nikki-k

I cant believe i have to continue this...and this is it. Martin- I have apologized for my posting as I did, and have done so I dont even know how many times now. I dont know how to make that any clearer. Google away! I have no producing credits. I am a musician, and have never wanted fame. I like going to a store and NOT being recognized. I have done tech edits for Thomson Publishing, I am credited with Digidesign (which might just irk some, or make them think me simply a troll), and have over 20 years of being in the music business, on both sides of the glass and boards. But, none of that has anything to do with the single piece being debated here. OK- let me get this absolutely, 100% straight: you, Martin Sitter, agree with Steve- shoelick- that bandlimited means it is a sine wave, and not a more complex "sound"? I really want this one on the record please. The post he made takes a term, bandlimited, misinterprets it, and then proceeds to use it as the basis of proving how you were correct, and I (and Nyquist, Shannon, et al) are wrong. But, as one of your disciples, I suppose he has no real choice...unless he opts for a legal name change to Judas I suppose... I was treated poorly via email due to the post. I asked for the thread to be deleted after I realized my error in etiquette, apologized, etc. You guys did not want to accept the apology, or delete the post. So be it. I have discovered that people have their OS they love, their app they love, and then their deities they love. Toe any line, and get slammed. It just isnt worth it anymore. So, be as condescending as you please, and your pal Gosia can be worse if you like. And all your fanboys can slam me and flame all they want. I came to this forum looking for some insight, found some very cool people, and then based on all the claims, hit macprovideo. I made a mistake in posting dissatisfaction, apologized, and have never been forgiven. I offered a way at the very first realization of this to resolve, and was rejected. I have the emails, I have the thread...I can post them all in their entirety, but who really f'in cares? I have points you claim in the videos regarding digital audio that, based on Laws and facts, I feel were not expressed properly, and in the way they were presented, I (and several other noted engineers) see them as untrue, or incorrect. Had you qualified each of those statements with more information, they COULD have been acceptable IMO. But they weren't, and due to the incompleteness of the statements made, with no context to qualify, they are wrong. If you are saying the same as what the maths say, then I have already asked that you present even one paper or book that backs that up- you have provided none, except to attack my character, or attempt to belittle me, or reduce me in the eyes of others (to place yourself above reproach) thru "what are your credentials?" They dont matter- I am presenting material that explains what I say. THEIR credentials are what you must question, not mine as a presenter of them. David- I will say it again- you have an excellent forum here, and I am very sorry my presence has caused this exercise in ridiculousness. I will bow out of this forum now, so as to not upset anyone further. Please do not PM me, please do not email (removing that as well). Martin...well, I tried to apologize. And of my complaints, the only one I asked you to qualify was the "more slices equals better quality with digital audio." You never have. Maybe for dogs or other animals with an extended range, 192k and higher would make sense. You have my contact info from my purchase. You are welcome to contact me, and I will apologize in person, if that is what it takes. Or, continue to belittle me if that is what it takes for you. (wow- I am doing the same to you now, arent I? maybe I AM learning after all, like you say...maybe I should make a video of it, and then one day you might be able to do the same...but, I guess gods and generals do not concern themselves with this type of simple human indecency...)

Rough question, and depends on intent of use, and cash to spend I think. Vienna Symphonic Libraries are quite nice, and at the lower end of the cash ladder would be the very excellent Garritan Personal Orchestra (I love this library!). East-West has a nice one as well, with a few levels of buying/quality. You might want to try over here as well for some good reading. Alot of composers and students and developers hang there.

