Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing hype?
| Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing hype? [message #96280] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 15:46  |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0338_01C877CE.04A3C870
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909 =
(should take you to the next to last post on that page)
Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they =
only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for =
Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in the =
Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort through =
marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of hoping the =
Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio and any app, =
just because it would be cool to have such a breakthrough, but this =
really just shows that ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs =
already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and ASIO2, =
but it's running fine at low latency on
OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted estimate) plugin =
load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband =
comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is =
almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll =
have to find out for sure when I have more time) - same dual quad =
hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for sure if some of this =
is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level OSX code base (maybe =
already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if it is truly a limitation =
of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic thread, the latter seems to =
have a bit more weight than it being a Nuendo-only performance issue.
Fwiw,
Dedric
------=_NextPart_000_0338_01C877CE.04A3C870
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D" http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693=
909"> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909=
</A> (should=20
take you to the next to last post on that page)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Apparently Apogee's numbers =
are only=20
while tracking. Sounds like they only posted part of the story =
with their=20
great low latency figures.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It is hard to say if this is the case =
for everyone=20
though, except for Apogee's response when the user called, but since I =
brought=20
it up in the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and =
sort=20
through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind =
of hoping=20
the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with </FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>Core audio and any app, just because it would be cool to have =
such a=20
breakthrough, but this really </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>just =
shows that=20
ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really =
exceeded it yet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The reports on Nuendo performance is =
quite a bit=20
faster on XP and ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency =
on</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% =
higher (my=20
adjusted estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same=20
latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on =
XP/ASIO, vs=20
45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, </FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
benchmark test to=20
compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll have to find =
out for=20
sure when I have more time) - same dual quad hardware configs in =
both=20
cases. I don't know for sure if some of this is Nuendo not being =
optimized=20
for the lower level OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or =
whatever=20
- or if it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on =
the Logic=20
thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a =
Nuendo-only=20
performance issue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Fwiw,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dedric</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR clear=3Dleft><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0338_01C877CE.04A3C870--
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing hype? [message #96281 is a reply to message #96280] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 17:30  |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I not sure I see any false claim, Apogee's info is here to see. I don't see
them talking about running software instruments.
http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/symphony_performance.p hp
Lowest Latency: 1.6 milliseconds at 96kHz* (Analog to Analog)
*Hardware/Session Details:
• Computer configuration: 
Mac Pro, 2.66GHz Dual-Core with three internal
500 GB, 7200 RPM drives configured as a RAID and 4 GB of ram.
• Software: 
Logic 7.2.2 session running at 96k.
• Track count during latency test: 
32 tracks playback, 32 tracks
recording
• Plug ins engaged during latency test: 
10 Adaptive Limiters, 10
Linear Phase EQs, 6 Space Designers (default preset)
• Buffer setting: 
32
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>
>
> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909 =
>(should take you to the next to last post on that page)
>
>Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they =
>only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for =
>Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in the
=
>Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort through =
>marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of hoping the
=
>Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio and any app,
=
>just because it would be cool to have such a breakthrough, but this =
>really just shows that ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs =
>already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>
>The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and ASIO2,
=
>but it's running fine at low latency on
>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted estimate) plugin
=
>load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband
=
>comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is
=
>almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll =
>have to find out for sure when I have more time) - same dual quad =
>hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for sure if some of this =
>is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level OSX code base (maybe =
>already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if it is truly a limitation
=
>of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic thread, the latter seems to =
>have a bit more weight than it being a Nuendo-only performance issue.
>
>Fwiw,
>Dedric
>
>
>
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=3DGENERATOR>
><STYLE></STYLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
>href=3D" http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693=
>909"> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909=
></A> (should=20
>take you to the next to last post on that page)</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Apparently Apogee's numbers =
>are only=20
>while tracking. Sounds like they only posted part of the story =
>with their=20
>great low latency figures.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It is hard to say if this is the case =
>for everyone=20
>though, except for Apogee's response when the user called, but since I =
>brought=20
>it up in the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and =
>sort=20
>through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind =
>of hoping=20
>the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with </FONT><FONT =
>face=3DArial=20
>size=3D2>Core audio and any app, just because it would be cool to have =
>such a=20
>breakthrough, but this really </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>just =
>shows that=20
>ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really
=
>
>exceeded it yet.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The reports on Nuendo performance is =
>quite a bit=20
>faster on XP and ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency =
>on</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% =
>higher (my=20
>adjusted estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same=20
>latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on =
>XP/ASIO, vs=20
>45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, </FONT><FONT =
>face=3DArial=20
>size=3D2>but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>benchmark test to=20
>compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll have to find =
>out for=20
>sure when I have more time) - same dual quad hardware configs in =
>both=20
>cases. I don't know for sure if some of this is Nuendo not being =
>optimized=20
>for the lower level OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or
=
>whatever=20
>- or if it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on =
>the Logic=20
>thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a =
>Nuendo-only=20
>performance issue.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Fwiw,</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dedric</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><BR clear=3Dleft><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or marketing hype? [message #96282 is a reply to message #96281] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 17:11 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Apparently some Logic users see it as misleading (as do quite a few other
pros I know), and those numbers quote plugin counts. With most DAWs, that
equates directly to VSTi's (which are also plugins...). It's isn't the
whole story. The website never says - "you won't get this kind of latency
with VSTis the way you do with other DAWs on ASIO". ;-)) And that's
exactly what I said in my post: Apogee only posted *part* of the story.
Really, I only posted this for those that might be interested in actually
knowing what systems will do vs. what marketing would lead you to believe.
These are the kind of real world reports that make or break a buying
decision for those of us looking for really powerful systems and wanting to
know exactly what we are getting, not just assume because we love the
company behind it....
If you track all day for living, it sounds like a great system (but so is an
RME MADI rig). If you run VSTi's, investigate it more and try before you
buy, or look elsewhere in known waters (ASIO 2 systems), at least for now
until there's either more info and/or Apogee beefs up their system/drivers.
The point isn't to defend or attack anyone - it's just to get to the bottom
of what products *really* do so we know before we buy.
As long as customers defend manufacturers out of blind loyalty, getting an
honest answer and better products from those developers will only get more
and more difficult.
Dedric
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47c35daf$1@linux...
>
> I not sure I see any false claim, Apogee's info is here to see. I don't
> see
> them talking about running software instruments.
>
> http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/symphony_performance.p hp
>
> Lowest Latency: 1.6 milliseconds at 96kHz* (Analog to Analog)
>
> *Hardware/Session Details:
> . Computer configuration: 
Mac Pro, 2.66GHz Dual-Core with three
> internal
> 500 GB, 7200 RPM drives configured as a RAID and 4 GB of ram.
> . Software: 
Logic 7.2.2 session running at 96k.
> . Track count during latency test: 
32 tracks playback, 32 tracks
> recording
> . Plug ins engaged during latency test: 
10 Adaptive Limiters, 10
> Linear Phase EQs, 6 Space Designers (default preset)
> . Buffer setting: 
32
>
>
>
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909 =
>>(should take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>
>>Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they =
>>only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for =
>>Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in the
> =
>>Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort through =
>>marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of hoping the
> =
>>Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio and any app,
> =
>>just because it would be cool to have such a breakthrough, but this =
>>really just shows that ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs =
>>already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>
>>The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and ASIO2,
> =
>>but it's running fine at low latency on
>>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted estimate) plugin
> =
>>load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband
> =
>>comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is
> =
>>almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>>benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll =
>>have to find out for sure when I have more time) - same dual quad =
>>hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for sure if some of this =
>>is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level OSX code base (maybe =
>>already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if it is truly a limitation
> =
>>of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic thread, the latter seems to =
>>have a bit more weight than it being a Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>
>>Fwiw,
>>Dedric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>><HTML><HEAD>
>><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
>><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=3DGENERATOR>
>><STYLE></STYLE>
>></HEAD>
>><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
>>href=3D" http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693=
>>909"> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909=
>></A> (should=20
>>take you to the next to last post on that page)</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Apparently Apogee's numbers =
>>are only=20
>>while tracking. Sounds like they only posted part of the story =
>>with their=20
>>great low latency figures.</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It is hard to say if this is the case =
>>for everyone=20
>>though, except for Apogee's response when the user called, but since I =
>>brought=20
>>it up in the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and =
>>sort=20
>>through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind =
>>of hoping=20
>>the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with </FONT><FONT =
>>face=3DArial=20
>>size=3D2>Core audio and any app, just because it would be cool to have =
>>such a=20
>>breakthrough, but this really </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>just =
>>shows that=20
>>ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really
> =
>>
>>exceeded it yet.</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The reports on Nuendo performance is =
>>quite a bit=20
>>faster on XP and ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency =
>>on</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% =
>>higher (my=20
>>adjusted estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same=20
>>latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on =
>>XP/ASIO, vs=20
>>45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, </FONT><FONT =
>>face=3DArial=20
>>size=3D2>but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>>benchmark test to=20
>>compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll have to find =
>>out for=20
>>sure when I have more time) - same dual quad hardware configs in =
>>both=20
>>cases. I don't know for sure if some of this is Nuendo not being =
>>optimized=20
>>for the lower level OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or
> =
>>whatever=20
>>- or if it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on =
>>the Logic=20
>>thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a =
>>Nuendo-only=20
>>performance issue.</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Fwiw,</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dedric</FONT></DIV>
>><DIV><BR clear=3Dleft><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or marketing hype? [message #96283 is a reply to message #96282] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 19:15 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dedric, I see the truth as the truth. It's good to be educated as to what
a system is capable of. It's not good to assume things. It is explained
that they are running 26 fx plugins with 32 tracks at 96k with a buffer
setting of 32 and getting 1.6 millisecond of latency using Logic 7.2.2.
If what they are saying is not true somebody should sue them. On the other
hand, if somebody assumes that they can run a different version of Logic
with a different set up and run virtual instruments, I don't think you can
expect to get the same results. Apogee is clear about the set up, however
I do think they should have more information and be more clear about the
plugins counts. They should separate the maximum plugin count and the latency
test, it's a bit confusing.
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Apparently some Logic users see it as misleading (as do quite a few other
>pros I know), and those numbers quote plugin counts. With most DAWs, that
>equates directly to VSTi's (which are also plugins...). It's isn't the
>whole story. The website never says - "you won't get this kind of latency
>with VSTis the way you do with other DAWs on ASIO". ;-)) And that's
>exactly what I said in my post: Apogee only posted *part* of the story.
>
>Really, I only posted this for those that might be interested in actually
>knowing what systems will do vs. what marketing would lead you to believe.
>These are the kind of real world reports that make or break a buying
>decision for those of us looking for really powerful systems and wanting
to
>know exactly what we are getting, not just assume because we love the
>company behind it....
>
>If you track all day for living, it sounds like a great system (but so is
an
>RME MADI rig). If you run VSTi's, investigate it more and try before you
>buy, or look elsewhere in known waters (ASIO 2 systems), at least for now
>until there's either more info and/or Apogee beefs up their system/drivers.
>
>The point isn't to defend or attack anyone - it's just to get to the bottom
>of what products *really* do so we know before we buy.
>As long as customers defend manufacturers out of blind loyalty, getting
an
>honest answer and better products from those developers will only get more
>and more difficult.
>
>Dedric
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:47c35daf$1@linux...
>>
>> I not sure I see any false claim, Apogee's info is here to see. I don't
>> see
>> them talking about running software instruments.
>>
>> http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/symphony_performance.p hp
>>
>> Lowest Latency: 1.6 milliseconds at 96kHz* (Analog to Analog)
>>
>> *Hardware/Session Details:
>> . Computer configuration: 
Mac Pro, 2.66GHz Dual-Core with three
>> internal
>> 500 GB, 7200 RPM drives configured as a RAID and 4 GB of ram.
>> . Software: 
Logic 7.2.2 session running at 96k.
>> . Track count during latency test: 
32 tracks playback, 32 tracks
>> recording
>> . Plug ins engaged during latency test: 
10 Adaptive Limiters, 10
>> Linear Phase EQs, 6 Space Designers (default preset)
>> . Buffer setting: 
32
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909 =
>>>(should take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>
>>>Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
=
>>>only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
=
>>>Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in the
>> =
>>>Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort through
=
>>>marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of hoping the
>> =
>>>Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio and any app,
>> =
>>>just because it would be cool to have such a breakthrough, but this =
>>>really just shows that ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs =
>>>already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>
>>>The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and ASIO2,
>> =
>>>but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted estimate) plugin
>> =
>>>load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband
>> =
>>>comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is
>> =
>>>almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>>>benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll
=
>>>have to find out for sure when I have more time) - same dual quad =
>>>hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for sure if some of this
=
>>>is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level OSX code base (maybe
=
>>>already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if it is truly a limitation
>> =
>>>of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic thread, the latter seems to
=
>>>have a bit more weight than it being a Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>
>>>Fwiw,
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>>><HTML><HEAD>
>>><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>>>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
>>><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=3DGENERATOR>
>>><STYLE></STYLE>
>>></HEAD>
>>><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
>>>href=3D" http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693=
>>>909"> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909=
>>></A> (should=20
>>>take you to the next to last post on that page)</FONT></DIV>
>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Apparently Apogee's numbers =
>>>are only=20
>>>while tracking. Sounds like they only posted part of the story =
>>>with their=20
>>>great low latency figures.</FONT></DIV>
>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It is hard to say if this is the case
=
>>>for everyone=20
>>>though, except for Apogee's response when the user called, but since I
=
>>>brought=20
>>>it up in the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and
=
>>>sort=20
>>>through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind =
>>>of hoping=20
>>>the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with </FONT><FONT =
>>>face=3DArial=20
>>>size=3D2>Core audio and any app, just because it would be cool to have
=
>>>such a=20
>>>breakthrough, but this really </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>just
=
>>>shows that=20
>>>ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really
>> =
>>>
>>>exceeded it yet.</FONT></DIV>
>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The reports on Nuendo performance is
=
>>>quite a bit=20
>>>faster on XP and ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency =
>>>on</FONT></DIV>
>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% =
>>>higher (my=20
>>>adjusted estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same=20
>>>latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on =
>>>XP/ASIO, vs=20
>>>45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, </FONT><FONT =
>>>face=3DArial=20
>>>size=3D2>but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>>>benchmark test to=20
>>>compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll have to find =
>>>out for=20
>>>sure when I have more time) - same dual quad hardware configs in =
>>>both=20
>>>cases. I don't know for sure if some of this is Nuendo not being =
>>>optimized=20
>>>for the lower level OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or
>> =
>>>whatever=20
>>>- or if it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on =
>>>the Logic=20
>>>thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a =
>>>Nuendo-only=20
>>>performance issue.</FONT></DIV>
>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Fwiw,</FONT></DIV>
>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dedric</FONT></DIV>
>>><DIV><BR clear=3Dleft><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or marketing hype? [message #96284 is a reply to message #96283] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 18:34 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Um... okay. Sounds like you are just defending Apogee for no good reason,
esp. considering I didn't attack them, so give me a break with the "not good
to make assumptions" lecture. For the last time - I posted this so people
who have a real world interest in working with this kind of gear would know
what to look out for, and you jump in to defend Apogee's marketing.
If you have experience with real world use as a composer on an Apogee
Symphony system and think the Logic user misguided in his evalution, I'm
sure the Logic forum would be most interested in your input.
It's getting way too difficult to post anything that even hints at the word
"Apple" here, so I'll take future technical discussions to other forums with
more objectivity and interest in the real world reports rather than
marketing interpretation debates.
Dedric
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47c37654$1@linux...
>
> Dedric, I see the truth as the truth. It's good to be educated as to what
> a system is capable of. It's not good to assume things. It is explained
> that they are running 26 fx plugins with 32 tracks at 96k with a buffer
> setting of 32 and getting 1.6 millisecond of latency using Logic 7.2.2.
> If what they are saying is not true somebody should sue them. On the
> other
> hand, if somebody assumes that they can run a different version of Logic
> with a different set up and run virtual instruments, I don't think you can
> expect to get the same results. Apogee is clear about the set up, however
> I do think they should have more information and be more clear about the
> plugins counts. They should separate the maximum plugin count and the
> latency
> test, it's a bit confusing.
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>Apparently some Logic users see it as misleading (as do quite a few other
>
>>pros I know), and those numbers quote plugin counts. With most DAWs, that
>
>>equates directly to VSTi's (which are also plugins...). It's isn't the
>
>>whole story. The website never says - "you won't get this kind of latency
>
>>with VSTis the way you do with other DAWs on ASIO". ;-)) And that's
>>exactly what I said in my post: Apogee only posted *part* of the story.
>>
>>Really, I only posted this for those that might be interested in actually
>
>>knowing what systems will do vs. what marketing would lead you to believe.
>
>>These are the kind of real world reports that make or break a buying
>>decision for those of us looking for really powerful systems and wanting
> to
>>know exactly what we are getting, not just assume because we love the
>>company behind it....
>>
>>If you track all day for living, it sounds like a great system (but so is
> an
>>RME MADI rig). If you run VSTi's, investigate it more and try before you
>
>>buy, or look elsewhere in known waters (ASIO 2 systems), at least for now
>
>>until there's either more info and/or Apogee beefs up their
>>system/drivers.
