|
Post by Vincent R. on Oct 26, 2019 12:55:56 GMT -6
I hear you. I just finished syncing a second computer with my master computer to offload some virtual instruments and processing. You mean running both in sync at the same time and spreading the system across two workstations, right? Loaded more than half of my VI libraries onto a Mac mini, and using Vienna Pro and Synergy to sync them. I open the Vienna Pro plug-in and the plug-in itself opens on my second computer where I can load Kontakt or Play and load the library as I normally would. So the second computer takes care of processing the VI and primary one only has to worry about Protools. All of this is running through Ethernet in a secondary network in my studio.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Oct 26, 2019 18:56:54 GMT -6
There's nothing to "sync" really.
A second VI machine is just like literally EVERYTHING using MIDI was for 30 years. Rack mounted Emu sampler...second VI machine...
VEPro complicates that relationship...since it does the audio and MIDI over ethernet. So you do need to sync digital clocks and process buffer sizes and such...but, when I have done that (and always have until this new machine)--the MIDI was DIN and the audio connections were analog--which makes the best workflow, because it's irrelevant the sample rate. You can run the ProTools project at 24/96 and run that VI machine at 44.1, which is what so many VIs are delivered at...you can get the next session that's 24/48 and make zero adjustments to the routing--just pull it up and go.
It's funny that there's this misconception that using multiple machines is because one isn't "powerful enough"...that if you spend more on the computer--it will...but, it's actually the opposite. It's a positive workflow thing. Those with enough money rarely run the VIs in their main project. It's EASIER...and everything is seamless and works better when it's separated. Projects open faster...switching projects in nothing...
The "budget" option, which I'm using now--is rigging one machine to do it all. That's not the ideal. I mean--you could view it as THEORETICALLY the ideal, but in PRACTICE...always easier running a second machine for VIs.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Sept 27, 2020 8:03:23 GMT -6
Anyone have both an RMS 269 and a U67 (reissue or original, modded MK67, or even the Stam SA67)? I have the MK 67 modded with the Neumann BV12. I've been debating building another one, but also debating just grabbing another RMS 269, but with the Neumann K67. I really liked that mic when I had it and didn't want to sell it when I did. I'd be curious to hear peoples thoughts on how they are similar and different. Listening to various samples I recorded when I had it and comparing them to things I've recorded now with the MK U67 I feel like it would be a little more open, but beefier.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 27, 2020 10:18:46 GMT -6
Anyone have both an RMS 269 and a U67 (reissue or original, modded MK67, or even the Stam SA67)? I have the MK 67 modded with the Neumann BV12. I've been debating building another one, but also debating just grabbing another RMS 269, but with the Neumann K67. I really liked that mic when I had it and didn't want to sell it when I did. I'd be curious to hear peoples thoughts on how they are similar and different. Listening to various samples I recorded when I had it and comparing them to things I've recorded now with the MK U67 I feel like it would be a little more open, but beefier. Vincent - I have none of those mics currently except the RMS269, but your comment on "more open" rings true to me as compared to a stock (real Neumann) U67. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 27, 2020 10:30:45 GMT -6
Anyone have both an RMS 269 and a U67 (reissue or original, modded MK67, or even the Stam SA67)? I have the MK 67 modded with the Neumann BV12. I've been debating building another one, but also debating just grabbing another RMS 269, but with the Neumann K67. I really liked that mic when I had it and didn't want to sell it when I did. I'd be curious to hear peoples thoughts on how they are similar and different. Listening to various samples I recorded when I had it and comparing them to things I've recorded now with the MK U67 I feel like it would be a little more open, but beefier. The Korby 67 also comes to mind when thinking of a more open 67. I’d keep that one in mind if you come across one 👍🏻
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Sept 28, 2020 4:12:20 GMT -6
Anyone have both an RMS 269 and a U67 (reissue or original, modded MK67, or even the Stam SA67)? I have the MK 67 modded with the Neumann BV12. I've been debating building another one, but also debating just grabbing another RMS 269, but with the Neumann K67. I really liked that mic when I had it and didn't want to sell it when I did. I'd be curious to hear peoples thoughts on how they are similar and different. Listening to various samples I recorded when I had it and comparing them to things I've recorded now with the MK U67 I feel like it would be a little more open, but beefier. The Korby 67 also comes to mind when thinking of a more open 67. I’d keep that one in mind if you come across one 👍🏻 Yeah, I’ve used the Korby Kat System. I liked a few of the heads, including the 67. I’m not particularly looking for a more open U67. Just debating whether or not I want to pick up an RMS 269 again. Lol. drbill , thanks. That’s what I’ve been thinking. Trying to decide if I want that or if I should save more and build another MK U67. Just trying to get a handle on how they differ sonically and weigh the benefits of each.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Sept 28, 2020 10:02:43 GMT -6
I actually spoke with Robert at RMS today about it via email. Incase someone here is interested, this is what he had to say about the difference between the ADK 67 he uses in his stock RMS269 and a Neumann K67:
"...sonically the Neumann K67 (old or new) is a very tiny bit different than the ADK GK67. Maybe just a hair cleaner in the mid-range. An old K67 is the best of course as the new ones are a bit abrasive in the high end."
I think what I liked about mine when I had it was the big mid range of the mic. Food for thought I guess.
|
|