glad I have Reaktor and wont be wasting time with this.


http://www.clavia.se/G2/demo/index.htm

"Before you start this demo program you must realize that this software only hints on the possibilities of the hardware. This demo program itself is not intended to be used as a musical tool. Of course, the G2 hardware instruments are real professional musical instruments. That's why they are designed as independent hardware instruments with a velocity and aftertouch sensitive keyboard the acclaimed Clavia pitchstick and modulation wheels, plus a revolutionary new front panel concept. In our view, only hardware can offer rockstable and trouble free operation in a 'single box solution'. In other words; real musical instruments that you just pick up and take on the road to do a gig or a recording session. Or just to have a good time jamming with your friends. Still, this demo software gives you a good chance to see and hear what those characteristic high quality sounds of the G2 instruments are all about. And try out the endless possibilities by patching new synthesizers."

disappointing yet typical stance from a hardware-oriented company..


that said.. it sounds good.. but not much if any better (to my ears) than what zynaddsubfx can do.. and thats free.

Ummm you even read what this is? It's a demo for their hardware synth, and nothing more. Doesn't sound like you've actually played with a real G2 either.

Devon

Seems pretty reasonable to me, everything they seem to claim in what you quote is basically true. I mean they're not saying "our magical dsps use fairy dust to give a warm analog fat transparent clear clean airy sound impossible to achieve on a computer" or whatever.

Are you suggesting that it's somehow less convenient to have a complete instrument in one unit, or that plugins in general are, overall, more reliable than a well-made hardware synth, or that the interface they put on the KB version isn't good, or that these are attributes that aren't indicative of a high-quality, professional instrument?

What they are saying is the Imposcar and Reaktor is not pro spec. Thats complete bullshit.

Their demo sounds like a free soft synth.

Montana wrote:

glad I have Reaktor and wont be wasting time with this. http://www.clavia.se/G2/demo/index.htm "Before you start this demo program you must realize that this software only hints on the possibilities of the hardware. This demo program itself is not intended to be used as a musical tool. Of course, the G2 hardware instruments are real professional musical instruments. That's why they are designed as independent hardware instruments with a velocity and aftertouch sensitive keyboard the acclaimed Clavia pitchstick and modulation wheels, plus a revolutionary new front panel concept. In our view, only hardware can offer rockstable and trouble free operation in a 'single box solution'. In other words; real musical instruments that you just pick up and take on the road to do a gig or a recording session. Or just to have a good time jamming with your friends. Still, this demo software gives you a good chance to see and hear what those characteristic high quality sounds of the G2 instruments are all about. And try out the endless possibilities by patching new synthesizers."

So? It's all true what they write.
And please edit the thread title; they don't say this anywhere.

I would never even think about risking the use of any NI software at a gig, Reaktor included, and their points are still valid.

So in that sense, yes, Reaktor or whatever other softsynth is not "professional quality".

Anyway, no point in getting worked up over marketing, which of course is trying to convince you that their product is better than the competition. "Professional quality" doesn't mean a whole lot, a spoon and a plastic bucket are professional quality if you put them on a record and it sells a million copies.

Montana wrote:

What they are saying is the Imposcar and Reaktor is not pro spec.

No. They say that NMG2 is a real professional musical instrument. You might know that Imposcar and Reaktor are virtual professional musical instruments.
Apart from that, they don't even compare the NMG2 to softsynths, they just point out the difference between their demo and the hardware.

Please edit the thread title. It's not a quote from Clavia, it's made up by you.

contrast wrote:

I would never even think about risking the use of any NI software at a gig, Reaktor included, and their points are still valid.

Really? I've played hundreds of concerts with Reaktor without one single crash. But then, I am using a Mac.

dr.wackler wrote:

contrast wrote: I would never even think about risking the use of any NI software at a gig, Reaktor included, and their points are still valid. Really? I've played hundreds of concerts with Reaktor without one single crash. But then, I am using a Mac.

According to all my Mac buds, that was even MORE reason to be scared! Well, not true anymore with the new 4.x version, but certainly was for 2.x and 3.x.

Devon

go go gadget reading comprehension

yet this is still a fully functionnal monophonic version of the nord modular.

Most patches use about 40% CPU but that may very well be doctored....

To each their own, but G2 does kick a little bit of ass.

