Oneness

I have been reading about DVD-A and for music it supports the MLP compression. Does Logic support this in the creation of a DVD-A?

It happens because they want to be helpful, that's all. Like me! Some people want to be helpful and some just want to push a discussion into a direction they want to discuss because it they started a thread on what they wanted to discuss, no one would want to join in... And I am not referring to you ski.

Methinks it's time for you to take a chill pill. I simply offered my perspective, that's all (see the end of my last post). I'm not trying to shoot you down. But in any event, now you're saying you have your mind made up and you don't want to entertain perspectives, in which case I have to question why you started this thread, viz: I appreciate your time taken. I do listen to many things, some things i can't discuss as i just can't.. I wasn't aware of the things associated with using this system and if what it can and can't do from a tracking perspective. I don't know anyone that uses the MacPro with Symphony 64 tracking 48 tracks (192 or otherwise) and using a Promise RAID system and for long periods of tracking time. From my reading the Symphony 64 (clocked properly, of course), so far, is what I feel is the most likely candidate, but i have to look at other things surrounding it. Then all of a sudden, other people starting taking the thread into another direction. Why? God only know.

If you can't help me, then don't try. I have my methods for doing things and I decide what companies I like and want to deal with and I am in research mode right now. Some decisions have already been made and some haven't. The company that makes the playback system is the ONLY company I will deal with. Why? They, to me, know what they are doing, and they don't just release updates without ensuring that it was worthwhile doing from a sonic perspective. Apple is also taking a great course for the OS, Logic, etc., and I trust they will be able to provide what I need. I may have narrowed the console. I think it will provide what I need to do. If something changes between now and the time I am ready to purchase, then I will.

If you can't help me, then don't try. I have my methods for doing things and I decide what companies I like and want to deal with and I am in research mode right now. Some decisions have already been made and some haven't. The company that makes the playback system is the ONLY company I will deal with. Why? They, to me, know what they are doing, and they don't just release updates without ensuring that it was worthwhile doing from a sonic perspective. Apple is also taking a great course for the OS, Logic, etc., and I trust they will be able to provide what I need.

marcel72, please go to another forum. You are wasting my time. Maybe you should get the MR-1000 and go out in the field and track birds singing and bees buzzing.

You can stack and interface converters any way you like, as long as you clock them well. Lucid, Lavry, Prism, the list goes on . . As mentioned previously, the caf format gets you past the 4gB limit. Besides plug-ins not requiring the additional DAC and ADC path, you'll find that almost all high end dynamics plugs requiring lookahead, eg transient modulators, etc. will outperform their analog counterparts. But there are some straight emulations that, IMO, sound better too, UAD's Cambridge EQ and VCA VU come to mind. Others that simply aren't available as hardware, or would require multiple hardware, ProAudioDSP's DSM plug, for example. I could go on all day . . . If you were going to stack Lavry converters to do 48 tracks, how is this done? I know they only do 96 on down.

You can stack and interface converters any way you like, as long as you clock them well. Lucid, Lavry, Prism, the list goes on . . As mentioned previously, the caf format gets you past the 4gB limit. Besides plug-ins not requiring the additional DAC and ADC path, you'll find that almost all high end dynamics plugs requiring lookahead, eg transient modulators, etc. will outperform their analog counterparts. But there are some straight emulations that, IMO, sound better too, UAD's Cambridge EQ and VCA VU come to mind. Others that simply aren't available as hardware, or would require multiple hardware, ProAudioDSP's DSM plug, for example. I could go on all day . . . What playback system are you using to judge which sounds better?

McLaughlin is cool no matter what he plays on. I still like his older sound running through a boogie or marshall stack cranked up with lots of sustain and distortion.

You do. PCM audio is PCM audio, there is absolutely no qualitative difference between AIF, BWF, or CAF files. The convenience and interface options of these formats are tied to the DAW and platform(s) you use. You're barking up the wrong tree. Assuming you have the analogue ends figured out (which you are saying you do) the quality of PCM capture at any SR higher than 44.1kHz is almost entirely dependent on the quality of the A/D conversion. Prism Dream or Lavry or DAD or Weiss converters will probably sound appreciably better at 48kHz than RME or MOTU converters will at 192kHz. Whether or not you can afford to play the game on this level is up to you. People have this impression that DAWs are somehow a cheaper option than tape, but I disagree. I don't know what you're paying for 2" right now, but I bet it pales in comparison to the tag for 48 tracks of pro quality AD and DA conversion. Media is (relatively) cheap, but the hardware is certainly not. I didn't say multi track digital recording is cheaper. Hard drives, to me, are cheap. Do you know the costs associated with running and maintaining 2 24 track tape machines? Even getting two that sound identical? Getting them in tip top working order 100% of the time? No tape hiss? Tape that doesn't degrade over time? Being able to track for 45 or long minutes without changing a tape? Tape, as great as it can sound, digital recording is here and 2 inch tape machines aren't made anymore. Another thing is that a lot of people aren't clocking their digital systems properly and with the right clocking, they can get their converters for tracking, etc. to sound better.

