Recording Engineering & Production: Making records better, not just louder and cheaper. The brightest minds from the creative and scientific world of audio discuss the elements of audio production that interest you most.
bigaudioblowhard Messages: 1161 Registered: February 2005 Location: Los Angeles
Platinum Member
Is anyone using Soundblade on a daily basis? Its nice to see CD PM is working. I'm ready for a new Mac and am thinking "about going all the way". Is this a good idea?
Barry Hufker Messages: 7782 Registered: October 2004 Location: between heaven and hell
Platinum Member
BAB,
I should bring you up to date about my experience. I was ready to dump the program. But Spunky Brunone of Audio DAWG (my dealer) made some good points about sticking with it. Sonic has provided some fast upgrades that made the program more solid. That was obvious when I opened it. They also added support for stereo plugins, which wasn't there before. And they now directly support ReNOVAtor (which I've purchased) in soundBlade. Another release should be coming soon.
bigaudioblowhard Messages: 1161 Registered: February 2005 Location: Los Angeles
Platinum Member
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 16 November 2006 15:30
BAB,
I should bring you up to date about my experience. I was ready to dump the program. But Spunky Brunone of Audio DAWG (my dealer) made some good points about sticking with it. Sonic has provided some fast upgrades that made the program more solid. That was obvious when I opened it. They also added support for stereo plugins, which wasn't there before. And they now directly support ReNOVAtor (which I've purchased) in soundBlade. Another release should be coming soon.
I have gone from despair to hopeful.
I too am eager to hear about others' experience.
Best,
Barry
So Barry, you're shipping PMCD's fully created on SB?
I've got like three albums I've been holding back on, waiting. I've got to get started on em.
Garrett H Messages: 313 Registered: December 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Active Member
My demo copy crashes my machine. I swear I will give this software EVERY possible benefit of the doubt, but I need it to run first. (Demo version 1.1)Treelady Studios, Pittsburgh, PA http://www.treelady.com
Senior Contributor, Tape Op Magazine http://www.tapeop.com
Jerry Tubb Messages: 2546 Registered: March 2005 Location: Austin, Texas
Platinum Member
Garrett H wrote on Thu, 16 November 2006 23:05
My demo copy crashes my machine. I swear I will give this software EVERY possible benefit of the doubt, but I need it to run first. (Demo version 1.1)
Hey G
Same here, then I trashed the prefs file (plist) and it ran muuuch better.
I bet there are newer builds than 2218, maybe if we go ahead and buy it'll run better, and they'll let us have a newer build soon.
I really want to use sB, I'll give them every chance to get it right, but I can't risk using it on an actual session, esp an attended one, till it's bullet proof... which should give me time to learn the key commands : - )
Rather than upgrade from PMCD, I think I'll keep it as is, cause it's pretty stable, and spring for a separate authorization of sB. Soon as it's stable I'll move PMCD to our B room.
Matt_G Messages: 571 Registered: July 2004 Location: Brisbane Australia
Gold Member
There is no doubt sB has great potential & the sonic quality is of a high standard, however it's a little disconcerting that their main client demographic is the "audio restoration" sector. Larry Deeds said that because this is where the sales & essentially where most of the money is coming from (movie restoration & reformatting for 5.1) that this sector is who they will mainly cater for in terms of future product features & requests. Hey that's business, but it doesn't encourage me to buy it for audio mastering.
Because the music mastering community is a minority sector for SSLC sales it also makes sense that our requests may take longer to implement (if at all?). Meaning, they'll get around to it one day as us mastering guys aren't at the top of their priority list.
This is discouraging as audio restoration only requires a basic feature set to get by & is only a small portion of the work I do. What Larry says makes sense & shows why they have included Renovator support in version 1.1 before implementing a true "source/destination" model into the program when the mastering community has been screaming for it. It shows where their priorities lie.
Anyway I still think it could be a good program for mastering audio eventually, but I won't be parting with any cash until the kinks are ironed out & the S/D model is integrated properly.
Barry Hufker Messages: 7782 Registered: October 2004 Location: between heaven and hell
Platinum Member
BAB,
No, I haven't been using PMCD, just sB. I am getting used to it still and haven't actually used it for a project for the same reasons Jerry mentioned. But I am limping along figuring things are improving and maybe soon all will be well. But at least I'm keeping the product and am optimistic.