>>
>>The point isn't to defend or attack anyone - it's just to get to the
>>bottom
>
>>of what products *really* do so we know before we buy.
>>As long as customers defend manufacturers out of blind loyalty, getting
> an
>>honest answer and better products from those developers will only get more
>
>>and more difficult.
>>
>>Dedric
>>
>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:47c35daf$1@linux...
>>>
>>> I not sure I see any false claim, Apogee's info is here to see. I don't
>
>>> see
>>> them talking about running software instruments.
>>>
>>> http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/symphony_performance.p hp
>>>
>>> Lowest Latency: 1.6 milliseconds at 96kHz* (Analog to Analog)
>>>
>>> *Hardware/Session Details:
>>> . Computer configuration: 
Mac Pro, 2.66GHz Dual-Core with three
>
>>> internal
>>> 500 GB, 7200 RPM drives configured as a RAID and 4 GB of ram.
>>> . Software: 
Logic 7.2.2 session running at 96k.
>>> . Track count during latency test: 
32 tracks playback, 32 tracks
>>> recording
>>> . Plug ins engaged during latency test: 
10 Adaptive Limiters, 10
>>> Linear Phase EQs, 6 Space Designers (default preset)
>>> . Buffer setting: 
32
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909 =
>>>>(should take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>
>>>>Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
> =
>>>>only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>>It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
> =
>>>>Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in the
>>> =
>>>>Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort through
> =
>>>>marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of hoping the
>>> =
>>>>Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio and any app,
>>> =
>>>>just because it would be cool to have such a breakthrough, but this =
>>>>really just shows that ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs =
>>>>already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>>
>>>>The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and ASIO2,
>>> =
>>>>but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted estimate) plugin
>>> =
>>>>load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband
>>> =
>>>>comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is
>>> =
>>>>almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>>>>benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll
> =
>>>>have to find out for sure when I have more time) - same dual quad =
>>>>hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for sure if some of this
> =
>>>>is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level OSX code base (maybe
> =
>>>>already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if it is truly a limitation
>>> =
>>>>of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic thread, the latter seems to
> =
>>>>have a bit more weight than it being a Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>
>>>>Fwiw,
>>>>Dedric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>>>><HTML><HEAD>
>>>><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>>>>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
>>>><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=3DGENERATOR>
>>>><STYLE></STYLE>
>>>></HEAD>
>>>><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
>>>>href=3D" http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693=
>>>>909"> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909=
>>>></A> (should=20
>>>>take you to the next to last post on that page)</FONT></DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Apparently Apogee's numbers =
>>>>are only=20
>>>>while tracking. Sounds like they only posted part of the story =
>>>>with their=20
>>>>great low latency figures.</FONT></DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It is hard to say if this is the case
> =
>>>>for everyone=20
>>>>though, except for Apogee's response when the user called, but since I
> =
>>>>brought=20
>>>>it up in the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and
> =
>>>>sort=20
>>>>through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind =
>>>>of hoping=20
>>>>the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with </FONT><FONT =
>>>>face=3DArial=20
>>>>size=3D2>Core audio and any app, just because it would be cool to have
> =
>>>>such a=20
>>>>breakthrough, but this really </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>just
> =
>>>>shows that=20
>>>>ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really
>>> =
>>>>
>>>>exceeded it yet.</FONT></DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The reports on Nuendo performance is
> =
>>>>quite a bit=20
>>>>faster on XP and ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency =
>>>>on</FONT></DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% =
>>>>higher (my=20
>>>>adjusted estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same=20
>>>>latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on =
>>>>XP/ASIO, vs=20
>>>>45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, </FONT><FONT =
>>>>face=3DArial=20
>>>>size=3D2>but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>>>>benchmark test to=20
>>>>compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll have to find =
>>>>out for=20
>>>>sure when I have more time) - same dual quad hardware configs in =
>>>>both=20
>>>>cases. I don't know for sure if some of this is Nuendo not being =
>>>>optimized=20
>>>>for the lower level OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or
>>> =
>>>>whatever=20
>>>>- or if it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on =
>>>>the Logic=20
>>>>thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a =
>>>>Nuendo-only=20
>>>>performance issue.</FONT></DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Fwiw,</FONT></DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dedric</FONT></DIV>
>>>><DIV><BR clear=3Dleft><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or marketing hype? [message #96285 is a reply to message #96284] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 20:14 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dedric, I think your right, we need to know what users think and are able
to do with a system. I'm not trying to blindly defend.
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Um... okay. Sounds like you are just defending Apogee for no good reason,
>esp. considering I didn't attack them, so give me a break with the "not
good
>to make assumptions" lecture. For the last time - I posted this so people
>who have a real world interest in working with this kind of gear would know
>what to look out for, and you jump in to defend Apogee's marketing.
>
>If you have experience with real world use as a composer on an Apogee
>Symphony system and think the Logic user misguided in his evalution, I'm
>sure the Logic forum would be most interested in your input.
>
>It's getting way too difficult to post anything that even hints at the word
>"Apple" here, so I'll take future technical discussions to other forums
with
>more objectivity and interest in the real world reports rather than
>marketing interpretation debates.
>
>Dedric
>
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:47c37654$1@linux...
>>
>> Dedric, I see the truth as the truth. It's good to be educated as to
what
>> a system is capable of. It's not good to assume things. It is explained
>> that they are running 26 fx plugins with 32 tracks at 96k with a buffer
>> setting of 32 and getting 1.6 millisecond of latency using Logic 7.2.2.
>> If what they are saying is not true somebody should sue them. On the
>> other
>> hand, if somebody assumes that they can run a different version of Logic
>> with a different set up and run virtual instruments, I don't think you
can
>> expect to get the same results. Apogee is clear about the set up, however
>> I do think they should have more information and be more clear about the
>> plugins counts. They should separate the maximum plugin count and the
>> latency
>> test, it's a bit confusing.
>>
>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>Apparently some Logic users see it as misleading (as do quite a few other
>>
>>>pros I know), and those numbers quote plugin counts. With most DAWs,
that
>>
>>>equates directly to VSTi's (which are also plugins...). It's isn't the
>>
>>>whole story. The website never says - "you won't get this kind of latency
>>
>>>with VSTis the way you do with other DAWs on ASIO". ;-)) And that's
>>>exactly what I said in my post: Apogee only posted *part* of the story.
>>>
>>>Really, I only posted this for those that might be interested in actually
>>
>>>knowing what systems will do vs. what marketing would lead you to believe.
>>
>>>These are the kind of real world reports that make or break a buying
>>>decision for those of us looking for really powerful systems and wanting
>> to
>>>know exactly what we are getting, not just assume because we love the
>>>company behind it....
>>>
>>>If you track all day for living, it sounds like a great system (but so
is
>> an
>>>RME MADI rig). If you run VSTi's, investigate it more and try before
you
>>
>>>buy, or look elsewhere in known waters (ASIO 2 systems), at least for
now
>>
>>>until there's either more info and/or Apogee beefs up their
>>>system/drivers.
>>>
>>>The point isn't to defend or attack anyone - it's just to get to the
>>>bottom
>>
>>>of what products *really* do so we know before we buy.
>>>As long as customers defend manufacturers out of blind loyalty, getting
>> an
>>>honest answer and better products from those developers will only get
more
>>
>>>and more difficult.
>>>
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:47c35daf$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> I not sure I see any false claim, Apogee's info is here to see. I don't
>>
>>>> see
>>>> them talking about running software instruments.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/symphony_performance.p hp
>>>>
>>>> Lowest Latency: 1.6 milliseconds at 96kHz* (Analog to Analog)
>>>>
>>>> *Hardware/Session Details:
>>>> . Computer configuration: 
Mac Pro, 2.66GHz Dual-Core with three
>>
>>>> internal
>>>> 500 GB, 7200 RPM drives configured as a RAID and 4 GB of ram.
>>>> . Software: 
Logic 7.2.2 session running at 96k.
>>>> . Track count during latency test: 
32 tracks playback, 32 tracks
>>>> recording
>>>> . Plug ins engaged during latency test: 
10 Adaptive Limiters,
10
>>>> Linear Phase EQs, 6 Space Designers (default preset)
>>>> . Buffer setting: 
32
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909
=
>>>>>(should take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>
>>>>>Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
>> =
>>>>>only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>>>It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>> =
>>>>>Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in
the
>>>> =
>>>>>Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort through
>> =
>>>>>marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of hoping
the
>>>> =
>>>>>Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio and any app,
>>>> =
>>>>>just because it would be cool to have such a breakthrough, but this
=
>>>>>really just shows that ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs =
>>>>>already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and ASIO2,
>>>> =
>>>>>but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted estimate) plugin
>>>> =
>>>>>load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband
>>>> =
>>>>>comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which
is
>>>> =
>>>>>almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>>>>>benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll
>> =
>>>>>have to find out for sure when I have more time) - same dual quad =
>>>>>hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for sure if some of this
>> =
>>>>>is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level OSX code base (maybe
>> =
>>>>>already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if it is truly a limitation
>>>> =
>>>>>of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic thread, the latter seems
to
>> =
>>>>>have a bit more weight than it being a Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fwiw,
>>>>>Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>>>>><HTML><HEAD>
>>>>><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>>>>>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
>>>>><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=3DGENERATOR>
>>>>><STYLE></STYLE>
>>>>></HEAD>
>>>>><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
>>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
>>>>>href=3D" http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693=
>>>>>909"> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909=
>>>>></A> (should=20
>>>>>take you to the next to last post on that page)</FONT></DIV>
>>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Apparently Apogee's numbers =
>>>>>are only=20
>>>>>while tracking. Sounds like they only posted part of the story =
>>>>>with their=20
>>>>>great low latency figures.</FONT></DIV>
>>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It is hard to say if this is the case
>> =
>>>>>for everyone=20
>>>>>though, except for Apogee's response when the user called, but since
I
>> =
>>>>>brought=20
>>>>>it up in the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and
>> =
>>>>>sort=20
>>>>>through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind =
>>>>>of hoping=20
>>>>>the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with </FONT><FONT =
>>>>>face=3DArial=20
>>>>>size=3D2>Core audio and any app, just because it would be cool to have
>> =
>>>>>such a=20
>>>>>breakthrough, but this really </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>just
>> =
>>>>>shows that=20
>>>>>ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really
>>>> =
>>>>>
>>>>>exceeded it yet.</FONT></DIV>
>>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The reports on Nuendo performance is
>> =
>>>>>quite a bit=20
>>>>>faster on XP and ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency =
>>>>>on</FONT></DIV>
>>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30%
=
>>>>>higher (my=20
>>>>>adjusted estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same=20
>>>>>latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on =
>>>>>XP/ASIO, vs=20
>>>>>45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, </FONT><FONT =
>>>>>face=3DArial=20
>>>>>size=3D2>but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>>>>>benchmark test to=20
>>>>>compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll have to find =
>>>>>out for=20
>>>>>sure when I have more time) - same dual quad hardware configs in =
>>>>>both=20
>>>>>cases. I don't know for sure if some of this is Nuendo not being =
>>>>>optimized=20
>>>>>for the lower level OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa
or
>>>> =
>>>>>whatever=20
>>>>>- or if it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on =
>>>>>the Logic=20
>>>>>thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a =
>>>>>Nuendo-only=20
>>>>>performance issue.</FONT></DIV>
>>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Fwiw,</FONT></DIV>
>>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dedric</FONT></DIV>
>>>>><DIV><BR clear=3Dleft><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeinghype? [message #96290 is a reply to message #96280] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 21:20 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Dedric,
Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and be
done with it.
Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
looks less and less attractive.
Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at 96k
and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard to
be accurate.
I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
users to down load.
It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do compared
to the card they are using now.
Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press releases.
Chris
Dedric Terry wrote:
> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909 (should
> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>
> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in
> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of
> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio
> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>
> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really
> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core
> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part
> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more time)
> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level
> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if
> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a
> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>
> Fwiw,
> Dedric
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing hype? [message #96291 is a reply to message #96290] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 21:38 |
Deej [5]
Messages: 373
Registered: March 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chris,
Not to get too OT here but my two DAWs are, as you know based on GA-K8Ns
Ultra 939's with Opteron 185's. The slave DAW has 2 x HDSP 9652's and is
only used for VSTi's and is systemlinked using the full 24 bit path between
one of the slave ADAT ports and the Multiface ADAt port. The master DAW has
2 x 13 slot Magmas. One of the Magmas has a Multiface, a MADI and AES 32.
the other has 4 x UAD-1's and 2 x POCO's. It so stable I'm in shock. I have
had these DAWs online, systemlinked and and working without a single glitch
for almost a month without powering down.
Not a crash, not even a hiccup. I've never once seen that happen with a Mac.
How are those new generation Intel Quads? I saw a post by Scott on the
Nuendo forum that was pretty high praise. Are they to the point now that I
could work at 64k buffers 24/7 with relatively high track counts and use my
32 bit Magma's in a newer compatible mobo with 2 x PCI slots? without having
IRQ trainwrecks? The only reason I'd even consider doing this would be to
lose the necessity for ADM, though that's really less and less of an issue.
Still, it would be nice to just set & forget and be able to use the Cubase
CR function full time for OD's if necessary, even when in the process of
mixing.
Get my drift? ;o)
Deej
"Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
news:47c3a404@linux...
> Hi Dedric,
> Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going on
> 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
> If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and be done
> with it.
> Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
> looks less and less attractive.
> Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it being
> the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
> About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at 96k
> and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
> They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard to be
> accurate.
>
> I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for users
> to down load.
> It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do compared
> to the card they are using now.
>
> Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista with
> nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press releases.
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> Dedric Terry wrote:
>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>> (should take you to the next to last post on that page)
>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in the
>> Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort through
>> marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of hoping the
>> Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio and any app,
>> just because it would be cool to have such a breakthrough, but this
>> really just shows that ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs already,
>> and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and ASIO2,
>> but it's running fine at low latency on
>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted estimate) plugin
>> load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband
>> comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is
>> almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that
>> benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll
>> have to find out for sure when I have more time) - same dual quad
>> hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for sure if some of this is
>> Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level OSX code base (maybe
>> already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if it is truly a limitation
>> of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic thread, the latter seems to
>> have a bit more weight than it being a Nuendo-only performance issue.
>> Fwiw,
>> Dedric
>>
>>
>
> --
> Chris Ludwig
> ADK
> chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
> www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
> (859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing hype? [message #96292 is a reply to message #96291] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 21:39 |
Deej [5]
Messages: 373
Registered: March 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
........and the Multiface ADAt port on the master DAW.
"Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote in message news:47c3a909@linux...
> Chris,
>
> Not to get too OT here but my two DAWs are, as you know based on GA-K8Ns
> Ultra 939's with Opteron 185's. The slave DAW has 2 x HDSP 9652's and is
> only used for VSTi's and is systemlinked using the full 24 bit path
> between one of the slave ADAT ports and the Multiface ADAt port. The
> master DAW has 2 x 13 slot Magmas. One of the Magmas has a Multiface, a
> MADI and AES 32. the other has 4 x UAD-1's and 2 x POCO's. It so stable
> I'm in shock. I have had these DAWs online, systemlinked and and working
> without a single glitch for almost a month without powering down.
>
> Not a crash, not even a hiccup. I've never once seen that happen with a
> Mac.
>
> How are those new generation Intel Quads? I saw a post by Scott on the
> Nuendo forum that was pretty high praise. Are they to the point now that I
> could work at 64k buffers 24/7 with relatively high track counts and use
> my 32 bit Magma's in a newer compatible mobo with 2 x PCI slots? without
> having IRQ trainwrecks? The only reason I'd even consider doing this would
> be to lose the necessity for ADM, though that's really less and less of an
> issue. Still, it would be nice to just set & forget and be able to use the
> Cubase CR function full time for OD's if necessary, even when in the
> process of mixing.
>
> Get my drift? ;o)
>
> Deej
>
> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
> news:47c3a404@linux...
>> Hi Dedric,
>> Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>> on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>> If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and be
>> done with it.
>> Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>> looks less and less attractive.
>> Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it being
>> the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>> About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at 96k
>> and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>> They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard to be
>> accurate.
>>
>> I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>> users to down load.
>> It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do compared
>> to the card they are using now.
>>
>> Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista with
>> nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press releases.
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>> (should take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in the
>>> Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort through
>>> marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of hoping the
>>> Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio and any app,
>>> just because it would be cool to have such a breakthrough, but this
>>> really just shows that ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs
>>> already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted estimate) plugin
>>> load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband
>>> comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is
>>> almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that
>>> benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll
>>> have to find out for sure when I have more time) - same dual quad
>>> hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for sure if some of this
>>> is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level OSX code base (maybe
>>> already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if it is truly a limitation
>>> of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic thread, the latter seems to
>>> have a bit more weight than it being a Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>> Fwiw,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris Ludwig
>> ADK
>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>> www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>> (859) 635-5762
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeinghype? [message #96302 is a reply to message #96292] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 10:10 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Deej,
With your whacked setup I couldn't tell ya. With those old TC POCOs,
Magma and UADs with the 4 and 8 cores machines. Personally I would wait
for the UAD-2 card to come out. It will stream line you setup sense it
projected to have processing power of 3 current UADs.
