*AMAZING* WaveRT in Vista X32 CREAMS both ASIO and WDM in Win XP X32 !!

Page: < 12345.. > >> Showing page 5 of 6
Author
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 882
  • Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 12:01:17 (permalink)
Thanks jschild, maybe you should look at a MAC for 64 bit

The reason we run 64 bit Sonar on Vista 64 is the SOUND QUALITY!

Now whether or not we actually get true 64 bit stuff is frankly parenthetical to us because without fail, almost anyone who hears our tracking comments on how smooth and "un-digital" it sounds.

I suppose in fairness I should also include that we use real LA2A's and a large format console along with Fatso's, Avalons and Great River pre's.

But the thing that got us going down this path (besides coming from the analog world to begin with) was the quality of sound we could commit to disc via 64 bit.

And in the real world you generally only need 1 class A signal path at a time so what is done in a pro studio could technically be reproduced in someones home studio.

This is the great equalizer in the Music industry these days:

One class A signal path recording as "digitally pure/warm" as possible.

I've said before that everything digital is a lie and I stand by this comment, SONAR is the first to really make headway (well with the exception of perhaps RADAR) in recording to disc while remaining warm/un-digital sounding (IMHO).

To discourage others from going toward a less digital sounding process just seems...well irresponsible in my opinion.

64 bit audio is really the only upward direction I've seen in the last 5 years we should be encouraging it, not naysaying it.


I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
jcschild
Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3409
  • Joined: 2003/11/08 00:20:10
  • Location: Kentucky y'all
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 12:16:18 (permalink)




The reason we run 64 bit Sonar on Vista 64 is the SOUND QUALITY!



OH MY LOL LOL LOL rotflmao

well i at least now know which category you fall in.

and FYI Apple os has the same 64 bit issues only worse Sonar dont work on it.

Scott
ADK
Home of the Kentucky Fried DAW!
Hard2Hear
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 210
  • Joined: 2005/01/21 16:09:12
  • Location: KY
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 12:17:53 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob

The reason we run 64 bit Sonar on Vista 64 is the SOUND QUALITY!


wow.

I guess its time to put up or shut up then, huh?
j boy
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2729
  • Joined: 2005/03/24 19:46:28
  • Location: Sunny Southern California
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 12:23:10 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob

The reason we run 64 bit Sonar on Vista 64 is the SOUND QUALITY!


Aren't you confusing the 64 bit audio engine (which is part of the 32 bit SONAR program) with the 64 bit program version? The advantages of running a 64 bit program version, as I understand it, relate to being able to address greater amounts of RAM... am I off base here?

And even Microsoft has acknowledges the bloat inherent in Vista: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft-admits-Windows-is-large-and-bloated-/0,130061733,339283093,00.htm

Note that Redmond has plans to produce a "light" version of Windows 7, nicknamed WinMin.

Finally, I would advise you to drop the snotty tone towards Jim Roseberry and Scott Chicelli as they are two of the most highly-respected members of the forum, and the industry as well... it doesn't reflect well on you and Modulation.
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 882
  • Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 12:39:59 (permalink)
What good would an mp3 do for people who probably don't spend that much time in a critical listening environment anyway?

I don't know of anyone who can translate an audible difference from a 64 bit engine vs 32 bit to an mp3, if you can please share your secrets.

And if you don't think Sonar 7's engine doesn't sound better than 3,4, or even 5 then I don't know what to tell you.

Sure I understand that Sonar is basically giving me "double 32" as a 64 bit processing but headroom is important, and if you think precision errors don't matter then all I can say is good for you, I personally can hear the difference, and so can a lot of my clients.

Again, if your here because you sell systems chances are you don't spend as much time running the program as someone who records bands for a living, and chances are your listening environment is probably not as critical as a studio for hire, maybe I'm wrong but my guess is the monitor path in a factory is probably a little different than one in a control room of a studio.

Are you guys actually suggesting that there is no audible difference between 64 bit double precision and 32 bit?

Wow indeed.

