Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #18285

Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit?

From	An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid>
Subject	Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit?
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy
References	(1 earlier) <cs1mtqrk0cbf$.zdtwgyatgllr$.dlg@40tude.net> <pan.2011.04.25.02.52.39@friend.com.invalid> <1xydlm81p3p8k.g7lzbvu6lnnc.dlg@40tude.net> <pan.2011.04.25.03.54.17@friend.com.invalid> <156yzd68cw4ms$.wq82yqu0nyv2.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID	<pan.2011.04.25.09.11.18@friend.com.invalid> (permalink)
Date	2011-04-25 11:11 +0100
Organization	X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:20:52 -0400, flatfish+++ chiseled
156yzd68cw4ms$.wq82yqu0nyv2.dlg@40tude.net in stone using Trajan:

> On 25 Apr 2011 05:54:27 +0100, An Old Friend wrote:
> 
> 
>> The drum samples aren't in some linux-unreadable audio format, are
>> they? If they're WAV or AIFF files, it shouldn't be any more of a
>> hassle than it would be with other DAWs.
> 
> It's not the samples, it's the software that analyzes the drummer's hit
> points and then automatically inserts the samples, in time, pitch and
> everything else.
> 
> There is a lot more to it.

Flatfish, I can't read your mind. What you asked was:

> Say the drummer was off a little can you replace his performance with
> some well recorded drum samples?

I know about SoundReplacer and TL Drum Rehab, and have seen them in 
action. And honestly, I was disappointed with the results. There was a 
lot of tweaking and fiddling to get things just right. It wasn't as 
simple as you make it sound, unless you want a sloppy sound.

> See, this is exactly what I was talking about with portable devices
> being mounted as storage under Linux vs the software Windows users can
> use to sync etc.
> 
> It's completely different and not comparable.
> 

Yet I'm able to sync my iPhone using Rhythmbox without problems.

>>> How about mixing and mastering the recording? What kind of tools does
>>> Linux offer compared to Protools or really Windows/OSX DAW software in
>>> general?
>>> 
>>> Linux isn't even in the same ball park and THAT is the problem.
>> 
>> I agree the tools are different. I'm exploring them now, but haven't
>> made a final verdict. I come from using Logic, and I'm aware of the
>> things you're talking about.
> 
> Logic has improved a lot in recent years. It's probably the #2 program
> in many studios after Protools. Logic is much, much better for MIDI and
> VSTi.

I see Nuendo more than Logic. But that's my experience. I see ProTools 
more than both combined.

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-24 21:39 -0400
  Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 21:54 -0400
    Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 04:52 +0100
      Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 23:19 -0400
        Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 05:54 +0100
          Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 00:20 -0400
            Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 11:11 +0100
              Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 08:19 -0400
                Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 16:50 +0100
          Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 07:45 -0400
            Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 08:20 -0400
              Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 08:27 -0400
                Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2011-04-26 05:16 +0000
          Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:49 +0200
            Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 16:20 +0100
            Re: Why are so many "Hadrons" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-25 15:39 -0400
              Re: Why are so many "Hadrons" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 15:46 -0400
              Re: Why are so many "Hadrons" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 22:10 +0200
                Re: Why are so many "Hadrons" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 16:15 -0400
        Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Chris <chrisdhaag@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-25 07:56 +0000
          Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 08:17 -0400
            Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Chris <chrisdhaag@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-25 17:54 +0000
              Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:17 -0400
      Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 07:42 -0400
        Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 09:01 -0500
          Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 10:24 -0400
  Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-04-24 22:21 -0400
    Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 22:34 -0400
      Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-04-24 22:52 -0400
        Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 22:54 -0400
  Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 14:50 +0100
    Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-04-25 15:51 +0100
      Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:13 -0400
      Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 11:16 -0400
        Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:25 -0400
          Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 17:28 +0200
            Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Clogwog" <clogwog@anon.eu> - 2011-04-25 21:59 +0200
        Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 16:59 +0100
      Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 16:24 +0100
        Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 10:30 -0500
          Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:33 -0400
          Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 16:55 +0100
            Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 09:03 -0700
              Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 17:23 +0100
                Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Big Steel <Steel98@steel98.com> - 2011-04-25 12:28 -0400
                Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 09:39 -0700
            Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 12:14 -0400
            Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Clog_-_wog (®) <clog_-_wog@anonimous.eu> - 2011-04-25 22:04 +0200
        Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 11:43 -0400
  Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 08:58 -0500
    Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 10:01 -0400
    Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 07:09 -0700
      Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 10:22 -0400
        Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 10:02 -0500
          Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Big Steel <Steel98@steel98.com> - 2011-04-25 11:04 -0400
          Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:33 -0400
        Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 10:48 -0500
          Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 08:55 -0700
            Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 13:19 -0400
              Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 12:48 -0500
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 13:58 -0400
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:09 -0400
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 13:20 -0500
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 17:32 -0400
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 19:59 -0400
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 20:22 -0400
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 07:29 -0500
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-04-26 15:40 +0100
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 11:28 -0500
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "robo-rob" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 13:21 -0400
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-26 14:17 -0400
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 14:29 -0400
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 13:36 -0500
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "robo-rob" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 14:42 -0400
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "robo-rob" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 14:53 -0400
                Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-26 14:16 -0400
          Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 12:12 -0400
        Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be brainless twits Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2011-04-25 19:28 +0100
          Re: Why are so many Advocates  PROVEN to be brainless twits "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:38 -0400
            Re: Why are so many Advocates  PROVEN to be brainless twits chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 13:50 -0500
              Re: Why are so many Advocates  PROVEN to be brainless twits Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2011-04-25 22:59 +0100
                Re: Why are so many Advocates  PROVEN to be brainless twits "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 18:51 -0400
                Re: Why are so many Advocates  PROVEN to be brainless twits chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 07:43 -0500
                Re: Why are so many Advocates  PROVEN to be brainless twits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-04-26 08:19 -0700
                Re: Why are so many Advocates  PROVEN to be brainless twits chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 07:40 -0500
                Re: Why are so many Advocates  PROVEN to be brainless twits An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-26 16:41 +0100
                Re: Why are so many Advocates  PROVEN to be brainless twits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-04-26 08:19 -0700
                Re: Why are so many Advocates  PROVEN to be brainless twits "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 11:37 -0400
                Re: Why are so many Advocates  PROVEN to be brainless twits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-04-26 08:50 -0700

csiph-web