CompuServe Thread

#audio Samplers

12 messages in this thread
#29968From: David ArtMar 1, 1990 11:56 PM
Mike, I recently got Perfect Sound 3.0 and have been favoribly impressed with the hardware. They've eliminated the level potentiomenter in favor of software controlled level. For me, that would tip the scales toward getting the newer hardware. Pots are generally a source of noise. I've found the software to be good, but I can never remember what the symbols on the gadgets mean from one session to the next since it's not something I use every day. 😉 Hope this helps. 8) David
#29980From: Michael FiggMar 2, 1990 5:18 PM
Never mind about the USENET request. I've got about three responses in the last 24 hours. It seems like you can't go wrong with Perfect Sound. One dealer thought that it was alittle hard to use (the software) compared to Master Sound, but since nobody has mentioned MasterSound, I'll stick with PSound. Thanks, Mike
#29981From: Michael FiggMar 2, 1990 5:20 PM
Sorry Dave, that USENET posting was for everyone. Thanks for the response, Mike
#30093From: -=R=A=D=I=O=- ACTIVISIONMar 4, 1990 9:00 PM
I'm sure there are several replies to your message Mike, but here are my .02 cents anywayz… 1) Perfect Sound 3.0 has gotten lots of flack because the only prg. that can utilize it is the Perfect Sound 3.0 software. Most of my developer pals absolutely SWEAR by AudioMaster II which is only compatible with the older Perfect Sound digitizer. 2) Quite a few lock-ups, resets, GURU'S! have occured when creating instruments with the Perfect Sound 3.0 software (this is with min. 1meg o'memory on 500's and 2000's). 3) It's about time us Amiga users did a digitizer round up to find what digitizer is best based on sound quality and compatibility with other programs/systems. I have the same perfect sound that you have and I'm considering the new futuresound digitizer, but I'm REALLY looking for a digitizer that is STEREO COMPATIBLE WITH CENTAUR SOFTWARE'S QUASARSOUND PRG.!!! Anyone have info to add? -rad
#30127From: David ArtMar 5, 1990 2:55 AM
Rad, I traced the lockup problem with PS 3.0 (and DigiView 4.0) in my setup to having a floppy in df0: when digitizing. (Yes, I had the 8520 chips replaced and it did the same thing.) While I understand that AudioMaster II does do a few more things than PS 3.0 software, the lack of a level control pot is a significant advantage which, in my case, makes it desirable. Actually, if you really like AM II better you can just use the PS 3.0 sw to do the actual sampling (since it comes bundled with the hardware anyway) and then do the fancy editing tricks with AM II. Hope this helps. 8) David
#30146From: -=R=A=D=I=O=- ACTIVISIONMar 5, 1990 5:52 PM
Ahhh, I see! As for the level control, I find the RAMPING option in several other programs to do just as well and better in some specific instances, yet I suppose we're all tired of having to reach behind our Amigas and fool with that daffy volume control on the PS hardware. One last thing about the PS software is it's (I'm refering to ver3.0 here) ability to show levels in real-time. QuasarSound and AudiomasterII can do this which is a lights-and-bells type of thing, yet it also aids me in setting the correct levels easily and with a huge ego simply because it looks so neat. Kind of makes you understand why certain pieces of software sell so well. -rad
#30169From: David ArtMar 5, 1990 11:09 PM
Rad, The PS 3.0 software does have a real-time waveform display to use when setting the level. I've found the auto-level option works pretty well for me as well. My objection to the level control is that they tend to become sources of noise – highly undesirable in a sampling situation. David
#30203From: -=R=A=D=I=O=- ACTIVISIONMar 6, 1990 4:42 PM
Thanks for the info on PS 3.0, I'm sure other people are also interested in how it performs. A friend and I are hopping down to the store tonight to pick-up the latest FutureSound digitizer (there's a new version out supposedly)
#30207From: Michael FiggMar 6, 1990 6:42 PM
How much is the new FutureSound? Has anybody had any experience with the new MasterSound? A dealer here said he and a friend tried it out and liked it better than PerfectSound, but also said he had problems using PerfectSound, which I haven't heard anybody else complain about. Ohhhhhhh, so many choices! Later Mikey
#30327From: -=R=A=D=I=O=- ACTIVISIONMar 8, 1990 5:48 PM
Hi Mikey, My friend got futuresound 500 for $119. It's a better digitizer in that it comes with a CABLE so, unlike perfect sound, you don't have to connect the bow itself to the back of your system. BUT…. So far, we have found that the FutureSound 500 is incompatible with AudioMasterII and QuasarSound (which, I found, is only compat. with the StarSound digztizer sold thru thy Creative Computers mail-order house). So only the software that comes with it is compat. with the hardware (as far as I know). The software it comes with is O.K. (I give AudioMaster/QuasarSound a 10 for interfacing and capabilities), but it has a techy-interface and is not readily easy to use, but we were abled to digitize in stereo within 10 minutes of booting the prg. I'm going to be ordering the StarSound sampler and I'll let you know what I think as soon as I get it. :^) -rad
#30357From: David ArtMar 8, 1990 11:28 PM
Rad, I'd be interested in what you think of the StarSound/QuasarSound package. I've seen it in the store and considered getting it. I ended up going with Perfect Sound 3.0, though, mostly because of the software level control. David
#30380From: -=R=A=D=I=O=- ACTIVISIONMar 9, 1990 5:12 PM
I'll be getting it before the end of the month, so I'll let you know. The interface is great though, for example, lets say that I want exactly 60 seconds of digitized sound, All I have to do is specify 60 seconds in the allocation menu and WHAM! I have exactly 60 seconds of allocated memory at a specified samply rate. The program also has effects such as Ramping, Hall and echo effects (both definable), reverse, and some others. I'd say it has the manipulative options that both Perfect Sound and Audiomaster II has. Interesting that it will save a file in Future Sound format, yet is not compatible with the future sound digitizer (new or old). It will work with both pieces of hardware (P.S. and F.S.) but only in mono. -rad