I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
AndyW
Max Output Level: -45.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2956
  • Joined: 2005/10/06 17:13:00
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 12:47:34 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Muziekschuur at home

I went to that website which offers that tool to show system latency (wich seems to be low enough, only when some poor drivers are on the system this is an issue (so the tool says). I read the little pdf too. It says Windows is a bad Realtime OS. Now to ask a question about that..... Wich OS is a good REALTIME OS? And what defines a good REALTIME OS?


Thanks,

Muziekschuur


There are no commerically viable real-time operating systems that I know of. Real-time operating systems are the type of systems that the military buys to run weapons systems(a lot of commercial embedded systems are also run by real-tme OS'). Something with *guaranteed* timing for events. Windows(and every other commercial operating system that I know of) was never designed to be a real-time OS. It is too limiting in capability overall and most people really don't need it because "close enough" is good enough for the vast majority of tasks. The key word in computer science parlance is "deterministic" versus "non-deterministic" results. A real-time OS is deterministic. It will accomplish a given task in a pre-determined amount of time, each and every time. A non-deterministic OS will have variance, typically in a standard random distribution pattern for the same event(bell-curve). For real-time systems(which is what a DAW is really trying to be), this is unacceptable. This is why we have to have buffers for data everywhere in the first place...to compensate for the *average* non-determinism. A good example is network protocols. Token ring was a deterministic system. Each computer got a fixed time slot on the network each cycle. It was guaranteed. However, ethernet(and TCP/IP also) is non-deterministic. A particular computer could technically get "locked out" forever, although that probability is very small. Ethernet won the commercial "protocol war" because it was more efficient(more data throughput) even though token ring provided guaranteed service time to every computer on the network, however, do you think the military(and others who needed deterministic systems) switched it's fire control systems networking protocols to ethernet? HTH.

Best,

AndyW

OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR

www.soundclick.com/andyw
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 882
  • Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 12:50:32 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: j boy


ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob

The reason we run 64 bit Sonar on Vista 64 is the SOUND QUALITY!


Aren't you confusing the 64 bit audio engine (which is part of the 32 bit SONAR program) with the 64 bit program version? The advantages of running a 64 bit program version, as I understand it, relate to being able to address greater amounts of RAM... am I off base here?

And even Microsoft has acknowledges the bloat inherent in Vista: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft-admits-Windows-is-large-and-bloated-/0,130061733,339283093,00.htm

Note that Redmond has plans to produce a "light" version of Windows 7, nicknamed WinMin.

Finally, I would advise you to drop the snotty tone towards Jim Roseberry and Scott Chicelli as they are two of the most highly-respected members of the forum, and the industry as well... it doesn't reflect well on you and Modulation.

I don't think I'm being snotty.

Are you suggesting that respect makes a person infallible? Even Jim is revamping some of his opinions about Vista recently which I think is an admirable position considering how much he has downplayed Vista in the past.

Defend them all you want, I don't care, all I'm saying is that their expertise may be limited to perimeters of purpose, and that does not make them right or wrong.

Be here for what you came here for.

I work in a studio, I record bands, I make albums, I use Vista and like the sound of a 64 bit double precision engine.

Don't tell me a pro cant do these things, unless you can back it up.


I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
AndyW
Max Output Level: -45.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2956
  • Joined: 2005/10/06 17:13:00
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 12:51:40 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob

Sure I understand that Sonar is basically giving me "double 32" as a 64 bit processing but headroom is important, and if you think precision errors don't matter then all I can say is good for you, I personally can hear the difference, and so can a lot of my clients.



What the heck is "double 32"? Do you actually know what you are talking about?


Are you guys actually suggesting that there is no audible difference between 64 bit double precision and 32 bit?

Wow indeed.


As has already been stated, you can use the 64bit engine with XP so, once again, Vista not necessary. You do understand that you don't need SONAR 64, Vista 32 or Vista 64 to use the 64bit engine, right?

Best,

AndyW

OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR

www.soundclick.com/andyw
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 882
  • Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 13:02:41 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: AndyW


ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob

Sure I understand that Sonar is basically giving me "double 32" as a 64 bit processing but headroom is important, and if you think precision errors don't matter then all I can say is good for you, I personally can hear the difference, and so can a lot of my clients.



What the heck is "double 32"? Do you actually know what you are talking about?