DevonB wrote:

dr.wackler wrote: contrast wrote: I would never even think about risking the use of any NI software at a gig, Reaktor included, and their points are still valid. Really? I've played hundreds of concerts with Reaktor without one single crash. But then, I am using a Mac. According to all my Mac buds, that was even MORE reason to be scared! Well, not true anymore with the new 4.x version, but certainly was for 2.x and 3.x. Devon

Quite: 2.3 was rock solid for live, 3 to be skipped (I kept on using 2.3 live! also because some parameters were scaled differently in 3, but mainly because it was unstable), 4 again is rock solid.

dr.wackler wrote:

Montana wrote: What they are saying is the Imposcar and Reaktor is not pro spec. No. They say that NMG2 is a real professional musical instrument. You might know that Imposcar and Reaktor are virtual professional musical instruments. Apart from that, they don't even compare the NMG2 to softsynths, they just point out the difference between their demo and the hardware. Please edit the thread title. It's not a quote from Clavia, it's made up by you.

I suppose its your interpretation of what they meant by the word 'real' huh?

My view is they meant, the PC (or mac) isnt up to 'professional' standards. And furthermore, since they aren't up to these standards, one should spend big bucks on their hardware

its on page 9 of the pdf..

but like I mentioned before.. its not a shocking stance from a hardware-oriented company to make such claims.. at least they used 'in their opinion' in their conclusions. And even if they didn't, its not stopping me from using my 'fake' virtual synths..

VitaminD wrote:

dr.wackler wrote: Montana wrote: What they are saying is the Imposcar and Reaktor is not pro spec. No. They say that NMG2 is a real professional musical instrument. You might know that Imposcar and Reaktor are virtual professional musical instruments. Apart from that, they don't even compare the NMG2 to softsynths, they just point out the difference between their demo and the hardware. Please edit the thread title. It's not a quote from Clavia, it's made up by you. I suppose its your interpretation of what they meant by the word 'real' huh?

I may not be a native English speaker, but I do know the difference between "real" and "really". They do not say "G2 hardware instruments are realy professional musical instruments".
Montana pretends to quote something in the thread title that just isn't a quote. It's a lie to claim they had said this. Simple as that. Bush couldn't have done better!

Montana wrote:

glad I have Reaktor and wont be wasting time with this. http://www.clavia.se/G2/demo/index.htm

It looks like you misunderstood and thought you were getting a full version of a G2 emulation

dr.wackler wrote:

VitaminD wrote: dr.wackler wrote: Montana wrote: What they are saying is the Imposcar and Reaktor is not pro spec. No. They say that NMG2 is a real professional musical instrument. You might know that Imposcar and Reaktor are virtual professional musical instruments. Apart from that, they don't even compare the NMG2 to softsynths, they just point out the difference between their demo and the hardware. Please edit the thread title. It's not a quote from Clavia, it's made up by you. I suppose its your interpretation of what they meant by the word 'real' huh? I may not be a native English speaker, but I do know the difference between "real" and "really". They do not say "G2 hardware instruments are realy professional musical instruments". Montana pretends to quote something in the thread title that just isn't a quote. It's a lie to claim they had said this. Simple as that. Bush couldn't have done better!

well.. that quote is NOT in the pdf (as far as I could tell).. but it can definately be argued that the quote is what they meant from the paragraph on page 9. I can see how it could be seen that way.. easily.

and Bush has nothing to do with this.. please keep him out of it

hardware complex... well, there will always be men who have to let the world know that their SOFTware is 'hard enough' and up to 'professional' standard... erm... yeah. :p

be cool as a VSTi, but I suppose theyd be cutting their own nose off

Some of you are reading way too much into what Clavia said. I don't think they're dissing software instruments in any way. That didn't even cross my mind when I read the announcement at the Clavia site. I took the "Of course..." line to mean "A real G2 can do much more than this demo can." Please read the line right before "Of course..." more carefully.

Having said that, the G2 definitely kicks ass.

Montana wrote:

What they are saying is the Imposcar and Reaktor is not pro spec. Thats complete bullshit. Their demo sounds like a free soft synth.

Wow, you've really had to read between the lines to come up with that one!

Dissing software or not - this is a hardware company after all, so it seems quite naturally they won't endorse virtual instruments nor put up perfectly optimised software demo. Other companies (with products not in audio market) put up flash tutorials to shorten their products learning curve.

what a nonsense thread! i'm with wackler on this

Clavia is right in what they say

but they don't say what you say they say

is it clear, now?

As mud..

What's this? Montana posting inaccurate information and holding to his key points of misinformation as though they were facts when people point out flaws in his arguments? Never would've seen that coming.


PS Anybody else notice he's named himself after a state stereotyped as being full of "red necks" and bullheaded ignoramus'? It all seems a bit ish if you ask me

May I remind everyone that there is no such thing as a "Software" synthesizer. All synthesizers require hardware in some form or other. Be it a dedicated box containing all the necessary bits(and software) or a computer system with all the parts inside loaded with vsti's,hosts etc. One could argue that dedicated "hardware" synths may offer an advatage in live performing duty but as Dr.Wackler has pointed out it is quite possible to use computer based instruments on stage. The question of which sounds better could start a flame war that would rage on for dozens of pages but in my opinion a properly equiped computer with a good sound card,fast cpu etc loaded with the latest and greatest vsti's played through the SAME sound system as a dedicated synth box will give similar or superior results to the "hardware" synth.

