@cm said:

thanks for the heads-up regarding RME and PCI express - i've been already wondering why it is so quiet at RME regarding this *new* connector ...

5 years ... hmm, looking back the past 2 or 3 years and reflecting how we can currently use (resp. no longer use) 3 year old machines i'd consider 3 years as a maximum age for computers used as (high end) sound devices ... of course i can still get *something* out of the machines which are now 5 years old, but i would not like to use them for daily work today.

i'm saying this as someone usually changing office computers not before 5-6 years in the past, but currently i doubt my 2 years old *working horse* will survive the next year at it's current purpose ...
christian

Is it me or is the software (OS) running somewhat behind the current hardware. My main computer (G5 Dual 2.5/6.5MB RAM) is currently waiting imminent replacement but reading the forum the performance that others are getting with an 8 core MacPro doesn't seem too advance from where I am at the moment.

For good, quick and efficient transferable workflows I do prefer to try and keep the main production environment within a single computer. I am often resorting to some work rounds but I can get a reliable Logic Song structure that is using 25 Vienna Instruments as AU plug-ins and from what I read this isn't so far away from the current 8 cores.

Now the raw computer data would indicate that the latest fastest MacPro should have a capability nearly 5 times greater than the G5 PPC but currently this isn't demonstrated by practical operation.

I do hope that the new Mac OS system along with parallel 3rd party software development will unlock more of the potential in the current hardware and move the game forward.

Is their a similar "pause for breath" software hardware relatonship existing in PC land or is there a dfferent dynamic there?

Julian

Hi guys,

Thanks again for your comments.

I think you have all very good points and when I think about it, it is true that I changed my computers every 2 years or so and that so many things can change in 6 months.

I guess I'm going to let it nurture in my head for a while and keep doing music meanwhile!

Thanks again,
Vincent

julian, working on PC most of the time all my comments (and your assumption) from above are valid for this platform too, besides i don't see too much difference between a mac and a PC basically, particulary since apple moved to intel processors.

one could have long and abstract discussions about details like GUI, filesystems, thread handling and similar but for both neither twice as much RAM or harddisk capacity or GHz gives the user twice the power.

a significant amount of power is regulary eaten up by (what i call) *featuritis* of OS and apps, a certain amount lost by simple overhead immanent to the (hardware) system itself.

more impact on the performance has the design of a system and it's components. regarding media applications PPC simply suited better than the pentium 3/4/5 and the core duo/core 2 duo beats them both, SCSI performed better than IDE (pATA), sATA and SAS (serial attached SCSI) is more efficient, chipsets based on ICH (integrated controller hub, the successor of crossbars) give you more throughput than the southbridge/northbridge design, ect, ect, ...

remember the move from 16 to 32 bit computers in the mid nineties - a huge leap, besides the addressable RAM we got 32bit grafic (*true color*) and 32bit audio and the transition lasted ... a while.
what will be the advantage of 64 bit aside from addressable RAM? aside from x-ray pictures (fine greyscale) no graphical advantage, we don't expect audio to use 64bit in the near future, quality of video formats is actually decreasing (mpeg compressed and still 32bit), representation of unicode characters will still be 2 byte (16 bit), ect ...

so what should we expect overall: large overhead on every edge of a system because we will need 32bit compatibilty everywhere for a long time and it wouldn't take me wonder if we would see some disappointed faces around the table finally ...
christian

I'm along the same lines cm, but don't forget all we VI users are after are exactly the addressable RAM. [[;)]]

@Vagn Luv said:

I'm along the same lines cm, but don't forget all we VI users are after are exactly the addressable RAM. [[;)]]

And this is why it is so disappointing that there is no 64bit version of the player yet. I mean, XP64 is no spring chicken. [8-)]

DG

i don't want to tell boring stories about 64bit driver installation now, but: which host except sonar comes into your mind?
christian

@cm said:

i don't want to tell boring stories about 64bit driver installation now, but: which host except sonar comes into your mind?
christian

FXT...... [:D]

D

well i've read the lines ... sounds interesting, but is not a 64bit host ... lets see if it limits to 4 (as expected) or 8 GB RAM
christian

Bidule is a 64 bit host.

