The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
DP9.12 development - end of line?
Old 8th January 2017
  #31
Gear Nut
 
waxman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by machinesworking View Post
For instance I would rather have Logic's Object oriented MIDI handling implemented into DPs Tracks window
+1 Logic nails it. But since I started using batch commands the midi and VI track is one button. Auto routing.
Old 9th January 2017
  #32
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by waxman View Post
+1 Logic nails it. But since I started using batch commands the midi and VI track is one button. Auto routing.
That's how different all our workflows are, others want it in all windows, but I was never fond that in the MIDI editor in Logic you still had to select all objects in a track to see the MIDI in all tracks, total time suck to me, and I like seeing MIDI as one big single take in the Sequence Editor. To me The tracks Window is the only area where MIDI should be object oriented. To a lot of other people they simply never use the Tracks Window so they wouldn't know how valuable object oriented MIDI could be there.

On the other hand, although it's a PITA to many coming from other DAWs, DP has real reasons for keeping MIDI separate from virtual instruments, specifically V-Racks. The amount of reworking of basic features in DP that would have to be done, the amount of bugs it would introduce to attempt to add in a MIDI enabled virtual instrument, that would not work in V-Racks, that would be a problem for those working with Chunks and V-Racks... I just don't see it ever happening, and if it truly bothered me I would opt for a different DAW.

I cash in my pennies from a jar for iTunes credit at the store, I'm at $150 and tempted to get Logic X, but I think I'l hold out and get Final Cut at some point instead, depends on where DP goes in the next version I suppose. BTW so far I'm vastly disappointed in the Raven Live implementation, not even close as far as useful to DP. Logic is supposed to be pretty dammed good. I got a free copy of the software because I had to return two units, early adopter and there were lines and ghosts from the hardware behind the LEDs all over the screens.
Old 9th January 2017
  #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by machinesworking View Post

While I am 100% in agreement with the basic sentiment here and in every forum that my DAW should have all the features I want, that my choices in what features are important are the ones that matter, I guess at some point I realized that maybe just maybe my choices weren't what others needed. For instance I would rather have Logic's Object oriented MIDI handling implemented into DPs Tracks window than VCA faders, and I'm willing to bet that's exactly the opposite for you.

That's my whole point.

Thank you.
Old 9th January 2017
  #34
Gear Nut
 
waxman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by machinesworking View Post
That's how different all our workflows are, others want it in all windows, but I was never fond that in the MIDI editor in Logic you still had to select all objects in a track to see the MIDI in all tracks, total time suck to me, and I like seeing MIDI as one big single take in the Sequence Editor. To me The tracks Window is the only area where MIDI should be object oriented. To a lot of other people they simply never use the Tracks Window so they wouldn't know how valuable object oriented MIDI could be there.

On the other hand, although it's a PITA to many coming from other DAWs, DP has real reasons for keeping MIDI separate from virtual instruments, specifically V-Racks. The amount of reworking of basic features in DP that would have to be done, the amount of bugs it would introduce to attempt to add in a MIDI enabled virtual instrument, that would not work in V-Racks, that would be a problem for those working with Chunks and V-Racks... I just don't see it ever happening, and if it truly bothered me I would opt for a different DAW.

I cash in my pennies from a jar for iTunes credit at the store, I'm at $150 and tempted to get Logic X, but I think I'l hold out and get Final Cut at some point instead, depends on where DP goes in the next version I suppose. BTW so far I'm vastly disappointed in the Raven Live implementation, not even close as far as useful to DP. Logic is supposed to be pretty dammed good. I got a free copy of the software because I had to return two units, early adopter and there were lines and ghosts from the hardware behind the LEDs all over the screens.
I made a mistake. I was referring to 1 track VI and midi. I use the SE in DP for all midi editing? I only use the Raven with DP. It seems like it's more template locked in on other DAW's. 90% of the time I use the Floating mixer with the inserts and sends of the DP mixer sitting above. The big mixer is not that great a layout for me. Did you try it with DP or just Live?
Old 9th January 2017
  #35
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman691 View Post
No need to apologize to the DP apologists - I've given up on that a long time ago. Let them alone in their delusions I say. Move on and don't let the bastards grind you down. They seem to think they're ****e don't stink and if they can't take it - tough on them. Unfortunately some are like herpes and don't go away.
Mostly I'm not fond of generalizations and ad hominum attacks.

You can be upset about DP or Logic or Pro Tools, but don't insult people who use it, or have no problems with it just because you do.