Will it sound exactly like a G2? Probably not but can the G2 or any other dedicated system-modular or not- sound exactly like Rhino layered with Z3ta+ and Wusikstation or any of the endless possible combinations and layers of the quality vsti's of today-and here's the point-For the same monetary investment? Yes one could argue Receptor falls into the "hardware" synth catagory but I consider it a hybrid of the two-portability and expadability in one package.

To set the record straight I have not played a G2 but may download the demo just for fun. Well that should provide enough ammo for a flame war to last at least a few pages. Happy Holidays!

Teksonik wrote:

Well that should provide enough ammo for a flame war to last at least a few pages. Happy Holidays!

Don't you think the NMG2 looks a little bit like Santa Claus tarnce edition?

dr.wackler wrote:

contrast wrote: I would never even think about risking the use of any NI software at a gig, Reaktor included, and their points are still valid. Really? I've played hundreds of concerts with Reaktor without one single crash. But then, I am using a Mac.

Bahhh...mac.

Nah, I'm just playin' with ya Dr.W...whatever works for ya.

I was at Guitar Center a bit ago...and the guy that worked there told me studios always use macs cause they never crash....as he was telling me this tryin to show me somethin' on the mac, it crashed.

...I was like...what was that you were saying?

VitaminD wrote:

and Bush has nothing to do with this.. please keep him out of it

Are you sure?

Quote:

...I was like...what was that you were saying?

I say yeah-yeah

...it's just fine tuning your machine. My PC's been a real tank tho'.

Nothing matters.

mac head!

pc jockey!

whatever works.

"No. They say that NMG2 is a real professional musical instrument. You might know that Imposcar and Reaktor are virtual professional musical instruments. "

lol. But the G2 engine is software, just as Reaktor and Imposcar are. My computer never crashes with Reaktor, and ICan take it anywhere, so how is it any less "pro" than a G2?

"What's this? Montana posting inaccurate information and holding to his key points of misinformation as though they were facts when people point out flaws in his arguments? Never would've seen that coming. "


I know this may be hard for some poeople who never have human interaction in the business world, but what Clavia did was put down software synths. You may cal my quote "misinformation". but had you any political, business or real world interaction from time to time you would know my quote is not far from what they said, and in fact spells out what they meant to say.



"
PS Anybody else notice he's named himself after a state stereotyped as being full of "red necks" and bullheaded ignoramus'? It all seems a bit ish if you ask me
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 Posts: 1044 Location: Alberta Canada " ^^^^^^^
"


lol

for those of you with difficulty with english (bloody yanks typical !)

Quote:

(1)Before you start this demo program you must realize that this software only hints on the possibilities of the hardware. (2) This demo program itself is not intended to be used as a musical tool. (3) Of course, the G2 hardware instruments are real professional musical instruments.

To translate - (1) this is a demo which is not as powerful as the actual hardware. (2) this item is not really a full product - the final line including this contencious real comment is merely to clarify that the modular is a musical tool - otherwise they would be suggesting that their own product isn't a musical tool - so in (3) they are repeating the content of the first line to make sure that no-one thinks the demo is the full product

Quote:

In our view, only hardware can offer rockstable and trouble free operation in a 'single box solution'. (2)In other words; real musical instruments that you just pick up and take on the road to do a gig or a recording session

Now this is more interesting (1) is pretty clearly a dig at computers but you should consider what a `single box solution' means - it is a comment aimed at people who dislike computers - they are saying without all the wires and configuration and driver installation etc - it is not saying that only harddware can offer these things - just it can in a single box solution. (2)is intended to reassure the technophobes that it is something solid like a piano or synth - not something ephemeral like software - and is as easy to use

Good bit of marketing really - but it defintely does not say that software is bad - it is just pitched to suggest that their keyboard is a performance tool and the demo software is just to give you a hint of its capabilities - all of which is true

PS you must also consider that this may well have been translated from native swedish so some of the subtleties of this may have been unintentional - do you remember the nonsense NI first posted about komplete care

ericj23 wrote:

Quote: In our view, only hardware can offer rockstable and trouble free operation in a 'single box solution'. (2)In other words; real musical instruments that you just pick up and take on the road to do a gig or a recording session Now this is more interesting (1) is pretty clearly a dig at computers but you should consider what a `single box solution' means - it is a comment aimed at people who dislike computers - they are saying without all the wires and configuration and driver installation etc - it is not saying that only harddware can offer these things - just it can in a single box solution. (2)is intended to reassure the technophobes that it is something solid like a piano or synth - not something ephemeral like software - and is as easy to use

Well, they do have a point there.

