Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating.
| OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89418] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 08:16  |
|
|
Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound On
Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is it time
for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry (RME,
M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's not needed.
But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new built-in
audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not Adopt
the Vista standard..
OK. Rant:
When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard AUDIO-Units.
At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple went
their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like Apple's
Audio Unit design, their balking.
Next point:
To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps on
a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A True
64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
we we see astouding gains in performance.
I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they already
know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not the
OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving in
that 64 bit direction).
To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64 bit
processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train as well..Chooo
chooooc choo...
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89420 is a reply to message #89418] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 08:34  |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Two things. First, when Apple built (or stole and modified) OS X they made
a quantum leap in the quality of their OS. 9.x was years behind, say, NT
4.0. Apple also basically forced everyone to go with the OS X, and there
was a lot of bitching in the hardware and software communities about updating
apps and drivers.
Second, where is the evidence that a 64 bit (integer) OS vastly improves
audio performance? I haven't seen it, and since FP processing has been capable
of using 64 (or 128) bit words for years now I'd be interested to see where
the quantum leap in performance comes from.
TCB
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
On
>Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is it time
>for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>
>Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry (RME,
>M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>
>As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's not
needed.
>But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new built-in
>audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not Adopt
>the Vista standard..
>
>OK. Rant:
>When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard AUDIO-Units.
>At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple went
>their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
>apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>
>Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
Apple's
>Audio Unit design, their balking.
>
>Next point:
>To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
>the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>
>The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps on
>a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A True
>64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>we we see astouding gains in performance.
>
>I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they already
>know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not the
>OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
>like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving in
>that 64 bit direction).
>
>To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64 bit
>processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train as
well..Chooo
>chooooc choo...
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89422 is a reply to message #89418] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 08:47 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides to
this:
1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik, just a
marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt to
separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from tests
I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for the OS,
memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can gain
some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being their
main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core audio
is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone else's
protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you can
market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's. For
example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this has been
slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even Logic
doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party audio
applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to survive
- most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's pitch
to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one of
the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting their
product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that had no
direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've learned
from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for one).
I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
Regards,
Dedric
On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound On
> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is it time
> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>
> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry (RME,
> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>
> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's not
> needed.
> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new built-in
> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not Adopt
> the Vista standard..
>
> OK. Rant:
> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
> AUDIO-Units.
> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple went
> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>
> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
> Apple's
> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>
> Next point:
> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>
> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps on
> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A True
> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>
> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they already
> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not the
> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving in
> that 64 bit direction).
>
> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64 bit
> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train as
> well..Chooo
> chooooc choo...
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89426 is a reply to message #89422] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 09:40 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides to
>this:
>
>1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik, just
a
>marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>
>2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt to
>separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from tests
>I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for the
OS,
>memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can gain
>some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>
>3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being their
>main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core audio
>is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone else's
>protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you can
>market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
For
>example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this has
been
>slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even Logic
>doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party audio
>applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>
>Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to survive
>- most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
>moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
>doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's pitch
>to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one of
>the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting their
>product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that had
no
>direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've learned
>from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for one).
>
>I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
Sometimes You guys kill me with your anti Mac/Apple opinions. When MS goes
proprietary you guys call it a standard, and you accept it. If Apple does
it, it's a problem. AU is a ground up rewrite of their audio software system.
They did it to improve audio on Mac OS. I don't like that they dropped
VST support in some of their software, but you still have other choices on
a Mac to use VSTs, including your favorites from Steinberg. Many new plugin
development companies showed up because the new AU format created new opportunities
for start ups. It's all good.
By the way, read this: http://www.voxengo.com/press/114/
>
>On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
On
>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is it
time
>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>
>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
(RME,
>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>
>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's not
>> needed.
>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new
built-in
>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not Adopt
>> the Vista standard..
>>
>> OK. Rant:
>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>> AUDIO-Units.
>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple went
>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>
>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>> Apple's
>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>
>> Next point:
>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>
>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps
on
>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A True
>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>
>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they already
>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not
the
>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
in
>> that 64 bit direction).
>>
>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64 bit
>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train as
>> well..Chooo
>> chooooc choo...
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89428 is a reply to message #89418] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 09:59 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
LaMont, I think your getting a bit of a story. The developers are all working
on it, they have to. The only way they can keep selling you software is
whiz bang wow factor, and trust me, they will claim 64bit is the shit. They
just want you to think their not interested, so you keep buying their current
offerings. Just wait, they will have huge ad campaigns when they are ready
to release native 64bit software. They will point out, that with the new
high capacity hard drives, 64bit files are not a problem anymore either.
They'll be calling it the new pro standard. It's all coming, they got to
sell you the next big thing. When the time is right, they will make you
feel that if you don't jump on the 64bit band wagon you will totally be left
behind.
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
On
>Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is it time
>for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>
>Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry (RME,
>M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>
>As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's not
needed.
>But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new built-in
>audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not Adopt
>the Vista standard..
>
>OK. Rant:
>When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard AUDIO-Units.
>At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple went
>their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
>apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>
>Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
Apple's
>Audio Unit design, their balking.
>
>Next point:
>To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
>the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>
>The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps on
>a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A True
>64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>we we see astouding gains in performance.
>
>I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they already
>know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not the
>OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
>like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving in
>that 64 bit direction).
>
>To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64 bit
>processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train as
well..Chooo
>chooooc choo...
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89429 is a reply to message #89428] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 10:04 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
James I agree with you with. That's why it's so darm irritating to hear some
these developers take on 64 bit.
Dedric, i agree with some of your points as well, however I don;t that we
should let the developers dictate the pro audio market. They(should work)
hard with the OS vendors.
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>LaMont, I think your getting a bit of a story. The developers are all
working
>on it, they have to. The only way they can keep selling you software is
>whiz bang wow factor, and trust me, they will claim 64bit is the shit.
They
>just want you to think their not interested, so you keep buying their current
>offerings. Just wait, they will have huge ad campaigns when they are ready
>to release native 64bit software. They will point out, that with the new
>high capacity hard drives, 64bit files are not a problem anymore either.
> They'll be calling it the new pro standard. It's all coming, they got
to
>sell you the next big thing. When the time is right, they will make you
>feel that if you don't jump on the 64bit band wagon you will totally be
left
>behind.
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
>On
>>Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is it
time
>>for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>
>>Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry (RME,
>>M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>
>>As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's not
>needed.
>>But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new
built-in
>>audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not Adopt
>>the Vista standard..
>>
>>OK. Rant:
>>When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
AUDIO-Units.
>>At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple went
>>their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
>>apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>
>>Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>>are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>Apple's
>>Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>
>>Next point:
>>To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
>>the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>
>>The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps
on
>>a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A True
>>64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>>we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>
>>I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they already
>>know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not
the
>>OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
>>like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving in
>>that 64 bit direction).
>>
>>To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64 bit
>>processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>>version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train as
>well..Chooo
>>chooooc choo...
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89430 is a reply to message #89422] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 10:23 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dedric Terry wrote:
(good insights deleted so I can nit pick the rest ;^)
> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being their
> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core audio
> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone else's
> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you can
> market, control and use to differentiate your product.
I would say Core Audio has worked to the advantage of DAW users.
Everything works and works together. Latency is low. You can cascade
different IO boxes from different companies as a single large IO.
Can't find a reason to criticize it. And I wouldn't leave out the main
reason for Core Audio: Having low latency, high performance audio
capabilities integrated into the OS.
Your reasons are valid, they just overlook the main reason - and yours
are icing on the cake.
ASIO is perfectly
> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's. For
> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this has been
> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even Logic
> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party audio
> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
In fact, Apple promotes other MAC audio and DAW products and works with
their developers.
I think Apple bought Logic partly to prevent a large DAW from leaving
the Mac; to capture the Logic market and bring it to the Mac (they
dropped MSWindows support); and to establish the ecosystem for audio on
OSX - demonstrate that it's a good place for audio apps. Logic was the
first to support OSX.
Other audio products from other companies help support Apple's interest
in selling more Macs. Which is why Apple encourages other developers.
> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to survive
> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's pitch
> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one of
> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting their
> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that had no
> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've learned
> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for one).
I would say they've learned from their VST experience as Apple did.
Apple moved a way from a Steinberg controlled standard to their own
integrated standard. Review the history there, more than a few
developers were a bit impatient with Steinberg.
> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
The opposite moral is also possible to glean from all of this. Let the
OS handle it.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
> On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound On
>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is it time
>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>
>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry (RME,
>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>
>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's not
>> needed.
>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new built-in
>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not Adopt
>> the Vista standard..
>>
>> OK. Rant:
>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>> AUDIO-Units.
>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple went
>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>
>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>> Apple's
>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>
>> Next point:
>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>
>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps on
>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A True
>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>
>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they already
>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not the
>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving in
>> that 64 bit direction).
>>
>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64 bit
>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train as
>> well..Chooo
>> chooooc choo...
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89433 is a reply to message #89418] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 11:35 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
HI Lamont,
LaMont wrote:
> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound On
> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is it time
> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>
> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry (RME,
> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>
> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's not needed.
> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new built-in
> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not Adopt
> the Vista standard..
>
Microsoft does not have a standard for audio in Vista. WaveRT has not
been fully released or documented in its SDK. The same as WDM never was
even to this day. For Microsoft audio only a concern for Home theater
and gaming applications. If it works for those markets then all is well.
Any mention to do with music production or video production is at best a
novelty for Microsoft. The Pro Audio and Pro Video market is barely able
to crack the double digit percentage of sale for MS. MS make more money
in a day than the entire Computer based audio market does in a year.
For Apple it is more like 50 percent of their market. So logically Apple
has a greater interest in creating a driver model more optimized for
these type of applications. Apple developed Core Audio with the some of
Steinberg's help. They did not steal it wholesale from Steinberg.
Core audio was in a very similar state in it's first versions. it took
a bunch of updates that included updates that made hardware and
software developers have to do a bunch a recoding. I many cases Apple
did such a poor job documenting the changes they manufacturers had to
find out the hard way. The current version of Core Audio is quite robust
but still doesn't have all the common features of ASIO. But is also has
done some things like driver aggregation(spelling?) that would have been
great to see in ASIO.
> OK. Rant:
> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard AUDIO-Units.
> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple went
> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
Audio Units is a plug in spec not a driver. It took most 3rd party plug
in developers months or even years to come out with AU versions and even
longer to put out "Intel Binary" versions of everything. Some still
haven't...
>
> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like Apple's
> Audio Unit design, their balking.
There no factual information on that being the case other than
Microsoft's marketing jargon.
I have not seen any WaveRTs drivers so far (they are all alpha and beta
versions at this point) that have performed anywhere near as good than
ASIO under XP. Core Audio preforms about as well as good WDM drivers did
in Sonar which is very close to ASIO in latency but tends to have a
higher CPU load at the lower latencies. Both WDM and Wave RT drivers are
considerably more complicated to develop than both ASIO and Core Audio.
>
> Next point:
> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>
> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps on
> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A True
> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
> we we see astouding gains in performance.
Where is there evidence of that? There are absolutely no 64 bit DAW
applications on the market to test that theory.
>
> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they already
> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not the
> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving in
> that 64 bit direction).
Yet RME has the drivers that operate better than any one else's under
Vista 64 using WDM or ASIO. Matthias is note a fan boy for either Apple
or MS and tells it as he sees it. It doesn't always sound a cheerful and
exciting as Cakewalk's marketing lies.
>
> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64 bit
> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train as well..Chooo
> chooooc choo...
Sounds like you should get a MAC. :)
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK Pro Audio
(859) 635-5762
www.adkproaudio.com
chrisl@adkproaudio.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89434 is a reply to message #89422] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 11:43 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dedric Terry wrote:
> I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides to
> this:
>
> 1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik, just a
> marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
Yep
>
> 2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt to
> separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from tests
> I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for the OS,
> memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can gain
> some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
Sonar is not a 64 bit app despite what Cakewalk claims.
Perhaps when all the of the 3rd party plug in developers rewrite all
their software in a fully 64 bit code and Cakewalk can finally remove
the "bit Bridge" then you might see some performance gains.
>
> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being their
> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core audio
> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone else's
> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you can
> market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's. For
> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this has been
> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even Logic
> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party audio
> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>
> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to survive
> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's pitch
> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one of
> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting their
> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that had no
> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've learned
> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for one).
Totally dead on.
>
> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>
Sad but true.
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK Pro Audio
(859) 635-5762
www.adkproaudio.com
chrisl@adkproaudio.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89436 is a reply to message #89428] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 11:56 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi James,
LOl so true.
Ah crap I just agreed with a Apple guy..... :(
James McCloskey wrote:
> LaMont, I think your getting a bit of a story. The developers are all working
> on it, they have to. The only way they can keep selling you software is
> whiz bang wow factor, and trust me, they will claim 64bit is the shit. They
> just want you to think their not interested, so you keep buying their current
> offerings. Just wait, they will have huge ad campaigns when they are ready
> to release native 64bit software. They will point out, that with the new
> high capacity hard drives, 64bit files are not a problem anymore either.
> They'll be calling it the new pro standard. It's all coming, they got to
> sell you the next big thing. When the time is right, they will make you
> feel that if you don't jump on the 64bit band wagon you will totally be left
> behind.
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK Pro Audio
(859) 635-5762
www.adkproaudio.com
chrisl@adkproaudio.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89437 is a reply to message #89426] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 13:02 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
James and Jamie,
Well I'll reply to you and Jamie together to conserve electrons... ;-)
I think you both missed my point, and assumed this was a slight against
Apple. It wasn't.
The thread was actually about Vista and the article in which few developers
showed any enthusiasm for it, and in several cases almost outright
rejection. I don't blame them. OS developers really don't, and sadly,
can't put the interests of professional audio users at the forefront. Their
first customers are consumers.
Core audio is cool (great compared to other OS-embedded audio protocols,
unless we bring BeOS back) and Apple seems to have done a respectable job by
including such core media hooks in the OS (core animation too). However,
the point is how much a full time professional can or should really trust
the performance of their DAW to a company that makes 10x selling phones, or
operating systems (Apple or MS). Of course that's a paradox - we have no
choice.
Truly Apple has made 100x the effort vs. MS in supporting the pro
audio/video market (well, 100 x 0 would be 0, but you get the point ;-).
The point was that it wasn't developed for Steinberg's best interests, or
Digidesign's, or MOTU's (where is MAS?), but Apple's. Logic was the first
to support OSX because it was an Apple product, Jamie. Does Apple really
release full SDKs to 3rd parties when they start developing their apps for
that new design, or do they wait until they release their app, then forward
the SDKs... ;-)
Just don't assume that because I include Apple in a general discussion that
I'm bashing Macs. Let's also not poo poo Steinberg just because ASIO and
VST weren't developed by Apple. They really did make native DAWs a reality
(moreso than Emagic or MOTU if we look at the life of ASIO and VST vs. MAS
or whatever Emagic's shortlived driver was called - I should remember...).
Steinberg is far from perfect, but that doesn't make Apple the sudden
defender of the pro audio world by default. ;-)
If you are a Mac audio user (or PC user facing the sad reality that is
Vista), fear the iPhone.... fear Garageband.... ;-)
Ideally we really need an OS developed "for" audio/video alone, not home
movies, not downloading mp3s, not posting pics of the family vacation. But
that opens up a whole other can of worms. I guess the worms we have are as
good as it gets, at least until they are all used up trying to catch bigger
fish.
James - I think your link supports my comment that Vista sucks (if Aleksey,
who was never going to port to OSX, now is, things are looking grim for MS
and PC DAW users...). ;-)) (yes, I said it, and yes I believe it - it looks
cool, but ... well I'll save the list for another day). I'm just hoping
Nuendo 4 rocks on the Mac, so at least I have a backup. (I still think it
sucks that with Macs I have to buy average hardware at premium prices when I
could build a much more robust, higher end DAW for 20-30% less).
Oh, btw - in that link Aleksey talks about fixing a /3GB switch bug - that
was yours truly that found that bug (cool of Aleksey to fix it so quickly;
not so cool of MS to make Vista the next stop in the roadmap to 64 bit and
where we would have no more need for it).
Regards,
Dedric
On 9/7/07 10:40 AM, in article 46e17f14$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
<excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides to
>> this:
>>
>> 1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik, just
> a
>> marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>>
>> 2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt to
>> separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from tests
>> I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for the
> OS,
>> memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can gain
>> some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>>
>> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being their
>> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core audio
>> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone else's
>> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you can
>> market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
> For
>> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this has
> been
>> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even Logic
>> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party audio
>> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>>
>> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to survive
>> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
>> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
>> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's pitch
>> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one of
>> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting their
>> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that had
> no
>> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've learned
>> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for one).
>>
>> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>
> Sometimes You guys kill me with your anti Mac/Apple opinions. When MS goes
> proprietary you guys call it a standard, and you accept it. If Apple does
> it, it's a problem. AU is a ground up rewrite of their audio software system.
