Live Performance Test 1 and 2:

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2002 9:38 pm
Location: Zeist, The Netherlands

Post by FrankH » Wed May 22, 2002 9:03 pm

May i have your votes please!

these my are results:

Make of computer: Apple G4 (single processor)
Operating system: OS 9.2.2
CPU Speed: 933 MHz
Soundcard: MotU 2408, 10 channels Config (Buffer Size 128 Samples = 4 ms)

Result for test 1: 3%
Result for test 2: 24%

Make of computer: Apple G4 (same machine but now with OSX and the build-in-audio)
Operating system: OS 10.1.2
CPU Speed: 933 MHz
Soundcard: Built-in audio controller (Buffer Size 512 Samples = 11 ms)

Result for test 1: 2%
Result for test 2: 23%



Post by Neil » Thu May 23, 2002 4:17 am

heres mine:
compaq presario p3 933
win 98
using sound blaster live! platinum 5.1

1- 2%
2- 21%

powerbook G3 pismo
os 9.2.2

1- 6%
2- 38%(man, thats ugly!)

wierd... have a faster hard drive (5400 rpm) in my powerbook and still get high results.. i have 1 gig of memory.. tried allocating more memory to live(i know.. processor speed is slowing me down)
but i still love my powerbook...


Here you go

Post by Guest » Thu May 23, 2002 7:40 am

Make of computer:
Operating system: w2k
CPU Speed: AMD TB 1400
Soundcard: RME Digiface (6ms)

Result for test 1: 9%
Result for test 2:12%

Posts: 15
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:10 pm
Location: / germany

dual macs..

Post by Moogulator » Tue Jun 11, 2002 11:37 am

well, I assume that dual macs on OS X will use the dual power..

but I am very sure that live seems not to really support the G4 "velo engine" and dual processors on OS9,right?..

I can check this when I am home again..
not installed liveo n OS X ,yet (10.1.5).

well, as i read the OS X against OS 9.2.2 on a DP1000 I really can't believe that! maybe ableton do not use the dual processors at all, maybe an own driver using only one provessor even on os x??..

its strange, the OS X in gegenrall uses both processors so.. hmm.. I'd really like an official comment on that!! (from ableton..) <--synths <-- future musiQ <- the future


dual macs..

Post by yon » Tue Jun 11, 2002 4:28 pm

Moogulator wrote: its strange, the OS X in gegenrall uses both processors so.. hmm.. I'd really like an official comment on that!! (from ableton..)
This is not an official comment, but what you say is true only in the sense that OSX will balance scheduling different threads between processors, the same as most other li/unix flavors. There's nothing the operating system can do to an individual thread to break it into pieces to be scheduled on different CPUs, though.

here's a basic explanation:

and if interested you can find many more online. it's very useful if you happen to have several programs running at once, because they can be scheduled independently, but for a single application, requires targeted engineering.


Posts: 15
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:10 pm
Location: / germany

Post by Moogulator » Tue Jun 11, 2002 10:23 pm

Make of computer:dual Mac G4 500
Operating system: ). 9.22
CPU Speed: 500 Mhz / dual
Soundcard: pulsar 2
ableton 1.5 final.

Result for test 1: 6%
Result for test 2: 31-32%
(same with soundmanager/Mac DA)

seems not very good and as lame as a single processor machine..

sorry, ableton.. but seems you do not care for duals?..
a 500mhz single proc-tibooks has similar results..

on os x the performance it is test1: 4% test2: 32%
a song that I do right now goes to 102% .. so the performance under 10.1.5. is below that under 9.22 ;(( <--synths <-- future musiQ <- the future


specs inspiron 3700 piii 450

Post by arbory » Wed Jul 10, 2002 4:59 pm

Make of computer: dell
Operating system: w2k
CPU Speed: 450
Soundcard: internal(ESS Maestro)

Result for test 1: 22%
Result for test 2: 34%

Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:27 pm
Location: nyc

Post by memetic » Wed Jul 10, 2002 8:07 pm


Make of computer: Toshiba 5105 S501
OS: WinXP/Home
CPU Speed: P4 1.7 GHz
Soundcard: EMI 2|6

Results for Test 1: 2%
Results for Test 2: 15%

live 1.5.1

::| m e m e t i c |::

Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 12:06 am

Post by rhogben » Fri Jul 12, 2002 4:20 pm

Make of computer: Custom
Operating system: Windows XP Pro
CPU Speed: Dual P3 850
Soundcard: SB Audigy EX

Result for test 1: 2%
Result for test 2: 17%

with Reason via Rewire:
Result for test 1: 5%
Result for test 2: 30%


Post by proton » Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:22 pm

Make of computer: Apple iMac Rev D
Operating system: Mac OS 9.2.2
CPU Speed: 333 MHz
Soundcard: Internal

Result for test 1: 8%
Result for test 2: 49%

Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 7:56 pm

why the surprising results?

Post by bobby769 » Wed Jul 17, 2002 8:16 pm

I thought that Macs were the way to go for Music creation/editing?
Is this not true?
Should I be buying a PC?

Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 12:06 am

Post by rhogben » Wed Jul 17, 2002 11:59 pm

There is always going to be something faster out there. Leaders in the industry are born and die overnight.

The whole MAC's are faster with audio/video etc. argument loses ground when PC's are using brute force high cpu speeds to rip through processing cycles. I'm sorry but your new G4 Power Mac doesnt stand a chance against a Dual CPU Athlon 2200, or a Pentium 4 2.5 GHz machine.

But that doesnt mean a brand new G4 Mac is not a killer machine, any new computer you buy out there, Mac or PC can get the job done.

It all boils down to marketing. Apple's marketing hits creatives right in the heart. I do not work on Mac's primarily but it's silly to think Apple makes me sometimes feel like less of a creative because I don't use a Mac. That is genious marketing, and also total bullshit.

My advice don't believe the hype, buy what you can afford and like. Buy what your friends buy so you can work together, share and help each other.

Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by twelve » Thu Jul 18, 2002 1:20 am

Faster isn't always the best computer or system for each user; stability, interface, ease of use, price, etc contribute to what is the best computer for someone. As long as you can do what you need it to is the question to ask. Are you able to perform live with LIVE and play what you need and have it not crash might be the better question. If not, then find the computer that can.

Also, rhogben, I too am in San Diego. Do you know of any Live LIVE performers here? Do you perform Live LIVE here?

Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 10:22 pm
Location: South Florida

Post by chris_borgia » Thu Jul 18, 2002 4:24 pm

FrankH... HOLD UP, you serious?:?: you got those results on your mac? That is great but goes against what everyone else is getting on theres.. can you elaborate more on your setup? Perhaps -> test again?


Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 12:06 am

Post by rhogben » Thu Jul 18, 2002 6:01 pm

I agree faster is not always better, or the only factor to look at, I just hate the whole Mac/PC debate. I have worked on both Macs and PCs they both have advantages and disadvantages although in my opinion they are becoming less distinguishable.

I have worked on Macs that crash and PCs that crash. What makes a stable system is good drivers and good hardware. So use quality hardware in your system. A well put together PC is just as stable as any Mac system out there.

Ease of use... well really now when you are talking about software that is written for both Macs and PCs the interface is the same (the software basically the same), so they are both easy or not easy to use. And come on, its not like PCs are soo hard to use, my grandma has one and I can tell you she would have the same problems she has using a PC that she would with a Mac.

Really the biggest difference between PCs and Macs is marketing.


Live Live performers in SD, well not yet, but I have a few friends that perform live that have been looking at Live, so maybe in the future.

Post Reply