Real Auto Input

tmrpro wrote on 5/29/2003, 9:23 PM
I would like to make some suggestions/comments concerning V4:

I understand why latency occurs when dealing with application based monitoring as does any engineer who has worked with any recording medium.

With tape machines we do what we call "monitor tape", we aren't actually monitoring tape on record, we are monitoring the input of the tape machine when the machine is in record. When the track is punched out, we then are monitoring tape.

This is crucially important from a monitoring standpoint when using a multitrack recorder because the performer who is being recorded must hear themselves in their headphones (without any latency at all) in an acoustically isolated environment. They must also hear the track they are recording to, in playback, without any monitoring diferential whatsoever from the channel input, so when the track is punched in, there is absolutely no change in the way they are hearing their performance (recorded or live). Remember, the concept of multitrack is to record many different tracks at once or at different times. Recording different tracks on the same song at different times is also referred to as overdubbing.

The concept of monitoring tape can happen with V4's digital application-based technology. Sonic Foundry/Sony ... pay attention:

Put together a new and "required" protocol for sound card driver developers to meet that includes input monitor switching on the sound card that corresponds with the auto input function in your application.

Let's not spend time worrying about realtime effects and forget about the fundamentals of multitrack recording. It's physically impossible to have real time application monitoring. So, do it the way it has always been done by the pros...

The application NEEDS to have the ability to monitor its armed track while the tracks are rolling, then when punchin occurs, monitor the sound card's channel input. Yeah, you may have to use outboard effects and so forth, but it will remove the headache of input monitoring.

...Actually the bussing capabilities of V4 as it currently exsists would allow for using realtime effects if the monitored channel is bussed and the buss had the desired plugins in line, then the result could be consistant in monitoring from record to playback as an effects return works on a console.

Unfortunately, everyone that is trying to cut while monitoring EQ and Dynamic effects in real time would suffer ... But let me also add:

Engineers who need the type of functionality that a multitrack recorder has concerning monitoring and punchins are (in most cases) using very good outboard mic-preamps, compressors and EQs already and have developed their tracking sounds around that. Everyone I know that makes records would ONLY want to be using EQ & Dynamic plugin processing when they were mixing anyway.... NOT when they were doing a tracking session.

When you take care of that issue, go ahead and implement real time punchin capabilities.

I guarantee when you nail the two issues of auto input and real time punchins; tape machines, Nuendo & Pro-Tools will be considered completely obsolete.

But until you do, professionals who are paying big dollars on union scale master tracking sessions, will not want to deal with splitting tracks for punchins and multilateral monitoring setups that cause major confusion when working in a fast paced, high pressure scenario and for those reasons will not use V4.

I've done plenty of these type of high-end tracking sessions and the harder the technology is to operate, the easier it is to make very expensive and potentially career damaging mistakes.

I'm totally amazed that something so basic as these fundamental multitrack functions are not implemented yet when everything else in V4 is so very amazing. I can run 10 times more tracks and effects on V4 than I can in its competitor's applications. Totally stable with perfect sonic results.

Don't everyone jump down my throat on these comments, either. I am an endorsee and I totally love Sonic Foundry's products. I just want it to be the best stuff available and these changes will make THE difference. It will also make me (and many other industry pros) get out of multitrack recorders completely and start using Vegas exclusively.

BTW, congratulations on Sony's Aquisition of SF. I believe this will prove to be a very beneficial & successful business marriage!

Comments

PipelineAudio wrote on 5/30/2003, 4:18 AM
Ive been begging for auto input since vegas 1, and taken a lot of crap over it

One guy here will jump down your throat, but I stand 100 % behind you!

do a search on this very forum for " auto input" and read page after page of flames, for fun and amusement
tmrpro wrote on 5/30/2003, 8:28 AM
PipelineAudio wrote on 5/30/2003, 12:30 PM
I think closely related to auto input ( and probably the way we could get it to work in vegas) is direct out routing. Right now theres no sensible way to get say track 1 out to channel 1 without panning ( destroying your fx and aux sends ) or double bussing (serious stability issues).