thanks Stéphane, i've not been up to date here ... btw: when i checked out bidule the last time i've been impressed how intuitively i've been able to understand the GUI (environment)
christian

Christian,

There is another possibility to find all (?) the 64 bit hosts : The KVR database.
Here it is the actual result

HDSPe MADI: http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_hdsp_madi_e.php

@cm said:

well i've read the lines ... sounds interesting, but is not a 64bit host ... lets see if it limits to 4 (as expected) or 8 GB RAM
christian

64bit version (beta, I think) just released. Now over to you guys..... Oh, and make sure that Syncrosoft has its a*se in gear. [:D]

DG

hmmm, should i have receivved a respective newsletter?
though i can confirm LCC installs and works fine on XP64 i just notice it runs as x32 process ... i'll keep you posted ...
christian

@Another User said:

Ok, now we have prerelease of FXT x64 Server. Tested it with iZotope.
Will wait for other mentioned plug-ins availability in 64-bit, test and release. It is 64-bit server slaving to 32-bit master. Had not built 64-bit host yet.

So, as I said, over to you guys. [8-)]

DG

CM,



"Bidule Is A 64 Bit Host" (thanx stephane)



Time to write that 64 bit version just in time for September release of MAC OS [;)]

no excuses.

SvK[/code]

haha ... let's wait for the release (and possibly the first updates) and drivers, then look how the final code works, then run internal tests and then announce anything ... has been good practice in the past.
christian

@cm said:

haha ... let's wait for the release (and possibly the first updates) and drivers, then look how the final code works, then run internal tests and then announce anything ... has been good practice in the past.
christian

Yes, us Windows users have been waiting at least 3 years, so why rush for a minority OS. [:D]

DG

"what will be the advantage of 64 bit aside from addressable RAM? aside from x-ray pictures (fine greyscale) no graphical advantage, we don't expect audio to use 64bit in the near future, quality of video formats is actually decreasing (mpeg compressed and still 32bit), representation of unicode characters will still be 2 byte (16 bit), ect ... "

Cakewalk Sonar is already 64-bit. "aside from addressable RAM"? That's the whole point! Loading up a modestly thick orchestration requires over 2 GB of RAM. Windows XP non-64 bit supports only 3 GB (at least on my system). That leaves me less than 1 GB for other apps.

It's pretty ridiculous more people aren't supporting 64-bit. Visual Studio comes with native 64-bit support - basically all you have to do is recompile. .NET automatically supports 64-bit if you program it correctly (granted you can't do a VST with .NET, but you can do other things, UI, etc.).

Come on guys! Time to move out of the 20th century.

To answer the original question -
I'm currently building a new machine with the Core2 Quad and 4 GB of RAM. I'll let you all know how it turns out. I'm also - get this - programming my own g.d.'d VST host (in 64-bits obviously) because none of the current ones have what I'm looking for or work reliably. Finale will control the host computer via IP MIDI.

I am looking into upgrading my music system. I currently use EWSOP, Groove Agent, Colossus, VSL Orch Pro, VSL VI SE, Synthogy, and many other EXS24 based samples. I want to see if I can simplify my system into one computer and put various sections on one hard drive rather than separate computers. I am looking at the following system:

Mac Pro:
# CPU- Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
# RAM- 8GB (4 x 2GB)
# Hard Drive 1-250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# Hard Drive 2-500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# Hard Drive 3-500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# Hard Drive 4-150GB 10K-rpm Master Serial ATA
# NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
# Two 16x SuperDrives
# Both Bluetooth 2.0+EDR

I am also looking into the Apogee Ensemble. Would RME be a better choice? Apple is involved in the Ensemble for enhanced compatability with Logic. Any comments or suggestions. Any suggested reading material? I sometimes feel lost with all the computer jargon. I subscribe to VI magazine, have Paul Gilreath's book, but cannot seem to get my questions answered about the best route to go. Will the Windows Parallels program allow me to run Vista if ultimately I should convert my current Mac Pro dual core 2.5 ghz, 4.5 gb ram to a program to run Gigasampler. Presently I have a Win XP Carillon machine connected to my Mac and use midi-over-lan. The articles in VI mag have been very helpful. I seem to be more comfortable with the stability of the Macs. I am not unhappy with my system, I would just like more simplicity. [*-)]: