be available in the open source world.
They are too busy telling us audio guys how poor our working production
systems are to find the time to discover how to actually make something that
works out of the box or download file.
> Certainly
> somebody who is trying to earn an income doing pro audio isn't going
> to be able to devote the time and effort I can to getting a good
> stable alternative to the Windows stuff---which has plenty of
> problems of its own.
THAT is a very well made point, thank you. If you need to get something done
reasonably fast then I stand by my USD 500 suggestion above as a better
approach, but I can certainly share the fun of getting things to work, and
wish you the best of luck with the quest.
> Hank
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Frank
in article <Re: Burwen TNE 7000A setup>,
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
Hank, my experience with the KLH TNE 7000A (I've never used the
original Burwen Research TNE 7000), is closely aligned with William's
experience.
Also, the reason why I have both a TNE 7000A and an SAE 5000A is the
fact that the TNE 7000A is only good on "the small-to-medium pops and
clicks" that William mentioned. The 5000A, OTOH, works quite well on
those few discs that I encounter that contain (usually one) large and
deep scratch.
Whenever I have a disc that contains both types of problems, I'll
patch in the 5000A in front of the TNE 7000A, adjust the 5000A to
remove the serious deep scratch and then adjust the TNE 7000A to
remove whatever else remains. At that point, depending upon the
overall condition and sound of the disc, I'll either use or not use
one or more of the other signal processing devices that I have
available.
I will use no external signal processing at all if the condition of
the disc is truly superb, but that's the rare case. None of these
discs are mine, BTW, they all belong to clients. Also, most of the
recordings with which I work are spoken word, not music. And I don't
do 78's, just 33-1/3 and 45 rpm discs.
Once in the digital domain, I'll perform most of the remaining work in
Sound Forge. And if I should happen to notice an odd artifact here or
there, I'll manually redraw the waveform with the pencil tool to
disguise it.
Frank
in article <Re: Burwen TNE 7000A setup>,
Sorry, my comment above was intended to be directed to Dick Pierce and
not to Hank. Must be time for me to get some sleep. :)
Dick Pierce
>>>It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
>>>just making a bad thing worse.
>
>
>>Assuming, for the moment, that it IS hooked up properly,
>>this one sentence summarizes very well my impression
>>of this unit from back when they were new.
>
>
> I think you're confusing the Burwen with the one whose brand name begins
> with S. (Can't think of it.)
No, it's the Burwin. I worked for a place that sold them,
and had the opportunity to listen to it at home for
several weeks. Yes, it reduces ticks, pops and noise.
It did no do so transparently or even remotely so, at
least no more transparently than a few feet of concrete.
Mike Rivers
> I reconnected it across a tape monitor loop, and am now getting results
> more-or-less along the lines of what I had expected.
That's what I thought you meant when I read that you connected the phono
preamp output to the TNE input. It's not a miracle worker (note how many
single ended noise reduction units Frank has) but it's one of those that's
not all smoke and mirrors. I'm sure Cedar has better, but every little
bit helps
as long as you can adjust it so it doesn't hurt more than help.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson
William Sommerwerck
> SAE 5000A is the fact that the TNE 7000A is only good
> on "the small-to-medium pops and clicks" that William
> mentioned. The 5000A, OTOH, works quite well on
> those few discs that I encounter that contain (usually one)
> large and deep scratch.
Yes, it's amazing in ability to remove out-and-out gouges. The smaller
stuff -- no way.
At the risk of starting another argument -- a really good pickup and
turntable help. Anyone who doesn't believe this is welcome to stop by and
hear a demo.
William Sommerwerck
> and had the opportunity to listen to it at home for
> several weeks. Yes, it reduces ticks, pops and noise.
> It did no do so transparently or even remotely so, at
> least no more transparently than a few feet of concrete.
Then there was "something wrong", though I don't know what it is. I reviewed
the Burwen for "Stereophile", and it did not much degrade the sound.
William Sommerwerck
> feeding the TNE, then in to the preamp.
It still couldn't have worked, because you said you selected a line-level
input. You would still have had a weak, unequalized signal.
When I read the original post, I thought -- "Is /that/ what he's saying? No
way. He must have mis-typed."
There are advantages to running an unequalized signal through the TNE 7000.
But it wasn't designed to handle low-level signals.
There are things I would like to say... But I will bite my tongue. Very
hard.
Question... Didn't the dealer provide a user manual? How much trouble would
it have been for him to photocopy one?
Arny Krueger
news:hp3o89$8rt$1...@news.eternal-september.org
> In article
> <0001HW.C7DA75CD...@news.giganews.com>,
> Audio Empire <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> If you have a computer, I suggest the following:
>>
>> Download "Audacity" from the internet for your
>> particular computer platform. Transfer your records to
>> digital using your usual method and save it as a "WAV"
>> file. Open the resultant file in Audacity and use that
>> program's "click filter" and other tools to clean the
>> file up. This takes time, but it is pretty easy to do
>> and the results are worth it.
> If life were just that simple.....
It is.
> I have enough computers around here, running every
> operating system EXCEPT Microsoft Windows. I've been
> posting about aspects of this project of mine in various
> newsgroups.
Your house has a toilet, right?
One keeps at least one Windows computer in the house, often for the same
reason! ;-)
Settle down!
Dick Pierce
>>No, it's the Burwen. I worked for a place that sold them,
>>and had the opportunity to listen to it at home for
>>several weeks. Yes, it reduces ticks, pops and noise.
>>It did no do so transparently or even remotely so, at
>>least no more transparently than a few feet of concrete.
>
>
> Then there was "something wrong", though I don't know what it is.
The word "intrinsic" keeps intruding in my mind.
> I reviewed the Burwen for "Stereophile"
Oh, of course. That makes all the difference in the world.
I should retract my comments in light of this stunning
new evidence. :-)
and in case you didn't see it,
here's another one: :-)
> and it did not much degrade the sound.
If I still had one, I'd be more than happy to sell it to
you, probably for not a lot of money at that.
William Sommerwerck
misusing it.
I have an extremely high-quality playback system. I would not use the TNE
7000 if it signifcantly degraded the sound.
Dick Pierce
> Mr. Pierce, I am not responsible for your owning a defective unit and/or
> misusing it.
Phew! That's a load of my mind! Thanks!
> I have an extremely high-quality playback system. I would not use the TNE
> 7000 if it signifcantly degraded the sound.
Good for your!
Ty Ford
(in article <hp2ufh$e12$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> So, what am I doing wrong here. Or did this unit show up here with
> problems. It's doing absolutely nothing to improve the analog signal,
> just making a bad thing worse.
>
> Hank
Maybe not much. I have one here that I bough on a lark a few years back. If
anyone wants it, drop me a line with a price.
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
Hank
Peter Larsen <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hank wrote:
>
>There are two hardware/OS platforms that together have 99.9999 percent of
>the relevant audio tools, you have the appearance of insisting to use
>anything but.
>
>I have a completely suitable winxp box as experiment box which I bought for
>DKK 250 including XP professional license, it would be usable for your
>project and you would be productive with an over the counter version of
>Audition 3 for a total budget that is about USD 500, I even think that
>budget would allow putting an extra harddisk in that box. Your approach to
>solving this strikes me as extraordinarily peculiar in case your objective
>is to get some audio digitized in a reasonably productive manner.
>
Pee Cee hardware I've got---several. Disks I've got---several.
Windows I haven't got. Microsoft Tax for same ranges between
$200-$300 depending on version, level, OEM install vs. full, etc.
XP vs. Windows 7? Hmm---let's got look for drivers for the M-Audio
cards. Some yes, some no. Do I want to run Creative Soundlaster
cards? Hmmm---not really into gaming these days.
And is Pee Cee hardware a suitable low-noise environment vs. Sun
Sparc? I've already mentioned electrical noise in the Pee Cee.
Cost of Pro Tools, last I looked, $300. Filter add-ons, not included.
Looks to me more like $1000 for software licenses, and that with no
development system (more $$$) and no hooks for devising filters that
aren't included in the shrink-wrapped stuff.
And what have I got when I'm done? Maybe it will work and maybe it
won't, particularly when the driver question is considered.
Notwithstanding all the other drawbacks to relying on Microsoft to
deliver anything with adequate availability.
Cost (to me) of setting up a Sparc with the M-Audio card, drivers,
OS, etc.: zero. Solaris is a major player in the Enterprise O/S
world. Like the Timex watch, it takes a licking and keeps on ticking.
Sparc Debian (yeah, I can download suitable software, prebuilt, for
that) comes in second---by quite some distance. So say nothing of
having not one, but two development systems, software available in
modifiable source form all of which I don't have to go get because
I've already got it.
>> I'd expected more and better pro-level audio processing
>> software to be available in the open source world.
>
>They are too busy telling us audio guys how poor our working production
>systems are to find the time to discover how to actually make something that
>works out of the box or download file.
>
Let's just say that I am not "they."
>> Certainly
>> somebody who is trying to earn an income doing pro audio isn't going
>> to be able to devote the time and effort I can to getting a good
>> stable alternative to the Windows stuff---which has plenty of
>> problems of its own.
>
>THAT is a very well made point, thank you. If you need to get something done
>reasonably fast then I stand by my USD 500 suggestion above as a better
>approach, but I can certainly share the fun of getting things to work, and
>wish you the best of luck with the quest.
>
At this point, I've spent a month assessing what's available, set up
some hardware, looked at software issues, And think that for a modest
time investment, I can get some good results. And, with a bit of
diplomacy, maybe get those results back into software that others can
use.
Hank
Hank
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>Your house has a toilet, right?
>
>One keeps at least one Windows computer in the house, often for the same
>reason! ;-)
>
septic system. We don't have city water or sewers out here in the
country.
Hank
David Nebenzahl
> Once in the digital domain, I'll perform most of the remaining work in
> Sound Forge. And if I should happen to notice an odd artifact here or
> there, I'll manually redraw the waveform with the pencil tool to
> disguise it.
Regarding this (and starting a small tangent here), I've tried Audacity
and found it wanting. I use Sound Forge as well, a stripped-down version
(XP) that came with my Sound Blaster, not the full version, and it's
so much simpler than Audacity. I don't know if it has all the filters
and other bells and whistles that Audacity has, but I don't use those
things anyway.
--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
- a Usenet "apology"
PStamler
Dell computer (yeah, I know) that I bought used for US$85, including
Win XP Pro. Add a soundcard with decent shielding (CardDeluxe in my
case), bought off ebay, and Adobe Audition, and you have the
beginnings of a more-than-decent workstation. I added DC SIX (which
one of these days will get upgraded to DC EIGHT) and ClickFix, and
have done a *lot* of audio restoration with the setup. Oh, and of
course a whopper external harddrive (actually an internal harddrive in
an external case).