One strategy I see is that using ASIO DM or something, arming track 1, then choosing your input, while maybe ALSO choosing THAT channel's direct output ( if thats possible, but just 1 goes to 1 2 goes to 2 etc would be fine as well ) should work fine.

When you hit record, your soundcard hardware uses its own internal ( and ALREADY on the market) switching to send the signal coming into the card straight to the output, not a drop of latency beyond what the converters add. When you hit play, it plays back from disc what you had recorded, when you hit record it switches from playing back the disc, to just having the hardware jump input to output, and when you hit play agin itll read from disc again. Just like tape, just like we are used to. It would be cool if it was somehow able to keep vegas' paradigm of recording before and after the punch, but Im not sure how this would be implemented with punch on the fly, but without punch on the fly it would probably be possible

thats the no latency way

For those who like to monitor with fx, or pretend its both a mixer and a multitrack, we could have the same scheme, just with a little latency, but still have the : Play monitors disc, Record and Stop monitor input, that we are familiar with.

anyhow here are some fun ones

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=60588

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=60894

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=61889

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=61913&Page=0

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=63483

and here is where I think the point wasnt clear enough, and maybe if it becomes clearer SF will understand why we want so bad for this :

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=99675&Page=0
tmrpro wrote on 5/30/2003, 1:20 PM
I had mentioned that it would be necessary to use outboard effects when using an input monitor switching system.

After thinking a little bit more about it, the bussing capabilities of V4 as it currently exsists would allow for using realtime effects (with latency ... but so what, when it's just the effect that is slightly latent ... doesn't that happen with outboard gear, too?) if the monitored channel is bussed and the buss had the desired plugins in line, then the result could be consistant in monitoring from record to playback.

Unfortunately, everyone that is trying to cut while monitoring EQ and Dynamic effects in real time would suffer ... But let me also add:

Engineers who need the type of functionality that a multitrack recorder has concerning monitoring and punchins are using very good outboard mic-preamps, compressors and EQs already and have developed their tracking sounds around that. Everyone I know that makes records would ONLY want to be using EQ & Dynamic plugin processing when they were mixing anyway.... NOT when they were doing a tracking session.

I hope this gets to the developers at SF because .... It is not only very important, but it is crucial that these features be implemented in order to place V4 into a permanent & exclusive position in pro studios around the world.
tmrpro wrote on 5/30/2003, 10:17 PM
If anyone is interested:

I spoke with my endorsement rep at SF today and discussed my views on this subject in detail with him. He told me the news about Sony Aquiring Sonic Foundry and he indicated to me that my concerns would be addressed.

I personally can't wait until the release comes out that addresses these issues!
tmrpro wrote on 5/31/2003, 8:41 AM
I am primarily adding another "RE:" to this post to keep it up front.

It has been indicated to me that the SF engineers read these forums and follow up on them.

Since I am one of the Industry people that you have entrusted to testing your products, I would personally be interested in a response to this post, so if you read this, please respond with your insights.

stakeoutstudios wrote on 6/1/2003, 3:32 AM
I've got a good feeling generally about Sony being behind Sonic Foundry now.

Feels like the employees are being very active with the users and development is happening very fast.

Hopefully they'll throw some money in the R & D pot!

There's also been mention of V5 ... which I feared may not have come to fruition!

Jason
SonyEPM wrote on 6/1/2003, 8:18 AM
"I personally can't wait until the release comes out that addresses these issues!"

As longtime users of this forum know, we cannot make any promises regarding future features or release dates.
tmrpro wrote on 6/1/2003, 1:25 PM
>> "I personally can't wait until the release comes out that addresses these issues!"

>As longtime users of this forum know, we cannot make any promises regarding future features or release dates.

-- AND?!?!? ...What in the heck kind of professional response is that?

SonicEPM ... READ: If you worked for my company and gave one of my customers/endorsees a response like that ... You'd be looking for a new job! You are a complete disgrace!

