Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Cubase may have finally arrived
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96829 is a reply to message #96827] |
Sat, 15 March 2008 12:46   |
![Deej [5] is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png "Deej [5] is currently offline")
Deej [5]
Messages: 373
Registered: March 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
news:47dc19b7$1@linux...
> If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this is
> probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software
> relationship together.
>
> AA
>
>
After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o mind
that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to the
audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released, the
question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the point of
really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving
at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated DSP
hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency to
serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if enough CPU horsepower
is available .......which sorta' begs the following questions:
1. Does this mean that Steinberg has decided to back burner the software
rewrite that they say is happening for Cubase that will allow it to more
efficiently use multiple cores in order to move users toward buying their
hardware?
2. Will this work with Nuendo, or will Steinberg just integrate the code
rewrite in Nuendo, thus selectively crippling Cubase and requiring Cubase
users to crossgrade to Nuendo, plus their ripoff Cubase addon which gives it
the same functionality as Cubase at a considerable expense, in order to take
advantage of 3rd party controllers and multiple core CPU's?
3. Where do they come up with the convenient fantasy that mix engineers only
use a single fader at a time? That engineer would not be me.
4. Will future rewrites scuttle the functionality of my Houston controller
(which does a lot of what their controller does already)?
5. Why do they assume I'm going to want to pay for 8 x Yamaha preamps per
interface? This is one reason I don't already own an 02R 96 or
DM1000/2000??........wait......sorry.......this isn't about me. I'm just a
consumer.
Color me disappointed (but not surprised) that they are moving toward the
Digidesign model......unless, of course, they are still moving forward with
the software rewrites that will allow native CPU's and 3rd party
hardware/drivers to eclipse the performance of their own hardware that they
have just announced.
The reason I haven't built a system with 8 cores is because it would be
relatively worthless with Steiny software which is what I have chosen to
use. Cubase can barely utilize a single socket system with 4 x cores or a
dual socket system with 2 x dual cores. Steinberg has been saying that they
are working to correct this. I'm just wondering if the new hardware will
provide them a convenient excuse to market hardware rather than correct
their antiquated software.
Maybe I'm paranoid. We've seen DAW manufacturers do an about face and
blatantly lie to their user base.......the EMU acquisition of Ensoniq and
the subsequent killing off of the stepchild Paris system, even as they
rebranded the proprietary hardware and sold it to us at a premium while
assuring this heavily invested user base that they were moving forward with
development and upgrades is a classic example.
;o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96831 is a reply to message #96829] |
Sat, 15 March 2008 14:12 |
|
|
Hey DJ,
Well my friend, I think you are Right on point with your post.
The Naive solution is at a cross-road of sorts. Here we have powerful multi
core cpus, and crippling operating systems..
Then, you have the Euro vs USA mind set of working.. The Euro way of DAW
workflow is to go small (think yammy N12, the new Steing Stuff, 1 fader conrollers).
The US DAW users are into 16,24, 32 fader controllers. Big difference in
working styles.
Just my Opinion: It seems that ALL of the DAW manufacturers are moving towards
a DSP based solution..My my ..
So, like my post a few months ago about Native vs DSP. You can see that for
those users who need over 16 channels of i/o, it's going to cost.
However, for those of you who are not familiar with Yamaha's Pres and I/o
units, all I have to say is WOW!! Their now discontinued I88x & 01x as well
as their digital workhorses DM2000 and 02r96 have some of the best on board
Pres in the buisness. These babys can compete with the best. So, those who
doe get into these new Yammy/Stienberg units have got a real winner on their
hands.
"Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>
>"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>news:47dc19b7$1@linux...
>> If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this is
>> probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software
>> relationship together.
>>
>> AA
>>
>>
>After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o mind
>that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to the
>audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released, the
>question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the point
of
>really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving
>at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated DSP
>hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency
to
>serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if enough CPU horsepower
>is available .......which sorta' begs the following questions:
>
>1. Does this mean that Steinberg has decided to back burner the software
>rewrite that they say is happening for Cubase that will allow it to more
>efficiently use multiple cores in order to move users toward buying their
>hardware?
>
>2. Will this work with Nuendo, or will Steinberg just integrate the code
>rewrite in Nuendo, thus selectively crippling Cubase and requiring Cubase
>users to crossgrade to Nuendo, plus their ripoff Cubase addon which gives
it
>the same functionality as Cubase at a considerable expense, in order to
take
>advantage of 3rd party controllers and multiple core CPU's?
>
>3. Where do they come up with the convenient fantasy that mix engineers
only
>use a single fader at a time? That engineer would not be me.
>
>4. Will future rewrites scuttle the functionality of my Houston controller
>(which does a lot of what their controller does already)?
>
>5. Why do they assume I'm going to want to pay for 8 x Yamaha preamps per
>interface? This is one reason I don't already own an 02R 96 or
>DM1000/2000??........wait......sorry.......this isn't about me. I'm just
a
>consumer.
>
>Color me disappointed (but not surprised) that they are moving toward the
>Digidesign model......unless, of course, they are still moving forward with
>the software rewrites that will allow native CPU's and 3rd party
>hardware/drivers to eclipse the performance of their own hardware that they
>have just announced.
>
>The reason I haven't built a system with 8 cores is because it would be
>relatively worthless with Steiny software which is what I have chosen to
>use. Cubase can barely utilize a single socket system with 4 x cores or
a
>dual socket system with 2 x dual cores. Steinberg has been saying that they
>are working to correct this. I'm just wondering if the new hardware will
>provide them a convenient excuse to market hardware rather than correct
>their antiquated software.
>
>Maybe I'm paranoid. We've seen DAW manufacturers do an about face and
>blatantly lie to their user base.......the EMU acquisition of Ensoniq and
>the subsequent killing off of the stepchild Paris system, even as they
>rebranded the proprietary hardware and sold it to us at a premium while
>assuring this heavily invested user base that they were moving forward with
>development and upgrades is a classic example.
>
>;o)
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96839 is a reply to message #96829] |
Sat, 15 March 2008 15:13 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ and others - the multicore scaling issue has already been pretty much
nailed down by Vin at Dawbench - a bios update to some motherboards (a
microcode fix from Intel it seems) significantly improved scaling for Nuendo
and Cubase (Sonar still suffers though).
It may not be 1:1 as you add cores, but remember that this isn't the same as
simply multiplying processing power since there are still some bottlenecks
in the system that are common to all cores.
Steinberg is still working to improve Cubase and Nuendo, but with the bios
fix, there is only a small margin of room for improvement compared to
Reaper, which we assume is currently scaling the best of any audio app - it
may also be giving up something that Nuendo and Cubase have in exchange -
that is as yet unknown.
I may have posted this before, but there it is again. There isn't a big
rewrite to be done, but they are still working on improving some aspect of
this issue, or so has been reported - maybe it will be even faster next rev.
Steinberg hasn't abandoned improving Nuendo and Cubase to build hardware.
I'm pretty sure this is Steinberg-branded, Yamaha hardware, esp. since the
firewire interface has Yamaha pres and looks like a Yamaha design. To my
knowledge, Steinberg doesn't even have hardware engineers on staff -
everything so far has been rebadged and built elsewhere (Midex, Houston,
Nuendo I/O, etc).
Dedric
On 3/15/08 1:46 PM, in article 47dc2a91$1@linux, "Mr. Simplicity"
<noway@jose.net> wrote:
>
> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
> news:47dc19b7$1@linux...
>> If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this is
>> probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software
>> relationship together.
>>
>> AA
>>
>>
> After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o mind
> that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to the
> audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released, the
> question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the point of
> really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving
> at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated DSP
> hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency to
> serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if enough CPU horsepower
> is available .......which sorta' begs the following questions:
>
> 1. Does this mean that Steinberg has decided to back burner the software
> rewrite that they say is happening for Cubase that will allow it to more
> efficiently use multiple cores in order to move users toward buying their
> hardware?
>
> 2. Will this work with Nuendo, or will Steinberg just integrate the code
> rewrite in Nuendo, thus selectively crippling Cubase and requiring Cubase
> users to crossgrade to Nuendo, plus their ripoff Cubase addon which gives it
> the same functionality as Cubase at a considerable expense, in order to take
> advantage of 3rd party controllers and multiple core CPU's?
>
> 3. Where do they come up with the convenient fantasy that mix engineers only
> use a single fader at a time? That engineer would not be me.
>
> 4. Will future rewrites scuttle the functionality of my Houston controller
> (which does a lot of what their controller does already)?
>
> 5. Why do they assume I'm going to want to pay for 8 x Yamaha preamps per
> interface? This is one reason I don't already own an 02R 96 or
> DM1000/2000??........wait......sorry.......this isn't about me. I'm just a
> consumer.
>
> Color me disappointed (but not surprised) that they are moving toward the
> Digidesign model......unless, of course, they are still moving forward with
> the software rewrites that will allow native CPU's and 3rd party
> hardware/drivers to eclipse the performance of their own hardware that they
> have just announced.
>
> The reason I haven't built a system with 8 cores is because it would be
> relatively worthless with Steiny software which is what I have chosen to
> use. Cubase can barely utilize a single socket system with 4 x cores or a
> dual socket system with 2 x dual cores. Steinberg has been saying that they
> are working to correct this. I'm just wondering if the new hardware will
> provide them a convenient excuse to market hardware rather than correct
> their antiquated software.
>
> Maybe I'm paranoid. We've seen DAW manufacturers do an about face and
> blatantly lie to their user base.......the EMU acquisition of Ensoniq and
> the subsequent killing off of the stepchild Paris system, even as they
> rebranded the proprietary hardware and sold it to us at a premium while
> assuring this heavily invested user base that they were moving forward with
> development and upgrades is a classic example.