Peace,
Paul
Frank
in article <Re: Burwen TNE 7000A setup>,
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>It's not a miracle worker (note how many
>single ended noise reduction units Frank has) but it's one of those that's
>not all smoke and mirrors.
Frank forgot to mention (because they sit in a different rack) that he
also has a (now-discontinued) Behringer SNR2000 Audio Interactive
Noise Reduction System (based upon the also now-discontinued Drawmer
DF330 Universal Noise Filter) and a Kramer SP-4200 Audio ProcAmp.
Behringer SNR2000 product information
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/SNR2000.aspx
Drawmer DF330 Sound On Sound product review
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Apr02/articles/drawmerdf330.asp
Kramer SP-4200 Spec Sheet (PDF)
http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/STARINMANUALS/Kramer/Archive/SP-4200.pdf
As is not completely atypical with Behringer products, the SNR2000
developed a problem in the right channel about a year after purchase,
but it had a five-year warranty and they cheerfully replaced it at no
cost to me.
The SP-4200 is (was) an interesting product in that if adjusted in a
certain way, it seems to accurately mimic the effect of a Dolby B
decoding circuit, although the unit does not bear a Dolby Labs logo.
>I'm sure Cedar has better,
If I did this sort of work full time, I would spring for a Cedar, but
I don't and therefore can't justify it (from a financial point of
view).
>but every little bit helps
>as long as you can adjust it so it doesn't hurt more than help.
This is absolutely key to successful noise reduction - and it's true
whether the problem is a record scratch, tape hiss, electrical hum in
the original recording, whatever.
Audio Empire
(in article <yIKdnR5x-d48QSjW...@giganews.com>):
I find that there is nothing that one can do audio-wise with a Winbox that
can't also be done with a Mac (unfortunately, the opposite is not also true).
That's why I don't have a Windows computer. In a lot of cases, both recording
hardware and software ONLY works with a Mac (like Logic Studio and Apogee
equipment).
Audio Empire
(in article <hp57v2$isb$2...@news.eternal-september.org>):
I find that flushing a Windows system down the toilet is its best, final
reward.
William Sommerwerck
> is its best, final reward.
For what? For working reliably? As punishment for not being an artsy-fartsy
niche product sold by liars?
I've been running Windows for 20 years, ten of those under W2K. Isn't it
amazing how I ever got any work done with all those crashes and
configuration problems -- which NEVER occurred, * thank you.
The Mac is for people who are happy with the limited range of software and
hardware available for that machine. I used to recommend the Mac to friends,
because the OS is somewhat less daunting for those who are too lazy to be
involved with actually understanding how their computers work. But Apple's
appallingly dishonest ads forced me to end the recommendations. Both Apple
and Microsoft stink as companies, but Microsoft doesn't lie quite so much,
and the computers using their OS aren't as expensive.
* Honesty compels me to admit that about six years ago the operating system
"collapsed" for no obvious reason, and had to be reinstalled to be fully
operational. A friend with a Mac told me the same thing happened to his Mac.
Peter Larsen
> "Two platforms?" I see only one in your comments.
The other is the MAC's. It surprises me to have to specify. My own strategy
has been - from my days as an amigan - to start with the problem, then find
the application and then get the OS the application runs on, for that very
reason I have had MS-DOS emulation on my Amigas from the onset, not all
niche software can be found on a niche platform.
> Pee Cee hardware I've got---several. Disks I've got---several.
> Windows I haven't got. Microsoft Tax for same ranges between
> $200-$300 depending on version, level, OEM install vs. full, etc.
Again: when I purchased my current daw, a HP Compaq ml115 server sans OS, I
payed USD 100 on top of what it cost me second hand for two HP's, one a
Pavillion with a 2 GHz Athlon and a valid XP Home license, but no media and
the other a newer Pavillion with a 3-something GHz P4 and 2 gigabytes ram
and a XP Prof license.
> XP vs. Windows 7? Hmm---let's got look for drivers for the M-Audio
> cards. Some yes, some no. Do I want to run Creative Soundlaster
> cards? Hmmm---not really into gaming these days.
Midiman 2496 does all you need, replace caps and opamps for cleaner sound at
the risk of getting some RFI issues.
> And is Pee Cee hardware a suitable low-noise environment vs. Sun
> Sparc? I've already mentioned electrical noise in the Pee Cee.
OK, pay some more and get something with external converter, say a USB or
firewire thingie, you get from 100 dB dynamic range to 110 dB dynamic range
then.
> Cost of Pro Tools, last I looked, $300. Filter add-ons, not included.
> Looks to me more like $1000 for software licenses, and that with no
> development system (more $$$) and no hooks for devising filters that
> aren't included in the shrink-wrapped stuff.
Again, not the only thing out there, but the one I am familiar with, Adobe
Audition 3 is some USD 350. 500 of your local dollars will have you up and
running and productive in a week.
> And what have I got when I'm done? Maybe it will work and maybe it
> won't, particularly when the driver question is considered.
> Notwithstanding all the other drawbacks to relying on Microsoft to
> deliver anything with adequate availability.
Be religious some other day.
> Cost (to me) of setting up a Sparc with the M-Audio card, drivers,
> OS, etc.: zero.
You say you have clients, such usually wait anxiously for results and you
have been tinkering for a month and you're still not ready to start learning
to operate your software, something that WILL take time.
> Solaris is a major player in the Enterprise O/S
> world.
YESSIR, but you are on a quest for a hobbyist daw.
> Like the Timex watch, it takes a licking and keeps on ticking.
> Sparc Debian (yeah, I can download suitable software, prebuilt, for
> that) comes in second---by quite some distance. So say nothing of
> having not one, but two development systems, software available in
> modifiable source form all of which I don't have to go get because
> I've already got it.
Sorry Sir, all fine and well but not relevant to the described task of
delivering transscribed audio to presumed paying clients, presumed since you
ask also in an audio production forum.
>>> I'd expected more and better pro-level audio processing
>>> software to be available in the open source world.
>> They are too busy telling us audio guys how poor our working
>> production systems are to find the time to discover how to actually
>> make something that works out of the box or download file.
> Let's just say that I am not "they."
I didn't say you are. Also I reiterate that I can appreciate the joy of
getting things to work and respect it.
> At this point, I've spent a month assessing what's available, set up
> some hardware, looked at software issues, And think that for a modest
> time investment, I can get some good results. And, with a bit of
> diplomacy, maybe get those results back into software that others can
> use.
Make no mistake, it would be great if you could get a good swiss knife kinda
package to work for the *ix platform, allow me to suggest that you decide
whether you want to do that or to get some audio from round black things to
mp3 players. Very many years ago when I was getting "into computers" I read
a piece of advice: "You can program them or use them, you are not likely to
be able to find time to do both".
Audio Empire
(in article <hp5ffu$fa2$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>> I find that flushing a Windows system down the toilet
>> is its best, final reward.
>
> For what? For working reliably? As punishment for not being an artsy-fartsy
> niche product sold by liars?
>
> I've been running Windows for 20 years, ten of those under W2K. Isn't it
> amazing how I ever got any work done with all those crashes and
> configuration problems -- which NEVER occurred, * thank you.
>
> The Mac is for people who are happy with the limited range of software and
> hardware available for that machine.
That view is out of date, for a start. There is NOTHING limited about a
modern Mac. It's just as fast as high-end PC and faster than most of the
cheap ones (faster RAM bus). With A modern Mac you can run Windows (if you
like) at full speed as well as Linux (all at the same time and concurrent
with OSX) and therefore have access to ALL the software and all the hardware
that Windows users use, plus (and this is important in the recording world)
all of the Mac-only stuff from companies like Apogee and DAW software like
Logic Studio which is NOT available for Windows. Also Running Macs frees you
from malware like viruses, trojan-horses and most internet adware.
> I used to recommend the Mac to friends,
> because the OS is somewhat less daunting for those who are too lazy to be
> involved with actually understanding how their computers work.
You know, that's more than just insulting. First of all, Bill, I am a
computer engineer and I know Windows backwards and forwards. I also know the
Mac and when I compare the two, I have to agree with you, the Mac OS is LESS
daunting than Windows. And with good reason. The Mac GUI is BETTER DESIGNED
than Windows. This stuff about Windows being a "real OS" and better because
you need to be a computer science major to understand it, is just elitist
nonsense. Windows is more difficult and arcane because it's POORLY designed,
and always has been.
> But Apple's appallingly dishonest ads forced me to end the recommendations.
I see their ads and as user of both platforms, I see nothing dishonest about
them. You can't say that Macs are simple because they are for people who are
too lazy to be involved in actually understanding how their computers work
and then, in the next breath, condemn the company that makes them for
capitalizing on that very fact.
> Both Apple
> and Microsoft stink as companies, but Microsoft doesn't lie quite so much,
Actually with 90%+ of the world market, Microsoft doesn't have to say
anything at all. They just need to exist. AS long as they do, virtually every
business and corporation in the world will continue to buy them. They are the
defacto standard in the corporate world and unless you do non-linear video
editing, sound production, and pre-press, you will find a Windows machine on
every desk. It is because it is.
> and the computers using their OS aren't as expensive.
Nor anywhere near as good. Remember, I use both, daily.
> * Honesty compels me to admit that about six years ago the operating system
> "collapsed" for no obvious reason, and had to be reinstalled to be fully
> operational. A friend with a Mac told me the same thing happened to his Mac.
Things can happen to any OS, but the Unix underpinnings to OSX make it far
more robust than any Windows release I've ever seen. I have been running OSX
since 2001 day-in-and-day-out and I have NEVER had the Macs I own crash, slow
down, need disk defragmentation or any of the ills that plague Windows.
It's just a better system, Period.
William Sommerwerck
But that isn't inherent in the Mac OS, though Apple would have you believe
otherwise.
As the Mac becomes increasingly popular, it is becoming a larger target for
malware.
> The Mac GUI is BETTER DESIGNED than Windows.
This is the one (and only) good thing you can say about Apple products. The
company is aware that a human being will be using its products, and designs
accordingly. Steve Jobs isn't a genius -- he just has good sense.
> This stuff about Windows being a "real OS" and better
> because you need to be a computer science major to
> understand it, is just elitist nonsense.
I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. And you don't need to be a
computer science major to be able to run Windows.
>> But Apple's appallingly dishonest ads forced me to end
>> the recommendations.
> I see their ads and as user of both platforms, I see nothing
> dishonest about them.