The only thing preventing you from working at that buffer now are the
UAD and TC cards. The way they function and the impact on the PCI buss
for them and the Magma prevents that low or lower of a buffer.
Chris
Mr. Simplicity wrote:
> ........and the Multiface ADAt port on the master DAW.
>
> "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote in message news:47c3a909@linux...
>> Chris,
>>
>> Not to get too OT here but my two DAWs are, as you know based on GA-K8Ns
>> Ultra 939's with Opteron 185's. The slave DAW has 2 x HDSP 9652's and is
>> only used for VSTi's and is systemlinked using the full 24 bit path
>> between one of the slave ADAT ports and the Multiface ADAt port. The
>> master DAW has 2 x 13 slot Magmas. One of the Magmas has a Multiface, a
>> MADI and AES 32. the other has 4 x UAD-1's and 2 x POCO's. It so stable
>> I'm in shock. I have had these DAWs online, systemlinked and and working
>> without a single glitch for almost a month without powering down.
>>
>> Not a crash, not even a hiccup. I've never once seen that happen with a
>> Mac.
>>
>> How are those new generation Intel Quads? I saw a post by Scott on the
>> Nuendo forum that was pretty high praise. Are they to the point now that I
>> could work at 64k buffers 24/7 with relatively high track counts and use
>> my 32 bit Magma's in a newer compatible mobo with 2 x PCI slots? without
>> having IRQ trainwrecks? The only reason I'd even consider doing this would
>> be to lose the necessity for ADM, though that's really less and less of an
>> issue. Still, it would be nice to just set & forget and be able to use the
>> Cubase CR function full time for OD's if necessary, even when in the
>> process of mixing.
>>
>> Get my drift? ;o)
>>
>> Deej
>>
>> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
>> news:47c3a404@linux...
>>> Hi Dedric,
>>> Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>>> on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>> If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and be
>>> done with it.
>>> Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>>> looks less and less attractive.
>>> Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it being
>>> the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>> About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at 96k
>>> and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>> They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard to be
>>> accurate.
>>>
>>> I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>>> users to down load.
>>> It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do compared
>>> to the card they are using now.
>>>
>>> Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista with
>>> nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press releases.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>>> (should take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in the
>>>> Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort through
>>>> marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of hoping the
>>>> Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio and any app,
>>>> just because it would be cool to have such a breakthrough, but this
>>>> really just shows that ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs
>>>> already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted estimate) plugin
>>>> load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband
>>>> comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is
>>>> almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that
>>>> benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll
>>>> have to find out for sure when I have more time) - same dual quad
>>>> hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for sure if some of this
>>>> is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level OSX code base (maybe
>>>> already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if it is truly a limitation
>>>> of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic thread, the latter seems to
>>>> have a bit more weight than it being a Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>> Fwiw,
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Ludwig
>>> ADK
>>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>> www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>> (859) 635-5762
>>
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK Pro Audio
(859) 635-5762
www.adkproaudio.com
chrisl@adkproaudio.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96315 is a reply to message #96290] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 18:22 |
|
|
Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native solutions, is
very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions, have
gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS Vista/XP
and OSX..
On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is sickening!.
Who cares? All, one should want is
A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those on this
and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a working
DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks have
spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio drivers)..Runs
great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with alot of
plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed" as
some here believes.
Back to the subject:
If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see that
I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What am I
getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that allows you
to play itunes .. Not impressed.
While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be simplified like
Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade bandwagon.
Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only to run
into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is for sure,
If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered in ProTools..
You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro Tools..
So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO) when
a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these days for
under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very very flexible
i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you to track
and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream journey
and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all familiar
phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you not?
Simple..
Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>Hi Dedric,
>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and be
>done with it.
>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>looks less and less attractive.
>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at 96k
>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard to
>be accurate.
>
>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>users to down load.
>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do compared
>to the card they are using now.
>
>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press releases.
>
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>Dedric Terry wrote:
>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909 (should
>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>
>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in
>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of
>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio
>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>
>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really
>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core
>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part
>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more time)
>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level
>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if
>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a
>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>
>> Fwiw,
>> Dedric
>>
>>
>
>--
>Chris Ludwig
>ADK
>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96316 is a reply to message #96315] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 17:34 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
Dedric
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c4bb50$1@linux...
>
> Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>
> All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native solutions, is
> very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions, have
> gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS Vista/XP
> and OSX..
>
> On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is
> sickening!.
> Who cares? All, one should want is
>
> A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>
> I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those on
> this
> and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a working
> DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks have
> spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>
> Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio drivers)..Runs
> great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with alot of
> plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed" as
> some here believes.
>
> Back to the subject:
> If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see that
> I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What am I
> getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that allows
> you
> to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>
> While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be simplified
> like
> Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>
> Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade bandwagon.
> Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only to run
> into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
> The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>
> My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>
> All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is for
> sure,
> If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered in
> ProTools..
> You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro Tools..
>
> So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO) when
> a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these days for
> under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very very
> flexible
> i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you to
> track
> and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>
> So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream
> journey
> and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all familiar
> phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>
> I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you not?
> Simple..
>
> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>Hi Dedric,
>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>
>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and be
>>done with it.
>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>>looks less and less attractive.
>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at 96k
>
>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard to
>>be accurate.
>>
>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>>users to down load.
>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do compared
>
>>to the card they are using now.
>>
>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>releases.
>>
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>> (should
>
>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>
>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
>
>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>
>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in
>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of
>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio
>
>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>
>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really
>
>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core
>
>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part
>
>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more time)
>
>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level
>
>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if
>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a
>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>
>>> Fwiw,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Chris Ludwig
>>ADK
>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>(859) 635-5762
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96322 is a reply to message #96316] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 21:46 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>
>Dedric
>
I know how you feel!
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c4bb50$1@linux...
>>
>> Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>
>> All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native solutions,
is
>> very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions,
have
>> gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS Vista/XP
>> and OSX..
>>
>> On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is
>> sickening!.
>> Who cares? All, one should want is
>>
>> A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>
>> I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those on
>> this
>> and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a working
>> DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks
have
>> spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>
>> Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio drivers)..Runs
>> great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with alot
of
>> plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed"
as
>> some here believes.
>>
>> Back to the subject:
>> If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see that
>> I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What am
I
>> getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that allows
>> you
>> to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>
>> While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be simplified
>> like
>> Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>
>> Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade bandwagon.
>> Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only to run
>> into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>> The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>
>> My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>
>> All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is for
>> sure,
>> If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered in
>> ProTools..
>> You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro Tools..
>>
>> So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO)
when
>> a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these days
for
>> under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very very
>> flexible
>> i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you to
>> track
>> and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>
>> So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream
>> journey
>> and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all familiar
>> phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>
>> I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you not?
>> Simple..
>>
>> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>>
>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and be
>>>done with it.
>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at 96k
>>
>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard to
>>>be accurate.
>>>
>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>>>users to down load.
>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do compared
>>
>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>
>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>>releases.
>>>
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>>> (should
>>
>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>
>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
>>
>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>>
>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in
>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of
>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio
>>
>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>>
>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really
>>
>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core
>>
>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part
>>
>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more time)
>>
>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level
>>
>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if
>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a
>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>
>>>> Fwiw,
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>ADK
>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>(859) 635-5762
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96326 is a reply to message #96319] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 00:58 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
FWIW, i found interesting too, Dedric.
And Lamont, the Native Upgrade stream is nowhere near as bad as
you make it out to be... for what I have in terms of
capabilities in Native-land, it would cost me at LEAST $20k in
Pro-Tools gear & ware to achieve... and that's not even counting
plugins, which are unGAWDly expensive for PT due to the TDM
licensing fees that developers have to pay to Digi. I've
probably got less than 1,500 bucks invested in plugins, and
i've got dozens upon dozens of them because there's so much
freeware VST development going on - i'm sure i'd be looking at
another ten grand, minimum, if I were to try & assemble a
comparable TDM plugin arsenal. So there's $30k for PTHD & plugs
right there. No way have I spent even a quarter of that on every
Native rig, plugin, and upgrade chase since I've been doing this
stuff!
Neil
"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>Yo D,
>
>I have to say as a lurker/reader/bystander that I appreciated your post.
I
>find it interesting and apprecated the findings on the current state of
>native DAW in the real world. Makes me happy I'm not trying to push the
>envelope with Native, to be honest, and glad I still have Paris around for
>tracking and mixing, even sans 96k+. If I absolutely gotta have native,
I
>pull up a tascam to dump synths or fire up the Creamware rig. I still feel
>native has a little ways to go, but seeing what's on the table helps ground
>me in the reality of the situation, rather than what's been sent to press.
>Thanks dude. Sorry you felt like an audio post in a (gulp) audio forum
>brought out the wrath.
>
>AA
>
>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message news:47c4c144$1@linux...
>> I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>>
>> Dedric
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96342 is a reply to message #96315] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 07:57 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running a big for
hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than starting
up.
One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all. It's the most
flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's incredibly
easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over a photorealistic
mixer that's less powerful any day.
Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
TCB
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>
>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native solutions,
is
>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions, have
>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS Vista/XP
>and OSX..
>
>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is sickening!.
>Who cares? All, one should want is
>
>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>
>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those on
this
>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a working
>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks have
>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>
>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio drivers)..Runs
>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with alot
of
>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed" as
>some here believes.
>
>Back to the subject:
>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see that
>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What am
I
>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that allows
you
>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>
>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be simplified
like
>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>
>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade bandwagon.
>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only to run
>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>
>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>
>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is for
sure,
>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered in ProTools..
>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro Tools..
>
>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO) when
>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these days for
>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very very
flexible
>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you to track
>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>
>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream journey
>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all familiar
>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>
>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you not?
>Simple..
>
>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>Hi Dedric,
>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>
>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and be
>>done with it.
>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>>looks less and less attractive.
>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at 96k
>
>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard to
>>be accurate.
>>
>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>>users to down load.
>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do compared
>
>>to the card they are using now.
>>
>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press releases.
>>
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909 (should
>
>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>
>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
>
>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>
>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in
>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of
>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio
>
>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>
>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really
>
>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core
>
>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part
>
>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more time)
>
>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level
>
>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if
>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a
>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>
>>> Fwiw,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Chris Ludwig
>>ADK
>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>(859) 635-5762
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96346 is a reply to message #96326] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 09:40 |
|
|
Hey Neil, I'll get you current PT HD2/With Hardware and plugins quote.
Also, you do know that with FX xpansion VST to RTAS converter, all your and
my VST plugins show up in ProTools?? So, thatends that argument..
Lastly, use what You like, but I still say that the Pro Native route is very
costly and just as expensive as a DSP based DW rig..
"Neil" <OIOI@OUI.com> wrote:
>
>FWIW, i found interesting too, Dedric.
>
>And Lamont, the Native Upgrade stream is nowhere near as bad as
>you make it out to be... for what I have in terms of
>capabilities in Native-land, it would cost me at LEAST $20k in
>Pro-Tools gear & ware to achieve... and that's not even counting
>plugins, which are unGAWDly expensive for PT due to the TDM
>licensing fees that developers have to pay to Digi. I've
>probably got less than 1,500 bucks invested in plugins, and
>i've got dozens upon dozens of them because there's so much
>freeware VST development going on - i'm sure i'd be looking at
>another ten grand, minimum, if I were to try & assemble a
>comparable TDM plugin arsenal. So there's $30k for PTHD & plugs
>right there. No way have I spent even a quarter of that on every
>Native rig, plugin, and upgrade chase since I've been doing this
>stuff!
>
>Neil
>
>
>
>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>Yo D,
>>
>>I have to say as a lurker/reader/bystander that I appreciated your post.
>I
>>find it interesting and apprecated the findings on the current state of
>
>>native DAW in the real world. Makes me happy I'm not trying to push the
>
>>envelope with Native, to be honest, and glad I still have Paris around
for
>
>>tracking and mixing, even sans 96k+. If I absolutely gotta have native,
>I
>>pull up a tascam to dump synths or fire up the Creamware rig. I still feel
>
>>native has a little ways to go, but seeing what's on the table helps ground
>
>>me in the reality of the situation, rather than what's been sent to press.
>>Thanks dude. Sorry you felt like an audio post in a (gulp) audio forum
>>brought out the wrath.
>>
>>AA
>>
>>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message news:47c4c144$1@linux...
>>> I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>>>
>>> Dedric
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96349 is a reply to message #96346] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 10:33 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Neil, I'll get you current PT HD2/With Hardware and plugins quote.
What? Are you repping Pro-Tools on the side now? lol
>Also, you do know that with FX xpansion VST to RTAS converter,
>all your and my VST plugins show up in ProTools?? So, thatends
that argument..
Really? And it works properly & everything? Everything's fully-
featured & all plugin parameters are automatable?
>Lastly, use what You like, but I still say that the Pro Native
>route is very costly and just as expensive as a DSP based DW
>rig...
Look, I'm no PT hater anymore - not since HD anyway - I think
those HD192 convertors sound pretty damn good, and I've heard a
couple of ITB mixes done in HD that I thought sounded just fine.
I just don't think $20k as a starting point for an equivalently-
capable system to what I have now is a cost-justifiable expense
for me. As I've said before, if I was trying to make my living
off this stuff that'd be a different story - i'd definitely be
on PTHD... not that you CAN'T make money without it, it's just
easier to make money WITH it, methinks... especially when
you've got clients asking for it specifically, and when it's
easier to take projects started at one studio & complete them
at yours if you've got a great mixing environment (or
conversely, if you've got a great tracking room, but another
place has the "hot" mix room in town, start 'em at your place
& the client can mix elsewhere), without format worries, OMF
issues, etc. But me with my little facility that generates just
a little bit of part-time cash... I can't see that kind of
expense being justifiable. That's probably close to what I have
invested in EVERYTHING recording-wise, except for instruments.
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96350 is a reply to message #96346] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 09:25 |
Deej [5]
Messages: 373
Registered: March 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
So LaMont. A VST wrapper would allow me to use my 4 x UAD-1 cards and 2 x
POCO's and I could get 24 AD/DA's along with an additional 50 digital I/O
for interfacing my outboard gear and VSTi's ......all for under under $10K?
Thanks,
Deej
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c59281$1@linux...
>
> Hey Neil, I'll get you current PT HD2/With Hardware and plugins quote.
>
> Also, you do know that with FX xpansion VST to RTAS converter, all your
> and
> my VST plugins show up in ProTools?? So, thatends that argument..
>
> Lastly, use what You like, but I still say that the Pro Native route is
> very
> costly and just as expensive as a DSP based DW rig..
> "Neil" <OIOI@OUI.com> wrote:
>>
>>FWIW, i found interesting too, Dedric.
>>
>>And Lamont, the Native Upgrade stream is nowhere near as bad as
>>you make it out to be... for what I have in terms of
>>capabilities in Native-land, it would cost me at LEAST $20k in
>>Pro-Tools gear & ware to achieve... and that's not even counting
>>plugins, which are unGAWDly expensive for PT due to the TDM
>>licensing fees that developers have to pay to Digi. I've
>>probably got less than 1,500 bucks invested in plugins, and
>>i've got dozens upon dozens of them because there's so much
>>freeware VST development going on - i'm sure i'd be looking at
>>another ten grand, minimum, if I were to try & assemble a
>>comparable TDM plugin arsenal. So there's $30k for PTHD & plugs
>>right there. No way have I spent even a quarter of that on every
>>Native rig, plugin, and upgrade chase since I've been doing this
>>stuff!
>>
>>Neil
>>
>>
>>
>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>Yo D,
>>>
>>>I have to say as a lurker/reader/bystander that I appreciated your post.
>>I
>>>find it interesting and apprecated the findings on the current state of
>>
>>>native DAW in the real world. Makes me happy I'm not trying to push the
>>
>>>envelope with Native, to be honest, and glad I still have Paris around
> for
>>
>>>tracking and mixing, even sans 96k+. If I absolutely gotta have native,
>>I
>>>pull up a tascam to dump synths or fire up the Creamware rig. I still
>>>feel
>>
>>>native has a little ways to go, but seeing what's on the table helps
>>>ground
>>
>>>me in the reality of the situation, rather than what's been sent to
>>>press.
>>>Thanks dude. Sorry you felt like an audio post in a (gulp) audio forum
>
>>>brought out the wrath.
>>>
>>>AA
>>>
>>>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>news:47c4c144$1@linux...
>>>> I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96351 is a reply to message #96349] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 10:48 |
|
|
I understand.. :)
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Neil, I'll get you current PT HD2/With Hardware and plugins quote.
>
>What? Are you repping Pro-Tools on the side now? lol
>
>
>>Also, you do know that with FX xpansion VST to RTAS converter,
>>all your and my VST plugins show up in ProTools?? So, thatends
>that argument..
>
>Really? And it works properly & everything? Everything's fully-
>featured & all plugin parameters are automatable?
>
>>Lastly, use what You like, but I still say that the Pro Native
>>route is very costly and just as expensive as a DSP based DW
>>rig...
>
>Look, I'm no PT hater anymore - not since HD anyway - I think
>those HD192 convertors sound pretty damn good, and I've heard a
>couple of ITB mixes done in HD that I thought sounded just fine.
