MOTUnation.com

Ehhh...uhh...aw....I don't want to get into this again...

Believe whatever you want to believe. Time to get on with...a better song. Hey, there's a concept.

Anyway, the original post was about DP5.1 being slow on an Intel Mac.

If DP 5.1 ran painfully slow on a test Intel Mac at MOTU, I'd think that would be pretty obvious. It just wouldn't be released with such a glaring problem.
C'mon, let's get real. MOTU may overlook or miss things from time to time, and it's impossible to take into account every possible confirguration of hardware and software, but really, they aren't THAT dumb.

This has got to be a system specific issue. I'd call MOTU and go over it with them.

dougieb - can you please post your configuration info? You've got your stamp on two threads now, but nobody knows what your system looks like so nobody can help you find out if there is a problem with your setup or if it truly is DP.

I wouldn't argue against any scientific "sonic differences", but what is "better" is too subjective and too anecdotal to be asserted so generally.

There's no arguing that something may sound better on one's particular system than some other software combo or that it may be better suited for the type of music one creates or the particular VI's or audio data being used.

Moreover, there's no arguing that something may sound better to one's own ears, which is all that matters at the end of the day regardless of scientific bench tests.

I hope the fellow has what he needs with Logic Pro. It is a good app, and no single app works for everyone.

The other thing is that we know nothing about his system and what other elements may be slowing him down and not slowing down other users. That alone might have a tremendous impact on what he's hearing if the processor can't handle the data properly. I just hope for his sake he doesn't experience the same data clog with Logic that he's seen with DP on his system.

Resonant Alien wrote:dougieb - can you please post your configuration info? You've got your stamp on two threads now, but nobody knows what your system looks like so nobody can help you find out if there is a problem with your setup or if it truly is DP.

dougieb config: "Duo 2.16 MacBook maxxed out memory" ...but apparently his mind is made up about DP 5.1.

pcm wrote:

Resonant Alien wrote:smidijack's post smells funny to me. Using Performer for 20 years, but doesn't mention how long he's been using DP. And only 7 posts to Unicornation. Maybe he's just a reader and not a poster, but it smells a little "troll-y" to me.

I can buy that Logic handles VIs better than DP - even the staunchest DP advocates have admitted this. But Logic "SOUNDS" better than DP? I have heard people say this before that one app "sounds" better than another, etc. I just don't buy it. What your audio sounds like is determined 98% by your A/D converters, your studio wiring, and the quality of your plugs. The other 2% could be attributed to the implementation of pan laws within the DAW. But in terms of processing 1s and 0s, which is all any DAW does, I don't buy that one app can make 1s and 0s sound better than another app, assuming you are running through the same A/D interface when you make the comparisons.......

Actually, it's true that some apps DO sound "better". It has to do with the summing. Go to 3daudio.com. There was a huge discussion there on this. They made up a CD of 30 or so mixes, all the same material, but "summed" in all different systems. All the Mac and PC daws, plus a few digital boards, plus Neve & SSL, as well as some of the "summing" boxes like the Dangerous 2 Mix and Manley. It was super carefully done, pro all the way. And yes, they really did sound different. Some very much so.

Nobody was told what was what, it was a blind test. After a few weeks, the "key" was released. The results greatly shocked people. Go check it out....

But, yes, there are sonic differences between DAWs.

I know it's not the proper engineer answer, but my opinion is "so what".

all marshall amps sound different, and more importantly everybody's stereo sounds different. anything that I have to do a blind test to tell the difference isn't worth my time worrying about. is that how you spell "worrying"? looks funny.

people seem to think that if you can tell the difference between 2 things it is somehow significant, and that one is "better" than the other. I find the that GENERALLY, not in all cases, the people who worry about this the most are the people who make the least interesting recordings.

bb

dougieb wrote:Ugh... it is sloooooooowwwwww... am I sure I have the right intel build, because this seems like its running under about 5 emulation layers.

Can it depends from the lost Altivec support?
Intel processors don't support Altivec instructions, and previous DP versions used Altivec for best perfomance.

-------------
G5x2x1,8Mhz +1G ram
DP 5.01

dougieb wrote:Ugh... it is sloooooooowwwwww... am I sure I have the right intel build, because this seems like its running under about 5 emulation layers.

I just ran something on a Duo 2.16 MacBook maxxed out memory - that barely pegged in Logic - about 2/3 of the processor in DP - followed by a COQ (LOL)

This is truly depressing. I don't even know what to say.

Dougie, could you be running DP in emulation mode unwittingly? Is that even possible? It sure doesn't sound like the other reports. I sure hope you get it figured out.

Shooshie

Shooshie wrote:

dougieb wrote:Ugh... it is sloooooooowwwwww... am I sure I have the right intel build, because this seems like its running under about 5 emulation layers.

I just ran something on a Duo 2.16 MacBook maxxed out memory - that barely pegged in Logic - about 2/3 of the processor in DP - followed by a COQ (LOL)

This is truly depressing. I don't even know what to say.

Dougie, could you be running DP in emulation mode unwittingly? Is that even possible? It sure doesn't sound like the other reports. I sure hope you get it figured out.

Shooshie

Shooshie-- sounds like Dougie is running Logic-- but if he doesn't set the emu prefs just right, he's going to be out $1k with the same issues.

