Ableton Forum

Don't believe fanboy's word, including mine. Read those objective analysis and the answer is obvious.

I am running Win 7, M-Audio C400, APC 40. I never had any audio issues until using Ableton Live 8. I tried all advice I could find on this forum with no results. I was ready to throw more HW at the problem until I discovered the referenced Native Instruments Application Note (halelujah !!). Now I can run all ins and outs at 96KHz with 256 byte audio buffer and never have any issues (I was experiencing drop outs, pops, and static while just playing the SW synths through external midi controller). The app note is expertly written and has several optimization suggestions that can correct these types of issues. In my case, I gave background processes (e.g., drivers) processing priority, set Ableton.exe as 'high' process priority, and went to a a 'non-Aero' desktop theme (e.g., Windows Classic, I believe this was actually the culpret in my case - very surprising).See the following app note if you are having Win 7 USB Audio issues:
http://www.native-instruments.com/knowl ... Processing

edit.. in all seriousness... the sound quality is the same! That's all that really matters

kgrace88 wrote:So earlier this week my MacBook Pro crapped out on me, and I can't afford the repairs. For the time being a bought a cheap Windows 7 laptop as I needed a working computer for an event this weekend.

Hmm? maybe I'm tricky like this, but I've never paid more than $350 for repairs on a macbook pro. ($200 is the actual price I've paid)
Apple will swap a logic board for $350 flat, the only item on the macbook pro that's brutally expensive from Apple is the LED screen and there are services for that that are around $350 as well. Just saying, it might be worth looking into, or you could just mail it to me.

pencilrocket wrote:Don't believe fanboy's word, including mine. Read those objective analysis and the answer is obvious.

I'm not going to say that one is better than the other but, unfortunately, that 'test', to which you so frequently reference, is far from objective. Any man or woman of science can see right through it.

p.s. Your use of the term 'cognitive dissonance' is incorrect.

Cheers,

Carey

CareyLetendre wrote:

pencilrocket wrote:Don't believe fanboy's word, including mine. Read those objective analysis and the answer is obvious.

I'm not going to say that one is better than the other but, unfortunately, that 'test', to which you so frequently reference, is far from objective. You are clearly not a man of science otherwise you'd see right through it.

p.s. Your use of the term 'cognitive dissonance' is incorrect.

Cheers,

Carey

If you want to tell us the proof to the contrary then you can copy&paste here your 'scientific' test that is contrary to that test. Easier than writing your essay. That is called 'objectice' process to produce counterevidence. Unfortunately, your statement mean nothing but you don't have any counterevidence.

p.s. Your correction of terminology looks stupid as you can't even follow the basic process to show your conterevidence, which you have learnt in your elementary school. Nice tactic to manipulate the image, school boy.

pencilrocket wrote: If you want to tell us the proof to the contrary then you can copy&paste here your 'scientific' test that is contrary to that test. Easier than writing your essay. That is called 'objectice' process to produce counterevidence. Unfortunately, your statement mean nothing but you don't have any counterevidence.

Here's a simple one brainiac, look through the Live 8 Performance Test thread and find similarly specced mac and PC computers and notice the lack of any real difference....

Bleh, every benchmark test using the same spec CPU, RAM, and configuration of PC computer VS the equivalent Mac besides the one you always fall back on shows a less than 5% difference in performance between Windows and OSX. You found one test that stacks the favor in the Windows direction by using a Hacked PC to run OSX, then tweaking Windows to better use it's already native hardware. Nobody wants to bother with you anymore about this because you simply will not listen to reason and talking to you about it is a waste of time.

pencilrocket wrote:
If you want to tell us the proof to the contrary then you can copy&paste here your 'scientific' test that is contrary to that test. Easier than writing your essay. That is called 'objectice' process to produce counterevidence. Unfortunately, your statement mean nothing but you don't have any counterevidence.

p.s. Your correction of terminology looks stupid as you can't even follow the basic process to show your conterevidence, which you have learnt in your elementary school. Nice tactic to manipulate the image, school boy.

As i stated earlier, i'm not interested in providing evidence to the contrary. The issue of mac vs pc is not that interesting to me nor is it relevant to what i'm saying. I'm simply saying that the test you reference is fundamentally flawed. The four pillars of the scientific method are not followed and as such the data can only be inconclusive at best.

I'm just trying to save you the embarrassment of following a 'false prophet'.

Cheers,

Carey

CareyLetendre wrote:

pencilrocket wrote:
If you want to tell us the proof to the contrary then you can copy&paste here your 'scientific' test that is contrary to that test. Easier than writing your essay. That is called 'objectice' process to produce counterevidence. Unfortunately, your statement mean nothing but you don't have any counterevidence.

p.s. Your correction of terminology looks stupid as you can't even follow the basic process to show your conterevidence, which you have learnt in your elementary school. Nice tactic to manipulate the image, school boy.