Are you guys actually suggesting that there is no audible difference between 64 bit double precision and 32 bit?

Wow indeed.


As has already been stated, you can use the 64bit engine with XP so, once again, Vista not necessary. You do understand that you don't need SONAR 64, Vista 32 or Vista 64 to use the 64bit engine, right?


Double 32:

The difference in SONAR 5 is, all those buffers, instead of being 32-bit floating point, are now 64-bit double precision floating point. So, they consume more memory, but they’re much more accurate and they have much more headroom. And that accuracy and that headroom is throughout the entire mixing chain in our engine. So, as soon as it comes off disk, it gets converted to double, all the mixing is done in double, and all the transfer into and out of plug-ins is done using double if the plug-in supports it.
From Ron Kuper...

And yes I understand where I can use the double precision engine we were on XP for quite a while by the way.

I don't pretend to be a code writer or understand all the details of how memory and computation is addressed, all I know is that in a real world situation double precision bow to stern sounds better to me, having extra ram seems to help, and all these works fine for us in Vista.

And again I will repeat that the original reason I jumped this thread was because of comments (seems "snotty" is only a one way street here) that suggested no pro would use Vista, simply because some expert system builders suggested it doesn't make it so.

I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 882
  • Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 13:19:00 (permalink)
By the way, I have never questioned Jim or Scotts expertise in building DAWS, they are both "pro" daw builders, but this isn't a daw building forum its a forum for users of SONAR, some pro some not, and I view their opinions as vendors more than I do as SONAR users.

If I were here to simply build a daw their experience would be invaluable, but thats not the reason a lot of us are here.


I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
Hard2Hear
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 210
  • Joined: 2005/01/21 16:09:12
  • Location: KY
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 13:38:48 (permalink)
You said 'Vista 64 "sounds better" ' (presumably than XP, Vista32, etc..). Sonar will sound the same no matter what OS if you have. It's using the same engine, period.

I'd like you to SHOW us all. You called out the forum to "back it up". Most of us are on broadband. Let us hear what a REAL pro does with 64 bit! Then I'm going to call up my pals Chuck, Frank, RJ, etc. and tell them how much better your sound is than theirs because theyre not using Vista64.
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 882
  • Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 14:14:44 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Hard2Hear

You said 'Vista 64 "sounds better" ' (presumably than XP, Vista32, etc..). Sonar will sound the same no matter what OS if you have. It's using the same engine, period.

I'd like you to SHOW us all. You called out the forum to "back it up". Most of us are on broadband. Let us hear what a REAL pro does with 64 bit! Then I'm going to call up my pals Chuck, Frank, RJ, etc. and tell them how much better your sound is than theirs because theyre not using Vista64.

Tell ya what, show me where I said Vista 64 "sounds better" and I'll send you a catalog.

Maybe you should stop reading "into" my post and simply read them.

I said the reason we run Vista 64 with Sonar 64 is the sound quality, that has nothing to do with XP, or Vista and everything to do with SONAR.

We heard the difference first on XP and it was the 64 bit precision engine I was referring to, and we've moved to Vista because we like it and have not heard any sound degradation, are you suggesting that Vista somehow should sound worse than XP?

You wanna carry water for your boss fine, I understand, but I have nothing to prove to you or him and frankly I think the "snotty" attitude and name dropping just reinforces a certain lack of respect for anyone other than people you know, it only makes me respect your company less.

If you represent the basic attitude of the company you work for then I can see no reason not to put the whole lot of you on ignore.

You have ignored my stated reason for posting, read into what I've posted and challenged me to some kind of jr. high internet audio duel, which is frankly impossible (if you had ever done any label work you'd know why).







I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
C Hudson
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 990
  • Joined: 2003/11/04 10:02:51
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 14:27:30 (permalink)
No, I am not snobby :)
But... Vista 64 running Sonar x64 will not sound any different than Sonar 32 on X86 OS. The engine is the same, only compiled to 64 bits. All 64 bit gets you is upper memory addressability which is very substantial BTW.
This coming from this quote:
"I said the reason we run Vista 64 with Sonar 64 is the sound quality.."
This reads as if the quality is higher with that duo. I am not argueing and forgive me if I read this wrong, but it appears to read that you think 64 bit OS with 64 bit Sonar will yield higher fidelity than other combos. The engine however is the same no matter what the flavour AFAIK.