Wow...I am speechless... I wont say it so I dont get the for it... Oh, wth... dude, you seriously need some schooling. "Bandlimited" does NOT mean a sine wave. Martin is wrong, you even more wrong. What this post does prove is why it is easy for people to believe what is not true. Now! So that I do not have to continue defending my postings... What is "bandlimited"? ANSWER What is Nyquist's theory (not theorum) about? Well, this is actually better absorbed in this case when considered along with Shannon's Theorum and proof, and also if the principle contributors are also considered. See here Now, the math itself is what I was originally referring to, since Martin did NOT include a qualifier in his statements. Inofitself, it is incorrect. However, the theorum/proof put into effect with a device (ADC/DAC, specifically for use in PCM type digital audio work) DOES have flaws... not the math, but the equipment. For simplicities sake, and for those not curious enough to spend the time with the proper reading material, TRY THIS OUT and simply scroll down to the "Practical Implications" section, and read the first sentence. IMO, this sums things up quite nicely, and is a very succinct manner of relaying this one fact: We all have different perception of everything in life. Your milage WILL vary. But do NOT blame the math: blame yourselves for not being capable (at this time!) of utilizing that bit of truth in a precise and infallible manner. Listen, if you want to waste your time and money on uber-wicked high sampel rates because you think it is giving you better results, have a blast! Every single person has the right to do this, and no, even I wont say you are wrong about what you are hearing. But tell me that WHY you are hearing it like that is because you have more samples per second, and I will have to sigh, and hope that someday you will at least attempt to alleviate your ignorance just a little and at least educate yourself. Point blank? "Here is the math. Here is the theory that prompted the theorum, and we were lucky to have someone who cared enough to dedicate himself to providing the proof. Unfortunately, this math cannot be perfectly implemented in any device known to humans...yet. As such, while this is the Law, YOU will have to be the judge as to which implementation provides the best results, and at what rate, for YOU. World class mastering engineers with the most golden of ears have been satisfied with work at 16 bits and 44.1k sample rates. So, please, do not feel as if you are missing something in what you perceive as quality sound if you simply prefer a lower sample rate. And please? Educate. And try different pieces of equipment. You might be suprised at the sheer number fo flavours out there" Oh- and before worrying about sample rates? Spend time on your listening environment please. Acoustics and proper monitors set up properly will make the rest of it worthless if not done well enough. I am not saying anything more in this thread, or any other on this forum concerning this now. I have provided SO much information, I have QUALIFIED every statement I have made (I think!) and have prattled on and on because education is more important to me than most any other thing. Dismiss me all you want...but do so with a bit of knowledge first please? (thx to David for this forum, and for allowing me my rantings...)

@cynetmedia: No, I dont know you, you dont know me. If you feel my comments of ignorance were aimed at you specifically, then I am sorry you saw it that way. When you post twice that "If I dont liek Logic, find something else..." (paraphrased), then I am absolutely entitled to eb a little confrontational in direct regard to that; It was that I had never once mentioned a dissatisfaction with Logic that irked me with your comment. That's all! I have spent time with Logic, and really like it alot. @the others: Thank you, and yes, I meant no personal disrespect to Mr Sitter. I truly did not. My intial dissatisfaction with th eproduct I bought was due to seeing so many positive reviews, even from people who had used Logic for months. I found out very quickly that from my years of experience, I simply had a much easier time getting into Logic's "headspace" than someone who is fressh and new to DAW's. And yes- I am a complete nut when it comes to foundations. IMO, and many very well known and revered people in various industries that directly relate with this, Nyquist and Shannon are Law. But, we are all also people. We are completely fascinated with the results of working with solid equipment, and the aural results *can* conflict (to some extent; not much, comparitively tho) with what we think SHOULD be the result, due to those Laws and Proofs. And it comes down to equipment and implementation, not more samples per second. What this does, bottom line, is present a set of facts. Hard, proven, 100% undeniable facts. THIS is where Martin erred, IMO. BUT!! In practical application? It is generally accepted that 96k and 24-bit would be a perfectly acceptable AND reasonable tracking setup. Higher than that? Well, a considerable majority would opt to discover fi the equipment were not the cause for lack of quality BEFORE opting for a higher rate. And that is because, quite simply, there is NO evidence whatsoever that would suggest that exceeding 96k would afford anything...unless one was loking for a specific type of aural distortion to be introduced. Sorry to prattle on an don. I do truly love music, and I LOVE the modern tools we have. No more degaussing? Yeehaw!!! Happy as a pig in mud! And I will say it again: Martin Sitter does an excellent job explaining the basics of Logic. IMO, if you are looking to get more out of it, grab the vids. But, if you, like me, have a very solid background, and have not hit a brickwall that some time with the manual, or maybe a search thru here or Apple Discussions, or post a question yourself wont resolve, the videos might be a bit...elementary for you. Just my opinion. And I will say it til I am dead: Educate people. Grab Bob Katz's book "Mastering Audio" and Nika ALdrich's "Digital Audio Explained..." Take a week to read them, or take a lifetime to read them. But please: at least give it a shot? It could never hurt, and even if you gain 1% in knowledge...well, maybe it might just provoke some independent thought inside yourself. Martin, I dont know you, you are prolly a great guy. So I will say it again: I am sorry if you were offended by anything I said.

