sdpate67
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 344
- Joined: 2008/03/09 09:59:21
- Location: Charlottetown, PEI
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 03:08:33
(permalink)
The optimism for X1 is contagious and there's only a short time to go, although I wouldn't be surprised if it still had issues. Jim, I hear ya over and over but, God bless you and your luck, X1 is a pig for me and many others. Wished it wasn't so because I invested 5 solid weeks into learning X1 and it never was a solid piece of software. It's gorgeous but full of holes like Swiss Cheese. Got hand it to me, and others, for being stubborn. It's so weird that dongles have survived in the audio world. Lotus 123 had them and the user community punished them to hell for it. Seems audio is obsessed with punishing good customers along with those who like stuff for free. Psychologically dongles are a bridge I hate to cross but look at PT -its the professional industry standard. Baaa baaaa baaaa. Factoids - Cubase is most popular DAW on GS 21% followed by Logic 19% PT 16% Motu DP 12% Reaper 11% Sonar 8% Baby's it's a wild world, hard to get by just upon a smile
post edited by sdpate - 2011/03/11 03:18:11
Asus i7-760 Win 8.1/ Sonar Platinum / Lynx Aurora 16 AES16 / Mackie MCU Pro XT C4 / Millennia Media STT1 x 2 TD-1/ UAD-2 Quad x 2 / Neumann O-300 O-810 U87 KM184 x 2 / Shure 57/58 Reverbnation NJN Network
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 04:37:24
(permalink)
sdpate
Motu DP 12%
Keep in mind that MOTU placed a banner on their forum pointing their users to that poll. http://www.motunation.com...mp;t=45491 (Top left) The banner is in permanent view from anywhere on the forum. A bit sad really if you ask me. Before they did that DP had a much lower percentage. I can't remember the exact figure but it was certainly much lower than Sonar. UnderTow
|
VigilantSound
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 474
- Joined: 2008/07/06 13:17:59
- Location: Vancouver,BC
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 04:49:30
(permalink)
Digital Performer is an excellent DAW though, I have used it for a few years now and its been on of my favorites, Its very stable and has awesome monitoring and audio quantizing .... And I know lots of Mac heads who love to...
I consider it the Sonar of OSX....
ASUS P5BV-C, Intel Core 2 Quad 2.8 Ghz, Q9300, 4 gigs Ram, Win7-64 bit OSX 10.6 ADK 9000 I7, 6 gigs Ram, MacBookPro I7, 4 gigs Ram MOTU 828Mk3, MOTU microbookII SONAR PE X2A, Pro Tools 9.0.6, StudioOnePro 2.5.4 Ableton Live 9, Waves V.9, www.jesseahemmanuel.com
|
Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3617
- Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 05:22:51
(permalink)
First alternative, SONAR X1... no question about it if you into working, need and use 64bit, use a modern computer with Windows 7 x64. SONAR X1 are the stabel work horse you are looking for even with its flaws today. All flaws that will be soon addressed with the "MAJOR FREE UPDATE" Patch B. Best audio quality and the only DAW that has a 64bit audio engine. Second choise would be CUBASE 6. More overall edit power-functions then SONAR, but not near inspired to use as SONAR. No Icons no ability to customization. Dull grey and boring. Now in Cubase 6 you can finally change skin after over 10 years of requests. Grey dull, Sh-it brown or dark as night are the colors? Non of these colors works for me...?  Third choise LOGIC x64 on OSX. The only choise that matters on MAC, forget any other programs on OSX. OSX same usabillity as iPhone = slow, outdate, no customization. Mac = a PC that use a slow Windows OS called OSX. Works for people with low tech skills like you grandma or your kid. Easy to use for anyone that doesn't understand how to manage or build systems. The best joke with MAC is that they still continue to say you don't need to use any virus programs? Today we know that MAC have more then +100 virus only on MAC platform. LOL... The same goes with iPhone 3G or iPhone 4, I have one... can be hijacked anywere on public areas in 3 seconds by anyone thru the Webbrowser Safari. STUDIO ONE the fourth choice. I have my eyes on this new upcomer. PRO TOOLS never choice. It's kind of obvious, no need of comment on this outdate and dying platform.
post edited by Freddie H - 2011/03/11 05:29:39
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 05:37:44
(permalink)
Aaah Freddie, always eager to amuse the audience.  UnderTow
|
n0rd
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 237
- Joined: 2010/11/02 02:18:00
- Location: Down Under (Australia)
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 07:21:58
(permalink)
Jim Roseberry
The only missing feature that I've encountered is that Reaper doesn't support clip-based effects.
FWIW, Reaper does offer per-item ("Clip" in Reaper speak) EFX.
Open the Item Editor (F2) and look for Take-FX
+1 For casual use, it's a no brainer - Try Reaper... It's free for 30 days and then it's 40 bucks (which includes the next version too). And if you use lots of automation, it's actually fun in Reaper.
|
ba_midi
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14061
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:58:18
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 11:03:36
(permalink)
sdpate
The optimism for X1 is contagious and there's only a short time to go, although I wouldn't be surprised if it still had issues. Jim, I hear ya over and over but, God bless you and your luck, X1 is a pig for me and many others. Wished it wasn't so because I invested 5 solid weeks into learning X1 and it never was a solid piece of software. It's gorgeous but full of holes like Swiss Cheese. Got hand it to me, and others, for being stubborn.
It's so weird that dongles have survived in the audio world. Lotus 123 had them and the user community punished them to hell for it. Seems audio is obsessed with punishing good customers along with those who like stuff for free. Psychologically dongles are a bridge I hate to cross but look at PT -its the professional industry standard. Baaa baaaa baaaa.
Factoids -
Cubase is most popular DAW on GS 21%
followed by
Logic 19%
PT 16%
Motu DP 12%
Reaper 11%
Sonar 8%
Baby's it's a wild world, hard to get by just upon a smile
For my way of thinking, to even begin to think polls such as those at GS or any other 'online / non-scientifc' poll could have any veracity is a bit of a stretch for me. The only poll that matters are the factual sales figures and we are not likely to see those anywhere.
|
ba_midi
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14061
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:58:18
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 11:06:14
(permalink)
All flaws that will be soon addressed with the "MAJOR FREE UPDATE" Patch B. Best audio quality and the only DAW that has a 64bit audio engine. Freddie, With all due respect - making that "B" patch sound like CW is doing everyone a favor by it being "FREE" is laughable. But, also - Studio One has a 64bit engine too. So I just want to get the facts straight.
|
ba_midi
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14061
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:58:18
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 11:07:29
(permalink)
UnderTow
Aaah Freddie, always eager to amuse the audience.
UnderTow
|
djjhart@aol.com
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2189
- Joined: 2008/10/24 08:45:46
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 11:23:06
(permalink)
"The same goes with iPhone 3G or iPhone 4, I have one... can be hijacked anywere on public areas in 3 seconds by anyone thru the Webbrowser Safari. " Any phone with bluetooth has a vulnerability to be hacked, Anyone can do this too . Go to the computer show and buy Bluethooth hacking cd. Super simple.. I beg to differ and say OSX far superior the Windows Os, This is my assessment as I use both OS's .In my experience Core audio Alone is far superior than ASIO. X1 also renders MY 64bit DP engine useless cant use it at all since the upgrade, nor can I bounce to an Mp3. BTW My macs have never had a Virus Ever.. been using Mac's since the 1990's started with a Powermac 7300.