>I just don't think $20k as a starting point for an equivalently-
>capable system to what I have now is a cost-justifiable expense
>for me. As I've said before, if I was trying to make my living
>off this stuff that'd be a different story - i'd definitely be
>on PTHD... not that you CAN'T make money without it, it's just
>easier to make money WITH it, methinks... especially when
>you've got clients asking for it specifically, and when it's
>easier to take projects started at one studio & complete them
>at yours if you've got a great mixing environment (or
>conversely, if you've got a great tracking room, but another
>place has the "hot" mix room in town, start 'em at your place
>& the client can mix elsewhere), without format worries, OMF
>issues, etc. But me with my little facility that generates just
>a little bit of part-time cash... I can't see that kind of
>expense being justifiable. That's probably close to what I have
>invested in EVERYTHING recording-wise, except for instruments.
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96352 is a reply to message #96350] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 10:56 |
|
|
Hey DJ,
I don;t know about about 10k for all that I/o, BUT! :)All that under ProTools
HD or Even Motu's Hardware..But, let stick to PT HD..
I would gurantee you that you 'mad-scientist' daw i.o config under PT HD
would be simplified to point of pure pleasure. Being that you could:
-Name and save various hardware setups(nothing new) but just more elegant.
-Way better I/O routing than RME's Mixer and Steinbergs i/o routing.
-Even with PT HD9 with 4 apogee adda16, Lynx Aurora 16's..It would be ONE
(ono) 1 unified sysyem.. And not a hosh-posh ..Now you tell me, How much
is that worth to you? Then, add up all of that 'Man-Hours' to get your Dream
Native rig going and running smoothly , tracking, overdub, mixing.????
"Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>So LaMont. A VST wrapper would allow me to use my 4 x UAD-1 cards and 2
x
>POCO's and I could get 24 AD/DA's along with an additional 50 digital I/O
>for interfacing my outboard gear and VSTi's ......all for under under $10K?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Deej
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c59281$1@linux...
>>
>> Hey Neil, I'll get you current PT HD2/With Hardware and plugins quote.
>>
>> Also, you do know that with FX xpansion VST to RTAS converter, all your
>> and
>> my VST plugins show up in ProTools?? So, thatends that argument..
>>
>> Lastly, use what You like, but I still say that the Pro Native route is
>> very
>> costly and just as expensive as a DSP based DW rig..
>> "Neil" <OIOI@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>FWIW, i found interesting too, Dedric.
>>>
>>>And Lamont, the Native Upgrade stream is nowhere near as bad as
>>>you make it out to be... for what I have in terms of
>>>capabilities in Native-land, it would cost me at LEAST $20k in
>>>Pro-Tools gear & ware to achieve... and that's not even counting
>>>plugins, which are unGAWDly expensive for PT due to the TDM
>>>licensing fees that developers have to pay to Digi. I've
>>>probably got less than 1,500 bucks invested in plugins, and
>>>i've got dozens upon dozens of them because there's so much
>>>freeware VST development going on - i'm sure i'd be looking at
>>>another ten grand, minimum, if I were to try & assemble a
>>>comparable TDM plugin arsenal. So there's $30k for PTHD & plugs
>>>right there. No way have I spent even a quarter of that on every
>>>Native rig, plugin, and upgrade chase since I've been doing this
>>>stuff!
>>>
>>>Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>Yo D,
>>>>
>>>>I have to say as a lurker/reader/bystander that I appreciated your post.
>>>I
>>>>find it interesting and apprecated the findings on the current state
of
>>>
>>>>native DAW in the real world. Makes me happy I'm not trying to push the
>>>
>>>>envelope with Native, to be honest, and glad I still have Paris around
>> for
>>>
>>>>tracking and mixing, even sans 96k+. If I absolutely gotta have native,
>>>I
>>>>pull up a tascam to dump synths or fire up the Creamware rig. I still
>>>>feel
>>>
>>>>native has a little ways to go, but seeing what's on the table helps
>>>>ground
>>>
>>>>me in the reality of the situation, rather than what's been sent to
>>>>press.
>>>>Thanks dude. Sorry you felt like an audio post in a (gulp) audio forum
>>
>>>>brought out the wrath.
>>>>
>>>>AA
>>>>
>>>>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:47c4c144$1@linux...
>>>>> I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96355 is a reply to message #96352] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 11:50 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lamont, your point is somewhat prickly, but probably true. My guess is
DJ wouldn't give up the hot-rodding for anything. He lives for it.
LaMont wrote:
> Hey DJ,
>
> I don;t know about about 10k for all that I/o, BUT! :)All that under ProTools
> HD or Even Motu's Hardware..But, let stick to PT HD..
>
> I would gurantee you that you 'mad-scientist' daw i.o config under PT HD
> would be simplified to point of pure pleasure. Being that you could:
>
> -Name and save various hardware setups(nothing new) but just more elegant.
>
> -Way better I/O routing than RME's Mixer and Steinbergs i/o routing.
>
> -Even with PT HD9 with 4 apogee adda16, Lynx Aurora 16's..It would be ONE
> (ono) 1 unified sysyem.. And not a hosh-posh ..Now you tell me, How much
> is that worth to you? Then, add up all of that 'Man-Hours' to get your Dream
> Native rig going and running smoothly , tracking, overdub, mixing.????
>
>
>
>
> "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>> So LaMont. A VST wrapper would allow me to use my 4 x UAD-1 cards and 2
> x
>> POCO's and I could get 24 AD/DA's along with an additional 50 digital I/O
>
>> for interfacing my outboard gear and VSTi's ......all for under under $10K?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Deej
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c59281$1@linux...
>>> Hey Neil, I'll get you current PT HD2/With Hardware and plugins quote.
>>>
>>> Also, you do know that with FX xpansion VST to RTAS converter, all your
>
>>> and
>>> my VST plugins show up in ProTools?? So, thatends that argument..
>>>
>>> Lastly, use what You like, but I still say that the Pro Native route is
>
>>> very
>>> costly and just as expensive as a DSP based DW rig..
>>> "Neil" <OIOI@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>> FWIW, i found interesting too, Dedric.
>>>>
>>>> And Lamont, the Native Upgrade stream is nowhere near as bad as
>>>> you make it out to be... for what I have in terms of
>>>> capabilities in Native-land, it would cost me at LEAST $20k in
>>>> Pro-Tools gear & ware to achieve... and that's not even counting
>>>> plugins, which are unGAWDly expensive for PT due to the TDM
>>>> licensing fees that developers have to pay to Digi. I've
>>>> probably got less than 1,500 bucks invested in plugins, and
>>>> i've got dozens upon dozens of them because there's so much
>>>> freeware VST development going on - i'm sure i'd be looking at
>>>> another ten grand, minimum, if I were to try & assemble a
>>>> comparable TDM plugin arsenal. So there's $30k for PTHD & plugs
>>>> right there. No way have I spent even a quarter of that on every
>>>> Native rig, plugin, and upgrade chase since I've been doing this
>>>> stuff!
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>> Yo D,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to say as a lurker/reader/bystander that I appreciated your post.
>>>> I
>>>>> find it interesting and apprecated the findings on the current state
> of
>>>>> native DAW in the real world. Makes me happy I'm not trying to push the
>>>>> envelope with Native, to be honest, and glad I still have Paris around
>>> for
>>>>> tracking and mixing, even sans 96k+. If I absolutely gotta have native,
>>>> I
>>>>> pull up a tascam to dump synths or fire up the Creamware rig. I still
>
>>>>> feel
>>>>> native has a little ways to go, but seeing what's on the table helps
>
>>>>> ground
>>>>> me in the reality of the situation, rather than what's been sent to
>
>>>>> press.
>>>>> Thanks dude. Sorry you felt like an audio post in a (gulp) audio forum
>>>>> brought out the wrath.
>>>>>
>>>>> AA
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:47c4c144$1@linux...
>>>>>> I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96356 is a reply to message #96350] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 13:58 |
|
|
Ok, my mad scientist friend. Take a look at this and see if this could work
for you. :)
http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?navid=83&langid=100& amp;itemid=5100
"Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>So LaMont. A VST wrapper would allow me to use my 4 x UAD-1 cards and 2
x
>POCO's and I could get 24 AD/DA's along with an additional 50 digital I/O
>for interfacing my outboard gear and VSTi's ......all for under under $10K?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Deej
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c59281$1@linux...
>>
>> Hey Neil, I'll get you current PT HD2/With Hardware and plugins quote.
>>
>> Also, you do know that with FX xpansion VST to RTAS converter, all your
>> and
>> my VST plugins show up in ProTools?? So, thatends that argument..
>>
>> Lastly, use what You like, but I still say that the Pro Native route is
>> very
>> costly and just as expensive as a DSP based DW rig..
>> "Neil" <OIOI@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>FWIW, i found interesting too, Dedric.
>>>
>>>And Lamont, the Native Upgrade stream is nowhere near as bad as
>>>you make it out to be... for what I have in terms of
>>>capabilities in Native-land, it would cost me at LEAST $20k in
>>>Pro-Tools gear & ware to achieve... and that's not even counting
>>>plugins, which are unGAWDly expensive for PT due to the TDM
>>>licensing fees that developers have to pay to Digi. I've
>>>probably got less than 1,500 bucks invested in plugins, and
>>>i've got dozens upon dozens of them because there's so much
>>>freeware VST development going on - i'm sure i'd be looking at
>>>another ten grand, minimum, if I were to try & assemble a
>>>comparable TDM plugin arsenal. So there's $30k for PTHD & plugs
>>>right there. No way have I spent even a quarter of that on every
>>>Native rig, plugin, and upgrade chase since I've been doing this
>>>stuff!
>>>
>>>Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>Yo D,
>>>>
>>>>I have to say as a lurker/reader/bystander that I appreciated your post.
>>>I
>>>>find it interesting and apprecated the findings on the current state
of
>>>
>>>>native DAW in the real world. Makes me happy I'm not trying to push the
>>>
>>>>envelope with Native, to be honest, and glad I still have Paris around
>> for
>>>
>>>>tracking and mixing, even sans 96k+. If I absolutely gotta have native,
>>>I
>>>>pull up a tascam to dump synths or fire up the Creamware rig. I still
>>>>feel
>>>
>>>>native has a little ways to go, but seeing what's on the table helps
>>>>ground
>>>
>>>>me in the reality of the situation, rather than what's been sent to
>>>>press.
>>>>Thanks dude. Sorry you felt like an audio post in a (gulp) audio forum
>>
>>>>brought out the wrath.
>>>>
>>>>AA
>>>>
>>>>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:47c4c144$1@linux...
>>>>> I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96358 is a reply to message #96346] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 16:23 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
One other thing, Lamont. As an application PT, in the immortal words of Bart
Simpson, somehow manages to suck and blow at the same time. If you want my
copy of Live you're going to be prying it out of my cold, dead, sampler loving
hands. SX 4 is pretty sweet as well.
I'm at a point now financially where I could buy a PT HD 1 rig just for my
house if I chose. I haven't and don't plan to, which I think says something.
I'm also a professional dweeb so running an native audio system is a hell
of a lot easier for me than for most people who have not experience the sweet
joys of hand compiling CISCO iscsi adapters for Solaris 8.
TCB
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Neil, I'll get you current PT HD2/With Hardware and plugins quote.
>
>Also, you do know that with FX xpansion VST to RTAS converter, all your
and
>my VST plugins show up in ProTools?? So, thatends that argument..
>
>Lastly, use what You like, but I still say that the Pro Native route is
very
>costly and just as expensive as a DSP based DW rig..
>"Neil" <OIOI@OUI.com> wrote:
>>
>>FWIW, i found interesting too, Dedric.
>>
>>And Lamont, the Native Upgrade stream is nowhere near as bad as
>>you make it out to be... for what I have in terms of
>>capabilities in Native-land, it would cost me at LEAST $20k in
>>Pro-Tools gear & ware to achieve... and that's not even counting
>>plugins, which are unGAWDly expensive for PT due to the TDM
>>licensing fees that developers have to pay to Digi. I've
>>probably got less than 1,500 bucks invested in plugins, and
>>i've got dozens upon dozens of them because there's so much
>>freeware VST development going on - i'm sure i'd be looking at
>>another ten grand, minimum, if I were to try & assemble a
>>comparable TDM plugin arsenal. So there's $30k for PTHD & plugs
>>right there. No way have I spent even a quarter of that on every
>>Native rig, plugin, and upgrade chase since I've been doing this
>>stuff!
>>
>>Neil
>>
>>
>>
>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>Yo D,
>>>
>>>I have to say as a lurker/reader/bystander that I appreciated your post.
>>I
>>>find it interesting and apprecated the findings on the current state of
>>
>>>native DAW in the real world. Makes me happy I'm not trying to push the
>>
>>>envelope with Native, to be honest, and glad I still have Paris around
>for
>>
>>>tracking and mixing, even sans 96k+. If I absolutely gotta have native,
>>I
>>>pull up a tascam to dump synths or fire up the Creamware rig. I still
feel
>>
>>>native has a little ways to go, but seeing what's on the table helps ground
>>
>>>me in the reality of the situation, rather than what's been sent to press.
>>>Thanks dude. Sorry you felt like an audio post in a (gulp) audio forum
>
>>>brought out the wrath.
>>>
>>>AA
>>>
>>>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message news:47c4c144$1@linux...
>>>> I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96373 is a reply to message #96358] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 08:41 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thad, whatever floats your boat. But, that's not what we're talking about
hear. Live is a different animal than PTHD.
Yes, pro work can and IS done on Live , Acid,Sonar,Fruity Loops..But, at
the end of the day, when you turn in that project to a Label, it's better
be in PT format.
I disagree with that PT sucks. It does not. It's not my favorite DAW, but
when you learn it, it's a VERY powerful DAW who's I/O routing is second to
none for ITB & OTB productions.
By you stating that you could purchase HD1 and choose not, Says Nothing..Only
that you chose not to.. Simple.
I'm a Pro who has both DSP (Paris & PTHD2) as well as Native(Nuendo, DP,
ProTools M Powered-via Laptop) AND it's all good.
My point was and is: That Native is not necessarily cheap and keeps the PRo(Engineer/Producer)
swamped down in TECH stuff,a not on music production which as we know, Time
is Money$$.
My Neundo Rig is very powerful..down right sweet!! :) But, being bogged down
is performance test, when we know as you have stated on many occassions,
were fuitle.Being that we chained with current current Operating systems
of the DAY (XP/Vista) OSX.
The Promise of the great 64 bit speed boost( Yeah right). 8-16 core processors,
with not apps or OS (For Music) coded to take advantage of all that power.
Actualy James M was right. It's all about Marketing and taking all of for
ride to Sell Sell Sell.
Meanwhile, A Decent off the shelf Computer(Compaq, HP, Dell-gulp) with an
additional HD, bump is memory can a have High -Track count yielding native
DAW with the right Interface, can have near zero tracking latency.
As a person who use to Build DAws for local studios and producers,my point
of view does not put $$ in the pockets of said DAW builders. Ok enough of
that..
I guess I'm just tired of the Speed bump test that really only yeild marginal
gains That cost $$$ cannot be justified for such marginal gains. It's been
almost 5 years of trying to break the so-called 96k zero latency barrier,
and where are we ???
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>One other thing, Lamont. As an application PT, in the immortal words of
Bart
>Simpson, somehow manages to suck and blow at the same time. If you want
my
>copy of Live you're going to be prying it out of my cold, dead, sampler
loving
>hands. SX 4 is pretty sweet as well.
>
>I'm at a point now financially where I could buy a PT HD 1 rig just for
my
>house if I chose. I haven't and don't plan to, which I think says something.
>I'm also a professional dweeb so running an native audio system is a hell
>of a lot easier for me than for most people who have not experience the
sweet
>joys of hand compiling CISCO iscsi adapters for Solaris 8.
>
>TCB
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Neil, I'll get you current PT HD2/With Hardware and plugins quote.
>>
>>Also, you do know that with FX xpansion VST to RTAS converter, all your
>and
>>my VST plugins show up in ProTools?? So, thatends that argument..
>>
>>Lastly, use what You like, but I still say that the Pro Native route is
>very
>>costly and just as expensive as a DSP based DW rig..
>>"Neil" <OIOI@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>FWIW, i found interesting too, Dedric.
>>>
>>>And Lamont, the Native Upgrade stream is nowhere near as bad as
>>>you make it out to be... for what I have in terms of
>>>capabilities in Native-land, it would cost me at LEAST $20k in
>>>Pro-Tools gear & ware to achieve... and that's not even counting
>>>plugins, which are unGAWDly expensive for PT due to the TDM
>>>licensing fees that developers have to pay to Digi. I've
>>>probably got less than 1,500 bucks invested in plugins, and
>>>i've got dozens upon dozens of them because there's so much
>>>freeware VST development going on - i'm sure i'd be looking at
>>>another ten grand, minimum, if I were to try & assemble a
>>>comparable TDM plugin arsenal. So there's $30k for PTHD & plugs
>>>right there. No way have I spent even a quarter of that on every
>>>Native rig, plugin, and upgrade chase since I've been doing this
>>>stuff!
