| Click here to select a new forum. |
| Old Music Making Software for Power Macs |
Posted by: clevelander on 2008-09-27 09:54:25
I just got a Power Mac 5400/120 at a yard sale today. Are there any old music making programs for Mac?
How about for an SE/30?
|
Posted by: Gil on 2008-09-27 10:12:19
I'm trying to get my hands on Digital Performer. 🙁
|
Posted by: MrMacPlus on 2008-09-27 10:14:16
Audacity for OS 9?
|
Posted by: Christopher on 2008-09-27 11:48:21
Audacity for OS 9? You call that a audio editing software? :lol:
|
Posted by: Bunsen on 2008-09-27 13:17:35
Deck II, SoundEdit
|
Posted by: QuadSix50 on 2008-09-27 13:18:37
Audacity for OS 9? You call that a audio editing software? :lol:
Umm...YES! :🙂
I've actually used Audacity to edit the audio for two plays at one of the schools that I work for. Worked for me in a pinch. Of course, I was using it under Ubuntu and not OS 9. However, Audacity is quite capable of editing audio. Some even use it for podcasts.
|
Posted by: tomlee59 on 2008-09-27 15:22:29
Audacity is wonderful. Aside from being powerful, it's also free. The algorithms aren't the most efficient, perhaps, but Audacity is speedy enough. Plus, the ability to use VST plug-ins greatly enhances what it can do.
|
Posted by: QuadSix50 on 2008-09-27 15:57:32
Audacity is wonderful. Aside from being powerful, it's also free. The algorithms aren't the most efficient, perhaps, but Audacity is speedy enough. Plus, the ability to use VST plug-ins greatly enhances what it can do. Quite true. Sure, it doesn't compare to some of the more expensive digital audio production apps out there, but it does what it does quite well.
I've also tried Ardour, but haven't done much with that as I don't have anything to mix down into the Mac (which is what's running it). Ardour is VERY rich in features compared to Audacity, but the interface does take getting used to. But then again, that won't run on classic Macs. 😛
|
Posted by: Dennis Nedry on 2008-09-27 18:26:36
MIDIGraphy is quite nice for using QuickTime Musical Instruments, also external MIDI hardware. It's 68k, not sure but it might even run on a Plus. I still use MIDIGraphy periodically. It timelessly keeps time.
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macos/2929
|
Posted by: LCGuy on 2008-09-27 23:00:57
Finale? Pro Tools?
|
Posted by: Mac128 on 2008-09-27 23:24:01
Pro Tools? ProTools for that era requires NuBus cards for output, so the SE/30's out. The 5400 was one of the first to have PCI slot, but ProTools may not have supported it, or it may not have enough clearance for the PCI cards eventually available.
|
Posted by: luddite on 2008-09-28 07:56:45
Depending on your needs and how "retro" you're willing to go, there's also SoundSculptor and SoundSculptor II which are multitrack recorders that write to RAM... I used it to record a metal ep around the turn of the century. It was weird and limited, but fun to use for some reason.
|
Posted by: Bunsen on 2008-09-28 08:43:37
Protools Free doesn't require any cards
|
Posted by: returningmacuser on 2008-09-28 10:44:24
Audacity for OS 9? You call that a audio editing software? :lol:
I have the OS 9 version. It's not that bad. :beige:
|
Posted by: Mac128 on 2008-09-28 10:52:14
Protools Free doesn't require any cards Do you recall the System requirements of ProTools Free? I thought that was an OS 8.5/9.x only, but I guess the 5400 will run those. The SE/30 certainly won't easily and even so only outputs mono via Apple's sound manger.
I thought clevelander was looking for "music" software, like MOTU's Performer, or Cakewalk MIDI applications, not sound editing software. However, I forgot about ProTools free and for the 5400, is likely a the best option for pure sound editing software. I was using it almost exclusively on my PowerBook G3 before OS X, which I prefer even over ProTools LE which REQUIRES an external box even for simple two track stereo. In fact I am going to set up my old PowerBook as soon as I transition completely from it to my MacBook, back to OS 9.2 and make it a dedicated ProTools Free machine. Thanks for reminding me, it will hasten my otherwise procrastinated project.
|
Posted by: Christopher on 2008-09-28 20:50:38
I never understood Audacity and how "great" you guys think it is. Its never worked they way I need it to. Therefore, I have succumbed to recording with Audacity, exporting to WAV, then importing it into GarageBand. Or just use real world components for the EQing and stuff.
|
Posted by: tomlee59 on 2008-09-28 21:48:23
That's why different software exists -- different folks respond differently to the various choices made by the authors of these tools. De gustibus...
I have used Audacity for a very long time for two functions in particular. One is to clean up digitized recordings of my LP collection (an ongoing project; I've got a lot of LPs). Audacity is very good at fixing up the common clicks and pops without being too invasive about it. Chamber music comes out clean as a whistle.
The other function is to create custom karaoke and rehearsal tracks from commercial recordings. A good 75% are mixed to have vocals panned to the center, so suppressing the soloist's voice is feasible. By using the various filters, you can preserve the bass while knocking down the vocals. After you've done that, you can duplicate the resulting mono track, delay it by 20-30ms or so, and thereby create a poor-man's pseudostereo. My almost- teenage nephews have enjoyed their custom "High School Musical" karaoke tracks, allowing them to imagine themselves as "tween idols." It outperforms the analog-hardware version of a vocal eliminator I built long ago, because of the precision with which I may compensate for the filter delay.
|
| 1 |