Cubase4 running on PC or on Mac .. any difference ?..

[activexjava]

Hi there ..
I am wondering if running Cubase 4 on a PC or Mac would be any different?..

I know Mac is believed to be a more stable environment for music production than PC .. generally speaking .. but would Cubase 4 follow that thought?..

Thanks
John

[redroom]

Cubase is rock solid on my intel Mac

Im using a UAD2 Powercore PCIe and a Duende PCIe and an apogee duet
Low latency is better under windows but I can run heavy projects at 256
Graphics can slow down under heavy loads in OSX but everything keeps
on playing fine without a hiccup.

[hugol]

It doesn't look quite as good on a Mac - slower graphics, slight squashed look and fonts not as clean. Other than that runs just great! My audio interface is so much happier under OS X - no clicks or pops at all - even while web browsing and running XP in vmware at the same time (just to see!).

Oh and some reports of not getting quite as many plug-in instances, but I think that's to do with CPU power management. Something on the Cubendo forum about it I think.

[author]

Macs are for Logic. Or PT. Or anything else than Cubase.

Do yourself a favour and check the Cubase forum if you're in doubt.

[redroom]

Originally Posted by author

Macs are for Logic. Or PT. Or anything else than Cubase.

Do yourself a favour and check the Cubase forum if you're in doubt.

Total rot

I have a very good Mac cubase system whihc runs better for me than my windows machine.If you look at the Mac Cubase forum you will see that Cubase on the Mac is running well for most people.Steinberg have just released Cubase 5 which is a native cocoa app so graphics should be a bit improved.I find CUbase graphics to be just as good as Logic 8 which was a step backwards in graphics speed comapred to Logic 7.
This talk of mac is only for Protools and Logic may have been a valid point about 5 years ago but things have moved on except for Logic.

[kalle789]

Originally Posted by redroom

Total rot


This talk of mac is only for Protools and Logic may have been a valid point about 5 years ago but things have moved on except for Logic.

+1. Cubase runs great on Mac.

[BrianT]

If you compare two identical machines, in terms of hardware, Cubase 4 will perform better under XP than under OSX. That's in terms of latency, total plugin count as well as GUI snappiness under heavier loads.

None of that is really debatable, as it can be shown even on a Bootcamped Mac. But if you prefer OSX and you have a fast enough machine to do what you want to do, there's no reason you can't use OSX. Stability is a very subjective issue and is subject to many variables besides just the OS.

WIth the new i7 Macs coming out, they are definitely more powerful and have much better low latency performance. With one of those, relative performance might be a moot point for some users.

To summarize, in terms of pure performance, it's Cubase on XP. Not really debatable if you look at if factually, although some people who look at these things more emotionally may disagree.

[redroom]

Originally Posted by BrianT

If you compare two identical machines, in terms of hardware, Cubase 4 will perform better under XP than under OSX. That's in terms of latency, total plugin count as well as GUI snappiness under heavier loads.

None of that is really debatable, as it can be shown even on a Bootcamped Mac. But if you prefer OSX and you have a fast enough machine to do what you want to do, there's no reason you can't use OSX. Stability is a very subjective issue and is subject to many variables besides just the OS.

WIth the new i7 Macs coming out, they are definitely more powerful and have much better low latency performance. With one of those, relative performance might be a moot point for some users.

To summarize, in terms of pure performance, it's Cubase on XP. Not really debatable if you look at if factually, although some people who look at these things more emotionally may disagree.

You are right except under heavy loads I find on an identical machine that Cubase Mac will actually play back more without drop outs compared to XP at higher latency.

Anyway this has more to do with XP vs OSX than Cubase runnign bad on a Mac compared to toher Daws on the Mac.

[author]

Originally Posted by redroom

If you look at the Mac Cubase forum you will see that Cubase on the Mac is running well for most people.

RUNNING? tutt

Cubase?

Get your facts straight: First of all: Cubase doesn't *run* on anything. And it hardly walks on Macs. Most Mac-users are happy if they can work at 256 samples. Do a search on 'latency' at the Cubase forum. Or 'Multicore'.