> They did it to improve audio on Mac OS. I don't like that they dropped
> VST support in some of their software, but you still have other choices on
> a Mac to use VSTs, including your favorites from Steinberg. Many new plugin
> development companies showed up because the new AU format created new
> opportunities
> for start ups. It's all good.
>
> By the way, read this: http://www.voxengo.com/press/114/
>
>>
>> On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
> On
>>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is it
> time
>>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>>
>>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
> (RME,
>>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>>
>>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's not
>>> needed.
>>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new
> built-in
>>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not Adopt
>>> the Vista standard..
>>>
>>> OK. Rant:
>>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>>> AUDIO-Units.
>>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple went
>>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
>>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>>
>>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>>> Apple's
>>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>>
>>> Next point:
>>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
>>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>>
>>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps
> on
>>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A True
>>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>>
>>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they already
>>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not
> the
>>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
>>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
> in
>>> that 64 bit direction).
>>>
>>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64 bit
>>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train as
>>> well..Chooo
>>> chooooc choo...
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89438 is a reply to message #89437] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 13:31 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video production?
XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track digital
studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping. I haven't
installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell workstations
into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks . . .
TCB
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>James and Jamie,
>
>Well I'll reply to you and Jamie together to conserve electrons... ;-)
>
>I think you both missed my point, and assumed this was a slight against
>Apple. It wasn't.
>
>The thread was actually about Vista and the article in which few developers
>showed any enthusiasm for it, and in several cases almost outright
>rejection. I don't blame them. OS developers really don't, and sadly,
>can't put the interests of professional audio users at the forefront. Their
>first customers are consumers.
>
>Core audio is cool (great compared to other OS-embedded audio protocols,
>unless we bring BeOS back) and Apple seems to have done a respectable job
by
>including such core media hooks in the OS (core animation too). However,
>the point is how much a full time professional can or should really trust
>the performance of their DAW to a company that makes 10x selling phones,
or
>operating systems (Apple or MS). Of course that's a paradox - we have no
>choice.
>
>Truly Apple has made 100x the effort vs. MS in supporting the pro
>audio/video market (well, 100 x 0 would be 0, but you get the point ;-).
>The point was that it wasn't developed for Steinberg's best interests, or
>Digidesign's, or MOTU's (where is MAS?), but Apple's. Logic was the first
>to support OSX because it was an Apple product, Jamie. Does Apple really
>release full SDKs to 3rd parties when they start developing their apps for
>that new design, or do they wait until they release their app, then forward
>the SDKs... ;-)
>
>Just don't assume that because I include Apple in a general discussion that
>I'm bashing Macs. Let's also not poo poo Steinberg just because ASIO and
>VST weren't developed by Apple. They really did make native DAWs a reality
>(moreso than Emagic or MOTU if we look at the life of ASIO and VST vs. MAS
>or whatever Emagic's shortlived driver was called - I should remember...).
>Steinberg is far from perfect, but that doesn't make Apple the sudden
>defender of the pro audio world by default. ;-)
>
>If you are a Mac audio user (or PC user facing the sad reality that is
>Vista), fear the iPhone.... fear Garageband.... ;-)
>
>Ideally we really need an OS developed "for" audio/video alone, not home
>movies, not downloading mp3s, not posting pics of the family vacation.
But
>that opens up a whole other can of worms. I guess the worms we have are
as
>good as it gets, at least until they are all used up trying to catch bigger
>fish.
>
>James - I think your link supports my comment that Vista sucks (if Aleksey,
>who was never going to port to OSX, now is, things are looking grim for
MS
>and PC DAW users...). ;-)) (yes, I said it, and yes I believe it - it looks
>cool, but ... well I'll save the list for another day). I'm just hoping
>Nuendo 4 rocks on the Mac, so at least I have a backup. (I still think
it
>sucks that with Macs I have to buy average hardware at premium prices when
I
>could build a much more robust, higher end DAW for 20-30% less).
>
>Oh, btw - in that link Aleksey talks about fixing a /3GB switch bug - that
>was yours truly that found that bug (cool of Aleksey to fix it so quickly;
>not so cool of MS to make Vista the next stop in the roadmap to 64 bit and
>where we would have no more need for it).
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>On 9/7/07 10:40 AM, in article 46e17f14$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
><excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>> I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides
to
>>> this:
>>>
>>> 1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik,
just
>> a
>>> marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>>>
>>> 2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt
to
>>> separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from
tests
>>> I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for the
>> OS,
>>> memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can
gain
>>> some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>>>
>>> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>>> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being
their
>>> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core
audio
>>> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone
else's
>>> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you can
>>> market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>>> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
>> For
>>> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>>> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this has
>> been
>>> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even
Logic
>>> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party
audio
>>> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>>> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>>>
>>> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to
survive
>>> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>>> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
>>> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>>> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
>>> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>>> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's
pitch
>>> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one
of
>>> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting their
>>> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that
had
>> no
>>> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've learned
>>> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for
one).
>>>
>>> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>>> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>>> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>
>> Sometimes You guys kill me with your anti Mac/Apple opinions. When MS
goes
>> proprietary you guys call it a standard, and you accept it. If Apple
does
>> it, it's a problem. AU is a ground up rewrite of their audio software
system.
>> They did it to improve audio on Mac OS. I don't like that they dropped
>> VST support in some of their software, but you still have other choices
on
>> a Mac to use VSTs, including your favorites from Steinberg. Many new
plugin
>> development companies showed up because the new AU format created new
>> opportunities
>> for start ups. It's all good.
>>
>> By the way, read this: http://www.voxengo.com/press/114/
>>
>>>
>>> On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
>> On
>>>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is
it
>> time
>>>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>>>
>>>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
>> (RME,
>>>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>>>
>>>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's
not
>>>> needed.
>>>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>>>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new
>> built-in
>>>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not
Adopt
>>>> the Vista standard..
>>>>
>>>> OK. Rant:
>>>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>>>> AUDIO-Units.
>>>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple
went
>>>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
>>>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>>>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>>>> Apple's
>>>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>>>
>>>> Next point:
>>>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
>>>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps
>> on
>>>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A
True
>>>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>>>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>>>
>>>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they
already
>>>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not
>> the
>>>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
>>>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
>> in
>>>> that 64 bit direction).
>>>>
>>>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64
bit
>>>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>>>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train
as
>>>> well..Chooo
>>>> chooooc choo...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89439 is a reply to message #89437] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 13:36 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey dedric.. That was called (Emagic Driver EASI) :)
well, I for onehave taken pre-emtive measures to secire a Mac Pro (8 core)
Running Cubase SX. I purchased from a friend for a really good price. I hadhim
show me what Sx was like on OS-X/Intel..Bottem line. It handled 80 pus tracks
imported form a Pro Tools session.
I was sold. He een demostrated SX on his G5-quad. 80 plus tracks, plugins..
No problem..
That's why this I felt that article was so disturbing. I see greater and
greater movement to OS_X and Core audio-audio units. You just get a sense
that Apple has the momentum with the pro audio and video market. And , sadly
my hunches are dead on..
With theis Vista fiasco, I think Ms has slammed it's door on our community.
But, MS has a lot money invested in AVID, so Digidesign must know something
we don't..
The next few years should be interesting..
I will be testing Paris on the Mac Pro (running win XP..via boot camp. Won;t
hurt to see what happens..
Stay tuned.
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>James and Jamie,
>
>Well I'll reply to you and Jamie together to conserve electrons... ;-)
>
>I think you both missed my point, and assumed this was a slight against
>Apple. It wasn't.
>
>The thread was actually about Vista and the article in which few developers
>showed any enthusiasm for it, and in several cases almost outright
>rejection. I don't blame them. OS developers really don't, and sadly,
>can't put the interests of professional audio users at the forefront. Their
>first customers are consumers.
>
>Core audio is cool (great compared to other OS-embedded audio protocols,
>unless we bring BeOS back) and Apple seems to have done a respectable job
by
>including such core media hooks in the OS (core animation too). However,
>the point is how much a full time professional can or should really trust
>the performance of their DAW to a company that makes 10x selling phones,
or
>operating systems (Apple or MS). Of course that's a paradox - we have no
>choice.
>
>Truly Apple has made 100x the effort vs. MS in supporting the pro
>audio/video market (well, 100 x 0 would be 0, but you get the point ;-).
>The point was that it wasn't developed for Steinberg's best interests, or
>Digidesign's, or MOTU's (where is MAS?), but Apple's. Logic was the first
>to support OSX because it was an Apple product, Jamie. Does Apple really
>release full SDKs to 3rd parties when they start developing their apps for
>that new design, or do they wait until they release their app, then forward
>the SDKs... ;-)
>
>Just don't assume that because I include Apple in a general discussion that
>I'm bashing Macs. Let's also not poo poo Steinberg just because ASIO and
>VST weren't developed by Apple. They really did make native DAWs a reality
>(moreso than Emagic or MOTU if we look at the life of ASIO and VST vs. MAS
>or whatever Emagic's shortlived driver was called - I should remember...).
>Steinberg is far from perfect, but that doesn't make Apple the sudden
>defender of the pro audio world by default. ;-)
>
>If you are a Mac audio user (or PC user facing the sad reality that is
>Vista), fear the iPhone.... fear Garageband.... ;-)
>
>Ideally we really need an OS developed "for" audio/video alone, not home
>movies, not downloading mp3s, not posting pics of the family vacation.
But
>that opens up a whole other can of worms. I guess the worms we have are
as
>good as it gets, at least until they are all used up trying to catch bigger
>fish.
>
>James - I think your link supports my comment that Vista sucks (if Aleksey,
>who was never going to port to OSX, now is, things are looking grim for
MS
>and PC DAW users...). ;-)) (yes, I said it, and yes I believe it - it looks
>cool, but ... well I'll save the list for another day). I'm just hoping
>Nuendo 4 rocks on the Mac, so at least I have a backup. (I still think
it
>sucks that with Macs I have to buy average hardware at premium prices when
I
>could build a much more robust, higher end DAW for 20-30% less).
>
>Oh, btw - in that link Aleksey talks about fixing a /3GB switch bug - that
>was yours truly that found that bug (cool of Aleksey to fix it so quickly;
>not so cool of MS to make Vista the next stop in the roadmap to 64 bit and
>where we would have no more need for it).
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>On 9/7/07 10:40 AM, in article 46e17f14$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
><excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>> I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides
to
>>> this:
>>>
>>> 1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik,
just
>> a
>>> marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>>>
>>> 2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt
to
>>> separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from
tests
>>> I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for the
>> OS,
>>> memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can
gain
>>> some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>>>
>>> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>>> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being
their
>>> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core
audio
>>> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone
else's
>>> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you can
>>> market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>>> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
>> For
>>> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>>> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this has
>> been
>>> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even
Logic
>>> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party
audio
>>> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>>> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>>>
>>> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to
survive
>>> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>>> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
>>> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>>> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
>>> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>>> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's
pitch
>>> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one
of
>>> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting their
>>> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that
had
>> no
>>> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've learned
>>> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for
one).
>>>
>>> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>>> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>>> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>
>> Sometimes You guys kill me with your anti Mac/Apple opinions. When MS
goes
>> proprietary you guys call it a standard, and you accept it. If Apple
does
>> it, it's a problem. AU is a ground up rewrite of their audio software
system.
>> They did it to improve audio on Mac OS. I don't like that they dropped
>> VST support in some of their software, but you still have other choices
on
>> a Mac to use VSTs, including your favorites from Steinberg. Many new
plugin
>> development companies showed up because the new AU format created new
>> opportunities
>> for start ups. It's all good.
>>
>> By the way, read this: http://www.voxengo.com/press/114/
>>
>>>
>>> On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
>> On
>>>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is
it
>> time
>>>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>>>
>>>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
>> (RME,
>>>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>>>
>>>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's
not
>>>> needed.
>>>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>>>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new
>> built-in
>>>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not
Adopt
>>>> the Vista standard..
>>>>
>>>> OK. Rant:
>>>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>>>> AUDIO-Units.
>>>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple
went
>>>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
>>>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>>>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>>>> Apple's
>>>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>>>
>>>> Next point:
>>>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
>>>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps
>> on
>>>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A
True
>>>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>>>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>>>
>>>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they
already
>>>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not
>> the
>>>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
>>>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
>> in
>>>> that 64 bit direction).
>>>>
>>>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64
bit
>>>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>>>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train
as
>>>> well..Chooo
>>>> chooooc choo...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89440 is a reply to message #89438] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 13:42 |
|
|
Thad, you are talkign about 2 different market segments. The 'Bedroom" type
who 48 tracks is more than enough..Then there are the power users like myself
where are song tracking session can reach upwards to 90 plus (before editing)
with power hungry plugins, and low latency for those running ITB.
All in all, the power "Native" daw user does not want to go over to HD-TDM.
They want it all(Power) natively. They wan t Pro Tools Power in Natively..
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video production?
>XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track digital
>studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
>
>Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping. I haven't
>installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell workstations
>into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks . . .
>
>TCB
>
>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>James and Jamie,
>>
>>Well I'll reply to you and Jamie together to conserve electrons... ;-)
>>
>>I think you both missed my point, and assumed this was a slight against
>>Apple. It wasn't.
>>
>>The thread was actually about Vista and the article in which few developers
>>showed any enthusiasm for it, and in several cases almost outright
>>rejection. I don't blame them. OS developers really don't, and sadly,
>>can't put the interests of professional audio users at the forefront.
Their
>>first customers are consumers.
>>
>>Core audio is cool (great compared to other OS-embedded audio protocols,
>>unless we bring BeOS back) and Apple seems to have done a respectable job
>by
>>including such core media hooks in the OS (core animation too). However,
>>the point is how much a full time professional can or should really trust
>>the performance of their DAW to a company that makes 10x selling phones,
>or
>>operating systems (Apple or MS). Of course that's a paradox - we have
no
>>choice.
>>
>>Truly Apple has made 100x the effort vs. MS in supporting the pro
>>audio/video market (well, 100 x 0 would be 0, but you get the point ;-).
>>The point was that it wasn't developed for Steinberg's best interests,
or
>>Digidesign's, or MOTU's (where is MAS?), but Apple's. Logic was the first
>>to support OSX because it was an Apple product, Jamie. Does Apple really
>>release full SDKs to 3rd parties when they start developing their apps
for
>>that new design, or do they wait until they release their app, then forward
>>the SDKs... ;-)
>>
>>Just don't assume that because I include Apple in a general discussion
that
>>I'm bashing Macs. Let's also not poo poo Steinberg just because ASIO and
>>VST weren't developed by Apple. They really did make native DAWs a reality
>>(moreso than Emagic or MOTU if we look at the life of ASIO and VST vs.
MAS
>>or whatever Emagic's shortlived driver was called - I should remember...).
>>Steinberg is far from perfect, but that doesn't make Apple the sudden
>>defender of the pro audio world by default. ;-)
>>
>>If you are a Mac audio user (or PC user facing the sad reality that is
>>Vista), fear the iPhone.... fear Garageband.... ;-)
>>
>>Ideally we really need an OS developed "for" audio/video alone, not home
>>movies, not downloading mp3s, not posting pics of the family vacation.
>But
>>that opens up a whole other can of worms. I guess the worms we have are
>as
>>good as it gets, at least until they are all used up trying to catch bigger
>>fish.
>>
>>James - I think your link supports my comment that Vista sucks (if Aleksey,
>>who was never going to port to OSX, now is, things are looking grim for
>MS
>>and PC DAW users...). ;-)) (yes, I said it, and yes I believe it - it looks
>>cool, but ... well I'll save the list for another day). I'm just hoping
>>Nuendo 4 rocks on the Mac, so at least I have a backup. (I still think
>it
>>sucks that with Macs I have to buy average hardware at premium prices when
>I
>>could build a much more robust, higher end DAW for 20-30% less).
>>
>>Oh, btw - in that link Aleksey talks about fixing a /3GB switch bug - that
>>was yours truly that found that bug (cool of Aleksey to fix it so quickly;
>>not so cool of MS to make Vista the next stop in the roadmap to 64 bit
and
>>where we would have no more need for it).
>>
>>Regards,
>>Dedric
>>
>>On 9/7/07 10:40 AM, in article 46e17f14$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>><excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides
>to
>>>> this:
>>>>
>>>> 1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik,
>just
>>> a
>>>> marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>>>>
>>>> 2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt
>to
>>>> separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from
>tests
>>>> I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for
the
>>> OS,
>>>> memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can
>gain
>>>> some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>>>>
>>>> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>>>> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being
>their
>>>> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core
>audio
>>>> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone
>else's
>>>> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you
can
>>>> market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>>>> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
>>> For
>>>> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>>>> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this
has
>>> been
>>>> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even
>Logic
>>>> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party
>audio
>>>> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>>>> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>>>>
>>>> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to
>survive
>>>> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>>>> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
>>>> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>>>> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
>>>> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>>>> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's
>pitch
>>>> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one
>of
>>>> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting
their
>>>> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that
>had
>>> no
>>>> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've
learned
>>>> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for
>one).