>
> ;o)
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96840 is a reply to message #96831] |
Sat, 15 March 2008 15:20 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Uh.... dsp based solutions? You mean a firewire interface with EQ, comps
and a reverb? We've had Totalmix and Cuemix for years. MOTU added the same
to their new interface as well - just another marketing feature.
Fader units? Did you forget Presonus (Baton Rouge, LA) and Frontier Design
(Lebanon, NH) - these are US companies, and they pretty much started the
1-fader idea. Also, Euphonix - 4 fader MC Control anyone?
There's no US vs. Europe mindset here - just marketing different approaches
to different users. The new Cubase controller's ad blurb even says its
designed for people with minimal desk space....
Dedric
On 3/15/08 3:12 PM, in article 47dc2da5$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hey DJ,
> Well my friend, I think you are Right on point with your post.
> The Naive solution is at a cross-road of sorts. Here we have powerful multi
> core cpus, and crippling operating systems..
>
> Then, you have the Euro vs USA mind set of working.. The Euro way of DAW
> workflow is to go small (think yammy N12, the new Steing Stuff, 1 fader
> conrollers).
> The US DAW users are into 16,24, 32 fader controllers. Big difference in
> working styles.
>
> Just my Opinion: It seems that ALL of the DAW manufacturers are moving towards
> a DSP based solution..My my ..
>
> So, like my post a few months ago about Native vs DSP. You can see that for
> those users who need over 16 channels of i/o, it's going to cost.
>
> However, for those of you who are not familiar with Yamaha's Pres and I/o
> units, all I have to say is WOW!! Their now discontinued I88x & 01x as well
> as their digital workhorses DM2000 and 02r96 have some of the best on board
> Pres in the buisness. These babys can compete with the best. So, those who
> doe get into these new Yammy/Stienberg units have got a real winner on their
> hands.
>
> "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>> news:47dc19b7$1@linux...
>>> If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this is
>
>>> probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software
>
>>> relationship together.
>>>
>>> AA
>>>
>>>
>> After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o mind
>
>> that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to the
>
>> audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released, the
>
>> question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the point
> of
>> really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving
>
>> at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated DSP
>
>> hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency
> to
>> serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if enough CPU horsepower
>
>> is available .......which sorta' begs the following questions:
>>
>> 1. Does this mean that Steinberg has decided to back burner the software
>
>> rewrite that they say is happening for Cubase that will allow it to more
>
>> efficiently use multiple cores in order to move users toward buying their
>
>> hardware?
>>
>> 2. Will this work with Nuendo, or will Steinberg just integrate the code
>
>> rewrite in Nuendo, thus selectively crippling Cubase and requiring Cubase
>
>> users to crossgrade to Nuendo, plus their ripoff Cubase addon which gives
> it
>> the same functionality as Cubase at a considerable expense, in order to
> take
>> advantage of 3rd party controllers and multiple core CPU's?
>>
>> 3. Where do they come up with the convenient fantasy that mix engineers
> only
>> use a single fader at a time? That engineer would not be me.
>>
>> 4. Will future rewrites scuttle the functionality of my Houston controller
>
>> (which does a lot of what their controller does already)?
>>
>> 5. Why do they assume I'm going to want to pay for 8 x Yamaha preamps per
>
>> interface? This is one reason I don't already own an 02R 96 or
>> DM1000/2000??........wait......sorry.......this isn't about me. I'm just
> a
>> consumer.
>>
>> Color me disappointed (but not surprised) that they are moving toward the
>
>> Digidesign model......unless, of course, they are still moving forward with
>
>> the software rewrites that will allow native CPU's and 3rd party
>> hardware/drivers to eclipse the performance of their own hardware that they
>
>> have just announced.
>>
>> The reason I haven't built a system with 8 cores is because it would be
>
>> relatively worthless with Steiny software which is what I have chosen to
>
>> use. Cubase can barely utilize a single socket system with 4 x cores or
> a
>> dual socket system with 2 x dual cores. Steinberg has been saying that they
>
>> are working to correct this. I'm just wondering if the new hardware will
>
>> provide them a convenient excuse to market hardware rather than correct
>
>> their antiquated software.
>>
>> Maybe I'm paranoid. We've seen DAW manufacturers do an about face and
>> blatantly lie to their user base.......the EMU acquisition of Ensoniq and
>
>> the subsequent killing off of the stepchild Paris system, even as they
>> rebranded the proprietary hardware and sold it to us at a premium while
>
>> assuring this heavily invested user base that they were moving forward with
>
>> development and upgrades is a classic example.
>>
>> ;o)
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96849 is a reply to message #96845] |
Sat, 15 March 2008 22:40 |
|
|
Tough call.. I work on a DM2000 from time to time, and it's stellar, to say
the least..
I would go for the Dm-2000, due it''s great sounding Pre's(24), he ability
to mix 96 channels@96k, with Eq/ dynamics..8 Spx-1000 units..6 graphic eqs
on the buses..Integration with Steingberg, Pro Tools, Logic and DP..For around
17k o start. Not Bad.
"Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>I saw that one. Man, it is sweet. Thing is, it's the same price as a tricked
>out DM2000. which would you rather have?
>
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47dc3a89$1@linux...
>>
>> Hey DJ, although some what pricey, this new SSL Controller does handle
>> HArdware
>> integration really nice..Take a look.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nki8IVUSFPY
>>
>> "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>>>pretty cool.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDZbfGOdufo&feature=relat ed
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96850 is a reply to message #96840] |
Sat, 15 March 2008 22:49 |
|
|
I don't know Dedric. There seems to be this trend to adhere to the smaller
foot-print studio from the DAW manufactuers. And this trned is coming from
the EU DAW users. DAW users in the states want 24, 32 fader controllers and
at least 16 channels of i/o.
Also, he trend to add DSP to the hardware i/o units negates the promise
of Native's claim.
Just my Opinion: I don't think Steingberg is close to cracking the Multi-core
puzzle. I think a Total Re-write would be required. But, I think they (Steingberg)
will duck-tape a solution much like Digidesign has with Pro Tools to keep
it going,even tho the market has all this CPU power..
Even More: These day, I don't know where Steingberg strategic direction is
heading. Like,who's on first?
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Uh.... dsp based solutions? You mean a firewire interface with EQ, comps
>and a reverb? We've had Totalmix and Cuemix for years. MOTU added the
same
>to their new interface as well - just another marketing feature.
>
>Fader units? Did you forget Presonus (Baton Rouge, LA) and Frontier Design
>(Lebanon, NH) - these are US companies, and they pretty much started the
>1-fader idea. Also, Euphonix - 4 fader MC Control anyone?
>
>There's no US vs. Europe mindset here - just marketing different approaches
>to different users. The new Cubase controller's ad blurb even says its
>designed for people with minimal desk space....
>
>Dedric
>
>On 3/15/08 3:12 PM, in article 47dc2da5$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey DJ,
>> Well my friend, I think you are Right on point with your post.
>> The Naive solution is at a cross-road of sorts. Here we have powerful
multi
>> core cpus, and crippling operating systems..
>>
>> Then, you have the Euro vs USA mind set of working.. The Euro way of DAW
>> workflow is to go small (think yammy N12, the new Steing Stuff, 1 fader
>> conrollers).
>> The US DAW users are into 16,24, 32 fader controllers. Big difference
in
>> working styles.
>>
>> Just my Opinion: It seems that ALL of the DAW manufacturers are moving
towards
>> a DSP based solution..My my ..
>>
>> So, like my post a few months ago about Native vs DSP. You can see that
for
>> those users who need over 16 channels of i/o, it's going to cost.
>>
>> However, for those of you who are not familiar with Yamaha's Pres and
I/o
>> units, all I have to say is WOW!! Their now discontinued I88x & 01x as
well
>> as their digital workhorses DM2000 and 02r96 have some of the best on
board
>> Pres in the buisness. These babys can compete with the best. So, those
who
>> doe get into these new Yammy/Stienberg units have got a real winner on
their
>> hands.
>>
>> "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>> news:47dc19b7$1@linux...
>>>> If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this
is
>>
>>>> probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software
>>
>>>> relationship together.
>>>>
>>>> AA
>>>>
>>>>
>>> After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o mind
>>
>>> that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to the
>>
>>> audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released,
the
>>
>>> question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the point
>> of
>>> really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving
>>
>>> at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated
DSP
>>
>>> hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency
>> to
>>> serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if enough CPU horsepower
>>
>>> is available .......which sorta' begs the following questions:
>>>
>>> 1. Does this mean that Steinberg has decided to back burner the software
>>
>>> rewrite that they say is happening for Cubase that will allow it to more
>>
>>> efficiently use multiple cores in order to move users toward buying their
>>
>>> hardware?
>>>
>>> 2. Will this work with Nuendo, or will Steinberg just integrate the code
>>
>>> rewrite in Nuendo, thus selectively crippling Cubase and requiring Cubase
>>
>>> users to crossgrade to Nuendo, plus their ripoff Cubase addon which gives
>> it
>>> the same functionality as Cubase at a considerable expense, in order
to
>> take
>>> advantage of 3rd party controllers and multiple core CPU's?
>>>
>>> 3. Where do they come up with the convenient fantasy that mix engineers
>> only
>>> use a single fader at a time? That engineer would not be me.
>>>
>>> 4. Will future rewrites scuttle the functionality of my Houston controller
>>
>>> (which does a lot of what their controller does already)?
>>>
>>> 5. Why do they assume I'm going to want to pay for 8 x Yamaha preamps
per
>>
>>> interface? This is one reason I don't already own an 02R 96 or
>>> DM1000/2000??........wait......sorry.......this isn't about me. I'm just
>> a
>>> consumer.
>>>
>>> Color me disappointed (but not surprised) that they are moving toward
the
>>
>>> Digidesign model......unless, of course, they are still moving forward
with
>>
>>> the software rewrites that will allow native CPU's and 3rd party
>>> hardware/drivers to eclipse the performance of their own hardware that
they
>>
>>> have just announced.