You do. PCM audio is PCM audio, there is absolutely no qualitative difference between AIF, BWF, or CAF files. The convenience and interface options of these formats are tied to the DAW and platform(s) you use. You're barking up the wrong tree. Assuming you have the analogue ends figured out (which you are saying you do) the quality of PCM capture at any SR higher than 44.1kHz is almost entirely dependent on the quality of the A/D conversion. Prism Dream or Lavry or DAD or Weiss converters will probably sound appreciably better at 48kHz than RME or MOTU converters will at 192kHz. Whether or not you can afford to play the game on this level is up to you. People have this impression that DAWs are somehow a cheaper option than tape, but I disagree. I don't know what you're paying for 2" right now, but I bet it pales in comparison to the tag for 48 tracks of pro quality AD and DA conversion. Media is (relatively) cheap, but the hardware is certainly not. I didn't say multi track digital recording is cheaper. Hard drives, to me, are cheap. Do you know the costs associated with running and maintaining 2 24 track tape machines? Even getting two that sound identical? Getting them in tip top working order 100% of the time? No tape hiss? Tape that doesn't degrade over time? Being able to track for 45 or long minutes without changing a tape? Tape, as great as it can sound, digital recording is here and 2 inch tape machines aren't made anymore.

Wav, aif, caf all contain linear pcm data. It's just a different container. That's true, some plugs are way better than their analog counterparts! Oneness, I would suggest you try to team up with someone local that can assist you and teach you about high end digital audio recording. There's no substitute for experience and you'd leapfrog a lot of these details. Where are you located? We might be able to suggest someone. Which plug in is better than the analog counterpart? that I might be interested in.

You do. PCM audio is PCM audio, there is absolutely no qualitative difference between AIF, BWF, or CAF files. The convenience and interface options of these formats are tied to the DAW and platform(s) you use. You're barking up the wrong tree. Assuming you have the analogue ends figured out (which you are saying you do) the quality of PCM capture at any SR higher than 44.1kHz is almost entirely dependent on the quality of the A/D conversion. Prism Dream or Lavry or DAD or Weiss converters will probably sound appreciably better at 48kHz than RME or MOTU converters will at 192kHz. Whether or not you can afford to play the game on this level is up to you. People have this impression that DAWs are somehow a cheaper option than tape, but I disagree. I don't know what you're paying for 2" right now, but I bet it pales in comparison to the tag for 48 tracks of pro quality AD and DA conversion. Media is (relatively) cheap, but the hardware is certainly not. 2 inch tape isn't an option. OK? There are too many aspects of 2 inch tape that don't want to deal with. Plus, one has to convert it over to digital anyway. I am going to be tracking as many as 48 channels OK? How many converters are there to track 48 tracks? To my knowledge, there is the RADAR system by IZ, Pro Tools, and Apogee. Any others that you know of? if so, I'll consider it. But I have to also look at which file format to track in where I can press the record button and let it go and not have to worry about a 4G limitation.

I understand and appreciate your concerns. By the time i get finalized, the computers and OS, and maybe even Logic will get a drastic upgrade. Snow Leopard is probably going to solve some of the choking problems, just as the next generation MacPro, as well as the next generation of Logic. Stuff gets faster and faster. Actually, the end result I want to achieve will have a good experience for the average home theater owner that can play BluRay, but for those that will be using a more advanced home theater, they'll just get an even better experience. I see that BluRay, despite what some people say, is the latest emerging technology and that TrueHD is the choice for audio and every day, that market gets bigger and bigger.

umm... you started a post on the topic. We are just trying to play devils advocate to make sure your method is well thought out. That's all. Please don't get defensive. Oh, and we all know things everyone else doesn't Don't worry, I am not getting defensive. I just to look at the various options and make sure i have green lights. When I get a yellow or red light, that just indicates I have to do more research. LOL. The problem that i have noticed, so far, is that the "industry" is pretty much used to WAVE files coming into the mastering labs. I am not convinced that wave is the right direction. So if these engineers haven't used caf because they are stuck in the Pro Tools mentality, I can't help it. The direction I am going in will give me probably at least 6 different ways of doing the recording process from beginning to end in terms of testing. So, if I do implement what I am currently planning, I could easily test 6 or more methods of the process and decide which makes the most sense and yields the best finished product and the only thing that I see is how much hard drive space I need and which is the most reliable and whatever sonic differences there are. The playback system will consist of both active that either goes through another conversion process or not. But i have to test tracking at both 96 and 192 using both to see if there is a difference in 96 or 192. Until someone says that tracking CAF files sucks, then I will use WAV, but no one has said that. Some people buy things that are either over or under a level that I would use and I have to decide for myself which I can justify. In the end, I want to put something out that I will be happy with and that people enjoy. From my perspective, I am investigating the Logic/Symphony 64/Promise RAID system as a replacement for two 24 track 2 inch tape machines. Editing will be mostly just to splice the tracks, but I still want the ability to clean something for only certain circumstances. Until plug-in technology gets better, I will be using inserts and using it sparingly for many projects. Some projects, i may decide to use more inserts. But plug-ins to me don't sound like the real thing. They are getting closer.