Fun with Metacorder and Playback

On 2/10/05 7:25 PM, in article O8KdnXNDjZTLu5HfRVn-jQ.DeleteThis@comcast.com, "Glen
Trew" <notthisone.DeleteThis@either.com> wrote:

>
> Peter, before you and Jeff open the campaign Champaign, I'm afraid that the
> only bonafide reason other than peer pressure I've found to choose Mac over
> PC is that Metacorder will only work on a Mac (and, according to Gallery,
> that will not change). I'll concede that Mac has the market cornered in the
> "cute" department (bouncing icons, hip pimp names, etc), but I'd rather have
> it write DVD-RAMs with an internal drive like my Dell does.
>
> Otherwise, the operation of the two platforms is so similar, that my disdain
> for platform incompatibility is just reinforced.

To Glen: I am thrilled that you have now had some (or more) experience with
the Mac and the Mac operating system, but based on the above statement it is
obvious to me that you have not had ENOUGH experience yet to fully
appreciate the fundamental differences between these two "platforms." No, I
will not go into any specifics or any campaign here on this group (I've
learned my lesson and my place) but I will continue to communicate with you
off list regarding the Mac.

>
> This could be just another laughing matter, but it affects sound mixers in a
> negative way. For example, Metacorder is written only for Mac, and the
> Lectrosonics Venue interface is written only for Windows 2000 or XP.

So, who is to "blame" here? I really have NO patience with discussions of
incompatibilities when it comes from Windows users regarding the Mac. Mac
users have always had to deal with all sorts of incompatibilities and often
even total lack of support at any level, even for industry standards,
because of the stuff that Microsoft pushes onto its users and the industry.
And the standards I refer to here are NOT the bogus "standards" that MS has
forced its enormous user base to adhere to, these are not standards. We all
know the danger (which is ever more present today than ever before) where
standards are adopted through brute force efforts on the part of individual
companies.

Regarding Gallery software (Metacorder and a whole lot of other beautifully
designed programs) not running on Windows, it was a conscious and willful
decision by Gallery to develop for an operating system that they believe in.
Glen, you have praised the way in which Metacorder works (although you
didn't say it was "cute" you could have) but did you ever consider that
maybe it works so well because it is running under a terrific operating
system? It is a myth, promoted primarily by Windows users, that if it is
good software of course it should work beautifully on ANY computer, they
just need to make it "compatible"... this is just not the case. Windows
users typically find it very difficult to swallow that their computer of
choice, running some version of Windows, could possibly be part of the
problem.

> Probably the simplest answer for those using Metacorder
> and Venue (and these numbers will be increasing) is for someone at Lectro to
> write a version of the Venue interface for Mac.

This is obviously the best solution but according to Larry Fisher's replies,
Lectrosonics is not interested in writing Mac software. The idea of running
the Venue software in Virtual PC is not my idea of a good solution. The
product that will suffer in all of this is the Venue system, not Metacorder
or the use of Macs by sound mixers for a whole variety of work we do.

>
> Larry F., can you bail Apple out for us?

Apple doesn't need to be bailed out on this. Apple is doing just fine and
the vast majority of sound mixers who use a Mac (and my casual poll of all
of my fellow workers in sound indicates to me that more use the Mac than
Windows machines) will not be hurt by Lectro's software not running on their
Mac. Lectro may lose some business but this may not be substantial. In the
case of the Venue system (what little I know about it, sorry to admit) it
seems that it may be used most often in fixed installations ("venues") where
there will be a plethora of software controllers running on budget PCs (for
lighting boards, stage automation cues and so forth) and there won't be any
Mac vs. PC problems.

I promise I will not discuss ONLY operating system issues here but when Glen
says that an operating system issue is "affecting sound mixers in a
negative way" it pretty much validates my contention that these
discussions, even if they end up being Mac vs. PC, are perfectly appropriate
here in this group.

Regards, Jeff Wexler
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback 

Come on Jeff...you are loosing it again. You admittedly have so little
personal experience with any current Microsoft OS's that you really are not
qualified to post. Most of your observations are things you heard or read
from decidedly pro-Mac sources. I read the stuff you send me off list and
I'm well aware of the source of it. Use the computer and OS that you wish to
use but don't continue to try to alienate anyone who dares to think
differently. Your feelings and emotions on the OS war you like to wage go
beyond the general bounds of this newsgroup from my perspective. While
others use this newsgroup as an exchange of ideas, you at times use it as a
political platform.