>>>
>>> The reason I haven't built a system with 8 cores is because it would
be
>>
>>> relatively worthless with Steiny software which is what I have chosen
to
>>
>>> use. Cubase can barely utilize a single socket system with 4 x cores
or
>> a
>>> dual socket system with 2 x dual cores. Steinberg has been saying that
they
>>
>>> are working to correct this. I'm just wondering if the new hardware will
>>
>>> provide them a convenient excuse to market hardware rather than correct
>>
>>> their antiquated software.
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm paranoid. We've seen DAW manufacturers do an about face and
>>> blatantly lie to their user base.......the EMU acquisition of Ensoniq
and
>>
>>> the subsequent killing off of the stepchild Paris system, even as they
>>> rebranded the proprietary hardware and sold it to us at a premium while
>>
>>> assuring this heavily invested user base that they were moving forward
with
>>
>>> development and upgrades is a classic example.
>>>
>>> ;o)
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96853 is a reply to message #96830] |
Sat, 15 March 2008 21:50 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I looked at that when the video hit the net last year, but I can't see
spending $6000 for a mixer to front end $600 software/Sonar. If steiny is
able to ASIO nice latency figures I don't understand why cake can't as well
but there you have it. The other thing being, granted I haven't heard the VM
personally, that I don't particularly like the sound of the Roland pres I
have used in the past. Some of the questions I had then still haven't really
become clear such as
Up to 40 tracks from mixer to sonar. 40 tracks of what resolution?
Can one choose less tracks at higher res? More tracks at a lower?
Just exactly how are they\are they compressing the audio, and what
artifacts? I do NOT like Roland VSxxx recorder compression.
Is computer connection strictly a data dump through a standard NIC, or ??
and how does Sonar see it?
Don't get me wrong, for a live mixer this thing is pretty awesome. I've long
since been a fan for the idea of preamps/audio processing staying on stage
to be controlled remotely, like the VM series Roland had years back. I
absolutely detest latency.
I'm not that sure it's a recordists dream, however.
It's unfortunate and apparant they can't get latency right with WDM/ASIO
drivers after years of it. Which is a mind blower, because they were the
ones working with Microsoft on the WDM spec. What they really probably ought
to do is either expand their 'hardware' line (which is EDIROL already I
believe) to more than the 'power' series of stuff and less than a $6k REAC
mixer. There's a whole lot missing there in the middle, and DSP + more
inputs would fix it.
http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/hardware.asp
Shame, cause I love how sonar functions, but many won't move to it for
semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. Steiny
apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47dc2a9a$1@linux...
>
> Hi Aaron, Sonar is getting a hardware via ROland (Roland Purchased
> Cakewalk
> last year). They have this really cool Digital Mixer that really tied into
> Sonar. Have a Look.
>
> http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=5308 Called the V-mixer
> M400.. Really Sweet!!
>
> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this is
>>probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software
>>relationship together.
>>
>>AA
>>
>>
>>"Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote in message news:47dc0212@linux...
>>> pretty cool.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDZbfGOdufo&feature=relat ed
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96855 is a reply to message #96850] |
Sat, 15 March 2008 22:11 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, I don't think it's close to accurate to nationalize the trend since
most companies building it are either in the US or Japan. :-)
There are a bazillion more people doing music as a hobby than a profession,
and the US is pretty heavy in that market, so that's where most music gear
companies pay the bills for higher priced hardware/software development
(except for the SSLs, Neves, Harrisons, and Fairlights of the world).
Imho, there are probably only a few apps that really run full tilt on
multiple cores, and they aren't in the audio industry (graphics would be my
guess, or even more likely, science/computational apps). If you've seen the
numbers on performance, Nuendo is slightly behind Reaper, and Sonar sucks
wind way behind either of those. There is way more to the scaling puzzle
for audio than just adding 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x and 8x the plugin count.
Audio is a streaming data format with timing and sync requirements that may
not translate 1:1 to the way multiple cores split processing, and then split
that across multiple cpus.
Nuendo/Cubase might need a rewrite, but at what cost? If you look at Vin's
graph of Reaper vs. Nuendo 4.1 you'll see a very consistent percentage
difference at all latency levels, dual quad and single quad. To me that
says there is an overhead in Nuendo that limits the total plugin count
slightly below Reaper (average of about 10%), *not* a scaling difference.
Reaper doesn't have a control room, no score editor (probably not a factor),
a custom GUI (it's a windows vector based graphic system, that's butt-ugly
imho), etc.
That's not scaling. That's overhead. Within that overhead (Reaper has it's
own as well) they both scale equally from what I can tell. Anything more
than that may be a hardware issue (and who truly knows what the limits
are??) - e.g. perhaps Intel hasn't cracked the multicore load sharing nut in
hardware such that it translates to software. That's not in defense of
Steinberg - just looking at the numbers and what my intuition of
hardware/software development,interaction, and progress of the current
computer architecture tells me - it's a single cpu system with multiple cpus
tacked on. I would be willing to bet that the original parallel processing
and/or transprocessing models are far different and more efficient from what
personal computers are using.
The trend to add dsp to I/O units may well be motivated by the lack of
movement for lower latency with hardware, but that may well be a stalling of
actual lower level access both in cpu designs, memory, buss architecture,
and OSs that are getting more and more bloated (Vista and OSX). There is
also the draw to push mixer addicts into solving monitoring issues or
preferences with built in dsp. Also remember that users are also to blame -
I can easily run a pretty serious session at 64 samples and monitor
internally, but we are also using higher and higher powered plugins, eating
more cpu. It's the speed race - faster systems mean more cpu intensive
plugins and user demands on the software. If we backtrack to 5 years ago
and only use plugins and expectations of the time, a dual quad core would be
plenty of power to keep latency low.
Regarding who's on first.... the answer is "yes". ;-)
My .02 at least.
Dedric
On 3/15/08 11:49 PM, in article 47dca6c6$1@linux, "LaMont"
<jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know Dedric. There seems to be this trend to adhere to the smaller
> foot-print studio from the DAW manufactuers. And this trned is coming from
> the EU DAW users. DAW users in the states want 24, 32 fader controllers and
> at least 16 channels of i/o.
>
> Also, he trend to add DSP to the hardware i/o units negates the promise
> of Native's claim.
>
> Just my Opinion: I don't think Steingberg is close to cracking the Multi-core
> puzzle. I think a Total Re-write would be required. But, I think they
> (Steingberg)
> will duck-tape a solution much like Digidesign has with Pro Tools to keep
> it going,even tho the market has all this CPU power..
>
> Even More: These day, I don't know where Steingberg strategic direction is
> heading. Like,who's on first?
>
>
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> Uh.... dsp based solutions? You mean a firewire interface with EQ, comps
>> and a reverb? We've had Totalmix and Cuemix for years. MOTU added the
> same
>> to their new interface as well - just another marketing feature.
>>
>> Fader units? Did you forget Presonus (Baton Rouge, LA) and Frontier Design
>> (Lebanon, NH) - these are US companies, and they pretty much started the
>> 1-fader idea. Also, Euphonix - 4 fader MC Control anyone?
>>
>> There's no US vs. Europe mindset here - just marketing different approaches
>> to different users. The new Cubase controller's ad blurb even says its
>> designed for people with minimal desk space....
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 3/15/08 3:12 PM, in article 47dc2da5$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hey DJ,
>>> Well my friend, I think you are Right on point with your post.
>>> The Naive solution is at a cross-road of sorts. Here we have powerful
> multi
>>> core cpus, and crippling operating systems..
>>>
>>> Then, you have the Euro vs USA mind set of working.. The Euro way of DAW
>>> workflow is to go small (think yammy N12, the new Steing Stuff, 1 fader
>>> conrollers).
>>> The US DAW users are into 16,24, 32 fader controllers. Big difference
> in
>>> working styles.
>>>
>>> Just my Opinion: It seems that ALL of the DAW manufacturers are moving
> towards
>>> a DSP based solution..My my ..
>>>
>>> So, like my post a few months ago about Native vs DSP. You can see that
> for
>>> those users who need over 16 channels of i/o, it's going to cost.
>>>
>>> However, for those of you who are not familiar with Yamaha's Pres and
> I/o
>>> units, all I have to say is WOW!! Their now discontinued I88x & 01x as
> well
>>> as their digital workhorses DM2000 and 02r96 have some of the best on
> board
>>> Pres in the buisness. These babys can compete with the best. So, those
> who
>>> doe get into these new Yammy/Stienberg units have got a real winner on
> their
>>> hands.
>>>
>>> "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>>> news:47dc19b7$1@linux...
>>>>> If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this
> is
>>>
>>>>> probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software
>>>
>>>>> relationship together.
>>>>>
>>>>> AA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o mind
>>>
>>>> that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to the
>>>
>>>> audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released,
> the
>>>
>>>> question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the point
>>> of
>>>> really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving
>>>
>>>> at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated
> DSP
>>>
>>>> hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency
>>> to
>>>> serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if enough CPU horsepower
>>>
>>>> is available .......which sorta' begs the following questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Does this mean that Steinberg has decided to back burner the software
>>>
>>>> rewrite that they say is happening for Cubase that will allow it to more
>>>
>>>> efficiently use multiple cores in order to move users toward buying their
>>>
>>>> hardware?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Will this work with Nuendo, or will Steinberg just integrate the code
>>>
>>>> rewrite in Nuendo, thus selectively crippling Cubase and requiring Cubase
>>>
>>>> users to crossgrade to Nuendo, plus their ripoff Cubase addon which gives
>>> it
>>>> the same functionality as Cubase at a considerable expense, in order
> to
>>> take
>>>> advantage of 3rd party controllers and multiple core CPU's?
>>>>
>>>> 3. Where do they come up with the convenient fantasy that mix engineers
>>> only
>>>> use a single fader at a time? That engineer would not be me.
