| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:03:16 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
27 files (19,977K bytes) |
| Messages: | 178,944 |
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
Apart from the spammers?
Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return to our
normal low traffic again.
Seconded.
On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
Apart from the spammers?
Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return to our >>> normal low traffic again.
Seconded.
Well, the spammers didn't go.
But I'm here again, without the spam on Eternal September !
On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
Apart from the spammers?
Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return to our >> normal low traffic again.
Seconded.
Well, the spammers didn't go.
Geoff <geoff@geoffwood.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
Apart from the spammers?
Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return to our >> normal low traffic again.
Seconded.
Well, the spammers didn't go.
I think the deadline is Monday 26th.
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Geoff <geoff@geoffwood.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
Apart from the spammers?
Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return
to our normal low traffic again.
Seconded.
Well, the spammers didn't go.
I think the deadline is Monday 26th.
I thought it was the 22nd (a couple days ago).
Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Geoff <geoff@geoffwood.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
Apart from the spammers?
Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return
to our normal low traffic again.
Seconded.
Well, the spammers didn't go.
I think the deadline is Monday 26th.
I thought it was the 22nd (a couple days ago).
Most of the spam on this group seemed to stop about 6 days ago but it
was still getting through on <sci.electronics.design> until 18 hours
ago. It seems to have stopped now, hopefully for good ( ...certainly
for better).
--John started this thread last Monday 2-19. The last spam entry was on Thursday 2-22. THANKS! to whoever pulled this off. I hope it sticks. I look forward to resuming our eclectic exchanges.
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
John started this thread last Monday 2-19. The last spam entry was on Thursday 2-22. THANKS! to whoever pulled this off. I hope it sticks. I look forward to resuming our eclectic exchanges.
On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
Apart from the spammers?
Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return to
our normal low traffic again.
Seconded.
Well, the spammers didn't go.
But I'm here again, without the spam on Eternal September !
eternal-september.org
cheers
g ;- )
Apart from the spammers?
Apart from the spammers?
On 2/19/24 08:21, John Williamson wrote:
Apart from the spammers?
Like spirits with unresolved Earthly business,
we glide through the hallways trying to find
out whether there is really any benefit to sample
rates above 44.1k, and whether Pro-tools does anything
useful that Reaper can't. :)
On 2/19/24 08:21, John Williamson wrote:
Apart from the spammers?
Like spirits with unresolved Earthly business,
we glide through the hallways trying to find
out whether there is really any benefit to sample
rates above 44.1k, and whether Pro-tools does anything
useful that Reaper can't. :)
As for the Pro Tools against Reaper thing, it depends on what you count
as useful. One good point about Pro Tools, though, is that I can use
files from and send files to just about any professional mixing facility
and know they will drop into their workflow with no trouble, while
Reaper tends to be used more at the home studio end of the market.
On 06/03/2024 21:42, Tobiah wrote:
On 2/19/24 08:21, John Williamson wrote:<Grin> When I am editing or cleaning up a recording, the higher sample
Apart from the spammers?
Like spirits with unresolved Earthly business,
we glide through the hallways trying to find
out whether there is really any benefit to sample
rates above 44.1k, and whether Pro-tools does anything
useful that Reaper can't.-a :)
rates let me do a better job. When listening at home, at my age, the HF limit is in my ears, not the equipment.
As for the Pro Tools against Reaper thing, it depends on what you count
as useful. One good point about Pro Tools, though, is that I can use
files from and send files to just about any professional mixing facility
and know they will drop into their workflow with no trouble, while
Reaper tends to be used more at the home studio end of the market.
On 8/03/2024 2:19 am, John Williamson wrote:
On 06/03/2024 21:42, Tobiah wrote:
On 2/19/24 08:21, John Williamson wrote:<Grin> When I am editing or cleaning up a recording, the higher sample
Apart from the spammers?
Like spirits with unresolved Earthly business,
we glide through the hallways trying to find
out whether there is really any benefit to sample
rates above 44.1k, and whether Pro-tools does anything
useful that Reaper can't.-a :)
rates let me do a better job. When listening at home, at my age, the
HF limit is in my ears, not the equipment.
As for the Pro Tools against Reaper thing, it depends on what you
count as useful. One good point about Pro Tools, though, is that I can
use files from and send files to just about any professional mixing
facility and know they will drop into their workflow with no trouble,
while Reaper tends to be used more at the home studio end of the market.