Best

CH
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 882
  • Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 14:38:29 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: C Hudson

No, I am not snobby :)
But... Vista 64 running Sonar x64 will not sound any different than Sonar 32 on X86 OS. The engine is the same, only compiled to 64 bits. All 64 bit gets you is upper memory addressability which is very substantial BTW.
This coming from this quote:
"I said the reason we run Vista 64 with Sonar 64 is the sound quality.."
This reads as if the quality is higher with that duo. I am not argueing and forgive me if I read this wrong, but it appears to read that you think 64 bit OS with 64 bit Sonar will yield higher fidelity than other combos. The engine however is the same no matter what the flavour AFAIK.

Well maybe my post would imply thats what I think, bu no I realize its the audio engine that is doing the heavy lifting sonically, my choice of OS is based on wanting to have more RAM if I need it.

Sure I could get this in XP but not without "tweaking".

Our hardware vendors have provided robust drivers and I cannot see a reason for not using Vista which is what the original response I gave implied.

Then the thread degraded into the basic Xp vs. Vista war we've seen about a hundred times since its release.

I don't give a rats a** what OS you use, what version of Sonar you use or whether you have soft synths and RAM out the butt, but I will take offense if you as a DAW vendor suggest that a pro can't or shouldn't use Vista, and in my reply I will indicate that DAW builders generally aren't in a fulltime pro environment where soft synths and such are generally not as important as sound quality and reliability.

It seems weird to me that I should have to defend using SONAR 64 bit on a Sonar forum, but hey its the internot go figure.

I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 9871
  • Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
  • Location: Ohio
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 14:58:35 (permalink)
I don't give a rats a** what OS you use, what version of Sonar you use or whether you have soft synths and RAM out the butt, but I will take offense if you as a DAW vendor suggest that a pro can't or shouldn't use Vista, and in my reply I will indicate that DAW builders generally aren't in a fulltime pro environment where soft synths and such are generally not as important as sound quality and reliability.


Here's the thing...
You're obviously running a straight up tracking/mixing studio.
You've been circumventing Vista's limitations via hardware... and this works great in your environment/situation.
But not all pros are in your situation.

To bring up our good friend Ted Perlman:
Ted makes **heavy** use of soft-synths/samplers... and plugins.
Your scenario (solution) would simply not work for Ted.
People come to me specifically wanting the best possible DAW for their money.
It makes no logical sense to build them a system where they can't run at ultra-low latency... when it's possible by simply using WinXP (As of v7.02 this situation is changing... and I've tried to clearly state that)
That's my point in a nutshell.

Best Regards,

Jim Roseberry
jim@studiocat.com
www.studiocat.com
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 882
  • Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 15:14:04 (permalink)
Thanks Jim.

Point taken.

I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
AndyW
Max Output Level: -45.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2956
  • Joined: 2005/10/06 17:13:00
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 15:23:07 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob


Double 32:

The difference in SONAR 5 is, all those buffers, instead of being 32-bit floating point, are now 64-bit double precision floating point. So, they consume more memory, but they’re much more accurate and they have much more headroom. And that accuracy and that headroom is throughout the entire mixing chain in our engine. So, as soon as it comes off disk, it gets converted to double, all the mixing is done in double, and all the transfer into and out of plug-ins is done using double if the plug-in supports it.
From Ron Kuper...


Which once again shows that you don't know what you are talking about...there is no "double 32". There is 64-bit double precision floating point and there is 32-bit floating point. These are standard computational terms. Here is are some references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_precision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point



And yes I understand where I can use the double precision engine we were on XP for quite a while by the way.


OK...but you sure seem to be blurring the lines in your posts above between the 64 bit engine and having a 64 bit OS.


I don't pretend to be a code writer or understand all the details of how memory and computation is addressed,


Obviously.


all I know is that in a real world situation double precision bow to stern sounds better to me, having extra ram seems to help, and all these works fine for us in Vista.