>>>>
>>>> 4. Will future rewrites scuttle the functionality of my Houston controller
>>>
>>>> (which does a lot of what their controller does already)?
>>>>
>>>> 5. Why do they assume I'm going to want to pay for 8 x Yamaha preamps
> per
>>>
>>>> interface? This is one reason I don't already own an 02R 96 or
>>>> DM1000/2000??........wait......sorry.......this isn't about me. I'm just
>>> a
>>>> consumer.
>>>>
>>>> Color me disappointed (but not surprised) that they are moving toward
> the
>>>
>>>> Digidesign model......unless, of course, they are still moving forward
> with
>>>
>>>> the software rewrites that will allow native CPU's and 3rd party
>>>> hardware/drivers to eclipse the performance of their own hardware that
> they
>>>
>>>> have just announced.
>>>>
>>>> The reason I haven't built a system with 8 cores is because it would
> be
>>>
>>>> relatively worthless with Steiny software which is what I have chosen
> to
>>>
>>>> use. Cubase can barely utilize a single socket system with 4 x cores
> or
>>> a
>>>> dual socket system with 2 x dual cores. Steinberg has been saying that
> they
>>>
>>>> are working to correct this. I'm just wondering if the new hardware will
>>>
>>>> provide them a convenient excuse to market hardware rather than correct
>>>
>>>> their antiquated software.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I'm paranoid. We've seen DAW manufacturers do an about face and
>>>> blatantly lie to their user base.......the EMU acquisition of Ensoniq
> and
>>>
>>>> the subsequent killing off of the stepchild Paris system, even as they
>>>> rebranded the proprietary hardware and sold it to us at a premium while
>>>
>>>> assuring this heavily invested user base that they were moving forward
> with
>>>
>>>> development and upgrades is a classic example.
>>>>
>>>> ;o)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96856 is a reply to message #96853] |
Sat, 15 March 2008 22:24 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
<know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. Steiny
> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>
How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and firewire
is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't see the
new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface, but
if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and get
down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio drivers
(not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples,
unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do anything
more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion a
few times already. ;-)
Dedric
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96857 is a reply to message #96855] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 00:45 |
|
|
Good Post.. With all those factors that you named (OS,buss,Cpu designs, memeory
access), it will be interetsing to see what get's worked out first.
I'm staying pat for awhile, until all of this get sorted out. It's too expensive
to try and keep up ..
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Well, I don't think it's close to accurate to nationalize the trend since
>most companies building it are either in the US or Japan. :-)
>
>There are a bazillion more people doing music as a hobby than a profession,
>and the US is pretty heavy in that market, so that's where most music gear
>companies pay the bills for higher priced hardware/software development
>(except for the SSLs, Neves, Harrisons, and Fairlights of the world).
>
>Imho, there are probably only a few apps that really run full tilt on
>multiple cores, and they aren't in the audio industry (graphics would be
my
>guess, or even more likely, science/computational apps). If you've seen
the
>numbers on performance, Nuendo is slightly behind Reaper, and Sonar sucks
>wind way behind either of those. There is way more to the scaling puzzle
>for audio than just adding 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x and 8x the plugin count.
>
>Audio is a streaming data format with timing and sync requirements that
may
>not translate 1:1 to the way multiple cores split processing, and then split
>that across multiple cpus.
>
>Nuendo/Cubase might need a rewrite, but at what cost? If you look at Vin's
>graph of Reaper vs. Nuendo 4.1 you'll see a very consistent percentage
>difference at all latency levels, dual quad and single quad. To me that
>says there is an overhead in Nuendo that limits the total plugin count
>slightly below Reaper (average of about 10%), *not* a scaling difference.
>Reaper doesn't have a control room, no score editor (probably not a factor),
>a custom GUI (it's a windows vector based graphic system, that's butt-ugly
>imho), etc.
>
>That's not scaling. That's overhead. Within that overhead (Reaper has it's
>own as well) they both scale equally from what I can tell. Anything more
>than that may be a hardware issue (and who truly knows what the limits
>are??) - e.g. perhaps Intel hasn't cracked the multicore load sharing nut
in
>hardware such that it translates to software. That's not in defense of
>Steinberg - just looking at the numbers and what my intuition of
>hardware/software development,interaction, and progress of the current
>computer architecture tells me - it's a single cpu system with multiple
cpus
>tacked on. I would be willing to bet that the original parallel processing
>and/or transprocessing models are far different and more efficient from
what
>personal computers are using.
>
>The trend to add dsp to I/O units may well be motivated by the lack of
>movement for lower latency with hardware, but that may well be a stalling
of
>actual lower level access both in cpu designs, memory, buss architecture,
>and OSs that are getting more and more bloated (Vista and OSX). There is
>also the draw to push mixer addicts into solving monitoring issues or
>preferences with built in dsp. Also remember that users are also to blame
-
>I can easily run a pretty serious session at 64 samples and monitor
>internally, but we are also using higher and higher powered plugins, eating
>more cpu. It's the speed race - faster systems mean more cpu intensive
>plugins and user demands on the software. If we backtrack to 5 years ago
>and only use plugins and expectations of the time, a dual quad core would
be
>plenty of power to keep latency low.
>
>Regarding who's on first.... the answer is "yes". ;-)
>
>My .02 at least.
>
>Dedric
>
>On 3/15/08 11:49 PM, in article 47dca6c6$1@linux, "LaMont"
><jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know Dedric. There seems to be this trend to adhere to the smaller
>> foot-print studio from the DAW manufactuers. And this trned is coming
from
>> the EU DAW users. DAW users in the states want 24, 32 fader controllers
and
>> at least 16 channels of i/o.
>>
>> Also, he trend to add DSP to the hardware i/o units negates the promise
>> of Native's claim.
>>
>> Just my Opinion: I don't think Steingberg is close to cracking the Multi-core
>> puzzle. I think a Total Re-write would be required. But, I think they
>> (Steingberg)
>> will duck-tape a solution much like Digidesign has with Pro Tools to keep
>> it going,even tho the market has all this CPU power..
>>
>> Even More: These day, I don't know where Steingberg strategic direction
is
>> heading. Like,who's on first?
>>
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>> Uh.... dsp based solutions? You mean a firewire interface with EQ, comps
>>> and a reverb? We've had Totalmix and Cuemix for years. MOTU added the
>> same
>>> to their new interface as well - just another marketing feature.
>>>
>>> Fader units? Did you forget Presonus (Baton Rouge, LA) and Frontier
Design
>>> (Lebanon, NH) - these are US companies, and they pretty much started
the
>>> 1-fader idea. Also, Euphonix - 4 fader MC Control anyone?
>>>
>>> There's no US vs. Europe mindset here - just marketing different approaches
>>> to different users. The new Cubase controller's ad blurb even says its
>>> designed for people with minimal desk space....
>>>
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 3/15/08 3:12 PM, in article 47dc2da5$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey DJ,
>>>> Well my friend, I think you are Right on point with your post.
>>>> The Naive solution is at a cross-road of sorts. Here we have powerful
>> multi
>>>> core cpus, and crippling operating systems..
>>>>
>>>> Then, you have the Euro vs USA mind set of working.. The Euro way of
DAW
>>>> workflow is to go small (think yammy N12, the new Steing Stuff, 1 fader
>>>> conrollers).
>>>> The US DAW users are into 16,24, 32 fader controllers. Big difference
>> in
>>>> working styles.
>>>>
>>>> Just my Opinion: It seems that ALL of the DAW manufacturers are moving
>> towards
>>>> a DSP based solution..My my ..
>>>>
>>>> So, like my post a few months ago about Native vs DSP. You can see that
>> for
>>>> those users who need over 16 channels of i/o, it's going to cost.
>>>>
>>>> However, for those of you who are not familiar with Yamaha's Pres and
>> I/o
>>>> units, all I have to say is WOW!! Their now discontinued I88x & 01x
as
>> well
>>>> as their digital workhorses DM2000 and 02r96 have some of the best on
>> board
>>>> Pres in the buisness. These babys can compete with the best. So, those
>> who
>>>> doe get into these new Yammy/Stienberg units have got a real winner
on
>> their
>>>> hands.
>>>>
>>>> "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>>>>> news:47dc19b7$1@linux...
>>>>>> If I was losing PARIS, assuming this box doesn't sound crappy, this
>> is
>>>>
>>>>>> probably what I'd do since SONAR isn't getting it's hardware/software
>>>>
>>>>>> relationship together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> After thinking about it for about 15 seconds, a few thoughts came o
mind
>>>>
>>>>> that are specific to my situation but also important, I believe, to
the
>>>>
>>>>> audio community in general. I think that by the time this is released,
>> the
>>>>
>>>>> question will be whether or not Cubase software has evolved to the
point
>>>> of
>>>>> really being able to utilize 8 x CPU cores. If so, and CPU's keep evolving
>>>>
>>>>> at the rate they have been, there will really be no need for dedicated
>> DSP
>>>>
>>>>> hardware. My RME MADI driver will work quite nicely at low enough latency
>>>> to
>>>>> serve nicely with the Cubase control room function if enough CPU horsepower
>>>>
>>>>> is available .......which sorta' begs the following questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Does this mean that Steinberg has decided to back burner the software
>>>>
>>>>> rewrite that they say is happening for Cubase that will allow it to
more
>>>>
>>>>> efficiently use multiple cores in order to move users toward buying
their
>>>>
>>>>> hardware?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Will this work with Nuendo, or will Steinberg just integrate the
code
>>>>
>>>>> rewrite in Nuendo, thus selectively crippling Cubase and requiring
Cubase
>>>>
>>>>> users to crossgrade to Nuendo, plus their ripoff Cubase addon which
gives
>>>> it
>>>>> the same functionality as Cubase at a considerable expense, in order
>> to
>>>> take
>>>>> advantage of 3rd party controllers and multiple core CPU's?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Where do they come up with the convenient fantasy that mix engineers
>>>> only
>>>>> use a single fader at a time? That engineer would not be me.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Will future rewrites scuttle the functionality of my Houston controller
>>>>
>>>>> (which does a lot of what their controller does already)?