>>>>
>>>> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>>>> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>>>> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> Sometimes You guys kill me with your anti Mac/Apple opinions. When MS
>goes
>>> proprietary you guys call it a standard, and you accept it. If Apple
>does
>>> it, it's a problem. AU is a ground up rewrite of their audio software
>system.
>>> They did it to improve audio on Mac OS. I don't like that they dropped
>>> VST support in some of their software, but you still have other choices
>on
>>> a Mac to use VSTs, including your favorites from Steinberg. Many new
>plugin
>>> development companies showed up because the new AU format created new
>>> opportunities
>>> for start ups. It's all good.
>>>
>>> By the way, read this: http://www.voxengo.com/press/114/
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
>>> On
>>>>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is
>it
>>> time
>>>>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
>>> (RME,
>>>>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's
>not
>>>>> needed.
>>>>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>>>>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new
>>> built-in
>>>>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not
>Adopt
>>>>> the Vista standard..
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. Rant:
>>>>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>>>>> AUDIO-Units.
>>>>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple
>went
>>>>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding
their
>>>>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>>>>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>>>>> Apple's
>>>>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next point:
>>>>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to
break
>>>>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps
>>> on
>>>>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A
>True
>>>>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>>>>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they
>already
>>>>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is
not
>>> the
>>>>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit..
Companies
>>>>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
>>> in
>>>>> that 64 bit direction).
>>>>>
>>>>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64
>bit
>>>>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>>>>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train
>as
>>>>> well..Chooo
>>>>> chooooc choo...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89442 is a reply to message #89439] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 13:47 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Hey dedric.. That was called (Emagic Driver EASI) :)
>
>well, I for onehave taken pre-emtive measures to secire a Mac Pro (8 core)
>Running Cubase SX. I purchased from a friend for a really good price. I
hadhim
>show me what Sx was like on OS-X/Intel..Bottem line. It handled 80 pus tracks
>imported form a Pro Tools session.
>
>I was sold. He een demostrated SX on his G5-quad. 80 plus tracks, plugins..
>No problem..
>
>That's why this I felt that article was so disturbing. I see greater and
>greater movement to OS_X and Core audio-audio units. You just get a sense
>that Apple has the momentum with the pro audio and video market. And , sadly
>my hunches are dead on..
>
>With theis Vista fiasco, I think Ms has slammed it's door on our community.
>But, MS has a lot money invested in AVID, so Digidesign must know something
>we don't..
>The next few years should be interesting..
>
>I will be testing Paris on the Mac Pro (running win XP..via boot camp. Won;t
>hurt to see what happens..
>Stay tuned.
LaMont, are you going to run a Magma? I don't think the PCI thing will work
with out it. This will be interesting!
>
>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>James and Jamie,
>>
>>Well I'll reply to you and Jamie together to conserve electrons... ;-)
>>
>>I think you both missed my point, and assumed this was a slight against
>>Apple. It wasn't.
>>
>>The thread was actually about Vista and the article in which few developers
>>showed any enthusiasm for it, and in several cases almost outright
>>rejection. I don't blame them. OS developers really don't, and sadly,
>>can't put the interests of professional audio users at the forefront.
Their
>>first customers are consumers.
>>
>>Core audio is cool (great compared to other OS-embedded audio protocols,
>>unless we bring BeOS back) and Apple seems to have done a respectable job
>by
>>including such core media hooks in the OS (core animation too). However,
>>the point is how much a full time professional can or should really trust
>>the performance of their DAW to a company that makes 10x selling phones,
>or
>>operating systems (Apple or MS). Of course that's a paradox - we have
no
>>choice.
>>
>>Truly Apple has made 100x the effort vs. MS in supporting the pro
>>audio/video market (well, 100 x 0 would be 0, but you get the point ;-).
>>The point was that it wasn't developed for Steinberg's best interests,
or
>>Digidesign's, or MOTU's (where is MAS?), but Apple's. Logic was the first
>>to support OSX because it was an Apple product, Jamie. Does Apple really
>>release full SDKs to 3rd parties when they start developing their apps
for
>>that new design, or do they wait until they release their app, then forward
>>the SDKs... ;-)
>>
>>Just don't assume that because I include Apple in a general discussion
that
>>I'm bashing Macs. Let's also not poo poo Steinberg just because ASIO and
>>VST weren't developed by Apple. They really did make native DAWs a reality
>>(moreso than Emagic or MOTU if we look at the life of ASIO and VST vs.
MAS
>>or whatever Emagic's shortlived driver was called - I should remember...).
>>Steinberg is far from perfect, but that doesn't make Apple the sudden
>>defender of the pro audio world by default. ;-)
>>
>>If you are a Mac audio user (or PC user facing the sad reality that is
>>Vista), fear the iPhone.... fear Garageband.... ;-)
>>
>>Ideally we really need an OS developed "for" audio/video alone, not home
>>movies, not downloading mp3s, not posting pics of the family vacation.
>But
>>that opens up a whole other can of worms. I guess the worms we have are
>as
>>good as it gets, at least until they are all used up trying to catch bigger
>>fish.
>>
>>James - I think your link supports my comment that Vista sucks (if Aleksey,
>>who was never going to port to OSX, now is, things are looking grim for
>MS
>>and PC DAW users...). ;-)) (yes, I said it, and yes I believe it - it looks
>>cool, but ... well I'll save the list for another day). I'm just hoping
>>Nuendo 4 rocks on the Mac, so at least I have a backup. (I still think
>it
>>sucks that with Macs I have to buy average hardware at premium prices when
>I
>>could build a much more robust, higher end DAW for 20-30% less).
>>
>>Oh, btw - in that link Aleksey talks about fixing a /3GB switch bug - that
>>was yours truly that found that bug (cool of Aleksey to fix it so quickly;
>>not so cool of MS to make Vista the next stop in the roadmap to 64 bit
and
>>where we would have no more need for it).
>>
>>Regards,
>>Dedric
>>
>>On 9/7/07 10:40 AM, in article 46e17f14$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>><excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides
>to
>>>> this:
>>>>
>>>> 1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik,
>just
>>> a
>>>> marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>>>>
>>>> 2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt
>to
>>>> separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from
>tests
>>>> I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for
the
>>> OS,
>>>> memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can
>gain
>>>> some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>>>>
>>>> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>>>> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being
>their
>>>> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core
>audio
>>>> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone
>else's
>>>> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you
can
>>>> market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>>>> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
>>> For
>>>> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>>>> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this
has
>>> been
>>>> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even
>Logic
>>>> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party
>audio
>>>> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>>>> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>>>>
>>>> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to
>survive
>>>> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>>>> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
>>>> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>>>> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
>>>> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>>>> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's
>pitch
>>>> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one
>of
>>>> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting
their
>>>> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that
>had
>>> no
>>>> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've
learned
>>>> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for
>one).
>>>>
>>>> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>>>> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>>>> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> Sometimes You guys kill me with your anti Mac/Apple opinions. When MS
>goes
>>> proprietary you guys call it a standard, and you accept it. If Apple
>does
>>> it, it's a problem. AU is a ground up rewrite of their audio software
>system.
>>> They did it to improve audio on Mac OS. I don't like that they dropped
>>> VST support in some of their software, but you still have other choices
>on
>>> a Mac to use VSTs, including your favorites from Steinberg. Many new
>plugin
>>> development companies showed up because the new AU format created new
>>> opportunities
>>> for start ups. It's all good.
>>>
>>> By the way, read this: http://www.voxengo.com/press/114/
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
>>> On
>>>>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is
>it
>>> time
>>>>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
>>> (RME,
>>>>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's
>not
>>>>> needed.
>>>>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>>>>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new
>>> built-in
>>>>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not
>Adopt
>>>>> the Vista standard..
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. Rant:
>>>>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>>>>> AUDIO-Units.
>>>>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple
>went
>>>>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding
their
>>>>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>>>>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>>>>> Apple's
>>>>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next point:
>>>>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to
break
>>>>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps
>>> on
>>>>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A
>True
>>>>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>>>>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they
>already
>>>>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is
not
>>> the
>>>>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit..
Companies
>>>>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
>>> in
>>>>> that 64 bit direction).
>>>>>
>>>>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64
>bit
>>>>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>>>>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train
>as
>>>>> well..Chooo
>>>>> chooooc choo...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89443 is a reply to message #89437] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 13:42 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dedric Terry wrote:
> James and Jamie,
>
> Well I'll reply to you and Jamie together to conserve electrons... ;-)
Apple sucks! There, now you can tell us apart. :^)
> I think you both missed my point, and assumed this was a slight against
> Apple. It wasn't.
Nope. I got your other insightful point about Vista, accepted it and
deleted it because I wanted to talk about the other stuff. :^)
> The thread was actually about Vista and the article in which few developers
> showed any enthusiasm for it, and in several cases almost outright
> rejection. I don't blame them. OS developers really don't, and sadly,
> can't put the interests of professional audio users at the forefront. Their
> first customers are consumers.
>
> Core audio is cool (great compared to other OS-embedded audio protocols,
> unless we bring BeOS back)
BoOS showed the way...
> and Apple seems to have done a respectable job by
> including such core media hooks in the OS (core animation too). However,
> the point is how much a full time professional can or should really trust
> the performance of their DAW to a company that makes 10x selling phones, or
> operating systems (Apple or MS). Of course that's a paradox - we have no
> choice.
Sure we do, just buy a different OSX DAW. There's more than just Logic
on OSX, and Apple is not poisoning the market against other DAWS.
> Truly Apple has made 100x the effort vs. MS in supporting the pro
> audio/video market (well, 100 x 0 would be 0, but you get the point ;-).
> The point was that it wasn't developed for Steinberg's best interests, or
> Digidesign's, or MOTU's (where is MAS?), but Apple's. Logic was the first
> to support OSX because it was an Apple product, Jamie.
I think the support began with Emagic before Apple bought Logic. Pretty
sure.
> Does Apple really
> release full SDKs to 3rd parties when they start developing their apps for
> that new design, or do they wait until they release their app, then forward
> the SDKs... ;-)
Ask MOTU. I think Apple has been very open with the developers, actually.
> Just don't assume that because I include Apple in a general discussion that
> I'm bashing Macs.
I'm not. You just overlooked a few things, IMO. Framed it differently
than I would, from my experience.
> Let's also not poo poo Steinberg just because ASIO and
> VST weren't developed by Apple.
Again, I'm not attacking Steinberg in some weird illogical scheme to
make Apple look better.
I just mentioned that Steinberg's control of a standard caused its share
of problems with other developers. I didn't say it was a bad standard.
But Apple had the opportunity to make a clean start on a platform
standard for OSX. To be clear, I thought that was fine but they should
have also supported VST. Some apps still support both on OSX.
> They really did make native DAWs a reality
> (moreso than Emagic or MOTU if we look at the life of ASIO and VST vs. MAS
> or whatever Emagic's shortlived driver was called - I should remember...).
We should all remember a lot of things, like, uh, I forget... :^)
What's cool is that the competition between Steinberg and Emagic
produced a lot of progress, with great vision and tenacity in both
companies. Add Native Instruments, MOTU, plus a few more = tons of good
stuff that we benefit from now. I am very grateful for all of this.
> Steinberg is far from perfect, but that doesn't make Apple the sudden
> defender of the pro audio world by default. ;-)
Not my claim.
> If you are a Mac audio user (or PC user facing the sad reality that is
> Vista), fear the iPhone.... fear Garageband.... ;-)
I fear nothing. If Apple can continue to grow using a strategy built on
supporting creative tools on the one hand and distribution/user tools on
the other, that's a comprehensive vision, a flow from creation to market.
> Ideally we really need an OS developed "for" audio/video alone, not home
> movies, not downloading mp3s, not posting pics of the family vacation. But
> that opens up a whole other can of worms. I guess the worms we have are as
> good as it gets, at least until they are all used up trying to catch bigger
> fish.
I don't see how having a computer system that can play a movie makes it
harder for that same system to make one. IOW, there's more synergy than
distraction between those applications.
> James - I think your link supports my comment that Vista sucks (if Aleksey,
> who was never going to port to OSX, now is, things are looking grim for MS
> and PC DAW users...). ;-)) (yes, I said it, and yes I believe it - it looks
> cool, but ... well I'll save the list for another day). I'm just hoping
> Nuendo 4 rocks on the Mac, so at least I have a backup. (I still think it
> sucks that with Macs I have to buy average hardware at premium prices when I
> could build a much more robust, higher end DAW for 20-30% less).
Don't give up, Dedric. Don't switch. Apple needs competition and I don't
want to quit using the Mac yet. So go to Linux if Vista gets completely
unlivable, but PLEASE AVOID THE MAC!!!! The day you switch, prices will
go up...
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> Oh, btw - in that link Aleksey talks about fixing a /3GB switch bug - that
> was yours truly that found that bug (cool of Aleksey to fix it so quickly;
> not so cool of MS to make Vista the next stop in the roadmap to 64 bit and
> where we would have no more need for it).
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
> On 9/7/07 10:40 AM, in article 46e17f14$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>> I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides to
>>> this:
>>>
>>> 1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik, just
>> a
>>> marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>>>
>>> 2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt to
>>> separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from tests
>>> I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for the
>> OS,
>>> memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can gain
>>> some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>>>
>>> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>>> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being their
>>> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core audio
>>> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone else's
>>> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you can
>>> market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>>> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
>> For
>>> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>>> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this has
>> been
>>> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even Logic
>>> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party audio
>>> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>>> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>>>
>>> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to survive
>>> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>>> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
>>> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>>> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
>>> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>>> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's pitch
>>> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one of
>>> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting their
>>> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that had
>> no
>>> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've learned
>>> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for one).
>>>
>>> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>>> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>>> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>> Sometimes You guys kill me with your anti Mac/Apple opinions. When MS goes
>> proprietary you guys call it a standard, and you accept it. If Apple does
>> it, it's a problem. AU is a ground up rewrite of their audio software system.
>> They did it to improve audio on Mac OS. I don't like that they dropped
>> VST support in some of their software, but you still have other choices on
>> a Mac to use VSTs, including your favorites from Steinberg. Many new plugin
>> development companies showed up because the new AU format created new
>> opportunities
>> for start ups. It's all good.
>>
>> By the way, read this: http://www.voxengo.com/press/114/
>>
>>> On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
>> On
>>>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is it
>> time
>>>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>>>
>>>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
>> (RME,
>>>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>>>
>>>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's not
>>>> needed.
>>>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>>>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new
>> built-in
>>>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not Adopt
>>>> the Vista standard..
>>>>
>>>> OK. Rant:
>>>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>>>> AUDIO-Units.
>>>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple went
>>>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
>>>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>>>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>>>> Apple's
>>>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>>>
>>>> Next point:
>>>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
>>>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps
>> on
>>>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A True
>>>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>>>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>>>
>>>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they already
>>>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not
>> the
>>>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
>>>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
>> in
>>>> that 64 bit direction).
>>>>
>>>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64 bit
>>>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>>>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train as
>>>> well..Chooo
>>>> chooooc choo...
>>>>
>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89444 is a reply to message #89438] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 13:46 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TCB wrote:
> One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video production?
> XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track digital
> studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
Talent?
JUST KIDDING!!!! Didn't mean you, Thad.
But listening to some of the home produced music that's out there, it
isn't the gear holding people back any more...
> Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping. I haven't
> installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell workstations
> into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks . . .
Please do, and let us know what you think!
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> TCB
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> James and Jamie,
>>
>> Well I'll reply to you and Jamie together to conserve electrons... ;-)
>>
>> I think you both missed my point, and assumed this was a slight against
>> Apple. It wasn't.
>>
>> The thread was actually about Vista and the article in which few developers
>> showed any enthusiasm for it, and in several cases almost outright
>> rejection. I don't blame them. OS developers really don't, and sadly,
>> can't put the interests of professional audio users at the forefront. Their
>> first customers are consumers.
>>
>> Core audio is cool (great compared to other OS-embedded audio protocols,
>> unless we bring BeOS back) and Apple seems to have done a respectable job
> by
>> including such core media hooks in the OS (core animation too). However,
>> the point is how much a full time professional can or should really trust
>> the performance of their DAW to a company that makes 10x selling phones,
> or
>> operating systems (Apple or MS). Of course that's a paradox - we have no
>> choice.
>>
>> Truly Apple has made 100x the effort vs. MS in supporting the pro
>> audio/video market (well, 100 x 0 would be 0, but you get the point ;-).
>> The point was that it wasn't developed for Steinberg's best interests, or
>> Digidesign's, or MOTU's (where is MAS?), but Apple's. Logic was the first
>> to support OSX because it was an Apple product, Jamie. Does Apple really
>> release full SDKs to 3rd parties when they start developing their apps for
>> that new design, or do they wait until they release their app, then forward
>> the SDKs... ;-)
>>
>> Just don't assume that because I include Apple in a general discussion that
>> I'm bashing Macs. Let's also not poo poo Steinberg just because ASIO and
>> VST weren't developed by Apple. They really did make native DAWs a reality
>> (moreso than Emagic or MOTU if we look at the life of ASIO and VST vs. MAS
>> or whatever Emagic's shortlived driver was called - I should remember...).
