HDX smokes HD2

[rockridge]

Listen Casper the friendly grandpa, someone bumped the thread so the ship has come in again!

musicman691, the problem with these threads is that people will come on, claim that they enabled a bunch of tracks, pressed record, and were amazed.

Unless they mean recording the room, the hum of the computer, or whatever with mikes.
That would be different, but that's not digital silence.Remember all the discussions about recording low signals and loss of resolution?

I thought they were talking about recording with no inputs.

Then, all the CPU has to do is read the first 0, and it's done!
Even if you edit the crap out of that, only the drive has to work.

I though we talking about the HDX, and how it's smokin', so why are we in the trenches with this argument!

[rockridge]

Originally Posted by phatbeatstudio

Didn't mean to start such a big thread I just wanted to say HDX is pretty darn good if you ask me A week in no problems at all . For the AVIDs first go with HDX I think they did pretty good

Sorry for hijacking your thread, but this type of thread is like posting, my new girl friend is smokin'...

I can say I'm happy for you, but were does it go from there?

Anyway, congrads...

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by rockridge

Listen Casper the friendly grandpa, someone bumped the thread so the ship has come in again!

musicman691, the problem with these threads is that people will come on, claim that they enabled a bunch of tracks, pressed record, and were amazed.

Unless they mean recording the room, the hum of the computer, or whatever with mikes.
That would be different, but that's not digital silence.Remember all the discussions about recording low signals and loss of resolution?

I thought they were talking about recording with no inputs.

Then, all the CPU has to do is read the first 0, and it's done!
Even if you edit the crap out of that, only the drive has to work.

I though we talking about the HDX, and how it's smokin', so why are we in the trenches with this argument!

No, it doesn't have to just read the first zero, it has to read ALL the data bits. Why is that such a hard concept for you to understand?

[rockridge]

Originally Posted by musicman691

No, it doesn't have to just read the first zero, it has to read ALL the data bits. Why is that such a hard concept for you to understand?

If they're all zero's, how is that the same as millions of combinations of ones and zero's?

[NuBus]

What's all this talk about silence??

Is that all the new HDX systems are good for???

I don't think I'll upgrade to HDX until I can record music with it

Thanks for the heads up I would have thought Avid would have mentioned this???

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by rockridge

If they're all zero's, how is that the same as millions of combinations of ones and zero's?

Because all zeros is still data; in a 24 bit sample you have 24 bits of data whether it's all zero's, all ones, or any combo of ones and zeros. The ONLY time any amount of zeros would make a difference is if there is any data compression going on. Simple, easy to understand.

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by rockridge

Listen Casper the friendly grandpa, someone bumped the thread so the ship has come in again!

musicman691, the problem with these threads is that people will come on, claim that they enabled a bunch of tracks, pressed record, and were amazed.

Unless they mean recording the room, the hum of the computer, or whatever with mikes.
That would be different, but that's not digital silence.Remember all the discussions about recording low signals and loss of resolution?

I thought they were talking about recording with no inputs.

Then, all the CPU has to do is read the first 0, and it's done!
Even if you edit the crap out of that, only the drive has to work.[FONT=Verdana]

Tru the cpu would only read 0's but it would read the exact same numbers of zeros in word length, so that is a much work as reading all 1's. That's what we are saying, and where you are mistaking. The CPU works as hard to read all 0 than it does to read all 1 or any combination of the nunmbers, so whither your record digital silence, or that you record 768 different sound source on 768 tracks. Once it's past the AD, it's exactly the same weight in information. Bit words.

[rockridge]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

Tru the cpu would only read 0's but it would read the exact same numbers of zeros in word length, so that is a much work as reading all 1's.

But not the same as reading a million of combinations ones and zero's. Which is what you'll get with anything other the complete silence.

Zero and 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is the same value.

Zero and 1010001011111000010000111111000101010010 is not the same value... to the CPU.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by rockridge

But not the same as reading a million of combinations ones and zero's. Which is what you'll get with anything other the complete silence.

Zero and 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is the same value.

Zero and 1010001011111000010000111111000101010010 is not the same value... to the CPU.

It's not the same data value and that's true but it's the same number of bits and THAT'S the operative thing here. What number value the data represents means NOTHING!

[Wolfgang Eller]

Please rockridge: Stop posting nonsense!