All of the above. I absolutely love the uniqueness of each person's "headspace" and workflow. As such, I think it affects all the things you presented...and more (more interested in the creative and technical though...lol...)

I read your responses on the MPV site & responded there as well. All I have to say is Martin is the guy who writes the training books used for certification in Logic. Im pretty sure he knows what hes talking about, I had read all the articles you mentioned in your post (most of them a long time ago) and if your going for status-quo then yea there are some thing that might be wrong. But the bottom line is your ears have to be the final judge of what your trying to record. Ill end with what I mentioned on the MPV board - if your not into Logic use something else as long as you get the result your looking for sonically... OK.. this is why I will en dup NOT posting in forums anymore. Complete ignorance, and an unending inability of people to actually READ what is written. Please- even ONE instance, anywhere that I said I did not like Logic, or thought Logic was not for me in that thread? You cant, and wont, because I NEVER did. I am not bringing my complaints form there to here re: my dissatisfaction. However... What Martin said about sample rate is WRONG. PERIOD. It is completely untrue. Well, I guess if you throw out Nyquist's findings, and then completely disregard what Shannon postulated, created a theorum for, and provided a PROOF for...well, then yes, there is a very slim possibility that Martin is right, and those pioneers are wrong. What Martin claims is that if you compare digitizing audio input to capturing each sample as a slice, then you will continually observe improvement in the quality of the signal as you increase the number of slices per second. He went on to compare this to a staircase, and that as you decrease the *time* between slices, you get closer to a "pure analogue signal representation." It is a false method of trying to create a visualization aid for explaining what sample rate is. Shannon cannot be disputed. You can try, and you can claim you "hear things that make it untrue." But, the problem is that you are then dealing with application of a principle in an unpure environment. Components, such as the filters and analogue front and back end come into play, smearing/colouring. In the PCM world, 96k is the highest one would need to go with converters of the highest quality. This is simply due to filter design, and component usage..and a healthy chunk of a debate as to the affects of higher order harmonics (existing above our- human- range of direct hearing translation) on those we do hear. Intermodulation, etc. "Smear." Distortion. Some would offer up that there exists a magic number, ~60k, that is the highest we would ever require, with a severe constant being available: a properly designed and implemented filter, coupled with proper clocking, and the most transparent analogue components available. A nice analogy is this: If you take an X/Y grid, and give someone a point of center, and then provide two more points, the exact circle can be known. If you were to take those two points, and find the closest distance between them, and create a radiused line between them based on that centre point, you would have a perfect radius. You could continue to supply points along that radius to further define it. You could includ epoints outside that line to offer more information. But, all of that extra data is completely, 100% unnnecessary: the radius was known, in perfect size and shape, with those 2 points and the known centre. This is, in fact, and VERY, VERY, VERY simplified way to introduce someone to the "headspace" Nyquist probably was in when he came up with his theory. IOW, with 44.1k slices or snapshots taken each second, the information they provide are enough to accurately reproduce the aural information up ~21k. To accurately reproduce an "aural plot" of any of the higher frequencies would require more information, or more slices...snapshots..samples. Since we cannot hear information above 20k (when we are very, very young for even that high), many consider that information to be unneeded. Since most of the equipment we use (outside of the most high end equipment that any of us will