>> Steinberg is far from perfect, but that doesn't make Apple the sudden
>> defender of the pro audio world by default. ;-)
>>
>> If you are a Mac audio user (or PC user facing the sad reality that is
>> Vista), fear the iPhone.... fear Garageband.... ;-)
>>
>> Ideally we really need an OS developed "for" audio/video alone, not home
>> movies, not downloading mp3s, not posting pics of the family vacation.
> But
>> that opens up a whole other can of worms. I guess the worms we have are
> as
>> good as it gets, at least until they are all used up trying to catch bigger
>> fish.
>>
>> James - I think your link supports my comment that Vista sucks (if Aleksey,
>> who was never going to port to OSX, now is, things are looking grim for
> MS
>> and PC DAW users...). ;-)) (yes, I said it, and yes I believe it - it looks
>> cool, but ... well I'll save the list for another day). I'm just hoping
>> Nuendo 4 rocks on the Mac, so at least I have a backup. (I still think
> it
>> sucks that with Macs I have to buy average hardware at premium prices when
> I
>> could build a much more robust, higher end DAW for 20-30% less).
>>
>> Oh, btw - in that link Aleksey talks about fixing a /3GB switch bug - that
>> was yours truly that found that bug (cool of Aleksey to fix it so quickly;
>> not so cool of MS to make Vista the next stop in the roadmap to 64 bit and
>> where we would have no more need for it).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 9/7/07 10:40 AM, in article 46e17f14$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides
> to
>>>> this:
>>>>
>>>> 1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik,
> just
>>> a
>>>> marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>>>>
>>>> 2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt
> to
>>>> separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from
> tests
>>>> I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for the
>>> OS,
>>>> memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can
> gain
>>>> some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>>>>
>>>> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>>>> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being
> their
>>>> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core
> audio
>>>> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone
> else's
>>>> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you can
>>>> market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>>>> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
>>> For
>>>> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>>>> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this has
>>> been
>>>> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even
> Logic
>>>> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party
> audio
>>>> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>>>> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>>>>
>>>> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to
> survive
>>>> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>>>> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
>>>> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>>>> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
>>>> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>>>> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's
> pitch
>>>> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one
> of
>>>> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting their
>>>> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that
> had
>>> no
>>>> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've learned
>>>> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for
> one).
>>>> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>>>> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>>>> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>> Sometimes You guys kill me with your anti Mac/Apple opinions. When MS
> goes
>>> proprietary you guys call it a standard, and you accept it. If Apple
> does
>>> it, it's a problem. AU is a ground up rewrite of their audio software
> system.
>>> They did it to improve audio on Mac OS. I don't like that they dropped
>>> VST support in some of their software, but you still have other choices
> on
>>> a Mac to use VSTs, including your favorites from Steinberg. Many new
> plugin
>>> development companies showed up because the new AU format created new
>>> opportunities
>>> for start ups. It's all good.
>>>
>>> By the way, read this: http://www.voxengo.com/press/114/
>>>
>>>> On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
>>> On
>>>>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is
> it
>>> time
>>>>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
>>> (RME,
>>>>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's
> not
>>>>> needed.
>>>>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>>>>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new
>>> built-in
>>>>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not
> Adopt
>>>>> the Vista standard..
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. Rant:
>>>>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>>>>> AUDIO-Units.
>>>>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple
> went
>>>>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
>>>>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>>>>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>>>>> Apple's
>>>>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next point:
>>>>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
>>>>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps
>>> on
>>>>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A
> True
>>>>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>>>>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they
> already
>>>>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not
>>> the
>>>>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
>>>>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
>>> in
>>>>> that 64 bit direction).
>>>>>
>>>>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64
> bit
>>>>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>>>>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train
> as
>>>>> well..Chooo
>>>>> chooooc choo...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89445 is a reply to message #89440] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 14:04 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Thad - Lamont answered this as well. From general perspectives, no we
don't need a specialized DAW, but as Lamont said, it's when you run against
the wall of the OS and hardware's capabilities (memory, PCI buss, etc) on a
daily basis, then it is an issue. In addition, the main concern is the cost
of having to switch between working solutions (not necessarily DAWs, or
platforms), but plugins or periphery apps, transer workflow, etc because
another piece of software fell prey to a change in an OS, and is either dead
or delayed. Weeks and certainly months of delay in the software development
world can equate to dollars and clients in the production world.
For sure the level of capability we have with Macs and PCs today is, in a
broader perspective, stunning (48 tracks of tape would have broken my budget
on some projects years ago), but the requirements of the job don't sit back
and let us enjoy it for very long... ;-)
I just loaded up a single voiceover and setup 4 instances of Nebula last
week, and a Nebula reverb (that blows away Wizoo W2 and UAD-1 plate) and it
sucked down 50% of my cpu - the problem wasn't that I don't have other
plugins that would load 100 instances, it's that this plugin sounds 100x
better than those and the track is nailed, with nary another track, much
less my full orchestral template required to complete the spot (yes, freeze
is my friend. :-).
Last night I tried to connect a simple (older Oxford 911 chipset) firewire
drive to my Vista laptop to run a little audio off of, and it locked up
Vista after a few minutes (apparently lost connection) - work planned for
this weekend will have to wait until I can get back to the studio - hours,
and even days lost on my schedule. I can't get a USB thumb drive that works
with Vista (tried 3, called Sandisk support - no luck). Fortunately I don't
use the Vista laptop for audio work, but it limits the laptop's usefulness
in carrying it to another studio for work, previews, transfers, etc.
Obviously, there is no simple alternative to the current crop of mainstream
OSs for my audio work, and in reality, OSX and XP probably don't limit us
all that much (other than a few areas here and there). Ubuntu looks cool,
but there is so much software and hardware involved that moving to a Linux
solution would really take a monumental leap to become realistic.
Regards,
Dedric
On 9/7/07 2:42 PM, in article 46e1b7c7$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Thad, you are talkign about 2 different market segments. The 'Bedroom" type
> who 48 tracks is more than enough..Then there are the power users like myself
> where are song tracking session can reach upwards to 90 plus (before editing)
> with power hungry plugins, and low latency for those running ITB.
>
> All in all, the power "Native" daw user does not want to go over to HD-TDM.
> They want it all(Power) natively. They wan t Pro Tools Power in Natively..
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>> One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video
>> production?
>> XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track digital
>> studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
>>
>> Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping. I haven't
>> installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell workstations
>> into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks . . .
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>> James and Jamie,
>>>
>>> Well I'll reply to you and Jamie together to conserve electrons... ;-)
>>>
>>> I think you both missed my point, and assumed this was a slight against
>>> Apple. It wasn't.
>>>
>>> The thread was actually about Vista and the article in which few developers
>>> showed any enthusiasm for it, and in several cases almost outright
>>> rejection. I don't blame them. OS developers really don't, and sadly,
>>> can't put the interests of professional audio users at the forefront.
> Their
>>> first customers are consumers.
>>>
>>> Core audio is cool (great compared to other OS-embedded audio protocols,
>>> unless we bring BeOS back) and Apple seems to have done a respectable job
>> by
>>> including such core media hooks in the OS (core animation too). However,
>>> the point is how much a full time professional can or should really trust
>>> the performance of their DAW to a company that makes 10x selling phones,
>> or
>>> operating systems (Apple or MS). Of course that's a paradox - we have
> no
>>> choice.
>>>
>>> Truly Apple has made 100x the effort vs. MS in supporting the pro
>>> audio/video market (well, 100 x 0 would be 0, but you get the point ;-).
>>> The point was that it wasn't developed for Steinberg's best interests,
> or
>>> Digidesign's, or MOTU's (where is MAS?), but Apple's. Logic was the first
>>> to support OSX because it was an Apple product, Jamie. Does Apple really
>>> release full SDKs to 3rd parties when they start developing their apps
> for
>>> that new design, or do they wait until they release their app, then forward
>>> the SDKs... ;-)
>>>
>>> Just don't assume that because I include Apple in a general discussion
> that
>>> I'm bashing Macs. Let's also not poo poo Steinberg just because ASIO and
>>> VST weren't developed by Apple. They really did make native DAWs a reality
>>> (moreso than Emagic or MOTU if we look at the life of ASIO and VST vs.
> MAS
>>> or whatever Emagic's shortlived driver was called - I should remember...).
>>> Steinberg is far from perfect, but that doesn't make Apple the sudden
>>> defender of the pro audio world by default. ;-)
>>>
>>> If you are a Mac audio user (or PC user facing the sad reality that is
>>> Vista), fear the iPhone.... fear Garageband.... ;-)
>>>
>>> Ideally we really need an OS developed "for" audio/video alone, not home
>>> movies, not downloading mp3s, not posting pics of the family vacation.
>
>> But
>>> that opens up a whole other can of worms. I guess the worms we have are
>> as
>>> good as it gets, at least until they are all used up trying to catch bigger
>>> fish.
>>>
>>> James - I think your link supports my comment that Vista sucks (if Aleksey,
>>> who was never going to port to OSX, now is, things are looking grim for
>> MS
>>> and PC DAW users...). ;-)) (yes, I said it, and yes I believe it - it looks
>>> cool, but ... well I'll save the list for another day). I'm just hoping
>>> Nuendo 4 rocks on the Mac, so at least I have a backup. (I still think
>> it
>>> sucks that with Macs I have to buy average hardware at premium prices when
>> I
>>> could build a much more robust, higher end DAW for 20-30% less).
>>>
>>> Oh, btw - in that link Aleksey talks about fixing a /3GB switch bug - that
>>> was yours truly that found that bug (cool of Aleksey to fix it so quickly;
>>> not so cool of MS to make Vista the next stop in the roadmap to 64 bit
> and
>>> where we would have no more need for it).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 9/7/07 10:40 AM, in article 46e17f14$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>>> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides
>> to
>>>>> this:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik,
>> just
>>>> a
>>>>> marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt
>> to
>>>>> separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from
>> tests
>>>>> I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for
> the
>>>> OS,
>>>>> memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can
>> gain
>>>>> some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>>>>> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being
>> their
>>>>> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core
>> audio
>>>>> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone
>> else's
>>>>> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you
> can
>>>>> market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>>>>> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
>>>> For
>>>>> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>>>>> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this
> has
>>>> been
>>>>> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even
>> Logic
>>>>> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party
>> audio
>>>>> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>>>>> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to
>> survive
>>>>> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>>>>> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
>>>>> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>>>>> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
>>>>> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>>>>> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's
>> pitch
>>>>> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one
>> of
>>>>> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting
> their
>>>>> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that
>> had
>>>> no
>>>>> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've
> learned
>>>>> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for
>> one).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>>>>> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>>>>> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes You guys kill me with your anti Mac/Apple opinions. When MS
>> goes
>>>> proprietary you guys call it a standard, and you accept it. If Apple
>> does
>>>> it, it's a problem. AU is a ground up rewrite of their audio software
>> system.
>>>> They did it to improve audio on Mac OS. I don't like that they dropped
>>>> VST support in some of their software, but you still have other choices
>> on
>>>> a Mac to use VSTs, including your favorites from Steinberg. Many new
>> plugin
>>>> development companies showed up because the new AU format created new
>>>> opportunities
>>>> for start ups. It's all good.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, read this: http://www.voxengo.com/press/114/
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>>>> <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
>>>> On
>>>>>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is
>> it
>>>> time
>>>>>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
>>>> (RME,
>>>>>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's
>> not
>>>>>> needed.
>>>>>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>>>>>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new
>>>> built-in
>>>>>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not
>> Adopt
>>>>>> the Vista standard..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK. Rant:
>>>>>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>>>>>> AUDIO-Units.
>>>>>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple
>> went
>>>>>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding
> their
>>>>>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same
>>>>>> companies
>>>>>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>>>>>> Apple's
>>>>>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Next point:
>>>>>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to
> break
>>>>>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps
>>>> on
>>>>>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A
>> True
>>>>>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>>>>>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they
>> already
>>>>>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is
> not
>>>> the
>>>>>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit..
> Companies
>>>>>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
>>>> in
>>>>>> that 64 bit direction).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64
>> bit
>>>>>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>>>>>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train
>> as
>>>>>> well..Chooo
>>>>>> chooooc choo...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89448 is a reply to message #89443] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 14:25 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/7/07 2:42 PM, in article 46e1b9a1@linux, "Jamie K"
<Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> and Apple seems to have done a respectable job by
>> including such core media hooks in the OS (core animation too). However,
>> the point is how much a full time professional can or should really trust
>> the performance of their DAW to a company that makes 10x selling phones, or
>> operating systems (Apple or MS). Of course that's a paradox - we have no
>> choice.
>
> Sure we do, just buy a different OSX DAW. There's more than just Logic
> on OSX, and Apple is not poisoning the market against other DAWS.
Actually I was referring to choice in terms of consumer/general OS vs.
audio-dedicated OS, without resorting to RADAR (which uses BeOS I believe),
Fairlight, etc.
>
> Ask MOTU. I think Apple has been very open with the developers, actually.
>
Check the Nuendo forum thread on direct monitoring support.
>> They really did make native DAWs a reality
>> (moreso than Emagic or MOTU if we look at the life of ASIO and VST vs. MAS
>> or whatever Emagic's shortlived driver was called - I should remember...).
>
> We should all remember a lot of things, like, uh, I forget... :^)
I'll try to remember that... ;-)
>
> What's cool is that the competition between Steinberg and Emagic
> produced a lot of progress, with great vision and tenacity in both
> companies. Add Native Instruments, MOTU, plus a few more = tons of good
> stuff that we benefit from now. I am very grateful for all of this.
>
For sure. I wasn't diminishing Emagic or MOTU's contribution - they just
made some proprietary decisions that helped ASIO and VST take the lead. All
three, and Cakewalk are innovators in the native DAW, audio and sequencer
market. My fear of the OS vs. audio developer is in watching all 4
companies have to jump roll and spin to keep up with OS development - we are
riding the tailwind of the OS, not dictating it for the most part. So far
Apple's development of core audio has been a step in the right direction,
but as Chris pointed out, it still lags ASIO in some ways and took a while
to get there.
>
>> If you are a Mac audio user (or PC user facing the sad reality that is
>> Vista), fear the iPhone.... fear Garageband.... ;-)
>
> I fear nothing. If Apple can continue to grow using a strategy built on
> supporting creative tools on the one hand and distribution/user tools on
> the other, that's a comprehensive vision, a flow from creation to market.
Really? You don't wonder, like a lot of other Logic users, if Logic 8 will
really become "Garageband Goes to the Studio"? ;-)) lol
I see your point, and it fits Apple's marketing, but remember, ultimately
Apple answers to the bottom line. While the creation to market idea is a
good one, it can also mean one or the other becomes, at some point, limited
by the fact that one company is defining what that means. There are a lot
of experienced disciplines involved with content creation using a wide range
of tools, and few of them work for Apple, and not all of them are using
Apple products (unless Apple is developing a new 4k HD cam, Dolby conversion
hardware, etc). ;-)
>
>
>> Ideally we really need an OS developed "for" audio/video alone, not home
>> movies, not downloading mp3s, not posting pics of the family vacation. But
>> that opens up a whole other can of worms. I guess the worms we have are as
>> good as it gets, at least until they are all used up trying to catch bigger
>> fish.
>
> I don't see how having a computer system that can play a movie makes it
> harder for that same system to make one. IOW, there's more synergy than
> distraction between those applications.
Playing movies alone doesn't, but when it is a product whose market is as
diverse as this country, you should be able to see the distraction from the
level of performance pro audio demands. So far Apple is keeping pace quite
well - it's probably safe to say FCP has been revolutionary for the video
market - the first NLE to truly quiet Avid rooms.
>
>
>> James - I think your link supports my comment that Vista sucks (if Aleksey,
>> who was never going to port to OSX, now is, things are looking grim for MS
>> and PC DAW users...). ;-)) (yes, I said it, and yes I believe it - it looks
>> cool, but ... well I'll save the list for another day). I'm just hoping
>> Nuendo 4 rocks on the Mac, so at least I have a backup. (I still think it
>> sucks that with Macs I have to buy average hardware at premium prices when I
>> could build a much more robust, higher end DAW for 20-30% less).
>
> Don't give up, Dedric. Don't switch. Apple needs competition and I don't
> want to quit using the Mac yet. So go to Linux if Vista gets completely
> unlivable, but PLEASE AVOID THE MAC!!!! The day you switch, prices will
> go up...
Oh don't worry. I'll only switch if it actually makes sense, and money for
my business. A benefit of looking at all sides equally is having the
ability see through cute marketing ads and fancy cases. ;-)
Regards,
Dedric
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>> Oh, btw - in that link Aleksey talks about fixing a /3GB switch bug - that
>> was yours truly that found that bug (cool of Aleksey to fix it so quickly;
>> not so cool of MS to make Vista the next stop in the roadmap to 64 bit and
>> where we would have no more need for it).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 9/7/07 10:40 AM, in article 46e17f14$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>> I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides to
>>>> this:
>>>>
>>>> 1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik, just
>>> a
>>>> marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>>>>
>>>> 2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt to
>>>> separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from tests
>>>> I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for the
>>> OS,
>>>> memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can gain
>>>> some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>>>>
>>>> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>>>> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being their
>>>> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core
>>>> audio
>>>> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone else's
>>>> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you can
>>>> market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>>>> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
>>> For
>>>> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>>>> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this has
>>> been
>>>> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even Logic
>>>> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party audio
>>>> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>>>> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>>>>
>>>> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to
>>>> survive
>>>> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>>>> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
>>>> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>>>> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
>>>> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>>>> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's
>>>> pitch
>>>> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one of
>>>> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting their
>>>> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that had
>>> no
>>>> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've learned
>>>> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for
>>>> one).