When did this become a discussion of whether the 64 bit engine "sounds" better than the 32 bit engine? All the others are saying is that it is provable that XP is more efficient and less problem prone that Vista. You really need to separate the 64-bit engine concept and what OS you are using. They are not related and can be mixed and matched together at will. They are two different discussions as the 64-bit engine can be used on XP 32, XP 64, Vista 32 or Vista 64.


And again I will repeat that the original reason I jumped this thread was because of comments (seems "snotty" is only a one way street here) that suggested no pro would use Vista, simply because some expert system builders suggested it doesn't make it so.


I still don't see where anyone said quote "Pro users don't use Vista" unquote. Maybe I missed it. I saw it implied that using Vista was a risky, non-optimal choice and that people who call themselves "professionals" should probably take that information and do the smart thing and not use Vista yet. Again, it is great that for your particular use case, the flaws in Vista are not apparant...but for many(if not the majority) it is a bad choice. What you are doing IMO is the same category as people who respond to a poster to this forum who says "I am having problem X with SONAR" and someone replies "I have SONAR and don't have problem X so you obviously are doing somethnig wrong".



Best,

AndyW

OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR

www.soundclick.com/andyw
AndyW
Max Output Level: -45.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2956
  • Joined: 2005/10/06 17:13:00
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 15:27:50 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Psychobillybob
Tell ya what, show me where I said Vista 64 "sounds better" and I'll send you a catalog.


"The reason we run 64 bit Sonar on Vista 64 is the SOUND QUALITY!"

That clearly implies using both is what makes it sound better.


Maybe you should stop reading "into" my post and simply read them.

I said the reason we run Vista 64 with Sonar 64 is the sound quality, that has nothing to do with XP, or Vista and everything to do with SONAR.


See above...you linked them.


We heard the difference first on XP and it was the 64 bit precision engine I was referring to, and we've moved to Vista because we like it and have not heard any sound degradation, are you suggesting that Vista somehow should sound worse than XP?


Ah..so now the truth comes out. And no, no one is saying Vista will sound worse...you are the one who implied it would sound better. All people are saying is that Vista is a resource hog and less efficient and more problem prone that XP for use as a DAW.







Best,

AndyW

OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR

www.soundclick.com/andyw
C Hudson
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 990
  • Joined: 2003/11/04 10:02:51
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 16:01:43 (permalink)
Rest assured you do not have to justify S64 to me, or anyone for that matter. I have been using Vista for work for months(x86) and it has been bullet proof for me. I , like you, use hardware to suplement my DAW though, so my ultra low latency use is not as excessive as some. That said, it is not unusual for me to have a couple of dozen tracks playing ( audio, VSTi's, FX etc.) and IM a few tracks while tracking to use amp sims and such at low latencies. I have had no issues to speak of.
I would move to X64 and S64 in a heart beat if my interface supported it and more plug in vendors compiled to native 64 bit. For sampling , it has it's obvious advantages.

the whole XP vs Vista is almost as bad as th eold PC vs Mac debate of years gone by.

Jim always states his findings though and backs them up with data and examples. I have no issues believing an "expert" so long as they can prove what they say, not just expect people to believe it. I think the whole "bad wishes" towards Jim could have been avoided if he , instead of flat out dissing Vista, simply stated that it could be used profesionally so long as heavy low latency use was supplemented with hardware. Then early adopters would not feel dissed ( not that i care what anyone else thinks) and Jim would carry on testing Vista as patches are rolled out as he has done. I have no problem believing Ted perlman could not work with Vista. It was not that long ago he couldn't work with XP :)
I have not tried to use my system as he does so the level of IM I am using would be most likely minute comparitivly. That said, to suggest that anyone who does not work with IM that heavily is a little over the top. If Jim feels we are not a "professional" user because we work different than Ted, that's his perogative. It is the Internet after all :)
I still work everyday with months of work lined up and continue to get paid, so i'm OK with whatever the system builders want to call me.

be happy, keep tracking. Jim does not pay your bills :)


Best

CH
DH123
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 220
  • Joined: 2008/01/14 23:15:02
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 16:52:59 (permalink)
So let me see if I understand this whole 5-page thread. Vista sucks, right?
Psychobillybob
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 882
  • Joined: 2003/11/13 20:52:44
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 17:21:35 (permalink)
Sure Vista sucks especially if you are a system builder but what might actually suck more is that come April 2009 XP will no longer be supported (ie: mianstream or "consumer" meaning no more updates)

No more (free) hotfixes

No more patches.