I get being upset that DP etc. is not working the way it should for you and you have every right to be upset, my solution after 20+ years of using computers with music is to always have a backup DAW you're familiar with, or to stay a version behind. It's not the most exciting thing to do but almost all DAWs are the most stable right before a new version comes out.

Live 8 was a mess until right before 9 came out. Logic 7 the same.

There are a lot of people who decided after years of chasing bugs in upgrades that features weren't as important as stability, and that's not a DAW specific thing. If you're fluent in a few DAWs you can chase features a bit, but you do IMO sacrifice some speed that you get from working with one DAW for years on end.

It's all up to you, none of what I said is somehow defending DP specifically, it's asking the end user to take into account the actual reality of the world around them, that DAWs are fragile delicate flowers sometimes with upgrades for some users, and that's not DAW specific.
Old 9th January 2017
  #36
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by delcosmos View Post
Ok guys, I apologize if I offended someone with my comments about DP, Had forgotten that dp users are like a church and they deffend their software for better or worse, right or wrong.

Please try to understand that I was a proud user of DP for many years and got frustrated about waiting for something that never came.

Happy new year everyone.
I just didn't like the ad hominum stuff, totally agree that DP should be stable and forward thinking, but I don't think attacking the 100 users of DP for their choice on how high they wear their pants is nice OK!

Happy New Year to you as well!
Old 9th January 2017
  #37
Lives for gear
Seriously people, can we stick to dissing each others DAWs or problems with a DAW and leave the ad hominem attacks out of it?

The only other forums I visit that have as many easily rankled egos are ones for Mixed Martial Arts, and you would expect that out of that crowd at least.

Back on topic, It's very likely that MOTU is going to update DP 9.12 by or at NAMM, and possibly announce DPX and what they're working on for it.
My guess is an update to DP 9.12, and hopefully one that fixes peoples problems with NextGen PreGen. For me it works, sometimes it isn't any better than DP 9.0, 8 etc. sometimes it acts like advertised. It seems for about half the people out there it has issues with third party plug ins or hardware. I agree they should have thought about adding a feature than turned it off for those affected, but it's very possible that code was changed at too deep of a level to do that.

Live 8 added in Cycling 74's Max For Live to the Suite version, but it was obvious that the underlying changes they made to the software to add the hooks in to get an object oriented programming language like Max to work made for some major bugs, as it directly coincided with an 8.0x update that added Max For Live. <-- This is a very similar situation to what half the crowd is experiencing with DP 9.12. One difference though Ableton bugs with Live 8 were across the board, literally everyone experienced them to some degree. MOTU must face, but Ableton literally had to publicly apologize and vow to fix the bugs.
Old 9th January 2017
  #38
Lives for gear
 
musicman691's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by machinesworking View Post

Back on topic, It's very likely that MOTU is going to update DP 9.12 by or at NAMM, and possibly announce DPX and what they're working on for it.
My guess is an update to DP 9.12, and hopefully one that fixes peoples problems with NextGen PreGen. For me it works, sometimes it isn't any better than DP 9.0, 8 etc. sometimes it acts like advertised. It seems for about half the people out there it has issues with third party plug ins or hardware. I agree they should have thought about adding a feature than turned it off for those affected, but it's very possible that code was changed at too deep of a level to do that.

snippage here
What wrankles a number of people is that DP9.02 had a global on/off for pregen and MOTU took it away. So it's not like they'd be adding a feature in but just leaving it there. One of the things I was finding when I used 9.12 was the next-gen pregen was inconsistent in how good it worked. Sometimes it was fine and others - not so much. In the same session with the same plugins.

And the next-gen pregen isn't the only issue with 9.12 as there have been other issues verified by MOTU that need to be fixed. For as long as the gestation period was from when it was announced to when 9.12 dropped you'd think they'd had a long enough beta testing period to work things out.
Old 9th January 2017
  #39
Our studio is a heavy user of DP. For me 9.12 is working better than the previous version of 9 on a Mac Tower 8 core running 10.9.5 OSx. Maybe once every 2 weeks the processor bar will start going crazy and I need to restart DP. I have compared the number of plugins that I can use between version 8 and 9 with a buffer setting of 512. I find that 9 compared to 8 can handle more plugin overheard by maybe 20% or so. Its changes depending on the plugins used. I have a project that has hundreds of audio tracks and that project will only run in 9 and crashes in 8. So I am seeing benefits in version 9 although it seems all the wrinkles have not been worked out.
Old 9th January 2017
  #40
Gear Nut
 
