Rob456 wrote:
As I read this back it seems a bit of a rambling mess, but well I am eccentric
No, you're not rambling at all, and being an eccentric here is a real virtue, as any Atarian (or any fule) kno.
Dave.
Moderator: Moderators
Rob456 wrote:
As I read this back it seems a bit of a rambling mess, but well I am eccentric
James101 wrote:I've still got two Atari STs, but I can't think of anything I can do with them that I can't do better on a PC/MAC. I remember early home computers like Amstrad used to have programs to easily create vector graphics patterns using points of symmetry or pattern generators that were quite interesting. I've not seen anything quite like that for a PC.
Is there some audio equivalent for Atari, like a quirky program that really isn't available as a PC program? Anything specific/else?
Rob456 wrote:I'm trying to marry the old with the new. I wont reject the new for old because that's not my style and I do like what I can do with my DAWs Over the years I have learned a lot about writing and mixing songs with basically just a computer and DAW and I wont throw that knowledge away or make the same mistake I made when I moved from a hardware set-up to a DAW only set-up without thinking it through properly. OMG, when I think back to one day I had a full hardware set-up, then suddenly an ITB set-up Im amazed I didn't end up in a ward somewhere. keep in mind that ten years ago DAWs were not like they are today, and neither were OS's . But im a little bored of the DAW now from an ergonomics point of view, very tired of staring at a screen all the time, I need a change of gig, I want to get a little more organic. Whether the music comes out better or not isn't really the point, its a personal thing. But my hunch is the music will come out better
As I read this back it seems a bit of a rambling mess, but well I am eccentric
Neo-Classical Guitar Man wrote: Well I have been nodding like a demented donkey to what you have said. One day I had an all hardware setup with an Atari STE and Fostex digital multitrack, plus Fostex D5 DAT recorder and a few synths, modules, rack compressor/gate etc; the next day I had a big gaping hole in my room after selling my Fostex DMT8 v2 to a policeman in Birmingham and soon after I sold the DAT recorder....then the compressor and so on. I then had TEN painful wasted years of messing around trying to get a PC to recreate my old setup, and it is a battle that I did not win. So I am returning back to my hardware again and possibly a rackmount Fostex multitrack like the D2424LV. For the time being I will be using a Falcon 030 upgraded to 14MB and a 68882 co-processor and some nice Soundpool SPDIF and Steinberg FA8 and MIDEX+ interfaces. I say will be because it is all there setup waiting for me to use it, once I have tidied up my room. I'm also having a retro nostalgia trip with old home micros from my youth, which is making my room look like a bomb site!
As for thinking things through, I am not sure if it is possible to do this. It is too much of a minefield with so many questions and not many good answers. Although I am returning to hardware to rekindle my music making, I do expect to be forced into using PCs again in the future, mainly because hardware does not last forever and doubt manufacturers will return to making hardware again.
NCGM
Rob456 wrote:I was happily going along doing my thing with not a care in the world in regards my music making and then one day I bought a magazine (hmmm, it was sound on sound) and I looked at all these ads with Pro tools on them. Big fancy full page ads with glossy pictures stating "YOU can do it all with this". I had quite an excellent analog setup and then 10 days later it was nearly all gone and I took delivery of a Pro Tools system. I had absolutely no idea what I was letting my self in for
The Elf wrote:I never got into Z80 machine code, but I did a lot of 6502 (Commodore 64) and some 68000 (Atari ST). Compiled languages are all well and good, but if you have speed-critical processes machine code can’t be beaten. Ironically I think a well-structured piece of assembler code is still far easier to decipher than the masses of nonsense you see in a C program – those things are UGLY with a capital UG! With an assembler listing there's not a curly bracket in sight!