I see this fashion of multi-core processors as the inevitable kick in the ass that Live can't avoid.
Ableton's reluctance to even allow the option of distributed processing (for those of us who use Live as a DAW sometimes, and do not necessarilly need things primed for realtime) exagerates an already wide-open sweet-spot for any competitve product that s willing to take advantage of these.
I love this company. I understand that they have to pace themselves and refrain from making knee-jerk reactions every time there is turbulence, but this just seems like a bad scene.
I keep forgetting that there is not another application out there that can do what I need live to do, and that there is a chance there never will be one. If there was one, there would be some more competition, and we would be seeing more of the features that we are all intersested in or need.
I would love it if this trend in hardware development were to push Ableton, therefore Live, to take advantage of my second processor. And, Robert Henke, this is your fault:
I love the hell out of Operator! I want to use it over and over again, with countless instances of beat repeat and grain delay. I was happy enough rendering midi in Logic, but after acclaimating myself with live on an obsessive level, the desire for dynamic realtime change has pushed my ideal sets beyond the comfortable scope of a single 2g processor.
As it is, I am glad I will be going to school/work 80 hours a week till June, because until I buy a macintel, my creative drive is compromised by my frustration with 5's preformance.
Wow! I never thought of this before! Live 6 and the macintels could likely come out at the same time! And I thought I was busy!
Apple Dual-Core Processor G5
OK. No more whining for me. I have come to terms with ny Whining abuse problem,
and I thought I would share the steps here as well as the thread where I came to terms with it.
Please Don't be a former LOFA!
An artist whose handle should read: "Lofa A.L."
Conflict:
"I am sort of hoping that with more success the product quality and focus of Live does not stray too far from it's brilliant original direction.
I have Logic. If I need a DAW, I have Logic.
I have Max/msp. Once I get a chance to learn it I can theoretically add whatever specific toys I need.
I own this instrument called Ableton Live too. I loved my delta 2 version. I only bought 4 because I wanted to give the abes some money (for my conscience, as Delta was free with my maudio noise maker.) I bought operator because I really llike the idea off seemlessly integrating the midi in parallel with all of the great tricks, styles, manners I had learned in delta and 4. I was immediately pissed off when I realized that the OPerator could not use my second processor, and that It is a genuine hog.
IMO, Live could function as a DAW in version four with the aid of freeware plugins.
The fact that all of this programming is being spent on (ingenius) toys, and moderate bug fixes (I have had some reported quirks for almost a year now) and not on making it a sexier, cpu-lean machine, grates my nerves. Afterall, who needs complex warping if you can't run it without audio dropouts?
I admit that I have learned some lessons about minimal tecnho, because I have learned to explit the limited amount of CPU I can get from my dual 2g g5 to run a powerful (lovely-indeed) abe-verb, and use it virtually in solidarity for a bass groove or rhythm, but this only out of necessity, because One Big Operator+one Big Abe-verb= nearly saturated CPU expendature potential.
Why can't operators be distributed to a second processor? Is it a political/marketing decision used not offend the purists that only use LIve for straight up djing? I don't profess to know anything about anything, but these questions stifle me.
We all know you are smart dudes, and we love your product.
What's going on?"
Resolution:
" Alright, I figured out a satisfying thoery to keep me from whining anymore.
My theory is that these dudes decided not to invest man hours into making small steps in cpu performance because it would grossly dwarf any success or efforts that the exponentially developing processor companies are making. Any serious musician could theoretically sassify themselves with the instrument taht has been available since LIve 4. Every upgrade in software should realistically be paired or considered in parallel with a hardware upgrade. It is my reluctance to forgo my dual processor solution (regardless of operating sytem) that specifies determines both my priorities and my approach.
In fact, having made the decision not to go the professional route and optimise (impulsively, with regards to my long-term operating system preference and financial situation) my potential on an amd 64, pentium M or centrino pts me in the category of someone who is "supposedly" to busy making use of the overwhelming product at hand, rather than whining.