Then you must have been hearing what you wanted to hear. Almost every claim
in the "I'm a Mac" ads is either a gross misrepresentation or an outright
lie. Instead of offering a simple description/explanation of /why/ the Mac
OS is superior, we're treated to cutesy sound bites that are bald-faced
lies. For example, characters in the ads state that they don't want a
computer that crashes all the time. Or we're told that Macs are immune to
malware.
I've been running W2K for almost 10 years, and have averaged about one crash
per year. In most cases, this was a particular application locking up so
tightly that a system restart was needed. (If my memory is correct, the last
of these occurred several years ago.)
>> and the computers using their OS aren't as expensive.
> Nor anywhere near as good. Remember, I use both, daily.
I'm curious as to how the hardware of a Mac (which is what you mean by
"machine") is superior to that of a PC. Both companies use the same
processor (which, by the way, will eventually be seen as one of the major
turning points in the history of personal computers, as it represents a
direct threat to the continued existance of both Windows and Mac OS), and
have to use the same components.
>> Honesty compels me to admit that about six years ago the operating
>> system "collapsed" for no obvious reason, and had to be reinstalled to
>> be fully operational. A friend with a Mac told me the same thing happened
>> to his Mac.
> Things can happen to any OS, but the Unix underpinnings to OSX make
> it far more robust than any Windows release I've ever seen.
This problem had no apparent connection to the disk operating system.
> I have been running OSX since 2001 day-in-and-day-out and I have
> NEVER had the Macs I own crash, slow down, need disk defragmentation
> or any of the ills that plague Windows.
Then why don't I own a Mac? Is it because I'm stupid? Or could it be that
the applications I run (or used to run) simply don't exist for the Mac? (I'm
a programmer-writer.)
I'm curious as to why the Mac never needs defragmentation. Does it
automatically defragment in the background?
William Sommerwerck
out the errors and misrepresentations.
Scott Dorsey
>> Also Running Macs frees you from malware like viruses,
>> trojan-horses and most Internet adware.
>
>But that isn't inherent in the Mac OS, though Apple would have you believe
>otherwise.
>
>As the Mac becomes increasingly popular, it is becoming a larger target for
>malware.
Actually, a lot of it is. When there are security holes found, Apple will
fix them. Sometimes they'll do some dramatic redesigning that will break
applications in the process.
The reason that Microsoft has such severe malware issues is that security
problems are _never_ fixed, they just deal with the individual exploits.
Microsoft is terrified of breaking existing applications in any way, and
this gets them into the endless stream of patching.
>> The Mac GUI is BETTER DESIGNED than Windows.
>
>This is the one (and only) good thing you can say about Apple products. The
>company is aware that a human being will be using its products, and designs
>accordingly. Steve Jobs isn't a genius -- he just has good sense.
Personally, I can't stand the Mac GUI. The good news, though, is that
after a decade and a half of saying they'd never have a command line because
they are obsolete, Apple put an excellent command line on OSX.
In fact, they put such a good command line on OSX that now Microsoft has
finally stepped up to the plate and provided a pretty nice command line
with Windows 7. This brings both Microsoft and Apple up to the standards
of DEC in say 1972 or so. Finally.
>Then you must have been hearing what you wanted to hear. Almost every claim
>in the "I'm a Mac" ads is either a gross misrepresentation or an outright
>lie. Instead of offering a simple description/explanation of /why/ the Mac
>OS is superior, we're treated to cutesy sound bites that are bald-faced
>lies. For example, characters in the ads state that they don't want a
>computer that crashes all the time. Or we're told that Macs are immune to
>malware.
That's how marketing works. Don't worry about it. But try the Mac, it's
got some nice points, and the Apple hardware is pretty solid too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
>PS: I would be perfectly happy to go through the "I'm a Mac" ads and point
>out the errors and misrepresentations.
This is what marketing is. Open up a copy of Mix and read any of the ads
for microphones with German names that are made in China. Look at the beer
advertisements on the subway. Ever known someone who drinks a whole lot of
beer? They don't look like the people in the beer ads.
William Sommerwerck
>> misrepresentation or an outright lie. Instead of offering a simple
>> description/explanation of /why/ the Mac OS is superior, we're
>> treated to cutesy sound bites that are bald-faced lies. For example,
>> characters in the ads state that they don't want a computer that
>> crashes all the time. Or we're told that Macs are immune to
>> malware.
> That's how marketing works. Don't worry about it. But try the Mac, it's
> got some nice points, and the Apple hardware is pretty solid too.
I'm sure it is. And I'd be happy to try a Mac, if someone would buy me one.
(I'm not employed, and need to upgrade to W7, but don't want to do it on a
10-year-old machine.)
Prediction: Apple's adoption of Intel processors brings us a major step
closer to the elimination of local operating systems. It further encourages
the development of thin clients, in which the software resides on the Web,
and the OS is little more than a Web browser.
Audio Empire
(in article <hp60ui$5ui$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>> Also Running Macs frees you from malware like viruses,
>> trojan-horses and most Internet adware.
>
> But that isn't inherent in the Mac OS, though Apple would have you believe
> otherwise.
You're partly right here. Mostly it's because those hackers who write malware
concentrate on the majority system because it's more likely to spread from PC
to PC than from Mac to Mac due to there being so many MORE Windows PCs. But
OTOH, it is more difficult to write malware for the Mac due to the nature of
the Unix permissions structure. It is possible, but so far, pretty much
nothing has surfaced. Security breaches have been exploited but they simply
don't propagate because Unix requires the user to actively initiate the
malware and only a complete dummy would knowingly do that.
> As the Mac becomes increasingly popular, it is becoming a larger target for
> malware.
Only partially true. See above.
>
>
>> The Mac GUI is BETTER DESIGNED than Windows.
>
> This is the one (and only) good thing you can say about Apple products. The
> company is aware that a human being will be using its products, and designs
> accordingly. Steve Jobs isn't a genius -- he just has good sense.
>
>
>> This stuff about Windows being a "real OS" and better
>> because you need to be a computer science major to
>> understand it, is just elitist nonsense.
>
> I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. And you don't need to be a
> computer science major to be able to run Windows.
OK, I was using a bit of hyperbole. No, you don't need to be a computer
science major, but Windows is needlessly complex and arcane. I HAVE seen and
heard many a Windows "fan" express the sentiment that because Macs are easy
to use that they are somehow less of a computer platform than Windows, and
that Windows is a "real man's computer" and that somehow this need for
computer literacy is a "good thing." It isn't. All over the world millions of
people (and we all know some of them) own Winboxes about which they have
absolutely NO CLUE. You, yourself alluded to this bit of techno-elitism when
you said that you used to recommend Macs to people who were too lazy to learn
how their computers worked. Why should they have to? Computers should be as
appliance-like as possible. We are far from the day when they will be, but
Apple has taken another step in that direction with it's iPad. I have no use
for one, but Apple understands the market. and realizes that people want a
computing appliance that's as easy to use as their TV, one that integrates
seamlessly into their lives. While far from ideal, the iPad gives that
approach more than just lip service.
>
>
>>> But Apple's appallingly dishonest ads forced me to end
>>> the recommendations.
>
>> I see their ads and as user of both platforms, I see nothing
>> dishonest about them.
>
> Then you must have been hearing what you wanted to hear. Almost every claim
> in the "I'm a Mac" ads is either a gross misrepresentation or an outright
> lie. Instead of offering a simple description/explanation of /why/ the Mac
> OS is superior, we're treated to cutesy sound bites that are bald-faced
> lies. For example, characters in the ads state that they don't want a
> computer that crashes all the time. Or we're told that Macs are immune to
> malware.
1) My almost 10 year experience with OSX is that it doesn't crash. Ever.
2) Again, in all my time with a Mac of some description (going back almost 25
years) I have never used an anti-virus program and I have never contracted
any form of malware. Seems to me that the ads were pretty-much spot-on.
>
> I've been running W2K for almost 10 years, and have averaged about one crash
> per year. In most cases, this was a particular application locking up so
> tightly that a system restart was needed. (If my memory is correct, the last
> of these occurred several years ago.)
I've been running OSX for about 10 years, no viruses, no crashes at all.
Yet I know many competent Windows users whose computers crash all the time. I
see them at work crashing right and left. Windows also has an interesting
characteristic that as the Registry gets more and more complex with use, the
computer slows down. Most people have to do a wipe-and-reinstall.
>>> and the computers using their OS aren't as expensive.
>
>> Nor anywhere near as good. Remember, I use both, daily.
>
> I'm curious as to how the hardware of a Mac (which is what you mean by
> "machine") is superior to that of a PC. Both companies use the same
> processor (which, by the way, will eventually be seen as one of the major
> turning points in the history of personal computers, as it represents a
> direct threat to the continued existance of both Windows and Mac OS), and
> have to use the same components.
No, I'm talking about the OS, mostly. The build quality of Macs is better
than MOST Winboxes, but when you compare a like priced Winbox to a
like-priced Mac, they're pretty much the same hardware-wise. IOW, a $2500 PC
and a $2500 Mac Pro are pretty comparable wrt build quality. The difference
is that there isn't much market for a $2500 Windows box. Most of that action
is in the $500 range and below where Apple does not play at all.
>>> Honesty compels me to admit that about six years ago the operating
>>> system "collapsed" for no obvious reason, and had to be reinstalled to
>>> be fully operational. A friend with a Mac told me the same thing happened
>>> to his Mac.
>
>> Things can happen to any OS, but the Unix underpinnings to OSX make
>> it far more robust than any Windows release I've ever seen.
>
> This problem had no apparent connection to the disk operating system.
>
>
>> I have been running OSX since 2001 day-in-and-day-out and I have
>> NEVER had the Macs I own crash, slow down, need disk defragmentation
>> or any of the ills that plague Windows.
>
> Then why don't I own a Mac? Is it because I'm stupid? Or could it be that
> the applications I run (or used to run) simply don't exist for the Mac? (I'm
> a programmer-writer.)
Oh, don't misunderstand me, Bill, I'm neither belittling your choice of
Windows nor am I trying to convert you. I was merely correcting some of the
misconceptions that you were perpetrating about Macs, such as that they are
limited in their use, that they are for dilettantes, or that they are somehow
"less of a computer" than a Windows machine. You feel free to use what you
want and certainly don't let me influence your choice in any way. 8^)
> I'm curious as to why the Mac never needs defragmentation. Does it
> automatically defragment in the background?
It's the way the file system works. I guess you can call it automatic disk
defrag, but it really doesn't work that way. From what I understand (and I'm
no file system expert by any means), the system optimizes the allocation
algorithms in an attempt to defragment files while they are being accessed.
This, coupled with automatic journaling, means that the disk keeps a separate
record of HD allocation and uses that journal to move blocks of data around
on the disc to keep them together.