Here's a quote from Steinbergs 'knowledgebase':
'At the moment we recommend using an ASIO latency setting of at least 6ms on systems with more than four cores.'

And here are two recent quotes from one of the Steinberg masterminds, Eckard Doll:
'I guess working at 1024 samples latency doesn't give you any problems but very low latency setting should perform better than they currently do.
This is why we are working on optimizations regarding the performance on (high count) multicore systems'

'The optimizations we want to do are indeed not available in this Cubase release (5) because this is still ongoing and difficult. 32 samples will thus be hard to achieve.'

Hard?

Nah, just start Logic!

[TheTruffleKing]

Been using Cubase (now 4.5.2) on pc in the studio for a few years with no problems...have 4 UAD-1 and 3 TC Powercore MkII connected...solid setup. Recently got a little MacBook (not the Pro) Core 2 Duo, 2.2 GHz, 4 gigs RAM just for some portable fun, and to see how things look on the Mac side of the universe. Also picked up a little OWC firewire drive for Audio.

Have to say it's been a blast to play with. So far I've only imported tracks into song projects to get the hang of the OS for mixing but it's pretty easy to get set up and humming quickly. It's had a few random audio dropouts and the first note of a midi track won't sound occasionally, but that might be because it's got the Lucent firewire chip rather than the TI?

One weird thing is the performance meter seems to be constantly jumping around...not wild fluctuations, but just jittery; whereas on the pc it's fairly steady at whatever level it's at. Wish I knew why. I've done the few Mac tweaks I've learned here from Lagerfeldt and others.

Anyway I've been working with 12+ track songs to start, with quite a few plugs and VST instruments, and it's running at a little over 50%. Didn't even think to check the buffer till now, but I see it's running at the machine's default of 128 samples with the multi core processing box checked...not bad. If things continue to go well I'll probably pick up an Apogee duet.

Not sure I'll ever go with a big Mac setup in the studio, but you never know. Either way I'd say arguing Mac vs PC is one of mankind's biggest wastes of time and energy.

[miqer]

I've worked on it on mac, workes fine!

I'd go for a cheaper quad core 2 PC with winxp and the latest cubase 4... runs smooooth and very stable here.... but I know how to tweak and backup, make a ghost copy etc. So I'm allways safe.

If I had a mac I'd get the latest logic... but I prefer Cubase myself...

I love those external effects... some reverbs and cheap tape echo's to give some edge.... and cs5 will have batch export (can't wait)...


m.

[redroom]

Originally Posted by author

RUNNING? tutt

Cubase?

Get your facts straight: First of all: Cubase doesn't *run* on anything. And it hardly walks on Macs. Most Mac-users are happy if they can work at 256 samples. Do a search on 'latency' at the Cubase forum. Or 'Multicore'.

Here's a quote from Steinbergs 'knowledgebase':
'At the moment we recommend using an ASIO latency setting of at least 6ms on systems with more than four cores.'

And here are two recent quotes from one of the Steinberg masterminds, Eckard Doll:
'I guess working at 1024 samples latency doesn't give you any problems but very low latency setting should perform better than they currently do.
This is why we are working on optimizations regarding the performance on (high count) multicore systems'

'The optimizations we want to do are indeed not available in this Cubase release (5) because this is still ongoing and difficult. 32 samples will thus be hard to achieve.'

Hard?

Nah, just start Logic!

Like Ive already said low latency performance is not as good as XP
Now look at Protools LE and Digital performer they do not have great low latency under OSX either.Logic works differently as any track in record oeprates at the low buffer setting but the playback tracks are at a higher buffer this can be a double edged sword though if working with DSp cards.

As someone who uses Logic Protools and Cubase on OSX I think Cubase performs very well.

Eveything is trade offs
Under XP my UAD2 runs like Sh** so does the powercore and Duende
In OSX with Cubase all 3 DSP cards work great
In Logic with DSP cards I get lots of problems
Protools LE is a no go from the start with DSP cards due to lack of ADC

One more thing do you use Cubase on the Mac?

[crypticglobe]

Originally Posted by BrianT

If you compare two identical machines, in terms of hardware, Cubase 4 will perform better under XP than under OSX. That's in terms of latency, total plugin count as well as GUI snappiness under heavier loads.