OK. I apologize for my first post Abe's, but all-together I feel that these two posts are clealry state the pain, misery, despare and ENNUI that you have unfairly imposed on us!
Now back to my analytic Philosophy home work, for some easier answers!"
and I thought I would share the steps here as well as the thread where I came to terms with it.
Please Don't be a former LOFA!
An artist whose handle should read: "Lofa A.L."
Conflict:
"I am sort of hoping that with more success the product quality and focus of Live does not stray too far from it's brilliant original direction.
I have Logic. If I need a DAW, I have Logic.
I have Max/msp. Once I get a chance to learn it I can theoretically add whatever specific toys I need.
I own this instrument called Ableton Live too. I loved my delta 2 version. I only bought 4 because I wanted to give the abes some money (for my conscience, as Delta was free with my maudio noise maker.) I bought operator because I really llike the idea off seemlessly integrating the midi in parallel with all of the great tricks, styles, manners I had learned in delta and 4. I was immediately pissed off when I realized that the OPerator could not use my second processor, and that It is a genuine hog.
IMO, Live could function as a DAW in version four with the aid of freeware plugins.
The fact that all of this programming is being spent on (ingenius) toys, and moderate bug fixes (I have had some reported quirks for almost a year now) and not on making it a sexier, cpu-lean machine, grates my nerves. Afterall, who needs complex warping if you can't run it without audio dropouts?
I admit that I have learned some lessons about minimal tecnho, because I have learned to explit the limited amount of CPU I can get from my dual 2g g5 to run a powerful (lovely-indeed) abe-verb, and use it virtually in solidarity for a bass groove or rhythm, but this only out of necessity, because One Big Operator+one Big Abe-verb= nearly saturated CPU expendature potential.
Why can't operators be distributed to a second processor? Is it a political/marketing decision used not offend the purists that only use LIve for straight up djing? I don't profess to know anything about anything, but these questions stifle me.
We all know you are smart dudes, and we love your product.
What's going on?"
Resolution:
" Alright, I figured out a satisfying thoery to keep me from whining anymore.
My theory is that these dudes decided not to invest man hours into making small steps in cpu performance because it would grossly dwarf any success or efforts that the exponentially developing processor companies are making. Any serious musician could theoretically sassify themselves with the instrument taht has been available since LIve 4. Every upgrade in software should realistically be paired or considered in parallel with a hardware upgrade. It is my reluctance to forgo my dual processor solution (regardless of operating sytem) that specifies determines both my priorities and my approach.
In fact, having made the decision not to go the professional route and optimise (impulsively, with regards to my long-term operating system preference and financial situation) my potential on an amd 64, pentium M or centrino pts me in the category of someone who is "supposedly" to busy making use of the overwhelming product at hand, rather than whining.
OK. I apologize for my first post Abe's, but all-together I feel that these two posts are clealry state the pain, misery, despare and ENNUI that you have unfairly imposed on us!
Now back to my analytic Philosophy home work, for some easier answers!"
Dual Processor support Myth buster
Hey, there are tons of posters regurgitating the claim that ableton does not take advantage of dual core processors on macs. That is totally BS. The MAc OSX software determines divying up processor loads among available processors.
I run a dual 2ghz machine, load up the plug ins and check the system usage program. You will see that both processors are evenly used.
I have tested sets on both the imac g5 2ghz and the powermac dual 2ghz. The powermac spanks the imac, and it is NOT just because the graphics are running on the second processor. I run 4 reakto5 instances, 2 absynths, battery 2, pro 53, some reason synths, and kontakt 2, all unfrozen simultaneously.
I run a dual 2ghz machine, load up the plug ins and check the system usage program. You will see that both processors are evenly used.