Groet, Erik

the Clavia press release is a CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS attack on software based instruments- period-

I find it ironic that some apologists for Clavia have compared seeing it that way as similar to Bush's idiocy- when I was reminded of the Bush admin support of Rumsfeld's antics with the way many of you are defending Clavia- they cleary made a political attack on computer based music- there is simply no way to get around it [ask one of your non-musical friends to read it- and they will tell you that it reads like an atack on the software community]

typical luddite hypocrisy and childish spite- once again like the record industry- those who are in the hardware business for a medium which is evolving into software-only are desperately trying to cling to the old paradigm or risk going out of business- they cannot adapt like for example Korg is- so they make foolish attacks- oh well- I had no interst in Clavia before they even released the first version of the Modular- because they were encasing it in overpriced harware with NO RAM and thus no sampling/processing capabilities [useless analog inputs does not a modular processing system make!]

I will continue to use VAZ modular which makes the G2 look and sound like a fisher price modular synth for toddlers

BTW- THe Clavia modulars are software and would run faster and wuith more voices and synthesis/processing options on a newer computer [at 1/3 the price] than on it's propritary hardware- this is a statement of fact and is not subject to opinion- the price difference makes claims of greater stability on the road completely MOOT- as for the price of a G2 any touring musician could have 2-3 BACKUP computers waiting to go at the slightest hint of trouble- there are no back-ups for hardware synths- which in my experience can crash and freeze as much or more than a computer!

Mac's are fine and very stable. It is the Logic updates that cause the good Dr. to cancel concerts while waiting for bug fixes and, what was that deal where all the software companies had to rush out patches so that their AU synths would be allowd to play with Logic 7?

Softsynth users complaining that the hardware guys are insulting their method of making music...

Is the pot calling the kettle black or what? You guys are so damn defensive of VSTs that you become completely and irrationally anti-hardware, and completely ignore the fact that both have distinct strengths.

Clavia could have said, "Imposcar is much better than any synth we have ever made", and someone here would still be pissed. They'd say that Clavia was attacking Imposcar because, "They didn't say that Imposcar is so amazingly good that they have multiple orgasms every time anyone at their company even thinks about it".

Some people make music with hardware, some people make music with software. I use both, and it works for me. I don't really give a good god-damn if you think that one is inherently better. I love them both, and couldn't do without either.

I don't care what anyone says, but I will never be dumping my "analog guitar". Same goes for my "analog bass". I also won't be dumping Drumkits From Hell, my vst sequencer, soft-samplers, etc.

Now why don't you sad little twerps go out and spend a nice evening with an "analog girl"? Or an "analog guy", or an "analog puppy", or whatever floats your disgusting little boats...

Luckily I never had the hardware induced paranoia attack that Montana suffered when I read the release. As someone who uses both hardware and software I totally understand the message. When going to a friends house to practice or play I don’t load up a computer and a keyboard controller, I just take a keyboard. In the studio it is nice to have NI Komplete 2, the Spectrosonics trio, and 50 other VSTi’s to choose from, but to play on stage or with friends all I need is a Motif or Fantom. Given the choice of taking a computer, keyboard controller and Reaktor on stage, or taking a Nord Modular G2 keyboard on stage, I’ll take the NG2.

"Luckily I never had the hardware induced paranoia attack that Montana suffered when I read the release. As someone who uses both hardware and software I totally understand the message. "


Kit:

Korg Triton fully loaded with moss (z1) option
Novation K-station
Roland D110
Dave smith's Evolver
Symphonic Voices sample cd set
Gibson electric guitar
Marin Accoustic guitar
midi controller
Stuido projects c-1, Rhodes nt-1
numerous amps
Reaktor
Tracktion
Adobe Audition



The Triton is no more "pro" than Reaktor. the only difference is the Triton comes in it's own special case. Clavia's comments are absurd.

anyway, i really like NMG2 demo.

i had the chance to "play" with a Nord Lead 3 and i found that same "atmosphere" in the sound ... i mean that you can get phat sounds with the soft, and some presets really reminded me of some of the NL3...
and above that it has some effects , which is not the case with the NL3 except a distortion on the LP filter

but i know it's not supposed to emulate a NL3 but i can hear the clavia "signature" .....hopefully they'll make a version with more polyphony and vst support

take care all and merry Xmas

dammit!

what happened to www.hitsongscience.com website? vanished?

not sure if i said this yet, but this thread is f*cking stupid.

