Pro Tools 8.0.4cs2 Update FINALLY!

[spkguitar]

Originally Posted by Benoni

I tabbed to the transients on both tracks, they all hit at the same place/sample. its sample accurate on 88.2 and 96khz

Again, your pics do not actually show that.

[Benoni]

Originally Posted by spkguitar

Again, your pics do not actually show that.

What do you want, you want me to make you a camtasia movie of me tabbing to each transient? You want my Social Security number too, how about a spare kidney.... Im not out to win approval dude, either believe me or dont, i really dont care.

Like i said, on 44.1 i am 8 samples early, any buffer.

on 88.2 and 96 I am spot on, any buffer, each transient hits at the exact same sample.
Why would I make that up??? What am I gaining??

Believe me or dont, i dont care. PT is working pretty great with this release on my system. And i am happy with this release for the most part. Have a good night.

[spkguitar]

All I'm saying is that what you have offered as "proof" really isn't "proof". All I wanted was exactly what I asked you for;

Originally Posted by spkguitar

set everything to samples (instead of bars/beats) and zoomed in.

And I'm just trying to redeem your credibility here my man; in this original issue, you claimed the problem was not happening for you at all, when in fact it was.

[Benoni]

Originally Posted by spkguitar

All I'm saying is that what you have offered as "proof" really isn't "proof". All I wanted was exactly what I asked you for;


And I'm just trying to redeem your credibility here my man; in this original issue, you claimed the problem was not happening for you at all, when in fact it was.

As ive already explained when I was asked about this issue initially, I did not notice the problem because I was doing a bunch of MIDI and using the 11R, when some one said, try this exact test, thats when I said, Yes I do have the problem.... so how is that losing credibility?

If you want to go down this road Ive got plenty of gems I could dig up like when You said, Laptops all have integrated graphics...

But im not going there. its not worth it. None of this is as important as people try to make it. Theres a wise saying " When you seek revenge... dig two graves"

As far as credibility, you let me "worry" about that.... actually i dont worry about it at all. What is credibility anyway? Presenting facts and proof? No, you are credible in the eyes of those who agree with you, or with a stance you take that others agree with, facts really have no bearing on it..... if facts made you credible, there would be no Republicans and Democrats, only Libertarians. There wouldnt be any religion either (i bet that gets deleted)

Such as, I could post everything you want, but then you will come back and say, "You faked that, you edited it." So why thrust my heel in the thorns? Theres plenty of the good ole boys here that dismiss what I say, such as you should use Run As Admin.... then low an behold.... the new Windows 7 videos explicitly state that it is "Very Important" to use R.A.A..... So why should I seek approval from those who keep getting things wrong? Have I gotten things wrong, sure, everybody does, but there seems to be an embedded resistance in a lot of people here to change and move with the times, such as a few weeks after W7 was released many said XP will still be king for years to come... then... Avid announced they are dropping XP for PT LE.... oh well, it is what it is. None of this really matters anyway.

People take the internet way to seriously some times, nothing wrong with passionate debate.... but some people take an insult on the net like you just threatened their mom, and swear revenge on the evil doer. Others attempt suicide, as we have seen lately in the news, and thats pretty messed up. People are really up tight anymore, about everything.. its a huge bummer man, it harshes my mellow. Nothing wrong with being serious, and intense, and maybe brutal at times.... but surfing the net is not one of those times.

Anyway, im am credible with plenty of people here and in real life. I get emails still for help with PT, so enough people think i have it right. If you cant take my word for it with the pics I already provided, 1000 pictures wont change your mind. Its odd how im the only person you are asking for this highly detailed proof perhaps you are seeking revenge.....

Have a good night sport. You ever gonna get an Eleven Rack?

Im not at my PT rig now, so maybe i can get a pic tomorrow, and I'll get 3 nuns and a Notary Public to verify it for you because i am so concerned about being liked by you. J/k, but i will try to get that pic.

[Cloud_9]

Originally Posted by Benoni

What do you want, you want me to make you a camtasia movie of me tabbing to each transient? You want my Social Security number too, how about a spare kidney.... Im not out to win approval dude, either believe me or dont, i really dont care.