ever find the ability to use on a regular basis) has a limited frequency range (typically ~10 - ~24k), one could argue that using a higher sample rate simply introduces some *distortions* that can cause one to find the higher rate more pleasing, even though there is no actual information being "sampled" in those frequencies. Argue all you want, think ill of me for saying what I have, and for arguing with one of the "Logic Gurus." Either he is right, or Shannon is right. It is that simple. But please- read what I wrote in that thread before calling me something I am not. I was dissatisfied, and then they were unhappy about my posting. I apologized for the remarks I made about the videos, I offered, and then asked them to delete the thread. I apologized once again. My only stipulation was that I would NEVER concede to what he said about sample rate as being true, simply because it is not. Shannon and Nyquist and the others in that field affect not just digital audio. It impacts in a MUCH larger way. It affects many other fields. Until someone disproves Shannon, Martin is, I am sorry to say, wrong. With that out of the way..the next question is: why does my XXX set of converters sound better at 96K and then even better still at 192k Miss Wisearse? Simple. The maths are solid. The theory and proof are solid. The application in the form of hardware is flawed. It is a simple matter of designing and then implementing the best possible filters, and then analogue components, and then clock. Jitter adds distortion. Analogue components will add distortions. Improperly designed filters will add distortions. Humans love certain types of distortions. Thus, a pristine converter set m ight actually sound "worse" to someone doing rock music than a nice set of Apogee converters. Apogee have great converters. The colour they impart is one that MANY find pleasing. But poll engineers who would require the most pristine, crystal clear converters that will impart the least colouring possible, and I doubt Apogee would be a consideration (sorry Max at Apogee- no offense intended!!!). And the converters in that scenario, budget permitting, would probably be in the area of $5-6k per channel of single direction conversion. I have already wasted time writing all this, when so very few will care. Some will take offense that I even had the nerve to say something so vile about their "uber guru." Others will dismiss it with a "pfft." And it is sad. I dont care what you think of me. I really dont. But, what I do care about is education. Please people- please! Educate. Martin is an excellent authority on Logic. If you want to learn to use Logic, I dont think you will find many that are better. His videos are an excellent way to learn. I respect him, and applaude him in that. But if you want to learn the principles of digital audio- find that in those who specialize in THAT area. Educate on the foundations of digital audio. Nyquist. Shannon. And those who have expanded on them. Nika Aldrich has an EXCELLENT book that is 99.9% impartial. It presents the facts. But, it leaves room for personal taste, which, in the end, is what it is all about!!! If you want to use 192k, cool! Have a blast, if it sounds that good to you. But, all I wish is that anyone deciding to do so would first educate themselves. You might then turn and ask yourself, and the manufacturer, "Well, why DOES this converter sound so much better to ME at 192k? Is it just this converter? Would anothe rconverter sound even better at 48k?" Education. Educate first, react later. (had I followed my own advice, I would not have even begun that thread...oh, the irony...)

Melodyne!

Had the opposite experience... the Logic knowledge in them is great, but the digital audio knowledge (in Logic 101) is not accurate.

Ditto! Those three new tools are really nice. PT can do the same thing, more or less, also. However, I believe Logic Pro is the only app to begin recording BEFORE the punch point, thus allowing one to *slide* that glorious piece of "ooops" one might have done when cutting in early with that once in a lifetime riff...no? (I know- evilness..but....I would love to be able to pick and choose the features I want from DP, PT, LP and Cubase and combine them for my own happy little delusional DAW...lol...)