>>>
>>>Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>Yo D,
>>>>
>>>>I have to say as a lurker/reader/bystander that I appreciated your post.
>>>I
>>>>find it interesting and apprecated the findings on the current state
of
>>>
>>>>native DAW in the real world. Makes me happy I'm not trying to push the
>>>
>>>>envelope with Native, to be honest, and glad I still have Paris around
>>for
>>>
>>>>tracking and mixing, even sans 96k+. If I absolutely gotta have native,
>>>I
>>>>pull up a tascam to dump synths or fire up the Creamware rig. I still
>feel
>>>
>>>>native has a little ways to go, but seeing what's on the table helps
ground
>>>
>>>>me in the reality of the situation, rather than what's been sent to
press.
>>>>Thanks dude. Sorry you felt like an audio post in a (gulp) audio forum
>>
>>>>brought out the wrath.
>>>>
>>>>AA
>>>>
>>>>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message news:47c4c144$1@linux...
>>>>> I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96377 is a reply to message #96373] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 08:33 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lamont - fwiw, when I posted this I *was* talking about comparing different
*native* systems,
and comparing marketing hype to reality so people actually buying and using
these systems
will know what to expect and what not to expect. PT and hybrid systems had
nothing to do with it,
other than the fact that Digi is the king of turning marketing hype into
sales.
I don't know of anyone scoring and doing sound design for film in ProTools,
and that's
the market this thread was derived from, not recording and mixing bands.
It really doesn't matter if you think ProTools is the end-all be-all or not,
no one knows what the best tool for a job is better than the person doing
that work, and using that tool. I wouldn't begin to suggest that Thad use
PT for what he can and wants to do in Live.
No one told Picasso he needed to buy a paint factory in order to paint a
masterpiece.
Dedric
"LaMont " <jjdpro@gmail.ocm> wrote in message news:47c6d62c$1@linux...
>
> Thad, whatever floats your boat. But, that's not what we're talking about
> hear. Live is a different animal than PTHD.
>
> Yes, pro work can and IS done on Live , Acid,Sonar,Fruity Loops..But, at
> the end of the day, when you turn in that project to a Label, it's better
> be in PT format.
>
> I disagree with that PT sucks. It does not. It's not my favorite DAW, but
> when you learn it, it's a VERY powerful DAW who's I/O routing is second to
> none for ITB & OTB productions.
>
> By you stating that you could purchase HD1 and choose not, Says
> Nothing..Only
> that you chose not to.. Simple.
>
> I'm a Pro who has both DSP (Paris & PTHD2) as well as Native(Nuendo, DP,
> ProTools M Powered-via Laptop) AND it's all good.
>
> My point was and is: That Native is not necessarily cheap and keeps the
> PRo(Engineer/Producer)
> swamped down in TECH stuff,a not on music production which as we know,
> Time
> is Money$$.
>
> My Neundo Rig is very powerful..down right sweet!! :) But, being bogged
> down
> is performance test, when we know as you have stated on many occassions,
> were fuitle.Being that we chained with current current Operating systems
> of the DAY (XP/Vista) OSX.
>
> The Promise of the great 64 bit speed boost( Yeah right). 8-16 core
> processors,
> with not apps or OS (For Music) coded to take advantage of all that power.
>
>
> Actualy James M was right. It's all about Marketing and taking all of for
> ride to Sell Sell Sell.
>
> Meanwhile, A Decent off the shelf Computer(Compaq, HP, Dell-gulp) with an
> additional HD, bump is memory can a have High -Track count yielding native
> DAW with the right Interface, can have near zero tracking latency.
>
> As a person who use to Build DAws for local studios and producers,my point
> of view does not put $$ in the pockets of said DAW builders. Ok enough of
> that..
>
> I guess I'm just tired of the Speed bump test that really only yeild
> marginal
> gains That cost $$$ cannot be justified for such marginal gains. It's been
> almost 5 years of trying to break the so-called 96k zero latency barrier,
> and where are we ???
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>One other thing, Lamont. As an application PT, in the immortal words of
> Bart
>>Simpson, somehow manages to suck and blow at the same time. If you want
> my
>>copy of Live you're going to be prying it out of my cold, dead, sampler
> loving
>>hands. SX 4 is pretty sweet as well.
>>
>>I'm at a point now financially where I could buy a PT HD 1 rig just for
> my
>>house if I chose. I haven't and don't plan to, which I think says
>>something.
>>I'm also a professional dweeb so running an native audio system is a hell
>>of a lot easier for me than for most people who have not experience the
> sweet
>>joys of hand compiling CISCO iscsi adapters for Solaris 8.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hey Neil, I'll get you current PT HD2/With Hardware and plugins quote.
>>>
>>>Also, you do know that with FX xpansion VST to RTAS converter, all your
>>and
>>>my VST plugins show up in ProTools?? So, thatends that argument..
>>>
>>>Lastly, use what You like, but I still say that the Pro Native route is
>>very
>>>costly and just as expensive as a DSP based DW rig..
>>>"Neil" <OIOI@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>FWIW, i found interesting too, Dedric.
>>>>
>>>>And Lamont, the Native Upgrade stream is nowhere near as bad as
>>>>you make it out to be... for what I have in terms of
>>>>capabilities in Native-land, it would cost me at LEAST $20k in
>>>>Pro-Tools gear & ware to achieve... and that's not even counting
>>>>plugins, which are unGAWDly expensive for PT due to the TDM
>>>>licensing fees that developers have to pay to Digi. I've
>>>>probably got less than 1,500 bucks invested in plugins, and
>>>>i've got dozens upon dozens of them because there's so much
>>>>freeware VST development going on - i'm sure i'd be looking at
>>>>another ten grand, minimum, if I were to try & assemble a
>>>>comparable TDM plugin arsenal. So there's $30k for PTHD & plugs
>>>>right there. No way have I spent even a quarter of that on every
>>>>Native rig, plugin, and upgrade chase since I've been doing this
>>>>stuff!
>>>>
>>>>Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>Yo D,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have to say as a lurker/reader/bystander that I appreciated your
>>>>>post.
>>>>I
>>>>>find it interesting and apprecated the findings on the current state
> of
>>>>
>>>>>native DAW in the real world. Makes me happy I'm not trying to push the
>>>>
>>>>>envelope with Native, to be honest, and glad I still have Paris around
>>>for
>>>>
>>>>>tracking and mixing, even sans 96k+. If I absolutely gotta have native,
>>>>I
>>>>>pull up a tascam to dump synths or fire up the Creamware rig. I still
>>feel
>>>>
>>>>>native has a little ways to go, but seeing what's on the table helps
> ground
>>>>
>>>>>me in the reality of the situation, rather than what's been sent to
> press.
>>>>>Thanks dude. Sorry you felt like an audio post in a (gulp) audio forum
>>>
>>>>>brought out the wrath.
>>>>>
>>>>>AA
>>>>>
>>>>>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:47c4c144$1@linux...
>>>>>> I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96380 is a reply to message #96377] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 10:46 |
|
|
Hey Dedric, I really thought your info was very informative and added weight
to my points about the cost of native. Great info indeed. YOu are right,
people need to no these things instead of going by the marketing hype.
I do know of folks who use of "Hybrid" DP-soft/HD hardware to score . As
well as, Logic Soft/HD hardware. Then, too ProTools for Dubbing..
You are right, I stated use what you like. But, stand by my words in saying
that most if not all major labels and films projects want the final delivery
on Pro Tools. AND, if you r going to work as studio engineer for a : Private,
personal, Semi, full-blown facility, you gonna need to know protools , and
know it well..
Do I think PT is the be all end all, no. But, It's really good at what does
and Provides.
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Lamont - fwiw, when I posted this I *was* talking about comparing different
>*native* systems,
>and comparing marketing hype to reality so people actually buying and using
>these systems
>will know what to expect and what not to expect. PT and hybrid systems
had
>nothing to do with it,
>other than the fact that Digi is the king of turning marketing hype into
>sales.
>
>I don't know of anyone scoring and doing sound design for film in ProTools,
>and that's
>the market this thread was derived from, not recording and mixing bands.
>
>It really doesn't matter if you think ProTools is the end-all be-all or
not,
>no one knows what the best tool for a job is better than the person doing
>that work, and using that tool. I wouldn't begin to suggest that Thad use
>PT for what he can and wants to do in Live.
>No one told Picasso he needed to buy a paint factory in order to paint a
>masterpiece.
>
>Dedric
>
>"LaMont " <jjdpro@gmail.ocm> wrote in message news:47c6d62c$1@linux...
>>
>> Thad, whatever floats your boat. But, that's not what we're talking about
>> hear. Live is a different animal than PTHD.
>>
>> Yes, pro work can and IS done on Live , Acid,Sonar,Fruity Loops..But,
at
>> the end of the day, when you turn in that project to a Label, it's better
>> be in PT format.
>>
>> I disagree with that PT sucks. It does not. It's not my favorite DAW,
but
>> when you learn it, it's a VERY powerful DAW who's I/O routing is second
to
>> none for ITB & OTB productions.
>>
>> By you stating that you could purchase HD1 and choose not, Says
>> Nothing..Only
>> that you chose not to.. Simple.
>>
>> I'm a Pro who has both DSP (Paris & PTHD2) as well as Native(Nuendo, DP,
>> ProTools M Powered-via Laptop) AND it's all good.
>>
>> My point was and is: That Native is not necessarily cheap and keeps the
>> PRo(Engineer/Producer)
>> swamped down in TECH stuff,a not on music production which as we know,
>> Time
>> is Money$$.
>>
>> My Neundo Rig is very powerful..down right sweet!! :) But, being bogged
>> down
>> is performance test, when we know as you have stated on many occassions,
>> were fuitle.Being that we chained with current current Operating systems
>> of the DAY (XP/Vista) OSX.
>>
>> The Promise of the great 64 bit speed boost( Yeah right). 8-16 core
>> processors,
>> with not apps or OS (For Music) coded to take advantage of all that power.
>>
>>
>> Actualy James M was right. It's all about Marketing and taking all of
for
>> ride to Sell Sell Sell.
>>
>> Meanwhile, A Decent off the shelf Computer(Compaq, HP, Dell-gulp) with
an
>> additional HD, bump is memory can a have High -Track count yielding native
>> DAW with the right Interface, can have near zero tracking latency.
>>
>> As a person who use to Build DAws for local studios and producers,my point
>> of view does not put $$ in the pockets of said DAW builders. Ok enough
of
>> that..
>>
>> I guess I'm just tired of the Speed bump test that really only yeild
>> marginal
>> gains That cost $$$ cannot be justified for such marginal gains. It's
been
>> almost 5 years of trying to break the so-called 96k zero latency barrier,
>> and where are we ???
>>
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>One other thing, Lamont. As an application PT, in the immortal words of
>> Bart
>>>Simpson, somehow manages to suck and blow at the same time. If you want
>> my
>>>copy of Live you're going to be prying it out of my cold, dead, sampler
>> loving
>>>hands. SX 4 is pretty sweet as well.
>>>
>>>I'm at a point now financially where I could buy a PT HD 1 rig just for
>> my
>>>house if I chose. I haven't and don't plan to, which I think says
>>>something.
>>>I'm also a professional dweeb so running an native audio system is a hell
>>>of a lot easier for me than for most people who have not experience the
>> sweet
>>>joys of hand compiling CISCO iscsi adapters for Solaris 8.
>>>
>>>TCB
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hey Neil, I'll get you current PT HD2/With Hardware and plugins quote.
>>>>
>>>>Also, you do know that with FX xpansion VST to RTAS converter, all your
>>>and
>>>>my VST plugins show up in ProTools?? So, thatends that argument..
>>>>
>>>>Lastly, use what You like, but I still say that the Pro Native route
is
>>>very
>>>>costly and just as expensive as a DSP based DW rig..
>>>>"Neil" <OIOI@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>FWIW, i found interesting too, Dedric.
>>>>>
>>>>>And Lamont, the Native Upgrade stream is nowhere near as bad as
>>>>>you make it out to be... for what I have in terms of
>>>>>capabilities in Native-land, it would cost me at LEAST $20k in
>>>>>Pro-Tools gear & ware to achieve... and that's not even counting
>>>>>plugins, which are unGAWDly expensive for PT due to the TDM
>>>>>licensing fees that developers have to pay to Digi. I've
>>>>>probably got less than 1,500 bucks invested in plugins, and
>>>>>i've got dozens upon dozens of them because there's so much
>>>>>freeware VST development going on - i'm sure i'd be looking at
>>>>>another ten grand, minimum, if I were to try & assemble a
>>>>>comparable TDM plugin arsenal. So there's $30k for PTHD & plugs
>>>>>right there. No way have I spent even a quarter of that on every
>>>>>Native rig, plugin, and upgrade chase since I've been doing this
>>>>>stuff!
>>>>>
>>>>>Neil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>Yo D,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have to say as a lurker/reader/bystander that I appreciated your
>>>>>>post.
>>>>>I
>>>>>>find it interesting and apprecated the findings on the current state
>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>>native DAW in the real world. Makes me happy I'm not trying to push
the
>>>>>
>>>>>>envelope with Native, to be honest, and glad I still have Paris around
>>>>for
>>>>>
>>>>>>tracking and mixing, even sans 96k+. If I absolutely gotta have native,
>>>>>I
>>>>>>pull up a tascam to dump synths or fire up the Creamware rig. I still
>>>feel
>>>>>
>>>>>>native has a little ways to go, but seeing what's on the table helps
>> ground
>>>>>
>>>>>>me in the reality of the situation, rather than what's been sent to
>> press.
>>>>>>Thanks dude. Sorry you felt like an audio post in a (gulp) audio forum
>>>>
>>>>>>brought out the wrath.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>AA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:47c4c144$1@linux...
>>>>>>> I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96381 is a reply to message #96373] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 11:34 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
And we've been over this LaMont. Yes, marketers exaggerate. Not just in the
MI business but in any business. A smart consumer realizes this and has an
independent mind. And if you believed the hype about 64 bit integer processors
after I explained a dozen times whey it was fairly small news, well, you
can lead a horse to water but if you can get a bug do dance the achy breaky
heart then you're getting somewhere.
As far as tech problems, we've been over that as well. I don't understand
why musicians and audio engineers feel exempt from learning the technology
they choose. Photographers don't complain they have to learn about optics.
Architects realize that if they want to use AutoCAD instead of a protractor,
t-sqaure, balsa wood, and glue then they'll have to deal with some computer
issues. It always blows my mind that musicians and producers who can explain
the minutest issues involving amplifier tubes, microphone capsules, and preamp
transistors consider their computers to be such unimportant tools that they
are not willing to become as familiar with how they work just like they know
the rest of the gear in their studio.
TCB
"LaMont " <jjdpro@gmail.ocm> wrote:
>
>Thad, whatever floats your boat. But, that's not what we're talking about
>hear. Live is a different animal than PTHD.
>
>Yes, pro work can and IS done on Live , Acid,Sonar,Fruity Loops..But, at
>the end of the day, when you turn in that project to a Label, it's better
>be in PT format.
>
>I disagree with that PT sucks. It does not. It's not my favorite DAW, but
>when you learn it, it's a VERY powerful DAW who's I/O routing is second
to
>none for ITB & OTB productions.
>
>By you stating that you could purchase HD1 and choose not, Says Nothing..Only
> that you chose not to.. Simple.
>
>I'm a Pro who has both DSP (Paris & PTHD2) as well as Native(Nuendo, DP,
>ProTools M Powered-via Laptop) AND it's all good.
>
>My point was and is: That Native is not necessarily cheap and keeps the
PRo(Engineer/Producer)
>swamped down in TECH stuff,a not on music production which as we know, Time
>is Money$$.
>
>My Neundo Rig is very powerful..down right sweet!! :) But, being bogged
down
>is performance test, when we know as you have stated on many occassions,
>were fuitle.Being that we chained with current current Operating systems
>of the DAY (XP/Vista) OSX.
>
>The Promise of the great 64 bit speed boost( Yeah right). 8-16 core processors,
>with not apps or OS (For Music) coded to take advantage of all that power.
>
>
>Actualy James M was right. It's all about Marketing and taking all of for
>ride to Sell Sell Sell.
>
>Meanwhile, A Decent off the shelf Computer(Compaq, HP, Dell-gulp) with an
>additional HD, bump is memory can a have High -Track count yielding native
>DAW with the right Interface, can have near zero tracking latency.
>
>As a person who use to Build DAws for local studios and producers,my point
>of view does not put $$ in the pockets of said DAW builders. Ok enough of
>that..
>
>I guess I'm just tired of the Speed bump test that really only yeild marginal
>gains That cost $$$ cannot be justified for such marginal gains. It's been
>almost 5 years of trying to break the so-called 96k zero latency barrier,
>and where are we ???
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>One other thing, Lamont. As an application PT, in the immortal words of
>Bart
>>Simpson, somehow manages to suck and blow at the same time. If you want
>my
>>copy of Live you're going to be prying it out of my cold, dead, sampler
>loving
>>hands. SX 4 is pretty sweet as well.
>>
>>I'm at a point now financially where I could buy a PT HD 1 rig just for
>my
>>house if I chose. I haven't and don't plan to, which I think says something.
