Appeal for Optimization
Moderator: James Steele
Forum rules
This forum is for seeking solutions to technical problems involving Digital Performer and/or plug-ins on MacOS, as well as feature requests, criticisms, comparison to other DAWs.
This forum is for seeking solutions to technical problems involving Digital Performer and/or plug-ins on MacOS, as well as feature requests, criticisms, comparison to other DAWs.
-
dix
- Posts: 2995
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:01 pm
- Primary DAW OS: MacOS
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Wow! I halfway expected to open this thread and see a bunch of posts arguing the fact that DP needs major optimization and offering yet more "optimization tips"", but no. I'm glad to see so many on the same page.
...I should say that MOTU at least seems to be acknowledging issue since the release of 4.5. I found it encouraging that 4.5 was not slower than 4.1 despite having allot of new features. That and DCPUM makes me think they're paying attention (even though it creates problems for some), but the wheel needs to keep squeaking.
Count me in as another that would be happy to pay for an optimization-upgrade.
[re stability: i have no real complaints in this department. other than a couple of small issues, DP is more solid than ever. ...especially compared to logic]
...I should say that MOTU at least seems to be acknowledging issue since the release of 4.5. I found it encouraging that 4.5 was not slower than 4.1 despite having allot of new features. That and DCPUM makes me think they're paying attention (even though it creates problems for some), but the wheel needs to keep squeaking.
Count me in as another that would be happy to pay for an optimization-upgrade.
[re stability: i have no real complaints in this department. other than a couple of small issues, DP is more solid than ever. ...especially compared to logic]
Last edited by dix on Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
14-inch MBP M1 Max (2021), 13.6.x, 64GB RAM, UAD Quad Tb Satellite, 4 displays ::: 2009 4,1 > 5,1 MacPro 12-core 3.33 ghz , 10.14.x, 96GB RAM, GeForce GTX 770 , NewerTech eSATA/USB3 PCIe Host Adapter, UAD-2 Quad, ::: 15-inch MBP (2015) 10.14.x, 16GB RAM ::: Lynx Aurora (n) USB ::: DP (latest version), Vienna Ensemble Pro danwool.com
-
genel
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:01 pm
- Primary DAW OS: MacOS
- Location: New York area
- Contact:
I am not a frequent poster here, but I have been using Performer for what has been a long and generally successful career, since it originally came out in the mid 80••™s.
What is not being discussed here is that this ever more complicated program, has grown more and more complex primarily because of market pressures and particularly pressures from users. DP is not big and slow because MOTU wants it that way.
Generally, it is the same people that demand that every new feature seen in any competing program is immediately implemented in DP, that complain about the program growing large and unruly.
MOTU ultimately must decide how to deal with these seemingly opposing demands. I am not an apologist for MOTU and over the years the company has gone in and out of favor with me, however, I am still using it because it still works for me. I can go back to an earlier version at any time if I want a more streamlined robust system.
I do have a suggestion however. I would like to see the DP code become more modularized, with features loaded / switched on, as needed. The core sequencer and audio recorder could be very fast and robust on modern hardware, and each user could better decide how to manage the CPU load and RAM, based on personal needs.
This may require a major re-write, so I am not certain how practical this is, but ultimately it would afford the most flexibility.
Personally, I am happy to have the features and I am willing to continue investing in hardware to keep up. I understand that this position is not practical for all users, particularly those using laptops, therefore my suggestion for increased modularity.
I find DP 4.6 a powerful and generally solid application when run on a G5 with plenty of RAM. It is not appreciably slower than many of the competing applications that I also own, including Logic 7.1, Live, ProTools and other. No version of Performer or any other application has ever stopped me from composing or arranging music••¦ only helped.
Gene Lennon
Producer / Engineer / Songwriter
What is not being discussed here is that this ever more complicated program, has grown more and more complex primarily because of market pressures and particularly pressures from users. DP is not big and slow because MOTU wants it that way.
Generally, it is the same people that demand that every new feature seen in any competing program is immediately implemented in DP, that complain about the program growing large and unruly.
MOTU ultimately must decide how to deal with these seemingly opposing demands. I am not an apologist for MOTU and over the years the company has gone in and out of favor with me, however, I am still using it because it still works for me. I can go back to an earlier version at any time if I want a more streamlined robust system.
I do have a suggestion however. I would like to see the DP code become more modularized, with features loaded / switched on, as needed. The core sequencer and audio recorder could be very fast and robust on modern hardware, and each user could better decide how to manage the CPU load and RAM, based on personal needs.
This may require a major re-write, so I am not certain how practical this is, but ultimately it would afford the most flexibility.
