snowtires wrote: yeah, i learned this the hard way. the extremely hard way. bought a g5 quad core with 8 gigs of ram, thinking it was my laptop's fault that live slowed down. apparently it was live's fault that live slowed down.
- yeah man that is indeed the hard way. Not that it'll make you feel better but it pulls the same shit on a dual Opteron. This does seem to be a major point of contention, and comparison, between users - understandably some guys are merely beat matching a couple of tracks in complex mode with a few plugs: some have probs and some don't. WHEREAS the guys who are coming at this from the DAW angle, requiring maximum application efficiency and every last drop of juice from the host platform, seem to be the one's having the most probs. When you get down to nitty gritty of tracking, big subgroups, tons of processing etc etc that's when the cracks really start to show (typically through the speakers). Yeah there's the argument that you can 'consolidate' or bounce multiple tracks earlier than you would in other apps/formats - but that then limits options further down the road. On larger projects that are nearly finished I've actually taken to loading the .als, hitting play, and then sodding off for a cup of tea because I know, for a certainty, that the first play thru is gonna sound like a buffer underrun frenzy. What I personally failed to understand about the recent development policy was: a) hyperthreading/multiproc support has been around for ages - there are even 'one-man' dev outfits who've managed to implement it. Live users will be waiting till V6.
b) Macintel - utterly pointless effort IMHO. Why wasn't that effort spent on fixing a) for both current PC and PPC users before porting for V6? Was it really easier to port an app to a new platform, with a tiny userbase, than it was to supply a major boost for the one's we already had?
c) something 'weird' happened to the code between v4.14 and v5 - the former seemed very responsive and relatively efficent (within itself rather than as a measure of CPU). Whereas 5 seems markedly less so - and I don't see the monster bells and whistles that have been added to make it so. It's a difficult thing to measure or explain I grant - but it's more of a feel thing I guess.
snowtires wrote: so now i have to use protools if i want to do anything processor intensive. what a waste. granted, i am doing a LOT (vst plugins, midi playback to various external keyboards, rewiring reason and melodyne, etc), but still. the main reason i bought this computer was so that this wouldn't happen.
Again purely IMHO if the Abe's really want to secure and increase their DAW market for v6 then they've got to look at the beta testing - not to dimish the work that anyone's put in over the years in any way mind you - but get, for want of a better term, the 'pro's' in on this. Guys who track, track and track all day long. There's no doubt in my mind the Abe's have NAILED the creativity side of things (something that PT, Nuendo, DP, Logic et al stupidly abandoned years ago in pursuit of the ephemeral 'production crown') but if they can, as they've stated in the V6 promo, increase the app efficiency, to a level at least comparable with the others I've mentioned, then they will have things sewn up.
The post ain't intended as serious bitching or flamebait for anyone, as I've stated before I recommend this app to people all day, and I want to see the first truly 21st century musical application get to where it should be - a studio standard rather than a cult tool for the creativily obsesssed