And if I am not mistaken I think June 30th is the cut-off date to purchase an Xp license.

I'm using SOnar Platinium on a 6 core Lynx Audio machine and a ton of vintage pre-amps/eq's/comps I build for fun and sometimes money, REDD.47/API/Neve I also use the UAD stuff, and also use a Macbook Logic 9 through Apogee...
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 9871
  • Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
  • Location: Ohio
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 17:26:18 (permalink)
If Jim feels we are not a "professional" user because we work different than Ted, that's his perogative.


Hmmm...
When did I say or even imply this???
Ted was merely a known example of a Pro who needs maximum low-latency performance.
A counterpart to the example I was responding to...

Let me put it a different way...
A hypothetical:
Lets say 3 months ago you called... wanting the best possible DAW that could be built for your money.
Wouldn't you want (expect) that DAW to be cable of the best possible low-latency performance? Most of my clients expect this...
Would you choose to compromise the low-latency performance simply to run Vista as the OS?
When you're building DAWs for clients, it's a lot different than building for your own purposes (which may include testing the latest OS/options).
It's a lot easier to accept limitations/workarounds/etc... when its your decision/choice.
ie: Say John Doe got a Vista DAW from us about 6 months ago. Two months later, he decides he wants to play his beautiful Ric 4003 & Les Paul in realtime thru AmpegSXV & Amplitube2. Much to John's dismay, he finds he simply can't do this without lots of glitches. He then calls to find out why...
I have to explain: "Well... we could have gone with WinXP... and you would have been able to do the above." What would be my response when John Doe asks me why we went with Vista... knowing the limitations? John Doe spent $1200-$2500... and can't do the things he wants to do.
This is exactly why we couldn't use Vista.

IMO, Performance is the absolute top priority... everything (including hardware/software/OS choice) is based on the former.

I've tried my best to explain what the inherent problems with Vista were...
And why some of us feel it wasn't/isn't the best choice.
Throughout the bickering... the above point likely got clouded.
I certainly hope the above explaination brings logic/clarity to this thread... and in particular... my feelings about Vista.



Best Regards,

Jim Roseberry
jim@studiocat.com
www.studiocat.com
strungdown
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 573
  • Joined: 2007/04/12 13:15:26
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 17:37:49 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry

Hi Jim,

So do we really have to worry about system latency if audio latency performs well?
and what is system latency exactly?


My point is this...
High system latency is a negative in regards to any realtime application. It makes the system more prone to drop-outs/glitches/etc. (for the reason Chris mentioned above)
MMCSS is a means by which Vista circumvents the problem of higher system latency.
Until v7.02, there was a problem with ultra low latency performance under Vista.
I suspect this is related to MMCSS
Now that you can successfully circumvent the underlying problem (new developement as of 7.02), it's certainly much less of a factor.
However, what happens if you want to run an app that doesn't use MMCSS?
If Vista had the same (low) system latency as WinXP, this would all be a moot point. All low-latency problems would be gone...
You wouldn't need MMCSS (WinXP runs great without it).
Doesn't it make more sense to solve the problem at the source... than to provide workaround (band-aid) type solutions?




I just wanted to bump this post, this is a very keen insight
jcschild
Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3409
  • Joined: 2003/11/08 00:20:10
  • Location: Kentucky y'all
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 17:38:43 (permalink)
and let me add to Jims post with the facts
and FYI this test is downloadable on my site for validation by anyone.

same exact system for all tests

ADK Sonar test
XP Pro
QX 9770, 3.4Ghz, 4GB, X38
(Scott's machine)

1024 - 16%
768 - 16%
512 - 20%
256 - 20%
128 - 24%
96 - 29%
64 - 38%
48 - 43% (extremely slight pops in audio)

VISTA64 NUMBERS using SONAR 7.02

SONAR 32 BIT
1024 - 18%
768 - 16%
512 - 18%
256 - 22%
128 - 29%
64 - 42%
48 - 52% pops