I cannot believe that you did not address at least one of the two major concerns as if you read it and were enlightened by it ... or even just say: "...Well, these are certainly issues that need further discussion and we will be looking in to it" .... or .... "Although these concerns are important to audio professionals, we here at SF are working towards a goal that completes the big picture" .... not .... "As longtime users of this forum know, we cannot make any promises regarding future features or release dates." ...You are basically telling me and everyone else here that everyone at this forum realizes that you don't do anything they need to see happen with your software, so don't count on anything.

This is such a totally pitiful answer to a researched, specific, defined, intelligent, recording-technology-educated and solicited (from your superiors) request! So, is this the kind of response that SF wanted me to get when SF asked me to voice and define my concerns here?

I intend on calling SF first thing tomorrow morning and letting my rep know that if this is the way Sonic Foundry intends on responding to my comments on countless hours of testing your software, discovering flaws in basic design and determining methods of correction, then Sonic Foundry can forget my commitment. I'm also going to email him a copy of this thread.

I have spent a lot of time and effort researching and bench testing your software as an endorsee of Sonic Foundry's products with the intentions of helping your company develop products that can be competitive in a pro recording environment and promoting my use of Sonic Foundry Products to the professional recording industry. The fundamental aspects of your premier product for audio falls short in a crucial and fundamental way. Your methods of discussing the issues from a customer relations standpoint, falls even shorter.

I am thoroughly disgusted by your response and would have rather not seen one.
PipelineAudio wrote on 6/1/2003, 1:47 PM
tmrpro, please check the inbox on your website
Rednroll wrote on 6/2/2003, 10:01 AM
tmrpro said:
"This is crucially important from a monitoring standpoint when using a multitrack recorder because the performer who is being recorded must hear themselves in their headphones (without any latency at all) in an acoustically isolated environment. They must also hear the track they are recording to, in playback, without any monitoring diferential whatsoever from the channel input, so when the track is punched in, there is absolutely no change in the way they are hearing their performance (recorded or live). "

This is achieveable in Vegas, and I have been doing it since Vegas Pro 1, even without "input monitor" function currently in Vegas 4. TMRPRO, you are incenuating that every pro works the same way you do. That is not the case. I am familiar with tape monitoring schemes. I was brought up on 2" tape, DA-88's and ADATS, so I am very familiar with "auto-input" monitoring functionality. After those days of working on tape based systems, I worked in a studio which used NEVE AUDIOPHILE systems. Those systems cost $40K for an 8 track digital editor and did not have "auto-input" functionality. At first I thought this was a major problem for me to work, but then I learned how it was achieved without that functionality. To this day, I will never go back to having to use a "punch-in" scenario. I'm not saying that what you're asking for is not needed, but the way I work now works better for me, and I never have to worry about missing a "punch-in/punch-out" point. If anything, this functionality is probably needed for engineers who are use to doing the "auto-input" functions of tape based systems. This way of working is not outlined in the Vegas manual for doing punch-ins, so I will post a link describing step-by-step of how to achieve what you're looking for.

This method is used by many "pros" as you describe. I've done many "3D-2" sessions with major studios throughout the U.S. and other engineers use this method religiously when working on a hard disk editor. There is ZERO latency issues, and in my opinion is a better way to work.

NO punch-in or punch-out necessary step-by-step

Red
tmrpro wrote on 6/2/2003, 11:45 AM
Hey Red,

I was wondering why I hadn't heard from you sooner .... seems like you have an answer for everything.

I'm completely aware of the methods that you've described. I've never actually did the "donut" concept because that is simply an additional step which is totally unnecessary. When the program punches in, the selected event is automatically erased from the event anyway, therefore no audio output from that previously recorded track... And yes: I like the method of drawing a punch point for certain applications. But, it is not sufficient for other needed applications. Precisely the reason why the original NEVE Audiophile system was a complete failure (15 year old technology too) until they updated and went to realtime punchin capability and auto input.