>>>>
>>>> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>>>> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>>>> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dedric
>>> Sometimes You guys kill me with your anti Mac/Apple opinions. When MS goes
>>> proprietary you guys call it a standard, and you accept it. If Apple does
>>> it, it's a problem. AU is a ground up rewrite of their audio software
>>> system.
>>> They did it to improve audio on Mac OS. I don't like that they dropped
>>> VST support in some of their software, but you still have other choices on
>>> a Mac to use VSTs, including your favorites from Steinberg. Many new plugin
>>> development companies showed up because the new AU format created new
>>> opportunities
>>> for start ups. It's all good.
>>>
>>> By the way, read this: http://www.voxengo.com/press/114/
>>>
>>>> On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
>>> On
>>>>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is it
>>> time
>>>>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
>>> (RME,
>>>>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's not
>>>>> needed.
>>>>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>>>>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new
>>> built-in
>>>>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not Adopt
>>>>> the Vista standard..
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. Rant:
>>>>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>>>>> AUDIO-Units.
>>>>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple went
>>>>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
>>>>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>>>>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>>>>> Apple's
>>>>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next point:
>>>>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
>>>>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps
>>> on
>>>>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A True
>>>>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>>>>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they
>>>>> already
>>>>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not
>>> the
>>>>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit..
>>>>> Companies
>>>>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
>>> in
>>>>> that 64 bit direction).
>>>>>
>>>>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64 bit
>>>>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>>>>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train as
>>>>> well..Chooo
>>>>> chooooc choo...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89449 is a reply to message #89445] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 14:34 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
OK, forgive me for being dense here, guys. Let's put aside the question of
whether audio and video need the same things, which is a damn good sized
set aside but let's do it. How would a 'dedicated audio and video production
OS' solve any of this? What you're saying is that you need more CPU bandwidth,
faster memory, etc. and so forth. You're not going to get a whole lot more
out of the underlying computer hardware than you get out of XP. Really, the
OS overhead under XP is surprisingly small. Maybe not as small as the most
efficient OS, but damn close.
Again, the question is not whether high end users need more computing power
but whether they need a 'dedicated audio and video production OS.'
TCB
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Hey Thad - Lamont answered this as well. From general perspectives, no
we
>don't need a specialized DAW, but as Lamont said, it's when you run against
>the wall of the OS and hardware's capabilities (memory, PCI buss, etc) on
a
>daily basis, then it is an issue. In addition, the main concern is the
cost
>of having to switch between working solutions (not necessarily DAWs, or
>platforms), but plugins or periphery apps, transer workflow, etc because
>another piece of software fell prey to a change in an OS, and is either
dead
>or delayed. Weeks and certainly months of delay in the software development
>world can equate to dollars and clients in the production world.
>
>For sure the level of capability we have with Macs and PCs today is, in
a
>broader perspective, stunning (48 tracks of tape would have broken my budget
>on some projects years ago), but the requirements of the job don't sit back
>and let us enjoy it for very long... ;-)
>
>I just loaded up a single voiceover and setup 4 instances of Nebula last
>week, and a Nebula reverb (that blows away Wizoo W2 and UAD-1 plate) and
it
>sucked down 50% of my cpu - the problem wasn't that I don't have other
>plugins that would load 100 instances, it's that this plugin sounds 100x
>better than those and the track is nailed, with nary another track, much
>less my full orchestral template required to complete the spot (yes, freeze
>is my friend. :-).
>
>Last night I tried to connect a simple (older Oxford 911 chipset) firewire
>drive to my Vista laptop to run a little audio off of, and it locked up
>Vista after a few minutes (apparently lost connection) - work planned for
>this weekend will have to wait until I can get back to the studio - hours,
>and even days lost on my schedule. I can't get a USB thumb drive that works
>with Vista (tried 3, called Sandisk support - no luck). Fortunately I don't
>use the Vista laptop for audio work, but it limits the laptop's usefulness
>in carrying it to another studio for work, previews, transfers, etc.
>
>Obviously, there is no simple alternative to the current crop of mainstream
>OSs for my audio work, and in reality, OSX and XP probably don't limit us
>all that much (other than a few areas here and there). Ubuntu looks cool,
>but there is so much software and hardware involved that moving to a Linux
>solution would really take a monumental leap to become realistic.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>On 9/7/07 2:42 PM, in article 46e1b7c7$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Thad, you are talkign about 2 different market segments. The 'Bedroom"
type
>> who 48 tracks is more than enough..Then there are the power users like
myself
>> where are song tracking session can reach upwards to 90 plus (before editing)
>> with power hungry plugins, and low latency for those running ITB.
>>
>> All in all, the power "Native" daw user does not want to go over to HD-TDM.
>> They want it all(Power) natively. They wan t Pro Tools Power in Natively..
>>
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video
>>> production?
>>> XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track digital
>>> studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
>>>
>>> Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping. I
haven't
>>> installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell workstations
>>> into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks . .
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89451 is a reply to message #89445] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 14:42 |
|
|
"Nebula reverb (that blows away Wizoo W2 and UAD-1 plate)" ...
WOW!! W2 and IK Classics verbs are my go to verbs, even over Alti verb..Nubula
you say..??
I played with free demo last winter and it was buggy, slow on my Dual-core
Opteron PC. I'll have to them another shot.. Thanks
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Hey Thad - Lamont answered this as well. From general perspectives, no
we
>don't need a specialized DAW, but as Lamont said, it's when you run against
>the wall of the OS and hardware's capabilities (memory, PCI buss, etc) on
a
>daily basis, then it is an issue. In addition, the main concern is the
cost
>of having to switch between working solutions (not necessarily DAWs, or
>platforms), but plugins or periphery apps, transer workflow, etc because
>another piece of software fell prey to a change in an OS, and is either
dead
>or delayed. Weeks and certainly months of delay in the software development
>world can equate to dollars and clients in the production world.
>
>For sure the level of capability we have with Macs and PCs today is, in
a
>broader perspective, stunning (48 tracks of tape would have broken my budget
>on some projects years ago), but the requirements of the job don't sit back
>and let us enjoy it for very long... ;-)
>
>I just loaded up a single voiceover and setup 4 instances of Nebula last
>week, and a Nebula reverb (that blows away Wizoo W2 and UAD-1 plate) and
it
>sucked down 50% of my cpu - the problem wasn't that I don't have other
>plugins that would load 100 instances, it's that this plugin sounds 100x
>better than those and the track is nailed, with nary another track, much
>less my full orchestral template required to complete the spot (yes, freeze
>is my friend. :-).
>
>Last night I tried to connect a simple (older Oxford 911 chipset) firewire
>drive to my Vista laptop to run a little audio off of, and it locked up
>Vista after a few minutes (apparently lost connection) - work planned for
>this weekend will have to wait until I can get back to the studio - hours,
>and even days lost on my schedule. I can't get a USB thumb drive that works
>with Vista (tried 3, called Sandisk support - no luck). Fortunately I don't
>use the Vista laptop for audio work, but it limits the laptop's usefulness
>in carrying it to another studio for work, previews, transfers, etc.
>
>Obviously, there is no simple alternative to the current crop of mainstream
>OSs for my audio work, and in reality, OSX and XP probably don't limit us
>all that much (other than a few areas here and there). Ubuntu looks cool,
>but there is so much software and hardware involved that moving to a Linux
>solution would really take a monumental leap to become realistic.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>On 9/7/07 2:42 PM, in article 46e1b7c7$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Thad, you are talkign about 2 different market segments. The 'Bedroom"
type
>> who 48 tracks is more than enough..Then there are the power users like
myself
>> where are song tracking session can reach upwards to 90 plus (before editing)
>> with power hungry plugins, and low latency for those running ITB.
>>
>> All in all, the power "Native" daw user does not want to go over to HD-TDM.
>> They want it all(Power) natively. They wan t Pro Tools Power in Natively..
>>
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video
>>> production?
>>> XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track digital
>>> studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
>>>
>>> Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping. I
haven't
>>> installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell workstations
>>> into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks . .
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89452 is a reply to message #89440] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 14:45 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, LaMont, I'll go back to my tried and true response. Native users really
want the power of [Pro Tools HD/SSL 9k/fill in blank] natively. Well, I really
want to bang Scarlett Johansson but all the wanting it in the world won't
make it so.
Don't take this too personally but I get a little sick of the 'power users'
simultaneously turning their noses up at the 'bedroom studio' market segment
while at the same time wanting everything in native land to be cheap, super
powerful, and easy to use. If the crap that us 'bedroom' guys use can't get
it done, well since you're so power user go off and spend a few million on
a Neve desk and a boatload of fancy hardware. Good on ya. It also hacks me
off that the 'bedroom studio' computer geeks like me spent nearly a decade
getting our noses bloody and doing the ditch digging to help get nativeland
working only to be told that we don't know what the hell we're talking about.
Just sayin'
TCB
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Thad, you are talkign about 2 different market segments. The 'Bedroom" type
>who 48 tracks is more than enough..Then there are the power users like myself
>where are song tracking session can reach upwards to 90 plus (before editing)
>with power hungry plugins, and low latency for those running ITB.
>
>All in all, the power "Native" daw user does not want to go over to HD-TDM.
>They want it all(Power) natively. They wan t Pro Tools Power in Natively..
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video production?
>>XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track digital
>>studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
>>
>>Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping. I haven't
>>installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell workstations
>>into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks . . .
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>James and Jamie,
>>>
>>>Well I'll reply to you and Jamie together to conserve electrons... ;-)
>>>
>>>I think you both missed my point, and assumed this was a slight against
>>>Apple. It wasn't.
>>>
>>>The thread was actually about Vista and the article in which few developers
>>>showed any enthusiasm for it, and in several cases almost outright
>>>rejection. I don't blame them. OS developers really don't, and sadly,
>>>can't put the interests of professional audio users at the forefront.
>Their
>>>first customers are consumers.
>>>
>>>Core audio is cool (great compared to other OS-embedded audio protocols,
>>>unless we bring BeOS back) and Apple seems to have done a respectable
job
>>by
>>>including such core media hooks in the OS (core animation too). However,
>>>the point is how much a full time professional can or should really trust
>>>the performance of their DAW to a company that makes 10x selling phones,
>>or
>>>operating systems (Apple or MS). Of course that's a paradox - we have
>no
>>>choice.
>>>
>>>Truly Apple has made 100x the effort vs. MS in supporting the pro
>>>audio/video market (well, 100 x 0 would be 0, but you get the point ;-).
>>>The point was that it wasn't developed for Steinberg's best interests,
>or
>>>Digidesign's, or MOTU's (where is MAS?), but Apple's. Logic was the first
>>>to support OSX because it was an Apple product, Jamie. Does Apple really
>>>release full SDKs to 3rd parties when they start developing their apps
>for
>>>that new design, or do they wait until they release their app, then forward
>>>the SDKs... ;-)
>>>
>>>Just don't assume that because I include Apple in a general discussion
>that
>>>I'm bashing Macs. Let's also not poo poo Steinberg just because ASIO
and
>>>VST weren't developed by Apple. They really did make native DAWs a reality
>>>(moreso than Emagic or MOTU if we look at the life of ASIO and VST vs.
>MAS
>>>or whatever Emagic's shortlived driver was called - I should remember...).
>>>Steinberg is far from perfect, but that doesn't make Apple the sudden
>>>defender of the pro audio world by default. ;-)
>>>
>>>If you are a Mac audio user (or PC user facing the sad reality that is
>>>Vista), fear the iPhone.... fear Garageband.... ;-)
>>>
>>>Ideally we really need an OS developed "for" audio/video alone, not home
>>>movies, not downloading mp3s, not posting pics of the family vacation.
>
>>But
>>>that opens up a whole other can of worms. I guess the worms we have are
>>as
>>>good as it gets, at least until they are all used up trying to catch bigger
>>>fish.
>>>
>>>James - I think your link supports my comment that Vista sucks (if Aleksey,
>>>who was never going to port to OSX, now is, things are looking grim for
>>MS
>>>and PC DAW users...). ;-)) (yes, I said it, and yes I believe it - it
looks
>>>cool, but ... well I'll save the list for another day). I'm just hoping
>>>Nuendo 4 rocks on the Mac, so at least I have a backup. (I still think
>>it
>>>sucks that with Macs I have to buy average hardware at premium prices
when
>>I
>>>could build a much more robust, higher end DAW for 20-30% less).
>>>
>>>Oh, btw - in that link Aleksey talks about fixing a /3GB switch bug -
that
>>>was yours truly that found that bug (cool of Aleksey to fix it so quickly;
>>>not so cool of MS to make Vista the next stop in the roadmap to 64 bit
>and
>>>where we would have no more need for it).
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>On 9/7/07 10:40 AM, in article 46e17f14$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>>><excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides
>>to
>>>>> this:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik,
>>just
>>>> a
>>>>> marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt
>>to
>>>>> separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from
>>tests
>>>>> I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for
>the
>>>> OS,
>>>>> memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can
>>gain
>>>>> some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>>>>> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being
>>their
>>>>> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core
>>audio
>>>>> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone
>>else's
>>>>> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you
>can
>>>>> market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>>>>> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
>>>> For
>>>>> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>>>>> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this
>has
>>>> been
>>>>> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even
>>Logic
>>>>> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party
>>audio
>>>>> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>>>>> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to
>>survive
>>>>> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>>>>> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support,
never
>>>>> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>>>>> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if
it
>>>>> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>>>>> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's
>>pitch
>>>>> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least
one
>>of
>>>>> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting
>their
>>>>> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that
>>had
>>>> no
>>>>> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've
>learned
>>>>> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX
for
>>one).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>>>>> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>>>>> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes You guys kill me with your anti Mac/Apple opinions. When
MS
>>goes
>>>> proprietary you guys call it a standard, and you accept it. If Apple
>>does
>>>> it, it's a problem. AU is a ground up rewrite of their audio software
>>system.
>>>> They did it to improve audio on Mac OS. I don't like that they dropped
>>>> VST support in some of their software, but you still have other choices
>>on
>>>> a Mac to use VSTs, including your favorites from Steinberg. Many new
>>plugin
>>>> development companies showed up because the new AU format created new
>>>> opportunities
>>>> for start ups. It's all good.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, read this: http://www.voxengo.com/press/114/
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS
(Sound
>>>> On
>>>>>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is
>>it
>>>> time
>>>>>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
>>>> (RME,
>>>>>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's
>>not
>>>>>> needed.
>>>>>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>>>>>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's
new
>>>> built-in
>>>>>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not
>>Adopt
>>>>>> the Vista standard..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK. Rant:
>>>>>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>>>>>> AUDIO-Units.
>>>>>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple
>>went
>>>>>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding
>their
>>>>>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>>>>>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>>>>>> Apple's
>>>>>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Next point:
>>>>>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to
>break
>>>>>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit
apps
>>>> on
>>>>>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But,
A
>>True
>>>>>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>>>>>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they
>>already
>>>>>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is
>not
>>>> the
>>>>>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit..
>Companies
>>>>>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
>>>> in
>>>>>> that 64 bit direction).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of
64
>>bit
>>>>>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>>>>>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train
>>as
>>>>>> well..Chooo
>>>>>> chooooc choo...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89453 is a reply to message #89442] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 14:52 |
|
|
Yes, via Magma..
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hey dedric.. That was called (Emagic Driver EASI) :)
>>
>>well, I for onehave taken pre-emtive measures to secire a Mac Pro (8 core)
>>Running Cubase SX. I purchased from a friend for a really good price. I
>hadhim
>>show me what Sx was like on OS-X/Intel..Bottem line. It handled 80 pus
tracks
>>imported form a Pro Tools session.
>>
>>I was sold. He een demostrated SX on his G5-quad. 80 plus tracks, plugins..
>>No problem..
>>
>>That's why this I felt that article was so disturbing. I see greater and
>>greater movement to OS_X and Core audio-audio units. You just get a sense
>>that Apple has the momentum with the pro audio and video market. And ,
sadly
>>my hunches are dead on..
>>
>>With theis Vista fiasco, I think Ms has slammed it's door on our community.
>>But, MS has a lot money invested in AVID, so Digidesign must know something
>>we don't..
>>The next few years should be interesting..
>>
>>I will be testing Paris on the Mac Pro (running win XP..via boot camp.
Won;t
>>hurt to see what happens..
>>Stay tuned.
>
>LaMont, are you going to run a Magma? I don't think the PCI thing will
work
>with out it. This will be interesting!
>
>
>>
>>Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>James and Jamie,
>>>
>>>Well I'll reply to you and Jamie together to conserve electrons... ;-)
>>>
>>>I think you both missed my point, and assumed this was a slight against
>>>Apple. It wasn't.
