Petition to optimize MAS

juan_alexei · Post by **juan_alexei** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:04 am

Please optimize DP engine.
So I can run at least two instruments at 128 on a PowerBook G4 without pops.

Thx.

digidan · Post by **digidan** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:43 pm

Optimizing would be very good. As my computer slows down with each version of dp, logic begins to look better and better.

Macinbowl · Post by **Macinbowl** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:08 am

I'm totally into this MAS optimization idea!! MOTU, please help us staying proud DP user!

boonier · Post by **boonier** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:12 am

i'm curious...

Would optimizing MAS in turn optimize ReWire? It starts popping at around 25% cpu (in the rewired app)....

aaronlyon · Post by **aaronlyon** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:21 am

Yes, please IMPROVE and FIX DP instead of adding new stuff.

studio24 · Post by **studio24** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:28 pm

i resisted switching from dp 3 to dp 4 for other reasons ...
now that i have i am blown away by what a hog it is ...
NOT please fix this ... why the hell was it released BEFORE it was fixed ..

FIX IT YESTERDAY!
S24

Shooshie · Post by **Shooshie** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:42 pm

Anyone sending this to MOTU? I don't want to mail-bomb them with a hundred copies of this, so I'm just asking, who's sent it so far? If nobody's sent it, I'll send a copy.

Shooshie

riproryn · Post by **riproryn** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:11 pm

Shooshie wrote:Anyone sending this to MOTU? I don't want to mail-bomb them with a hundred copies of this, so I'm just asking, who's sent it so far? If nobody's sent it, I'll send a copy.

Shooshie

If MOTU isn't reading this already, they're completely oblivious to their customers needs and shall suffer accordingly. With that said, hey MOTU, the trick here is NOT to be as good as Logic. You need to be better than Logic.

rn

p.s. to Shooshie: Robin? Yea, I guess I see that...in a Mayan Glyph sort of way.

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:33 pm

Shooshie wrote:Anyone sending this to MOTU? I don't want to mail-bomb them with a hundred copies of this, so I'm just asking, who's sent it so far? If nobody's sent it, I'll send a copy.

Shooshie

You have my blessing.

Kubi · Post by **Kubi** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:27 pm

Shooshie wrote:Anyone sending this to MOTU? I don't want to mail-bomb them with a hundred copies of this, so I'm just asking, who's sent it so far? If nobody's sent it, I'll send a copy.

Shooshie

Maybe someone should fix that ridiculous spelling error in the title before sending anything to anyone? Just a suggestion...

Also, if I may make an observation, there's a "can't win no matter what you do" dilemma going on for MOTU here. About a year ago, there were similar threads that went for miles yelling about how MOTU is stuck in the stone-age because DP had no ADC. Now that DP is pretty much at the bleeding edge when it comes to relevant features in a DAW, here's a bit of a feeding frenzy going on re. "bloated code" and "no new features, just leaner performance." Few people were saying that before most of the latest features were implemented. And personally, I could not live without V-racks, Consolidated Windows and ADC, to name just three of the new features that quickly became essential to my work-flow. As I stated earlier in this thread, I'm all for better sounding, faster, more powerful and more reliable when it comes to all my audio-apps, but I do feel that the tone in this thread tends to at least occasionally border on the hysterical. I humbly suggest taking it down a notch or two in the drama, and I think the arguments brought forth here will fall on more open ears and minds.

(BTW, does anyone have enough knowledge about the actual code to make that "bloated code" claim? Or is "bloated code" merely shorthand for: "apparently some other DAWs are able to play back considerably more tracks than DP under similar circumstances", which may have a million reasons that non-programmers like me really have no clue about?)

Of course, I'm on a 2x2G5 with plenty of RAM and still on 10.3.9, so I have zero clicks, pops, dropouts, or anything else of that ilk. And I have always printed my VIs fairly quickly for musical reasons (commitment is a good thing) which means my track-count still strikes me as astronomically high compared to anything I've ever had the privilege of working on before. Which means I'm quite happy right now, and that I guess makes it easy for me to be a bit more "Zen" than some of the other folks here... so in light of that, on with the petition!