A situation engineered by the Apple maxim (initially at least) of
locking the early market leader to a particular computer and interface platform (and 'cost') early in the evolution of the technology, gaining
a near impenetrable foothold (as in monopoly) from which escape is difficult.
There have been several attempt at undiscriminating cross-platform
project file formats, the latest being 'DAWproject' files from Presonus, which includes pretty much all usable info including plugins and
associated parameters.
geoff
On 8/03/2024 10:31 am, geoff wrote:
On 8/03/2024 2:19 am, John Williamson wrote:
On 06/03/2024 21:42, Tobiah wrote:
On 2/19/24 08:21, John Williamson wrote:<Grin> When I am editing or cleaning up a recording, the higher
Apart from the spammers?
Like spirits with unresolved Earthly business,
we glide through the hallways trying to find
out whether there is really any benefit to sample
rates above 44.1k, and whether Pro-tools does anything
useful that Reaper can't.-a :)
sample rates let me do a better job. When listening at home, at my
age, the HF limit is in my ears, not the equipment.
As for the Pro Tools against Reaper thing, it depends on what you
count as useful. One good point about Pro Tools, though, is that I
can use files from and send files to just about any professional
mixing facility and know they will drop into their workflow with no
trouble, while Reaper tends to be used more at the home studio end of
the market.
A situation engineered by the Apple maxim (initially at least) of
locking the early market leader to a particular computer and interface
platform (and 'cost') early in the evolution of the technology,
gaining a near impenetrable foothold (as in monopoly) from which
escape is difficult.
There have been several attempt at undiscriminating cross-platform
project file formats, the latest being 'DAWproject' files from
Presonus, which includes pretty much all usable info including plugins
and associated parameters.
geoff
https://www.bitwig.com/support/technical_support/dawproject-file-format-faqs-62/
I use Reaper because of its ability to record midi tracks of my
electronic tom tomrCOs. What I donrCOt like is that for sessions longer than two hours Reaper begins a new 2nd wav file so I have to stitch the two consecutive tracks together in Audition where I do my editing.
(Still lurking amateur, these days using NovaBBS, free browser based
Usenet)
On 14/12/2024 8:08 am, Tim Sprout wrote:
I use Reaper because of its ability to record midi tracks of my
electronic tom tomrCOs. What I donrCOt like is that for sessions longer than >> two hours Reaper begins a new 2nd wav file so I have to stitch the two
consecutive tracks together in Audition where I do my editing.
(Still lurking amateur, these days using NovaBBS, free browser based
Usenet)
Recording MIDI tracks does not generate WAV files.
But why bring Audition into the equation? Simply edit in Reaper !
I played around a bit with Reaper and found it kind of annoying, in
part because of the tight MIDI integration which looked like a very
useful thing for people using MIDI but problematic for me as someone
who doesn't use it.
How have you liked just working inside Reaper? Are you using it just
as a fancy sequencer?
--scott
I use Reaper because of its ability to record midi tracks of myI'm glad to see responses from the true experts who still visit here. I'm reminded of the discussions about using the "other" blade groove in our EDITall blocks. (Degauss the blade!)
electronic tom tom?s. What I don?t like is that for sessions longer than
two hours Reaper begins a new 2nd wav file so I have to stitch the two consecutive tracks together in Audition where I do my editing.
(Still lurking amateur, these days using NovaBBS, free browser based
Usenet)
--
Tim Sprout
I played around a bit with Reaper and found it kind of annoying, in
part because of the tight MIDI integration which looked like a very
useful thing for people using MIDI but problematic for me as someone
who doesn't use it.
How have you liked just working inside Reaper? Are you using it just
as a fancy sequencer?
--scott
I played around a bit with Reaper and found it kind of annoying, in
part because of the tight MIDI integration which looked like a very
useful thing for people using MIDI but problematic for me as someone
who doesn't use it.
True, but a Reaper session file can contain both MIDI and WAV
files. WAV files have a size limit set by the operating system.
But why bring Audition into the equation? Simply edit in Reaper !Reaper may be hard coded to the FAT32 file size limits, while
Audition allows larger files as long as your computer uses NTFS.
True, but a Reaper session file can contain both MIDI and WAV
files. WAV files have a size limit set by the operating system.
But why bring Audition into the equation? Simply edit in Reaper !Reaper may be hard coded to the FAT32 file size limits, while
Audition allows larger files as long as your computer uses NTFS.