...Reason being: Sometimes punchin/punchout points just don't work... They may look good visually, but they sound wrong. They sometimes are not musical, sound like they are punched in, or the performance for one reason or another just does not match up with the previously recorded area. ...In these cases, it is crucial to be able to "feel" where a punch point must go and for it to be performed (like a musical instrument) instead of performing a clinical operation that makes sense to your eyes but doesn't ever work for the performance. This describes why it is important to be able to monitor the track with an auto input, as well.

Don't try to educate me in comping tracks and writing punch points, I helped invent some of these methods. Not that it would fall on deaf ears, but those things work great for certain applications and are considered features, not fundamentals of multitrack recording.

Furthermore, I do not use a mixing console's mic-pre, so your multi-lateral concept of bussing to a mix cue is completely worthless to me. I imagine that there are a lot of "so-called" engineers out there with their mackie mixers (that are using their little console's mic-pres) that are recording with this program ... and frankly, I believe in that environment, your method is sufficient.

But, on the other hand, there are professional producers out there (like myself) who have $100k or more in outboard mic-preamplifiers and prefer using the much better electronics for mic preamplification. I don't want to hear about your delicious mic modelors either. I know they're good, but nothing beats the real deal. I even like to use my mic modelors for certain applications.

Bottom line concerning development of future updates on Vegas is PAY ATTENTION SF:

Stop wasting time on V4's features when the application DOES NOT WORK as a multitrack recorder. Stop listening to guys who think it is ok not to have realtime punchins and say that it is not necessary to have auto input; they're not even using professional methods, equipment or environments to record in, in the first place. Secondly, they're probably not making a living recording, ...and if they are, they're making demos in home studios with amateurs.

If you want Pros to use V4, then make these simple changes to allow the application to coincide with professional recording techniques so pros can plug it in today and start using it flawlessly in there existing environment. Everything else in V4 is just a feature.

This program is much better than something you throw into your home computer to record some demos with. Making V4 a standard of the industry is just a few clicks away and this is not just my opinionated position, it is a knowledge-based, recording engineering professional recording standard. <---notice the punctuation---{
Rednroll wrote on 6/2/2003, 2:11 PM
"I was wondering why I hadn't heard from you sooner .... seems like you have an answer for everything."

Wow, that's nice of you to make a comment like that. It seems like you have answers for everything even statements that haven't been made.

"But, on the other hand, there are professional producers out there (like myself) who have $100k or more in outboard mic-preamplifiers and prefer using the much better electronics for mic preamplification. I don't want to hear about your delicious mic modelors either. I know they're good, but nothing beats the real deal. I even like to use my mic modelors for certain applications."

Hmmmm.....in your professional producer experience have you ever heard of a Mic pre with dual outputs or have you ever used a patchbay? I also use mic pre's with my method. One has an analog out AND a digital out. The digital out is connected directly to my sound card and the analog out is connected to my mixer for monitoring, therefore the mixer is totally elliminated from the signal path for recording purposes. I also use mic pre's and patch them into the line IN of the console, therefore bypassing the console's mic-pre and allowing me to route the mic signal to any input via console busses. And before you go on spouting about adding noise from the line IN and busses of the console, I also have a patch bay where I can make "paralel" connections. Therefore, paraleling the signal so that it can go directly into the sound card, and the same signal can be monitored on the console. Maybe if you have $100K worth of Mic-pre's you should spend another $1k on a patchbay and learn how to use that equipment to it's maximum potential.

"I've never actually did the "donut" concept because that is simply an additional step which is totally unnecessary. "

As I stated previously, and therefore there is a need for auto-input punch-in ability, for users like yourself. No problem, I'm not telling you how to work or what you need. I believe it is a worth while feature to have. I'm just informing you of another way to achieve the same thing. And I have used the "donut" method and it isn't an "additional" step. To me an additional 2-steps is to 1.) punch-in 2.) punch-out. Alot of time concentrating on the punch point, rather than listening to the performance. I prefer to concentrate on the actual performance now than listening where I'm going to punch-in at. Your method, you'll have to give them...well let's go back and listen to that take and see how it sounds and see if the punch was ok. Now there's a lot of extra wasted time and steps.