post edited by djjhart@aol.com - 2011/03/11 11:28:50
Computer - Intel Q9550, Intel BX48bt2 MB, W8 64 bit. 8 gb Ram, SSD Hardware - Tascam Fw1884 Control surface only, Ni S49 Komplete Kontroll,Roland Quad Capture, Ni Machine,Kore, Focusrite A/D converter, Blue Mic, Roland Gaia, Akai Mpk49, Yamaha HS80 Monitors.Software - Sonar Platinum , Vengeance VPS bundle,Sugar Bytes Effectrix, Turnado, NI Komplete 10 Ultimate, Dune, Rob Papen Blade , Delay, Punch Evolved. http://soundcloud.com/johnhartson/tracks http://www.youtube.com/user/jhart1313
|
keith
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3882
- Joined: 2003/12/10 09:49:35
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 11:24:50
(permalink)
wormser
I'm currently trying Samplitude 11 demo and it looks real nice, but $1000 is an awful lot of money and even though I used these things to earn $$ that's still overpriced IMHO.
I've also been reading it isn't that great at getting the lowest latency when using VSTi.
You can crossgrade to Sam 11 "standard" for about $300, and the crossgrade to Sam 11 Pro is probably more like $600 or something. If you own sonar or a bunch of other software you can crossgrade. The main difference (IMO) with the standard edition is that it's limited to 128 audio tracks, which is still a heckuvalot of audio tracks for 98% of users. I think there are some samp plugs that are also exlcuded from the standard edition, but that is usually not an issue for most people. Regarding latency with VSTi... I don't know specifically either way, as I don't follow samp or it's users, but I do know that I've done many projects with Sam 7 pro utilizing halion, kontakt, various synths, etc., and never had an issue with latency while recording midi parts, etc. with 128 sized ASIO buffers and the like. Sam has something called "hybrid audio engine", which is able to treat some tracks realtime/some non-realtime, all tracks realtime, all tracks non-realtime, etc. So maybe somebody with latency issues doesn't have their engine configured properly for the task at hand. Not sure. In any case... not trying to sell you on samplitude...
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 11:53:44
(permalink)
BTW My macs have never had a Virus Ever.. been using Mac's since the 1990's started with a Powermac 7300.
FWIW, I agree that CoreAudio is superior to ASIO (in most cases). That's one of the few real advantages of OSX Regarding Virus/Malware: I've been using PC DAWs since the original version of S.A.W. Not once has my PC DAW been infected...
post edited by Jim Roseberry - 2011/03/11 12:31:42
|
ba_midi
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14061
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:58:18
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 12:07:23
(permalink)
Jim Roseberry
BTW My macs have never had a Virus Ever.. been using Mac's since the 1990's started with a Powermac 7300.
FWIW, I agree that CoreAudio is super to ASIO (in most cases).
That's one of the few real advantages of OSX
Regarding Virus/Malware:
I've been using PC DAWs since the original version of S.A.W.
Not once has my PC DAW been infected...
Almost same here. I think I had ONE virus MANY MANY years ago.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 12:21:34
(permalink)
Jim Roseberry
BTW My macs have never had a Virus Ever.. been using Mac's since the 1990's started with a Powermac 7300.
FWIW, I agree that CoreAudio is super to ASIO (in most cases).
That's one of the few real advantages of OSX
What exactly is superior about CoreAudio? (Genuine interest here). Performance of ASIO in Windows XP and Win 7 beats CoreAudio on OS X so that is not the answer. UnderTow
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 12:48:59
(permalink)
What exactly is superior about CoreAudio?
FWIW, I'm not a Mac fan. Have a MBP to use for testing/etc You can typically achieve glitch-free playback at lower latency (with the same exact hardware) with CoreAudio. From RME: "The Babyface achieves latency values down to 48 samples on Windows and 14 samples on Mac OS X." If you have a Mac with Bootcamp, you can verify this. Another small example: The onboard audio with a MBP With CoreAudio, you can dial the buffer size way down... and playback remains glitch-free under fairly substantial loads. Even down to 32-samples... Under Windows, you can't achieve that level of performance from the Realtek. Obviously many folks aren't going to use the onboard audio for DAW purposes... but it's a quick/easy example to test/verify.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 13:06:54
(permalink)
Jim Roseberry
What exactly is superior about CoreAudio?