And it's an incorrect assumption that Macs NEVER need defragmentation. It is
more correct to say that they RARELY need defrag. I understand that as an HFS
volume gets full, fragmentation increases (which makes sense if you think
about it). I have a utility that graphically maps disk fragmentation before
it recommends a defrag on a Mac. I run it occasionally, just to be on the
safe side. The amount of fragmentation that I find on my discs is so
miniscule that I have never had to do more than just check it. I've never
actually had the program tell me that I should defragment the disk after it's
been checked.
Just as an aside, here, you and I know each other and used to work for the
same magazine (send me an e-mail and I'll tell you my real identity). Our
mutual (and unfortunately, late) friend Gordon Holt used DOS/Windows for many
years in spite of both me and his son Charles evangelizing the Mac to him.
Eventually, he switched and told me that he kicked himself almost every day
for waiting so long to do so.
Hank
Peter Larsen <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hank wrote:
>
>> "Two platforms?" I see only one in your comments.
>
>The other is the MAC's. It surprises me to have to specify. My own strategy
>has been - from my days as an amigan - to start with the problem, then find
>the application and then get the OS the application runs on, for that very
>reason I have had MS-DOS emulation on my Amigas from the onset, not all
>niche software can be found on a niche platform.
>
IRIX, HP-UX, BSD, Solaris, Linux in several flavors (Red Hat, Debian,
Suse, Slackware)---and that's just the beginning. We could also talk
about VMS, OSF, Minix (which Linus Torvalds set out to emulate with
Linux 20 years ago), OS/2, Xenix. That's before we say anything about MS-DOS
or the Amiga (or CP/M or RT-11 or IBM 360 DOS or TOS or RSTS/E or
RSX/11). The only one of those I haven't worked with at one point or
another is Amiga. And if I dredged my memory a bit more I might also
mention the Tandem Guardian system, IBM OS/MVT (MFT, MVS, TCAM, etc.)
Univac Exec VIII, the O/S on CDC 6600/6700.
>Again, not the only thing out there, but the one I am familiar with, Adobe
>Audition 3 is some USD 350. 500 of your local dollars will have you up and
>running and productive in a week.
>
looking to capitalize a shop, find clients and work, and amortize the
investment with accounts receivable.
>Be religious some other day.
And be realistict today about what's practical for an old retired guy.
Your messages read "pay, pay, pay."
>
>You say you have clients, such usually wait anxiously for results and you
>have been tinkering for a month and you're still not ready to start learning
>to operate your software, something that WILL take time.
>
Precisely what I did NOT say. Digitizing what are old family archives
and hand-me-downs that I have (and have the knowledge and equipment
needed to play them) is what I'm dealing with.
>
>Sorry Sir, all fine and well but not relevant to the described task of
>delivering transscribed audio to presumed paying clients, presumed since you
>ask also in an audio production forum.
>
Your presumption. There are no paying clients involved.
>>>> I'd expected more and better pro-level audio processing
>>>> software to be available in the open source world.
>
>>> They are too busy telling us audio guys how poor our working
>>> production systems are to find the time to discover how to actually
>>> make something that works out of the box or download file.
>
>> At this point, I've spent a month assessing what's available, set up
>> some hardware, looked at software issues, And think that for a modest
>> time investment, I can get some good results. And, with a bit of
>> diplomacy, maybe get those results back into software that others can
>> use.
>
>Make no mistake, it would be great if you could get a good swiss knife kinda
>package to work for the *ix platform, allow me to suggest that you decide
>whether you want to do that or to get some audio from round black things to
>mp3 players. Very many years ago when I was getting "into computers" I read
>a piece of advice: "You can program them or use them, you are not likely to
>be able to find time to do both".
>
I'm not "getting into computers," nor am I "getting into serious
audio." Is fifty-sixty years of experience with analog and digital
electronics adequate to prepare one to take on an interesting task and
make it happen?
I came to this group to find out a bit more about what's happening in
pro audio today, and I've gotten some good comments about basic things
that I need to consider---and that I can easily implement.
I'll do the worrying about getting more of the open source software to
run on a solid operating system.
Hank
Laurence Payne
<audio_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>No, I'm talking about the OS, mostly. The build quality of Macs is better
>than MOST Winboxes, but when you compare a like priced Winbox to a
>like-priced Mac, they're pretty much the same hardware-wise. IOW, a $2500 PC
>and a $2500 Mac Pro are pretty comparable wrt build quality. The difference
>is that there isn't much market for a $2500 Windows box. Most of that action
>is in the $500 range and below where Apple does not play at all.
Now that Macs ARE using essentially the same hardware as PCs, it
should be easy to compare the price of comparable computers with and
without the Mac label. Has anyone done so?
Scott Dorsey
>I'm sure it is. And I'd be happy to try a Mac, if someone would buy me one.
>(I'm not employed, and need to upgrade to W7, but don't want to do it on a
>10-year-old machine.)
The nice thing about Apple is there is good long-term support. The downside
of this is that old Apple hardware sells for decent money rather than dropping
in price soon after the next model comes out.
>Prediction: Apple's adoption of Intel processors brings us a major step
>closer to the elimination of local operating systems. It further encourages
>the development of thin clients, in which the software resides on the Web,
>and the OS is little more than a Web browser.
I think there are political problems with the adoption of this model,
but personally I support it. Then again, I am typing this into an ssh
session with a shell server in New York where I keep all my files and
have for fifteen years....
Scott Dorsey
It's sort of hard to. For the most part, the Mac hardware is more solidly
built than the typical PC desktop machines, but without the performance of
the high end PC server boxes. It's priced somewhere in-between, which seems
reasonable.
Laptops are a different story, though, and I can't speak to those.
Buying more solidly built hardware is a good thing if you intend on keeping
it a long time, but it's a bad thing if you have a short replacement cycle
mandated by technological change.
Peter Larsen
> Yes, it helps to be specific.
Indeed, no offense intended, thank you for the clarifications.
> "Up, running, and productive in a week" is a non-objective. I'm not
> looking to capitalize a shop, find clients and work, and amortize the
> investment with accounts receivable.
The word client was introduced in this context by you.
>> Be religious some other day.
> And be realistict today about what's practical for an old retired guy.
> Your messages read "pay, pay, pay."
True, but they do NOT read pay a helluva lot of doe on new stuff. A windows
xp office box that can't do vista is in the price range USD "please remove
it" to USD 100 including the OS license.
> I came to this group to find out a bit more about what's happening in
> pro audio today, and I've gotten some good comments about basic things
> that I need to consider---and that I can easily implement.
Lemme see, Magix Audio Restoration suite is quite cheap, it cost me USD 10
on sale as "the old version" and my suggested price range for a windows xp
box, including OS, was backed up by someone else.
> I'll do the worrying about getting more of the open source software to
> run on a solid operating system.
Sir, you asked for this: if you can not get windows xp to run stably, then
it is an error that is not of the OS. One of the problems I have encountered
in platform migration, and I *did* start on CP/M has been to come to grips
with not doing like on the previous platform when not applicable. I have all
the respect in the world for you and your skills with various computers and
os's, and deep admiration for the Spirit of "getting it to work", don't
spoil it by saying that what you don't know about is not good. As always
being honest and precise up front is what gives you the best feedback and
information sharing.
Best of luck with your quest!
William Sommerwerck
> science major, but Windows is needlessly complex and arcane. I HAVE
> seen and heard many a Windows "fan" express the sentiment that
> because Macs are easy to use that they are somehow less of a computer
> platform than Windows, and that Windows is a "real man's computer" and
> that somehow this need for computer literacy is a "good thing." It isn't.
Well... Yes and no.
My problem is that I don't want the operating system blocking me from access
to the machine. XP and Vista started doing this, which annoyed me no end. (7
isn't quite so bad.)
If I were designing an OS, I would automate as much as possible, while still
allowing the user to easily lift the hood and fiddle with the nuts and
bolts. I don't have time to discuss this in detail, but making a product
that doesn't seem to require thought doesn't necessarily make it easy to
use.
> All over the world millions of
> people (and we all know some of them) own Winboxes about which they have
> absolutely NO CLUE. You, yourself alluded to this bit of techno-elitism
when
> you said that you used to recommend Macs to people who were too lazy to
learn
> how their computers worked. Why should they have to? Computers should be
as
> appliance-like as possible.
You're mostly right, but I get annoyed at people who put out no effort
whatever to understand the wonderful new product they bought.
My late friend Bill Hamlin (who introduced to high-end audio) had absolutely
no technical background whatever. (He was an English/acting major.) Yet, he
could rip apart an audio system and put it back together without having to
have anything explained to him. (He was the person whose Mac OS mysteriously
collapsed.) I hold him up as an example of how a non-geek can understand
technology.
> Yet I know many competent Windows users whose computers crash all the
time. I
> see them at work crashing right and left. Windows also has an interesting
> characteristic that as the Registry gets more and more complex with use,
the
> computer slows down. Most people have to do a wipe-and-reinstall.
This is one of the Great Mysteries of Windows. Some machines have chronic
crashing problems, for no obvious reason.
The Mac gets around this by being a basically closed system. If there were
any justice in the world, Apple would have been dragged into court for the
same reasons Microsoft has.
> Oh, don't misunderstand me, Bill, I'm neither belittling your choice of
> Windows nor am I trying to convert you. I was merely correcting some of
the
> misconceptions that you were perpetrating about Macs, such as that they
are
> limited in their use, that they are for dilettantes, or that they are
somehow
> "less of a computer" than a Windows machine. You feel free to use what you
> want and certainly don't let me influence your choice in any way. 8^)
Well, Microsoft didn't coin the expression "a computer for the rest of us".
>> I'm curious as to why the Mac never needs defragmentation. Does it
>> automatically defragment in the background?
> It's the way the file system works. I guess you can call it automatic disk
> defrag, but it really doesn't work that way. From what I understand (and
I'm
> no file system expert by any means), the system optimizes the allocation
> algorithms in an attempt to defragment files while they are being
accessed.
> This, coupled with automatic journaling, means that the disk keeps a
separate
> record of HD allocation and uses that journal to move blocks of data
around
> on the disc to keep them together.
Interesting. I used to run the UCSD OS on my Apple ][. It didn't need
defragmentation either, because it wrote all files to the disk as a
contiguous block. Of course, if there wasn't a free block large enough, you
were hosed. You had to periodically K)runch the disk to consoldiate all the
free blocks.
William Sommerwerck
PC laptops do not, generally, have a good reputation for "quality" or
longevity. You keep 'em two or three years, then toss them for a newer
model.
William Sommerwerck
>> major step closer to the elimination of local operating systems.
