DP10 available on the MOTU site NOW....

[bayswater]

Two things:

One is my Universal Loops and Instruments ufs file from MachFive is 5.67G, not 5.1G. Are the two really identical? I haven't done the newer download.

Second, I happened to have current versions of the free UVI player and the current version of Falcon in the same project in two Vracks. Th Effect Performance window shows the UVI uses a lot more CPU than Falcon, even when idling with no patches loaded.

[monkey man]

The M5 3.1.2 from 2012-12-13 is 5.27GB zipped (how it came).

The M5 3.2.0 from 2013-10-21 is a 5.11GB RAR file. At least, that's what I've got. Not sure why MOTU would've changed compression formats, and I know for sure it wouldn't have been anything I did 'cause I'm a .zip guy, Stoivo.

OK, I just checked the download page and the 3.2 update, along with its libraries, is in RAR format. Here's what MOTU said:

How to download and install these updated UFS soundbank files
MachFive 3’s included soundbank libaries have been updated to provide better scripting and smaller, more efficient file sizes. They are backward compatible with your existing projects. In addition, these updated UFS files are now available for download using the links above. You can use any standard web browser or FTP client to download them, but plan accordingly because they are quite large: between 1GB and 5GB. For faster downloading, each UFS file has been individually compressed using the standard .rar (RAR) compression format. There are many free, downloadable utilities that can be used to extract them. We recommend:

Windows 8/7
WinRAR

Mac OS X
UnRarX

If you take a look at the first link in the download list, you'll see that the RAR is listed as 5.1GB, so that confirms that my 5.11GB copy is the legit size.

Update:
I'm such an idiot. I forgot that I have an expanded copy already, so I checked its size and, like yours, it's 5.67GB, Stoiv.

Could it be that Mike's comparing the M5 3.1.2 version from 2012-12-13? If so, it would appear that the one included with DP10 is out-of-date. Hmm...

[toodamnhip]

...
So if I have MachFIVE 3, I don’t need the new MOTU instruments download that comes with DP10? They are all included in M53? If this has been clarified I missed it.
Thanks,
Martin

Clarified by MOTU? No.

I spent 10 minutes looking it over and concluded that the two libraries were the same. If MOTU or anyone examines them more carefully and says I’m wrong, then I am. Both are 5.1G downloads. The loops and instruments have the same names. I did not do a byte for byte comparison. Both also open in the current version of the stand-alone UVI 3 Player (downloadable from MOTU or UVI).

I didn’t check to seee if the other MV3 libraries (Telematic, The Upright etc.) also open in UVI 3 Player but I expect that they will. Of course having those libraries does no good without having the right M53 license as they are iLok protected.

So, those of us with MachFive 3 do not have to download the 5.1G Motu Instruments as long as we have Universal Loops and Instruments installed and the MV3 licenses in our iLok accounts. I’m pretty sure... unless I am wrong... but it works for me.

Could there be an argument for installing the new MOTU instruments due to Mach 5 being less than stable on some systems? I have files show as missing all the time. Other users have had other issues and Mach 5 hasn’t been supported in some time. Don’t you think the odds are the new included version will be more stable? The question I will have is, can I load the parched added sound I have in my mach 5 library into the new MOTU instrument?

[bayswater]

TDH, how would downloading the new samples make MachFive more stable than it is loading the original samples, if the the two sets of samples are the same? Surely the solution to MachFive instability is to use another sample player--in this case UVI player or Falcon, which we could have done all along.

[toodamnhip]

TDH, how would downloading the new samples make MachFive more stable than it is loading the original samples, if the the two sets of samples are the same? Surely the solution to MachFive instability is to use another sample player--in this case UVI player or Falcon, which we could have done all along.

I have yet to get deep into this, but I was assuming the “Player” was NOT Mach 5 in the new MOTU instrument. So I would think whtevever the software is that actually contains those samples you speak...would be more stable than Mach 5? When I finally get to looking at it further, I will have a clearer understanding of course

[labman]

Can you folks check to see if your old DP9.52 saved insert settings will load into DP10. All ours AINT!

Thanks

[bayswater]

I have yet to get deep into this, but I was assuming the “Player” was NOT Mach 5 in the new MOTU instrument. So I would think whtevever the software is that actually contains those samples you speak...would be more stable than Mach 5? When I finally get to looking at it further, I will have a clearer understanding of course

It's just a load of samples in a UFS library like those used by MachFive and UVI. The player can be MachFive, or the free UVI player, or presumably Falcon. UVI player and Falcon may be more stable that MachFive as apps, but it won't matter whether you use the old MachFive library or the download made available with DP 10. As Mike points out, they're the same thing. I've found both the UVI player and Falcon easier to deal with than MachFive, and oddly enough, Falcon the more CPU efficient of the two.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

MachFive 3 has been rock solid on my system. I understand people saying they like other players better but that doesn’t mean MachFive is less stable.

[bayswater]

MachFive 3 has been rock solid on my system. I understand people saying they like other players better but that doesn’t mean MachFive is less stable.

Yes, it has been rock solid on my setups too, including the most recent on Mojave. But I find Falcon easier to get around, and I've converted everything to that. Keeping MachFive for the pitch processing it does so well.

[mikehalloran]

...I have yet to get deep into this, but I was assuming the “Player” was NOT Mach 5 in the new MOTU instrument.

I tried to be clear that I was examining both in the free UVI 3 Player and not MachFive 3.2.1 which I also have.

As far as I can tell, the two libraries are identical. I didn’t spend much time looking at it.

[mhschmieder]

A-OK at my end, including insert effect settings, but I don't use automation for the most part (too many problems with MIDI volume, so I disable it on those tracks).

I opened and changed all 24 of my most active multi-song projects, then reopened after a save.

Strangely, I had to move DP 9.5 to the trash, as having it present and renamed to Digital Performer 9.5.app, prevented DP 10 from launching. But I didn't clear my trash, of course.

I haven't used any of the new features yet; one step at a time. I do notice the GUI and rendering are sharper though. And VI's load a bit quicker now.

[Michael Canavan]

Strangely, I had to move DP 9.5 to the trash, as having it present and renamed to Digital Performer 9.5.app, prevented DP 10 from launching. But I didn't clear my trash, of course.

Get rid of the “.” in 9.52 just name it DP952 worked fine here using that.

[mhschmieder]

I did enough deep work in DP10 tonight that I am confident it's going to be a smooth ride for me.

It's more responsive, and I've noticed some interesting details such as animation of drag actions, making it easier to see what you're dragging and where to, as it doesn't get jumpy like before.

This is probably tied in with the new functionality of multiple-drag, which I've wanted for years as it will greatly speed up the aftermath of splitting combined single-track drum MIDI into individual tracks per kit piece and articulation.

[labman]

new functionality of multiple-drag

Hey MH. What do you mean by multiple drag?

[bayswater]

Rearranging the order of lots of tracks, some non adjacent in the Track window.

"You can now select multiple tracks in the Track list (even a non-contiguous selection of tracks) and then drag them together as a group up or down in the Track list to move them all to the destination location in one step."

I thought you could do this earlier. I must be thinking of something else.