PS: digidan, you have the BEST AVATAR EVER!

Shooshie · Post by **Shooshie** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:55 pm

Kubi wrote: Maybe someone should fix that ridiculous spelling error in the title before sending anything to anyone? Just a suggestion...

Not a bad idea. Whoever started the thread would probably have to do that.

Also, if I may make an observation, there's a "can't win no matter what you do" dilemma going on for MOTU here. About a year ago, there were similar threads that went for miles yelling about how MOTU is stuck in the stone-age because DP had no ADC. Now that DP is pretty much at the bleeding edge when it comes to relevant features in a DAW, here's a bit of a feeding frenzy going on re. "bloated code" and "no new features, just leaner performance." Few people were saying that before most of the latest features were implemented. And personally, I could not live without V-racks, Consolidated Windows and ADC, to name just three of the new features that quickly became essential to my work-flow. As I stated earlier in this thread, I'm all for better sounding, faster, more powerful and more reliable when it comes to all my audio-apps, but I do feel that the tone in this thread tends to at least occasionally border on the hysterical. I humbly suggest taking it down a notch or two in the drama, and I think the arguments brought forth here will fall on more open ears and minds.

The "optimize MAS" plea has been a quiet undercurrent for several years now--since DP 4 was released. There was an immediate recognition that it doesn't operate as fast as it did in OS9, though that has been pretty much the case with all software. Booting into OS9--though it's something I rarely do--is pretty amazing. Every action happens the instant you release the mouse or click it. We know it can't be THAT fast, but all that Core Audio stuff was about how well adapted to audio OSX is, and it is living up to its expectations; DP just hasn't improved in speed.

(BTW, does anyone have enough knowledge about the actual code to make that "bloated code" claim? Or is "bloated code" merely shorthand for: "apparently some other DAWs are able to play back considerably more tracks than DP under similar circumstances", which may have a million reasons that non-programmers like me really have no clue about?)

I'm pretty sure we'd all agree the latter is the case. All we know is that it's slower than the competition. Maybe that's because it's better? Maybe to make it faster requires compromises we wouldn't want. If that's the case, then bring on the Quad G5s!

Of course, I'm on a 2x2G5 with plenty of RAM and still on 10.3.9, so I have zero clicks, pops, dropouts, or anything else of that ilk. And I have always printed my VIs fairly quickly for musical reasons (commitment is a good thing) which means my track-count still strikes me as astronomically high compared to anything I've ever had the privilege of working on before. Which means I'm quite happy right now, and that I guess makes it easy for me to be a bit more "Zen" than some of the other folks here... so in light of that, on with the petition!

And others of us are still trying to jockey away enough money to buy the computer that will make DP sing. I'm wishing for a Quad, but the PCI Express slots make that impossible for now. But still... we can dream of an audio engine that runs faster. I know there are some broken libraries in their code, because I come across little things that used to work but don't now. Things that would be broken by a programmer who was not aware that A-B-C has to connect to X-Y-Z; something only an old timer at MOTU would know. (Guessing again; showing my ignorance, perhaps, but that's the impression I get from some of the little broken bits)

The petition will go to MOTU, but with a kind letter thanking them for the years of wonderful music tools.

Shooshie

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:54 pm

I suggested more than once to make DP a
*modular* app. ( different MAS ? ).
And the whole OS X 'real time behaviour should improve.
Unfortunately this is not in MotU hands.

I also heard that OS X now runs already faster on Intel Macs that are comparable in speed.
I think the transition to Intel will make MotU think a true optimization of DP would be a waste...
Just my thoughts

Take care

Klaus

Foxman · Post by **Foxman** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:48 am

Please,please,please, optimize DP !!!

dactarus · Post by **dactarus** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:43 am

I 'm totaly agree with the "optimize DP/MAS".
But do you really imagine MOTU staff, receiving the petition, and saying : "So, all those people want DP to be more stable & MAS optimized ? hmmm, good idea ! never think about that before... Let's do it !" ? ?

maintiger · Post by **maintiger** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:01 pm

its what we want for Xmas!