I have tested sets on both the imac g5 2ghz and the powermac dual 2ghz. The powermac spanks the imac, and it is NOT just because the graphics are running on the second processor. I run 4 reakto5 instances, 2 absynths, battery 2, pro 53, some reason synths, and kontakt 2, all unfrozen simultaneously.
Re: Dual Processor support Myth buster
Live's audio engine only uses 1 CPU, end of story. The Live Performance Tests for both version 4 and version 5 speak for themselves. Results are identical on the iMac vs. the Powermac at the same clock speed. It is possible when the CPU starts to get above 80% there will be some benefits to having two processors but the bottom line is its a shame Live doesn't support dual CPU the way Logic, Cubase, DP, and Pro Tools 7 does.baronvb wrote:Hey, there are tons of posters regurgitating the claim that ableton does not take advantage of dual core processors on macs. That is totally BS. The MAc OSX software determines divying up processor loads among available processors.
Accidents are the portal to discovery!
I would like to see some tests which are not using ableton plugs. How does a dual G5 compare to single G5 with third party plugs and Synths ?
I for one have been angry at ableton for taking the low road with this one. But maybe I am wrong...what IS the deal with 3rd party plugins ? As there is not a single ableton plug I use what would I gain from a dual G5 or the new quad-core ?
Anyone who can do some tests please let us know. I for one am in desperate need of power and am not sure what way to go...
I for one have been angry at ableton for taking the low road with this one. But maybe I am wrong...what IS the deal with 3rd party plugins ? As there is not a single ableton plug I use what would I gain from a dual G5 or the new quad-core ?
Anyone who can do some tests please let us know. I for one am in desperate need of power and am not sure what way to go...
Live 607 Mac G5 dual 2.0 Ghz w/ 3.5 gig ram
OS X 10.4.10, Motu 828mk2, c-thru axis, Too many plugins "detective chief superintendent"
OS X 10.4.10, Motu 828mk2, c-thru axis, Too many plugins "detective chief superintendent"
Plugins don't determine how many CPU's are used, the audio engine of your sequencer does. In theory the Ableton plugs should perform better than VST/AU because they are integrated into the software but I cannot confirm this.loophead wrote:I would like to see some tests which are not using ableton plugs. How does a dual G5 compare to single G5 with third party plugs and Synths ?
Accidents are the portal to discovery!
Baronv's comments about his dual G5 outperforming the single processor imac is probably mostly due to the fact that he's using NI plugs (which will utilize the other processor) and Rewired Reason, which will also balance pretty well. I've heard that some plugs will not automatically use the other processor, although I can't remember any specific examples.
https://soundcloud.com/johnkoranek
2020 27" iMac i9 10 core, 64G Ram, OS 10.15.7
Push 2
Novation SL MKIII
iConnectAudio 2+, iConnectMidi 4+
Live 11 Sweet
2020 27" iMac i9 10 core, 64G Ram, OS 10.15.7
Push 2
Novation SL MKIII
iConnectAudio 2+, iConnectMidi 4+
Live 11 Sweet
-
Per Boysen
- Posts: 1058
- Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 4:11 pm
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
I'm afraid I just blew my money on a centrino lappyhambone1 wrote:Per - I'm one of those fools who will be replacing his 2 x 2GHz for a quad, assuming my PCI video capture cards are compatible. I need the video power for VJing, and can't wait for Macintels.
PM me if interested.
In Live it beats my old dual 2 GHz G5! I'll still be using my Powerbook for Logic 7+ and mastering while the Pentium-M will do live work and eventually studio production in Logic 5.5.1 PC. It scored 24 % in the Live 4 Performance Test http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=285 and I'm very impressed with SIR convolution reverb plug-in as well as MacDrive that allows me to use external OS X formatted firewire drives with both the WinXP laptop and the OS X Powerbook. The best of both worlds! No more Mac for me until a MacIntel model might stand out as the perfect audio machine in about three years from now. Maybe I'll never need to buy a desktop at all? I think this Centrino can handle 5.1 mixes too...