FWIW, I'm not a Mac fan.
Have a MBP to use for testing/etc
You can typically achieve glitch-free playback at lower latency (with the same exact hardware) with CoreAudio.
From RME:
"The Babyface achieves latency values down to 48 samples on Windows and 14 samples on Mac OS X."
Yet actual performance seems better on Win7: http://www.dawbench.com/win7-v-osx-5.htm Being able to run at 14 samples means nothing if there is no performance left for actual work... I could run my Terratec card at 1ms latency many years ago but it would fail with more than 1 audio track so that, when taken in context of using a DAW, was meaningless. The onboard audio with a MBP
With CoreAudio, you can dial the buffer size way down... and playback remains glitch-free under fairly substantial loads. Even down to 32-samples...
Under Windows, you can't achieve that level of performance from the Realtek.
Obviously many folks aren't going to use the onboard audio for DAW purposes... but it's a quick/easy example to test/verify.
How about with ASIO4ALL? Well it doesn't really matter as in the end I (and I assume most) are not interested in using the onboard soundchip to make music. UnderTow
|
cryophonik
Max Output Level: -28 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4724
- Joined: 2006/04/03 17:28:17
- Location: Elk Grove, CA
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 13:07:12
(permalink)
I came back to PT9 about a month ago after selling it years ago (@ version PTLE7.3) and it has pretty much become my go-to DAW since then while I wait for the X1b release. My projects are all a combination of MIDI and audio, and I picked up PT9 primarily for tracking and audio editing, but I have found myself very surprised with its MIDI capabilities, which were improved dramatically after I sold it years ago. So, I'll wait to see what X1b brings, but I'm getting a lot more mileage out of PT9 right now than I ever expected.
|
wormser
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 984
- Joined: 2007/11/18 11:26:55
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 13:13:16
(permalink)
keith
You can crossgrade to Sam 11 "standard" for about $300, and the crossgrade to Sam 11 Pro is probably more like $600 or something. If you own sonar or a bunch of other software you can crossgrade. The main difference (IMO) with the standard edition is that it's limited to 128 audio tracks, which is still a heckuvalot of audio tracks for 98% of users. I think there are some samp plugs that are also exlcuded from the standard edition, but that is usually not an issue for most people.
Regarding latency with VSTi... I don't know specifically either way, as I don't follow samp or it's users, but I do know that I've done many projects with Sam 7 pro utilizing halion, kontakt, various synths, etc., and never had an issue with latency while recording midi parts, etc. with 128 sized ASIO buffers and the like. Sam has something called "hybrid audio engine", which is able to treat some tracks realtime/some non-realtime, all tracks realtime, all tracks non-realtime, etc. So maybe somebody with latency issues doesn't have their engine configured properly for the task at hand. Not sure.
In any case... not trying to sell you on samplitude...
Thank you for the information Keith! I appreciate you taking the time. Samplitude is clearly different than the others in terms of work flow. I like the look of the GUI because the knobs and buttons etc are very easy to read. The object oriented approach is also very unique. Studio One is kind of a little bit similar in that changes to the various songs will be updated automatically in the project file. I'm going to experiment with some of my heavier VSTi (like Ivory II) and see how Samp performs before the demo expires. Kudos to Magix for providing a usable demo that doesn't require purchasing a key. Unlike Steinberg. Anyone find out how to bypass the key for the Cubase 6 demo? Legally of course.
Windows 8 x64 Intel i7 950 3.06ghz 6 GB DDR3 1333(1066) OCZ memory Gigabyte X58A-UD3R v.2.0 Delta 66. Seagate 1.0tb drives x4 OS, Audio, VST, Backup Stuff. Mackie MCU Pro Latest. Faderport. Sonar X2, PreSonus 2.x, Reaper.
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 14:43:28
(permalink)
UnderTow
Jim Roseberry
What exactly is superior about CoreAudio?
FWIW, I'm not a Mac fan.