>> It further encourages the development of thin clients, in which
>> the software resides on the Web, and the OS is little more than
>> a Web browser.
> I think there are political problems with the adoption of this model,
> but personally I support it. Then again, I am typing this into an ssh
> session with a shell server in New York where I keep all my files and
> have for fifteen years...
Most users don't want to be involved with installing operating systems and
software. This could very well override "politics".
Peter Larsen
> My problem is that I don't want the operating system blocking me from
> access to the machine. XP and Vista started doing this, which annoyed
> me no end. (7 isn't quite so bad.)
A lot of the frustration experienced by users is caused by the
misunderstanding that windows was designed for them, it isn't, it is
designed for the systems manager and for use as client os in a client-server
context.
One of the more baffling responses I got on my initial quest to get a p2-300
running win98se and later ME to perform was that someone told me that if I
restricted the cache allocation then the OS would run poorly. Not that I
cared, I just wanted that box to be able to receive sp-dif audio stably and
to be able to actually burn a cd .... the concept that the OS was not the
most important sw on the box was apparently a novel one.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
William Sommerwerck
The ideal operating system is one which is invisible to the user.
Hank
Yes. But it hasn't be a comparison between mass-marketed machines,
either hardware or software.
You can compare the Mac Pro line with HP-Compaq ML Proliant or current
Sun Ultra machines. As I recall, Dell has similar higher-end
machines.
Typically, what you'll find in them is EEC/Registered memory, hard
disks mounted in spud/sled slide-in brackets, SAS drives, physically
larger power supplies, much more attention to cooling. The Suns are
sold with Solaris installed, the others are bare hardware---you supply
and install your own O/S.
Prices on comparable configurations--and you'll have to compare
line-by-line with specification details---looks to be about 50-70% of
Apple retail. But we're still talking $1000 and more for a tower
package without display or keyboard, and none of the competition will
load the Apple O/S. They'll all run Windows, if you insist, but
they'll all run Solaris, one of the Linuxes (Sun will sell you a Red
Hat distribution), FreeBSD or OpenBSD.
Many of these machines will do double-duty as Enterprise servers.
There are configurations in the product lines that offer redundant
power supplies, "lights out" headless management (i.e. will boot and
run without a keyboard or monitor attached---administration through
USB or RS-232 port), and the product lines move quickly into
rack-mounted server machines, some of which aren't very adaptable for
use as desktop workstations. Of course, as server horsepower goes up,
price goes up as well, and you quickly move into machinery that
eclipses the abilities of the Apple Pro line.
Hank
Hank
Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>Prediction: Apple's adoption of Intel processors brings us a major step
>>closer to the elimination of local operating systems. It further encourages
>>the development of thin clients, in which the software resides on the Web,
>>and the OS is little more than a Web browser.
>
>I think there are political problems with the adoption of this model,
>but personally I support it. Then again, I am typing this into an ssh
>session with a shell server in New York where I keep all my files and
>have for fifteen years....
>--scott
>
heyday. I'm one of the 3000 who got cut adrift when Earthlink
discontinued Netcom shell service, and a good many of the Netcommies
went to Panix.
When I got cut loose, I ended up with Nyx.net in Denver, and got
involved in setting up their current system, and still do systems
administration on that site over the network (ssh access). After
retirement, when I moved up here to Wyoming, I had some involvement
with a local communications company who were developing a high-speed
wireless internet service. So I'm "my own ISP," more-or-less a
duplicate of what Panix and Nyx provide, but humming away about two
feet from me.
Now, down to the question of pro audio digital resources being
replaced by so-called "cloud computing." I don't see that happening.
Pro audio is essentially a machine-control application, much more
similar in its characteristics to machine-tool and robotics control.
Audio operates in real time, and involves conversion between digital
and analogue. That requires dedicated hardware.
Hank
Les Cargill
Users are not a homogeneous group. A platform like the iPhone or
iPad does not fully replace a laptop. People have been predicting
"thin client" since the '80s, and it's not happened yet.
--
Les Cargill
Peter Larsen
> Now, down to the question of pro audio digital resources being
> replaced by so-called "cloud computing." I don't see that happening.
Requires a lot of network bandwidth to happen at least, but I run a local
cloud, ie. do everything from my laptop via rdp.
> Pro audio is essentially a machine-control application, much more
> similar in its characteristics to machine-tool and robotics control.
> Audio operates in real time, and involves conversion between digital
> and analogue. That requires dedicated hardware.
Real time ... yes and no, recording and listening is real time, but a lot of
daw work is as fast as the disk subsystem can feed the cpu, at best for me
currently 10 times realtime speed. Which is why my current daw is a second
hand small server used via rdp. And why I have a pair of raptors on the
shelf next to it waiting for the current project to be done.
Les Cargill
MacBook Pro 17" start at about $2k, a comparable* 2.8 GHz Dell 17"
runs anywhere from $649 to $999.
*handwaving a bit here - might be tough to get them exactly
equivalent. This gets me a ballpark figure.
--
Les Cargill
Audio Empire
(in article <fmqer59fdq1qamldg...@4ax.com>):
I don't know.
Audio Empire
(in article <hp7uv4$b31$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>> OK, I was using a bit of hyperbole. No, you don't need to be a computer
>> science major, but Windows is needlessly complex and arcane. I HAVE
>> seen and heard many a Windows "fan" express the sentiment that
>> because Macs are easy to use that they are somehow less of a computer
>> platform than Windows, and that Windows is a "real man's computer" and
>> that somehow this need for computer literacy is a "good thing." It isn't.
>
> Well... Yes and no.
>
> My problem is that I don't want the operating system blocking me from access
> to the machine. XP and Vista started doing this, which annoyed me no end. (7
> isn't quite so bad.)
That's why all Macs include a Unix terminal Windows and accept unix commands
directly. I don't see how one could obtain any more access to the machine.
>
> If I were designing an OS, I would automate as much as possible, while still
> allowing the user to easily lift the hood and fiddle with the nuts and
> bolts. I don't have time to discuss this in detail, but making a product
> that doesn't seem to require thought doesn't necessarily make it easy to
> use.
Yep, That's OSX.
I think that's another misconception or outmoded idea on your part. Macs
support all of the computer standards and are not "closed " at all. They used
to be. You couldn't get into the box, they used non-standard interconnects
(such as ADB and Apple Serial ports, and SCSI (at a time when nobody else was
using it except maybe SUN), as well proprietary software protocols that
nobody else used, etc. But those days are long passed. Like I said in an
earlier post, you can have OSX, Linux, and Windows all installed on your Mac,
running at native speed, and open on the desktop at the same time as well as
cut-and-paste data between the three OSes.
This is not quite that simple (for obvious reasons).
William Sommerwerck
>> blocking me from access to the machine. XP and Vista
>> started doing this, which annoyed me no end. (7 isn't
>> quite so bad.)
> That's why all Macs include a Unix terminal Windows and
> accept Unix commands directly. I don't see how one could
> obtain any more access to the machine.
I should have clarified what I meant.
Post-W2K versions of Windows (and I assume the Mac OS) try to hide the fact
that the computer contains a hard drive and other hardwire. Folders are just
"there" without any connection to a physical entity. I don't like this.
>> The Mac gets around this by being a basically closed system.
>> If there were any justice in the world, Apple would have been
>> dragged into court for the same reasons Microsoft has.
> I think that's another misconception or outmoded idea on your
> part. Macs support all of the computer standards and are not
> "closed " at all.
Just try selling your own version of the Mac. Just try.
Apple has a "monopoly" on both the hardware and OS. But when has Apple ever
been taken to court? The fact that the Macintosh doesn't have the market
penetration of Wintel machines has no bearing on it. The personal-computer
business would be better off if Apple had real competition.
My guess is that it won't be much longer before we see a non-Apple computer
on which either the Mac OS or Windows can be freely installed.
Audio Empire
(in article <hp88h4$8qr$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
Yeah, I agree with you. While the iPad is likely a device that will appeal to
many people, a lot of people will look at what it doesn't have (DVD/CD
playback, USB ports, external memory slot, built-in Skype camera, etc.) and
decide that it's not for them . I'm sure that they will sell like hotcakes,
but certainly not to everyone. Thin clients have their place but they aren't
a panacea for personal computing.
Audio Empire
(in article <hp8npj$mjr$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>>> My problem is that I don't want the operating system
>>> blocking me from access to the machine. XP and Vista
>>> started doing this, which annoyed me no end. (7 isn't
>>> quite so bad.)
>
>> That's why all Macs include a Unix terminal Windows and
>> accept Unix commands directly. I don't see how one could
>> obtain any more access to the machine.
>
> I should have clarified what I meant.
>
> Post-W2K versions of Windows (and I assume the Mac OS) try to hide the fact
> that the computer contains a hard drive and other hardwire. Folders are just
> "there" without any connection to a physical entity. I don't like this.
>
>
>>> The Mac gets around this by being a basically closed system.
>>> If there were any justice in the world, Apple would have been
>>> dragged into court for the same reasons Microsoft has.
>
>> I think that's another misconception or outmoded idea on your
>> part. Macs support all of the computer standards and are not
>> "closed " at all.
>
> Just try selling your own version of the Mac. Just try.
I see your point. The machines are proprietary because Apple has stipulated
in their EULA (End User License Agreement) that one cannot install, or allow
to be installed Mac OSX on ANY hardware other than an Apple branded
computer. People have tried to do this (most notably and recently the
Florida-based Psystar and got royally sued for their efforts.)
> Apple has a "monopoly" on both the hardware and OS. But when has Apple ever
> been taken to court?
Apple is usually the one doing the "taking". It's hard to sue a company for
monopoly practices when said company has only about 8-10% (depending upon who
you get the figures from) of the US market and only about 3% world-wide.
Calling Apple a monopoly because it's the only company that can make Macs is
like suing BMW because they are the only company who can make BMWs. Sure they
have a monopoly on Macs, but that's not the definition of a legal monopoly.
OTOH, Microsoft with it's 90% + of desktops is a monopoly, not just because
of their majority market share, but because they purposely "restrain trade".
That is to say that as part of their OS licensing agreement with hardware
manufacturers, they stipulate that these manufacturers cannot be Windows
licensees and offer any other OS on their computers. Several tried to offer
Linux a few years ago and were threatened with losing their Windows license
for their trouble.
> The fact that the Macintosh doesn't have the market
> penetration of Wintel machines has no bearing on it. The personal-computer
> business would be better off if Apple had real competition.
I don't disagree, but Apple owns the OS and they have the right (as the
courts have upheld more than once) to say what hardware it can be installed
upon.