As i stated earlier, i'm not interested in providing evidence to the contrary. The issue of mac vs pc is not that interesting to me nor is it relevant to what i'm saying. I'm simply saying that the test you reference is fundamentally flawed. The four pillars of the scientific method are not followed and as such the data can only be inconclusive at best.

I'm just trying to save you the embarrassment of following a 'false prophet'.

Cheers,

Carey

You're interested in writing an essay in the thread you are not interested in? Shall I look for a counselor, Mr.coward?

Machinesworking wrote:Here's a simple one brainiac, look through the Live 8 Performance Test thread and find similarly specced mac and PC computers and notice the lack of any real difference....

Everyone know there are test. You can belive what you think most scientific and reliabilable.

Machinesworking wrote:Bleh, every benchmark test using the same spec CPU, RAM, and configuration of PC computer VS the equivalent Mac besides the one you always fall back on shows a less than 5% difference in performance between Windows and OSX. You found one test that stacks the favor in the Windows direction by using a Hacked PC to run OSX, then tweaking Windows to better use it's already native hardware.

Your 'conjecture' haven't prooved any flaw of the test. If you want to call it flaw you just need to test to proove it. Your conjecture:Windows have native hardware, OSX runs faster with magic of apple, the test flawed. I can't say they are true or false. Conjecture is free but I'm not interested in your conjecture as well as you are not in mine.

Machinesworking wrote:Nobody wants to bother with you anymore about this because you simply will not listen to reason and talking to you about it is a waste of time.

There is nothing you have to 'bother with' from the begining. Just read and believe what you think scientific and reliable. I don't know what you are still concerning about. Explaining your concerning in more detail will help us understand you.

pencilrocket wrote:
You're interested in writing an essay in the thread you are not interested in? Shall I look for a counselor, Mr.coward?

Pencilrocket, i'm sure you're a very nice person and they way you're behaving here is not indicative of who you really are.

Cheers,

Carey

pencilrocket wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:Here's a simple one brainiac, look through the Live 8 Performance Test thread and find similarly specced mac and PC computers and notice the lack of any real difference....

Everyone know there are test. You can belive what you think most scientific and reliabilable.

Machinesworking wrote:Bleh, every benchmark test using the same spec CPU, RAM, and configuration of PC computer VS the equivalent Mac besides the one you always fall back on shows a less than 5% difference in performance between Windows and OSX. You found one test that stacks the favor in the Windows direction by using a Hacked PC to run OSX, then tweaking Windows to better use it's already native hardware.

Your 'conjecture' haven't prooved any flaw of the test. If you want to call it flaw you just need to test to proove it. Your conjecture:Windows have native hardware, OSX runs faster with magic of apple, the test flawed. I can't say they are true or false. Conjecture is free but I'm not interested in your conjecture as well as you are not in mine.

Machinesworking wrote:Nobody wants to bother with you anymore about this because you simply will not listen to reason and talking to you about it is a waste of time.

There is nothing you have to 'bother with' from the begining. Just read and believe what you think scientific and reliable. I don't know what you are still concerning about. Explaining your concerning in more detail will help us understand you.

PR - perhpas you could explain why an article about Cubase and PT performance on OSX and Windows is relevant to Abelton Live performance on the two platforms? And while you are at it, perhaps give us examples of your lengthly experience testing both platforms yourself, and maybe tell us what mac you were using and what audio interfaces etc?

Im guessing you probably cant...

funken wrote:Well, with a mac you know it's gonna work, all you need is a bit of extra Ram and you're off.

Well, except when a MacOS point release breaks MIDI, as happened not too long ago.

"perhpas you could explain why an article about Cubase and PT performance on OSX and Windows is relevant to Abelton Live performance on the two platforms?"


Well if an ASIO call takes 0.0003 second on Windows, and a CoreAudio call takes 0.0005 second on a Mac, regardless of the soundcard & anything; every fucking damn hell audio application will perform smoother on windows than on a Mac.

But then you could just install windows on your macbook and enjoy your 2k$ mid-range computer...

doom_Oo7 wrote:"perhpas you could explain why an article about Cubase and PT performance on OSX and Windows is relevant to Abelton Live performance on the two platforms?"


Well if an ASIO call takes 0.0003 second on Windows, and a CoreAudio call takes 0.0005 second on a Mac, regardless of the soundcard & anything; every fucking damn hell audio application will perform smoother on windows than on a Mac.

But then you could just install windows on your macbook and enjoy your 2k$ mid-range computer...

So you are someone who uses both platforms alot then as well and so talks from personal experince?