Have a MBP to use for testing/etc
You can typically achieve glitch-free playback at lower latency (with the same exact hardware) with CoreAudio.
From RME:
"The Babyface achieves latency values down to 48 samples on Windows and 14 samples on Mac OS X."
Yet actual performance seems better on Win7:
http://www.dawbench.com/win7-v-osx-5.htm
Being able to run at 14 samples means nothing if there is no performance left for actual work... I could run my Terratec card at 1ms latency many years ago but it would fail with more than 1 audio track so that, when taken in context of using a DAW, was meaningless.
The onboard audio with a MBP
With CoreAudio, you can dial the buffer size way down... and playback remains glitch-free under fairly substantial loads. Even down to 32-samples...
Under Windows, you can't achieve that level of performance from the Realtek.
Obviously many folks aren't going to use the onboard audio for DAW purposes... but it's a quick/easy example to test/verify.
How about with ASIO4ALL? Well it doesn't really matter as in the end I (and I assume most) are not interested in using the onboard soundchip to make music.
UnderTow
Keep in mind that 5 years ago... you couldn't effectively work at a 32-sample ASIO buffer size. With today's i7 CPUs, we now have the horsepower to do so... (at least at the tracking/early mix stages) Of course, the machine as a whole has to be up-to-the-task (no weak links). I won't defend Mac overall performance... I'd much rather use a custom PC running Win7. Regarding the MBP's onboard Realtek audio... ASIO-4-All (under Windows) can't touch the low-latency performance you can achieve with CoreAudio. As we both know... it doesn't matter in real-world scenarios. It's just an easy example. Personally, I want to see the boundries of low-latency audio pushed even further. We'll never achieve zero latency... but the closer we get... the more comfortable software based input monitoring becomes. Give me lower buffer size options... I can decide when/if it's practical (for me) to use them.
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 14:48:28
(permalink)
Anyone find out how to bypass the key for the Cubase 6 demo? Legally of course. There is no way to demo the full version without an eLicense dongle (what used to be a Syncrosoft key)... You get a light version of Cubase when you purchase some Yamaha hardware (ie: Motif keyboards). This version requires installing the eLicense application... and it runs sans dongle (machine ID based authorization).
|
jazzimprov
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 29
- Joined: 2010/08/12 10:24:05
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 14:55:57
(permalink)
Actually you can get SAMP 11 Std for $249.00.
Contact The rep.
I spoke with him thru emails.
There is nothing to send in for verification either.
They need to know you have the crossover DAW and that is the price.
Also Samp 12 coming out this summer. (June?)
personally I'm torn between several DAWS.
Bought X1 and am having a real stability problem. seems to go down pretty easily.
....gave up on Cubase @ version 4.5x (?)
Reaper and Studio One are nice also. Samp just sounds great to me but I can't seem to decide which to stick with but am leaning much towards X1.
Jim
|
wormser
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 984
- Joined: 2007/11/18 11:26:55
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 14:56:41
(permalink)
Jim Roseberry
Anyone find out how to bypass the key for the Cubase 6 demo? Legally of course.
There is no way to demo the full version without an eLicense dongle (what used to be a Syncrosoft key)...
You get a light version of Cubase when you purchase some Yamaha hardware (ie: Motif keyboards).
This version requires installing the eLicense application... and it runs sans dongle (machine ID based authorization).
Thanks Jim. They are really shooting themselves in the foot with that one.
Windows 8 x64 Intel i7 950 3.06ghz 6 GB DDR3 1333(1066) OCZ memory Gigabyte X58A-UD3R v.2.0 Delta 66. Seagate 1.0tb drives x4 OS, Audio, VST, Backup Stuff. Mackie MCU Pro Latest. Faderport. Sonar X2, PreSonus 2.x, Reaper.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 15:04:33
(permalink)
Jim Roseberry
Keep in mind that 5 years ago... you couldn't effectively work at a 32-sample ASIO buffer size.