>
> My guess is that it won't be much longer before we see a non-Apple computer
> on which either the Mac OS or Windows can be freely installed.
Supposedly, the new Commodore 64, due to ship in late April will allow people
to put any X86 OS on it, including OSX.
http://www.commodoreusa.net/Store.html
I can't really see Apple allowing it though.
Hank
Peter Larsen <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Sir, you asked for this: if you can not get windows xp to run stably, then
>it is an error that is not of the OS. One of the problems I have encountered
>in platform migration, and I *did* start on CP/M has been to come to grips
>with not doing like on the previous platform when not applicable. I have all
>the respect in the world for you and your skills with various computers and
>os's, and deep admiration for the Spirit of "getting it to work", don't
>spoil it by saying that what you don't know about is not good. As always
>being honest and precise up front is what gives you the best feedback and
>information sharing.
>
question was about setting up the TNE 7000 to do its thing, and I got
appropriately recalibrated on doing that.
Now we seem to be in the midst of a Windows vs. Mac advocacy war,
which has nothing to do with my setup. Those two operating systems
may be popular in some quarters, but I'm not using either one.
I do expect to have Audacity and Gnome Wave Cleaner up and running
shortly---they are the last links in a chain of open source audio
programs I've been working with. I'll probably run them on their
original home operating systems just to see what they do, though the
hardware isn't the best for the job.
Hank
Peter Larsen
> Now we seem to be in the midst of a Windows vs. Mac advocacy war,
> which has nothing to do with my setup.
I don't know how _that_ happened, the productivity choice remains to start
with the application and supply whatever environment it needs. The reason I
am not on a Mac now is the price of it vs. the price for the competing
platforms as it was back in 1988.
> Those two operating systems
> may be popular in some quarters, but I'm not using either one.
Understood.
> I do expect to have Audacity and Gnome Wave Cleaner up and running
> shortly---they are the last links in a chain of open source audio
> programs I've been working with. I'll probably run them on their
> original home operating systems just to see what they do, though the
> hardware isn't the best for the job.
I don't _think_ you have a hardware inadequacy issue as I recall this
thread, possibly incompletely, why would that be?
Arny Krueger
message news:hp7vrf$e0k$1...@news.eternal-september.org
More like 3-5 years, and after 5 years they are so obsolete and slow, who
cares?
Arny Krueger
news:hp89eh$bma$1...@news.eternal-september.org
Right now PC laptops (not Netbooks) start in the middle $400s.
Arny Krueger
news:hp7tqn$8n0$1...@panix2.panix.com
> Buying more solidly built hardware is a good thing if you
> intend on keeping it a long time, but it's a bad thing if
> you have a short replacement cycle mandated by
> technological change. --scott
If you want to buy a more robust PC laptop - get a Panasonic Toughbook.
You'll pay for it and it can be worth it.
William Sommerwerck
>> has Apple ever been taken to court?
> Apple is usually the one doing the "taking". It's hard to sue a company
for
> monopoly practices when said company has only about 8-10% (depending
> upon who you get the figures from) of the US market and only about 3%
> world-wide. Calling Apple a monopoly because it's the only company that
> can make Macs is like suing BMW because they are the only company
> who can make BMWs.
Well... There are many brands of automobiles, but only two "major" operating
systems for personal computers.
> Sure they
> have a monopoly on Macs, but that's not the definition of a legal
monopoly.
> OTOH, Microsoft with it's 90% + of desktops is a monopoly, not just
because
> of their majority market share, but because they purposely "restrain
trade".
> That is to say that as part of their OS licensing agreement with hardware
> manufacturers, they stipulate that these manufacturers cannot be Windows
> licensees and offer any other OS on their computers. Several tried to
offer
> Linux a few years ago and were threatened with losing their Windows
license
> for their trouble.
Point taken, but Microsoft's monopoly is largely de facto, while Apple's is
de jure -- in the sense that Apple created it, not market forces.
And regardless of how Microsoft feels about which operating systems its
licensees are allowed to install on their machines, the fact is that any
buyer is free to do as he pleases once he takes the machine home.
>> The fact that the Macintosh doesn't have the market
>> penetration of Wintel machines has no bearing on it. The
personal-computer
>> business would be better off if Apple had real competition.
> I don't disagree, but Apple owns the OS and they have the right (as the
> courts have upheld more than once) to say what hardware it can be
installed
> upon.
>> My guess is that it won't be much longer before we see a non-Apple
computer
>> on which either the Mac OS or Windows can be freely installed.
> Supposedly, the new Commodore 64, due to ship in late April will allow
people
> to put any X86 OS on it, including OSX.
> http://www.commodoreusa.net/Store.html
> I can't really see Apple allowing it, though.
Unless they can find a way to prevent their dealers from selling the OS
separately, they'll have a hell of a time. I admire Commodore's guts.
The next step (no joke intended!) is a machine + OS(es) that can run all
Windows and Mac apps simultaneously, on the same "desktop", with free
movement of data among apps. When (not if) this occurs, both Microsoft and
Apple will be in trouble, with Apple likely being the bigger loser (because
of its dependency on hardware sales).
Laurence Payne
>systems for personal computers.
All automobiles share basically the same user interface.
Dick Pierce
As do all the consumer-oriented operating systems.
Arguments over "huge" differences amount to the same
argument over differences in shift patterns or
instrument layout and the like.
Given that they ALL derived from the Zerox PARC UI
design experiments and got to where they are by
whatever path, they're far more the same than
different.
--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+
Scott Dorsey
>
>My problem is that I don't want the operating system blocking me from access
>to the machine. XP and Vista started doing this, which annoyed me no end. (7
>isn't quite so bad.)
But that's what the operating system is for. It keeps all the applications
playing nice together, and blocks direct access to anything so that all the
applications can play together.
>If I were designing an OS, I would automate as much as possible, while still
>allowing the user to easily lift the hood and fiddle with the nuts and
>bolts. I don't have time to discuss this in detail, but making a product
>that doesn't seem to require thought doesn't necessarily make it easy to
>use.
Well, the thing is that the user interface is really only a tiny part of the
OS... and if the OS itself is well-designed, you can tack any kind of user
interface on top that you want. (This is one of the things that Mike was
complaining about with regard to Linux though, the fact that there are dozens
of windowing systems and they are all different.)
>> All over the world millions of
>> people (and we all know some of them) own Winboxes about which they have
>> absolutely NO CLUE. You, yourself alluded to this bit of techno-elitism
>when
>> you said that you used to recommend Macs to people who were too lazy to
>learn
>> how their computers worked. Why should they have to? Computers should be
>as
>> appliance-like as possible.
>
>You're mostly right, but I get annoyed at people who put out no effort
>whatever to understand the wonderful new product they bought.
The thing is, a general purpose computer really can't be appliance-like.
If you want something appliance like, you don't want a general purpose
computer. The thing is, general purpose computers are so damn cheap that
they have driven pretty much all specialized appliances out of the market.
People don't want to pay extra money to have something they don't need to
fiddle with, especially when they look upon it as limited and closed.
>> no file system expert by any means), the system optimizes the allocation
>> algorithms in an attempt to defragment files while they are being
>accessed.
>> This, coupled with automatic journaling, means that the disk keeps a
>separate
>> record of HD allocation and uses that journal to move blocks of data
>around
>> on the disc to keep them together.
>
>Interesting. I used to run the UCSD OS on my Apple ][. It didn't need
>defragmentation either, because it wrote all files to the disk as a
>contiguous block. Of course, if there wasn't a free block large enough, you
>were hosed. You had to periodically K)runch the disk to consoldiate all the
>free blocks.
OS/360 has a similar sort of thing.... with OS you had to specify how big
a file would ever become before you created it, so the kernal would know
how much contiguous space to allocate for it. Thank God those days are gone
forever.
The UCSD P-System was interesting, and the pseudomachine was clearly the
forerunner of Java. If it hadn't been so damn expensive it might have caught
on in the IBM PC world. Still, it was basically a development environment
without a whole lot else... though it was a rather ingenious universal
development environment.
Scott Dorsey
>Yes, I see you are posting from Panix. Were you on Netcom in its
>heyday. I'm one of the 3000 who got cut adrift when Earthlink
>discontinued Netcom shell service, and a good many of the Netcommies
>went to Panix.
I moved from a personal uucp site to Netcom in 1990 or so. Gabe Wiener,
the father of this very newsgroup, told me that the management of Netcom
was a bunch of bozos and I should get a panix account. I went with Netcom
instead because they had dialup POPs local to me and Panix did not.
Bob Reiger turned out to be a bozo, but then he sold the thing out to
Mindspring which went out of their way to wreck things, then to Earthlink
which went out of their way to wreck them further. The final straw was
when I called Earthlink support's special shell hotline to tell them that
the /var partition on netcom13 was overflowing, and the guy on the phone
could not understand that I was not using a mac or a pc and he could get
no farther in his script. I explained to him that the problem was on the
shell service and that the partition was full and somebody needed to clean
files. He kept trying to get back on the script and ask me about my
computer. After about ten minutes he said, "Maybe I should tell someone
about this, a lot of people are calling about this." I hung up and called
Panix and I have been happy ever since.
>When I got cut loose, I ended up with Nyx.net in Denver, and got
>involved in setting up their current system, and still do systems
>administration on that site over the network (ssh access). After
>retirement, when I moved up here to Wyoming, I had some involvement
>with a local communications company who were developing a high-speed
>wireless internet service. So I'm "my own ISP," more-or-less a
>duplicate of what Panix and Nyx provide, but humming away about two
>feet from me.
I did that before I got the Panix account, but I'm delighted to pay ten
bucks a month to have someone else do all the sysadmin work for me.
>Now, down to the question of pro audio digital resources being
>replaced by so-called "cloud computing." I don't see that happening.
>Pro audio is essentially a machine-control application, much more
>similar in its characteristics to machine-tool and robotics control.
>Audio operates in real time, and involves conversion between digital
>and analogue. That requires dedicated hardware.
I don't know, a large portion of the pro audio computing is basically
just storage. You need dedicated hardware for recording and editing,
but what do you do with everything once it's edited? I would not be
surprised if some sort of cloud storage scheme wound up getting used.
Personally, I run 1/4" safeties of everything and put them in bonded
storage, but I'm paranoid.
Scott Dorsey
Yup, but this didn't happen until the late 1930s or so. And even today,
I keep reaching for the windshield wipers on my wife's car and turning on
the headlights inadvertently because the controls aren't in the same place
as on my car. The pedals are all in the same place, but my reverse gear
is up and to the left and hers is down and to the right.
Still, it's a lot less than the difference between a 1920s Plymouth and a
Model A. Standardization has come a long way.
