MOTUnation.com

Posted: **Sun Oct 06, 2024 10:20 pm**

HCMarkus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 8:11 pmJames Steele has a nice fix: IIRC, it is to create two Master Faders and keep one free of plugins. When it is the left-most master, latency disappears. I just use Clear Plugins, then Restore when I want 'em back.

Both ways seem to work well. Actually though with the left most (no latency) Master Fader, I do like to add a Trim plugin to it. It doesn't seem to add any latency and it allows me to boost the gain to compensate for the volume drop when I switch to it from a Master Fader that might have something like Ozone on it.

Posted: **Mon Oct 07, 2024 1:36 pm**

HCMarkus wrote:
greg328 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 7:37 pm My main issues with DP 11 are:
Greg, if you are still on Sonoma 14.5, upgrade to 14.7. 14.6 fixed a lot of stuff, and 14.7 didn't seem to break anything.

Understanding that everyone's setup and use case is at least somewhat unique, I simply haven't experienced any of your listed issues on my Mac Studio running DP and MOTU hardware, although I avoided potential multiple display issues by just getting a single giant display and putting everything except plugins in DP's Consolidated Window. With my M1 Mac Studio (looks like it might be identical to yours), screen redraws are so fast, I don't find multiple monitors essential, like I used to. I have a small secondary display I use when performing to picture on my 88, or for stashing lyrics and charts, and the occasional plugin I want to keep open.

I can assure you that Master Fader look-ahead plugins created just as much latency on Intel Macs. James Steele has a nice fix: IIRC, it is to create two Master Faders and keep one free of plugins. When it is the left-most master, latency disappears. I just use Clear Plugins, then Restore when I want 'em back. That said, Logic's "Low Latency Mode" is a nice feature; it just disables latency-inducing plugins - very useful when recording with VIs.

Finally, everything I have seen indicates DP makes as good use of all CPU cores as any DAW out there... unlike Logic which reportedly only uses Performance cores on Apple Silicon. I haven't had CPU issues with my Mac Studio; plenty of horsepower for projects large and small.

I don't mean to come off as defensive for DP, as we all have experienced issues with the software at least now and then. I had a couple of bugs that MOTU killed with the last update, and found a new one re: Waves plugin graphics (fixable by "run open instances of this plugin in real time"). But I'm having a really nice run with DP these days, and loving it! Hope you can get your issues sorted without too much pain.

Thank you so much, I’ll review your notes when I’m in studio again and apply what I can to my set up! I think I’m OS14.6 right now

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **Sun Oct 13, 2024 1:47 pm**

Well, I gave up waiting for DP12's rumored Atmos support and purchased another DAW just for 7.1.4 music mixing.

I've been a DP user since version 1 and Performer before that in 1985. MOTU was a pretty early adopter of surround so it's disappointing to me just how much they have lagged by not adding Atmos support. It seems MOTU's target market has changed in the last 20 years. Perhaps they assume that anyone doing professional music mixing must be using Pro Tools, Nuendo, etc.?

Maybe my belief that DP is the best music production tool could be based on my 30+ years of experience using it. Nevertheless, my mixes can no longer wait for DP. I am joining the majority of producers who regularly work with more than one DAW. I will probably welcome an Atmos-enabled DP12 with open arms if or when it's finally released. I've tried many DAWs over the years, but I've always come back to DP.

Posted: **Sun Oct 13, 2024 2:26 pm**

rod@rodsanches.com wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 1:47 pmI will probably welcome an Atmos-enabled DP12 with open arms if or when it's finally released. I've tried many DAWs over the years, but I've always come back to DP.

Seen this:

https://fiedler-audio.com/dolby-atmos-composer/

I installed it, but have not taken the time to build into my (pretty extensive) DP Template. Might be worth a look.

Posted: **Sun Oct 13, 2024 11:27 pm**

Yes I tried it, and unfortunately on my system it was way too processor intensive for the kinds of mixes that I typically work on.
Lowering the session sample rate from 96K to 48K, raising the buffer setting to its maximum and limiting the number of panner instances to a handful of tracks was the only way I could work with the Fiedler plugins without processor overload. I had similar results with other major DAWs. The only DAW I found that is efficient enough is MixBus 10 Pro, which I am currently using. I'm able to run Atmos panners on 24+ audio tracks at 96K without a glitch, which is pretty much my minimum requirement until I upgrade to a computer with better real-time performance. That said, I do look forward to the MOTU implementation of Atmos.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 7:44 am**

rodsanches wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 11:27 pm The only DAW I found that is efficient enough is MixBus 10 Pro,

Interesting. Mixbus has always been heavy on CPU — they even have an entry in the Q&A to explain why it uses so much CPU. Is this a change from V9 to V10?

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 10:16 am**

rodsanches wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 11:27 pm Yes I tried it, and unfortunately on my system it was way too processor intensive for the kinds of mixes that I typically work on.

Apple Silicon or Intel... Mind sharing your computer specs? Thanks.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 11:57 am**

MixBus V9 had no Atmos support so I can't compare it to V10.

My computer is a Mac Pro 2012 dual 3.43 (Intel) 256GB RAM, Sonnet 2X4 RAID card running Monterey under OC and a bunch of other upgrades. Unfortunately this setup is much better at graphics processing than real-time audio work, but I'm not willing to ditch my PCIe cards just yet. A Mac Studio with an external card chassis is a bit of a kludge, and a new Mac Pro is not worth the money. So at least for the next few months I'm going to deal with the limitations. MixBus will get me by as long as I don't get too crazy with processing. I'm not sure why some complain about MixBus processor overhead, unless they are running 48+ tracks and turning on every single EQ, gate, compressor, etc., on each channel strip and each mix buss. Generally that's not needed for my work. But I do need immersive pan on every track, and it seems MixBus can do that with a single setting and without bringing my computer to its knees. Maybe the fact that the immersive panners are somewhat hard-wired into the mixer make them more efficient than other panners?

