[geezer]

What should it cost? Is it marketable?

The problem is, in my viewpoint, that Wavelab and Cubase exist. Wavelab, even in the latest (V6) iteration, only costs about $500-$600. Cubase, the "baby brother" to Nuendo (which costs approx. $1,500.), costs about $450-$500, and "LE" versions of Cubase are almost free (as with Apple Logic).

Wavelab= free form editing for stereo up to 8 channel audio with every single capability that Microeditor has, plus all the plug-in availabilty, full time accurate waveform display, better CD mastering with CD text, CD mixed media and DVD-A capability.....Very good sounding. The 64 bit version of Wavelab is the audio engine and interface for the highly respected mastering tool Audio Cube.

Cubase= full multitrack studio capability with all the file management, editing, plug-in, mixing, monitoring etc. capabilities of Nuendo, and only minor reductions in the multimedia functions of Nuendo...though neither has CD burning capabilities. Good sounding, though it suffers from the same stereo buss problems that all the "mixing in the box" programs suffer from (see more about this below), though this doesn't seem to be stopping people from making really good sounding albums totally inside Cubase, and Nuendo is a major film tool these days.

.....There is also Adobe Audition, which sounds quite good and costs possibly half the price of Cubase!....with most of the same capabilities plus CD burning.

-----The stereo buss problem: All the "studio in a box" native multitrack programs seem to suffer from at least a 1 or 2 bit loss at the stereo mixdown buss....This is the real downside to the native multitrack programs (but does not seem to be an issue with Wavelab, as far as I can tell at this point), and probably has something to do with the lack of big accumulators on the output stage, I would guess. In any case, the folks with serious good ears come out of these programs into analogue or digital mixers via the program's multitrack busses in order to achieve the summing to stereo for the final mix......MTU, as a non-native system of elegant design, never had this problem and was way ahead of the curve in this regard compared to the other hardware companies.....Of course, most of the curve has been caught up with at this point by most folks one way or another.

So, the question is: Can MTU come up with a new hardware package with affordable research (I'm actually assuming this is not an option), or can it convert its elegant math that currently uses hardware to a new and competitive native solution? This seems like a tough row to hoe to me, but I have no idea what the company's outlook or programming capabilities are, and I don't know how much of MTU's math/code was dependent on the Motorola hardware......In any case, there is so much out there now that functions either pretty well or really well, does MTU have the resources and resolve to catch up?....Some of this modern functionality is actually a plus, because it means that there is code that is readily available for use (EDL translation, for instance).

Perhaps there is an interim third option that would see an attempt to integrate some of the file sharing solutions so obviously needed while looking down the road to see what impact this would have on a more long range solution......I know the market is really cost-driven these days, even for old farts like me, so you have to carefully consider your game plan, I would think.

-----And as far as Dnoise: Just like with the DirectX interface, I could never get the new version of it to work at all. The original, slow DOS version achieved some brilliant things for me, but took a lifetime to compute and test. The new Windows interface only crashed or produced garbage for me. I don't know why, and stopped asking since I had some pretty good noise removal tools in other software which did not cost a whole lot.

Don't know if any of these ramblings are helpful to you, but those are my thoughts on the subject as of now.