>>>
>>>The thread was actually about Vista and the article in which few developers
>>>showed any enthusiasm for it, and in several cases almost outright
>>>rejection. I don't blame them. OS developers really don't, and sadly,
>>>can't put the interests of professional audio users at the forefront.
>Their
>>>first customers are consumers.
>>>
>>>Core audio is cool (great compared to other OS-embedded audio protocols,
>>>unless we bring BeOS back) and Apple seems to have done a respectable
job
>>by
>>>including such core media hooks in the OS (core animation too). However,
>>>the point is how much a full time professional can or should really trust
>>>the performance of their DAW to a company that makes 10x selling phones,
>>or
>>>operating systems (Apple or MS). Of course that's a paradox - we have
>no
>>>choice.
>>>
>>>Truly Apple has made 100x the effort vs. MS in supporting the pro
>>>audio/video market (well, 100 x 0 would be 0, but you get the point ;-).
>>>The point was that it wasn't developed for Steinberg's best interests,
>or
>>>Digidesign's, or MOTU's (where is MAS?), but Apple's. Logic was the first
>>>to support OSX because it was an Apple product, Jamie. Does Apple really
>>>release full SDKs to 3rd parties when they start developing their apps
>for
>>>that new design, or do they wait until they release their app, then forward
>>>the SDKs... ;-)
>>>
>>>Just don't assume that because I include Apple in a general discussion
>that
>>>I'm bashing Macs. Let's also not poo poo Steinberg just because ASIO
and
>>>VST weren't developed by Apple. They really did make native DAWs a reality
>>>(moreso than Emagic or MOTU if we look at the life of ASIO and VST vs.
>MAS
>>>or whatever Emagic's shortlived driver was called - I should remember...).
>>>Steinberg is far from perfect, but that doesn't make Apple the sudden
>>>defender of the pro audio world by default. ;-)
>>>
>>>If you are a Mac audio user (or PC user facing the sad reality that is
>>>Vista), fear the iPhone.... fear Garageband.... ;-)
>>>
>>>Ideally we really need an OS developed "for" audio/video alone, not home
>>>movies, not downloading mp3s, not posting pics of the family vacation.
>
>>But
>>>that opens up a whole other can of worms. I guess the worms we have are
>>as
>>>good as it gets, at least until they are all used up trying to catch bigger
>>>fish.
>>>
>>>James - I think your link supports my comment that Vista sucks (if Aleksey,
>>>who was never going to port to OSX, now is, things are looking grim for
>>MS
>>>and PC DAW users...). ;-)) (yes, I said it, and yes I believe it - it
looks
>>>cool, but ... well I'll save the list for another day). I'm just hoping
>>>Nuendo 4 rocks on the Mac, so at least I have a backup. (I still think
>>it
>>>sucks that with Macs I have to buy average hardware at premium prices
when
>>I
>>>could build a much more robust, higher end DAW for 20-30% less).
>>>
>>>Oh, btw - in that link Aleksey talks about fixing a /3GB switch bug -
that
>>>was yours truly that found that bug (cool of Aleksey to fix it so quickly;
>>>not so cool of MS to make Vista the next stop in the roadmap to 64 bit
>and
>>>where we would have no more need for it).
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>On 9/7/07 10:40 AM, in article 46e17f14$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
>>><excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>> I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides
>>to
>>>>> this:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik,
>>just
>>>> a
>>>>> marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt
>>to
>>>>> separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from
>>tests
>>>>> I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for
>the
>>>> OS,
>>>>> memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can
>>gain
>>>>> some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>>>>> developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being
>>their
>>>>> main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core
>>audio
>>>>> is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone
>>else's
>>>>> protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you
>can
>>>>> market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>>>>> fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
>>>> For
>>>>> example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>>>>> software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this
>has
>>>> been
>>>>> slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even
>>Logic
>>>>> doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party
>>audio
>>>>> applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>>>>> vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to
>>survive
>>>>> - most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>>>>> didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support,
never
>>>>> moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>>>>> since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if
it
>>>>> doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>>>>> VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's
>>pitch
>>>>> to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least
one
>>of
>>>>> the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting
>their
>>>>> product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that
>>had
>>>> no
>>>>> direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've
>learned
>>>>> from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX
for
>>one).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>>>>> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>>>>> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dedric
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes You guys kill me with your anti Mac/Apple opinions. When
MS
>>goes
>>>> proprietary you guys call it a standard, and you accept it. If Apple
>>does
>>>> it, it's a problem. AU is a ground up rewrite of their audio software
>>system.
>>>> They did it to improve audio on Mac OS. I don't like that they dropped
>>>> VST support in some of their software, but you still have other choices
>>on
>>>> a Mac to use VSTs, including your favorites from Steinberg. Many new
>>plugin
>>>> development companies showed up because the new AU format created new
>>>> opportunities
>>>> for start ups. It's all good.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, read this: http://www.voxengo.com/press/114/
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS
(Sound
>>>> On
>>>>>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is
>>it
>>>> time
>>>>>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
>>>> (RME,
>>>>>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's
>>not
>>>>>> needed.
>>>>>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>>>>>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's
new
>>>> built-in
>>>>>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not
>>Adopt
>>>>>> the Vista standard..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK. Rant:
>>>>>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>>>>>> AUDIO-Units.
>>>>>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple
>>went
>>>>>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding
>their
>>>>>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>>>>>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>>>>>> Apple's
>>>>>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Next point:
>>>>>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to
>break
>>>>>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit
apps
>>>> on
>>>>>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But,
A
>>True
>>>>>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>>>>>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they
>>already
>>>>>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is
>not
>>>> the
>>>>>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit..
>Companies
>>>>>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
>>>> in
>>>>>> that 64 bit direction).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of
64
>>bit
>>>>>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>>>>>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train
>>as
>>>>>> well..Chooo
>>>>>> chooooc choo...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Nebula [message #89455 is a reply to message #89454] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 15:06 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The free version kind of worked here, but it was a bit like - "well here's
the idea, and once it works, you'll have a better idea of what the idea is".
;-)
The commercial version does work. It is a cpu killer, and doesn't feel
fluid (editing parameters is sluggish and inaccurate), but some of the
presets really do sound excellent - some sound like the hardware they
emulate (there are Mackie EQs and pres... not sure why).
It also depends on what you need - I do love Wizoo verbs for spaces, but
some of Nebula's are deeper and in reality, Lexicon emulations, so apples
and oranges. Nebula has a U-140 plate that does sound deeper and smoother
than my UAD-1 Plate 140, but it also runs stereo even from mono inserts or
sends, which helps.
Dedric
On 9/7/07 3:52 PM, in article 46e1c824$1@linux, "Neil" <IOUOI@OIU.com>
wrote:
>
> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Nebula reverb (that blows away Wizoo W2 and UAD-1 plate)" ...
>>
>> WOW!! W2 and IK Classics verbs are my go to verbs, even over Alti
>> verb..Nubula
>> you say..??
>>
>> I played with free demo last winter and it was buggy, slow on my Dual-core
>> Opteron PC. I'll have to them another shot.. Thanks
>
> I couldn't even get it to work. It just sat there staring at me
> & taking up about 20% of my CPU cycles. It was like a cycle-
> sucking parasite, feeding off my PC and doing it no good in the
> process lol
>
> It didn't make anything lock up, or anything like that, it just
> didn't do anything.
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista (discussion) irritating. [message #89456 is a reply to message #89452] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 15:59 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Good points Thad,
I guess the point of view(s)from the so called "High-End" is that we've been
sold some hardware updates with the promise of vastly superior perfomance
results.
We've been told we just wait until we get an 64 bit OS to go along with yur
new 64 bit cpu and those new video cards. Then , you guys will have vastly
superior performance greater than TDM.
Well, again, we've been dupped,hood winked.. Bamboozeled :)
Truth is : The average Native Power DAW user has spent the equivlent to an
Pro Tools HD setup. AND, the funny thing is, this kind of user will keep
on chasing that elussive "Native" faster Than Pro Tools Rig" not realizing
that he or she has spent "WAY" more say over 15k in a native solution.
That's the frustration: And as James M has stated onm any occasions, they(DAW
manufacturing companies) only really care about is the Bed Room user. with
products 8 & 2 channels channels at a time with chessy at best on board
pre-amps.
Suprisingly: The Computer makers (DELL, Apple, HP, Gateway, etc) have been
great to our community. Today we can purchase a very fast dual-core intel/AMD
for $500.00 bucks...then add a nother drive $100.00 bucks or less..instant
DAW..
Another source of frustration fro th eso called high-end, is again the hype
aroudn so called hardware devices that's supposed to free up cpu resources.ie.
UAD.. To this day I have purchased a single UAD Card due te fact that it
does not free up any resources , but rather adds overhead. Read: Big Dongle.
As well as the Tc-powercore..
God Bless Steigberg Cakewalk ,& Samplitude for re-writting their code from
scratch to take advantage of the Win 2000/XP platform. With their wrok,
native DAW work would still be in the slow, third world midi-based land of
Emagic and MOtu..
So, whatdo we do..Do we continue to invest in Native rigs like BrianT(4-dual
core ) Opterons(Do the Math).. Scary.. Now, do you realize that a Pro Tools
HD 1accel cost under 5k..Another 16 hundred for i/o..Boom your into no excuse
land. HD2 accel..street with 192 I/O around $9600.00.. 128 tracks..with
rediculous amount of plugin power..End of story..
Oh yeah. You can run the above protool rigs on an G4-500-700,800.?????
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Well, LaMont, I'll go back to my tried and true response. Native users really
>want the power of [Pro Tools HD/SSL 9k/fill in blank] natively. Well, I
really
>want to bang Scarlett Johansson but all the wanting it in the world won't
>make it so.
>
>Don't take this too personally but I get a little sick of the 'power users'
>simultaneously turning their noses up at the 'bedroom studio' market segment
>while at the same time wanting everything in native land to be cheap, super
>powerful, and easy to use. If the crap that us 'bedroom' guys use can't
get
>it done, well since you're so power user go off and spend a few million
on
>a Neve desk and a boatload of fancy hardware. Good on ya. It also hacks
me
>off that the 'bedroom studio' computer geeks like me spent nearly a decade
>getting our noses bloody and doing the ditch digging to help get nativeland
>working only to be told that we don't know what the hell we're talking about.
>
>
>Just sayin'
>
>TCB
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Thad, you are talkign about 2 different market segments. The 'Bedroom"
type
>>who 48 tracks is more than enough..Then there are the power users like
myself
>>where are song tracking session can reach upwards to 90 plus (before editing)
>>with power hungry plugins, and low latency for those running ITB.
>>
>>All in all, the power "Native" daw user does not want to go over to HD-TDM.
>>They want it all(Power) natively. They wan t Pro Tools Power in Natively..
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video production?
>>>XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track digital
>>>studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
>>>
>>>Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping. I
haven't
>>>installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell workstations
>>>into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks . .
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89458 is a reply to message #89418] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 16:58 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In real world use, XP and OSX are fine, and maybe there wouldn't be much to
gain from a dedicated system beyond enhanced stability or just consistency
perhaps (thought that isn't really an issue on my XP systems), but my
thinking is drivers could be tighter and general media streaming wouldn't be
subject to normal OS interaction, but I could be wrong.
I guess your last question really depends on the reality of what would or
wouldn't be gained by a dedicated OS. Hard to say, but as long as we work
with commercial OSs that are geared towards a wide range of uses, it is
clear that we will always wonder what we might be missing. Along these
lines though, I think it's only fair that we question the efficiency of
hardware that is based on a 30 year old legacy model (IRQs, etc).
Dedric
On 9/7/07 3:34 PM, in article 46e1c3d7$1@linux, "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com>
wrote:
>
> OK, forgive me for being dense here, guys. Let's put aside the question of
> whether audio and video need the same things, which is a damn good sized
> set aside but let's do it. How would a 'dedicated audio and video production
> OS' solve any of this? What you're saying is that you need more CPU bandwidth,
> faster memory, etc. and so forth. You're not going to get a whole lot more
> out of the underlying computer hardware than you get out of XP. Really, the
> OS overhead under XP is surprisingly small. Maybe not as small as the most
> efficient OS, but damn close.
>
> Again, the question is not whether high end users need more computing power
> but whether they need a 'dedicated audio and video production OS.'
>
> TCB
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> Hey Thad - Lamont answered this as well. From general perspectives, no
> we
>> don't need a specialized DAW, but as Lamont said, it's when you run against
>> the wall of the OS and hardware's capabilities (memory, PCI buss, etc) on
> a
>> daily basis, then it is an issue. In addition, the main concern is the
> cost
>> of having to switch between working solutions (not necessarily DAWs, or
>> platforms), but plugins or periphery apps, transer workflow, etc because
>> another piece of software fell prey to a change in an OS, and is either
> dead
>> or delayed. Weeks and certainly months of delay in the software development
>> world can equate to dollars and clients in the production world.
>>
>> For sure the level of capability we have with Macs and PCs today is, in
> a
>> broader perspective, stunning (48 tracks of tape would have broken my budget
>> on some projects years ago), but the requirements of the job don't sit back
>> and let us enjoy it for very long... ;-)
>>
>> I just loaded up a single voiceover and setup 4 instances of Nebula last
>> week, and a Nebula reverb (that blows away Wizoo W2 and UAD-1 plate) and
> it
>> sucked down 50% of my cpu - the problem wasn't that I don't have other
>> plugins that would load 100 instances, it's that this plugin sounds 100x
>> better than those and the track is nailed, with nary another track, much
>> less my full orchestral template required to complete the spot (yes, freeze
>> is my friend. :-).
>>
>> Last night I tried to connect a simple (older Oxford 911 chipset) firewire
>> drive to my Vista laptop to run a little audio off of, and it locked up
>> Vista after a few minutes (apparently lost connection) - work planned for
>> this weekend will have to wait until I can get back to the studio - hours,
>> and even days lost on my schedule. I can't get a USB thumb drive that works
>> with Vista (tried 3, called Sandisk support - no luck). Fortunately I don't
>> use the Vista laptop for audio work, but it limits the laptop's usefulness
>> in carrying it to another studio for work, previews, transfers, etc.
>>
>> Obviously, there is no simple alternative to the current crop of mainstream
>> OSs for my audio work, and in reality, OSX and XP probably don't limit us
>> all that much (other than a few areas here and there). Ubuntu looks cool,
>> but there is so much software and hardware involved that moving to a Linux
>> solution would really take a monumental leap to become realistic.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 9/7/07 2:42 PM, in article 46e1b7c7$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thad, you are talkign about 2 different market segments. The 'Bedroom"
> type
>>> who 48 tracks is more than enough..Then there are the power users like
> myself
>>> where are song tracking session can reach upwards to 90 plus (before
>>> editing)
>>> with power hungry plugins, and low latency for those running ITB.
>>>
>>> All in all, the power "Native" daw user does not want to go over to HD-TDM.
>>> They want it all(Power) natively. They wan t Pro Tools Power in Natively..
>>>
>>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video
>>>> production?
>>>> XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track digital
>>>> studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
>>>>
>>>> Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping. I
> haven't
>>>> installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell workstations
>>>> into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks . .
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista (discussion) irritating. [message #89459 is a reply to message #89456] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 17:10 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lamont - you might want to add up the equivalent plugin counts on a HD accel
card and compare it to, for example, a UAD-1. The cost is more than double
per plugin compared to a UAD-1, with PCs and all hardware factored
in/balanced off. So, who's hoodwinking who? ;-)
Digi has no interest in preventing you from spending too much money. Just
compare the cost of a TDM plugin to a native version - same plugin - Waves,
UAD, etc. Then add not only the cost of an Accel card, I/O, but also the
computer, peripherals, conversion add ons that aren't included in PT, etc.
When doing price comparisons I've never spec'd a PT rig under about $12k
that equaled what I do with my $1700 Core 2, RME interfaces and Nuendo.
If you are tracking 40+ live tracks, then yes, native's latency may become a
disadvantage depending on what you need to monitor. A PT rig will give you
near zero latency monitoring, but much the same can be done with RME
totalmix, Cuemix etc, though not as elegantly for sure.
However, for production, scoring, editing, sound design, and many mixing
scenarios, etc - it's hard to justify the extra cost for PT HD per plugin,
or per track. It is significantly higher than native, easily.
Btw - you should check out the track count mix Brian posted on the Nuendo
forum recently
( http://forum.nuendo.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=13740&pos tdays=0&postorder=a
sc&start=300).
I really doubt you could come close to matching it with PTHD for the cost.
Regards,
Dedric
On 9/7/07 4:59 PM, in article 46e1d7ca$1@linux, "LaMont"
<jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> Good points Thad,
>
> I guess the point of view(s)from the so called "High-End" is that we've been
> sold some hardware updates with the promise of vastly superior perfomance
> results.
>
> We've been told we just wait until we get an 64 bit OS to go along with yur
> new 64 bit cpu and those new video cards. Then , you guys will have vastly
> superior performance greater than TDM.