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 12:26 pm**

rodsanches wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2024 11:57 am My computer is a Mac Pro 2012 dual 3.43 (Intel) 256GB RAM, Sonnet 2X4 RAID card running Monterey under OC and a bunch of other upgrades. Unfortunately this setup is much better at graphics processing than real-time audio work, but I'm not willing to ditch my PCIe cards just yet.

I moved from a 2012 dual 3.33 Mac Original to an M1 Mac Studio. I'll put it this way: Night and Day.

When you are ready to make the move, you will find yourself extremely pleased.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 2:13 pm**

HCMarkus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 2:26 pm
rod@rodsanches.com wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 1:47 pmI will probably welcome an Atmos-enabled DP12 with open arms if or when it's finally released. I've tried many DAWs over the years, but I've always come back to DP.
Seen this:

https://fiedler-audio.com/dolby-atmos-composer/

I installed it, but have not taken the time to build into my (pretty extensive) DP Template. Might be worth a look.

This seems like a pretty solid way into Atmos for DAW's that don't I have it in their feature set.

I too started to mess around with the Fiedler Audio Atmos Composer, to create Atmos mixes for my own work, but put it on a back burner when I realized there's no affordable way to publish/deliver Atmos mixes to streaming services. And since it's still never been a requirement for me to get work, I wonder how much of a demand there will be going forward. Partnering/licensing with a company like Fiedler Audio seems like it would be a more efficient way to make this available to few DP users that need it.

Atmos™ for both film and music still seems like a solution looking for a problem to me. Having some speakers over my head would be neat, but that's about it for me - and therefore not where I'd like to see MOTU put resources. ...of course, the first time I lose work because I'm not set up for it I'll change my tune I'm sure!

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2024 6:03 pm**

Yes I agree. I do expect a Silicon Mac in my future, but I'm hedging my bets and keeping Intel around for numerous reasons unrelated to DP.

As for immersive audio, if it was strictly about the money I probably wouldn't bother with it at this point. The market is still young and most clients aren't yet clamoring for immersive. For me, It''s more about the art and about challenging myself to develop an entirely new skill set that I'm convinced will come in very handy in the not too distant future. After listening to immersive music mixes on a proper 7.1.4 setup, the difference between stereo and immersive is like night and day. There's a much greater improvement in realism and spatial fidelity than going from mono to stereo. But, there's also a completely different approach to mixing that will take my ears quite some time to adjust to.

I've been following multichannel since the days of quad and this time I think they got it right. Atmos is not channel-centric and therefore widely compatible at its most basic level with existing playback systems, unlike all previous formats. This bodes well for commercial viability. Obviously not every hardware setup will have the same spatial fidelity. My Samsung phone's Atmos headphone setting isn't going to beat my eleven calibrated studio monitors in a listening test. But inferior stereo playback systems never stopped the stereo format from being accepted, and immersive audio will be no different. I've also noticed a trend towards more immersive-friendly audio interfaces being introduced, as well as quite a few DAWs and other tools incorporating Atmos. On the distribution end, DistroKid is publishing Atmos mixes pretty affordably at $250 last time I checked, and of course Apple Music supports streaming it as well. That's just my take on immersive, we can talk again a year from now and see how the market has developed.

Posted: **Tue Oct 15, 2024 1:05 am**

Distrokid charges $20 per year for uploading unlimited stereo tracks per year. They charge $25 for each Atmos track uploaded. If that’s affordable to you, mazel tov! ….plus the specs required for distrokid to accept an Atmos track for distribution to Apple or Tidal (the only two Atmos streamers i’m pretty sure) look daunting.

A few years ago Atmos looked like the inevitable future, but the technology is already looking a little dated. 7.1.2 sounds amazing, but I don’t think many consumers are set up for it, unless you count AirPods, and soundbars - stiil only two movie theaters in the SF Bay Area have Atmos, after several years of hype.

A large part of my practice involves immersive, audio, with installations, theme park audio, etc. but for me, so far Dolby Atmos has never been relevant.

Posted: **Sat Nov 30, 2024 10:45 am**

James Steele wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 3:19 pmI think endorsements actually DO carry a lot of weight and a lot of people out there want reassurance that somebody "important" or famous in the industry that they can relate to is using the same DAW they're using.

I'm late to this discussion. Yes recorded one of my favorite of their albums, "Talk" separately and remotely on DP. In some circles, there were few more influential bands to virtuoso musicians than Yes.

Seems to me not capitalizing on that was a missed opportunity. It was released 30 years ago - not likely to impress the kids making crappy EDM and Trance or whatever it is that's popular these days.

I'm a little surprised (pleasantly) at this point to see the DP logo in ads for plug-ins that have a "Compatible with" section.

Posted: **Sat Nov 30, 2024 12:43 pm**

Jim wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 10:45 am It was released 30 years ago - not likely to impress the kids making crappy EDM and Trance or whatever it is that's popular these days.

Cue crusty old jazz cat 30 years ago reacting to YES: "This cool new blank manuscript paper is not likely to impress these kids with their progressive rock and roll music..."

Posted: **Sat Nov 30, 2024 1:44 pm**

stubbsonic wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 12:43 pm Cue crusty old jazz cat 30 years ago reacting to YES: "This cool new blank manuscript paper is not likely to impress these kids with their progressive rock and roll music..."

Too many lines.

MOTUnation.com

DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?

Re: DP12 release date?