Personally, I am happy to have the features and I am willing to continue investing in hardware to keep up. I understand that this position is not practical for all users, particularly those using laptops, therefore my suggestion for increased modularity.
I find DP 4.6 a powerful and generally solid application when run on a G5 with plenty of RAM. It is not appreciably slower than many of the competing applications that I also own, including Logic 7.1, Live, ProTools and other. No version of Performer or any other application has ever stopped me from composing or arranging music••¦ only helped.
Gene Lennon
Producer / Engineer / Songwriter
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering.
R. Buckminster Fuller
http://www.facebook.com/GeneLennonProductions
R. Buckminster Fuller
http://www.facebook.com/GeneLennonProductions
Faster and more stable would be important than new features. Never the less the DAE user (no doubt a small minority) is tempted to ProTools by the lack of multiple RTAS outs and rewire in DAE mode.
A consideration that MOTU and other Mac developers may be having now is- how much to put into Mac when there are going to be no more faster "powermacs", and any optimization will possibly be irrelevant to DP on an Intel chip Mac. Existing users really need optimization because, no, you can't get a faster machine (a dual 2.7 sometimes won't handle enough instruments to do a lush pop production, let alone an orchestral emulation).
But new users buying a new computer a year from now might not be able to run that optimized software on a new computer- they will need a different version anyway. There were still a LOT of people using OS 9 when Motu and most everybody else stopped updating for OS9. Hopefully there will be an optimization, because many will find it unwise to buy the first intel Macs and face early adopter defacto beta tester syndrome. And probably Mac will make OS 10.4 machines available for maybe a year after introducing the Intel machines.
But should MOTU optimize for powerpc's, or put everything into working well on the new intel Macs? This is a question MOTU may be asking itself, if it hasn't already answered it.
A consideration that MOTU and other Mac developers may be having now is- how much to put into Mac when there are going to be no more faster "powermacs", and any optimization will possibly be irrelevant to DP on an Intel chip Mac. Existing users really need optimization because, no, you can't get a faster machine (a dual 2.7 sometimes won't handle enough instruments to do a lush pop production, let alone an orchestral emulation).
But new users buying a new computer a year from now might not be able to run that optimized software on a new computer- they will need a different version anyway. There were still a LOT of people using OS 9 when Motu and most everybody else stopped updating for OS9. Hopefully there will be an optimization, because many will find it unwise to buy the first intel Macs and face early adopter defacto beta tester syndrome. And probably Mac will make OS 10.4 machines available for maybe a year after introducing the Intel machines.
But should MOTU optimize for powerpc's, or put everything into working well on the new intel Macs? This is a question MOTU may be asking itself, if it hasn't already answered it.
-
TheCoalman
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:01 pm
- Primary DAW OS: MacOS
- Location: Nashville TN
I agree with everything written in this post.genel wrote:I am not a frequent poster here, but I have been using Performer for what has been a long and generally successful career, since it originally came out in the mid 80••™s.
What is not being discussed here is that this ever more complicated program, has grown more and more complex primarily because of market pressures and particularly pressures from users. DP is not big and slow because MOTU wants it that way.
Generally, it is the same people that demand that every new feature seen in any competing program is immediately implemented in DP, that complain about the program growing large and unruly.
MOTU ultimately must decide how to deal with these seemingly opposing demands. I am not an apologist for MOTU and over the years the company has gone in and out of favor with me, however, I am still using it because it still works for me. I can go back to an earlier version at any time if I want a more streamlined robust system.
I do have a suggestion however. I would like to see the DP code become more modularized, with features loaded / switched on, as needed. The core sequencer and audio recorder could be very fast and robust on modern hardware, and each user could better decide how to manage the CPU load and RAM, based on personal needs.
This may require a major re-write, so I am not certain how practical this is, but ultimately it would afford the most flexibility.
Personally, I am happy to have the features and I am willing to continue investing in hardware to keep up. I understand that this position is not practical for all users, particularly those using laptops, therefore my suggestion for increased modularity.
I find DP 4.6 a powerful and generally solid application when run on a G5 with plenty of RAM. It is not appreciably slower than many of the competing applications that I also own, including Logic 7.1, Live, ProTools and other. No version of Performer or any other application has ever stopped me from composing or arranging music••¦ only helped.
Gene Lennon
Producer / Engineer / Songwriter
I'd like to add that I've had no problems with DP's current stability, functionality and speed. All of these aspects work fine for me (truth be known, I've had more problems with Mac hardware than software over the years).
Anyway, to reiterate my last post, I appreciate and use many of DP's newer functions to generate income. Although I'd welcome any software optimization, I appreciate DP's ever-broadening capabilities; in fact, I bank on them.