I did'nt like it. :/ It's easy to use, but the sound was not that good, as people mostly say it. I mean... the oscillators are OK. Really low aliasing, nics harmonics, nice sound. But the filters... pff... the classic filter is usable, but the nord filter with high cutoff and resonance suxx. I think that Reaktor can beat Modular since version 3, but even Synthedit can beat it. This is only my point of view, i think, these sofware synths are far way better than the overpriced Clavia synth. (which is still a good synth, but i was waiting for much better sound)

setAI wrote:

... BTW- THe Clavia modulars are software and would run faster and wuith more voices and synthesis/processing options on a newer computer [at 1/3 the price] than on it's propritary hardware- this is a statement of fact and is not subject to opinion- ....

ROFL. I love that last sentence.

In the REAL world that fast computer processor is burdened by a bloated OS, drivers, inefficient computer languages, a host, VSTi code, etc...

Montana wrote:

Kit: Korg Triton fully loaded with moss (z1) option Novation K-station Roland D110 Dave smith's Evolver Symphonic Voices sample cd set Gibson electric guitar Marin Accoustic guitar midi controller Stuido projects c-1, Rhodes nt-1 numerous amps Reaktor Tracktion Adobe Audition The Triton is no more "pro" than Reaktor. the only difference is the Triton comes in it's own special case. Clavia's comments are absurd.

No computer? That has to make it real hard to get sound out of reactor. Or do you leave that at home and just take the triton when you go somewhere to play?

Rabid wrote:

In the REAL world that fast computer processor is burdened by a bloated OS, drivers, inefficient computer languages, a host, VSTi code, etc...

Windows XP will run quite happily on a 300 mhz P3 with 128 meg of ram. Hardly a big drain on a modern pc.

this wead is thrank

Yes it will, as long as you are not asking it to do anything but run a screen saver. We don't allow XP on anything less than a P4 with 128 meg, and I usually up those to 256. Out of 120 computers we only have Xp on about 20. The rest use Win 98 or Win 2000. Otherwise my employees start complaining about the speed when trying to use a simple word processor. For music I would not consider anything less than a P4 2.6 with 1 Gig of memory if XP is the OS.

Rabid wrote:

for music I would not consider anything less than a P4 2.6 with 1 Gig of memory if XP is the OS.

get your knowledge sorted...

Rabid wrote:

Yes it will, as long as you are not asking it to do anything but run a screen saver. We don't allow XP on anything less than a P4 with 128 meg, and I usually up those to 256. Out of 120 computers we only have Xp on about 20. The rest use Win 98 or Win 2000. Otherwise my employees start complaining about the speed when trying to use a simple word processor. For music I would not consider anything less than a P4 2.6 with 1 Gig of memory if XP is the OS.

Please dont be silly.

Rabid wrote:

for music I would not consider anything less than a P4 2.6 with 1 Gig of memory if XP is the OS.

1.4GHz Athlon here, with 512MB DDR, running XP..

Does the job fine.. wouldn't even be thinking about upgrading except i bought Wusikstation and the bastard won't run without SSE instructions..

nuffink wrote:

Please dont be silly.

Funny, at first I thought the same thing about your reply. Then I realized that not everyone has the same expectations or demands of there equipment. There are plenty of times when a P4 3.0 with a Gig of memory does not meet my needs. Your needs may vary.

jens wrote:

Rabid wrote: for music I would not consider anything less than a P4 2.6 with 1 Gig of memory if XP is the OS. get your knowledge sorted...

You lost me. I'm not sure what you mean by that?

haydxn wrote:

not sure if i said this yet, but this thread is f*cking stupid.

it still is

Quote:

those who are in the hardware business for a medium which is evolving into software-only are desperately trying to cling to the old paradigm or risk going out of business-

thankfully he used paradigm so i know he's taking the piss but i did think for a minute that he actually took any of this seriously

after all it is a bad translation from swedish

Which is more stupid - A thread, or people that continually call a thread stupid, yet continue to post in it?

i'm not joining in the argument, i'm just popping my head in now and again to see if people have taken notice and stopped being such morons.

haydxn wrote:

i'm not joining in the argument, i'm just popping my head in now and again to see if people have taken notice and stopped being such morons.

What is it that you find particularly moronic about this thread? It's not much different from a ton of others except that one of the regulars (who should know better) keeps popping up and saying it's stupid.

okay, i find it very stupid that this is being argued as far as this; it is such a flimsy premise and is open to misinterpretation all the way down the line, and it has been.

clavia haven't said that their thing is more pro than any particular other thing, but that it is a 'real' synth which is undeniable. it is not an attack on reaktor, it is highlighting a strength; a portable, instant-access strength. that someone gets so defensive and frightened about an attack on reaktor or software is, in my eyes, stupid, especially when the thread has covered so many areas as this one has. there is nothing to worry about in this information. nothing to be afraid of. noone to be angry with. this is just some information on a product. and yet this thread is all over the place; it is my firm belief that this thread is stupid.

there we go!