When seeing discussions on the "sound" of DAWs, I think of three things:

1.) Bob Katz's explanation of word length issues: it's both the biggest and smallest issue at hand. If you've taken care of every other possible consideration in your audio production environment, then it's a big deal; if not, well then, it's not. I'm guessing most people (myself included) fall into the latter category, and hence the minute sonic imprint your DAW directly has on the mix is not a significant factor when compared to A/D and D/A converters, cables & wiring, acoustic treatment, proper calibration, etc..

2.) An article in Tape Op where the interviewee (I can't remember who offhand, but I think it was in the May/June issue this year) said, "You go and you move the snare mic 1/4 of an inch, and you've just made a bigger difference to your sound than the difference between analog tape & Pro Tools" (paraphrased).

3.) That kid in high school who always talked about guitars, but never talked about playing the guitar. (This is not meant to be a personal jab at anyone, so please don't take it that way.)

cridarco wrote:

dougieb wrote:Ugh... it is sloooooooowwwwww... am I sure I have the right intel build, because this seems like its running under about 5 emulation layers.

Can it depends from the lost Altivec support?
Intel processors don't support Altivec instructions, and previous DP versions used Altivec for best perfomance.

-------------
G5x2x1,8Mhz +1G ram
DP 5.01

Not Likely. Since it was recompiled/rewritten for intel the altivec code should be gone.

if it's a universal binary, both versions of code should be present. i'm not sure if the installer itself dictates which gets installed, or if it just installs both, and lets the machine decide at runtime.
the only way to strip out the g4 code altogether would be to run something like monolingual on the installer/installed program.

kell

kelldammit wrote:if it's a universal binary, both versions of code should be present. i'm not sure if the installer itself dictates which gets installed, or if it just installs both, and lets the machine decide at runtime.
the only way to strip out the g4 code altogether would be to run something like monolingual on the installer/installed program.

kell

according to e'loo, there is a preference that lets the user set which code will be compiled for use (either, or, or both)-- so I've got to assume that it installs both.

I've not made the update yet because I'm still waiting for certain other plugins to get updated. Dunno if the custom install allows for cherry picking or not... hmm..

I am a tad curious to know if anyone is using UB plugins with DP 5.01 and earlier, and how that's working...

carrythebanner wrote:When seeing discussions on the "sound" of DAWs, I think of three things:

1.) Bob Katz's explanation of word length issues: it's both the biggest and smallest issue at hand. If you've taken care of every other possible consideration in your audio production environment, then it's a big deal; if not, well then, it's not. I'm guessing most people (myself included) fall into the latter category, and hence the minute sonic imprint your DAW directly has on the mix is not a significant factor when compared to A/D and D/A converters, cables & wiring, acoustic treatment, proper calibration, etc..

2.) An article in Tape Op where the interviewee (I can't remember who offhand, but I think it was in the May/June issue this year) said, "You go and you move the snare mic 1/4 of an inch, and you've just made a bigger difference to your sound than the difference between analog tape & Pro Tools" (paraphrased).

3.) That kid in high school who always talked about guitars, but never talked about playing the guitar. (This is not meant to be a personal jab at anyone, so please don't take it that way.)

My feelings exactly. With emphasis on #3.

Shooshie

cridarco wrote:Intel processors don't support Altivec instructions, and previous DP versions used Altivec for best perfomance.

If I might chime in here, I'm fairly certain that when Altivec was first announced and the big buzz was going on about rewriting apps to take advantage of it, MOTU did some preliminary tests and discovered (at least insofar as Digital Performer goes) that Altivec would not yield dramatic performance gains and that the effort required was not worth it. So what I'm saying is I doubt DP was ever optimized to take advantage of Altivec.

pcm wrote:

Resonant Alien wrote:smidijack's post smells funny to me. Using Performer for 20 years, but doesn't mention how long he's been using DP. And only 7 posts to Unicornation. Maybe he's just a reader and not a poster, but it smells a little "troll-y" to me.

I can buy that Logic handles VIs better than DP - even the staunchest DP advocates have admitted this. But Logic "SOUNDS" better than DP? I have heard people say this before that one app "sounds" better than another, etc. I just don't buy it. What your audio sounds like is determined 98% by your A/D converters, your studio wiring, and the quality of your plugs. The other 2% could be attributed to the implementation of pan laws within the DAW. But in terms of processing 1s and 0s, which is all any DAW does, I don't buy that one app can make 1s and 0s sound better than another app, assuming you are running through the same A/D interface when you make the comparisons.......

Actually, it's true that some apps DO sound "better". It has to do with the summing. Go to 3daudio.com. There was a huge discussion there on this. They made up a CD of 30 or so mixes, all the same material, but "summed" in all different systems. All the Mac and PC daws, plus a few digital boards, plus Neve & SSL, as well as some of the "summing" boxes like the Dangerous 2 Mix and Manley. It was super carefully done, pro all the way. And yes, they really did sound different. Some very much so.

Nobody was told what was what, it was a blind test. After a few weeks, the "key" was released. The results greatly shocked people. Go check it out....

But, yes, there are sonic differences between DAWs.

Ah, thank you for the link! Very interesting indeed