FYI, Steve Jobs tries to wield every amount of muscle he can muster and
would do everything he could to make Mac a monopoly if only he could.
Business is business...why you think or expect it should be otherwise is
beyond me.



"Jeff Wexler" <jwsound.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BE32620B.5B58%jwsound@earthlink.net...
> On 2/10/05 7:25 PM, in article O8KdnXNDjZTLu5HfRVn-jQ.TakeThisOut@comcast.com, "Glen
> Trew" <notthisone.TakeThisOut@either.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Peter, before you and Jeff open the campaign Champaign, I'm afraid that
>> the
>> only bonafide reason other than peer pressure I've found to choose Mac
>> over
>> PC is that Metacorder will only work on a Mac (and, according to Gallery,
>> that will not change). I'll concede that Mac has the market cornered in
>> the
>> "cute" department (bouncing icons, hip pimp names, etc), but I'd rather
>> have
>> it write DVD-RAMs with an internal drive like my Dell does.
>>
>> Otherwise, the operation of the two platforms is so similar, that my
>> disdain
>> for platform incompatibility is just reinforced.
>
> To Glen: I am thrilled that you have now had some (or more) experience
> with
> the Mac and the Mac operating system, but based on the above statement it
> is
> obvious to me that you have not had ENOUGH experience yet to fully
> appreciate the fundamental differences between these two "platforms." No,
> I
> will not go into any specifics or any campaign here on this group (I've
> learned my lesson and my place) but I will continue to communicate with
> you
> off list regarding the Mac.
>
>>
>> This could be just another laughing matter, but it affects sound mixers
>> in a
>> negative way. For example, Metacorder is written only for Mac, and the
>> Lectrosonics Venue interface is written only for Windows 2000 or XP.
>
> So, who is to "blame" here? I really have NO patience with discussions of
> incompatibilities when it comes from Windows users regarding the Mac. Mac
> users have always had to deal with all sorts of incompatibilities and
> often
> even total lack of support at any level, even for industry standards,
> because of the stuff that Microsoft pushes onto its users and the
> industry.
> And the standards I refer to here are NOT the bogus "standards" that MS
> has
> forced its enormous user base to adhere to, these are not standards. We
> all
> know the danger (which is ever more present today than ever before) where
> standards are adopted through brute force efforts on the part of
> individual
> companies.
>
> Regarding Gallery software (Metacorder and a whole lot of other
> beautifully
> designed programs) not running on Windows, it was a conscious and willful
> decision by Gallery to develop for an operating system that they believe
> in.
> Glen, you have praised the way in which Metacorder works (although you
> didn't say it was "cute" you could have) but did you ever consider that
> maybe it works so well because it is running under a terrific operating
> system? It is a myth, promoted primarily by Windows users, that if it is
> good software of course it should work beautifully on ANY computer, they
> just need to make it "compatible"... this is just not the case. Windows
> users typically find it very difficult to swallow that their computer of
> choice, running some version of Windows, could possibly be part of the
> problem.
>
>> Probably the simplest answer for those using Metacorder
>> and Venue (and these numbers will be increasing) is for someone at Lectro
>> to
>> write a version of the Venue interface for Mac.
>
> This is obviously the best solution but according to Larry Fisher's
> replies,
> Lectrosonics is not interested in writing Mac software. The idea of
> running
> the Venue software in Virtual PC is not my idea of a good solution. The
> product that will suffer in all of this is the Venue system, not
> Metacorder
> or the use of Macs by sound mixers for a whole variety of work we do.
>
>>
>> Larry F., can you bail Apple out for us?
>
> Apple doesn't need to be bailed out on this. Apple is doing just fine and
> the vast majority of sound mixers who use a Mac (and my casual poll of all
> of my fellow workers in sound indicates to me that more use the Mac than
> Windows machines) will not be hurt by Lectro's software not running on
> their
> Mac. Lectro may lose some business but this may not be substantial. In the
> case of the Venue system (what little I know about it, sorry to admit) it
> seems that it may be used most often in fixed installations ("venues")
> where
> there will be a plethora of software controllers running on budget PCs
> (for
> lighting boards, stage automation cues and so forth) and there won't be
> any
> Mac vs. PC problems.
>
> I promise I will not discuss ONLY operating system issues here but when
> Glen
> says that an operating system issue is "affecting sound mixers in a
> negative way" it pretty much validates my contention that these
> discussions, even if they end up being Mac vs. PC, are perfectly
> appropriate
> here in this group.
>
> Regards, Jeff Wexler
>
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback 

