Izotope Radius Timestretching

Well let me clarify mastasteez

One would have to be a fuggin idiot would buy the Ren and expect the same result as Pro Tools just because it uses the same TS algorithm- especially when it doesn't have any audio tracks let alone warping features. Have an element that Pro Tool uses doesn't mean you the same results.

Numarks code has been historically problematic. . This is not the first time Numark has attempted such product and previous product was a complete disaster.

moyphee wrote:Well let me clarify mastasteez

One would have to be a fuggin idiot would buy the Ren and expect the same result....

Ok. Forget about 'expecting' certain results. Let's end the speculation...I can confirm that the Ren timestretching and pitching shifting sounds better than any MPC to date.

JAH wrote:

moyphee wrote:Well let me clarify mastasteez

One would have to be a fuggin idiot would buy the Ren and expect the same result....

Ok. Forget about 'expecting' certain results. Let's end the speculation...I can confirm that the Ren timestretching and pitching shifting sounds better than any MPC to date.

Not the highest of bars but ....fair enough.
However to be fair hardware MPCs never excelled in TS or PS.

JAH wrote:The Ren with VST plugin support gives you several options for your time stretching and pitch shifting needs. You can use the onboard sample processing (Izotope) or simply pull up a plugin (take your pick) and do it there.

I just purchased Mach Five 3 (that has IRCAM tech) and Autotune specifically to be used with the Ren.

Non-issue.

You dropped an addition $800 to cover this ground. Great solution Jah!
I'm sure many will follow your lead.

**Edited to fix spelling errors.

moyphee wrote:You dropped an addition $800 to cover this ground. Great solution Jah!
I'm sure many will follow your lead.

Actually...throw in another $2000 as I purchased the Apollo for the same purpose.

My entire new studio set-up is based around the Ren. My purchases were made to take full advantage of the Ren's (as well as Maschine's) capabilities? Everyone can build their labs around the Ren/Studio as they see fit.

moyphee wrote:If want to parse every word go ahead. My point was made and understood by those that read it.

No, you have no point, and I don't believe anyone understood where you were trying to go with it. You took a fairly insignificant part to the Enzo's overall performance (tires) and are trying to compare it to a very significant part of the izotope software. Izotope isn't taking just a small piece of the technology, they are taking pretty much the entire coding of it, minus the real time feature. They are licensing the whole heart of the technology, not just the tires, which is where I got the engine/transmission part from. You can keep trying to twist and manipulate your "point" until your finger tips turn black and blue, but it ain't working.

And just because Akai is new to this type of software doesn't mean anything. You're setting them up for failure before you even had the chance to use it. Obviously, they are are working with experienced companies like Izotope and Sonnivox to try to ensure this shit does work.

Bottom line is it's using the same technology as Pro Tools, so it's obvious that their intent/aim is to have the same or similar functionality. That's the point of the thread, to show how the technology they are using currently works. All the coding "around" the implementation of the technology into the software is not relevant. If they are gonna fail, then let them actually fail first before you try throwing in a verdict!

moyphee wrote:Well let me clarify mastasteez

One would have to be a fuggin idiot would buy the Ren and expect the same result as Pro Tools just because it uses the same TS algorithm- especially when it doesn't have any audio tracks let alone warping features. Have an element that Pro Tool uses doesn't mean you the same results.

Numarks code has been historically problematic. . This is not the first time Numark has attempted such product and previous product was a complete disaster.

Come on son, don't call me an idiot on some side ways shit. Secondly, have you ever used a DAW? The audio on the track is nothing more than an audio file on your hard drive. This is no different than having the same audio file loaded into the Rens sampler. The only thing the audio track does is allow for real-time manipulation of the sample as the track plays. You're still editing a wave file on your hard drive. It's still the same technology, it's just the Ren will do the stretching offline in combination with the rendering. Pro Tools still does the actual rendering offline. The lack of warp markers just means that the entire file in Ren has to be stretched to the same single setting. The lack of warp markers DOES NOT mean that the sample will not sound as accurate and true to the original as it does when stretched in Pro Tools. Warp markers just allow you to have different stretch settings within the same file. Has nothing to do with with how the shit sounds! The whole "stretching" action itself is technically a warping feature in either software.