I also reiterate Gene's quote: "No version of Performer or any other application has ever stopped me from composing or arranging music••¦ only helped." Same for me.
-
artfarm1
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:01 pm
- Primary DAW OS: MacOS
- Location: Maryland, USA
- Contact:
my two cents....DP 4.6 is awesome
I, too, have been using Performer for about 15 years. (switched to Logic when OSX first came out for two years.....that was two years of really hating computers and music software.... I am truly glad to be out of that phase!)
Anyways, I'm loving DP 4.6 on my Tiger OSX'd MDD 867 with 2 gig RAM and 3 hard drives to split up Audio files and Mach 5 samples. I just finishing a project with 28 stereo tracks, 33 mono tracks, Mach 5, Stylus RMX, and some Waves plug-ins alongside the MOTU plugs. I'm using Traveler as well in my home studio, and I pack up the Apple and everything once in awhile to go record in different spaces.....it always works!
Sure, on my Dual 867 things aren't as blindingly fast as a Dual G5 machine, but it's pretty darn close! The point is, I can get the work done and think musically while doing it. (Beats Logic any day, in my book....and the audio in DP is better, too! ....that's one of the big reasons I switched back to DP from Logic....I know, very subjective, tried to really test everything, and testing made me go back to DP for the sound.)
Some observations....
- DP will crash once in awhile (very, very rarely) but that's usually due to me being too fast with some keyboard stroke, such as moving back to a specific point in the song, and then hitting play first without having hit '1' to first lock in that specific point into the Memory location. I've caused the odd crash by trying to ask the computer to react without thinking for at least half a second. If I have a lot of tracks happening, I have to slow down a bit and be careful and let my Apple 'think'...but it's well worth it! I can live with giving my computer a compiled minute of thinking time over a days worth of heavy use.
- Mach 5 does slow things up, especially if you're running a full 16 slots of instruments in one instance, and use any of it's effects. But, I'm so thrilled with the sound of it, I'm not going to complain.
- on my 'old' Dual 867, I can really go crazy with plug-ins during my final mixing if I make sure that i render and record all my virtual instrument to final audio tracks before I start to really mix. Once everything is in 'audio' format, I can use plugins to my hearts content...Wave works great (stuff like the RenVox, RenEQ, etc. and also many instances of MOTU's Masterworks EQ, eVerb, etc.
I think that many possible 'problems' can be avoided by always using Disk Utility to fix permissions (using it from the Install CD) and following up by using Alsoft's 'Disk Warrior' 3.3 for Tiger.
Also, I have turned 'Widgets' completely off, don't have any 'Start-up' items in the background, gotten rid of stuff I don't ever need. I want my computer for music, not running every aspect of my life!
Anyways, to make a long story short, I think that DP 4.6 is pretty amazing... and now it can really solve pretty well any kind of musical 'problem' we can throw at it.
Cam Millar
Anyways, I'm loving DP 4.6 on my Tiger OSX'd MDD 867 with 2 gig RAM and 3 hard drives to split up Audio files and Mach 5 samples. I just finishing a project with 28 stereo tracks, 33 mono tracks, Mach 5, Stylus RMX, and some Waves plug-ins alongside the MOTU plugs. I'm using Traveler as well in my home studio, and I pack up the Apple and everything once in awhile to go record in different spaces.....it always works!
Sure, on my Dual 867 things aren't as blindingly fast as a Dual G5 machine, but it's pretty darn close! The point is, I can get the work done and think musically while doing it. (Beats Logic any day, in my book....and the audio in DP is better, too! ....that's one of the big reasons I switched back to DP from Logic....I know, very subjective, tried to really test everything, and testing made me go back to DP for the sound.)
Some observations....
- DP will crash once in awhile (very, very rarely) but that's usually due to me being too fast with some keyboard stroke, such as moving back to a specific point in the song, and then hitting play first without having hit '1' to first lock in that specific point into the Memory location. I've caused the odd crash by trying to ask the computer to react without thinking for at least half a second. If I have a lot of tracks happening, I have to slow down a bit and be careful and let my Apple 'think'...but it's well worth it! I can live with giving my computer a compiled minute of thinking time over a days worth of heavy use.
- Mach 5 does slow things up, especially if you're running a full 16 slots of instruments in one instance, and use any of it's effects. But, I'm so thrilled with the sound of it, I'm not going to complain.
- on my 'old' Dual 867, I can really go crazy with plug-ins during my final mixing if I make sure that i render and record all my virtual instrument to final audio tracks before I start to really mix. Once everything is in 'audio' format, I can use plugins to my hearts content...Wave works great (stuff like the RenVox, RenEQ, etc. and also many instances of MOTU's Masterworks EQ, eVerb, etc.