>>I'm also a professional dweeb so running an native audio system is a hell
>>of a lot easier for me than for most people who have not experience the
>sweet
>>joys of hand compiling CISCO iscsi adapters for Solaris 8.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hey Neil, I'll get you current PT HD2/With Hardware and plugins quote.
>>>
>>>Also, you do know that with FX xpansion VST to RTAS converter, all your
>>and
>>>my VST plugins show up in ProTools?? So, thatends that argument..
>>>
>>>Lastly, use what You like, but I still say that the Pro Native route is
>>very
>>>costly and just as expensive as a DSP based DW rig..
>>>"Neil" <OIOI@OUI.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>FWIW, i found interesting too, Dedric.
>>>>
>>>>And Lamont, the Native Upgrade stream is nowhere near as bad as
>>>>you make it out to be... for what I have in terms of
>>>>capabilities in Native-land, it would cost me at LEAST $20k in
>>>>Pro-Tools gear & ware to achieve... and that's not even counting
>>>>plugins, which are unGAWDly expensive for PT due to the TDM
>>>>licensing fees that developers have to pay to Digi. I've
>>>>probably got less than 1,500 bucks invested in plugins, and
>>>>i've got dozens upon dozens of them because there's so much
>>>>freeware VST development going on - i'm sure i'd be looking at
>>>>another ten grand, minimum, if I were to try & assemble a
>>>>comparable TDM plugin arsenal. So there's $30k for PTHD & plugs
>>>>right there. No way have I spent even a quarter of that on every
>>>>Native rig, plugin, and upgrade chase since I've been doing this
>>>>stuff!
>>>>
>>>>Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>Yo D,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have to say as a lurker/reader/bystander that I appreciated your post.
>>>>I
>>>>>find it interesting and apprecated the findings on the current state
>of
>>>>
>>>>>native DAW in the real world. Makes me happy I'm not trying to push
the
>>>>
>>>>>envelope with Native, to be honest, and glad I still have Paris around
>>>for
>>>>
>>>>>tracking and mixing, even sans 96k+. If I absolutely gotta have native,
>>>>I
>>>>>pull up a tascam to dump synths or fire up the Creamware rig. I still
>>feel
>>>>
>>>>>native has a little ways to go, but seeing what's on the table helps
>ground
>>>>
>>>>>me in the reality of the situation, rather than what's been sent to
>press.
>>>>>Thanks dude. Sorry you felt like an audio post in a (gulp) audio forum
>>>
>>>>>brought out the wrath.
>>>>>
>>>>>AA
>>>>>
>>>>>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message news:47c4c144$1@linux...
>>>>>> I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96382 is a reply to message #96342] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 11:00 |
AlexPlasko
Messages: 211
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I have a digi nubus soundesigner ll card.$1100)If I followed the digi
upgrade train from that point (1994),I would have lost about $100K in yet
more useless obsolete basement clogging shit.I have no regrets in following
RME/Steinberg.It works for me.
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47c57a5a$1@linux...
>
> Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
>
> I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running a big for
> hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than starting
> up.
>
> One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all. It's the
> most
> flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's incredibly
> easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over a
> photorealistic
> mixer that's less powerful any day.
>
> Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
>
> TCB
>
> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>
>>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native solutions,
> is
>>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions, have
>>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS Vista/XP
>>and OSX..
>>
>>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is
>>sickening!.
>>Who cares? All, one should want is
>>
>>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>
>>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those on
> this
>>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a working
>>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks have
>>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>
>>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio drivers)..Runs
>>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with alot
> of
>>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed" as
>>some here believes.
>>
>>Back to the subject:
>>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see that
>>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What am
> I
>>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that allows
> you
>>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>
>>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be simplified
> like
>>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>
>>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade bandwagon.
>>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only to run
>>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>
>>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>
>>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is for
> sure,
>>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered in
>>ProTools..
>>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro Tools..
>>
>>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO) when
>>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these days for
>>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very very
> flexible
>>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you to
>>track
>>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>
>>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream
>>journey
>>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all familiar
>>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>
>>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you not?
>>Simple..
>>
>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>>
>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and be
>>>done with it.
>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>
>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at 96k
>>
>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard to
>
>>>be accurate.
>>>
>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>>>users to down load.
>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do compared
>>
>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>
>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>>releases.
>>>
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>>> (should
>>
>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>
>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
>>
>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>>
>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in
>
>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of
>
>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio
>>
>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>>
>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really
>>
>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core
>>
>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part
>>
>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more time)
>>
>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level
>>
>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if
>
>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a
>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>
>>>> Fwiw,
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>ADK
>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>(859) 635-5762
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96383 is a reply to message #96382] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 12:35 |
|
|
Hey ..the RME /Steinberg route is very nice and very Powerful. I think that
you need to redo your math on the 100k digi upgrade.
I went from a audiomedia (still have) to Pro Tools 001(cost 400.00) From
there, toa Mix Plus..Cost (great deal $3,800 with 1622 interface)...From
there..HD2acel..cost $6,500.00 with -1-192.
I don't see where 100k comes in. Nor do I know of any of my buddies who spent
100k in upgrading their PT DAWS..
"alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>I have a digi nubus soundesigner ll card.$1100)If I followed the digi
>upgrade train from that point (1994),I would have lost about $100K in yet
>more useless obsolete basement clogging shit.I have no regrets in following
>RME/Steinberg.It works for me.
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47c57a5a$1@linux...
>>
>> Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
>>
>> I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running a big
for
>> hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than starting
>> up.
>>
>> One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all. It's the
>> most
>> flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's incredibly
>> easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over a
>> photorealistic
>> mixer that's less powerful any day.
>>
>> Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>>
>>>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native solutions,
>> is
>>>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions,
have
>>>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS Vista/XP
>>>and OSX..
>>>
>>>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is
>>>sickening!.
>>>Who cares? All, one should want is
>>>
>>>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>>
>>>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those on
>> this
>>>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a working
>>>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks
have
>>>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>>
>>>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio drivers)..Runs
>>>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with alot
>> of
>>>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed"
as
>>>some here believes.
>>>
>>>Back to the subject:
>>>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see that
>>>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What am
>> I
>>>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that allows
>> you
>>>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>>
>>>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be simplified
>> like
>>>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>>
>>>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade bandwagon.
>>>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only to run
>>>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>>>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>>
>>>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>>
>>>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is for
>> sure,
>>>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered in
>>>ProTools..
>>>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro Tools..
>>>
>>>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO)
when
>>>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these days
for
>>>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very very
>> flexible
>>>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you to
>>>track
>>>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>>
>>>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream
>>>journey
>>>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all familiar
>>>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>>
>>>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you not?
>>>Simple..
>>>
>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>>>
>>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and be
>>>>done with it.
>>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>>
>>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
>>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at
96k
>>>
>>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard to
>>
>>>>be accurate.
>>>>
>>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>>>>users to down load.
>>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do compared
>>>
>>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>>
>>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>>>releases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>>>> (should
>>>
>>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
>>>
>>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>>>
>>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in
>>
>>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of
>>
>>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio
>>>
>>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really
>>>
>>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core
>>>
>>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part
>>>
>>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more time)
>>>
>>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
>>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level
>>>
>>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if
>>
>>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a
>>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fwiw,
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>ADK
>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96384 is a reply to message #96383] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 11:43 |
AlexPlasko
Messages: 211
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
my math was following every upgrade as they were available.including the
overpriced macs needed to run it.
someone jumping in today wouldn't see those incremental costs. what kind of
"math" are you using?
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c70cf7$1@linux...
>
> Hey ..the RME /Steinberg route is very nice and very Powerful. I think
> that
> you need to redo your math on the 100k digi upgrade.
>
> I went from a audiomedia (still have) to Pro Tools 001(cost 400.00) From
> there, toa Mix Plus..Cost (great deal $3,800 with 1622 interface)...From
> there..HD2acel..cost $6,500.00 with -1-192.
>
> I don't see where 100k comes in. Nor do I know of any of my buddies who
> spent
> 100k in upgrading their PT DAWS..
>
> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>I have a digi nubus soundesigner ll card.$1100)If I followed the digi
>>upgrade train from that point (1994),I would have lost about $100K in yet
>
>>more useless obsolete basement clogging shit.I have no regrets in
>>following
>
>>RME/Steinberg.It works for me.
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47c57a5a$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
>>>
>>> I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running a big
> for
>>> hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than
>>> starting
>>> up.
>>>
>>> One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all. It's the
>
>>> most
>>> flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's incredibly
>>> easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over a
>>> photorealistic
>>> mixer that's less powerful any day.
>>>
>>> Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>>>
>>>>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native solutions,
>>> is
>>>>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions,
> have
>>>>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS
>>>>Vista/XP
>>>>and OSX..
>>>>
>>>>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is
>
>>>>sickening!.
>>>>Who cares? All, one should want is
>>>>
>>>>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>>>
>>>>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those on
>>> this
>>>>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a
>>>>working
>>>>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks
> have
>>>>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>>>
>>>>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio
>>>>drivers)..Runs
>>>>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with alot
>>> of
>>>>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed"
> as
>>>>some here believes.
>>>>
>>>>Back to the subject:
>>>>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see that
>>>>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What am
>>> I
>>>>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that allows
>>> you
>>>>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>>>
>>>>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be simplified
>>> like
>>>>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>>>
>>>>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade
>>>>bandwagon.
>>>>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only to run
>>>>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>>>>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>>>
>>>>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>>>
>>>>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is for
>>> sure,
>>>>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered in
>>>>ProTools..
>>>>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro
>>>>Tools..
>>>>
>>>>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO)
> when
>>>>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these days
> for
>>>>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very very
>>> flexible
>>>>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you to
>
>>>>track
>>>>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>>>
>>>>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream
>
>>>>journey
>>>>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all
>>>>familiar
>>>>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>>>
>>>>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you
>>>>not?
>>>>Simple..
>>>>
>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>>>>
>>>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and be
>>>>>done with it.
>>>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>>>
>>>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
>>>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at
> 96k
>>>>
>>>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard to
>>>
>>>>>be accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>>>>>users to down load.
>>>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do
>>>>>compared
>>>>
>>>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>>>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>>>>releases.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>
>>>>>> (should
>>>>
>>>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like
>>>>>> they
>>>>
>>>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>>>>
>>>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in
>>>
>>>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of
>>>
>>>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio
>>>>
>>>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really
>>>>
>>>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core
>>>>
>>>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part
>>>>
>>>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more
>>>>>> time)
>>>>
>>>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
>>>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower
>>>>>> level
>>>>
>>>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if
>>>
>>>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>>>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a
>>>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fwiw,
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>ADK
>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96386 is a reply to message #96383] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 12:21 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Everyone I know that kept up with the upgrades and went with full blown PT
rigs to support
higher track and plugin counts (as many as we get with native) spent way
more than the $10k you listed
below, for a commercial studio (not an upgrade from an Audiomedia, or
PT001).
e.g. A friend of mine went to Mix Plus way back a few years after it first
came out, with ProControl (I believe):
total was $40k, and that was considered a modest PT rig at the time - that
followed his O2R, ADATs, multiple consoles, etc.
I don't know if/when he went HD, but that's even more on top. I'm also not
sure if the $40k included
any plugins at the time - probably some basic plugins but I'm sure he
expanded/added to it down the road.
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c70cf7$1@linux...
>
> Hey ..the RME /Steinberg route is very nice and very Powerful. I think
> that
> you need to redo your math on the 100k digi upgrade.
>
> I went from a audiomedia (still have) to Pro Tools 001(cost 400.00) From
> there, toa Mix Plus..Cost (great deal $3,800 with 1622 interface)...From
> there..HD2acel..cost $6,500.00 with -1-192.
>
> I don't see where 100k comes in. Nor do I know of any of my buddies who
> spent
> 100k in upgrading their PT DAWS..
>
> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>I have a digi nubus soundesigner ll card.$1100)If I followed the digi
>>upgrade train from that point (1994),I would have lost about $100K in yet
>
>>more useless obsolete basement clogging shit.I have no regrets in
>>following
>
>>RME/Steinberg.It works for me.
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47c57a5a$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
>>>
>>> I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running a big
> for
>>> hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than
>>> starting
>>> up.
>>>
>>> One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all. It's the
>
>>> most
>>> flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's incredibly
>>> easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over a
>>> photorealistic
>>> mixer that's less powerful any day.
>>>
>>> Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>>>
>>>>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native solutions,
>>> is
>>>>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions,
> have
>>>>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS
>>>>Vista/XP
>>>>and OSX..
>>>>
>>>>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is
>
>>>>sickening!.
>>>>Who cares? All, one should want is
>>>>
>>>>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>>>
>>>>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those on
>>> this
>>>>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a
>>>>working
>>>>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks
> have
>>>>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>>>
>>>>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio
>>>>drivers)..Runs
>>>>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with alot
>>> of
>>>>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed"
> as
>>>>some here believes.
>>>>
>>>>Back to the subject:
>>>>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see that
>>>>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What am
>>> I
>>>>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that allows
>>> you
>>>>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>>>
>>>>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be simplified
>>> like
>>>>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>>>
>>>>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade
>>>>bandwagon.
>>>>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only to run
>>>>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>>>>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>>>
>>>>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>>>
>>>>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is for
>>> sure,
>>>>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered in
>>>>ProTools..
>>>>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro
>>>>Tools..
>>>>
>>>>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO)
> when
>>>>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these days
> for
>>>>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very very
>>> flexible
>>>>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you to
>
>>>>track
>>>>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>>>
>>>>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream
>
>>>>journey
>>>>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all
>>>>familiar
>>>>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>>>
>>>>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you
>>>>not?
>>>>Simple..
>>>>
>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>>>>
>>>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and be
>>>>>done with it.
>>>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>>>
>>>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
>>>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at
> 96k
>>>>
>>>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard to
>>>
>>>>>be accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>>>>>users to down load.
>>>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do
>>>>>compared
>>>>
>>>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>>>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>>>>releases.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>
>>>>>> (should
>>>>
>>>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like
>>>>>> they
>>>>
>>>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>>>>
>>>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in
>>>
>>>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of
>>>
>>>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio
>>>>
>>>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really
>>>>
>>>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core
>>>>
>>>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part
>>>>
>>>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more
>>>>>> time)
>>>>
>>>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
>>>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower
>>>>>> level
>>>>
>>>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if
>>>
>>>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>>>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a
>>>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fwiw,
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>ADK
>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96390 is a reply to message #96384] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 17:22 |
|
|
Hey Alex, thats the beauty of DSP based rigs, you don't have to necessarily
have upgrade to the lastest and greatest Mac..or Pc..
"alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>my math was following every upgrade as they were available.including the
>overpriced macs needed to run it.
>someone jumping in today wouldn't see those incremental costs. what kind
of
>"math" are you using?
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c70cf7$1@linux...
>>
>> Hey ..the RME /Steinberg route is very nice and very Powerful. I think
>> that
>> you need to redo your math on the 100k digi upgrade.
>>
>> I went from a audiomedia (still have) to Pro Tools 001(cost 400.00) From
>> there, toa Mix Plus..Cost (great deal $3,800 with 1622 interface)...From
>> there..HD2acel..cost $6,500.00 with -1-192.
>>
>> I don't see where 100k comes in. Nor do I know of any of my buddies who
>> spent
>> 100k in upgrading their PT DAWS..
>>
>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>I have a digi nubus soundesigner ll card.$1100)If I followed the digi
>>>upgrade train from that point (1994),I would have lost about $100K in
yet
>>
>>>more useless obsolete basement clogging shit.I have no regrets in
>>>following
>>
>>>RME/Steinberg.It works for me.
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47c57a5a$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running a big
>> for
>>>> hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than
>>>> starting
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>> One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all. It's
the
>>
>>>> most
>>>> flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's incredibly
>>>> easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over a
>>>> photorealistic
>>>> mixer that's less powerful any day.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
>>>>
>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>>>>
>>>>>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native solutions,
>>>> is
>>>>>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions,
>> have
>>>>>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS
>>>>>Vista/XP
>>>>>and OSX..
>>>>>
>>>>>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is
>>
>>>>>sickening!.
>>>>>Who cares? All, one should want is
>>>>>
>>>>>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those
on
>>>> this
>>>>>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a
>>>>>working
>>>>>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks
>> have
>>>>>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>>>>
>>>>>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio
>>>>>drivers)..Runs
>>>>>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with alot
>>>> of
>>>>>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed"
>> as
>>>>>some here believes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Back to the subject:
>>>>>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see
that
>>>>>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What
am
>>>> I
>>>>>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that allows
>>>> you
>>>>>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>>>>
>>>>>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be simplified
>>>> like
>>>>>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade
>>>>>bandwagon.
>>>>>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only to
run
>>>>>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>>>>>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>>>>
>>>>>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is
for
>>>> sure,
>>>>>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered in
>>>>>ProTools..
>>>>>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro
>>>>>Tools..
>>>>>
>>>>>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO)
>> when
>>>>>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these days
>> for
>>>>>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very very
>>>> flexible
>>>>>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you to
>>
>>>>>track
>>>>>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>>>>
>>>>>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream
>>
>>>>>journey
>>>>>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all
>>>>>familiar
>>>>>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you
>>>>>not?