waxman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioSoundzz View Post
Our studio is a heavy user of DP. For me 9.12 is working better than the previous version of 9 on a Mac Tower 8 core running 10.9.5 OSx. Maybe once every 2 weeks the processor bar will start going crazy and I need to restart DP. I have compared the number of plugins that I can use between version 8 and 9 with a buffer setting of 512. I find that 9 compared to 8 can handle more plugin overheard by maybe 20% or so. Its changes depending on the plugins used. I have a project that has hundreds of audio tracks and that project will only run in 9 and crashes in 8. So I am seeing benefits in version 9 although it seems all the wrinkles have not been worked out.
Magic Dave at MOTU recommends a buffer of 256 or 128 for even better performance. My system runs fine at either buffer. I have not run a 512 buffer since switching to DP 9.12. It seems counter intuitive. Let us know what happens at lower buffer setting.
Old 9th January 2017
  #41
Quote:
Originally Posted by waxman View Post
Magic Dave at MOTU recommends a buffer of 256 or 128 for even better performance. My system runs fine at either buffer. I have not run a 512 buffer since switching to DP 9.12. It seems counter intuitive. Let us know what happens at lower buffer setting.
With my setup 1028 and 512 are very similar so I get the befits of faster throughput at 512 which helps when tracking midi. If I go to 256 the process gets a lot more stress and at 128 it gets worse still. One thing I didn't mention is I am using the Motu 428 card which goes to 3 Motu 1224 converters which I am not sure if that makes a difference.
Old 9th January 2017
  #42
Gear Nut
 
waxman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioSoundzz View Post
With my setup 1028 and 512 are very similar so I get the befits of faster throughput at 512 which helps when tracking midi. If I go to 256 the process gets a lot more stress and at 128 it gets worse still. One thing I didn't mention is I am using the Motu 428 card which goes to 3 Motu 1224 converters which I am not sure if that makes a difference.
Thanks Audiosoundzz... Yeah different set ups react differently... what does that look like "a lot more stress" how high does the performance meter go when you are at buffer 256?

Motu says the buffers react at half of what it used to be. So 512 is like 256 in DP 9.12. Before 9.12 when I put the buffers to 256 it was sketchy and 128 would just choke and drop audio. Now at 128 the performance meter hovers at about 30% and rock solid. No crashing... I can go to 64 buffer and meter goes to 60% with occasional spikes but no crashes. So 128 buffer has no perceptible latency.

What does the performance meter look like at 512 on your plus 100 tracks?
Old 9th January 2017
  #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by waxman View Post
Thanks Audiosoundzz... Yeah different set ups react differently... what does that look like "a lot more stress" how high does the performance meter go when you are at buffer 256?

Motu says the buffers react at half of what it used to be. So 512 is like 256 in DP 9.12. Before 9.12 when I put the buffers to 256 it was sketchy and 128 would just choke and drop audio. Now at 128 the performance meter hovers at about 30% and rock solid. No crashing... I can go to 64 buffer and meter goes to 60% with occasional spikes but no crashes. So 128 buffer has no perceptible latency.

What does the performance meter look like at 512 on your plus 100 tracks?
In this project at 512 buffer the performance window is at 50% used. At 256 its at about 75% used and at 128 about 95% used. I agree that 512 looks like 1028 and so on in the new version. Actually 512 is a little better than what 1028 used to be in some cases and 1028 in the new 9 version is better than what 1028 in older version 8 used to be. So it is a worthy upgrade. One of the problems I didn't mention were spikes in the processor that create clicking sounds when a song is started. This almost never used to happen but now it's often. Hope that gets fixed.
Old 10th January 2017
  #44
Gear Nut
 
waxman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioSoundzz View Post
In this project at 512 buffer the performance window is at 50% used. At 256 its at about 75% used and at 128 about 95% used. I agree that 512 looks like 1028 and so on in the new version. Actually 512 is a little better than what 1028 used to be in some cases and 1028 in the new 9 version is better than what 1028 in older version 8 used to be. So it is a worthy upgrade. One of the problems I didn't mention were spikes in the processor that create clicking sounds when a song is started. This almost never used to happen but now it's often. Hope that gets fixed.
Try 512 for a while and don't worry about the performance meter unless you start getting audio drop out errors. With Pre-gen the performance stays pretty even. You might find you get even better performance.
Old 10th January 2017
  #45
Lives for gear
I just realized I've been running DP9.12 at 64! So all is not lost for those of you with issues.
I'm certain it's mostly configuration and plug in issues, if you have a problematic set, try this:
Start pulling plug ins by manufacturer from the Project, maybe for similar CPU usage replace with native plug ins.
It's possible that it's certain plug ins that are problematic, that's usually the case in DAWs in general. You can do all this without saving, so it won't affect the Project.
If You're worried do a "save as" then whatever you do will not be an issue at all.
Old 10th January 2017
  #46
Gear Nut
 
