Re: VST?

[Leo Cavallo <cavallo@dada.it>]

Hi doug

please don't put that kind of hostility in your replies... I think it's out
of context here... 
 and you should not feel like I doubt about your experience or competence 
or
anything about what you said (like you did about my post.... or am I 
wrong?).


>>>
>>
>>the Virtual Studio Technology is the whole software architecture, not 
>just
>>the plugin system
>>
>Yes, this is true, but for all but the programers out there, the plug-in 
>aspect is the most significant feature of VST, wouldn't you say?

yes, but IMO only in part... I think the chance to record, mix, automate,
process, etc., all in just a software environment is the hearth of the VST
system. Doesn't VST stand for a "virtual studio" (with all its limits...) 
in
your computer?

and to a person who doesn't know at all what's VST stands for (the 
beginning
of this thread...), how would do you reply to? like you'd do to a 
programmer?

>Maybe things have been upgraded since I checked out the 2408, but it was 
>far from the "lowest latency around."  I'm not calling you a liar, I just 
>have a much different recolection of their system, and it was much more 
>severe than 3ms.  And that was on the fastest computer out there at the 
>time.  

sorry but I tests electronic products for living (instruments, softwares,
audio interfaces, etc.)... I've installed a lot of audio cards and the
MOTU2408 was the one I  decided to buy.... I work on a PC and the lower
latency you can achieve is precisely 3ms. On Mac I know from some pros 
using
it, that you can go even lower (with a little more stability too...). It's
definitely the lower latency value you can get on a computer at the 
moment.  
maybe you tried some older drivers? 

>I will admit that for any serious DAW stuff, I will not go with anything 
>less than a full-blown Protools system.

depends on your budget and your purposes.. It's obvious that Pro Tools is
the best DAW sistem around, but for a lot less money I've seen pro 
engineers
producing great records with VST and home-DAW too... Quality is quality 
(and
ProTools has it...) but a lot depends how much you know your tools and how
you use them...

>>BTW, like real studio usually do, it's better to record straight clean 
>and
>>then process the signal (with plug ins), than recording wet... so latency
>>should not be a big problem... 
>
>I'll not even comment on the "real studio" comment, sufice it to say that 
>I've had considerable time on SSLs, etc.  In a plugin environment, I 
>never print effects, but it is disconcerting to play while monitoring a 
>dry signal.  I always record Guitarists through ampfarm, but print only 
>the dry signal, so I can tweek it later, for instance.  If you're NOT 
>working this way, you are missing half of the point of a plug-in DAW.

sorry for my poor english... I didn't want to hurt you at all...
I'm sure you're the best engineer around... and don't wanna doubt about
that, no way...  but please, try to avoid those childish reactions and 
don't
doubt about my credentials too...

BTW, I usually don't monitor through Cubase at all... using external gear
and outboard processing to record and then all the plug ins to add colour

>
>
>
>>in fact big latency values are a problem only
>>for mixing, when your moves on the virtual mixers have a delay on the 
>music
>>played.
>
>Which should be automated, eh?

yes, but as you probably know if a slider or a knob don't respond in time
it's quite difficult to automate a whole mix... and inserting all the 
values
via keyboard it's a very long process.... 

ciao
leo


>
>
>Doug
>
>
>