I think that many possible 'problems' can be avoided by always using Disk Utility to fix permissions (using it from the Install CD) and following up by using Alsoft's 'Disk Warrior' 3.3 for Tiger.
Also, I have turned 'Widgets' completely off, don't have any 'Start-up' items in the background, gotten rid of stuff I don't ever need. I want my computer for music, not running every aspect of my life!
Anyways, to make a long story short, I think that DP 4.6 is pretty amazing... and now it can really solve pretty well any kind of musical 'problem' we can throw at it.
Cam Millar
-
shepherdgary
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:01 pm
- Primary DAW OS: MacOS
- Location: London
As I've said before - DP now is inferior in speed and no better in functions than Opcode Vision was 6 or 7 years ago on OS8 (remember that?) - so with faster machines we are not much better off.
But whoah there in volunteering to pay for more upgrades ! Haven't we all paid enough for DP4 upgrade (and DP3 before that). I thought the usual thing was to pay for a significant upgrade (like a whole number not a .7 or something) but not for bug fixing. Don't let MOTU think that we all want to pay for "upgrades" that purely fix bugs and make it work properly.
Obviously the future of Mac and Intel may have a bearing in all this in terms of software development. But we've all paid now in the present - the future is another matter.
But whoah there in volunteering to pay for more upgrades ! Haven't we all paid enough for DP4 upgrade (and DP3 before that). I thought the usual thing was to pay for a significant upgrade (like a whole number not a .7 or something) but not for bug fixing. Don't let MOTU think that we all want to pay for "upgrades" that purely fix bugs and make it work properly.
Obviously the future of Mac and Intel may have a bearing in all this in terms of software development. But we've all paid now in the present - the future is another matter.
-
sdfalk
- Posts: 2514
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:01 pm
- Primary DAW OS: MacOS
- Location: Vancouver BC
- Contact:
Real time pitch automation is not significant?
Pretty decent little bonus for a point/free upgrade.
I know some people have had problems with it,
but I've happily completed 2 projects with it and
had no problems at all.
Having been a former Opcode user myself I'd also
disagree with part of your assement of DP
Yes the interface is sluggish, but as far as functionality
goes..top notch.
As for paying for upgrades, that's just part of the game.
There seems to be an ongoing..I want more features, yet
optimize the program already.
I think I'd agree with Timeline as far as having an off switch
for some of this stuff is concerned though.
I dunno..I get lots of work done with DP..pretty happy overall
really.
Yeah theres problems but they'll get fixed.
Pretty decent little bonus for a point/free upgrade.
I know some people have had problems with it,
but I've happily completed 2 projects with it and
had no problems at all.
Having been a former Opcode user myself I'd also
disagree with part of your assement of DP
Yes the interface is sluggish, but as far as functionality
goes..top notch.
As for paying for upgrades, that's just part of the game.
There seems to be an ongoing..I want more features, yet
optimize the program already.
I think I'd agree with Timeline as far as having an off switch
for some of this stuff is concerned though.
I dunno..I get lots of work done with DP..pretty happy overall
really.
Yeah theres problems but they'll get fixed.
A 2018 Mac mini with 16 gb of ram
HUGE bunch o' AU instruments/fx...
A Metric Halo ULN8-3D…mmmmmmm
Remember to eat all your fruits and vegetables!
My OS is The amazingly gratuitous 10.14
HUGE bunch o' AU instruments/fx...
A Metric Halo ULN8-3D…mmmmmmm
Remember to eat all your fruits and vegetables!
My OS is The amazingly gratuitous 10.14
-
shepherdgary
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:01 pm
- Primary DAW OS: MacOS
- Location: London
Don't get me wrong - DP's functions are great - sometimes hard to find/remember as there are so many, and some not as obvious as on other programs. But no - I can get on with some serious work, and the audio recording/editing of soundbites is really good.
It was more an observation about upgrades in general - the big step was when Opcode moved to Audio recording as well as MIDI - that was the great leap forward and a big upgrade. And then doing Audio to MIDI and back again conversion. Nowadays the upgrades seem not to be adding much more than cosmetics - certainly for the functions that I use (which are probably a tiny percentage of all functions).
It was more an observation about upgrades in general - the big step was when Opcode moved to Audio recording as well as MIDI - that was the great leap forward and a big upgrade. And then doing Audio to MIDI and back again conversion. Nowadays the upgrades seem not to be adding much more than cosmetics - certainly for the functions that I use (which are probably a tiny percentage of all functions).