Yes I sometimes wonder how that Terratec card would run if I put it in my latest build. (There are 64 bit drivers for it that work in Win 7 even though the card was discontinued nearly a decade ago or so). I won't defend Mac overall performance...
I'd much rather use a custom PC running Win7.
I wish there would have been something interesting coming out of the OpenSource front on Linux/FreeBSD but unfortunately nothing that can compare with the Windows/MacOs DAW offerings ever materialised... Personally, I want to see the boundries of low-latency audio pushed even further.
We'll never achieve zero latency... but the closer we get... the more comfortable software based input monitoring becomes. Give me lower buffer size options...
I can decide when/if it's practical (for me) to use them.
Yes. :) But I also understand manufacturers trying to give their support a fighting chance against ignorant users. ;-) That said, I wonder how far it will go. At some point regular OS duties will get in the way. I still wonder if someone could produce some kind of OpenSource system that resembles MASSCore. That could gives us even more power and lower latencies... But I doubt that will ever happen. Unless maybe if Merging go bust...  UnderTow
|
BEATZM1D10T
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 285
- Joined: 2009/05/22 12:43:50
- Location: Mid-West
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 15:06:12
(permalink)
Jim Roseberry
What exactly is superior about CoreAudio?
FWIW, I'm not a Mac fan.
Have a MBP to use for testing/etc
You can typically achieve glitch-free playback at lower latency (with the same exact hardware) with CoreAudio.
From RME:
"The Babyface achieves latency values down to 48 samples on Windows and 14 samples on Mac OS X."
If you have a Mac with Bootcamp, you can verify this.
Another small example:
The onboard audio with a MBP
With CoreAudio, you can dial the buffer size way down... and playback remains glitch-free under fairly substantial loads. Even down to 32-samples...
Under Windows, you can't achieve that level of performance from the Realtek.
Obviously many folks aren't going to use the onboard audio for DAW purposes... but it's a quick/easy example to test/verify.
I don't doubt some of your observations but I think a better test would be between a similarly spec'd MAC and PC. I've seen some funky things with Bootcamp.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 15:15:17
(permalink)
wormser
They are really shooting themselves in the foot with that one.
I tend to agree but... X1 has no demo at all at this point in time... UnderTow
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 15:17:34
(permalink)
I've seen some funky things with Bootcamp.
Bootcamp and Windows runs just fine here... In fact, my MBP has spent most of it's running hours as a PC. That used to be my live soft-synth rig... BTW, You don't necessarily have to run the drivers included with Bootcamp.
post edited by Jim Roseberry - 2011/03/11 15:20:21
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 15:19:11
(permalink)
BEATZM1D10T
I don't doubt some of your observations but I think a better test would be between a similarly spec'd MAC and PC. I've seen some funky things with Bootcamp.
That is why I posted this: http://www.dawbench.com/win7-v-osx-5.htm According to that, at low latency, Windows/ASIO smokes Mac OS/CoreAudio by a large margin. UnderTow
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 16:56:54
(permalink)
I have been hired to do a job and been supplied the latest IMac with Pro Tools 9 on it. It is a nice program and it only makes me wonder why people get so anti Pro Tools (Freddie for example) When people make such negaitve statements about Pro Tools it starts to make me wonder about their credentials. Because really good people don't seem to get too flustered about what software they use, a good idea is a good idea and they can all make it happen. And writing off a program because it is only 32 bit is also BS. I bet if you produced some great music under both 32 and 64 bit apps and were put under a serious AB test you would have problems hearing the difference.
A few things though. Avid have bought out Sibelius now so the notation part of the software is very nice. (Not full Sibelius standard but very good from what I can see)
It still cannot do what Studio One can do in terms of gapless audio engine behaviour. You still cannot jump tracks while in/out of record and record parts all over various tracks routed to various instruments without stopping. And BTW Freddie your beloved Sonar cannot do this either. S1 and Cubase are way ahead for gapless audio engine performance. S1 as Billy points put is also a 64 bit app.