waxman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by machinesworking View Post
I just realized I've been running DP9.12 at 64! So all is not lost for those of you with issues.
I'm certain it's mostly configuration and plug in issues, if you have a problematic set, try this:
Start pulling plug ins by manufacturer from the Project, maybe for similar CPU usage replace with native plug ins.
It's possible that it's certain plug ins that are problematic, that's usually the case in DAWs in general. You can do all this without saving, so it won't affect the Project.
If You're worried do a "save as" then whatever you do will not be an issue at all.
Thanks frick'n awesome. Buffer 64... So when you go to 256 you should be rock solid. Something seemed weird to me when you mentioned not having to many plug ins. I have 20 to 30 VI's an and 75 plug ins and the CPU does not break a sweat at 256. Let us know what buffer you end up with and how many plugs you can get going...
Old 10th January 2017
  #47
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by waxman View Post
Thanks frick'n awesome. Buffer 64... So when you go to 256 you should be rock solid. Something seemed weird to me when you mentioned not having to many plug ins. I have 20 to 30 VI's an and 75 plug ins and the CPU does not break a sweat at 256. Let us know what buffer you end up with and how many plugs you can get going...
Mostly DP9 has issues for me when I have multiple record enabled virtual instruments, regardless of buffer size really. In that way DP9.12 is worse than 8. I don't run a lot of VI's or FX, so that's part of it, though the ones I run are hogs: Diva, Altiverb, Synclavier, Arturia, NI etc.
Old 10th January 2017
  #48
Gear Nut
 
waxman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by machinesworking View Post
Mostly DP9 has issues for me when I have multiple record enabled virtual instruments, regardless of buffer size really. In that way DP9.12 is worse than 8. I don't run a lot of VI's or FX, so that's part of it, though the ones I run are hogs: Diva, Altiverb, Synclavier, Arturia, NI etc.
I'm able to do sessions live with BFD3 Oblivion kit triggered by Roland TD30 edrum kit, NI Massive, guitar with UAD amp plug, bass and a vocalist at buffer 128. I'm using Macpro 6 core and Apollo 16. Maybe by monitoring everything through the UAD mixer except for BFD3 I am not getting as big a hit on the CPU.

I am stoked with DP 9.12 being able to record Native with no latency. It was a long time comin'. Until 9.12 it took a CPU off loaded HD PT system to record in a pro setting. Things like Motu Cue Mix or input monitoring just never worked that great.

The new Macbook pro is more robust then my 2013 trash can. I am looking forward to being mobile. That will change everything...

Stuff is getting really good and the new OS Sierra is the best.
Old 10th January 2017
  #49
Lives for gear
 
musicman691's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by machinesworking View Post
I just realized I've been running DP9.12 at 64! So all is not lost for those of you with issues.
I'm certain it's mostly configuration and plug in issues, if you have a problematic set, try this:
Start pulling plug ins by manufacturer from the Project, maybe for similar CPU usage replace with native plug ins.
It's possible that it's certain plug ins that are problematic, that's usually the case in DAWs in general. You can do all this without saving, so it won't affect the Project.
If You're worried do a "save as" then whatever you do will not be an issue at all.
This brings up a question: can you disable a plugin in DP? I don't mean enable/disable using the plugin's button for that but completely bypass the plugin like one can do in PT? That way the cpu usage of the plugin is totally removed from the project.
Old 10th January 2017
  #50
Lives for gear
 
musicman691's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by waxman View Post

The new Macbook pro is more robust then my 2013 trash can. I am looking forward to being mobile. That will change everything...