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Why do they assume I'm going to want to pay for 8 x Yamaha preamps
>> per
>>>>
>>>>> interface? This is one reason I don't already own an 02R 96 or
>>>>> DM1000/2000??........wait......sorry.......this isn't about me. I'm
just
>>>> a
>>>>> consumer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Color me disappointed (but not surprised) that they are moving toward
>> the
>>>>
>>>>> Digidesign model......unless, of course, they are still moving forward
>> with
>>>>
>>>>> the software rewrites that will allow native CPU's and 3rd party
>>>>> hardware/drivers to eclipse the performance of their own hardware that
>> they
>>>>
>>>>> have just announced.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason I haven't built a system with 8 cores is because it would
>> be
>>>>
>>>>> relatively worthless with Steiny software which is what I have chosen
>> to
>>>>
>>>>> use. Cubase can barely utilize a single socket system with 4 x cores
>> or
>>>> a
>>>>> dual socket system with 2 x dual cores. Steinberg has been saying that
>> they
>>>>
>>>>> are working to correct this. I'm just wondering if the new hardware
will
>>>>
>>>>> provide them a convenient excuse to market hardware rather than correct
>>>>
>>>>> their antiquated software.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I'm paranoid. We've seen DAW manufacturers do an about face and
>>>>> blatantly lie to their user base.......the EMU acquisition of Ensoniq
>> and
>>>>
>>>>> the subsequent killing off of the stepchild Paris system, even as they
>>>>> rebranded the proprietary hardware and sold it to us at a premium while
>>>>
>>>>> assuring this heavily invested user base that they were moving forward
>> with
>>>>
>>>>> development and upgrades is a classic example.
>>>>>
>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96858 is a reply to message #96856] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 00:49 |
|
|
Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey mentioned
this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of "near
zero " latency.
Look at the video again.
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
><know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. Steiny
>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>
>How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>
>It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and firewire
>is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't see
the
>new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface,
but
>if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>
>So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and
get
>down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio drivers
>(not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples,
>unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>
>Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do anything
>more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion
a
>few times already. ;-)
>
>Dedric
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96859 is a reply to message #96858] |
Sat, 15 March 2008 23:56 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e. I
could tell early on there was nothing new here).
Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in and
out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system. Nothing
different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while it
may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
0.00000ns.
Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel ;-)
There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in the
converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about since
it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
systems like Radar, etc).
Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on the
planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use different
packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try Steiny/Yamaha.
Dedric
On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey
> mentioned
> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of "near
> zero " latency.
>
> Look at the video again.
>
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. Steiny
>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>
>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>
>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and firewire
>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't see
> the
>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface,
> but
>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>
>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and
> get
>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio drivers
>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples,
>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>
>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do anything
>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion
> a
>> few times already. ;-)
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96864 is a reply to message #96863] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 06:15 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Go with the Kosher ones:
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/bagel.html
The following was seen attached to a plastic zip lock bag containing
Cheerios.
WHERE TO PLANT BAGEL SEEDS
Any bright sunny location, preferably close to a delicatessen.
WHEN TO PLANT
Year around, but onion bagels grow best in winter, while poppy seed and
pumpernickel grow well in summer.
CARE OF PLANTS
Plant in seven equal rows, running north and south. You may make the
middle row longer. Join all rows with one long east-west row, for
irrigation and to form a menorah. All seeds must be planted at least
four feet deep. Any less depth and the hole in the bagel will not
develop properly. Irrigate sparsely, with boiling water only!!
NOTE: Over-irrigation or cold water will cause your growing bagel to
become soggy. Soggy bagels are not good for anything. . .
While it is possible to grow bagels topped with cream cheese by
sprinkling the blossoms with fresh dairy cream, you should contact a
professional bagel grower for expert advice. Some unkosher growers will
use fertilizer, but that does affect the taste and texture, even if it
does hasten the growth. However, those who like egg bagels have had
success using fresh eggs as fertilizer.
TO EAT
Cut cross-wise. Never, never cut a bagel vertically. Ladle on lox and
cream cheese (you were warned only experts could raise bagels already
topped). Use when ripe. While day-old bagels may be toasted and eaten,
any older and they tend to fossilize and are only good for missiles.
Beware of over-ripe bagels!
GUARANTEE
If you are not 100% satisfied, dig up your bagel seeds and return. A
BRAND NEW package of seeds will be sent to you.
rick wrote:
> bagel seeds??? where do you get them at??? the spring planting season
> is almost here and i'd like to get a jump on the competition.
>
>
>
> On 16 Mar 2008 15:52:37 +1000, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>> I still haven't heard a Yamaha filter that doesn't hurt my ears.
>>
>> And it's Rodney Orpheus! Glad he still has a job, I remember him pimping
>> the Houston as the best thing since bagels got seeds.
>>
>> I'll stick with the rig I have for now . . .
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>>> pretty cool.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDZbfGOdufo&feature=relat ed
>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96873 is a reply to message #96856] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 07:41 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C4020B2E.131D0%dterry@keyofd.net...
> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. Steiny
>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>
> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>
Yes, it was right up front. No latency. That's the magic bullet. :)
> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
> firewire
> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't see
> the
> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface,
> but
> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>
> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and
> get
> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio drivers
> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples,
> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
Which of course has never happened. I've no reason to think it will anytime
soon. Still, I adore my quad core.
>
> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
> anything
> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion a
> few times already. ;-)
IMO that all happened when ISA slots died. That's the moment when I started
noting odd failures and crappy MIDI timing because the DSP left the add on
cards and went to virtual, otherwise known as a PCI slot.
>
> Dedric
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96874 is a reply to message #96859] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 07:45 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e. I
> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>
> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in and
> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
> Nothing
> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while it
> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
> 0.00000ns.
That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole reason
why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear though was
if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of how fast they
simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>
> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel ;-)
> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in
> the
> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about since
> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
> systems like Radar, etc).
very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end to
end. And I have no problems living with that.
>
> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on the
> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use different
> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try Steiny/Yamaha.
>
> Dedric
>
> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey
>> mentioned
>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of "near
>> zero " latency.
>>
>> Look at the video again.
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>>> Steiny
>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>
>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>
>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>>> firewire
>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't see
>> the
>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface,
>> but
>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>
>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and
>> get
>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>> drivers
>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples,
>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>
>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>>> anything
>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion
>> a
>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96881 is a reply to message #96874] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 10:16 |
Deej [5]
Messages: 373
Registered: March 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Aaron,
You can stack up to three of them. That's 24 I/O (and unfortunately) 24
preamps that I would have to pay for that I don't really need.
;o(
"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
news:47dd3589$1@linux...
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e. I
>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>
>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in and
>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>> Nothing
>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while it
>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>> 0.00000ns.
>
> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole reason
> why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear though
> was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of how fast
> they simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>
>>
>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel ;-)
>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in
>> the
>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about
>> since
>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
>> systems like Radar, etc).
>
> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end to
> end. And I have no problems living with that.
>
>>
>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on the
>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use different
>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try Steiny/Yamaha.
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey
>>> mentioned
>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of
>>> "near
>>> zero " latency.
>>>
>>> Look at the video again.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>>>> Steiny
>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>
>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>
>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>>>> firewire
>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't see
>>> the
>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface,
>>> but
>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>
>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and
>>> get
>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>>> drivers
>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples,
>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>
>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>>>> anything
>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that
>>>> discussion
>>> a
>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96884 is a reply to message #96874] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 10:42 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how
exactly they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for
questions. How do they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the
Cubase channels stuff would be no latency.
If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from
the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most
comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound
good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or
'89, I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too.
BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not
firewire.
Aaron Allen wrote:
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e. I
>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>
>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in and
>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>> Nothing
>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while it
>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>> 0.00000ns.
>
> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole reason
> why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear though was
> if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of how fast they
> simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>
>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel ;-)
>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in
>> the
>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about since
>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
>> systems like Radar, etc).
>
> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end to
> end. And I have no problems living with that.
>
>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on the
>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use different
>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try Steiny/Yamaha.
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey
>>> mentioned
>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of "near
>>> zero " latency.
>>>
>>> Look at the video again.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>>>> Steiny
>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>
>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>
>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>>>> firewire
>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't see
>>> the
>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface,
>>> but
>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>
>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and
>>> get
>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>>> drivers
>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples,
>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>
>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>>>> anything
>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion
>>> a
>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96885 is a reply to message #96884] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 10:45 |
Deej [5]
Messages: 373
Registered: March 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill,
If you look at the ports on the back, they look like FW. Maybe they are for
cascading units?
Deej
"Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux...
> Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how exactly
> they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How do
> they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels stuff
> would be no latency.
>
> If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from
> the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most
> comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound
> good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or '89,
> I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too.
>
> BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not
> firewire.
>
> Aaron Allen wrote:
>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e.
>>> I
>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>>
>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in
>>> and
>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>>> Nothing
>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while
>>> it
>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>>> 0.00000ns.
>>
>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole
>> reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear
>> though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of
>> how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>>
>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel
>>> ;-)
>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in
>>> the
>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about
>>> since
>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
>>> systems like Radar, etc).
>>
>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end
>> to end. And I have no problems living with that.
>>
>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on
>>> the
>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use
>>> different
>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try
>>> Steiny/Yamaha.
>>>
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey
>>>> mentioned
>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of
>>>> "near
>>>> zero " latency.