Like i said, on 44.1 i am 8 samples early, any buffer.

on 88.2 and 96 I am spot on, any buffer, each transient hits at the exact same sample.
Why would I make that up??? What am I gaining??

Believe me or dont, i dont care. PT is working pretty great with this release on my system. And i am happy with this release for the most part. Have a good night.

geez, you get more unbearable with each post.

[spkguitar]

My results with the MBox 2 Mini at a sample rate of 48 actually almost coincide with your findings:

• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 14 samples earlier than track 1
• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 1 sample later than track 1
• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 1 sample later than track 1
• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 1 sample later than track 1
• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 1 samples later than track 1

The Mbox 2 Mini doesn't go any higher than 48, and I sold my 002R, so I cannot test any higher sample rates.

Here are my results at 44.1 again, with images:

• in a 44.1k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 4 samples earlier than track 1
• in a 44.1k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 13 samples later than track 1
• in a 44.1k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 26 samples later than track 1
• in a 44.1k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 26 samples later than track 1
• in a 44.1k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 26 samples later than track 1

It has nothing to do with liking you or not, Brian, it's just that we all need to do this test to a certain standard so that it can be recreated and analyzed by our peers and the important people who would make the fixes for the problems that we are experiencing.

I'm trying to solve a problem that effects us all as users of Pro Tools, and I was hoping that you would accept a little constructive criticism about the way that you were conducting the test.

That's all man. You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder about something, and I can't help alleviate that; I'm just trying to make the software that we use the best that it can be.

[Benoni]

Originally Posted by Cloud_9

geez, you get more unbearable with each post.

there is an Ignore option. try that.

[Benoni]

Originally Posted by spkguitar

My results with the MBox 2 Mini at a sample rate of 48 actually almost coincide with your findings:

• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 14 samples earlier than track 1
• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 1 sample later than track 1
• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 1 sample later than track 1
• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 1 sample later than track 1
• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 1 samples later than track 1

The Mbox 2 Mini doesn't go any higher than 48, and I sold my 002R, so I cannot test any higher sample rates.

Here are my results at 44.1 again, with images:

• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 4 samples earlier than track 1
• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 13 samples later than track 1
• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 26 samples later than track 1
• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 26 samples later than track 1
• in a 48k session, at a buffer of 64, track 2 is 26 samples later than track 1

It has nothing to do with liking you or not, Brian, it's just that we all need to do this test to a certain standard so that it can be recreated and analyzed by our peers and the important people who would make the fixes for the problems that we are experiencing.

I'm trying to solve a problem that effects us all as users of Pro Tools, and I was hoping that you would accept a little constructive criticism about the way that you were conducting the test.

That's all man. You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder about something, and I can't help alleviate that; I'm just trying to make the software that we use the best that it can be.

yes i have a chip on my shoulder which is why you are the one always attacking me.... hmmm mirror much? If we ALL have to do our part, why exactly am i the only one you have asked for more pictures, sorry, I wasnt born yesterday. Its not constructive criticism, its single out, bate, and destroy.

I offer constructive criticism, and what happens, the good ole boy ring gets their Skype on, then pounces on every post i make... .then months later, Avid proves me right.... Like with Windows 7, like with Run As Admin.... like when I described why I dont like Sweetwater.... see the pattern.

Why are you trying to solve the problem? All we can do is find and diagnose the problem, Avid needs to fix it, not a third party.

I am just trying to make PT the best it can be, but when I suggest something it is always guilty until proven innocent. I say I tested the new PT but you need more proof than my word and pics i show, Tom says he has 70 samples off, with no pics provided.... and you asked for no proof, its just a fact. So excuse me for not thinking you are the most fair person around, im sorry i can think and reason and see whats really going on. Nothing personal, its just the facts.

I guess i better stop posting now because apparently I get more unbearable with each post. Thats some great constructive criticism.

[oxelamp]

asio still doesn't work with 002r or 003r (cracks & pops..).
can anyone confirm it?

[cwsand]

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

Hey CW, what installed driver version and date shows up for you in device manager?

8.0.4.223

12/16/2009

Still the beta driver I'm guessing? I'm almost afraid to try the new one. Thank God for Acronis!