Easy Jeff. I use both OS every day, in current versions. They may be
very different under the hood but they are pretty similar (to me) in
use. I was originally a Mac-only guy but
found that I needed both to have access to the software I wanted to
use. Metacorder looks great to me, and I see lots of video assist
guys abusing Mac laptops on location under all sorts of conditions and
they keep working.
If Gallery doesn't want to make a PC version of Metacorder then someone
else will. A question for you: do you see a place for a system like
Metacorder on the large-scale films you do? In other words, does it
really compete with Deva/Cantar for the high-end, or at that level is
it expected that you would use systems designed specifically for that
kind of job as opposed to a general purpose computer, software, and
some MI-product type interfaces or mixer?

Philip Perkins CAS
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback 

On 2/11/05 8:43 PM, in article
1108183408.930894.301750 DeleteThis @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Philip Perkins"
<spamiser DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:


> If Gallery doesn't want to make a PC version of Metacorder then someone
> else will.

That misses one of my points which is there is no Windows version of
Metacorder. Someone knowledgeable from the Windows world needs to tell me if
it is such a simple matter to make a PC "version" of Metacorder, why hasn't
some Windows developer made such a program? If such programs already exsist
for Windows users, why is there even this discussion from the Windows users
who are unhappy that Gallery doesn't make a PC version?

I have just spent the last 2 hours learning everything I could about Core
Audio and Mac OS X and I believe there is still substantial fundamental
reasons why Gallery (and a whole lot of other audio related companies)
choose to develop audio software for the Mac platform, utilizing the
underlying architecture and APIs of Core Audio. I am sure there is the
equivalent within the Windows development API and if that "core" in Windows
OS relates well to the chips (primarily Intel and others) used in the
hardware, there should be no problem developing terrific recording software
on the PC --- I just haven't seen it yet (because most all audio work in
both the music and film world is done on the Mac).

> A question for you: do you see a place for a system like
> Metacorder on the large-scale films you do? In other words, does it
> really compete with Deva/Cantar for the high-end, or at that level is
> it expected that you would use systems designed specifically for that
> kind of job as opposed to a general purpose computer, software, and
> some MI-product type interfaces or mixer?

For much of my career I used what everybody else used because nobody, with
the exception of Jim Webb on the early Altman films, ever did anything
particularly different in production sound. Later on, when I first
experimented with DAT (way before it was a format that any major movie
company was even aware of) and then with the first Deva, most of the
production companies were quite comfortable with whatever it was I wanted to
use. Whether a Metacorder setup "competes" with a
Deva/Cantar/Fostex/HHB/Sound Devices is really up to me to decide --- there
is no overall expectation from the production company (other than the
implicit assumption that I will do a good job and with the appropriate and
affordable equipment).

It is my own feeling that a personal computer (and I don't mean a PC per se)
and a good hardware interface can be a very viable way to go even on a
production of any size, but a dedicated non-linear digital recorder (like
the Deva and others) is the best way for the majority of projects.

Regards, Jeff Wexler
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback 

On 2/11/05 2:49 PM, in article 5padnTYvV7gMq5DfRVn-hg.TakeThisOut@comcast.com, "Charles
Tomaras" <tomaras.TakeThisOut@tomaras.com> wrote:

> Come on Jeff...you are loosing it again. You admittedly have so little
> personal experience with any current Microsoft OS's that you really are not
> qualified to post. Most of your observations are things you heard or read
> from decidedly pro-Mac sources.

This is not true. My son has extensive experience on both platforms, current
operating systems, and much of that experience is even running the same
software programs on both Windows and the Mac (for example, ProTools on
Windows and Mac, Logic on Windows and Mac, Avid on Windows and Mac). He has
had experience also running equivalent programs on both platforms (FinalCut
Pro on Mac, Adobe Premier on Windows, Adobe Photoshop on Mac and on Windows,
ProTools on Mac, Nuendo on Windows, and on and on). We talk about these
things every day and we talk about these things in depth (not just talk
about what feels better or what is more fun, or cuter). Most of my opinions
have developed from these discussions and real world work my son does for
himself and others. I think I am quite qualified to post and I am the first
to admit that I do not have an intimate knowledge of Windows development
(which is why I always try and ask you why things work, or don't work, the
way they do). For example, why does a movie trailer posted at a website and
played out on a Windows PC with Windows Media Player look so bad compared to
the same trailer played on my Mac with QuickTime?

