KVR Audio

xander · Post by **xander** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:26 am

high tech wrote:
...xander wrote:
Even so, lots of people I know buy used PCs and ethernet them into a 'networked DAW', which is way cheaper than Receptor (and more flexible IMHO).

..[/size]
can u tell me more about this please.
it is a fascinating subject for me.
can u hook up some links or info?
for example is it like system link whereas u need digital i/o on every machine?

Sure, but first go back and read some of the great replies in this thread -- there are some excellent configs mentioned, like these two for example:

erminardi wrote:
My setup is: 2 PC P4 3200, 4U rack format in a hard case with 2 pre and 1 converter (1U rack each) all pre-wired. One PC for sequencer+efx and one for VSTi and gigastudio. 2 "heavy duty" LCD 17" connected on stage throug my KMV switch (rack format) to the 2 dualhead video cards of PCs.
The 2 PCs are linked via ethernet 1gb with FX teleport VST/i.
A master keyboard plus a Doepfer Drehbank 128 knob and the setup is complete.
Very stable, silent (2 Carillon PC) and very powerful.
Usable at home or portable at gig without problems and customizable every time...

Hybernation wrote:
The two boxes are connected with a CAT6 CrossLink cable, and they both are Dells with Broadcom GigaBit ethernet on the motherboard.

The simplest and easiest incarnation of such a system is to ethernet the computers and use FXTeleport or similar, and just mix the audio from the computers into your recorder or PC audio editor, etc.

high tech · Post by **high tech** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:54 pm

ok thanx.
ive heard of fx teleport, but someone told me the latency of the interface is too noticeable, however this was a while back....maybe the issue was rectified.

im waiting for the day when joining two or more machines with cat5/6 will actually integrate them into one multi-processor, multi harddrive monster.
the current state of things suchas fx teleport is still not integrated enough in my opinion (like why do u still need to patch audio from machine to machine - why is it not transfered digitaly via cat5/6....live-sound reenforecement companies such as BSS have been doing this for years in products like SoundWeb)

Hybernation · Post by **Hybernation** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:09 pm

the current state of things suchas fx teleport is still not integrated enough in my opinion (like why do u still need to patch audio from machine to machine - why is it not transfered digitaly via cat5/6....live-sound reenforecement companies such as BSS have been doing this for years in products like SoundWeb)

When using FX Teleport, the audio IS digitally transferred on the ethernet. You do not even need a sound card on the "slave" computer. All audio is mixed on the host computers audio (the one running the sequencer app and the fx teleport "master")

This is why I said it was a "Uniwire Killer". All you need is ONE cat6 crosslink cable for this config...it is pretty tighly integrated and if you have gigaBit ethernet on both machines, the latency is no higher than running the VST on the host machine.

hope this helps!

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:12 pm

Uhm, fx teleport is totally networked. You don't need to patch any audio or anything. You get streams back in to the host mixer.

Why not look things up before nagging about them?

Darnit, I was beaten to it!

Though, the latency is higher. Not much, but a bit.

SleepyP · Post by **SleepyP** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:46 pm

damn man, now i have no excuse not to bring at least one of my spare machines back to life

xander · Post by **xander** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:31 pm

Hybernation wrote:
the current state of things suchas fx teleport is still not integrated enough in my opinion (like why do u still need to patch audio from machine to machine - why is it not transfered digitaly via cat5/6....live-sound reenforecement companies such as BSS have been doing this for years in products like SoundWeb)
When using FX Teleport, the audio IS digitally transferred on the ethernet. You do not even need a sound card on the "slave" computer. All audio is mixed on the host computers audio (the one running the sequencer app and the fx teleport "master")

This is why I said it was a "Uniwire Killer". All you need is ONE cat6 crosslink cable for this config...it is pretty tighly integrated and if you have gigaBit ethernet on both machines, the latency is no higher than running the VST on the host machine.

hope this helps!

and there ya go -- mighty nice setup doing a world of wonderful things!

high tech · Post by **high tech** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:13 pm

ok, i stand corrected.
i always thought fx teleport was just a timing/sync interface whereas you still needed to patch audio between machines.

even when xander said: " just mix the audio from the computers into your recorder or PC audio editor, etc. "
i thought he meant patching audio from machine to machine.

anyways, this is great news.
thanx

Sw-Michael · Post by **Sw-Michael** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:53 pm

xander · Post by **xander** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:21 am

high tech wrote:ok, i stand corrected.
i always thought fx teleport was just a timing/sync interface whereas you still needed to patch audio between machines.

even when xander said: " just mix the audio from the computers into your recorder or PC audio editor, etc. "
i thought he meant patching audio from machine to machine.

anyways, this is great news.
thanx

Sorry mate -- I did mean patching the audio together from each computer (which you could do) but I was wrong. I don't know enough about FXTeleport because I've never used it and can't afford all that gear anyway.

Nice to learn that you don't have to and that the audio is all from a single source. Sure is a very tempting solution when you think about it.

This is probably the way I'll go when I can afford it.

Be that as it may though, if I had money to spend frivolously on my interests, I'd own Receptor also.

high tech · Post by **high tech** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:17 am

receptor seems badass but i dont think i would spend the money.
i would probably get a couple of laptops and maybe fxteleport them together?
this way (im assuming) id get a dual drive, dual screen, two processors and 2x ram for all processing in a portable live/pa solution.

still im dreaming, i have no duckets for those types of toys at this time

Muff Wiggler · Post by **Muff Wiggler** » Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:33 am

i haven't read the whole thread, so i'll just foolhardishly throw out my opinion to float around in here

if i had the money for that kinda thing, i would love a receptor. i love vst plugins, but i use hardware fx boxes so often, because it's simple, it's an old habit, it's fun to plug in my bass, a few fx boxes, turn up the volume and jam, without booting my pc, loading my host, loading a saved project (or starting a new one), then playing.

it's the old left-brain/right-brain problem. the logical steps of booting up my computer environment take over, and the creative urge to play is somewhat muted

if i had a receptor with a pile of my favorite plugs and presets, it would boot up with my other rack gear when i turn on my bass rig. i could patch in and out just like i do with my pedals, fx boxes and rack units. all the same paradigm that's the tried-and-true 'plug n' play' with 1/4-cables and boxes

it would really get my vsts into my bass and guitar playing, and although i've been into vsts for years and love them, they are somewhat of a seperate world from playing bass and using fx boxes. receptor would, for me, bridge those worlds, i'm certain

but i can't spend that kinda cash on something like a receptor, in the foreseeable future, without probably facing a divorce

still, i'd love to if i could. i was hoping to win the one that mully won, congrats once again mully

Why do people buy Receptor?