As far as being a "feel" for a punch-IN, how can you say that with auto-input? You can't hear the musician until you actually do the punch-in with auto-input. Isn't that what auto-input is? Monitor the track, then once you punch-in you monitor the input? The Donut method allows you to monitor both if you choose, auto-input doesn't. So what's the difference, if you do the "feel" previously to recording by doing an edit or doing the "feel" at the punch point? There isn't....it's the same effect with the same result. The difference is that the Donut method allows you to do a perfect punch-in, while your method relies on how quick you can hit the record button, which allows for 100% more error especially if it's the first time recording the performance and you're not familiar with the song. Or are you going to tell me now that you've never missed a punch point now?

Rock on TMR"pro".



SonyEPM wrote on 6/2/2003, 2:26 PM
Now Mr. Red...go easy.

tmrpro, you have been heard. Thanks for the feature suggestion. Can't promise if, or when. Contact me directly if you wish (drdropout@sonicfoundry.com, Vegas engineering manager).
tmrpro wrote on 6/2/2003, 4:16 PM
******Hmmmm.....in your professional producer experience have you ever heard of a Mic pre with dual outputs or have you ever used a patchbay?******

Have you understood induction or studied it while becoming an engineer or did you get your electronics & engineering degree in a Cracker Jacks Box?

******I also use mic pre's and patch them into the line IN of the console, therefore bypassing the console's mic-pre and allowing me to route the mic signal to any input via console busses.******

....Definately a Cracker Jacks Box .... inducing noise from the op amps at every single gain stage and ....whatever cable length your dealing with ... since your toy console probably has a two wire "line-in". How about the inclusion of a little EMF & RF?...

******And before you go on spouting about adding noise from the line IN and busses of the console, I also have a patch bay where I can make "paralel" connections.*****

.... Maybe you got a GED from a Cracker Jacks box, too .... Actually, I think that even people with a CJB - GED can spell "parallel"!

... Maybe you can ask if Rupert or EveAnna would puke if they knew you were routing one of their Mic Preamplifiers this way! While we're all laughing at your ignorance, why don't you call someone at Focusrite and ask them what they think of using a "line input" on a console and the console's bussing system to route one of their RED series mic pres .... hahaha ... you are really funny and your complete ignorance to sonic purity is perfectly clear! If any major label out there is using your services, they would FREAK if they knew about your sonic carelessness!

******And I have used the "donut" method and it isn't an "additional" step. ******

Definately no GED, either .... you obviously can't read, add, count and your just plain stupid, because the additional step, as stated on my response was; "DELETING THE EVENT" and it is an unnecessary step because the program does it for you, you illiterate engineer wannabe...

******Your method, you'll have to give them...well let's go back and listen to that take and see how it sounds and see if the punch was ok. ******

....But with your method, where you are actually monitoring 2 similar performances of an identical instrument/voice in the same melody (should you actually get your monitoring scheme to work that way) at the same time proves to accomplish a clearer picture of what was going on. Let's deduce this concept:

"Hi boys & girls, my name is Red, I'm going to be your engine ear for today's recording session" ... what a complete joke! ---

...Listening to two things at once, only one of them is going to be dedicated to the track on the punch .... they are the same performance by the same person at the same time, one performance is bad, one performance couldn't be heard because it was garbled by the bad performance ... but you're supposed to be able to distinguish which one is the original and which one is new on the fly ..... hmmmmm ..... you really are a majestic wonder if you can move on from that punch point without listening back AND know that you captured the performance with your ignorant method of monitoring.....