>>>>
>>>> Look at the video again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>>>>> Steiny
>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>>>>> firewire
>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't
>>>>> see
>>>> the
>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the
>>>>> Fireface,
>>>> but
>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war
>>>>> and
>>>> get
>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>>>> drivers
>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32
>>>>> samples,
>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>>>>> anything
>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that
>>>>> discussion
>>>> a
>>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96886 is a reply to message #96884] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 10:50 |
Deej [5]
Messages: 373
Registered: March 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Here's a link where you han check out a closeup of the ports:
http://messe.harmony-central.com/Musikmesse08/Content/Steinb erg/PR/MR816-FireWire-Interfaces.html
Also, I'm listening to the video clip again adn he specifically states that
it connects to the computer via firewire.
"Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux...
> Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how exactly
> they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How do
> they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels stuff
> would be no latency.
>
> If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from
> the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most
> comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound
> good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or '89,
> I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too.
>
> BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not
> firewire.
>
> Aaron Allen wrote:
>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e.
>>> I
>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>>
>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in
>>> and
>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>>> Nothing
>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while
>>> it
>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>>> 0.00000ns.
>>
>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole
>> reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear
>> though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of
>> how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>>
>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel
>>> ;-)
>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in
>>> the
>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about
>>> since
>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
>>> systems like Radar, etc).
>>
>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end
>> to end. And I have no problems living with that.
>>
>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on
>>> the
>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use
>>> different
>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try
>>> Steiny/Yamaha.
>>>
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey
>>>> mentioned
>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of
>>>> "near
>>>> zero " latency.
>>>>
>>>> Look at the video again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>>>>> Steiny
>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>>>>> firewire
>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't
>>>>> see
>>>> the
>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the
>>>>> Fireface,
>>>> but
>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war
>>>>> and
>>>> get
>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>>>> drivers
>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32
>>>>> samples,
>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>>>>> anything
>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that
>>>>> discussion
>>>> a
>>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96889 is a reply to message #96886] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 12:14 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Please don't read my post where I said this is a firewire interface.
Nothing different going on here from any other fw interface.
On 3/16/08 11:50 AM, in article 47dd6112@linux, "Mr. Simplicity"
<noway@jose.net> wrote:
> Here's a link where you han check out a closeup of the ports:
>
> http://messe.harmony-central.com/Musikmesse08/Content/Steinb erg/PR/MR816-FireW
> ire-Interfaces.html
>
> Also, I'm listening to the video clip again adn he specifically states that
> it connects to the computer via firewire.
>
>
> "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux...
>> Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how exactly
>> they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How do
>> they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels stuff
>> would be no latency.
>>
>> If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from
>> the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most
>> comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound
>> good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or '89,
>> I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too.
>>
>> BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not
>> firewire.
>>
>> Aaron Allen wrote:
>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e.
>>>> I
>>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>>>
>>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in
>>>> and
>>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>>>> Nothing
>>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while
>>>> it
>>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>>>> 0.00000ns.
>>>
>>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
>>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole
>>> reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear
>>> though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of
>>> how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>>>
>>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel
>>>> ;-)
>>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in
>>>> the
>>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
>>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about
>>>> since
>>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
>>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
>>>> systems like Radar, etc).
>>>
>>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
>>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end
>>> to end. And I have no problems living with that.
>>>
>>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on
>>>> the
>>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use
>>>> different
>>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try
>>>> Steiny/Yamaha.
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey
>>>>> mentioned
>>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of
>>>>> "near
>>>>> zero " latency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the video again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>>>>>> Steiny
>>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't
>>>>>> see
>>>>> the
>>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the
>>>>>> Fireface,
>>>>> but
>>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war
>>>>>> and
>>>>> get
>>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>>>>> drivers
>>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32
>>>>>> samples,
>>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that
>>>>>> discussion
>>>>> a
>>>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96891 is a reply to message #96886] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 14:48 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
A few questions. Will it work with other software other than Steinberg?
Will it have zero latency with other software? What is the cost?
"Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>Here's a link where you han check out a closeup of the ports:
>
> http://messe.harmony-central.com/Musikmesse08/Content/Steinb erg/PR/MR816-FireWire-Interfaces.html
>
>Also, I'm listening to the video clip again adn he specifically states that
>it connects to the computer via firewire.
>
>
>"Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux...
>> Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how exactly
>> they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How
do
>> they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels stuff
>> would be no latency.
>>
>> If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from
>> the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most
>> comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound
>> good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or
'89,
>> I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too.
>>
>> BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not
>> firewire.
>>
>> Aaron Allen wrote:
>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e.
>>>> I
>>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>>>
>>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in
>>>> and
>>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>>>> Nothing
>>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while
>>>> it
>>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>>>> 0.00000ns.
>>>
>>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
>>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole
>>> reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear
>>> though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because
of
>>> how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>>>
>>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel
>>>> ;-)
>>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times
in
>>>> the
>>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
>>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about
>>>> since
>>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
>>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
>>>> systems like Radar, etc).
>>>
>>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
>>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end
>>> to end. And I have no problems living with that.
>>>
>>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on
>>>> the
>>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use
>>>> different
>>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try
>>>> Steiny/Yamaha.
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing..
hey
>>>>> mentioned
>>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of
>>>>> "near
>>>>> zero " latency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the video again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>>>>>> Steiny
>>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't
>>>>>> see
>>>>> the
>>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the
>>>>>> Fireface,
>>>>> but
>>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war
>>>>>> and
>>>>> get
>>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>>>>> drivers
>>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32
>>>>>> samples,
>>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that
>>>>>> discussion
>>>>> a
>>>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96892 is a reply to message #96889] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 13:35 |
Deej [5]
Messages: 373
Registered: March 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Heheh!!!!! OK I won't read that one.
;o)
I think TC makes some kind of interface with monitoring and FX too don't
they?
If Steinberg would lose the preamps (and the probable hefty charge for
them), this interface might be a bit more attractive.
Also, I wondering about something. I can enable the functionality of both
the Frontier Tranzport and my Houston controller simultaneously. Now if the
Houston could be simultaneously be used for multiple fader moves and the the
new single fader Steiny controller could also be used for accessing a single
fader and the channel strip controls, this might end up being a nice
combination of functionalities.
Three of these new interfaces (sans preamps) along with an RME ADI 192-DD
and an RME ADI 8-DD would give me 24 analog I/O and allow me to integrate my
outboard gear in a way similar to the way I'm doing now with a Multiface,
MADI/ADI 648, AES32 and a Pair of ADI 8-DD units.
Basically I would be selling off the MADI/ADI-648, the Multiface, a pair of
ADI 8-DS units (Nuendo branded) and one of my ADI 8-DD units and replacing
them with 3 x of the Steiny 816 units and the CC121 controler and an RME ADI
192-DD. the reason for the ADI 192-DD is because it will allow the sample
rate conversion of signals received via ADAT I/O whereas the ADI8-DD will
not.
What would be the advantage of this?? Well, I could use the Steinberg
control room function without needing to drastically upgrade my current
computer to use the CR function with low latency with large
projects.........and this would allow me to sell the huge Furman HDS-16
system along with the 5 x HRM-16 remote mixers I'm using.
I *might* come out of this on a break even or even with some money in my
pocket depending on the cost of the Steinberg hardware. Of course, there's
also the factor of my liking the RME converters I'd be selling and I don't
really know diddly about Yamaha converters. thad and I seem to be on the
same wavelength most of the time and I have to take into account his opinion
of Yamaha converters.
Well........anyway......this is probably a few months away from being a
possibility anyway.
Deej
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C402CDC9.1326E%dterry@keyofd.net...
> Please don't read my post where I said this is a firewire interface.
> Nothing different going on here from any other fw interface.
>
>
> On 3/16/08 11:50 AM, in article 47dd6112@linux, "Mr. Simplicity"
> <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>
>> Here's a link where you han check out a closeup of the ports:
>>
>> http://messe.harmony-central.com/Musikmesse08/Content/Steinb erg/PR/MR816-FireW
>> ire-Interfaces.html
>>
>> Also, I'm listening to the video clip again adn he specifically states
>> that
>> it connects to the computer via firewire.
>>
>>
>> "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux...
>>> Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how
>>> exactly
>>> they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How
>>> do
>>> they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels
>>> stuff
>>> would be no latency.
>>>
>>> If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from
>>> the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most
>>> comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound
>>> good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or
>>> '89,
>>> I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too.
>>>
>>> BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not
>>> firewire.
>>>
>>> Aaron Allen wrote:
>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that
>>>>> (i.e.
>>>>> I
>>>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in
>>>>> and
>>>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>>>>> Nothing
>>>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while
>>>>> it
>>>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>>>>> 0.00000ns.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the
>>>> video
>>>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole
>>>> reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear
>>>> though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because
>>>> of
>>>> how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>>>>
>>>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times
>>>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or
>>>>> "near
>>>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about
>>>>> since
>>>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing
>>>>> (which
>>>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it -
>>>>> i.e.
>>>>> systems like Radar, etc).
>>>>
>>>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to
>>>> convertor
>>>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end
>>>> to end. And I have no problems living with that.
>>>>
>>>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on
>>>>> the
>>>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use
>>>>> different
>>>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try
>>>>> Steiny/Yamaha.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing..
>>>>>> hey
>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of
>>>>>> "near
>>>>>> zero " latency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at the video again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>>>>>>> Steiny
>>>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the
>>>>>>> Fireface,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with
>>>>>>> ASIO
>>>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>>>>>> drivers
>>>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32
>>>>>>> samples,
>>>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that
>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96897 is a reply to message #96885] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 13:47 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
He may have mis-spoken, but I heard him fo sho say USB.
Mr. Simplicity wrote:
> Bill,
>
> If you look at the ports on the back, they look like FW. Maybe they are for
> cascading units?
>
> Deej
>
> "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux...
>> Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how exactly
>> they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How do
>> they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels stuff
>> would be no latency.
>>
>> If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from
>> the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most
>> comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound
>> good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or '89,
>> I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too.
>>
>> BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not
>> firewire.
>>
>> Aaron Allen wrote:
>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e.
>>>> I
>>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>>>
>>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in
>>>> and
>>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>>>> Nothing
>>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while
>>>> it
>>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>>>> 0.00000ns.