Rabid wrote:

jens wrote: Rabid wrote: for music I would not consider anything less than a P4 2.6 with 1 Gig of memory if XP is the OS. get your knowledge sorted... You lost me. I'm not sure what you mean by that?

several things:

XP = Win2000 plus some things you can switch off (if you have the knowledge)

performance on XP is typically better than on dos only that dos sometimes has a quicker gui (due to some graphic gimmicks on XP you can switch off)

XP typically needs much more ram but the assumption it might need 1gig is hilarious.

ntfs is much better than fat32 (has a much better performance and has a higher data-security)

XP is a modern reliable and stable operating system
while dos is old crap.

jens wrote:

ntfs is much better than fat32 (has a much better performance and has a higher data-security)

Myth. NTFS over FAT32 has no performance gains, and have never seen any conclusive evidence to support such. NTFS, on the other hand DOES have security beneifits, the ability to compress files, have quota management, and do software snapshots (Windows 2003).

If you have found something that shows this dramatic gain, bring forth your evidence. I've seriosuly been waiting for this one, but I've never noticed a difference, and every thread I've read on this subject has come to that same comclusion that I've read.

Devon

Quote:

XP = Win2000 plus some things you can switch off (if you have the knowledge)

That depends on which version of XP you end up with, and I don’t mean Home or Pro. I will not even use the Home version at home. Some versions of XP pro can be a major headache to tweak. We’ve even wiped a few new computers so that we could reinstall from our early media disk.

Quote:

performance on XP is typically better than on dos only that dos sometimes has a quicker gui (due to some graphic gimmicks on XP you can switch off)

Performance on what? We have installed XP on old computers, only to take it off because the computer bogged down. The jump from 98 to 2000 is usually no problem. Upgrading to XP is much like updating IE to version 6 on a very old computer. Luckily a Microsoft OS license for XP is also good for older operating systems.

Quote:

XP typically needs much more ram but the assumption it might need 1gig is hilarious.

Who said anything about XP needing 1 gig. Now XP plus Trilogy and Atmosphere and Kontakt and Battery and, well, you get the idea. I can also tell you that some queries I run in Access used to take 5 minutes or more on an XP machine with 256 memory. Upping to 512 meg cut my wait down to less than a minute. Once I upped it to one gig then I was well below 30 seconds. Your results may vary, but when I boot up my XP computer it starts out using over 300 meg. Start adding programs on top of that and you end up with a lot of paging on a 256 meg computer.

Quote:

ntfs is much better than fat32 (has a much better performance and has a higher data-security)

Unless you are doing a lot of direct from disk sample streaming. This is something I first heard about when going through articles on tweaking computers for maximum performance in GigaStudio. The Tascam site can point you to some interesting articles on this. Search out a few white papers, and check out the effects of RAID on music recording at the same time. You may decide not to have all your HD’s set up in a raid format on a music computer.

Quote:

XP is a modern reliable and stable operating system while dos is old crap.

Yep. The few people I know at Microsoft are very proud.

Rabid wrote:

Your results may vary, but when I boot up my XP computer it starts out using over 300 meg. Start adding programs on top of that and you end up with a lot of paging on a 256 meg computer.

300 megs of ram? What in the world are you running? My overly bloated desktop here with virus scanners, pop up blockers, sound card interfaces, firewall, etc (I have 11 things in my task bar tray) eat up 274 megs. A raw install in my experience eats abotu 120-130 megs with no tweaks whatsoever. Moderate tweaks shoudl get you down to about 90-100 megs with network support still enabled. hardcore tweaks with no network, new shell, etc, gets you down to about 35 megs. Is XP a resource hog? Absolutely. But turn on your paging file for a 256 meg box, and it'll do quite well.

Quote:

Quote: ntfs is much better than fat32 (has a much better performance and has a higher data-security) Unless you are doing a lot of direct from disk sample streaming. This is something I first heard about when going through articles on tweaking computers for maximum performance in GigaStudio. The Tascam site can point you to some interesting articles on this. Search out a few white papers, and check out the effects of RAID on music recording at the same time. You may decide not to have all your HD’s set up in a raid format on a music computer.

Not quite following what you're saying? Is performence better, worse, or the same between FAT32 and NTFS? The effects of RAID depend a LOT on the controller. I've seen SiS boards eat 25-30% CPU just to run the stupid controller if I do so remember correctly.

Devon

Quote:

it is my firm belief that this thread is stupid.

it's a file on a server ...

there's something about ntfs - and at other places in this particular help, I didn't bother to fully understand it (omg ...)

http://www.dirms.com/buzzsaw/index.html

Quote:

Myth. NTFS over FAT32 has no performance gains, and have never seen any conclusive evidence to support such. NTFS, on the other hand DOES have security beneifits, the ability to compress files, have quota management, and do software snapshots (Windows 2003).

seriously, muzicuses should be freed from learning all the ugly things - and buy a shiny alluminated mac instead

and play itunes all night long ...

tetraplan wrote:

Well, they do have a point there.