******As far as being a "feel" for a punch-IN, how can you say that with auto-input? You can't hear the musician until you actually do the punch-in with auto-input. Isn't that what auto-input is? Monitor the track, then once you punch-in you monitor the input? The Donut method allows you to monitor both if you choose, auto-input doesn't. So what's the difference, if you do the "feel" previously to recording by doing an edit or doing the "feel" at the punch point? There isn't....it's the same effect with the same result. The difference is that the Donut method allows you to do a perfect punch-in, while your method relies on how quick you can hit the record button, which allows for 100% more error especially if it's the first time recording the performance and you're not familiar with the song. Or are you going to tell me now that you've never missed a punch point now?******

....Addressing any part of the previous paragraph is not required in my professional opinion. Your masterbatory intellect has driven you completely into a corner where I'll leave you alone to finish your solo performance.

Red, why don't you do everyone in this forum a favor who enjoys learning how real industry professionals do things and wash your hands/face!
tmrpro wrote on 6/2/2003, 4:17 PM
******Now Mr. Red...go easy.

tmrpro, you have been heard. Thanks for the feature suggestion. Can't promise if, or when. Contact me directly if you wish (drdropout@sonicfoundry.com, Vegas engineering manager).******

Thank you very much for a professional response!

...as far as Redboy goes .... I don't mind playing with him .....
Rednroll wrote on 6/2/2003, 4:54 PM
******Hmmmm.....in your professional producer experience have you ever heard of a Mic pre with dual outputs or have you ever used a patchbay?******

"Have you understood induction or studied it while becoming an engineer or did you get your electronics & engineering degree in a Cracker Jacks Box?"

Good going, way to answer a question with another question. Are you an engineer or are you a politician? Leave terms like "RF", "EMF" and "induction" to people who actually have an understanding of them. This engineer uses balanced inputs/outputs in his studio with shielded cables that are properly grounded. No RF or EMF in this audio signal chain. Since you're so smart in knowledge like "RF", "EMF" and "induction", why don't you further explain to this forum the concerns with my setup, so this electrical engineer who designs audio equipment can show everyone how ignorant you really are. Or are you going to just make misleading statements with NO facts behind them? I bet you can't make any backing statements because you read that information off the back of that cracker jack box you're referring too.

"... Maybe you can ask if Rupert or EveAnna would puke if they knew you were routing one of their Mic Preamplifiers this way! While we're all laughing at your ignorance, why don't you call someone at Focusrite and ask them what they think of using a "line input" on a console and the console's bussing system to route one of their RED series mic pres .... hahaha ... you are really funny and your complete ignorance to sonic purity is perfectly clear! If any major label out there is using your services, they would FREAK if they knew about your sonic carelessness!"

As I said Idiot: "I ALSO have a patch bay where I can make "parallel" connections. Therefore, paralleling the signal so that it can go DIRECTLY into the sound card, and the same signal can be monitored on the console."

But if you could understand, I normally use a mic-pre with dual outputs, the one getting recorded is DIGITAL OUT. So I guess the one recording a bunch of noise is YOU because, you're going through an additional D/A converter and Analog amplifier circuits, then into another Analog input, which then does another A/D conversion. Let's talk about unneeded NOISE prestine signal boy. Your setup isn't it!!!

It's bad enough you can't engineer with the equipment you got , but you can't read either.

I'm all ears, and willing to learn something new about "RF", "EMF" and "induction", so let's hear it.

tmrpro wrote on 6/2/2003, 6:02 PM
******why don't you further explain to this forum the concerns with my setup, so this electrical engineer who designs audio equipment can show everyone how ignorant you really are.******

+

******As I said Idiot: "I ALSO have a patch bay where I can make "parallel" connections. Therefore, paralleling the signal so that it can go DIRECTLY into the sound card, and the same signal can be monitored on the console."******

=

DOES NOT KNOW THE DEFINITION OF PARALLEL ---

...Because I have a certain love for the helpless little stupid creatures of the world I'll be glad to help you, too:

PARALLEL does not mean that the signal goes "directly" into your sound card Dr. Red (the engine ear), it means that it is tied, directly, in parallel to whatever electronics you have in your magnificent console and you ARE inducing the noise of your fascinating shielded cables that are properly grounded and tied to the monitor inputs and whatever low quality electronic mass of components at that input.