>
> Well, again, we've been dupped,hood winked.. Bamboozeled :)
>
> Truth is : The average Native Power DAW user has spent the equivlent to an
> Pro Tools HD setup. AND, the funny thing is, this kind of user will keep
> on chasing that elussive "Native" faster Than Pro Tools Rig" not realizing
> that he or she has spent "WAY" more say over 15k in a native solution.
>
> That's the frustration: And as James M has stated onm any occasions, they(DAW
> manufacturing companies) only really care about is the Bed Room user. with
> products 8 & 2 channels channels at a time with chessy at best on board
> pre-amps.
>
> Suprisingly: The Computer makers (DELL, Apple, HP, Gateway, etc) have been
> great to our community. Today we can purchase a very fast dual-core intel/AMD
> for $500.00 bucks...then add a nother drive $100.00 bucks or less..instant
> DAW..
>
> Another source of frustration fro th eso called high-end, is again the hype
> aroudn so called hardware devices that's supposed to free up cpu resources.ie.
> UAD.. To this day I have purchased a single UAD Card due te fact that it
> does not free up any resources , but rather adds overhead. Read: Big Dongle.
> As well as the Tc-powercore..
>
> God Bless Steigberg Cakewalk ,& Samplitude for re-writting their code from
> scratch to take advantage of the Win 2000/XP platform. With their wrok,
> native DAW work would still be in the slow, third world midi-based land of
> Emagic and MOtu..
>
> So, whatdo we do..Do we continue to invest in Native rigs like BrianT(4-dual
> core ) Opterons(Do the Math).. Scary.. Now, do you realize that a Pro Tools
> HD 1accel cost under 5k..Another 16 hundred for i/o..Boom your into no excuse
> land. HD2 accel..street with 192 I/O around $9600.00.. 128 tracks..with
> rediculous amount of plugin power..End of story..
>
> Oh yeah. You can run the above protool rigs on an G4-500-700,800.?????
>
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, LaMont, I'll go back to my tried and true response. Native users really
>> want the power of [Pro Tools HD/SSL 9k/fill in blank] natively. Well, I
> really
>> want to bang Scarlett Johansson but all the wanting it in the world won't
>> make it so.
>>
>> Don't take this too personally but I get a little sick of the 'power users'
>> simultaneously turning their noses up at the 'bedroom studio' market segment
>> while at the same time wanting everything in native land to be cheap, super
>> powerful, and easy to use. If the crap that us 'bedroom' guys use can't
> get
>> it done, well since you're so power user go off and spend a few million
> on
>> a Neve desk and a boatload of fancy hardware. Good on ya. It also hacks
> me
>> off that the 'bedroom studio' computer geeks like me spent nearly a decade
>> getting our noses bloody and doing the ditch digging to help get nativeland
>> working only to be told that we don't know what the hell we're talking about.
>>
>>
>> Just sayin'
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thad, you are talkign about 2 different market segments. The 'Bedroom"
> type
>>> who 48 tracks is more than enough..Then there are the power users like
> myself
>>> where are song tracking session can reach upwards to 90 plus (before
>>> editing)
>>> with power hungry plugins, and low latency for those running ITB.
>>>
>>> All in all, the power "Native" daw user does not want to go over to HD-TDM.
>>> They want it all(Power) natively. They wan t Pro Tools Power in Natively..
>>>
>>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video
>>>> production?
>>>> XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track digital
>>>> studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
>>>>
>>>> Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping. I
> haven't
>>>> installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell workstations
>>>> into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89464 is a reply to message #89422] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 19:06 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>I read the article a while back, and I think there are multiple sides to
>this:
>
>1 - Vista isn't great for low latency audio. WaveRT is still, afaik, just
a
>marketing feature, not proven in reality for pro audio.
>
>2 - Cakewalk has staked their marketing on 64-bit in order to attempt to
>separate themselves from the market. Reality is (or so it seems from tests
>I've seen), there is little advantage for the audio engine, and for the
OS,
>memory access is the main advantage. 64-bit apps in a 64-bit OS can gain
>some performance gains, but so far that appears to be minimal).
>
>3 - Apple hasn't really worked for, or to the advantage of DAW/audio
>developers, except their own (Final Cut Pro and iTunes/QT/iLife being their
>main interests here, with Logic running a distant 5th, or 10th). Core audio
>is likely a 30% technical decision (easier to implement than someone else's
>protocol), and 70% product control - what you develop yourself, you can
>market, control and use to differentiate your product. ASIO is perfectly
>fast, and stable on WinXP, but it's Steinberg's protocol, not Apple's.
For
>example, direct monitoring still isn't supported by most hardware or
>software for OSX, and was questionable for core audio (whether this has
been
>slow to develop, or slow to release the SDK for, I don't know) - even Logic
>doesn't have it. Apple just isn't interested in supporting 3rd party audio
>applications or protocols for the Mac purely because they have a direct
>vested interest in their own, and in selling more Macs.
>
>Developers adopted AU and Core Audio because they had to in order to survive
>- most of them already had Mac products they would simply lose if they
>didn't. Notice that some developers that didn't have Mac support, never
>moved to AU (Voxengo for one; Algorithmix, etc). It was a forced decision
>since VST, ASIO, etc had been dropped, just as Logic 5/PC was - if it
>doesn't make money for Apple, it is unceremoniously canned. With Vista,
>VST, ASIO, WDM all still work, so developers aren't buying Microsoft's pitch
>to move to their own internal driver/protocol. I believe at least one of
>the developers in that article expressed reservations over trusting their
>product to a protocol (WaveRT) that was held by an OS developer that had
no
>direct interest in professional audio (sound familiar now? They've learned
>from the Apple experience, and past Microsoft experience - DirectX for one).
>
>I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
Back around 1990 I took a computer class, the instructor told the class that
Apple computers were toys with their stupid cartoon icons. He told the class
that the mouse was dumb, that you could get around a computer faster with
a keyboard. He said that real men used real computers, and real computers
used command lines, not cartoon pictures. The guy was an arrogant pompous
ass, and he was wrong. That was over seventeen years ago, that thinking
was bullheaded and ignorant back then and it still is today! I've heard
this slam on apple for years along with all the other stupid stuff like their
going out of business.
Dedric, your comment insinuates that Apple is a toy company that does not
make serious computers, that is a slam. Apple products are not toys. Right
now Mac OSX is a more serious OS for audio and video than Vista is. When
Apple releases the next major release of Logic, it will be a serious contender,
it won't be a toy. You could even get some serious work done with GarageBand,
even though it's a consumer product. Is there multi track music production
software in Vista?
As far as a OS that is geared for audio or video, I would say most Mac users
are satisfied and feel there is no reason to have a proprietary completely
dedicated computer. Because of physics, there will always be some kind of
latency, but it's already livable.
Yes, Apple hardware is too expensive, but you get what you pay for. I don't
know how many times I've heard on this board and others that somebody is
on there second or third MOBO or power supply in a year because they burn
up. I know the story about the FW port on your 5-7 year old G4. The other
day Dave was talking about how great Glyph is. The service he got was great,
and product was in warranty. I was a dealer for them at one time, and I
think they are a good company, but I think their products are over priced.
Nobody thinks anything of it, but when it comes to Apple you guys bitch
about how over priced they are. You guys wouldn't think twice about dropping
3K on a single mic pre, but the thought of dropping 3K on a computer, the
core center of your studio is unthinkable. Even if Apple computers were
the same price as PCs somebody would bitch that they couldn't get a replacement
MOBO for $20.00 at 7-11. This will never end. I still say Apple makes high
quality stuff, you have to look at what you are really getting for the money.
You get what you pay for.
>
>On 9/7/07 9:16 AM, in article 46e16b5e$1@linux, "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Okay fam, I just read a very interesting article in July's 07 SOS (Sound
On
>> Sound -What The Devlopers Think) about the state of MS Vista AND is it
time
>> for (Them DAW manufactuers) to go 64 bit.
>>
>> Well, the article featured most of the heavey hitters in the industry
(RME,
>> M-Audio, Native Instruments, Steingberg, Cakewalk, Lynx .
>>
>> As far as 64 bit in the DAW most , except Cakewalk, feels that it's not
>> needed.
>> But, you get the feeling that they say this because of the work involved.
>> Secondly, They're not impreesed(except Cakewalk) with Microsoft's new
built-in
>> audio hooks (WaveRT).. RME stated thay would stay with ASIO, and Not Adopt
>> the Vista standard..
>>
>> OK. Rant:
>> When Apple completly re-coded their OS witha NEW Audio engine standard
>> AUDIO-Units.
>> At that time, ASIO, WMD & MAS where the NAtive standards, but Apple went
>> their own way. So what did the Developers do...They started coding their
>> apps, plugins, audio interfaces with Auduo-Unit drivers.
>>
>> Now, that Microsoft is proposing the same thing, these very same companies
>> are balking. Why? Even with Lower latency and less pull on the CPU,like
>> Apple's
>> Audio Unit design, their balking.
>>
>> Next point:
>> To all of those who state the only useful purpose for 64 bit is to break
>> the 4 gig memory limitation (for Samplers) in Bull!
>>
>> The problem is that the DAWS are all using 32 bit coding. #2 bit apps
on
>> a 64 bit os and processor will only get you marginal gains...But, A True
>> 64 DAW/App using a 64 bit CPU,64 bit plugins
>> we we see astouding gains in performance.
>>
>> I'll stop now. But, we need to let the manufacturers know (what they already
>> know) and that is the Windows train is moving and even if Vista is not
the
>> OS, the Next version will be the right one and it will be 64 bit.. Companies
>> like RME & Steinbergs will get left behind if they don't start moving
in
>> that 64 bit direction).
>>
>> To may of us have Pre-Invested in 64 bit CPUs with the promise of 64 bit
>> processing. Apple will be there soon with OS-x 64 with a newly re-wriiten
>> version of Logic (64 bit). Digi and Motu will be on the 64 bit train as
>> well..Chooo
>> chooooc choo...
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista (discussion) irritating. [message #89465 is a reply to message #89459] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 19:07 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
However, what kinda price do you put on "piece of mind". Work arounds, Total
mix?? Yikes!!
How much does, "it just works" cost?? :)
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Lamont - you might want to add up the equivalent plugin counts on a HD accel
>card and compare it to, for example, a UAD-1. The cost is more than double
>per plugin compared to a UAD-1, with PCs and all hardware factored
>in/balanced off. So, who's hoodwinking who? ;-)
>
>Digi has no interest in preventing you from spending too much money. Just
>compare the cost of a TDM plugin to a native version - same plugin - Waves,
>UAD, etc. Then add not only the cost of an Accel card, I/O, but also the
>computer, peripherals, conversion add ons that aren't included in PT, etc.
>
>When doing price comparisons I've never spec'd a PT rig under about $12k
>that equaled what I do with my $1700 Core 2, RME interfaces and Nuendo.
>
>If you are tracking 40+ live tracks, then yes, native's latency may become
a
>disadvantage depending on what you need to monitor. A PT rig will give
you
>near zero latency monitoring, but much the same can be done with RME
>totalmix, Cuemix etc, though not as elegantly for sure.
>
>However, for production, scoring, editing, sound design, and many mixing
>scenarios, etc - it's hard to justify the extra cost for PT HD per plugin,
>or per track. It is significantly higher than native, easily.
>
>Btw - you should check out the track count mix Brian posted on the Nuendo
>forum recently
>( http://forum.nuendo.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=13740&pos tdays=0&postorder=a
>sc&start=300).
>
>I really doubt you could come close to matching it with PTHD for the cost.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>On 9/7/07 4:59 PM, in article 46e1d7ca$1@linux, "LaMont"
><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Good points Thad,
>>
>> I guess the point of view(s)from the so called "High-End" is that we've
been
>> sold some hardware updates with the promise of vastly superior perfomance
>> results.
>>
>> We've been told we just wait until we get an 64 bit OS to go along with
yur
>> new 64 bit cpu and those new video cards. Then , you guys will have vastly
>> superior performance greater than TDM.
>>
>> Well, again, we've been dupped,hood winked.. Bamboozeled :)
>>
>> Truth is : The average Native Power DAW user has spent the equivlent to
an
>> Pro Tools HD setup. AND, the funny thing is, this kind of user will keep
>> on chasing that elussive "Native" faster Than Pro Tools Rig" not realizing
>> that he or she has spent "WAY" more say over 15k in a native solution.
>>
>> That's the frustration: And as James M has stated onm any occasions, they(DAW
>> manufacturing companies) only really care about is the Bed Room user.
with
>> products 8 & 2 channels channels at a time with chessy at best on board
>> pre-amps.
>>
>> Suprisingly: The Computer makers (DELL, Apple, HP, Gateway, etc) have
been
>> great to our community. Today we can purchase a very fast dual-core intel/AMD
>> for $500.00 bucks...then add a nother drive $100.00 bucks or less..instant
>> DAW..
>>
>> Another source of frustration fro th eso called high-end, is again the
hype
>> aroudn so called hardware devices that's supposed to free up cpu resources.ie.
>> UAD.. To this day I have purchased a single UAD Card due te fact that
it
>> does not free up any resources , but rather adds overhead. Read: Big
Dongle.
>> As well as the Tc-powercore..
>>
>> God Bless Steigberg Cakewalk ,& Samplitude for re-writting their code
from
>> scratch to take advantage of the Win 2000/XP platform. With their wrok,
>> native DAW work would still be in the slow, third world midi-based land
of
>> Emagic and MOtu..
>>
>> So, whatdo we do..Do we continue to invest in Native rigs like BrianT(4-dual
>> core ) Opterons(Do the Math).. Scary.. Now, do you realize that a Pro
Tools
>> HD 1accel cost under 5k..Another 16 hundred for i/o..Boom your into no
excuse
>> land. HD2 accel..street with 192 I/O around $9600.00.. 128 tracks..with
>> rediculous amount of plugin power..End of story..
>>
>> Oh yeah. You can run the above protool rigs on an G4-500-700,800.?????
>>
>>
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, LaMont, I'll go back to my tried and true response. Native users
really
>>> want the power of [Pro Tools HD/SSL 9k/fill in blank] natively. Well,
I
>> really
>>> want to bang Scarlett Johansson but all the wanting it in the world won't
>>> make it so.
>>>
>>> Don't take this too personally but I get a little sick of the 'power
users'
>>> simultaneously turning their noses up at the 'bedroom studio' market
segment
>>> while at the same time wanting everything in native land to be cheap,
super
>>> powerful, and easy to use. If the crap that us 'bedroom' guys use can't
>> get
>>> it done, well since you're so power user go off and spend a few million
>> on
>>> a Neve desk and a boatload of fancy hardware. Good on ya. It also hacks
>> me
>>> off that the 'bedroom studio' computer geeks like me spent nearly a decade
>>> getting our noses bloody and doing the ditch digging to help get nativeland
>>> working only to be told that we don't know what the hell we're talking
about.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just sayin'
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thad, you are talkign about 2 different market segments. The 'Bedroom"
>> type
>>>> who 48 tracks is more than enough..Then there are the power users like
>> myself
>>>> where are song tracking session can reach upwards to 90 plus (before
>>>> editing)
>>>> with power hungry plugins, and low latency for those running ITB.
>>>>
>>>> All in all, the power "Native" daw user does not want to go over to
HD-TDM.
>>>> They want it all(Power) natively. They wan t Pro Tools Power in Natively..
>>>>
>>>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video
>>>>> production?
>>>>> XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track
digital
>>>>> studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping.
I
>> haven't
>>>>> installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell workstations
>>>>> into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks .
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista (discussion) irritating. [message #89467 is a reply to message #89465] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 19:17 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wherever did you get the idea I use workarounds or that native is a
workaround? I simply said Totalmix was a less elegant solution to
accomplish monitoring, but clearly stated that ProTools holds the advantage
in large tracking sessions.
How many people here read a few lines, guess the rest, and hit reply? ;-))
Btw, I'm doing post for a film, several corporate docs (international
clients, not local stuff), all in Nuendo - works perfectly. I wouldn't say
a native DAW is optimal for a live 30-40 input tracking session, with
monitor feeds to musicians, but I know guys doing it daily.
ProTools doesn't have a reputation for absolute stability, so let's not talk
about "peace of mind". My rig never fails me and keeps me busy 6-7 days a
week, so I guess that would be called a pretty solid "peace of mind".
Dedric
On 9/7/07 8:07 PM, in article 46e203c7$1@linux, "LaMont"
<jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> However, what kinda price do you put on "piece of mind". Work arounds, Total
> mix?? Yikes!!
>
> How much does, "it just works" cost?? :)
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> Lamont - you might want to add up the equivalent plugin counts on a HD accel
>> card and compare it to, for example, a UAD-1. The cost is more than double
>> per plugin compared to a UAD-1, with PCs and all hardware factored
>> in/balanced off. So, who's hoodwinking who? ;-)
>>
>> Digi has no interest in preventing you from spending too much money. Just
>> compare the cost of a TDM plugin to a native version - same plugin - Waves,
>> UAD, etc. Then add not only the cost of an Accel card, I/O, but also the
>> computer, peripherals, conversion add ons that aren't included in PT, etc.
>>
>> When doing price comparisons I've never spec'd a PT rig under about $12k
>> that equaled what I do with my $1700 Core 2, RME interfaces and Nuendo.