>
> FYI, Steve Jobs tries to wield every amount of muscle he can muster and
> would do everything he could to make Mac a monopoly if only he could.

I think Apple already has the monopoly on satisfied, happy, and enthusiastic
users... something Microsoft will never have (and doesn't even really covet
for that matter). You are absolutely right that both Microsoft and Apple are
businesses and that both companies would like to dominate in their space,
but you are wrong if you think that the agenda is the same with Steve Jobs
and Bill Gates.

Regards, Jeff Wexler
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback 

Actually, Jeff, I made all this up just to see if you were lurking. Sure
enough...

Sloooowly I write... snip by snip...

I agree with Jeff that computers have a definite effect on production sound
recording, which will only increase form this point on. Discussions about
computers should not be taboo, as long as they are approached as tools, sort
of like hammers.

> So, who is to "blame" here? I really have NO patience with discussions of
> incompatibilities when it comes from Windows users regarding the Mac.

I can understand why you're gun-shy on this subject, Jeff, but look again. I
never once mentioned, implied, nor felt blame toward one monopoly over the
other.

But I can understand the confusion. I mean, am I a Windows user dissing Mac,
or a Mac user dissing Windows? Answer: YES. I am a computer user dissing a
ridiculous divide that creates the need to buy two computers, or two
versions of the same program, when one should do.

>Regarding Gallery software (Metacorder and a whole lot of other beautifully
> designed programs) not running on Windows, it was a conscious and willful
> decision by Gallery to develop for an operating system that they believe
in.
> Glen, you have praised the way in which Metacorder works (although you
> didn't say it was "cute" you could have)

I'm sure I'm missing a few details, but it is my understanding that
Metacorder is largely an "overlay" (metaphoric license requested) that uses
the Mac resident program, Core Audio, to record audio, which is why
Metacorder will remain a Mac-only program.

Regarding "cute" ... There you go again (say it like Reagan). I never said
anything against "cute". In fact, my weakness for "cute" may be to blame for
several of my life (spelling?) experiences. But, there's no denying that the
Mac GUI gets cuter every X. I mean, who could find fault with a Picasso
style detective face icon called "Finder". And how else would you describe a
browser icon shaped like an Indiana Jones compass called "Safari". That
said, while Metacorder is attractive, it's not cute (unless you count the
white iBook that matches Laura Bush's inaugural gloves). Metacorder is a
down to business recorder for the production sound mixer.

> > Probably the simplest answer for those using Metacorder
> > and Venue (and these numbers will be increasing) is for someone at
Lectro to
> > write a version of the Venue interface for Mac.
>
> This is obviously the best solution but according to Larry Fisher's
replies,
> Lectrosonics is not interested in writing Mac software. The idea of
running
> the Venue software in Virtual PC is not my idea of a good solution. The
> product that will suffer in all of this is the Venue system, not
Metacorder
> or the use of Macs by sound mixers for a whole variety of work we do.

We have tested the Venue control panel on a Mac with Virtual PC v7. The
Venue control panel is not very power hungry, and seems to be flawless on
the Mac with Virtual PC. The two problems I see are: 1) The added expense
($129 - $299, depending) and, 2) Every time you open the Venue control panel
you have to first boot Virtual PC, which is about as time consuming a
booting another computer. Once it's done at the beginning of the day, it's
done, but geesh...

I explained this to the Lectro computer gurus (sent in by Coach Larry) this
afternoon. At pre-game they seemed open to the possibility to a Mac version
for Venue. If it makes sense, I'm sure they'll come through.

Lastly (this should have been a new thread paragraphs ago...), while I
concur with Larry that the Venue is great even without a computer, I'll go
against the odds and challenge his prediction: I think the Lectro Venue
receiver system, when used on TV/Film productions, will be displayed and
controlled by a computer more often than not.

It's just too cute to resist.