Audio Empire
(in article <hp9urb$mu1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
Agreed, but Apple's "Monopoly" does not meet the legal requirements for an
actionable anti-trust violation. That's why they have never been taken to
court.
>
> And regardless of how Microsoft feels about which operating systems its
> licensees are allowed to install on their machines, the fact is that any
> buyer is free to do as he pleases once he takes the machine home.
That is true of both Microsoft and Apple. There is nothing to stop a Mac
buyer from bringing his new Mac home and wiping the HDD clean and installing
either Windows or Linux (although I cannot imagine why anyone would want to
do that as they can get a perfectly serviceable Windows machine for far less.
It might not have the build-quality of the Mac, but without OSX, a Mac is
just a medium to high-end PC).
>
>
>>> The fact that the Macintosh doesn't have the market
>>> penetration of Wintel machines has no bearing on it. The
> personal-computer
>>> business would be better off if Apple had real competition.
>
>> I don't disagree, but Apple owns the OS and they have the right (as the
>> courts have upheld more than once) to say what hardware it can be
> installed
>> upon.
>
>
>>> My guess is that it won't be much longer before we see a non-Apple
> computer
>>> on which either the Mac OS or Windows can be freely installed.
>
>> Supposedly, the new Commodore 64, due to ship in late April will allow
> people
>> to put any X86 OS on it, including OSX.
>> http://www.commodoreusa.net/Store.html
>> I can't really see Apple allowing it, though.
>
> Unless they can find a way to prevent their dealers from selling the OS
> separately, they'll have a hell of a time. I admire Commodore's guts.
Well, Psystar tried it and Apple essentially put them out of business.
>
> The next step (no joke intended!) is a machine + OS(es) that can run all
> Windows and Mac apps simultaneously, on the same "desktop", with free
> movement of data among apps.
Easily done with a Mac NOW. But your point is some kind of universal OS which
will essentially run any X86 application (both Mac and Windows and including
Linux Open Source apps) right out of the box. That would be good, very good.
> When (not if) this occurs, both Microsoft and
> Apple will be in trouble, with Apple likely being the bigger loser (because
> of its dependency on hardware sales).
Yep, but I really don't think Apple would be hurt all that much. They are
moving in another direction and most of their revenues today come from
iPhones, iPods and, I'm sure, iPads.
We really are off-topic here. If you want to continue this discussion, I
suggest you respond to me via e-mail and lets give this bandwidth back to Pro
Audio. 8^)
Jim Gibson
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 08:59:06 -0700, Audio Empire
> <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >No, I'm talking about the OS, mostly. The build quality of Macs is better
> >than MOST Winboxes, but when you compare a like priced Winbox to a
> >like-priced Mac, they're pretty much the same hardware-wise. IOW, a $2500 PC
> >and a $2500 Mac Pro are pretty comparable wrt build quality. The difference
> >is that there isn't much market for a $2500 Windows box. Most of that action
> >is in the $500 range and below where Apple does not play at all.
>
> Now that Macs ARE using essentially the same hardware as PCs, it
> should be easy to compare the price of comparable computers with and
> without the Mac label. Has anyone done so?
Many times. Google for "Mac vs PC cost":
<http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090415_60296
8.htm>
<http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2004/05/mac_vs_pc_a_small_cost_compa
ri.html>
--
Jim Gibson
David Nebenzahl
Heh; apparently your news client (Thoth/1.8.4 (Carbon/OS X)) is one that
mangles URLs. Here they are un-chopped (and no, you don't need those
stupid angle brackets around them):
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090415_602968.htm
http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2004/05/mac_vs_pc_a_small_cost_compari.html
--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
- a Usenet "apology"
Laurence Payne
>>> Now that Macs ARE using essentially the same hardware as PCs, it
>>> should be easy to compare the price of comparable computers with and
>>> without the Mac label. Has anyone done so?
>>
>> Many times. Google for "Mac vs PC cost":
>>
>> <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090415_60296
>> 8.htm>
>>
>> <http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2004/05/mac_vs_pc_a_small_cost_compa
>> ri.html>
>
>Heh; apparently your news client (Thoth/1.8.4 (Carbon/OS X)) is one that
>mangles URLs. Here they are un-chopped (and no, you don't need those
>stupid angle brackets around them):
>
>http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090415_602968.htm
>http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2004/05/mac_vs_pc_a_small_cost_compari.html
OK. We can ignore the one from 2004 I think. The other doesn't
address my question. I'm hearing that there are a lot of standard
components in an Intel Mac desktop machine. Yes or no? How much is
the price loaded?
William Sommerwerck
> one that mangles URLs. Here they are un-chopped (and no, you
They're not stupid if your e-mail client uses them as a signal to render the
URL unbroken. Mine does.
>
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090415_602968.htm
Mr Hessedahl makes the following (I feel) rather stupid remark:
"Microsoft and its hardware partners wouldn't have to make this case had
they focused less in the past decade on driving prices down and more on
quality."
Hello? [knock, knock, knock] Anybody home?
The Mac is a proprietary system, made only by Apple. Apple can charge
whatever it likes. Wintel systems are made by dozens of companies, who have
to compete on price, not just features or build price. If they got together
and agreed not to compete on price, they would be dragged into court for
price-fixing.
How blind can you be, Mr Hessedahl?
As for the argument that the Mac comes with software whose equivalents would
cost extra on a Windows machine... It's meaningless if you don't want or
need that software. But, of course, the Mac is aimed at people whose
presumed sole interest is in creating multimedia content. No word processor
or software-development system is included, is it? Too bad, if you need
them.
If you want Office, it costs extra with either machine. If you want Ventura
to develop long documents, it comes with neither. You have to buy it
separately -- and it runs only under Windows. So much for the "free"
software.
This is not unlike selling an expensive car with a "free" trailer home, and
saying what a great deal it is for the buyer. Not if you're not interested
in a trailer home. "Free" isn't much of a deal if you don't need the stuff.
"Rather than running ads that seem clever at first but really aren't, the
Windows guys ought to take the hint and just build better computers."
More twaddle. "I guess I'm not cool enough to own a Mac" was a great line.
And Apple's "clever" ads are mostly misrepresentations and lies. Microsoft
has had the good sense not to get into a pissing context with Apple on this
point, but somebody should. Apparently the people who write for
personal-computing magazines are such sniveling cowards that they refuse to
do it. Whatever happened to calling a knife a knife?
People, I listen to classical music, read good non-fiction, and am queer. I
consider myself a hundred times "cooler" than the people who rush to buy the
latest Apple product because it's "cool" to do so. Apple (in my eyes) has so
utterly destroyed whatever credibility it had as an honest purveyor of goods
that I wouldn't be caught dead owning an Apple product. I don't want to be
associated with Apple, or with the people who own Apple products.
This isn't to say that I'm happy with Microsoft, a company that has its own
huge set of problems. Windows could be a better OS, but Microsoft doesn't
seem to understand that an OS is what the user interacts with (and their
perception of same), not its features. Why it has not awakened to this fact
is beyond my comprehension.
David Nebenzahl
>> Heh; apparently your news client (Thoth/1.8.4 (Carbon/OS X)) is
>> one that mangles URLs. Here they are un-chopped (and no, you
>> don't need those stupid angle brackets around them).
>
> They're not stupid if your e-mail client uses them as a signal to render the
> URL unbroken. Mine does.
But that's just a kluge[1], as you well know. A well-behaved news or
mail client doesn't mangle URLs in the first place. It should not take
the absence of <> to mean "oh, it's OK to break up this word into little
bitty pieces arbitrarily".
[1] Not kludge or cludge, which rhyme with "fudge"; the word rhymes with
"luge".
Peter Larsen
> OK. We can ignore the one from 2004 I think. The other doesn't
> address my question. I'm hearing that there are a lot of standard
> components in an Intel Mac desktop machine. Yes or no? How much is
> the price loaded?
Look at the laptop prices, just as in 1988, when I deselected Macs as
entry-computer, the extra charge for the name is to multiply final retail
price with factor 1.5. In some contexts the properties of the product cause
the market to bear that price, and in some contexts it doesn't.
I am not aware of their educational pricing, but it is my gut feeling that a
smaller multiplier is used, perhaps factor 1.2, otherwise it makes no sense
to see so many students with macbooks. Educational pricing makes a lot of
sense and makes things possible that otherwise wouldn't be, do not count me
as being against the concept.
Strangely they are toys ex works and seemingly not intended for use in a
corporate context, the lack of a combination of a tunneling client and a rdp
client caused the defeat of being unable to offer a staff member @daytime
job a rdp-access that would have been most useful. With a windows laptop it
had taken three minutes to set up. It ended up being beyond what I could
allocate time to solve and beyond the users own capabilites to find the
required software, what was found didn't. The macbook itself is a nice
laptop - I plain liked it when using it, but it only almost made to being a
candidate for my next laptop because of that.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Arny Krueger
news:050420101313582835%jimsg...@gmail.com
Both obviously written by Mac bigots for Mac bigots.
William Sommerwerck
I've posted negative comments on the first of these.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090415_602968.htm
I'm reminded of a letter the pre-"Abso!ute Sound" Harry Pearson wrote to
"Stereophile" roughly 40 years ago. He said he didn't like electrostatic
speakers because he didn't like the kind of /people/ who liked
electrostatics.
This is a big part of my problem with Apple products. The Apple-lovers'
attitude of "we're right, everyone else is wrong" is galling. But I
tolerated it, until Apple decided that the best way to promote the Mac was
to lie.
One rarely sees reviews of this sort. Even the PC mags lean toward "Apple
good, Microsoft bad".
http://www.digitaltrends.com/guides/microsoft-zune-hd-vs-apple-ipod-touch/2/
Apple products are a lot like cigarettes... People are pressed to like Apple
products because it's cool to do so, just as it's cool to smoke.
Ty Ford
(in article <hpffc2$165$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
Who gives a shit what computer I, you or someone else uses?
Have we become so insecure that we define ourselves by our toys?
I had hoped for better.
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
Audio Empire
(in article <0001HW.C7E0BF34...@News.Individual.NET>):
Let's get back to pro-audio, guys. This Mac vs PC nonsense has gone too far.
While I admit that I did help instigate it when I responded to some incorrect
information that someone posted about Macs, but tI didn't start it and that's
DONE. We need to get over this. You use what computer works best for you,
just like buy whatever vehicle works best for you. They make different
computers and different OSes because different people like or need different
things. It's called choice, and I would like just one of you guys to tell us
in what way choice is BAD?
If I want to see Mac vs. Windows, I'd post to a Mac advocacy group. I'm here
to talk about microphones, mixing boards, recording devices, etc., not
computers, except indirectly as they apply to audio.