Rabid wrote:

You may decide not to have all your HD’s set up in a raid format on a music computer.

RAID is a real pet peeve of mine, it should never be on unless you know exactly what it and you are doing, and should almost never be on for any home or semi-pro audio machine (I imagine there a small number of exceptional circumstances...). And that goes double for the mediocre raid 0, 1, 0+1 setups on consumer motherboards. Waste of money.

(By "you" I don't mean Rabid specifically, by the way!)

" I've seen SiS boards eat 25-30% CPU just to run the stupid controller if I do so remember correctly."

Thats because Sis boards are second rate.

Heh heh.

Well Devon, my work PC gives a whole new meaning to “Power User.” 3 internal HD’s, DVD ROM, DVD RW, 4 slot memory card reader, external USB2 HD, external USB2 CD/DVDRW, 2 external Firewire drives, zip drive, 4 virtual drives on the network, management shells and interfaces to two databases on the network. Software to monitor all Internet activity on our Cisco Pix, utilities such as Norton and PC Anywhere. I know MS Office Pro has things sitting in memory though I do turn off some of that junk. Oh, Palm sync software, Webshots, not sure if iTunes soaks up any memory when it is not loaded. QuickTime, which I am forced to use for a government system I have to access weekly.

Yep, you caught me on that one. Not your typical efficient setup. But seriously, I’ve had staff install XP on several old computers only to be forced to remove it because the computer just could not handle it. Win 98 consumes much less resources. For security I usually use Win 2000 on older computers that need to connect to our network. They seem to handle it very well, running the programs necessary with only 64 meg of memory. And unlike XP, I don’t have to fight 2000 for control of the computers.

As for Raid and FAT 32. Links from Tacsam should send you to information regarding the benefits of Fat 32 when accessing 1000+ files as you would with a large streaming piano sample. Raid may be faster for reading, but when recording multiple channels of audio raid can actually be a hindrance. My systems at work use Raid 5 and high grade cards. It is handy for those times a drive goes out, or when hashing 2 gigs of data for a report, but I avoid it on my home computers used for music.

I used to have a nord modular keyboard and paid lots of money for it, that was before softsynth could catch up with harware (imho) (late 90).

I think the nord is a great concept but softsynth like vaz modular 3 and reaktor 4 and lots of other one who are not modular synth beat the nord if you talk about filters, osc etc.

Anyway i like the nord sound (harsh and digital) and synth1 (a free one!!) give me that kind of sounds i like.

I sold lots of my v/a and i have keeped the analogue like the juno106,mini korg,akai ax60 etc.
I play live and only use a yamaha ex5,mini korg and a computer running softsynth.Had a crash one time but thats about it.

The nord mod is great but you can have something better with softsynth and less expensive (imho).
What is realy great about the nord mod is the GUI and its realy fun to use, cannot say the same thing about Arturia or vaz mod.I cant beleive its so hard to build a GUI that is intuitive and fun to use.Clavia did a VERY GOOD JOB at that.

Anyway i am having fun to load my old patch on the mod g2 demo.

This demo is great! But I can't get it to work with the ASIO driver for my Echo Indigo IO =/ I have to run it with Directsound - that means unbearable latency... *sigh*

Anyone else experienced this problem? Anyone else with Indigo IO out there?

jens wrote:

Rabid wrote: jens wrote: Rabid wrote: for music I would not consider anything less than a P4 2.6 with 1 Gig of memory if XP is the OS. get your knowledge sorted... You lost me. I'm not sure what you mean by that? several things: XP = Win2000 plus some things you can switch off (if you have the knowledge) performance on XP is typically better than on dos only that dos sometimes has a quicker gui (due to some graphic gimmicks on XP you can switch off) XP typically needs much more ram but the assumption it might need 1gig is hilarious. ntfs is much better than fat32 (has a much better performance and has a higher data-security) XP is a modern reliable and stable operating system while dos is old crap.

DOS unreliable and crap? And windows better than DOS? Do you know that you still need DOS to load WINDOWS? Me personally I have been using computers for 15 years and I have never had any programs crash when I was using MS-DOS. With Windows it is every month.

KAROLOYDI quoth
Do you know that you still need DOS to load WINDOWS?

Bzzzzt, wrong. Not in NT, 2000, or XP.

Me personally I have been using computers for 15 years and I have never had any programs crash when I was using MS-DOS.

Ive been using them for over 25. I have.

With Windows it is every month.

My system at work crashes less often than once every six months, my 'work' system at home is about the same, and my W2K server has never crashed in 3 and a half years, except for one power supply failure.

