Login / Register
 
What is the most stable OS for Pro Tools 10?
New Reply
Subscribe
Sean Sullivan
Thread Starter
#1
26th January 2013
Old 26th January 2013
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Nashville
Posts: 3,800
My Recordings/Credits

Thread Starter
Sean Sullivan is offline
What is the most stable OS for Pro Tools 10?

Is Lion or Mountain Lion faster/more stable with Pro Tools 10 than Snow Leopard? I'm running 10.6.8 and was wondering if there are any advantages to upgrading. I don't use the computer for anything but Pro Tools and downloading files sent to the studio.
#2
26th January 2013
Old 26th January 2013
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,912

Joe Porto is offline
It may depend on your machine. I have a 2008 Harpertown Pro 8-core. 10.6.8 gives me more tracks at a lower sample buffer than 10.7 or 10.8. This is both with Logic and with Protools HD native. I initially was running PT10HD native on 10.7.2, and wasn't getting the performance I expected. I reverted to 10.6.8 and haven't looked back.

In fact, I have a 10.8.2 partition that I am currently testing with the new UAD 64-bit software, and I can't get it stable under 128 sample buffer, where on 10.6.8, I can run Logic at 32 sample buffer playing back 60 tracks.

Maybe 10.7 and 10.8 are optimized for the newer i5/i7 machines?
#3
26th January 2013
Old 26th January 2013
  #3
70% Coffee, 30% Beer
 
Doc Mixwell's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 10,041

Send a message via Skype™ to Doc Mixwell
Doc Mixwell is offline
Mac Pro 8-core here
2.33 Dual Quad core 2009
10.6.8 Snow
PT 10.3.3 Native

USB and PCIe interfacing

solid
as
a
rock
__________________
Adam J. Brass
DSPdoctor.com



__________________
If you enjoy reading my posts, please consider working with me and my shop DSPdoctor on your next studio upgrade

adam@dspdoctor.com

My Personal Web Page
Sean Sullivan
Thread Starter
#4
26th January 2013
Old 26th January 2013
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Nashville
Posts: 3,800
My Recordings/Credits

Thread Starter
Sean Sullivan is offline
Doc, we have similar set ups (8 core 2.26 Nehalem)

What H/W buffer, host processors, cache size, and CPU useage has given you the best results?
#5
26th January 2013
Old 26th January 2013
  #5
70% Coffee, 30% Beer
 
Doc Mixwell's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 10,041

Send a message via Skype™ to Doc Mixwell
Doc Mixwell is offline
Buffer changes with workload
I track flawlessly at 64 samples
mix might go up to 1024 (depends on the mix)
7 processors
99%
using 12GB of 16 for disk cache
which is like nothing - and I've got room to grow the sessions huge

I love life
Sean Sullivan
Thread Starter
#6
26th January 2013
Old 26th January 2013
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Nashville
Posts: 3,800
My Recordings/Credits

Thread Starter
Sean Sullivan is offline
So you are using 7 of 16 "virtual processors"

I haven't found the right "combination" yet, but I'll give your set up a go.
#7
26th January 2013
Old 26th January 2013
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,912

Joe Porto is offline
Adam, like me, is running PTHD, which has disk caching. This allows PT to load the entire project into RAM, and boosts performance significantly. You mention PT10, but not HD. If you do have HD, you should take advantage of Disk Caching.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Gear Tramp / Music Computers
9
Damian Taylor / Music Computers
4
nativeaudio / So much gear, so little time!
51

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.