David Nebenzahl
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 07:36:36 -0700, Ty Ford wrote
> (in article <0001HW.C7E0BF34...@News.Individual.NET>):
>
>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:10:20 -0400, William Sommerwerck wrote
>> (in article <hpffc2$165$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>>
>>>> Both obviously written by Mac bigots for Mac bigots.
>>>
>>> I've posted negative comments on the first of these.
>>>
>>> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090415_602968.htm
>>>
>>> I'm reminded of a letter the pre-"Abso!ute Sound" Harry Pearson wrote to
>>> "Stereophile" roughly 40 years ago. He said he didn't like electrostatic
>>> speakers because he didn't like the kind of /people/ who liked
>>> electrostatics.
>>>
>>> This is a big part of my problem with Apple products. The Apple-lovers'
>>> attitude of "we're right, everyone else is wrong" is galling. But I
>>> tolerated it, until Apple decided that the best way to promote the Mac was
>>> to lie.
>>>
>>> One rarely sees reviews of this sort. Even the PC mags lean toward "Apple
>>> good, Microsoft bad".
>>>
>>> http://www.digitaltrends.com/guides/microsoft-zune-hd-vs-apple-ipod-touch/2/
>>>
>>> Apple products are a lot like cigarettes... People are pressed to like Apple
>>> products because it's cool to do so, just as it's cool to smoke.
>>>
>> Who gives a shit what computer I, you or someone else uses?
>>
>> Have we become so insecure that we define ourselves by our toys?
>>
>> I had hoped for better.
>
> Let's get back to pro-audio, guys. This Mac vs PC nonsense has gone too far.
> While I admit that I did help instigate it when I responded to some incorrect
> information that someone posted about Macs, but tI didn't start it and that's
> DONE. We need to get over this. You use what computer works best for you,
> just like buy whatever vehicle works best for you. They make different
> computers and different OSes because different people like or need different
> things. It's called choice, and I would like just one of you guys to tell us
> in what way choice is BAD?
Easy, big boy. I don't think anyone's accusing *you* of being a Mac
bigot, and what you write is true. However, the fact remains that
there's a whole lot of Mac bigotry alive and well out there, and it
ought to be addressed.
Steve King
news:4bbb7bfd$0$2391$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
And addressing it will do what?
Steve King
Arny Krueger
news:0001HW.C7E0BF34...@News.Individual.NET
> Who gives a shit what computer I, you or someone else
> uses?
Depends on the context, Ty,
> Have we become so insecure that we define ourselves by
> our toys?
> I had hoped for better.
Some people do define themselves by their toys, and sometimes they try to
put their definitions onto very many other people.
Arny Krueger
in message news:hpfu1q$lj3$1...@news.albasani.net
Provide the people on the computer platform advocacy groups something to
fill their empty days.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:10:20 -0400, William Sommerwerck wrote
>(in article <hpffc2$165$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
>>> Both obviously written by Mac bigots for Mac bigots.
>>
>> I've posted negative comments on the first of these.
>>
>> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090415_602968.htm
>>
>> I'm reminded of a letter the pre-"Abso!ute Sound" Harry Pearson wrote to
>> "Stereophile" roughly 40 years ago. He said he didn't like electrostatic
>> speakers because he didn't like the kind of /people/ who liked
>> electrostatics.
>>
>> This is a big part of my problem with Apple products. The Apple-lovers'
>> attitude of "we're right, everyone else is wrong" is galling. But I
>> tolerated it, until Apple decided that the best way to promote the Mac was
>> to lie.
>>
>> One rarely sees reviews of this sort. Even the PC mags lean toward "Apple
>> good, Microsoft bad".
>>
>> http://www.digitaltrends.com/guides/microsoft-zune-hd-vs-apple-ipod-touch/2/
>>
>> Apple products are a lot like cigarettes... People are pressed to like Apple
>> products because it's cool to do so, just as it's cool to smoke.
>>
>>
>Who gives a shit what computer I, you or someone else uses?
>
>Have we become so insecure that we define ourselves by our toys?
>
>I had hoped for better.
While you chaps stand around arguing about the relative merits of PCs
and Macs, do you realize that Scrabble has just decided to permit
proper nouns? I think you all might exercise a degree of perspective
here.
d
David Nebenzahl
> While you chaps stand around arguing about the relative merits of PCs
> and Macs, do you realize that Scrabble has just decided to permit
> proper nouns? I think you all might exercise a degree of perspective
> here.
Good god[tm]! The end of the world is at hand!
I suspected it when they put lights up at Wrigley Field, but now I know
for sure.
Audio Empire
(in article <4bbb7bfd$0$2391$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com>):
Yeah, then address it in the proper venue. I just don't happen to think that
this is it.
Audio Empire
(in article <6oOdnZnUDod94ybW...@giganews.com>):
If you post it there. Posting it here will bore everyone to tears, or at
least it will bore ME to tears 8^)
Audio Empire
(in article <4bbb931e....@news.eternal-september.org>):
It's at least as important as Mac vs Windows.
Audio Empire
(in article <4bbbb036$0$2388$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com>):
> On 4/6/2010 1:03 PM Don Pearce spake thus:
>
>> While you chaps stand around arguing about the relative merits of PCs
>> and Macs, do you realize that Scrabble has just decided to permit
>> proper nouns? I think you all might exercise a degree of perspective
>> here.
>
> Good god[tm]! The end of the world is at hand!
>
> I suspected it when they put lights up at Wrigley Field, but now I know
> for sure.
>
>
>
Couldn't be that Baseball season (hurrah!( has started, could it?
Les Cargill
> On 4/6/2010 1:03 PM Don Pearce spake thus:
>
>> While you chaps stand around arguing about the relative merits of PCs
>> and Macs, do you realize that Scrabble has just decided to permit
>> proper nouns? I think you all might exercise a degree of perspective
>> here.
>
> Good god[tm]! The end of the world is at hand!
>
> I suspected it when they put lights up at Wrigley Field, but now I know
> for sure.
>
>
Oh, it was obvious when Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys and was not
immediately struck by lightning. Even worse, he ran off Jimmy
Johnson and was not *then* struck by lightning.
--
Les Cargill
David Nebenzahl
Hmm; didn't intend to steer this thread off into a sports tangent (I am
in no way a sports fan and thing baseball is the most booooring thing in
the world). But that's OK with me.
PStamler
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:36:36 -0400, Ty Ford <tyreef...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:10:20 -0400, William Sommerwerck wrote
>
> >>> Both obviously written by Mac bigots for Mac bigots.
>
> >> I've posted negative comments on the first of these.
>
>
> >> I'm reminded of a letter the pre-"Abso!ute Sound" Harry Pearson wrote to
> >> "Stereophile" roughly 40 years ago. He said he didn't like electrostatic
> >> speakers because he didn't like the kind of /people/ who liked
> >> electrostatics.
>
> >> This is a big part of my problem with Apple products. The Apple-lovers'
> >> attitude of "we're right, everyone else is wrong" is galling. But I
> >> tolerated it, until Apple decided that the best way to promote the Mac was
> >> to lie.
>
> >> One rarely sees reviews of this sort. Even the PC mags lean toward "Apple
> >> good, Microsoft bad".
>
>
> >> Apple products are a lot like cigarettes... People are pressed to like Apple
> >> products because it's cool to do so, just as it's cool to smoke.
>
> >Who gives a shit what computer I, you or someone else uses?
>
> >Have we become so insecure that we define ourselves by our toys?
>
> >I had hoped for better.
>
> While you chaps stand around arguing about the relative merits of PCs
> and Macs, do you realize that Scrabble has just decided to permit
> proper nouns? I think you all might exercise a degree of perspective
> here.
Actually, they haven't:
Peace,
Paul
Ty Ford
(in article <4bbb7bfd$0$2391$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com>):
> Easy, big boy. I don't think anyone's accusing *you* of being a Mac
> bigot, and what you write is true. However, the fact remains that
> there's a whole lot of Mac bigotry alive and well out there, and it
> ought to be addressed.
EVERYBODY with a Mac or PC hard on, go to the showers and take a cold one.
It's boring, like arguing religion.
Respectfully,
Ty Ford
(in article <4bbb931e....@news.eternal-september.org>):
> While you chaps stand around arguing about the relative merits of PCs and
> Macs, do you realize that Scrabble has just decided to permit proper nouns? I
> think you all might exercise a degree of perspective here.
>
> d
scarily, I agree!
David Nebenzahl
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 13:27:21 -0400, David Nebenzahl wrote
> (in article <4bbb7bfd$0$2391$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com>):
>
>> Easy, big boy. I don't think anyone's accusing *you* of being a Mac
>> bigot, and what you write is true. However, the fact remains that
>> there's a whole lot of Mac bigotry alive and well out there, and it
>> ought to be addressed.
>
> EVERYBODY with a Mac or PC hard on, go to the showers and take a cold one.
>
> It's boring, like arguing religion.
Well, ackshooly, it *is* a religious argument (akin to *nix vs. other
OSes). Some of us like to discuss such things. And if you don't want to
participate, you don't have to. You could, oh, I don't know, choose not
to read such posts.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Well, ackshooly, it *is* a religious argument (akin to *nix vs. other
>OSes). Some of us like to discuss such things. And if you don't want to
>participate, you don't have to. You could, oh, I don't know, choose not
>to read such posts.
You might want to take it to one of the .advocacy groups whose charter
encourages such discussion, rather than r.a.p where the charter rather
discourages it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Hank
David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>On 4/7/2010 7:41 AM Ty Ford spake thus:
>
>
>Well, ackshooly, it *is* a religious argument (akin to *nix vs. other
>OSes). Some of us like to discuss such things. And if you don't want to
>participate, you don't have to. You could, oh, I don't know, choose not
>to read such posts.
>
the advocacy groups.
The fact that I posted about getting my TNE 7000 connected in my
analogue audio setup means that I needed some help, which I got.
Followed by a great deal of razzle-dazzle about computers and their
operating systems, which are not material to my getting clean analogue
audio.
Hank
Audio Empire
(in article <hpipp5$o5j$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
Actually, I started this by recommending that you use Audacity or other
audio program on a computer to do what you need to do. That's all this
started with. The "religious wars" came later in the thread. I've used the
Burwen and I think that using a computer running Audacity (available for all
three platforms, Linux, Mac, and Windows) to work on the file once it's been
transferred to digital yields a much better sounding transfer and does a
better job of removing tics and pops than the Burwen does. You use what you
want, of course. Suggestions for alternatives are just that, suggestions. I'm
certainly not trying to tell you what to do or what computer to use when
doing it.