Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Happy Festivus !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Happy Festivus !! [message #93974 is a reply to message #93966] |
Mon, 24 December 2007 15:38   |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
next to last post on that page)
>>>>
>>>>Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
> =
>>>>only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>>It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
> =
>>>>Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in the
>>> =
>>>>Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort through
> =
>>>>marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of hoping the
>>> =
>>>>Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio and any app,
>>> =
>>>>just because it would be cool to have such a breakthrough, but this =
>>>>really just shows that ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs =
>>>>already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>>
>>>>The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and ASIO2,
>>> =
>>>>but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted estimate) plugin
>>> =
>>>>load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband
>>> =
>>>>comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is
>>> =
>>>>almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>>>>benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll
> =
>>>>have to find out for sure when I have more time
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Happy Festivus !! [message #93977 is a reply to message #93975] |
Mon, 24 December 2007 15:44 |
Deej
Messages: 130
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The reports on Nuendo performance is
> =
>>>>quite a bit=20
>>>>faster on XP and ASIO2, but it's running fine at low latency =
>>>>on</FONT></DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% =
>>>>higher (my=20
>>>>adjusted estimate) plugin load on the same hardware, same=20
>>>>latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband comps at 64 samples on =
>>>>XP/ASIO, vs=20
>>>>45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which is almost 50% more, </FONT><FONT =
>>>>face=3DArial=20
>>>>size=3D2>but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>>>>benchmark test to=20
>>>>compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll have to find =
>>>>out for=20
>>>>sure when I have more time) - same dual quad hardware configs in =
>>>>both=20
>>>>cases. I don't know for sure if some of this is Nuendo not being =
>>>>optimized=20
>>>>for the lower level OSX code base (maybe already), or still on Cocoa or
>>> =
>>>>whatever=20
>>>>- or if it is truly a limitation of OSX and core audio. Based on =
>>>>the Logic=20
>>>>thread, the latter seems to have a bit more weight than it being a =
>>>>Nuendo-only=20
>>>>performance issue.</FONT></DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Fwiw,</FONT></DIV>
>>>><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dedric</FONT></DIV>
>>>><DIV><BR clear=3Dleft><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>Dedric, I think your right, we need to know what users think and are able
to do with a system. I'm not trying to blindly defend.
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Um... okay. Sounds like you are just defending Apogee for no good reason,
>esp. considering I didn't attack them, so give me a break with the "not
good
>to make assumptions" lecture. For the last time - I posted this so people
>who have a real world interest in working with this kind of gear would know
>what to look out for, and you jump in to defend Apogee's marketing.
>
>If you have experience with real world use as a composer on an Apogee
>Symphony system and think the Logic user misguided in his evalution, I'm
>sure the Logic forum would be most interested in your input.
>
>It's getting way too difficult to post anything that even hints at the word<
|
|
|
|
| Re: Happy Festivus !! [message #93978 is a reply to message #93977] |
Mon, 24 December 2007 16:54 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
br />
>"Apple" here, so I'll take future technical discussions to other forums
with
>more objectivity and interest in the real world reports rather than
>marketing interpretation debates.
>
>Dedric
>
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:47c37654$1@linux...
>>
>> Dedric, I see the truth as the truth. It's good to be educated as to
what
>> a system is capable of. It's not good to assume things. It is explained
>> that they are running 26 fx plugins with 32 tracks at 96k with a buffer
>> setting of 32 and getting 1.6 millisecond of latency using Logic 7.2.2.
>> If what they are saying is not true somebody should sue them. On the
>> other
>> hand, if somebody assumes that they can run a different version of Logic
>> with a different set up and run virtual instruments, I don't think you
can
>> expect to get the same results. Apogee is clear about the set up, however
>> I do think they should have more information and be more clear about the
>> plugins counts. They should separate the maximum plugin count and the
>> latency
>> test, it's a bit confusing.
>>
>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>Apparently some Logic users see it as misleading (as do quite a few other
>>
>>>pros I know), and those numbers quote plugin counts. With most DAWs,
that
>>
>>>equates directly to VSTi's (which are also plugins...). It's isn't the
>>
>>>whole story. The website never says - "you won't get this kind of latency
>>
>>>with VSTis the way you do with other DAWs on ASIO". ;-)) And that's
>>>exactly what I said in my post: Apogee only posted *part* of the story.
>>>
>>>Really, I only posted this for those that might be interested in actually
>>
>>>knowing what systems will do vs. what marketing would lead you to believe.
>>
>>>These are the kind of real world reports that make or break a buying
>>>decision for those of us looking for really powerful systems and wanting
>> to
>>>know exactly what we are getting, not just assume because we love the
>>>company behind it....
>>>
>>>If you track all day for living, it sounds like a great system (but so
is
>> an
>>>RME MADI rig). If you run VSTi's, investigate it more and try before
you
>>
>>>buy, or look elsewhere in known waters (ASIO 2 systems), at least for
now
>>
>>>until there's either more info and/or Apogee beefs up their
>>>system/drivers.
>>>
>>>The point isn't to defend or attack anyone - it's just to get to the
>>>bottom
>>
>>>of what products *really* do so we know before we buy.
