PT and single processor functionality

Dragonfly · 23rd August 2005, 06:59 AM

Why does PT only operate on a single processor and ignore a second in the case of a dual processing system; ie: the dual G5? Is this projected to be fixed with PT 7 or something? It seems that if the other DAW manufacturers have taken this into consideration, why hasn't Digi jumped on this? One week ago I did not think I'd be considering changing DAW's, but if I can potentially get double the processing power from another program, it would seem stupid for me to stick with my current system, dont you think?

BTW, I'm running a dual 2.7 G5, 2.5 gigs of RAM, sessions are typically at 44.1/24 or 88.2/24, and I'm getting numerous error messages during tracking and towards the end of a mix. This just shouldn't be happening considering the money I spent to fix this very problem.

What's everyones take on this? Am I missing something that would help maximize my computers potential?

Thanks guys

Dante

Improv · 23rd August 2005, 04:54 PM

You can get over twice as many tracks on other systems, too. It almost seems as if Digi is trying to cripple LE in some way... now why would they want to do that?

hint: look at Digi's product line.

max cooper · 23rd August 2005, 06:53 PM

Same reason it's got only 16 Aux tracks? Same reason that you can only use external conversion at 96khz by going in S/PDIF (two tracks at a time), and if you want eight tracks of external conversion you're limited to 48kHz? Same reason that you have to bounce to disk in real time (lots of waiting!) ?

I'd certainly think that they'd clean up with a $3500 package with extended functionality.

AnthonyV · 23rd August 2005, 07:31 PM

digi 001/ 002 / PT LE = dead end daw

16 busses
32 tracks
no i/o expansion possible
6.4 latest software version you can use (without hack) - problem is 6.4 lacks a lot of VERY basic functionality (multiple RTAS outputs for instruments, multi client core audio), not to mention that it crashes on a regular basis (not necessarilly PT's fault but still). And on top of that its not even optimized for my dual G4 at all and probably never will be.. that's nuts!!

Aside from newer software with additional functionality, I don't see how the 002 is an upgrade. The hardware still has all the limitations as the 001 and more so in some cases (no S/Pdif mirroring).

So once you grow out of the 001/002, you either jump ship or drop 10k on HD. With the new dual core PCs coming out these days that is just nuts to me. I appreciate the 001 for getting me in the door and have gotten a lot of use out of it, but I fight its limitations on a daily basis and it frustrates the hell out of me.

I'm thinking Cubase SX3 on a PC is my next move.. I just can't justify dropping 3k on another mac that's already obsolete.. even though I love OS X........

Oh the drama.. sorry for the rant.

gsharp · 23rd August 2005, 07:38 PM

I think part of the built in limitation is that they have no idea what machine you're using. The list of approved CPU's still goes back pretty far. Maybe they don't want complaints from guys that cant get 100 tracks to run on a G3 400.

And of course they hamstring the low end units to protect the hi end units too. but then so do car companies, you know, if you want the moon roof and dvd then you have to get the leather seats and chrome package.

max cooper · 23rd August 2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsharp

And of course they hamstring the low end units to protect the hi end units too. but then so do car companies, you know, if you want the moon roof and dvd then you have to get the leather seats and chrome package.

I agree with this, in part. If your product is software, you don't include everything you make with every software package just because it's 'only code' and not 'actual product'.

However, 16 buses in this day and age for a product of this type is silly.

BTW, AnthonyV, I've got multiple RTAS instrument outs.

I'm running 6.9.2, but I think it went back to 6.4. Doesn't crash, either. At least not on MY machine. It's not allowed to.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Single or dual processor for live performance? / live perf rig	Martin Hughes	Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording	13	24th September 2005 02:47 PM
Is this used G5 1.8Ghz single processor a good deal?	rjx	Music computers	5	31st May 2005 01:57 AM
Is a dual 1.8ghz processor = to a 3.6ghz single processor?	Hiwatt	Music computers	4	18th October 2004 07:37 PM
Is PT6 really stabler on single processor Mac's?	Renie	Music computers	4	29th May 2003 07:36 PM

23rd August 2005, 06:59 AM	#1
Dragonfly Gear maniac Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 189	PT and single processor functionality Why does PT only operate on a single processor and ignore a second in the case of a dual processing system; ie: the dual G5? Is this projected to be fixed with PT 7 or something? It seems that if the other DAW manufacturers have taken this into consideration, why hasn't Digi jumped on this? One week ago I did not think I'd be considering changing DAW's, but if I can potentially get double the processing power from another program, it would seem stupid for me to stick with my current system, dont you think? BTW, I'm running a dual 2.7 G5, 2.5 gigs of RAM, sessions are typically at 44.1/24 or 88.2/24, and I'm getting numerous error messages during tracking and towards the end of a mix. This just shouldn't be happening considering the money I spent to fix this very problem. What's everyones take on this? Am I missing something that would help maximize my computers potential? Thanks guys Dante

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

23rd August 2005, 04:54 PM	#2
Improv Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 1,367	You can get over twice as many tracks on other systems, too. It almost seems as if Digi is trying to cripple LE in some way... now why would they want to do that? hint: look at Digi's product line.

23rd August 2005, 06:53 PM	#3
max cooper Lives for gear Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: tx Posts: 8,819	Same reason it's got only 16 Aux tracks? Same reason that you can only use external conversion at 96khz by going in S/PDIF (two tracks at a time), and if you want eight tracks of external conversion you're limited to 48kHz? Same reason that you have to bounce to disk in real time (lots of waiting!) ? I'd certainly think that they'd clean up with a $3500 package with extended functionality.

23rd August 2005, 07:31 PM	#4
AnthonyV Gear maniac Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 156	digi 001/ 002 / PT LE = dead end daw 16 busses 32 tracks no i/o expansion possible 6.4 latest software version you can use (without hack) - problem is 6.4 lacks a lot of VERY basic functionality (multiple RTAS outputs for instruments, multi client core audio), not to mention that it crashes on a regular basis (not necessarilly PT's fault but still). And on top of that its not even optimized for my dual G4 at all and probably never will be.. that's nuts!! Aside from newer software with additional functionality, I don't see how the 002 is an upgrade. The hardware still has all the limitations as the 001 and more so in some cases (no S/Pdif mirroring). So once you grow out of the 001/002, you either jump ship or drop 10k on HD. With the new dual core PCs coming out these days that is just nuts to me. I appreciate the 001 for getting me in the door and have gotten a lot of use out of it, but I fight its limitations on a daily basis and it frustrates the hell out of me. I'm thinking Cubase SX3 on a PC is my next move.. I just can't justify dropping 3k on another mac that's already obsolete.. even though I love OS X........ Oh the drama.. sorry for the rant.

23rd August 2005, 07:38 PM	#5
gsharp Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 556	I think part of the built in limitation is that they have no idea what machine you're using. The list of approved CPU's still goes back pretty far. Maybe they don't want complaints from guys that cant get 100 tracks to run on a G3 400. And of course they hamstring the low end units to protect the hi end units too. but then so do car companies, you know, if you want the moon roof and dvd then you have to get the leather seats and chrome package.