Glen Trew

(½ created on PC, the other ½ created on a Mac. Both crashed twice.)
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback 

Glen Trew wrote:
>
> We have tested the Venue control panel on a Mac with Virtual PC v7. The
> Venue control panel is not very power hungry, and seems to be flawless on
> the Mac with Virtual PC. The two problems I see are: 1) The added expense
> ($129 - $299, depending) and, 2) Every time you open the Venue control panel
> you have to first boot Virtual PC, which is about as time consuming a
> booting another computer. Once it's done at the beginning of the day, it's
> done, but geesh...
>
> I explained this to the Lectro computer gurus (sent in by Coach Larry) this
> afternoon. At pre-game they seemed open to the possibility to a Mac version
> for Venue. If it makes sense, I'm sure they'll come through.
>
> Lastly (this should have been a new thread paragraphs ago...), while I
> concur with Larry that the Venue is great even without a computer, I'll go
> against the odds and challenge his prediction: I think the Lectro Venue
> receiver system, when used on TV/Film productions, will be displayed and
> controlled by a computer more often than not.


May I humbly suggest that the Lectro team consider implementing their control SW using Java? This would allow it to run on not only Macs and PC's, but also on a myriad of alternative OS's like Linux and potentially even some of the PDA's.
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback 

On 2/11/05 8:32 PM, in article 2fidneI8EMzHGpDfRVn-iQ.RemoveThis@comcast.com, "Glen
Trew" <notthisone.RemoveThis@either.com> wrote:

>
> I'm sure I'm missing a few details, but it is my understanding that
> Metacorder is largely an "overlay" (metaphoric license requested) that uses
> the Mac resident program, Core Audio, to record audio, which is why
> Metacorder will remain a Mac-only program.

Do a Google search on Core Audio and you will find some very detailed
descriptions of what Core Audio is. Core Audio is not a program but it is
rather a specialized part of the operating system that deals with the full
gamut of how audio data is handled in relation to the rest of the OS and the
hardware (the Mac) that runs it. I need some help here from Charlie (or some
other knowledgeable Windows person) to tell me if there is an equivalent
"core" part of the Windows OS that can be utilized by developers to build
audio applications.

>
> Regarding "cute" ... There you go again (say it like Reagan). I never said
> anything against "cute". In fact, my weakness for "cute" may be to blame for
> several of my life (spelling?) experiences. But, there's no denying that the
> Mac GUI gets cuter every X.

What's with the fat butterfly in the spandex suit that Microsoft seems to
trot out... now that's cute.

Regards, Jeff Wexler
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback 

MOTU is a great answer for those wanting to use their existing mixer
(Cooper, Sonosax, Audio Developments... anything with direct-outs). It
converts analog (and digital) signal to a streaming Firewire data port for
Metacorder or other recorder program. MOTU also has timecode provisions. The
MOTU is buss-powered by the computer, so it is more portable than the
Mackie.

They Mackie Onyx series is for those who either don't have one of the above
mixers, or want to add an inexpensive stand-alone solution (with double the
number of channels) for a computer based recorder. Keep in mind that other
mixers are starting to surface that have streaming Firewire capability
(Phonic mixers come to mind).

GT

"Simon" <simonpaine.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108097247.955473.324870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Glenn you make some good points about the use of the laptops on set. I
> think we will all be starting to see a lot more of them very soon. And
> judging by the size of some of the new laptops i've seen from Sony,
> they are becoming a more attractive option.
>
> The Mackie's do seem to be a great match to the Metacorder. I was
> wondering if anyone could way in with some opinions about the Mackie vs
> The MOTU Traveler ?
>
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback 

<spami....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If Gallery doesn't want to make a PC version of Metacorder then
someone
> else will.

>>>>>That misses one of my points which is there is no Windows version
of
Metacorder. Someone knowledgeable from the Windows world needs to tell
me if
it is such a simple matter to make a PC "version" of Metacorder, why
hasn't
some Windows developer made such a program? If such programs already
exsist
for Windows users, why is there even this discussion from the Windows
users
>>>>who are unhappy that Gallery doesn't make a PC version?

I don't actually care, since I use both sides. Gallery has always been
an innovator and has a fully ramped up programming and production
company already going, so it makes sense that they'd be first, and I
think people are happy they are doing it since they have a track record
in the movie biz. (I know several happy VVTR users.) There is a PC
system that works like Metacorder already--one of the developers posted
here some months back--I think he was based in either the UK or France.
The system looked pretty good, and he had been using it himself on
some feature
films. I think there is at least one other PC system in development as
well--logical given the power of current computers of all types.
Given the expense and time needed for R+D, the fact that we now have
several NLRs available from at least 4 companies suggests that soon we
will have
a number of competitors to Metacorder to discuss as well.
Remember that ProTools and Avid are cross platform these days, and they
are the industry leaders.