That wasn't directed towards you Hellfire.

DJ Hellfire wrote:have you ever used a DAW? The audio on the track is nothing more than an audio file on your hard drive. This is no different than having the same audio file loaded into the Rens sampler.

wrong!

the audio on the DAW´s tracks is streamed from the hard disk. a sampler´s audio files are stored and streamed from the RAM. that´s a huge difference in terms of speed/data bandwidth.

**** wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:have you ever used a DAW? The audio on the track is nothing more than an audio file on your hard drive. This is no different than having the same audio file loaded into the Rens sampler.

wrong!

the audio on the DAW´s tracks is streamed from the hard disk. a sampler´s audio files are stored and streamed from the RAM. that´s a huge difference in terms of speed/data bandwidth.

correct but incorrect


the audio on the DAW´s tracks is an audio file just like the ones in your sampler, regardless of where it resides, is stored and/or played back, it's an audio file according to your contextually twisted quote of HF's comment. The quote stated nothing of speed/data bandwidth..

yeah, it´s a file. but in order to be heard is has to be streamed. and streaming from RAM vs. streaming from harddisk is a huge difference.

and hellfyre was saying that a file being played in a DAW is nothing different than a file being played by a sampler...that´s simply not true.

Lampdog wrote:

**** wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:have you ever used a DAW? The audio on the track is nothing more than an audio file on your hard drive. This is no different than having the same audio file loaded into the Rens sampler.

wrong!

the audio on the DAW´s tracks is streamed from the hard disk. a sampler´s audio files are stored and streamed from the RAM. that´s a huge difference in terms of speed/data bandwidth.

correct but incorrect


the audio on the DAW´s tracks is an audio file just like the ones in your sampler, regardless of where it resides, is stored and/or played back, it's an audio file according to your contextually twisted quote of HF's comment. The quote stated nothing of speed/data bandwidth..

Yeah, because if audio from your daw didn't need ram specs, then manufacturers wouldn't bother putting these requirements on their products.

These specs aren't there just for the program in general, they always specify more in order to get an abudance of tracking & processing.

**** wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:have you ever used a DAW? The audio on the track is nothing more than an audio file on your hard drive. This is no different than having the same audio file loaded into the Rens sampler.

wrong!

the audio on the DAW´s tracks is streamed from the hard disk. a sampler´s audio files are stored and streamed from the RAM. that´s a huge difference in terms of speed/data bandwidth.

The file is stored in RAM to be played back. But the actual file you are editing is stored on your hard drive. For example, in Maschine, while you are editing a sound in the sampler, you are editing the actual file on the hard drive and the changes you make to the sample in the sampler (truncate, normalize, etc) happen to the actual file on the hard drive or it simply creates a new file. This is different than a hardware MPC and is how any type of offline audio processing works in software. In a hardware MPC, any edits you make happen to the file stored in ram. It doesn't alter the file on the hard disk until you physically save it.

Then there is the fact that in Pro Tools 10 HD, you can dump your ENTIRE session into your RAM so the session streams completely off RAM instead of your hard drive. Disk Cache!

**** wrote:yeah, it´s a file. but in order to be heard is has to be streamed. and streaming from RAM vs. streaming from harddisk is a huge difference.

and hellfyre was saying that a file being played in a DAW is nothing different than a file being played by a sampler...that´s simply not true.

We're NOT talking about listening to the audio, we are talking about editing it. Nowhere did I say "that a file being played in a DAW is nothing different than a file being played by a sampler." I said you're still EDITING an audio file saved on the hard drive, nothing more.

moyphee wrote:That wasn't directed towards you Hellfire.

Cool!

DJ Hellfire wrote:Then there is the fact that in Pro Tools 10 HD, you can dump your ENTIRE session into your RAM so the session streams completely off RAM instead of your hard drive. Disk Cache!

this is a serious feature, btw.