>>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
>>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole
>>> reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear
>>> though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of
>>> how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>>>
>>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel
>>>> ;-)
>>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in
>>>> the
>>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
>>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about
>>>> since
>>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
>>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
>>>> systems like Radar, etc).
>>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
>>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end
>>> to end. And I have no problems living with that.
>>>
>>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on
>>>> the
>>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use
>>>> different
>>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try
>>>> Steiny/Yamaha.
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey
>>>>> mentioned
>>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of
>>>>> "near
>>>>> zero " latency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the video again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>>>>>> Steiny
>>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't
>>>>>> see
>>>>> the
>>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the
>>>>>> Fireface,
>>>>> but
>>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war
>>>>>> and
>>>>> get
>>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>>>>> drivers
>>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32
>>>>>> samples,
>>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that
>>>>>> discussion
>>>>> a
>>>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96898 is a reply to message #96891] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 13:52 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
They indicate use with other s/w, however on Mac I would doubt that
Yammy's driver support is as good, from past experience.
James McCloskey wrote:
> A few questions. Will it work with other software other than Steinberg?
> Will it have zero latency with other software? What is the cost?
>
> "Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>> Here's a link where you han check out a closeup of the ports:
>>
>> http://messe.harmony-central.com/Musikmesse08/Content/Steinb erg/PR/MR816-FireWire-Interfaces.html
>>
>> Also, I'm listening to the video clip again adn he specifically states that
>
>> it connects to the computer via firewire.
>>
>>
>> "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux...
>>> Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how exactly
>
>>> they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How
> do
>>> they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels stuff
>
>>> would be no latency.
>>>
>>> If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from
>
>>> the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most
>>> comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound
>
>>> good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or
> '89,
>>> I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too.
>>>
>>> BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not
>
>>> firewire.
>>>
>>> Aaron Allen wrote:
>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e.
>
>>>>> I
>>>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in
>
>>>>> and
>>>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>
>>>>> Nothing
>>>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while
>
>>>>> it
>>>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>>>>> 0.00000ns.
>>>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
>
>>>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole
>>>> reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear
>
>>>> though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because
> of
>>>> how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>>>>
>>>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel
>
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times
> in
>>>>> the
>>>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
>>>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about
>
>>>>> since
>>>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
>>>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
>>>>> systems like Radar, etc).
>>>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
>
>>>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end
>
>>>> to end. And I have no problems living with that.
>>>>
>>>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on
>
>>>>> the
>>>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use
>>>>> different
>>>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try
>>>>> Steiny/Yamaha.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing..
> hey
>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of
>
>>>>>> "near
>>>>>> zero " latency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at the video again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>
>>>>>>>> Steiny
>>>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>
>>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't
>
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the
>>>>>>> Fireface,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>>>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war
>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>
>>>>>>> drivers
>>>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32
>>>>>>> samples,
>>>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that
>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96909 is a reply to message #96892] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 16:02 |
|
|
I think your points Are on Point! :)
As for the sound of Yammy's converters, well let me just say this.. LAst
year , a friend did a project on his then New Yammy DW 1600 portable digital
16 track recorder. Well, to the point, when we flew those tracks he recorded
into Nuendo to mix, I was shocked. He used nothing but the 8 on board Pre's.
To be honest, we could have mixed the songs on the unit. It was that good.
Very wide , opn, big sound.
Another example of Yammys converters can be heard on the AW4416. Whew!! Turns
out that Yammy used their 0296 mixers technogoly and converters & pres..
The Newer Aw2400 uses the DM-2000 Pres and convererters.. Heck! Have you
every heard the Motif ES/XS Workstations Sampling section?? The 01x? , the
I88x(Very in demand).. All these units have the same stellar converters..
That to me.. Are some of the best on the Market. Even sweeter sounding than
RME.. They are that good..
So, you're not losing in the sound department, heck, you'd be gaining..
"Mr. Simplicity" <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>Heheh!!!!! OK I won't read that one.
>;o)
> I think TC makes some kind of interface with monitoring and FX too don't
>they?
>
>If Steinberg would lose the preamps (and the probable hefty charge for
>them), this interface might be a bit more attractive.
>
>Also, I wondering about something. I can enable the functionality of both
>the Frontier Tranzport and my Houston controller simultaneously. Now if
the
>Houston could be simultaneously be used for multiple fader moves and the
the
>new single fader Steiny controller could also be used for accessing a single
>fader and the channel strip controls, this might end up being a nice
>combination of functionalities.
>
>Three of these new interfaces (sans preamps) along with an RME ADI 192-DD
>and an RME ADI 8-DD would give me 24 analog I/O and allow me to integrate
my
>outboard gear in a way similar to the way I'm doing now with a Multiface,
>MADI/ADI 648, AES32 and a Pair of ADI 8-DD units.
>
>Basically I would be selling off the MADI/ADI-648, the Multiface, a pair
of
>ADI 8-DS units (Nuendo branded) and one of my ADI 8-DD units and replacing
>them with 3 x of the Steiny 816 units and the CC121 controler and an RME
ADI
>192-DD. the reason for the ADI 192-DD is because it will allow the sample
>rate conversion of signals received via ADAT I/O whereas the ADI8-DD will
>not.
>
>What would be the advantage of this?? Well, I could use the Steinberg
>control room function without needing to drastically upgrade my current
>computer to use the CR function with low latency with large
>projects.........and this would allow me to sell the huge Furman HDS-16
>system along with the 5 x HRM-16 remote mixers I'm using.
>
>I *might* come out of this on a break even or even with some money in my
>pocket depending on the cost of the Steinberg hardware. Of course, there's
>also the factor of my liking the RME converters I'd be selling and I don't
>really know diddly about Yamaha converters. thad and I seem to be on the
>same wavelength most of the time and I have to take into account his opinion
>of Yamaha converters.
>
>Well........anyway......this is probably a few months away from being a
>possibility anyway.
>
>Deej
>
>
>
>
>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>news:C402CDC9.1326E%dterry@keyofd.net...
>> Please don't read my post where I said this is a firewire interface.
>> Nothing different going on here from any other fw interface.
>>
>>
>> On 3/16/08 11:50 AM, in article 47dd6112@linux, "Mr. Simplicity"
>> <noway@jose.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a link where you han check out a closeup of the ports:
>>>
>>> http://messe.harmony-central.com/Musikmesse08/Content/Steinb erg/PR/MR816-FireW
>>> ire-Interfaces.html
>>>
>>> Also, I'm listening to the video clip again adn he specifically states
>>> that
>>> it connects to the computer via firewire.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:47dd5efc@linux...
>>>> Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how
>>>> exactly
>>>> they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for questions. How
>>>> do
>>>> they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the Cubase channels
>>>> stuff
>>>> would be no latency.
>>>>
>>>> If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for
from
>>>> the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most
>>>> comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound
>>>> good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or
>>>> '89,
>>>> I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too.
>>>>
>>>> BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB,
not
>>>> firewire.
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Allen wrote:
>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that
>>>>>> (i.e.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp
(in
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>>>>>> Nothing
>>>>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>>>>>> 0.00000ns.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the
>>>>> video
>>>>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole
>>>>> reason why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't
hear
>>>>> though was if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because
>>>>> of
>>>>> how fast they simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or
>>>>>> "near
>>>>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about
>>>>>> since
>>>>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing
>>>>>> (which
>>>>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it -
>>>>>> i.e.
>>>>>> systems like Radar, etc).
>>>>>
>>>>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to
>>>>> convertor
>>>>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS
end
>>>>> to end. And I have no problems living with that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW
on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use
>>>>>> different
>>>>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try
>>>>>> Steiny/Yamaha.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing..
>>>>>>> hey
>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim
of
>>>>>>> "near
>>>>>>> zero " latency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look at the video again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>>>>>>>> Steiny
>>>>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc,
and
>>>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the
>>>>>>>> Fireface,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with
>>>>>>>> ASIO
>>>>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat
war
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>>>>>>> drivers
>>>>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32
>>>>>>>> samples,
>>>>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to
do
>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that
>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96911 is a reply to message #96884] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 16:14 |
|
|
I think this Hardware is "Married" to Cubase 4 . If you look gain at the video
2/3 (2:39-beyond) , they go into great detail how this units "Treats" Cubase
and the Hardware as ONE. Meaning, Cubase is just an "Extension" of the unit.
ALso, meaning, that this unit must have a big piece of Cubase's software
"already" Built-In...!! That's how they can acheive "No -Latency" and do
all that clever Monitoring and even record the Builtin FX while monitoring..
Sweet..
I think Yammy & Steiny "re-thought" the Native missing link(Latency) equation,
with what seems to be a quasi DSP meets Software .Already built-in the units..
I have admit, having the ability to link 3 of these babys has me geeked!!
Because, Yammy & Stein are using Intelligent Firewire called M-Lan.. No other
Firewire interface can be daisy chained using the normal Firewire Protocol..
What's really interesting is that this is only the "First' Product from this
Marriage. We can can probably bet, that more products like their Sweet N12
Mixer/controller is on the horizon. As it stands, this is a great first step..
Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how
>exactly they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for
>questions. How do they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the
>Cubase channels stuff would be no latency.
>
>If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from
>the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most
>comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound
>good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or
>'89, I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too.
>
>BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not
>firewire.
>
>Aaron Allen wrote:
>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e.
I
>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>>
>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in
and
>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>>> Nothing
>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while
it
>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>>> 0.00000ns.
>>
>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole reason
>> why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear though
was
>> if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of how fast
they
>> simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>>
>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel
;-)
>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times
in
>>> the
>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about
since
>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
>>> systems like Radar, etc).
>>
>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end
to
>> end. And I have no problems living with that.
>>
>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on
the
>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use different
>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try Steiny/Yamaha.
>>>
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey
>>>> mentioned
>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of
"near
>>>> zero " latency.
