NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/sys/atari/st/12802

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-26 | 5.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!udel!gvls1!tredysvr!cellar!darling
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Darling)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: FALCON
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:01:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Cellar BBS)
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system
Lines: 107

[e-mail] (David Baggett) writes:

> All I'm saying is that whatever the Falcon has in it, the machine was
> not designed with a high-end audio system in it.  At the price they're
> giving, and with the cheesy ST-style construction, it's just not
> possible to equal high-end samplers, quality wise.  Hence my conclusion
> that the Falcon's digital audio capabilities, while extremely useful
> for a front-end, are inappropriate for use as a professional
> direct-to-disk recording system.

Lemme get this straight:  It's not as good as high-end SAMPLERS, so you can't
use it as an AUDIO RECORDER?

Apples and oranges, Dave.  Neither DAT machines, nor ADAT recorders, or the
ubiquitous Fostex 16-tk 1" analog used on every rap record, nor just about
every other device used daily to make professional recordings boasts the
same type of output as high-end samplers.  You're making a really bizarre
conclusion, here.

> Practically speaking, 50 kHz is no better than 48 kHz anyway, since
> Nyquist's theorem tells us that to sample any frequency with absolute
> accuracy you must sample at double that frequency.  50 kHz vs. 48 kHz
> just means you can sample 25 kHz sounds accurately along with 24 kHz
> sounds.  24 kHz is well beyond the average human being's hearing
> range.

It matters in terms of sample quantization errors and the amount of aliasing
you end up having to filter out, but I won't bore you and everyone else with
musicianspeak.  Agreed that the difference is minor.

> >> (Also, when you get a Falcon, take a look at the audio out system.  I
> >> bet you it's not anywhere near as noise-free as the out of an AKAI
> >> sampler.)
> >
> >I had an Akai S1000.  Blew.  Not an ideal example.
>
> I was really referring to the S9000 (?) which seems to be (according to
> most of the music magazines) the industry standard.  It sounded great
> to me.  If you think a $1000 AKAI sampler isn't good enough for you,
> you can forget the Falcon's audio system right now.

I mean this in the kindest possible way, Dave, but I don't really think you
know what you're talking about.

First of all, there is no Akai S9000.  You might be thinking of the Akai
S900, which was an industry standard about four years ago (how old are your
music magazines) and is now quite obsolete.

Second, if it sounded "great" to you, I don't think you're ready to judge
the requirements of professional audio.  The S900 is one of the noisiest,
grainiest samplers still in use.

Third, the S1000 goes for about $7000, not $1000.  You wont find a single
pro sampler that can be bought new for $1000.

And fourth, how many times do you have to be told that samplers and
recorders are completely different?  A sampler's DAC involves things like
moving anti-aliasing filters and variable-frequency playback.  An audio
recorder can make do with fixed-frequency playback and simple D/A
conversion.

> Do you think Atari (a faltering computer company) could do better than
> AKAI (a successful and well-respected music company) with a 20th of the
> budget?

If you want to compare Akai's ill-fated recorder to the first wave of
Falcon-based recorders, I think you'll be surprised (even though one is
tape-based, a comparison can be made).

> The point is that the sound quality you'll get out of a Falcon hardly
> compares to what you'd get out of high-end (or even low-end) samplers.

You still don't get it, do you?  Look, if you really do know the difference
between samplers and pro audio recorders, then stop using samplers as your
ideal.  Compare it to the S/N specs and D/A conversion of, say, Hybrid Arts'
Digital Master system.  Or Cubase Audio.  Or something in the same ballpark.

> Given that, I *hardly* think you'd want to use the Falcon for serious
> direct to disk (multitracked or otherwise) digital recording.  Not to
> mention the fact that you'll need to buy a pretty big hard disk to go
> along with your Falcon if you want to do direct-to-disk recording.  That
> adds a couple thousand right there (for a 1 gig drive, for example).

What have you got against a Syquest 44meg removeable system?  For adding
vocals to MIDI, it'd work fine.  Buy one for $600, and plug it into your
SCSI port.

But yes, you'll need a large hard disk for many applications.  Just like you
would with any other direct-to-disk recorder on any other computer.  What's
your point?

> The original claim I responded to was (essentially) "the Falcon will
> revolutionize the music business because it will allow anyone to do
> professional direct-to-disk recording for very little money." The
> Falcon may be a nice machine, but it's not *that* nice.

It doesn't have to be "*that* nice."  To fulfill the goal, it will have to
have good software, decent (relatively cheap) D/A conversion, and easy hard
disk expandability.  Knowing C-Lab's and Steinberg's attitudes towards the
Falcon, the specs on the DAC, and the basic functioning of SCSI, clearly
there's no cause for concluding the machine is incapable of performing one
of its primary functions as a musician's computer.

^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^\\\^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Thomas A. Darling \\\ Fact HQ Studio * record production * dance re-mixing
[e-mail] \\\ music for film * The Cellar BBS:215/654-9184 * FACT
v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~\\\~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~