SONAR 64 BIT
1024 - 21%
768 - 25%
512 - 26%
256 - 37%
128 - 56% - light pops
64 - 94% - pops, glitches, bad
48 - no way


Scott
ADK
Home of the Kentucky Fried DAW!
C Hudson
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 990
  • Joined: 2003/11/04 10:02:51
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 17:59:23 (permalink)
Hey Scott and Jim,
rest assured as I said before, you prove what you say with Data. No one ever ( or should ) dispute that Xp is performing better than Vista, although, looking at Scott's numbers, the gap is narrowing. My reply was intended for the poster who stated he felt you guys were saying they were "amateur" because they were not using what you recommend. It does get a little hot in here and sometimes messages get crossed. Sorry If I assumed you actually said what other people said you did (?????)
If I was in your guys situation I would do nothing less than what you have done. I respect that you both back up what you say with data that really is non disputable.
My point is it really does not matter what anyone thinks so long as you can get your work done. No personal slight intended.

Best

CH
MC2
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2
  • Joined: 2008/01/30 17:52:36
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 17:59:16 (permalink)
well i'm new here but have been watching for a while.

has anyone tried vista SP1 or is everyone just using the original version?
jcschild
Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3409
  • Joined: 2003/11/08 00:20:10
  • Location: Kentucky y'all
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 18:15:00 (permalink)
HEy CH,
yes the numbers are definately better. Mike and i were just talking about it. while we have 2 Vista systems here for validation
(1 64, 1 32 bit) we had not run any benchmarks in several months that were done on on the same system XP vs Vista.

however its still not good either. the Vista 32 vs XP are not so bad now @ 64 buffer they both work and XP is now only 10% faster where it was over 20%
(got to go pop over to Vins website and check his numbers and see if he has tried .02 yet, http://www.dawbench.com/blofelds-xp-v-vista3.htm) as his tests have always been dead on with mine.


but again i remain stedfast on the only point to vista is 64 bit for more ram so....

looking @ the 64 numbers they are pretty bad.
@ 256 buffer (not what i call low latency) the difference is near 100% increase in performance for XP.





Scott
ADK
Home of the Kentucky Fried DAW!
jcschild
Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3409
  • Joined: 2003/11/08 00:20:10
  • Location: Kentucky y'all
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 18:17:35 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: MC2

well i'm new here but have been watching for a while.

has anyone tried vista SP1 or is everyone just using the original version?


i am pretty sure this is all updates you can do for Vista including the service pack.
Mike ran even more updates today prior to running the test.
and Vista was tweaked for audio
post edited by jcschild - 2008/01/30 18:32:40

Scott
ADK
Home of the Kentucky Fried DAW!
C Hudson
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 990
  • Joined: 2003/11/04 10:02:51
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 18:29:46 (permalink)
Scott,
Yeah it appears Vista 64 is the losing dog in the race. Problem rises in just a few months when you won't be able to buy XP anymore ( according to another poster, have not verified that). It is at least assuring that past June a user can run Vista 32 stocked full of RAM and get decent performance if one wants to go the "all native" DAW. 64 bit will always take a back seat to 32 from Redmond so long as both are available IMO.
If the no licence past June is valid for XP, users will have to learn to adjust to the limits of Vista 32. Call me old school, but I never have trusted a DAW to work flawlessly with no external hardware. I like having a big ole digital desk in front of me :) I guess thats why Vista 32 vs XP 32 never really affected me that much.





Best

CH
MC2
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2
  • Joined: 2008/01/30 17:52:36
  • Status: offline
RE: *AMAZING* WaveRT results in Vista X32 with Sonar 7 2008/01/30 18:32:53 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: jcschild

ORIGINAL: MC2

well i'm new here but have been watching for a while.

has anyone tried vista SP1 or is everyone just using the original version?


i am pretty sure this is all updates you can do for Vista including the service pack.
Mike ran even more updates today prior to running the test.
and Vista was tweaked for audio


well the service pack is not widely available yet. it's something you currently have to "opt in" for. so unless they've done that, i would imagine they are just on the original vista.

you can go here for more details: Vista SP1 RC1
Page: < 12345.. > >> Showing page 5 of 6
Jump to:
© 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1