>>>>>Simple..
>>>>>
>>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>>>>>
>>>>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and
be
>>>>>>done with it.
>>>>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>>>>
>>>>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
>>>>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at
>> 96k
>>>>>
>>>>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard
to
>>>>
>>>>>>be accurate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>>>>>>users to down load.
>>>>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do
>>>>>>compared
>>>>>
>>>>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>>>>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>>>>>releases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>
>>>>>>> (should
>>>>>
>>>>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>
>>>>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except
for
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up
in
>>>>
>>>>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>>>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind
of
>>>>
>>>>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>>>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it
yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>>>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core
>>>>>
>>>>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>>>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary
part
>>>>>
>>>>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more
>>>>>>> time)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
>>>>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower
>>>>>>> level
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or
if
>>>>
>>>>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>>>>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being
a
>>>>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fwiw,
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>>ADK
>>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96391 is a reply to message #96386] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 17:24 |
|
|
Hey Dedric, I got some sweetheart deals from personal friends who were upgrading,
and I got a great deal from our Sweetwater Rep.. Man, they thrown in a slew
of plugins on these PT HD upgrades..
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Everyone I know that kept up with the upgrades and went with full blown
PT
>rigs to support
>higher track and plugin counts (as many as we get with native) spent way
>more than the $10k you listed
>below, for a commercial studio (not an upgrade from an Audiomedia, or
>PT001).
>
>e.g. A friend of mine went to Mix Plus way back a few years after it first
>came out, with ProControl (I believe):
>total was $40k, and that was considered a modest PT rig at the time - that
>followed his O2R, ADATs, multiple consoles, etc.
>
>I don't know if/when he went HD, but that's even more on top. I'm also
not
>sure if the $40k included
>any plugins at the time - probably some basic plugins but I'm sure he
>expanded/added to it down the road.
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c70cf7$1@linux...
>>
>> Hey ..the RME /Steinberg route is very nice and very Powerful. I think
>> that
>> you need to redo your math on the 100k digi upgrade.
>>
>> I went from a audiomedia (still have) to Pro Tools 001(cost 400.00) From
>> there, toa Mix Plus..Cost (great deal $3,800 with 1622 interface)...From
>> there..HD2acel..cost $6,500.00 with -1-192.
>>
>> I don't see where 100k comes in. Nor do I know of any of my buddies who
>> spent
>> 100k in upgrading their PT DAWS..
>>
>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>I have a digi nubus soundesigner ll card.$1100)If I followed the digi
>>>upgrade train from that point (1994),I would have lost about $100K in
yet
>>
>>>more useless obsolete basement clogging shit.I have no regrets in
>>>following
>>
>>>RME/Steinberg.It works for me.
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47c57a5a$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running a big
>> for
>>>> hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than
>>>> starting
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>> One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all. It's
the
>>
>>>> most
>>>> flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's incredibly
>>>> easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over a
>>>> photorealistic
>>>> mixer that's less powerful any day.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
>>>>
>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>>>>
>>>>>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native solutions,
>>>> is
>>>>>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions,
>> have
>>>>>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS
>>>>>Vista/XP
>>>>>and OSX..
>>>>>
>>>>>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is
>>
>>>>>sickening!.
>>>>>Who cares? All, one should want is
>>>>>
>>>>>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those
on
>>>> this
>>>>>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a
>>>>>working
>>>>>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks
>> have
>>>>>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>>>>
>>>>>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio
>>>>>drivers)..Runs
>>>>>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with alot
>>>> of
>>>>>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed"
>> as
>>>>>some here believes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Back to the subject:
>>>>>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see
that
>>>>>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What
am
>>>> I
>>>>>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that allows
>>>> you
>>>>>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>>>>
>>>>>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be simplified
>>>> like
>>>>>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade
>>>>>bandwagon.
>>>>>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only to
run
>>>>>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>>>>>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>>>>
>>>>>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is
for
>>>> sure,
>>>>>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered in
>>>>>ProTools..
>>>>>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro
>>>>>Tools..
>>>>>
>>>>>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO)
>> when
>>>>>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these days
>> for
>>>>>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very very
>>>> flexible
>>>>>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you to
>>
>>>>>track
>>>>>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>>>>
>>>>>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream
>>
>>>>>journey
>>>>>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all
>>>>>familiar
>>>>>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you
>>>>>not?
>>>>>Simple..
>>>>>
>>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>>>>>
>>>>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and
be
>>>>>>done with it.
>>>>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>>>>
>>>>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
>>>>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at
>> 96k
>>>>>
>>>>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard
to
>>>>
>>>>>>be accurate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>>>>>>users to down load.
>>>>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do
>>>>>>compared
>>>>>
>>>>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>>>>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>>>>>releases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>
>>>>>>> (should
>>>>>
>>>>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>
>>>>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except
for
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up
in
>>>>
>>>>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>>>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind
of
>>>>
>>>>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>>>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it
yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>>>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core
>>>>>
>>>>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>>>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary
part
>>>>>
>>>>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more
>>>>>>> time)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
>>>>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower
>>>>>>> level
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or
if
>>>>
>>>>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>>>>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being
a
>>>>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fwiw,
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>>ADK
>>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96392 is a reply to message #96386] |
Thu, 28 February 2008 17:34 |
|
|
Sorry I did'nt see the last part.. Well, yes when add a Pro Control in the
mx, that can add up ..I'm just talking about the incremental updates, in-which
you don;t have to do....
There are many more studios/ owners who are still on the Mix system than
HD..
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Everyone I know that kept up with the upgrades and went with full blown
PT
>rigs to support
>higher track and plugin counts (as many as we get with native) spent way
>more than the $10k you listed
>below, for a commercial studio (not an upgrade from an Audiomedia, or
>PT001).
>
>e.g. A friend of mine went to Mix Plus way back a few years after it first
>came out, with ProControl (I believe):
>total was $40k, and that was considered a modest PT rig at the time - that
>followed his O2R, ADATs, multiple consoles, etc.
>
>I don't know if/when he went HD, but that's even more on top. I'm also
not
>sure if the $40k included
>any plugins at the time - probably some basic plugins but I'm sure he
>expanded/added to it down the road.
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c70cf7$1@linux...
>>
>> Hey ..the RME /Steinberg route is very nice and very Powerful. I think
>> that
>> you need to redo your math on the 100k digi upgrade.
>>
>> I went from a audiomedia (still have) to Pro Tools 001(cost 400.00) From
>> there, toa Mix Plus..Cost (great deal $3,800 with 1622 interface)...From
>> there..HD2acel..cost $6,500.00 with -1-192.
>>
>> I don't see where 100k comes in. Nor do I know of any of my buddies who
>> spent
>> 100k in upgrading their PT DAWS..
>>
>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>I have a digi nubus soundesigner ll card.$1100)If I followed the digi
>>>upgrade train from that point (1994),I would have lost about $100K in
yet
>>
>>>more useless obsolete basement clogging shit.I have no regrets in
>>>following
>>
>>>RME/Steinberg.It works for me.
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47c57a5a$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running a big
>> for
>>>> hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than
>>>> starting
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>> One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all. It's
the
>>
>>>> most
>>>> flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's incredibly
>>>> easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over a
>>>> photorealistic
>>>> mixer that's less powerful any day.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
>>>>
>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>>>>
>>>>>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native solutions,
>>>> is
>>>>>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions,
>> have
>>>>>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS
>>>>>Vista/XP
>>>>>and OSX..
>>>>>
>>>>>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is
>>
>>>>>sickening!.
>>>>>Who cares? All, one should want is
>>>>>
>>>>>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those
on
>>>> this
>>>>>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a
>>>>>working
>>>>>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks
>> have
>>>>>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>>>>
>>>>>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio
>>>>>drivers)..Runs
>>>>>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with alot
>>>> of
>>>>>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed"
>> as
>>>>>some here believes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Back to the subject:
>>>>>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see
that
>>>>>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What
am
>>>> I
>>>>>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that allows
>>>> you
>>>>>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>>>>
>>>>>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be simplified
>>>> like
>>>>>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade
>>>>>bandwagon.
>>>>>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only to
run
>>>>>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>>>>>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>>>>
>>>>>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is
for
>>>> sure,
>>>>>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered in
>>>>>ProTools..
>>>>>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro
>>>>>Tools..
>>>>>
>>>>>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO)
>> when
>>>>>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these days
>> for
>>>>>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very very
>>>> flexible
>>>>>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you to
>>
>>>>>track
>>>>>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>>>>
>>>>>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream
>>
>>>>>journey
>>>>>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all
>>>>>familiar
>>>>>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you
>>>>>not?
>>>>>Simple..
>>>>>
>>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for going
>>>>>
>>>>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and
be
>>>>>>done with it.
>>>>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the Symphony
>>>>
>>>>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
>>>>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at
>> 96k
>>>>>
>>>>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard
to
>>>>
>>>>>>be accurate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>>>>>>users to down load.
>>>>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do
>>>>>>compared
>>>>>
>>>>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>>>>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>>>>>releases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>
>>>>>>> (should
>>>>>
>>>>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>
>>>>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except
for
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up
in
>>>>
>>>>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>>>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind
of
>>>>
>>>>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>>>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it
yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>>>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core
>>>>>
>>>>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>>>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary
part
>>>>>
>>>>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more
>>>>>>> time)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
>>>>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower
>>>>>>> level
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or
if
>>>>
>>>>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>>>>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being
a
>>>>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fwiw,
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>>ADK
>>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96413 is a reply to message #96390] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 07:54 |
AlexPlasko
Messages: 211
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
well , DUH! thanks for the info Lamont. Im going out today and getting a pro
tools rig! Im convinced ,OK?
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c7503f$1@linux...
>
> Hey Alex, thats the beauty of DSP based rigs, you don't have to
> necessarily
> have upgrade to the lastest and greatest Mac..or Pc..
>
> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>my math was following every upgrade as they were available.including the
>
>>overpriced macs needed to run it.
>>someone jumping in today wouldn't see those incremental costs. what kind
> of
>>"math" are you using?
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c70cf7$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Hey ..the RME /Steinberg route is very nice and very Powerful. I think
>
>>> that
>>> you need to redo your math on the 100k digi upgrade.
>>>
>>> I went from a audiomedia (still have) to Pro Tools 001(cost 400.00) From
>>> there, toa Mix Plus..Cost (great deal $3,800 with 1622 interface)...From
>>> there..HD2acel..cost $6,500.00 with -1-192.
>>>
>>> I don't see where 100k comes in. Nor do I know of any of my buddies who
>
>>> spent
>>> 100k in upgrading their PT DAWS..
>>>
>>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>I have a digi nubus soundesigner ll card.$1100)If I followed the digi
>>>>upgrade train from that point (1994),I would have lost about $100K in
> yet
>>>
>>>>more useless obsolete basement clogging shit.I have no regrets in
>>>>following
>>>
>>>>RME/Steinberg.It works for me.
>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47c57a5a$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running a big
>>> for
>>>>> hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than
>>>>> starting
>>>>> up.
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all. It's
> the
>>>
>>>>> most
>>>>> flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's
>>>>> incredibly
>>>>> easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over a
>>>>> photorealistic
>>>>> mixer that's less powerful any day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB
>>>>>
>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native
>>>>>>solutions,
>>>>> is
>>>>>>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions,
>>> have
>>>>>>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS
>>>>>>Vista/XP
>>>>>>and OSX..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is
>>>
>>>>>>sickening!.
>>>>>>Who cares? All, one should want is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those
> on
>>>>> this
>>>>>>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a
>>>>>>working
>>>>>>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks
>>> have
>>>>>>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio
>>>>>>drivers)..Runs
>>>>>>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with
>>>>>>alot
>>>>> of
>>>>>>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed"
>>> as
>>>>>>some here believes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Back to the subject:
>>>>>>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see
> that
>>>>>>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What
> am
>>>>> I
>>>>>>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that
>>>>>>allows
>>>>> you
>>>>>>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be
>>>>>>simplified
>>>>> like
>>>>>>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade
>>>>>>bandwagon.
>>>>>>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only to
> run
>>>>>>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>>>>>>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is
> for
>>>>> sure,
>>>>>>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered in
>>>>>>ProTools..
>>>>>>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro
>>>>>>Tools..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO)
>>> when
>>>>>>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these days
>>> for
>>>>>>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very
>>>>>>very
>>>>> flexible
>>>>>>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you to
>>>
>>>>>>track
>>>>>>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream
>>>
>>>>>>journey
>>>>>>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all
>>>>>>familiar
>>>>>>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you
>
>>>>>>not?
>>>>>>Simple..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>>>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for
>>>>>>>going
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>>>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and
> be
>>>>>>>done with it.
>>>>>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the
>>>>>>>Symphony
>>>>>
>>>>>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>>>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is it
>>>>>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>>>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card at
>>> 96k
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>>>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard
> to
>>>>>
>>>>>>>be accurate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site for
>>>>>>>users to down load.
>>>>>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do
>>>>>>>compared
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>>>>>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>>>>>>releases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>>
>>>>>>>> (should
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like
>
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>>>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except
> for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up
> in
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>>>>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind
> of
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core
>>>>>>>> audio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>>>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>>>>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it
> yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>>>>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>>>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on
>>>>>>>> OSX/core
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>>>>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary
> part
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more
>
>>>>>>>> time)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for
>>>>>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower
>
>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or
> if
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>>>>>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being
> a
>>>>>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fwiw,
>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>>>ADK
>>>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96414 is a reply to message #96413] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 09:14 |
|
|
Look, I'm not trying to sell you on Pro Tools, just stating that you 100K
math was off..
"alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>well , DUH! thanks for the info Lamont. Im going out today and getting a
pro
>tools rig! Im convinced ,OK?
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c7503f$1@linux...
>>
>> Hey Alex, thats the beauty of DSP based rigs, you don't have to
>> necessarily
>> have upgrade to the lastest and greatest Mac..or Pc..
>>
>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>my math was following every upgrade as they were available.including the
>>
>>>overpriced macs needed to run it.
>>>someone jumping in today wouldn't see those incremental costs. what kind
>> of
>>>"math" are you using?
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c70cf7$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> Hey ..the RME /Steinberg route is very nice and very Powerful. I think
>>
>>>> that
>>>> you need to redo your math on the 100k digi upgrade.
>>>>
>>>> I went from a audiomedia (still have) to Pro Tools 001(cost 400.00)
From
>>>> there, toa Mix Plus..Cost (great deal $3,800 with 1622 interface)...From
>>>> there..HD2acel..cost $6,500.00 with -1-192.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see where 100k comes in. Nor do I know of any of my buddies
who
>>
>>>> spent
>>>> 100k in upgrading their PT DAWS..
>>>>
>>>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>>I have a digi nubus soundesigner ll card.$1100)If I followed the digi
>>>>>upgrade train from that point (1994),I would have lost about $100K in
>> yet
>>>>
>>>>>more useless obsolete basement clogging shit.I have no regrets in
>>>>>following
>>>>
>>>>>RME/Steinberg.It works for me.
>>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47c57a5a$1@linux...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running a
big
>>>> for
>>>>>> hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than
>>>>>> starting
>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all. It's
>> the
>>>>
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's
>>>>>> incredibly
>>>>>> easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over a
>>>>>> photorealistic
>>>>>> mixer that's less powerful any day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native
>>>>>>>solutions,
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions,
>>>> have
>>>>>>>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS
>>>>>>>Vista/XP
>>>>>>>and OSX..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs
is
>>>>
>>>>>>>sickening!.
>>>>>>>Who cares? All, one should want is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those
>> on
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a
>>>>>>>working
>>>>>>>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks
>>>> have
>>>>>>>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio
>>>>>>>drivers)..Runs
>>>>>>>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with
>>>>>>>alot
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed"
>>>> as
>>>>>>>some here believes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Back to the subject:
>>>>>>>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see
>> that
>>>>>>>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What
>> am
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that
>>>>>>>allows
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be
>>>>>>>simplified
>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade
>>>>>>>bandwagon.
>>>>>>>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only
to
>> run
>>>>>>>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>>>>>>>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is
>> for
>>>>>> sure,
>>>>>>>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered
in
>>>>>>>ProTools..
>>>>>>>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro
>>>>>>>Tools..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting time(IMHO)
>>>> when
>>>>>>>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these
days
>>>> for
>>>>>>>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very
>>>>>>>very
>>>>>> flexible
>>>>>>>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you
to
>>>>
>>>>>>>track
>>>>>>>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native Dream
>>>>
>>>>>>>journey
>>>>>>>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all
>>>>>>>familiar
>>>>>>>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you
>>
>>>>>>>not?
>>>>>>>Simple..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>>>>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for
>>>>>>>>going
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>>>>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and
>> be
>>>>>>>>done with it.
>>>>>>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the
>>>>>>>>Symphony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>>>>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is
it
>>>>>>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>>>>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card
at
>>>> 96k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>>>>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard
>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>be accurate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site
for
>>>>>>>>users to down load.