Maybe you just dont know how to set up Windows properly.

Montana wrote:

What they are saying is the Imposcar and Reaktor is not pro spec. Thats complete bullshit. Their demo sounds like a free soft synth.

Montana, get a woman, then you will not have time to worry about shit as pointless as that...

whyterabbyt wrote:

KAROLOYDI quoth Do you know that you still need DOS to load WINDOWS? Bzzzzt, wrong. Not in NT, 2000, or XP. Me personally I have been using computers for 15 years and I have never had any programs crash when I was using MS-DOS. Ive been using them for over 25. I have. With Windows it is every month. My system at work crashes less often than once every six months, my 'work' system at home is about the same, and my W2K server has never crashed in 3 and a half years, except for one power supply failure. Maybe you just dont know how to set up Windows properly.

What are you talking about? If you start in safe mode you can still see the drivers getting loaded in DOS. It is a WIN XP version of DOS, but it is still DOS. I am 85% sure about what I am saying. if you are 100% sure, delete autoexec.bat and config.sys from your computer and see what happens.

Quote:

DOS unreliable and crap? And windows better than DOS? Do you know that you still need DOS to load WINDOWS? Me personally I have been using computers for 15 years and I have never had any programs crash when I was using MS-DOS. With Windows it is every month.

You are wrong....win XP, NT and 2000 are NOT on top of dos....

Quote:

What are you talking about? If you start in safe mode you can still see the drivers getting loaded in DOS. It is a WIN XP version of DOS, but it is still DOS.

A console dosent mean you are running dos.... its just the windows kernel outputing things in text mode.......

Quote:

Me personally I have been using computers for 15 years and I have never had any programs crash when I was using MS-DOS.

What? ..... DOS? that single threaded, without protected mem...where you just needed and out-of-index pointer in a program to halt the entire system????

back to the original issue; as read I don't think their discussion is blatently nasty and nowhere near as ugly as many hardware heavyweights think.

remember; EMU is not a software company makeing computer hardware which isn't all that different than hardware.

it's true in my experience that hardware synths are better suited for live use although there are many hardware solutions since I stopped gigging in 2002. there's no question that Receptor would be a choice....along with a very good sounding G2 which btw is fantastic sounding and in Reaktor's, Vaz and SE class as a synth.

if I was playing live I'd weigh what it would cost to set up a reasonable notebook and soundcard/midi card. I love my software syths and don't need company poop from any company, even Clavia whom I respect, to tell me what is of professional quality. Or as the US supreme court said, "I know porno when I see it", the same can be said for music...

OK, I believe you. Sorry.

CMD.exe is the NT Kernel command prompt that was written to have similar functionality to DOS, but all it is is a command line interface for the NT kernel.

Windows 2k, XP and beyond are not DOS based.

whyterabbyt wrote:

KAROLOYDI quoth Do you know that you still need DOS to load WINDOWS? Bzzzzt, wrong. Not in NT, 2000, or XP. Me personally I have been using computers for 15 years and I have never had any programs crash when I was using MS-DOS. Ive been using them for over 25. I have. With Windows it is every month. My system at work crashes less often than once every six months, my 'work' system at home is about the same, and my W2K server has never crashed in 3 and a half years, except for one power supply failure. Maybe you just dont know how to set up Windows properly.

Let's see. I've been using computers for about 23 years, had MSDOS crash on me PLENTY of times from version 3.30 to 6.22, and Windows XP box crash one 1 in 2 years. A NT 4 Workstation box only crashed when I had a bad modem driver, and once removed the system stopped crashing. A Win2k and XP machine also up 24/7 never crash except for the occasion kick of the power strip. I've also had buggy applications crash my other XP boxes. I've also seen too many people pushing too many applications on a machine with too little memory too and complain.

So really, depends what you do with your box, the quality of the components, quality of the apps you're running, and how you have it configured.

Devon

In my experience, for general use, XP is far more stable than 98 -- both in terms of simple crashing and memory leaks, and of being less subject to catastrophic failure and performance decay that prompts a reformat and reinstall.

Between home and work I use 4 machines with WinXP, none of which are clean setups. 3 of the machines I always leave on, and only reboot if an update requires me to. They just don't crash without a power failure. (The fourth is a development machine and sometimes I manage to lock it up real good; it also has proprietary stuff on it so I reboot when I go home for security reasons.)

One of our Win2K webservers at work currently has an uptime of 3.5 years.

I think what people are neglecting amidst all these technical digressions is that the G2 demo sounds like ass.

These gentlemen kindly disagree with the opinion of Clavia.

Discovered this thing today. As very happy current Nord Lead 2 owner and ex-nord micromodular owner, Hope these guys release a VSTi version of this (G2) because is just a-m-a-z-i-n-g (imho)