Never having used a VST host before, I am a little curious on how much power I would be needing for realtime VSTi synths like Camel Audio Physical Modeling, and maybe one synth comparible in quality to SFP, if one exists that is. I would run the host on Core #1 for MIDI and Audio sequencing ( EnergyXT ), and run two other realtime VSTi's on Core #2. I'LL just get to the point. I am building my son the Ultimate gaming box for Christmas. I have an Intel E6700 ES sample CPU as we speak. I am hoping that I could buy the E6600 4 me, and let my son have the engineering sample NFR 4 OC'g and SLI gaming. The E6600 is very cheap in comparison to the E6800,and the E6700. Since the Conroes are smoking the AMD's once again, do you think that it's speed of 2.4GHz will suffice for the tasks I explained above?
To Us, And Those Like Us,
Power Comparisons
I have found the results myself and can say that the 2.13 GHz/ E6400 is on par with the 3.0GHz P4. The E6700 is on par with the 3.4Ghz Northwood EE, but 2 times the level 2 cache per core. These little CPU's are quite fast, and it seems that the large amount of L2 cache helps with certain apps. When developers optimise apps. 4 SSE 4 we can expect to see even better performance.
Hi Jimmy
Are you sure, that going into VST-land would not make you spend more time with equipment than with music? This is the main reason, why I never went into that area. At the moment, I can not think of anything essential, that has not been made in very good quality on the Scope platform.
Just a thought, because I see you as likely having even more of a gear fewer than me, and I have plenty of hours in front of me still, to get really into deep with all my CWA gear. All those little treasures (stock synths can actually be nice too, even though they do not cost 200€ a piece) just waiting for me. And while they do, I am learning to live with the fact, that to me it is more important to get the job done, than it is to spend 3 hours on optimizing 3% extra and then having lost the creative flow. To you it may be different though
Are you sure, that going into VST-land would not make you spend more time with equipment than with music? This is the main reason, why I never went into that area. At the moment, I can not think of anything essential, that has not been made in very good quality on the Scope platform.
Just a thought, because I see you as likely having even more of a gear fewer than me, and I have plenty of hours in front of me still, to get really into deep with all my CWA gear. All those little treasures (stock synths can actually be nice too, even though they do not cost 200€ a piece) just waiting for me. And while they do, I am learning to live with the fact, that to me it is more important to get the job done, than it is to spend 3 hours on optimizing 3% extra and then having lost the creative flow. To you it may be different though
I agree 100%,
But I see the need for VST host for the MIDI/Audio sequencing, and the models I can't get with SFP, I will get with VST. I am turning into a work a holic, and have little time to create, other than my improvisational moments at the gig. Things will slow up, and then I can create again.4 I will always love playing jazz fusion/funk. That is where it is at 4 me.
But I see the need for VST host for the MIDI/Audio sequencing, and the models I can't get with SFP, I will get with VST. I am turning into a work a holic, and have little time to create, other than my improvisational moments at the gig. Things will slow up, and then I can create again.4 I will always love playing jazz fusion/funk. That is where it is at 4 me.
Strange You Said That,
I have always loved anything with synthesizers. From It's conception forward. I happen to be doing many different forms of electronic dance as we speak. It also fuses jazz, rap, classical, and sound FX seques. Very up tempo and intense, and very trippy psychedelic stuff. As long as synthesizers are involved, count me in. All I can say is that I haven't played the Allman Brothers stuff 4 quite a while now. I still believe that live performance is the only way to evolve constantly, and I play three gigs a day sometimes. I couldn't be happier. I do not consider this work, but a rewarding hobby musically, and financially.
The Best To All Of Us,
I have always loved anything with synthesizers. From It's conception forward. I happen to be doing many different forms of electronic dance as we speak. It also fuses jazz, rap, classical, and sound FX seques. Very up tempo and intense, and very trippy psychedelic stuff. As long as synthesizers are involved, count me in. All I can say is that I haven't played the Allman Brothers stuff 4 quite a while now. I still believe that live performance is the only way to evolve constantly, and I play three gigs a day sometimes. I couldn't be happier. I do not consider this work, but a rewarding hobby musically, and financially.
The Best To All Of Us,
-
hubird
only way? electronic music evolved thanks to leaving that performance concept, at least initiallyOn 2006-08-15 18:45, scope4live wrote:
I still believe that live performance is the only way to evolve constantly,
anyway, I don't doubt performance was and is good for you, and many others, also in the pure electronic scene
cheers mate.
Sorry,
I should have said performing with different people, but an audience is more motivating. Sequencers and such have made performance a breeze, but it also causes sterilty. I record every night on DAT from FOH if possible, and I can feel and hear the difference, and the crowd subconsciencely can tell also, IMHO. They are not as dumb as we might believe.
Keep SFP'ing,
I should have said performing with different people, but an audience is more motivating. Sequencers and such have made performance a breeze, but it also causes sterilty. I record every night on DAT from FOH if possible, and I can feel and hear the difference, and the crowd subconsciencely can tell also, IMHO. They are not as dumb as we might believe.
Keep SFP'ing,
-
hubird
off course they are not, my friend, it's just about another concept.
it makes a huge difference if they are whatching musicions talking by their instruments or listening to a virtual concept, conceptualized in their heads
Making virtual music is all about avoiding sterility, it's THE art
happy creating, cheers
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2006-08-15 20:05 ]</font>
it makes a huge difference if they are whatching musicions talking by their instruments or listening to a virtual concept, conceptualized in their heads
Making virtual music is all about avoiding sterility, it's THE art
happy creating, cheers
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2006-08-15 20:05 ]</font>
I think of recording at home and performing as totally different things, although live performances can be wonderful recordings. If you know how to play an instrument, you can create wonderful sequences based on improvisations which have a natural feel, even if they are quantized. I find it is important to pay close attention to velocity. The ability to edit midi data is a big advantage over audio tracks.