The lack of VST support in PT is a bit of a concern for me too. I am not sure wrapping VST's to make them work inside PT is a good idea. Seems like a longer way to get around the problem. So you are basically stuck with the supplied instruments which are not bad but for a serious midi composer you would want more. PT also is the worst program for navigating around in the music as well. It is not easy to just jump around from here to there. But it is stable and does not crash and you can get work done so from that point of view it is fine.
For me S1 is amazing. It just works and it does not get in the way of any music making or ideas. That is how it should be. It never crashes and is probably the most stable program out there right now. For those reasons I put it way ahead of the competition. Features abound now and people are wrong trying to make out it has no features. And what of future updates as well. I love the way it navigates too. Just set up a loop at the top. Press number 1 to go the start of the loop and number 2 to go to the end of it. It is Cubase thing and is just great for navigation.
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 17:55:34
(permalink)
You make some good points in your post Jeff. Just a few comments: Jeff Evans
It is a nice program and it only makes me wonder why people get so anti Pro Tools (Freddie for example)
Freddie is best appreciated for his entertainment skills rather than any educational contributions. You still cannot jump tracks while in/out of record and record parts all over various tracks routed to various instruments without stoppin. Make sure you have quick punch enabled and maybe a few other things depending on what you want to do. (There are quite a few record options that are pertinent to PT's recording behaviour). The lack of VST support in PT is a bit of a concern for me too. I am not sure wrapping VST's to make them work inside PT is a good idea. Seems like a longer way to get around the problem. So you are basically stuck with the supplied instruments which are not bad but for a serious midi composer you would want more.
This is not correct. Many plugins come with RTAS versions. Actually nearly all if not all the major plugin companies support RTAS. Here is an incomplete list of RTAS audio plugins: http://www.avid.com/US/ca...Pro-Tools-LE-M-Powered PT also is the worst program for navigating around in the music as well. It is not easy to just jump around from here to there.
Actually I find it extremely easy with it's very powerful memory location functions. Try creating a few memory locations (markers) at strategic places in your project (just hit enter twice for a standard memory location or hit enter once, name the marker, adjust it's parameters and hit enter again). You can instantly jump to any of them by typing in . <nr> . on the numeric pad. (dot, memory location number, dot). These memory locations are infinitely more powerful than markers in Sonar because for instance you can use them to select sections of a project, track or clip. Play/record ranges, you can even save things like show/hide tracks, track heights, zoom settings, enable/disable groups, windows settings etc in memory locations. So you don't just recall a place in the project, you recall the zoom settings you want and pre/post roll and a zillion other things at the same time. (If you so wish of course). Memory locations are just one example of the deep and powerful features in Pro Tools. Cakewalk could learn a thing or two from these type of features. And of course there are the other useful navigation tools like the the navigation keys where you can navigate between clips or tracks etc, the easy zoom memories, jumping to track numbers (CTRL+ALT+F), directly typing in the time where you want to be (*+time) etc etc... So actually, PT is one of the most powerful as far as navigation is concerned in my experience goes but as with so many things in PT, it is not obvious at first glance to the casual user. (All my experience is with PT HD so that is what I am talking about). UnderTow
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:X1 vs PT9 vs other alternatives
2011/03/11 18:06:21
(permalink)
Thanks Undertow I appreciate your thoughts. I do admit that my frustration with Pro Tools navigation is more about me not knowing it properly. I do find however that with some programs navigation is easier and you don't have to spend lots of time learning all the options before you can use it. S1 is a good example.
But I wll check it out for sure.
It is still not gapless like S1 and in that respect it falls down quite poorly. I will look into the PT recording options though as you say because I would like to have that same behaviour as in S1.
And yes I do agree many instruments are available as RTAS versions so that is a good thing. But I don't really want to learn PT9 either as I will have to hand it all back when I have finsihed this job and I will be back to S1 and Sonar 8.5 to which I am very familiar and happy.
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|