You should have been listening on day two of your "Things you should never do when recording" class. .....Oh, wait a second ..... you probably were, but you had such an interesting monitoring setup going on that you didn't actually hear what the professor said on tape.

******But if you could understand, I normally use a mic-pre with dual outputs, the one getting recorded is DIGITAL OUT. So I guess the one recording a bunch of noise is YOU because, you're going through an additional D/A converter and Analog amplifier circuits, then into another Analog input, which then does another A/D conversion. Let's talk about unneeded NOISE prestine signal boy. Your setup isn't it!!!******

... Prestine ignorance!

1. I imagine you clock source to an external device Master Clock Jitter Boy (that's another argument for another thread)
2. You know nothing of my setup other than its value and you've heard it on RIAA certified multi-platinum recordings (probably even bought a few ....thanks!).

...Honey, I work for a living and I get paid by Major Labels and Music Industry Pros for my noise ... over & over & over, again.
tmrpro wrote on 6/2/2003, 6:38 PM
JohanAlthoff wrote on 6/2/2003, 7:44 PM
Jesus tap-dancing CHRIST! What is it with you recording people? If us game developers had 1% of the egos you guys have, each GDC would be a complete warzone, not to mention E3.

Anyway, with the risk of fanning the flame war, I do a terrible lot of voice- and musical recordings and I've never found the need for punchins. I just split-and-mute the unwanted section, create a new track and teh dubz0r is on. So, please leave the "if you don't do what I say pros will never buy your stuff" speech out, because pros ARE buying this stuff.
MacMoney wrote on 6/2/2003, 9:28 PM
>George Ware working for Billy Townes in the big music city of El Paso, TX.

>I have got to take a "Dixie Chicks" position on this and say:

>"I am thoroughly embarrased that I am originally from the same town as you are!"

>Sorry... I left to work for the real music industry.... hahahaha .... you really are found >out now! hahahahaha

>But as long as you are cutting records down there in Northeast EP, BTW .... say hello >to my dear friends Rod Crosby, Robert Hernandez, Joey Sanchez, Tommy Whitten >and don't forget Mike Major, just to name a few .... You know, I may be visiting for >the Burges High School class of 82 - 20 year reunion ... I may stop in and say Hi to >my old friend Billy T. and see what kind of magnificent set up you have FOR REAL!

Im sorry who is this?
George Ware
PipelineAudio wrote on 6/2/2003, 10:14 PM
wait how did George Ware get mixed up with rednroll?
tmrpro wrote on 6/2/2003, 10:55 PM
Childish behavior results in size 11 shoe in mouth. I screwed up and this is a copy of the letter I sent to George after discovering my stupid childish mistake for which I am sorry.

********************************************

George,

After being very frustrated by Brian Franz on the Sonic Foundry forum and getting caught up in his style of childish behavior, I decided to see if I could find out anything about his work and background. I ran a search for rednroll on Google.com and this is the result it gave me:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=rednroll

The first link on the Google.Com page is:

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/forums/ShowProfile.asp?UserID=476

Which is your user profile page. I guess I've completely made an ass out of you and myself and for that I am infinitely sorry.

I hope you can accept my apology and if you can't, I understand.

I removed my stupid, childish post that was directed towards demeaning the character of someone who was trying to demean mine. Because of my ignorance (and the lack of clarity on Sonic Foundry's profile page) I blatantly and ignorantly abused you and I am truly sorry.

TMRpro

**************************************************

After finding out RednRolls real name; Brian Franz, I wasn't able to find out anything about him. Maybe he's never done anything.
PipelineAudio wrote on 6/2/2003, 10:58 PM
thats ok Rednroll can make people do insane things. He is a seasoned professional flame warrior who can only be bested by the god of all evil, Victor/Irvin

speaking of which, has anyone seen him ANYWHERE?