>>>As long as customers defend manufacturers out of blind loyalty, getting
>> an
>>>honest answer and better products from those developers will only get
more
>>
>>>and more difficult.
>>>
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:47c35daf$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> I not sur
|
|
|
|
| Re: Happy Festivus !! [message #93979 is a reply to message #93978] |
Mon, 24 December 2007 15:57 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
e I see any false claim, Apogee's info is here to see. I don't
>>
>>>> see
>>>> them talking about running software instruments.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/symphony_performance.p hp
>>>>
>>>> Lowest Latency: 1.6 milliseconds at 96kHz* (Analog to Analog)
>>>>
>>>> *Hardware/Session Details:
>>>> . Computer configuration: 
Mac Pro, 2.66GHz Dual-Core with three
>>
>>>> internal
>>>> 500 GB, 7200 RPM drives configured as a RAID and 4 GB of ram.
>>>> . Software: 
Logic 7.2.2 session running at 96k.
>>>> . Track count during latency test: 
32 tracks playback, 32 tracks
>>>> recording
>>>> . Plug ins engaged during latency test: 
10 Adaptive Limiters,
10
>>>> Linear Phase EQs, 6 Space Designers (default preset)
>>>> . Buffer setting: 
32
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3D6693909 #6693909
=
>>>>>(should take you to the next to last post on that page)
>>>>>
>>>>>Apparently Apogee's numbers are only while tracking. Sounds like they
>> =
>>>>>only posted part of the story with their great low latency figures.
>>>>>It is hard to say if this is the case for everyone though, except for
>> =
>>>>>Apogee's response when the user called, but since I brought it up in
the
>>>> =
>>>>>Vista thread, I thought I would pass it along to try and sort through
>> =
>>>>>marketing myth and real world facts. I was actually kind of hoping
the
>>>> =
>>>>>Apogee Symphony would smoke at low latency with Core audio and any app,
>>>> =
>>>>>just because it would be cool to have such a breakthrough, but this
=
>>>>>really just shows that ASIO is pushing the limits of current OSs =
>>>>>already, and we haven't really exceeded it yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>The reports on Nuendo performance is quite a bit faster on XP and ASIO2,
>>>> =
>>>>>but it's running fine at low latency on
>>>>>OSX/core audio - just about 20-30% higher (my adjusted estimate) plugin
>>>> =
>>>>>load on the same hardware, same latency: it's really 76 Nuendo multiband
>>>> =
>>>>>comps at 64 samples on XP/ASIO, vs 45 on OSX/core audio at 64, which
is
>>>> =
>>>>>almost 50% more, but I'm assuming there are other plugins in that =
>>>>>benchmark test to compensate for, and vary part of that loading (I'll
>> =
>>>>>have to find out for sure when I have more time) - same dual quad =
>>>>>hardware configs in both cases. I don't know for sure if some of this
>> =
>>>>>is Nuendo not being optimized for the lower level OSX code base (maybe
>> =
>>>>>already), or still on Cocoa or whatever - or if it is truly a limitation
>>>> =
>>>>>of OSX and core audio. Based on the Logic thread, the latter seems
to
>> =
>>>>>have a bit more weight than it being a Nuendo-only performance issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fwiw,
>>>>>Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>>>>><HTML><HEAD>
>>>>><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>>>>>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
>>>>><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=3DGENER
|
|
|
|
| Re: Happy Festivus !! [message #93982 is a reply to message #93978] |
Mon, 24 December 2007 16:59 |
Deej
Messages: 130
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Door Drive G4 mac (single processor) on Ebay about
>>a
>>>>year
>>>>>>ago, with the idea of making it my Paris machine, but I thought I would
>>>>>test
>>>>>>it first without Paris. At first it seemed to work fine, but it soon
>>started
>>>>>>freezing up, usually after a few hours of use. I opened the case and
>>put
>>>>>>a 12" fan pointed directly at the processor, and it worked perfectly
>>for
>>>>>>awhile, but after a few months it was back to the old tricks. Definitely
>>>>>>heat related, as it's worse on hot days or if I keep my computer closet
>>>>>closed
>>>>>>with the light on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any ideas on what I might try?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>Dale
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>I would call 800 SOS APPLE and see what the restore disk would cost. I would
tell them you misplaced them. At one time they would send them out for free.
"dale" <dalebradleycello@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>OS 9 (Classic) is installed (on more than one HD), but when I go to system
>Preferences / Startup Disk, the only Systems that show up to select to boot
>with are the OS X ones. It's my understanding that even a dragged-over system
>9 will work for classic, but to make system 9 bootable, the original disks
>(set of 4, I think) that came with the MDD must be used.
>
>What I'm wondering is, can these original MDD disks be copied? If not, then
>I guess I will bid high to try and snag the ones on Ebay.
>
>Dale
>
>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Did you check to see if OS9 is already installed? You can check by going
>>to system preferences, Start up disk. If there is an OS9 folder in there,
>>click on it and hit restart. I don't however think this will help you
with
>>OSX freeze ups. I would make an appointment at the Genus bar at your Apple
>>store and have them look at it.