Restoration: when you figure the size of existing label catalogs, this is surely a large source of income for us. There is so much material, much of which could do with some (tasetful)touching up. And this isn't even considering the recordings by every orchestra in the country who has recorded their concerts for broadcast or who need to restore their archive of historical recordings.
Bob Boyd Messages: 1128 Registered: December 2004 Location: Houston
Platinum Member
Matt_G wrote on Fri, 17 November 2006 07:40
There is no doubt sB has great potential & the sonic quality is of a high standard, however it's a little disconcerting that their main client demographic is the "audio restoration" sector. Larry Deeds said that because this is where the sales & essentially where most of the money is coming from (movie restoration & reformatting for 5.1) that this sector is who they will mainly cater for in terms of future product features & requests. Hey that's business, but it doesn't encourage me to buy it for audio mastering.
Because the music mastering community is a minority sector for SSLC sales it also makes sense that our requests may take longer to implement (if at all?). Meaning, they'll get around to it one day as us mastering guys aren't at the top of their priority list.
This is discouraging as audio restoration only requires a basic feature set to get by & is only a small portion of the work I do. What Larry says makes sense & shows why they have included Renovator support in version 1.1 before implementing a true "source/destination" model into the program when the mastering community has been screaming for it. It shows where their priorities lie.
Anyway I still think it could be a good program for mastering audio eventually, but I won't be parting with any cash until the kinks are ironed out & the S/D model is integrated properly.
Matt
hmmm... No offense Matt but as a user, these comments assume a lot and couldn't be futher from the impressions I've gotten.
I installed DeClick and DeCrackle on my sB system and of course they are known for their NoNoise software but nothing about the progress I've seen during my use has been specific to the restoration market. I use sB on my mastering chain for assembly, final edits/tweaks and an occasional plugin and it has been a great asset.
If you are interested in their product and concerned about their priorities, you should contact them directly.Bob Boyd ambientdigital, Houston
Dave Davis Messages: 425 Registered: December 2005 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Active Member
Matt, I think I recall the thread where Larry said that, and his point was simply that there was a parallel market where SSHD and 'Blade dominate. He didn't suggest that there is no focus on the music market, or even a diminished one. As I recall, he was talking about HIS customer base in LA, not sB's target. Regardless, Larry isn't SonicStudio, he's a (quite reputable) dealer. To the underlying point, all indications (including my own conversations with Jon, Omas and others at SS LLC) are precisely the opposite of the conclusions you drew from Larry's comments.
soundBlade itself is a great program for restoration, but if you follow the marketing dollars, they're lopsided in their targeting of CD mastering. Everytime you come to this forum you see an ad for their products. Also, their "featured endorsers" are ME's, not restoration techs. Finally, the feature-set and development focus is quite clearly on us as well. Omas and Jon aren't popping into restoration forums and such, but I know for a fact both read this forum and other major mastering sites, and even post in from time to time. Between 1.0 and 1.1 many features were added at the specific request of ME's including those here. For instance splitting the timelines so you can independently view the source/destination tracks is supposedly in the works, because of comments like those in these threads. I'm not suggesting sB has no role or market in restoration, because Larry says it's a big seller, and he would know. I'm saying 'Blade is first and foremost a mastering product. I don't see anyone from Apple or Berkeley here asking what we want, nor do either interact with us DURING development of their product for feedback. In fact, I see NO other software makers here at all, so I'd say their unique in their attention to our needs.
I'm well aware the current product is a work in progress, and if I were at my old gig I'd be on the sidelines like others here, waiting for a shipping product that did everything out of the box. It's not an unreasonable expectation, just wise business practice. I jumped early because I didn't need soundBlade to cut discs or master end to end in production, but rather I wanted it's engine and transport for other work. Since then I've been quite impressed with the attention the company has given to problems I've had. I spoke with another ME last week, and discovered he too had been in direct contact with coders, getting updates for specific problems. When I've given them a repeatable set of steps to reproduce problems I'm having, they've sent me fixed builds in a day or so. Again, I've not seen other manufacturers make that sort of effort for little guys (maybe Bob Ludwig or DC!).
