KVR Audio

Bill OC · Post by **Bill OC** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:40 am

deleted

SonicBreeze · Post by **SonicBreeze** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:25 am

Thanks for your insight and information about a little discussed application.

androidlove · Post by **androidlove** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:25 am

BASSDRIVE wrote:WOW, SAW Studio looks like total cr@p. I wouldn't be able to stand working in a environment like that! Looks childish. And I thought Arturia Storm looked bad.

i'll make fun of the price, but it's a sound studio, not a piece of art. even then, that's subjective. i like childish graphics

stash98 · Post by **stash98** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:45 pm

I'm sorry, but this thread reaks of SAW marketers. I have worked in so many studios that do professional work, and I have never seen SAW ever. No one has even mentioned it. The last studio I was in, the guy was running HD 5, and was thinking hard about switching to Nuendo. He mixed a lot of the ads that broadcast during the super bowl. I would say that's professional.

I think Cubase/Nuendo is a very professional app. I don't see what SAW does that they don't do. It's not like SAW supports TDM plugs or RTAS. The only real argument I see is that it "sounds" better and has better built in FX. Great, I use 3rd party plugs anyway.

Certain people in this thread smell fishy. Just bringing up SAW as for pros only is an easy way to hype a product.

I think SAW has a long way to go before it can be considered software that makes Cubase/Nuendo seem "unprofessional". Same case with Samplitude, which is more popular also.

deaf dunderkwac · Post by **deaf dunderkwac** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:41 pm

I just see SAW as another 'thing'. I thought it was interesting because a school I know was using it as a foh mixer engine. They also teach it's use for audio production, along with pro-tools. I personally would never consider PT as a FOH engine.

SAW is another audio-specific software that I think has little use for a home studio.

SAW, Protools and the other larger DAWs would be about my last choice for software to compose music with, as they are geared for a radically different user. And a user that can afford the cost, as time lost has real value, whereas if I lose a tune, I never really lost the tune, just that particular version of the tune (which lives somewhere in my pointy head)

Zymac · Post by **Zymac** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:40 am

SAW Studio started as SAW Classic, a four track DAW, long ago. At that time, computer power was expensive and SAW used the system resources very efficently, and still does. Mostly hand coded in assembler gives stability and speed. It can host VST and DX effects and VSTi's. It has a sequencer called MIDI Workshop, but you can use VSTi's without it.

This live cd is recorded and mixed in SAW, only with it's native plugins. Recorded with two synced laptops and a few Behringer ADA8000's.
http://www.lonbronson.com/livecd.html

brok landers · Post by **brok landers** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:02 pm

james0tucson wrote:My personal opinion is that once we reached quality beyond the threshold of human perception, it just doesn't matter if it can be improved.

the threshold of human perception ...
hmmm ... defining this is quite subjective ... thats where the problem starts i think ...
do you hear what i hear??

Improv · Post by **Improv** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:36 pm

brok landers wrote:
james0tucson wrote:My personal opinion is that once we reached quality beyond the threshold of human perception, it just doesn't matter if it can be improved.
the threshold of human perception ...
hmmm ... defining this is quite subjective ... thats where the problem starts i think ...
do you hear what i hear??

And what about more subtle acoustic phenomena such as multiple overtone series which are technically above the range of human hearing, but not human perception?

brok landers · Post by **brok landers** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:47 pm

well , i must confess that i'm allways struggling ... allthough i of course can hear differences between each host it also strongly depends on the way any host forces you to work with, which impacts a lot on the result ... i worked with a lot of different hosts, all sounded different, non of them was _better_ though ... just different ... maybe thats just me ... also there are a lot of masters i heard everybody was raving about, but i didn't like them ... etc ...

stash98 · Post by **stash98** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:32 pm

Dunder. I wasn't really aiming my post towards you. Especially since you are bring up FOH which is not the same as working in the studio. It's a completely different argument which is not even relevant to people recording and creating music in a studio.

I have no idea how Nuendo performs as a FOH program considering most FOH guys I have worked with use hardware.

Is it a be all program? no..I never said that, there is no such thing. But I fail to see how SAW is a "professional" sequencer and Nuendo is not.

deaf dunderkwac · Post by **deaf dunderkwac** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:41 pm

sorry, I do know what you intended, but was off my rocker at the time...

(I'm back on it... hehe)

stash98 · Post by **stash98** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:44 pm

I was there this weekend...no worries!

deaf dunderkwac · Post by **deaf dunderkwac** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:54 pm

stash98 wrote:I was there this weekend...no worries!

notice I edit-t-t-t-t-ed my little rant

Cheers!

dhise · Post by **dhise** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:09 am

As a SAW Studio basic user I thought I would add a few points here. It is a different way of working than most are used to, but once mastered it'll give you some serious workflow advantages for editing audio. Other points:

You ever notice how some people complain about drifting midi? Although it is an add on, SAW's midi is locked to the audio engine. It cannot drift. Better check your interface or practice more!

Do you like how your compressors, guitar sims, and vsti's sound at 96k sample rate, but don't want to commit the resources and cpu demands it takes? Record your project at 44.1 then set the sample rate to 96k to bulid your mix. SAW will upsample all the tracks, then donwsample to whatever rate you choose.

All in all, it ain't too pretty, but it'll do just about anything you need it to. Even without a dongle to plug in...lol

happy recording
-Doug
www.myspace.com/hisesoundlabs

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:59 pm

Improv wrote: And what about more subtle acoustic phenomena such as multiple overtone series which are technically above the range of human hearing, but not human perception?

Of course, it's a subjective argument. Some choices can be made based on budget considerations. Other choices can be made based on requirements (someone doing animal behavior research needs much higher fidelity than mere "human" perception).

I suspect there are perfectionists whose unwillingness to compromise is actually stopping them from producing anything. The kid with the soundblaster, the Behringer mixer, the Marshall mic, the M-audio controller, and the Washburn guitar might put out a hundred hours of music before the perfectionist decides that the $15K PT:HD rig isn't going to happen this year.

I seriously do know several musicians who haven't bothered to even try recording anything because they seriously think they can't do anything meaningful unless they use protools. I've tried to explain that it's possible to get quite good results with a couple hundred bucks worth of hardware and software. It's as though some people don't *want* to do it, and use the inflated costs of certain kinds of gear and software as an excuse...

what does a DAW for $2500?