>>
>>"dale" <dalebradleycello@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I downloaded the firmware update, but when I run the installer it says
>I
>>must
>>>be booted into system 9. It is my understanding that in order to install
>>>a bootable system 9, I need the original install disk(s). I have a single
>>>install disk, but I've checked several apple forums, and unless I am missing
>>>something, the system 9 install stuff must be on a different disk that
>I
>>>don't have. The local Mac store won't sell me a replacement disk(s), but
>>>they say they will install system 9 onto my machine for $45.
>>>
>>>Obviously, it would be preferable to have the disk(s) so I can re-install
>>>system 9 if/when necessary in the future.
>>>
>>>I looked on Ebay, and there is a set of 4 install disks for MDD that
is
>>>up for sale, which I will try to bid on.
>>>
>>>Does anyone have any other ideas on how to get these disks?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Dale
>>>
>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Mac OSX has protected memory, so I'd check the support site for the latest
>>>>firmware. Is the machine locking up running OSX? Do you have an Apple
>>>retail
>>>>store near you?
>>>>
>>>>"dale" <dalebradleycello@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>thanks James,
>>>>>
>>>>>If I make this machine my Paris rig, I will be running OS9, but have
>not
>>>>>tried that yet. I'm currently running 10.4.9, but also using Classic.
>>I
>>>>think
>>>>>it freezes up with classic running or not---but I can try not us
|
|
|
|
| Re: Happy Festivus !! [message #93983 is a reply to message #93979] |
Mon, 24 December 2007 17:01 |
Deej
Messages: 130
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ing
Classic
>>>>>and see if that makes a difference. Do you think I need to change some
>>>kind
>>>>>of settings in classic? Or allocate more memory to OS9 apps? I thought
>>>OSX
>>>>>automatically handled memory.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Dale
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My Dual Mirror door G4 dual 1.25 runs hot as well,but I've never had
>>problems
>>>>>>with freeze up. Your problem may be hardware/heat related, but my
first
>>>>>>guess is software. There was a firmware down load related to heat
and
>>>>noise.
>>>>>> I would check Apple's support site for the latest firmware. Are
you
>>>>freezing
>>>>>>when running OS 9 or OSX? If your freezing in OS9, don't forget that
>>>OS
>>>>>>9 does not have protected memory, so you may need to allocate more
memory
>>>>>>to programs. It was the biggest flaw with Mac OS 9 and prior, users
>>would
>>>>>>forget to up the memory for all the programs they are running and they'd
>>>>>>get a lock up or crash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I hope this helps!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>James
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"dale" <dalebradleycello@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To James & all you mac guys,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I bought a Mirror Door Drive G4 mac (single processor) on Ebay about
>>>a
>>>>>year
>>>>>>>ago, with the idea of making it my Paris machine, but I thought I
would
>>>>>>test
>>>>>>>it first without Paris. At first it seemed to work fine, but it soon
>>>started
>>>>>>>freezing up, usually after a few hours of use. I opened the case and
>>>put
>>>>>>>a 12" fan pointed directly at the processor, and it worked perfectly
>>>for
>>>>>>>awhile, but after a few months it was back to the old tricks. Definitely
>>>>>>>heat related, as it's worse on hot days or if I keep my computer closet
>>>>>>closed
>>>>>>>with the light on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Any ideas on what I might try?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>Dale
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>I'm sorry I ever posted this - wrong forum.
>
>Dedric
>
I know how you feel!
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47c4bb50$1@linux...
>>
>> Thank you Chris for stating what I have been saying for years now.
>>
>> All this tech talk :($$$$$$$$$$) about low latency on native solutions,
is
>> very costly AND, I might add, as Thad has said on numerous ocassions,
have
>> gained nothing!! due to that fact that we are all beholding to MS Vista/XP
>> and OSX..
>>
>> On the Nuendo.com website 10 mile post on system performance specs is
>> sickening!.
>> Who cares? All, one should want is
>>
>> A stable running system, that performes the task thats needed.
>>
>> I'm with the get Protools HD(X) and be done with it. There are those on
>> this
>> and other sites how have sunk major$$$$ trying to "perice-Mill_ a working
>> DAW hat outperforms ProTools HD. That's cool, but I would these folks
have
>> spent "More" money than just buying a super hot-rod ProTools HD6..
>>
>> Note: Out 2 HD rigs on G5's also run Nuendo(Via Digis Asio drivers)..Runs
>> great, and is as stable as ever. I can mix a 70 track project with alot
of
>> plugins on that baby. So, Getting a ProTools HD rig is not 'So Closed"
as
>> some here believes.
>>
>> Back to the subject:
>> If you were to do a search on Gearslutz on the symphony, yoou'd see that
>> I slammed that card saying that "for a 1k or even 700 dollars, "What am
I
>> getting".. No DSP, nothing but a glorified half baked mixer that allows
>> you
>> to play itunes .. Not impressed.
>>
>> While we're onthe subject, I think RME's total mix should be simplified
&g
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 07 00:34:35 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.17832 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