At any rate, I have indeed cut replication masters and DDPs in 'Blade. It's not as fast for me as SSHD was yet, and I've had my share of issues like everyone else. I use it daily not for the s/d editing model, but for the sound. We have PTHD, we have Spark and Peak and a bunch of other DAWs and hardware. With the exception of my MH hardware (which is very limited in terms of it's functionality), nothing else can do simple gain changes as well as 'Blade. When it comes to running plugs in a chain, sB again blows away the competition, simply because it doesn't truncate or dither back to 24 bits at every intersection. As long as the fixes keep coming and the company remains responsive, their direction is clearly where I want to be. For those on the fence, I'd assume you have something else that's working for you today, so keep using it until you find something better. If sB works for you down the road, jump on board - waiting is free and relatively painless.
-d-
PS: a huge percentage of the releases I did at QCA last year were reissues, across every genre. Increasingly restoration is the "gravy" work in mastering... objective technical improvement can be achieved in unattended sessions, and it's easy to run up huge bills with lucrative jobs. I would argue that today restoration tasks are as much a part of mastering as EQ. Sure there are specialists, but within regional markets and current budgets, they may be out of reach.Dave Davis MUSIC|MEDIA|DESIGN
Dave Davis Messages: 425 Registered: December 2005 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Active Member
My apologies to Matt: He was NOT misunderstanding Larry. I'm behind on that list because it comes to my home email...
The rest of my comments stand. Having read the comments in question (I was confusing it with a different comments he made elsewhere) I take issue with much of what he's saying, and will post a response on that list.
For THIS discussion, I will add one other note - Larry's also giving some VERY optimistic timelines on that forum. While I have no doubt he has inside info, and SSLLC wants it to happen very much too, I've not seen those kinds of projections anywhere, and it seems highly unlikely they'd do a major project release in Q1 of any year, since Winter NAMM isn't an ideal place to launch high end audio systems. Bottom line, Larry and I disagree on a few things, including his assessment of SS's market. Or maybe I just wouldn't draw such a hard line between the kind of restoration Larry's talking about and mastering these days.
Larry speaks for AID, not for Sonic Studio LLC. I'm sure restoration is important to them as well, and they probably have contracts and commitments, but mastering is the primary reason for the apps to exist. I've never had any indication from anybody at Sonic Studio LLC that mastering isn't their primary focus. It's why LLC spun off from Solutions. Solutions went all DVD crazy and orphaned a crippled HD, and the mastering app guys decided to strike out on their own to try to revive the audio side of things. However, it should be remembered that restoration is indeed closely linked to mastering. I've been a NoNoise user as long as I've been a Sonic user (and that's quite a while - a world before pro tools). Jay Frigoletto Mastersuite Studio Metronome
Jerry Tubb Messages: 2546 Registered: March 2005 Location: Austin, Texas
Platinum Member
What was the deal with Sonic NoNoise back in the day, where you had to charge $50 per minute of processed material, in order to use the trademarked NoNoise logo on anything, or was that just a rumor?
What was the deal with Sonic NoNoise back in the day, where you had to charge $50 per minute of processed material, in order to use the trademarked NoNoise logo on anything, or was that just a rumor?
In the late 80s before there was a commercially available DAW, Sonic was known primarily as a company with proprietary tools that did restoration. You would send in the audio, and for a fee per minute of program material, they would send back the cleaned up audio.
A few years later they released the DAW, and offered NoNoise as an option. It was tens of thousands for the NoNoise option. You didn't have to pay per minute for work you did using the tools that you purchased (and if I'm unaware of the practice early on, it certainly was short-lived if it happened at all). They were picky about using the name in advertising. Some had unauthorized keys, or had inferior tools and misled people into thinking they were using NoNoise, and if they tried to advertise, Sonic Solutions would respond. Seems fair considering the small number of guys at the time who spent tens of thousands on the real deal. Jay Frigoletto Mastersuite Studio Metronome
Garrett H Messages: 313 Registered: December 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Active Member
Matt_G wrote on Fri, 17 November 2006 08:40
Because the music mastering community is a minority sector for SSLC sales it also makes sense that our requests may take longer to implement (if at all?). Meaning, they'll get around to it one day as us mastering guys aren't at the top of their priority list.
I don't want to sound too down in the mouth, but I've observed this with another major mastering platform. "Look at our 99 new features for television and film. Oh yeah, there's 1 new feature for audio mastering." {an exaggerated statement for effect}
But that is where we are. Our numbers probably don't justify being the #1 priority for the various software vendors. And to be fair, they need to stay in business. No one benefits if the vendor goes under!
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