Hi dk! Did you move (or copy) the 3 original .nks files (they are the big files; like ~500-600M each I think) into the new GPO KP2 Library folder? Have you seen the page for helping with the install process? http://www.garritan.com/K2MacUpdate.html I have not been in front of my Mac all day (medical fun), so I dont have a reference right this moment. Worst case, if you dont have it resolved by tomorrow afternoon, I could offer to send you my phone number, and then I can walk thru some quickie trouble-shooting to see if I can help find out why it isnt working. (ps- will send the icon package tomorrow as well when I fire the Mac back up)

Hi! Absolutely! Keep in mind though...I have replaced nearly all of the default icons! I colected the ones I felt I would use, which included drums, drum instruments, guitars, basses, amps, synths, keys (B3, piano, etc), and then certain track types- folders, take numbers, track types, etc. Feel free to email me... I can send you the ../Icon folder, compressed (.zip), and include a screenshot of the icons as displayed when I click on a track icon to set the icon.

Hehehe.... I am still very new around here, but Jay, cmon! You know we are all musicians/composers/artists. And as such, we are dreamers . Plus, Logic is, like anything one likes (or loves); like a child growing. Someone else's child, but we are still are very interested in how the days, months and years are treating the child. What will the child be like next time we see him/her? How will time have changed him/her? What will he/she have learned? Right now I am checking email, sitting back watching a Janis Joplin documentary, and hitting forums. I will be spending ALOT of time digging into the Logic Environment later. And it will be tedious, and rewarding. But right now, at this moment I am just like a little kid, wondering what Apple/Emagic will have brought us for a nice new present, and when that present might arrive. Heck, the suspense of the whole thing is half the fun!!! But once I get up and going with the rest of my day, Logic's future will occupy very, very, very little of my thoughts, if any thought at all. But sitting here now with all the other aunts and uncles? HEHEHEHE!!! Well, I am sititng with them, wondering how mama emagic and papa apple have treated this child, what they have taught him/her, what they have been doing, is all well, and....do you have any pics? LOL!!! (and I guess I shouldn't mention that the froogle and google searches haven't shown the "Ignite!" version in that series of books yet....uh oh..oops....another placeholder to, erm, ignite speculations....hehehe..)(and as far as spilling beans...all I know is that all the major players have stuff happening this year...good stuff all around supposedly...no idea when tho...)

Hi! I have done work for Thomson (Delmar) before (for their Pro Tools books and vids), and while I found this "placeholder" and realize it does not outright mean anything solid...welll... The name of a new version of Logic, if it remains named "Logic," is not what was my main concern; rather, given timetables and such, Amazon has a release of next month. Thomson/Delmar has it as November!!! I found that very interesting. I am saying no more on this one. And Orren, sorry if this caused problems.

I am curious what this is about. The publisher's site has a different release date tho... maybe it is a sign? But, a good one or a bad one?

Hi! I have added a MacBook Pro to my stable today! (yes, I am smiling all day so far!) I spend time in bed due to medical problems sometimes, and although I am sitting up, using the MBP can be rough at times. The worst part is that I cannot feel the heat (paraplegic), so I am very scared of burning my legs (happened with an old laptop sometime ago...live and learn). I will be using Logic Pro on it, and would love to have something to get it up off my lap a bit, while also providing excellent (pasive) cooling for it. I saw the ilap, and thought it would be brilliant. But, then I saw a few "lap table" thingies that were wider- about 20" wide! And I saw that I would be able to use a mouse with one of those, vs the track pad (which I actually dont mind too much, ut...) So- does anyone have experience with any of these? The ilap? Wider option that would allow mouse use? The new MBP's with the Core 2 Duo are wicked cool, comparitively. I am writing this on it now, and the temp is only 40c for each core, and the bottom of the MBP is totally bearable for me to hold with my hands. Also- are there any other things I should consider? I have seen key overlays, but dont know if that is really necessary. But, what about the screen? (I got the anti-glare/matte one...I usually have a light on behind me in my bed) Any tips and stuff greatly appreciated!!! Thx!