>>
>> If you are tracking 40+ live tracks, then yes, native's latency may become
> a
>> disadvantage depending on what you need to monitor. A PT rig will give
> you
>> near zero latency monitoring, but much the same can be done with RME
>> totalmix, Cuemix etc, though not as elegantly for sure.
>>
>> However, for production, scoring, editing, sound design, and many mixing
>> scenarios, etc - it's hard to justify the extra cost for PT HD per plugin,
>> or per track. It is significantly higher than native, easily.
>>
>> Btw - you should check out the track count mix Brian posted on the Nuendo
>> forum recently
>> ( http://forum.nuendo.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=13740&pos tdays=0&postorder=a
>> sc&start=300).
>>
>> I really doubt you could come close to matching it with PTHD for the cost.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 9/7/07 4:59 PM, in article 46e1d7ca$1@linux, "LaMont"
>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Good points Thad,
>>>
>>> I guess the point of view(s)from the so called "High-End" is that we've
> been
>>> sold some hardware updates with the promise of vastly superior perfomance
>>> results.
>>>
>>> We've been told we just wait until we get an 64 bit OS to go along with
> yur
>>> new 64 bit cpu and those new video cards. Then , you guys will have vastly
>>> superior performance greater than TDM.
>>>
>>> Well, again, we've been dupped,hood winked.. Bamboozeled :)
>>>
>>> Truth is : The average Native Power DAW user has spent the equivlent to
> an
>>> Pro Tools HD setup. AND, the funny thing is, this kind of user will keep
>>> on chasing that elussive "Native" faster Than Pro Tools Rig" not realizing
>>> that he or she has spent "WAY" more say over 15k in a native solution.
>>>
>>> That's the frustration: And as James M has stated onm any occasions,
>>> they(DAW
>>> manufacturing companies) only really care about is the Bed Room user.
> with
>>> products 8 & 2 channels channels at a time with chessy at best on board
>>> pre-amps.
>>>
>>> Suprisingly: The Computer makers (DELL, Apple, HP, Gateway, etc) have
> been
>>> great to our community. Today we can purchase a very fast dual-core
>>> intel/AMD
>>> for $500.00 bucks...then add a nother drive $100.00 bucks or less..instant
>>> DAW..
>>>
>>> Another source of frustration fro th eso called high-end, is again the
> hype
>>> aroudn so called hardware devices that's supposed to free up cpu
>>> resources.ie.
>>> UAD.. To this day I have purchased a single UAD Card due te fact that
> it
>>> does not free up any resources , but rather adds overhead. Read: Big
> Dongle.
>>> As well as the Tc-powercore..
>>>
>>> God Bless Steigberg Cakewalk ,& Samplitude for re-writting their code
> from
>>> scratch to take advantage of the Win 2000/XP platform. With their wrok,
>>> native DAW work would still be in the slow, third world midi-based land
> of
>>> Emagic and MOtu..
>>>
>>> So, whatdo we do..Do we continue to invest in Native rigs like BrianT(4-dual
>>> core ) Opterons(Do the Math).. Scary.. Now, do you realize that a Pro
> Tools
>>> HD 1accel cost under 5k..Another 16 hundred for i/o..Boom your into no
> excuse
>>> land. HD2 accel..street with 192 I/O around $9600.00.. 128 tracks..with
>>> rediculous amount of plugin power..End of story..
>>>
>>> Oh yeah. You can run the above protool rigs on an G4-500-700,800.?????
>>>
>>>
>>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, LaMont, I'll go back to my tried and true response. Native users
> really
>>>> want the power of [Pro Tools HD/SSL 9k/fill in blank] natively. Well,
> I
>>> really
>>>> want to bang Scarlett Johansson but all the wanting it in the world won't
>>>> make it so.
>>>>
>>>> Don't take this too personally but I get a little sick of the 'power
> users'
>>>> simultaneously turning their noses up at the 'bedroom studio' market
> segment
>>>> while at the same time wanting everything in native land to be cheap,
> super
>>>> powerful, and easy to use. If the crap that us 'bedroom' guys use can't
>>> get
>>>> it done, well since you're so power user go off and spend a few million
>>> on
>>>> a Neve desk and a boatload of fancy hardware. Good on ya. It also hacks
>>> me
>>>> off that the 'bedroom studio' computer geeks like me spent nearly a decade
>>>> getting our noses bloody and doing the ditch digging to help get nativeland
>>>> working only to be told that we don't know what the hell we're talking
> about.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just sayin'
>>>>
>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thad, you are talkign about 2 different market segments. The 'Bedroom"
>>> type
>>>>> who 48 tracks is more than enough..Then there are the power users like
>>> myself
>>>>> where are song tracking session can reach upwards to 90 plus (before
>>>>> editing)
>>>>> with power hungry plugins, and low latency for those running ITB.
>>>>>
>>>>> All in all, the power "Native" daw user does not want to go over to
> HD-TDM.
>>>>> They want it all(Power) natively. They wan t Pro Tools Power in Natively..
>>>>>
>>>>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video
>>>>>> production?
>>>>>> XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track
> digital
>>>>>> studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping.
> I
>>> haven't
>>>>>> installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell
>>>>>> workstations
>>>>>> into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks .
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista (discussion) irritating. [message #89468 is a reply to message #89467] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 20:14 |
|
|
Pro Tools HD is extremly stable. My Nuendo rig is stable as well. But, Pro
Toosl is a complete "on stop" shop solution.
And, if you were to purchase a system these days, Digi throws in around 10-15k
of the good plugins for Free.
It all comes downs to this: The native way will always have you on the promise
of more power the better treadmill. Read: System updates..$$$$$$
Pro Tools , yes out the gate is expensive, but you can run it on a very modest
Mac or PC. Your're not on the Native upgrad bandwagon. Yes, you are stuck
with with Digi...But, you ca have your choice in I/O..(Lynx, Apogee, Prism)..
I guarantee you the Native is way more expensive in the long run, than a
Pro Tools HD 3Acell rig..
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Wherever did you get the idea I use workarounds or that native is a
>workaround? I simply said Totalmix was a less elegant solution to
>accomplish monitoring, but clearly stated that ProTools holds the advantage
>in large tracking sessions.
>
>How many people here read a few lines, guess the rest, and hit reply? ;-))
>
>Btw, I'm doing post for a film, several corporate docs (international
>clients, not local stuff), all in Nuendo - works perfectly. I wouldn't
say
>a native DAW is optimal for a live 30-40 input tracking session, with
>monitor feeds to musicians, but I know guys doing it daily.
>
>ProTools doesn't have a reputation for absolute stability, so let's not
talk
>about "peace of mind". My rig never fails me and keeps me busy 6-7 days
a
>week, so I guess that would be called a pretty solid "peace of mind".
>
>Dedric
>
>On 9/7/07 8:07 PM, in article 46e203c7$1@linux, "LaMont"
><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> However, what kinda price do you put on "piece of mind". Work arounds,
Total
>> mix?? Yikes!!
>>
>> How much does, "it just works" cost?? :)
>>
>> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>> Lamont - you might want to add up the equivalent plugin counts on a HD
accel
>>> card and compare it to, for example, a UAD-1. The cost is more than
double
>>> per plugin compared to a UAD-1, with PCs and all hardware factored
>>> in/balanced off. So, who's hoodwinking who? ;-)
>>>
>>> Digi has no interest in preventing you from spending too much money.
Just
>>> compare the cost of a TDM plugin to a native version - same plugin -
Waves,
>>> UAD, etc. Then add not only the cost of an Accel card, I/O, but also
the
>>> computer, peripherals, conversion add ons that aren't included in PT,
etc.
>>>
>>> When doing price comparisons I've never spec'd a PT rig under about $12k
>>> that equaled what I do with my $1700 Core 2, RME interfaces and Nuendo.
>>>
>>> If you are tracking 40+ live tracks, then yes, native's latency may become
>> a
>>> disadvantage depending on what you need to monitor. A PT rig will give
>> you
>>> near zero latency monitoring, but much the same can be done with RME
>>> totalmix, Cuemix etc, though not as elegantly for sure.
>>>
>>> However, for production, scoring, editing, sound design, and many mixing
>>> scenarios, etc - it's hard to justify the extra cost for PT HD per plugin,
>>> or per track. It is significantly higher than native, easily.
>>>
>>> Btw - you should check out the track count mix Brian posted on the Nuendo
>>> forum recently
>>> ( http://forum.nuendo.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=13740&pos tdays=0&postorder=a
>>> sc&start=300).
>>>
>>> I really doubt you could come close to matching it with PTHD for the
cost.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> On 9/7/07 4:59 PM, in article 46e1d7ca$1@linux, "LaMont"
>>> <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good points Thad,
>>>>
>>>> I guess the point of view(s)from the so called "High-End" is that we've
>> been
>>>> sold some hardware updates with the promise of vastly superior perfomance
>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> We've been told we just wait until we get an 64 bit OS to go along with
>> yur
>>>> new 64 bit cpu and those new video cards. Then , you guys will have
vastly
>>>> superior performance greater than TDM.
>>>>
>>>> Well, again, we've been dupped,hood winked.. Bamboozeled :)
>>>>
>>>> Truth is : The average Native Power DAW user has spent the equivlent
to
>> an
>>>> Pro Tools HD setup. AND, the funny thing is, this kind of user will
keep
>>>> on chasing that elussive "Native" faster Than Pro Tools Rig" not realizing
>>>> that he or she has spent "WAY" more say over 15k in a native solution.
>>>>
>>>> That's the frustration: And as James M has stated onm any occasions,
>>>> they(DAW
>>>> manufacturing companies) only really care about is the Bed Room user.
>> with
>>>> products 8 & 2 channels channels at a time with chessy at best on board
>>>> pre-amps.
>>>>
>>>> Suprisingly: The Computer makers (DELL, Apple, HP, Gateway, etc) have
>> been
>>>> great to our community. Today we can purchase a very fast dual-core
>>>> intel/AMD
>>>> for $500.00 bucks...then add a nother drive $100.00 bucks or less..instant
>>>> DAW..
>>>>
>>>> Another source of frustration fro th eso called high-end, is again the
>> hype
>>>> aroudn so called hardware devices that's supposed to free up cpu
>>>> resources.ie.
>>>> UAD.. To this day I have purchased a single UAD Card due te fact that
>> it
>>>> does not free up any resources , but rather adds overhead. Read: Big
>> Dongle.
>>>> As well as the Tc-powercore..
>>>>
>>>> God Bless Steigberg Cakewalk ,& Samplitude for re-writting their code
>> from
>>>> scratch to take advantage of the Win 2000/XP platform. With their wrok,
>>>> native DAW work would still be in the slow, third world midi-based land
>> of
>>>> Emagic and MOtu..
>>>>
>>>> So, whatdo we do..Do we continue to invest in Native rigs like BrianT(4-dual
>>>> core ) Opterons(Do the Math).. Scary.. Now, do you realize that a Pro
>> Tools
>>>> HD 1accel cost under 5k..Another 16 hundred for i/o..Boom your into
no
>> excuse
>>>> land. HD2 accel..street with 192 I/O around $9600.00.. 128 tracks..with
>>>> rediculous amount of plugin power..End of story..
>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah. You can run the above protool rigs on an G4-500-700,800.?????
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, LaMont, I'll go back to my tried and true response. Native users
>> really
>>>>> want the power of [Pro Tools HD/SSL 9k/fill in blank] natively. Well,
>> I
>>>> really
>>>>> want to bang Scarlett Johansson but all the wanting it in the world
won't
>>>>> make it so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't take this too personally but I get a little sick of the 'power
>> users'
>>>>> simultaneously turning their noses up at the 'bedroom studio' market
>> segment
>>>>> while at the same time wanting everything in native land to be cheap,
>> super
>>>>> powerful, and easy to use. If the crap that us 'bedroom' guys use can't
>>>> get
>>>>> it done, well since you're so power user go off and spend a few million
>>>> on
>>>>> a Neve desk and a boatload of fancy hardware. Good on ya. It also hacks
>>>> me
>>>>> off that the 'bedroom studio' computer geeks like me spent nearly a
decade
>>>>> getting our noses bloody and doing the ditch digging to help get nativeland
>>>>> working only to be told that we don't know what the hell we're talking
>> about.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just sayin'
>>>>>
>>>>> TCB
>>>>>
>>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thad, you are talkign about 2 different market segments. The 'Bedroom"
>>>> type
>>>>>> who 48 tracks is more than enough..Then there are the power users
like
>>>> myself
>>>>>> where are song tracking session can reach upwards to 90 plus (before
>>>>>> editing)
>>>>>> with power hungry plugins, and low latency for those running ITB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All in all, the power "Native" daw user does not want to go over to
>> HD-TDM.
>>>>>> They want it all(Power) natively. They wan t Pro Tools Power in Natively..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One question, Dedric. Why do we need an OS dedicated to audio/video
>>>>>>> production?
>>>>>>> XP or OS X + software + quality audio interface gives me a 48 track
>> digital
>>>>>>> studio in my living room. What's missing from that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, if you want to try it out Ubuntu Studio is actually shipping.
>> I
>>>> haven't
>>>>>>> installed it but we just got 20 dual processor dual core Dell
>>>>>>> workstations
>>>>>>> into my office and I just might try one of them with it for kicks
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89469 is a reply to message #89458] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 20:24 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:C30741D4.C813%dterry@keyofd.net...
> In real world use, XP and OSX are fine, and maybe there wouldn't be much
> to
> gain from a dedicated system beyond enhanced stability or just consistency
> perhaps (thought that isn't really an issue on my XP systems), but my
> thinking is drivers could be tighter and general media streaming wouldn't
> be
> subject to normal OS interaction, but I could be wrong.
>
> I guess your last question really depends on the reality of what would or
> wouldn't be gained by a dedicated OS. Hard to say, but as long as we work
> with commercial OSs that are geared towards a wide range of uses, it is
> clear that we will always wonder what we might be missing. Along these
> lines though, I think it's only fair that we question the efficiency of
> hardware that is based on a 30 year old legacy model (IRQs, etc).
>
> Dedric
>
All I would like to do is to be able to run Cubase 4 on a dual socket Quad
Core mobo with something like 4GB RAM and be able to use my UAD-1 cards as
well. I know Cubase isn't able to utilize the Dual quads yet but I would be
quite happy to run win XP from now on if it could utilize these.
Unfortunately, I don't think that will be the case, which is the reason that
when I decide to make some kind of quantum leap, it may be to a Mac.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: 64 bit -Microsoft Vista discusion) irritating. [message #89474 is a reply to message #89464] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 20:55 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/7/07 8:06 PM, in article 46e20390$1@linux, "James McCloskey"
<excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>> I think the moral of the story is that pro audio is best handled by
>> developers in that market, not companies more interested in selling
>> operating systems, home computers, and/or iToys.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
> Dedric, your comment insinuates that Apple is a toy company that does not
> make serious computers, that is a slam. Apple products are not toys. Right
You are right, it might insinuate that, but it wasn't intended to be a jab
at Macs, but just a reference to the consumer/entertainment level apps that
are at the forefront of Apple's marketing - they aren't sub-par apps for
what they do - but they are home/entertainment apps when compared to
workplace apps like Photoshop, Nuendo/ProTools, Final Cut Pro, etc, so let's
not kid ourselves that Apple is intent on marketing a Mac to the average
CompUsa or BestBuy shopper based on Final Cut Pro's gaussian blur rendering
speed, or the number of instances of Kontakt Logic can run. Neither is
Microsoft.
No, Macs are not toys, and Apple does a good job of putting together a
complete package with useful and nicely designed apps for the
home/entertainment user, and can be useful in the workplace as well.
But, James, you are overly sensitive to any mention of Macs and always
assume it's negative. Try to lighten up a bit and read more objectively.
It would make conversing about platform pros and cons (yes, they have both),
much easier and informative, which is what this forum is usually about.
To that end, let's just settle the hardware cost/quality debate once and for
all:
Open up a new dual core 2 Mac pro, spec the cpus (dual 6600 etc),
motherboard (which will be name/brandless I am guessing, so just supply the
specs (I/O, drive ports, max ram, fsb, etc) and a photo), hard drive bays,
drive models, capacity and number, ram brand and specs, power supply
brand/model/power rating, DVD drive brand/model, etc. Seriously - it would
better serve users who are highly tech savvy to know what they are getting
should they/we decide to buy a Mac at some point, rather than always getting
the same generic defensive posture from Mac users - let's put it all to the
test. I couldn't care less which is cheaper, or a better bang for the buck
- I just want to see that for once we could have an objective discussion
about them on this forum, and put real numbers to the defensive speculating
on the Mac end.
As far as service, I'm sure Apple's service is good (I have film/video
producer friends I work with that have used it, several times...), but the
service I got from Staples/HP the one time I had to use it, was, however
surprisingly, much better and way faster - can't beat 20 minutes from dead
PC to new one that is twice as fast, not a refurb, no bench test, no
shipping costs - that rivals golden support packages from high tech
companies, esp. considering that Staples is only 300 yds from my office ;-).
Dedric
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Dec 20 23:37:33 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02148 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