>>>>
>>>> Look at the video again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>>>>> Steiny
>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>>>>> firewire
>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't
see
>>>> the
>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface,
>>>> but
>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war
and
>>>> get
>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>>>> drivers
>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples,
>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>>>>> anything
>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion
>>>> a
>>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96912 is a reply to message #96911] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 16:38 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I think this Hardware is "Married" to Cubase 4 . If you look gain at the
video
>2/3 (2:39-beyond) , they go into great detail how this units "Treats" Cubase
>and the Hardware as ONE. Meaning, Cubase is just an "Extension" of the unit.
>ALso, meaning, that this unit must have a big piece of Cubase's software
>"already" Built-In...!! That's how they can acheive "No -Latency" and do
>all that clever Monitoring and even record the Builtin FX while monitoring..
>Sweet..
>
>I think Yammy & Steiny "re-thought" the Native missing link(Latency) equation,
>with what seems to be a quasi DSP meets Software .Already built-in the units..
>
>
>I have admit, having the ability to link 3 of these babys has me geeked!!
>Because, Yammy & Stein are using Intelligent Firewire called M-Lan.. No
other
>Firewire interface can be daisy chained using the normal Firewire Protocol..
>
LaMont, I believe this is incorrect, there are other fireWire interfaces
that are chain-able.
>What's really interesting is that this is only the "First' Product from
this
>Marriage. We can can probably bet, that more products like their Sweet N12
>Mixer/controller is on the horizon. As it stands, this is a great first
step..
>
>Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how
>>exactly they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for
>>questions. How do they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the
>>Cubase channels stuff would be no latency.
>>
>>If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from
>
>>the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most
>>comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound
>>good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or
>>'89, I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too.
>>
>>BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not
>
>>firewire.
>>
>>Aaron Allen wrote:
>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e.
>I
>>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>>>
>>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in
>and
>>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>>>> Nothing
>>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while
>it
>>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>>>> 0.00000ns.
>>>
>>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
>
>>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole reason
>
>>> why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear though
>was
>>> if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of how fast
>they
>>> simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>>>
>>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel
>;-)
>>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times
>in
>>>> the
>>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
>>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about
>since
>>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
>>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
>>>> systems like Radar, etc).
>>>
>>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
>
>>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end
>to
>>> end. And I have no problems living with that.
>>>
>>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on
>the
>>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use different
>>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try Steiny/Yamaha.
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing..
hey
>>>>> mentioned
>>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of
>"near
>>>>> zero " latency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the video again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>
>>>>>>> Steiny
>>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>
>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't
>see
>>>>> the
>>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface,
>>>>> but
>>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war
>and
>>>>> get
>>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>>>>> drivers
>>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples,
>>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion
>>>>> a
>>>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96914 is a reply to message #96912] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 16:45 |
|
|
Which?
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I think this Hardware is "Married" to Cubase 4 . If you look gain at the
>video
>>2/3 (2:39-beyond) , they go into great detail how this units "Treats" Cubase
>>and the Hardware as ONE. Meaning, Cubase is just an "Extension" of the
unit.
>>ALso, meaning, that this unit must have a big piece of Cubase's software
>>"already" Built-In...!! That's how they can acheive "No -Latency" and do
>>all that clever Monitoring and even record the Builtin FX while monitoring..
>>Sweet..
>>
>>I think Yammy & Steiny "re-thought" the Native missing link(Latency) equation,
>>with what seems to be a quasi DSP meets Software .Already built-in the
units..
>>
>>
>>I have admit, having the ability to link 3 of these babys has me geeked!!
>>Because, Yammy & Stein are using Intelligent Firewire called M-Lan.. No
>other
>>Firewire interface can be daisy chained using the normal Firewire Protocol..
>>
>
>LaMont, I believe this is incorrect, there are other fireWire interfaces
>that are chain-able.
>
>>What's really interesting is that this is only the "First' Product from
>this
>>Marriage. We can can probably bet, that more products like their Sweet
N12
>>Mixer/controller is on the horizon. As it stands, this is a great first
>step..
>>
>>Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>>Yeah, I was a little surprised no one asked the question about how
>>>exactly they achieved no latency at the end when they asked for
>>>questions. How do they do that I wonder? He specifically said all the
>>>Cubase channels stuff would be no latency.
>>>
>>>If they have that, then this has truly lived up to what I hoped for from
>>
>>>the merger. I will say this: Yamaha is overall the finest and most
>>>comprehensive large music manufacturer and their products always sound
>
>>>good. Since i have used Cubase from the early Atari version in '88 or
>>>'89, I am a pretty big fan of Steiny too.
>>>
>>>BTW he did say you could cascade 3 units, and he said they are USB, not
>>
>>>firewire.
>>>
>>>Aaron Allen wrote:
>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>>>>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that
(i.e.
>>I
>>>>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in
>>and
>>>>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>
>>>>> Nothing
>>>>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while
>>it
>>>>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>>>>> 0.00000ns.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
>>
>>>> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole
reason
>>
>>>> why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear though
>>was
>>>> if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of how fast
>>they
>>>> simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>>>>
>>>>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel
>>;-)
>>>>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times
>>in
>>>>> the
>>>>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
>>>>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about
>>since
>>>>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
>>>>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it -
i.e.
>>>>> systems like Radar, etc).
>>>>
>>>> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
>>
>>>> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS
end
>>to
>>>> end. And I have no problems living with that.
>>>>
>>>>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW
on
>>the
>>>>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use different
>>>>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try Steiny/Yamaha.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing..
>hey
>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of
>>"near
>>>>>> zero " latency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at the video again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>
>>>>>>>> Steiny
>>>>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>>
>>>>>>> firewire
>>>>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't
>>see
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with
ASIO
>>>>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war
>>and
>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>
>>>>>>> drivers
>>>>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples,
>>>>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>>
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96915 is a reply to message #96856] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 15:40 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Watch the whole 3 videos..
They say not Zero latency, but No latency .. A non issue as far as they are
concerned.
Who knows???
Martin H
On 16/03/08 4:24 PM, in article C4020B2E.131D0%dterry@keyofd.net, "Dedric
Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick. Steiny
>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>
> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>
> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and firewire
> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't see the
> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface, but
> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>
> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and get
> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio drivers
> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples,
> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>
> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do anything
> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion a
> few times already. ;-)
>
> Dedric
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Cubase may have finally arrived [message #96916 is a reply to message #96874] |
Sun, 16 March 2008 15:45 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
They said you can stack up to 3 units..
Martin H
On 17/03/08 1:45 AM, in article 47dd3589$1@linux, "Aaron Allen"
<know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:C40220B7.131DC%dterry@keyofd.net...
>> I only watched part due to time constraints so I didn't catch that (i.e. I
>> could tell early on there was nothing new here).
>>
>> Yes of course latency is *effectively* "zero" for the builtin dsp (in and
>> out of the onboard mixer), but not in and out of the native system.
>> Nothing
>> different from what Totalmix, Cuemix, Soundscape and TDM do, and while it
>> may be a few nanoseconds faster than others, it's still not *really*
>> 0.00000ns.
>
> That's not what I took away from what he was saying. Check out the video
> again when you get time dude, I think you may have missed the whole reason
> why I'd choose this system if I dumped Paris. What I didn't hear though was
> if I could stack these units, but I'm guessing not because of how fast they
> simply would have to be to be no latency units.
>
>>
>> Of course we all know absolute zero is impossible without time travel ;-)
>> There is always at least a few nanoseconds for gate setup/hold times in
>> the
>> converters, and in the dsp chips, etc, so regardless of "zero" or "near
>> zero" latency claims, they are all lower than most people care about since
>> it's hardware based routing, rather than latent software routing (which
>> actually could be nearly as fast if the OS were optimized for it - i.e.
>> systems like Radar, etc).
>
> very true, and what I wanted to hear about. Actual convertor to convertor
> latency cannot possibly be zero/none. Even Paris is hitting 1.5 mS end to
> end. And I have no problems living with that.
>
>>
>> Marketing.... it's all marketing.... in reality, every single DAW on the
>> planet adheres to the same physical limitations - they just use different
>> packaging and emphasis of hardware vs. software. Good try Steiny/Yamaha.
>>
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 3/16/08 1:49 AM, in article 47dcc2fd$1@linux, "LaMont"
>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dedric, they are stating 'No' Latency as in Nada..zilch..Nothing.. hey
>>> mentioned
>>> this at least 5 times. They even critisize other companies claim of "near
>>> zero " latency.
>>>
>>> Look at the video again.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/15/08 10:50 PM, in article 47dcaa29@linux, "Aaron Allen"
>>>> <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>> semi-pro/pro work because of the latency they can't seem to lick.
>>>>> Steiny
>>>>> apparantly has beat that now with the Yammy interface.
>>>>>
>>>> How so? Was there mention of lower latencies I didn't see?
>>>>
>>>> It's a firewire interface just like the Fireface, Firepod, etc, and
>>>> firewire
>>>> is inherently limited due to the extra buffering overhead. I can't see
>>> the
>>>> new Steinberg interface running at any lower latency than the Fireface,
>>> but
>>>> if they've beat that limit, kudos to Yamaha.
>>>>
>>>> So far, imho RME seems to lead the low latency race overall with ASIO
>>>> drivers. Imho, until operating systems drop the consumer bloat war and
>>> get
>>>> down to really running lean and mean with true kernel level audio
>>>> drivers
>>>> (not the facade of core audio), we may never see lower than 32 samples,
>>>> unless Intel multiplies the number of cores and general buss/memory
>>>> processing exponentially to outpace the growing OS demands.
>>>>
>>>> Still have to wonder what got us to the point that an OS had to do
>>>> anything
>>>> more than boot and access the hardware.... but we've had that discussion
>>> a
>>>> few times already. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Oct 31 22:23:42 PDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03900 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