None of that is really debatable, as it can be shown even on a Bootcamped Mac. But if you prefer OSX and you have a fast enough machine to do what you want to do, there's no reason you can't use OSX. Stability is a very subjective issue and is subject to many variables besides just the OS.

WIth the new i7 Macs coming out, they are definitely more powerful and have much better low latency performance. With one of those, relative performance might be a moot point for some users.

To summarize, in terms of pure performance, it's Cubase on XP. Not really debatable if you look at if factually, although some people who look at these things more emotionally may disagree.

Brian is dead on. Performance is better with XP than OSX on the same bootcamped MAC. However Cubase/Nuendo both run very, very solidly on both. So... pick your platform based on what you like best. Computers are getting so fast... it may not be a big deal for you.

Oh... the other nice thing about PC is that there is Direct Monitoring. This feature for high trackcounts where you need to provide zero latency headphone mixes on a project with a lot of DSP going is wonderful with the right hardware (RME MADI card). With MAC there is no Direct Monitoring unless you are using the new Steinberg hardware.

[hugol]

Originally Posted by BrianT

If you compare two identical machines, in terms of hardware, Cubase 4 will perform better under XP than under OSX. That's in terms of latency, total plugin count as well as GUI snappiness under heavier loads.

I hate to differ, but I get MUCH better low latency performance under OSX than Windows. If you generalise like this there are always exceptions to the rule! Probably due to crappy drivers for my audio interface under XP, but a night and day difference for me.

Equally I thought it had been proved that the number of plug-ins thing was due to the processor power management on OSX.

[activexjava]

Originally Posted by author

RUNNING? tutt

Cubase?

Get your facts straight: First of all: Cubase doesn't *run* on anything. And it hardly walks on Macs. Most Mac-users are happy if they can work at 256 samples. Do a search on 'latency' at the Cubase forum. Or 'Multicore'.

Here's a quote from Steinbergs 'knowledgebase':
'At the moment we recommend using an ASIO latency setting of at least 6ms on systems with more than four cores.'

And here are two recent quotes from one of the Steinberg masterminds, Eckard Doll:
'I guess working at 1024 samples latency doesn't give you any problems but very low latency setting should perform better than they currently do.
This is why we are working on optimizations regarding the performance on (high count) multicore systems'

'The optimizations we want to do are indeed not available in this Cubase release (5) because this is still ongoing and difficult. 32 samples will thus be hard to achieve.'

Hard?

Nah, just start Logic!

Duuhh! .. and someone said one day that for music production .. there is ONLY the MAC .... Strange man ...

what I am hearing from your feedback is .. PC and XP is the way to go for DAW like Cubase and Sonar ... MAC is still the one for Protools .. but ..
shheeeesh .. I Am CONFUSED! ..

[hugol]

Nah don't listen - Macs are excellent for audio and IMO far less hassle than PC's - OS X is a better OS than Windows in many ways - although Windows 7 may change that. PC's can be great but you've got to ensure you get exactly the right hardware for DAW use and it can be a minefield. The hardware diversity with a Mac is much more limited so you're more guaranteed of success.

As for Cubase I think we're saying it's not as well written on OS X so might not perform quite as well as on PC or say as Logic on Mac. There are however lots of people who run Cubase more than happily on OS X. Just make sure you have the right audio interface.

[shanabit]

As long as your not getting the "An exception Occurred in the Module Cubase"
Your cool. It is more snappy on the PC side

[author]

Originally Posted by redroom

One more thing do you use Cubase on the Mac?

Exactly which part of my post made you think that?

I have used Cubase on Mac though -- just don't hope I'll have to do it ever again.

[redroom]

Originally Posted by author

Exactly which part of my post made you think that?

I have used Cubase on Mac though -- just don't hope I'll have to do it ever again.

Hmm the fact you feel you do not want to have to use CUbase on a Mac again suggest to me that you probably used it sometime ago and never really gave it a proper shot.
Since the intel Macs Cubase is a much better experience on the Mac compared to the old PPC days.

PS your coming across as a bit of a troll