The number of choices available for motion picture production sound
today is truly amazing--this is a very creative period for the
designers of sound equipment, but the choices for us are
unprecidentedly complex.

Philip Perkins
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback 

"Jeff Wexler" <jwsound.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BE32D551.5B6F%jwsound@earthlink.net...
>> That misses one of my points which is there is no Windows version of
> Metacorder. Someone knowledgeable from the Windows world needs to tell me
> if
> it is such a simple matter to make a PC "version" of Metacorder, why
> hasn't
> some Windows developer made such a program? If such programs already
> exsist
> for Windows users, why is there even this discussion from the Windows
> users
> who are unhappy that Gallery doesn't make a PC version?

Jeff, there are Hundreds of multi-Track Recording programs that run on
Windows. It is very capable of recording multiple tracks and recording
editing and playing multiple tracks at once. Has been since the early
nineties. Cakewalk software, Syntrillium Software (Cool Edit Pro), IQS SAW
and countless others. The Metacorder software does something we, as film
sound mixers all need, and probably does it well. But as with other
software for the MAC it is targeted at a very vertical market. Recording
Multitrack BWF files (no editing, mixing or eq) is only needed by those
doing double system audio for Film. That is such a small market that we
cannot get any major Audio Recorder manufacturers i.e. Sony, Panasonic,
JVC, etc to produce a machine that records Time Code DAT in a portable
machine. The few that were manufacturing them have abandoned them.

Small vertical market applications thrive on the Mac because the Mac itself
it is a Small (5%) share of the total PC market. Passionate people support
these smaller vertical market products and only such passion can produce a
product that probably won't be competitive or profitable in a Larger more
competitive marketplace. These smaller vertical market companies don't want
to put a product in the Windows market because if widely accepted it will
soon spawn competitors and product support becomes more than a small company
can handle. None of it has anything to do with one platform's "hardware
superiority" over another. It's all about passion and money.

Sidenote:
The equivalent Drivers on Windows to Mac CORE are ASIO compliant and use
Windows Direct-X software interface to directly address diverse collections
of hardware. Direct Show and Direct Audio are Windows specifications that
all the PC software manufactures use as a common API to create compatible
software to record and play audio and video.
---Courtney
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback 

On 2/12/05 12:00 AM, in article z4Cdnck-muwVKpDfRVn-rg.DeleteThis@comcast.com, "Charles
Tomaras" <tomaras.DeleteThis@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
> "Jeff Wexler" <jwsound.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>> For example, why does a movie trailer posted at a website
>> and
>> played out on a Windows PC with Windows Media Player look so bad compared
>> to
>> the same trailer played on my Mac with QuickTime?
>

You can't be serious?

I am serious. Try it yourself and while you are at it, try re-sizing the
Windows Media Player while it is playing and tell me how it looks.

JW
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback 

Jeff Wexler wrote:
>
> I have just spent the last 2 hours learning everything I could about Core
> Audio and Mac OS X and I believe there is still substantial fundamental
> reasons why Gallery (and a whole lot of other audio related companies)
> choose to develop audio software for the Mac platform, utilizing the
> underlying architecture and APIs of Core Audio. I am sure there is the
> equivalent within the Windows development API and if that "core" in Windows
> OS relates well to the chips (primarily Intel and others) used in the
> hardware, there should be no problem developing terrific recording software
> on the PC --- I just haven't seen it yet (because most all audio work in
> both the music and film world is done on the Mac).

Of course there are similar APIs for Win32 platforms. In fact, they are at this point more mature simply due to the relative newness of Core Audio (ASIO has been around for a decade and is on its third major revision.)

Truly, neither OS was designed with low latency in mind and thus both suffer from compromises and workarounds. OS 8/9 and DOS (single-tasking at their cores) were actually easier to coax into realtime operation.

The proper way to makes these decisions has been known for half a century, and was the order of the day back when computers cost more than houses did: First, you pick the software which best accomplishes the business task at hand. Then you pick the operating system which best runs that software. Then (and only then) you pick the hardware which best runs that OS. The retail computer business has completely turned this model on its head, with salesmen pushing hardware and people later having to figure out what they can run on what they already bought.
 >> Stay informed about: Fun with Metacorder and Playback