>>>>>>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do
>>>>>>>>compared
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about Vista
>>>>>>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>>>>>>>releases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (should
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like
>>
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>>>>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except
>> for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it
up
>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>>>>>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind
>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core
>>>>>>>>> audio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>>>>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>>>>>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it
>> yet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>>>>>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>>>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>>>>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's
>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on
>>>>>>>>> OSX/core
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>>>>>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary
>> part
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more
>>
>>>>>>>>> time)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know
for
>>>>>>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower
>>
>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever -
or
>> if
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic
>>>>>>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being
>> a
>>>>>>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fwiw,
>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>>>>ADK
>>>>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96421 is a reply to message #96414] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 13:43 |
AlexPlasko
Messages: 211
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
whatever. by the way, can you please turn on your spell checking.Its really
hard reading your posts.
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c82f61$1@linux...
>
> Look, I'm not trying to sell you on Pro Tools, just stating that you 100K
> math was off..
>
> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>well , DUH! thanks for the info Lamont. Im going out today and getting a
> pro
>>tools rig! Im convinced ,OK?
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c7503f$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Hey Alex, thats the beauty of DSP based rigs, you don't have to
>>> necessarily
>>> have upgrade to the lastest and greatest Mac..or Pc..
>>>
>>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>my math was following every upgrade as they were available.including the
>>>
>>>>overpriced macs needed to run it.
>>>>someone jumping in today wouldn't see those incremental costs. what kind
>>> of
>>>>"math" are you using?
>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c70cf7$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey ..the RME /Steinberg route is very nice and very Powerful. I think
>>>
>>>>> that
>>>>> you need to redo your math on the 100k digi upgrade.
>>>>>
>>>>> I went from a audiomedia (still have) to Pro Tools 001(cost 400.00)
> From
>>>>> there, toa Mix Plus..Cost (great deal $3,800 with 1622
>>>>> interface)...From
>>>>> there..HD2acel..cost $6,500.00 with -1-192.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see where 100k comes in. Nor do I know of any of my buddies
> who
>>>
>>>>> spent
>>>>> 100k in upgrading their PT DAWS..
>>>>>
>>>>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>I have a digi nubus soundesigner ll card.$1100)If I followed the digi
>>>>>>upgrade train from that point (1994),I would have lost about $100K in
>>> yet
>>>>>
>>>>>>more useless obsolete basement clogging shit.I have no regrets in
>>>>>>following
>>>>>
>>>>>>RME/Steinberg.It works for me.
>>>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47c57a5a$1@linux...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running a
> big
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than
>>>>>>> starting
>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all. It's
>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's
>>>>>>> incredibly
>>>>>>> easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over a
>>>>>>> photorealistic
>>>>>>> mixer that's less powerful any day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native
>>>>>>>>solutions,
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous
>>>>>>>>ocassions,
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS
>>>>>>>>Vista/XP
>>>>>>>>and OSX..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs
> is
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>sickening!.
>>>>>>>>Who cares? All, one should want is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those
>>> on
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a
>>>>>>>>working
>>>>>>>>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these
>>>>>>>>folks
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio
>>>>>>>>drivers)..Runs
>>>>>>>>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with
>
>>>>>>>>alot
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So
>>>>>>>>Closed"
>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>some here believes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Back to the subject:
>>>>>>>>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see
>>> that
>>>>>>>>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What
>>> am
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that
>>>>>>>>allows
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be
>>>>>>>>simplified
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade
>>>>>>>>bandwagon.
>>>>>>>>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only
> to
>>> run
>>>>>>>>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>>>>>>>>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing is
>>> for
>>>>>>> sure,
>>>>>>>>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered
> in
>>>>>>>>ProTools..
>>>>>>>>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro
>>>>>>>>Tools..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting
>>>>>>>>time(IMHO)
>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these
> days
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very
>
>>>>>>>>very
>>>>>>> flexible
>>>>>>>>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you
> to
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>track
>>>>>>>>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native
>>>>>>>>Dream
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>journey
>>>>>>>>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all
>>>>>>>>familiar
>>>>>>>>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are you
>>>
>>>>>>>>not?
>>>>>>>>Simple..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>>>>>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for
>
>>>>>>>>>going
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>>>>>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools and
>>> be
>>>>>>>>>done with it.
>>>>>>>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the
>>>>>>>>>Symphony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>>>>>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is
> it
>>>>>>>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>>>>>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card
> at
>>>>> 96k
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>>>>>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard
>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>be accurate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site
> for
>>>>>>>>>users to down load.
>>>>>>>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do
>>>>>>>>>compared
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about
>>>>>>>>>Vista
>>>>>>>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>>>>>>>>releases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (should
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency
>>>>>>>>>> figures.
>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except
>>> for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it
> up
>>> in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort
>>>>>>>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind
>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core
>
>>>>>>>>>> audio
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>>>>>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing the
>>>>>>>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded it
>>> yet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and
>>>>>>>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>>>>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>>>>>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's
>
>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on
>>>>>>>>>> OSX/core
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are
>>>>>>>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary
>>> part
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> time)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know
> for
>>>>>>>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever -
> or
>>> if
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the
>>>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being
>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fwiw,
>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>>>>>ADK
>>>>>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96424 is a reply to message #96421] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 17:17 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
He's typing in Pro-Tools... that doesn't have spell-check
(but you CAN get it in a free VST plugin for Native apps!)
:)
"alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>whatever. by the way, can you please turn on your spell checking.Its really
>hard reading your posts.
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c82f61$1@linux...
>>
>> Look, I'm not trying to sell you on Pro Tools, just stating that you 100K
>> math was off..
>>
>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>well , DUH! thanks for the info Lamont. Im going out today and getting
a
>> pro
>>>tools rig! Im convinced ,OK?
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c7503f$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> Hey Alex, thats the beauty of DSP based rigs, you don't have to
>>>> necessarily
>>>> have upgrade to the lastest and greatest Mac..or Pc..
>>>>
>>>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>>my math was following every upgrade as they were available.including
the
>>>>
>>>>>overpriced macs needed to run it.
>>>>>someone jumping in today wouldn't see those incremental costs. what
kind
>>>> of
>>>>>"math" are you using?
>>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c70cf7$1@linux...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey ..the RME /Steinberg route is very nice and very Powerful. I think
>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> you need to redo your math on the 100k digi upgrade.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I went from a audiomedia (still have) to Pro Tools 001(cost 400.00)
>> From
>>>>>> there, toa Mix Plus..Cost (great deal $3,800 with 1622
>>>>>> interface)...From
>>>>>> there..HD2acel..cost $6,500.00 with -1-192.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see where 100k comes in. Nor do I know of any of my buddies
>> who
>>>>
>>>>>> spent
>>>>>> 100k in upgrading their PT DAWS..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>I have a digi nubus soundesigner ll card.$1100)If I followed the digi
>>>>>>>upgrade train from that point (1994),I would have lost about $100K
in
>>>> yet
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>more useless obsolete basement clogging shit.I have no regrets in
>>>>>>>following
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>RME/Steinberg.It works for me.
>>>>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47c57a5a$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running
a
>> big
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than
>>>>>>>> starting
>>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all. It's
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's
>>>>>>>> incredibly
>>>>>>>> easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over
a
>>>>>>>> photorealistic
>>>>>>>> mixer that's less powerful any day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native
>>>>>>>>>solutions,
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous
>>>>>>>>>ocassions,
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS
>>>>>>>>>Vista/XP
>>>>>>>>>and OSX..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs
>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>sickening!.
>>>>>>>>>Who cares? All, one should want is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those
>>>> on
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_
a
>>>>>>>>>working
>>>>>>>>>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these
>>>>>>>>>folks
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio
>>>>>>>>>drivers)..Runs
>>>>>>>>>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with
>>
>>>>>>>>>alot
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So
>>>>>>>>>Closed"
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>some here believes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Back to the subject:
>>>>>>>>>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd
see
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What
>>>> am
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that
>>>>>>>>>allows
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be
>>>>>>>>>simplified
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade
>>>>>>>>>bandwagon.
>>>>>>>>>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only
>> to
>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>>>>>>>>>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing
is
>>>> for
>>>>>>>> sure,
>>>>>>>>>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered
>> in
>>>>>>>>>ProTools..
>>>>>>>>>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro
>>>>>>>>>Tools..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting
>>>>>>>>>time(IMHO)
>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these
>> days
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very
>>
>>>>>>>>>very
>>>>>>>> flexible
>>>>>>>>>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you
>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>track
>>>>>>>>>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native
>>>>>>>>>Dream
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>journey
>>>>>>>>>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all
>>>>>>>>>familiar
>>>>>>>>>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are
you
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>not?
>>>>>>>>>Simple..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>>>>>>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for
>>
>>>>>>>>>>going
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>>>>>>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools
and
>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>done with it.
>>>>>>>>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the
>>>>>>>>>>Symphony
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>>>>>>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is
>> it
>>>>>>>>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>>>>>>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card
>> at
>>>>>> 96k
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on Leopard
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>be accurate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site
>> for
>>>>>>>>>>users to down load.
>>>>>>>>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do
>>>>>>>>>>compared
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about
>>>>>>>>>>Vista
>>>>>>>>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk press
>>>>>>>>>>releases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (should
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds
like
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency
>>>>>>>>>>> figures.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it
>> up
>>>> in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and
sort
>>>>>>>>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually
kind
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> audio
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>>>>>>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing
the
>>>>>>>>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded
it
>>>> yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP
and
>>>>>>>>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>>>>>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>>>>>>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on
>>>>>>>>>>> OSX/core
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there
are
>>>>>>>>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and vary
>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have more
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> time)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know
>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever
-
>> or
>>>> if
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the
>>>>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being
>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fwiw,
>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>>>>>>ADK
>>>>>>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Apogee with Core audio - low latency breakthrough or markeing [message #96426 is a reply to message #96424] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 17:46 |
AlexPlasko
Messages: 211
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I actually sent an email to digi requesting price lists since 1994.ill keep
you posted.I consider it my duty.
I couldn't find the older lists on their support site.
unless someone else here has kept copies of that shit , I see no other way
to know the cost.
ill keep you posted.
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:47c8a083$1@linux...
>
> He's typing in Pro-Tools... that doesn't have spell-check
> (but you CAN get it in a free VST plugin for Native apps!)
>
> :)
>
>
> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>whatever. by the way, can you please turn on your spell checking.Its
>>really
>
>>hard reading your posts.
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c82f61$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Look, I'm not trying to sell you on Pro Tools, just stating that you
>>> 100K
>>> math was off..
>>>
>>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>well , DUH! thanks for the info Lamont. Im going out today and getting
> a
>>> pro
>>>>tools rig! Im convinced ,OK?
>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c7503f$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Alex, thats the beauty of DSP based rigs, you don't have to
>>>>> necessarily
>>>>> have upgrade to the lastest and greatest Mac..or Pc..
>>>>>
>>>>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>my math was following every upgrade as they were available.including
> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>overpriced macs needed to run it.
>>>>>>someone jumping in today wouldn't see those incremental costs. what
> kind
>>>>> of
>>>>>>"math" are you using?
>>>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c70cf7$1@linux...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey ..the RME /Steinberg route is very nice and very Powerful. I
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> you need to redo your math on the 100k digi upgrade.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I went from a audiomedia (still have) to Pro Tools 001(cost 400.00)
>>> From
>>>>>>> there, toa Mix Plus..Cost (great deal $3,800 with 1622
>>>>>>> interface)...From
>>>>>>> there..HD2acel..cost $6,500.00 with -1-192.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see where 100k comes in. Nor do I know of any of my buddies
>>> who
>>>>>
>>>>>>> spent
>>>>>>> 100k in upgrading their PT DAWS..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>I have a digi nubus soundesigner ll card.$1100)If I followed the
>>>>>>>>digi
>>>>>>>>upgrade train from that point (1994),I would have lost about $100K
> in
>>>>> yet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>more useless obsolete basement clogging shit.I have no regrets in
>>>>>>>>following
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>RME/Steinberg.It works for me.
>>>>>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:47c57a5a$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Glad I still get name checked every now and then ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still think native is the way to go unless someone is running
> a
>>> big
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> hire room, and let's face it more of those are shutting down than
>>>>>>>>> starting
>>>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One thing about the RME mixer, it shouldn't be changed at all.
>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>> flexible, powerful audio interface mixer I've ever seen. It's
>>>>>>>>> incredibly
>>>>>>>>> easy to use, just a little tricky to learn. I'll take that over
> a
>>>>>>>>> photorealistic
>>>>>>>>> mixer that's less powerful any day.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then again, I'm a linux geek. Then again, so are the RME guys.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TCB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native
>>>>>>>>>>solutions,
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous
>>>>>>>>>>ocassions,
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS
>>>>>>>>>>Vista/XP
>>>>>>>>>>and OSX..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs
>>> is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>sickening!.
>>>>>>>>>>Who cares? All, one should want is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are
>>>>>>>>>>those
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_
> a
>>>>>>>>>>working
>>>>>>>>>>DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these
>
>>>>>>>>>>folks
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio
>>>>>>>>>>drivers)..Runs
>>>>>>>>>>great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>alot
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So
>>>>>>>>>>Closed"
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>some here believes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Back to the subject:
>>>>>>>>>>If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd
> see
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars,
>>>>>>>>>>"What
>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that
>>>>>>>>>>allows
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be
>>>>>>>>>>simplified
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>Motu's MkIII DSP cue mixer app. Simple, yet very powerful.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Now look at all of us-you who have stayed on the PC/Mac upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>bandwagon.
>>>>>>>>>>Spent $$$ major money chasing the zero latency Native dream..Only
>>> to
>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>>into the win XP/Vista brick wall of doom..
>>>>>>>>>>The lie of the 64 bit dream.. Dual core this and that..SHAM!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>My Win ME Paris (4 card) rig still is as stable as it ever was.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>All in all, it's your money, spend it how you may, but one thing
> is
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> sure,
>>>>>>>>>>If are working on a major lable recording, it better be delivered
>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>ProTools..
>>>>>>>>>>You want a job working a sudio or media house, you better know Pro
>>>>>>>>>>Tools..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So, we can sit hear discussing Native torture test wasting
>>>>>>>>>>time(IMHO)
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>a vialble solution is already on the market that can be had these
>>> days
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>under 10k..belive it or not.hat yields a very polished sound, very
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>very
>>>>>>>>> flexible
>>>>>>>>>>i/o routing for hardware owners..super low-latency that allows you
>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>track
>>>>>>>>>>and mixrealtime live sessions..and oh yeah.. Super stable..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So, just look at the reciepts from the last 5 years on or Native
>
>>>>>>>>>>Dream
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>journey
>>>>>>>>>>and add em up. Then, add up all those clients who utter that all
>>>>>>>>>>familiar
>>>>>>>>>>phrase" Do you have Pro Tools"?..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I guess it comes down to is his this: Are you in the game or are
> you
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>not?
>>>>>>>>>>Simple..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Dedric,
>>>>>>>>>>>Apogee is doing nothing that hasn't been done by RME and Lynx for
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>going
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>on 3 years now on PC and now on Intel Macs.
>>>>>>>>>>>If I want a proprietary hardware system I'd just buy Pro Tools
> and
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>done with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>Now that RME and Lynx are starting to release PCI-e cards the
>>>>>>>>>>>Symphony
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>looks less and less attractive.
>>>>>>>>>>>Not really sure what is good about it. Only thing I could see is
>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>being the first PCI-e card for the MAC.
>>>>>>>>>>>About the only fair comparison would be between and RME Madi card
>>> at
>>>>>>> 96k
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>and see how it compares against the Symphony numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>They both at this point would need to be running Logic 8 on
>>>>>>>>>>>Leopard
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>be accurate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I like that Apogee doesn't post the test session on the web site
>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>users to down load.
>>>>>>>>>>>It would be the fair way for people to see what the card can do
>>>>>>>>>>>compared
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>to the card they are using now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Sorta reminds me of the vague claims Rain Recording made about
>
>>>>>>>>>>>Vista
>>>>>>>>>>>with nothing to back it up other than Microsoft and Cakewalk
>>>>>>>>>>>press
>>>>>>>>>>>releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Chris
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6693909#6 693909
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (should
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds
> like
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> only posted part of the story with their great low latency
>>>>>>>>>>>> figures.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though,
>>>>>>>>>>>> except
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it
>>> up
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and
> sort
>>>>>>>>>>>> through marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually
> kind
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> hoping the Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> audio
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and any app, just because it would be cool to have such a
>>>>>>>>>>>> breakthrough, but this really just shows that ASIO is pushing
> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> limits of current OSs already, and we haven't really exceeded
> it
>>>>> yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP
> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>>>>>>>>> OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted
>>>>>>>>>>>> estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same latency: it's
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on
>>>>>>>>>>>> OSX/core
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there
> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> other plugins in that benchmark test to compensate for, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> vary
>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> of that loading (I'll have to find out for sure when I have
>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> time)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - same dual quad hardware configs in both cases. I don't know
>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if some of this is Nuendo not being optimized for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> lower
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or whatever
> -
>>> or
>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on the
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>>>>> thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it
>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fwiw,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>>>>>>>>>ADK
>>>>>>>>>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>(859) 635-5762
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Dec 25 10:29:27 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04054 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