Stuff is getting really good and the new OS Sierra is the best.
Are you talking the one with the touch bar? If so how's your battery life as I've read conflicting reports on that even in the same report.
Old 10th January 2017
  #51
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman691 View Post
This brings up a question: can you disable a plugin in DP? I don't mean enable/disable using the plugin's button for that but completely bypass the plugin like one can do in PT? That way the cpu usage of the plugin is totally removed from the project.
As far as I know the bypass button on the plug in disables all CPU use from it, it does not disable it's RAM usage, and it's hard to say whether it stops an errant plug in from corrupting the Project.
IMO if you think a plug in is corrupting a project it's best to go old school with it and pull it from your Components or VST folder. It's pretty easy to do you just create a folder named Components Disabled, VST Disabled in your Plug Ins folder and drag the suspected plug ins into that folder. This prevents DP from even loading that plug in, but you're not erasing it from your hard drive and it's easy to re-instantiate. I just had to do this with the latest version of Arturia's Matrix 12 plug in. The VST version would crash DP's plug in evaluation at start up! The AU version and the VST version of Analog Lab with Matrix 12 loads just fine.
Old 13th January 2017
  #52
Gear Nut
 
waxman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman691 View Post
Are you talking the one with the touch bar? If so how's your battery life as I've read conflicting reports on that even in the same report.
Apple's MacBook Pros gain Consumer Reports' recommendation after retest
Old 22nd January 2017
  #53
Gear Nut
 
waxman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman691 View Post
I know MOTU can't speak.... is anything being done to fix the issues raised by DP9.12? ... has development and bug fixing on DP9 reached the end of the line with nothing more until the next whole number version? Is MOTU holding out until Winter NAMM 2017?
Yep holding out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBrS...nel=MOTUNATION
Old 17th February 2017
  #54
Lives for gear
 
dsetto's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by machinesworking View Post
...
If you're fluent in a few DAWs you can chase features a bit, but you do IMO sacrifice some speed that you get from working with one DAW for years on end.
... .
This spoke to me. I'm currently checking out the scene after being DAW-nogamous. ... Also, I found the current comparison here useful. Thanks.

It was with PT. I'm looking at the classics (Cubase, DP, Logic) and the young classic Live.

Simple linear audio is my go-to. I'm interested in solid sequencing of external MIDI Instruments.
Old 17th February 2017
  #55
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by machinesworking View Post
As far as I know the bypass button on the plug in disables all CPU use from it, it does not disable it's RAM usage, and it's hard to say whether it stops an errant plug in from corrupting the Project.
Some clarification:

The bypass button on a plug-in can be automated. That means the plug-in is "live" whether it is bypassed or not. If this were not the case you wouldn't be able to automate the bypass and have the plug-in on or off in real time.

The ENA button in the Tracks window does disable the entire track and any plug-ins running on the track. Another way to disable the track and all plug-ins on the track is to set the track output to None.

Dave
Old 17th February 2017
  #56
Lives for gear
 
musicman691's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicd View Post
Some clarification:

The bypass button on a plug-in can be automated. That means the plug-in is "live" whether it is bypassed or not. If this were not the case you wouldn't be able to automate the bypass and have the plug-in on or off in real time.

The ENA button in the Tracks window does disable the entire track and any plug-ins running on the track. Another way to disable the track and all plug-ins on the track is to set the track output to None.

Dave
Thanks for the clarification. Would be great if there was the ENA button in the sequence editor as well (or a right click and disable the track). I don't use the TO at all. This is one of those areas where PT has it over DP.
Old 17th February 2017
  #57
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman691 View Post
Thanks for the clarification. Would be great if there was the ENA button in the sequence editor as well (or a right click and disable the track).
Easy enough to disable the track in the Sequence Editor. Set the output of the track to None.

Dave
Old 17th February 2017
  #58
Lives for gear
 
musicman691's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicd View Post
Easy enough to disable the track in the Sequence Editor. Set the output of the track to None.

Dave
Not as easy as having a purpose-built button or a right click and disable/re-enable. You'd have to keep track of where the output routing went if you want to re-activate the track and use it as it was. Suppose you're doing this over multiple tracks - not easy and not quick. This is one of those things that drives me nuts about DP - it does some things very well and others not so much.
Old 17th February 2017
  #59
Deleted User
Guest
Another option is to have the Channel Strip open (I like to float it rather than open in sidebar). When you select the track in the SE you can then disable it at the bottom of the Channel Strip. That way you don't lose your routing. This is also handy for soloing tracks while in the SE.
Old 18th February 2017
  #60
Lives for gear
 
musicman691's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucks View Post
Another option is to have the Channel Strip open (I like to float it rather than open in sidebar). When you select the track in the SE you can then disable it at the bottom of the Channel Strip. That way you don't lose your routing. This is also handy for soloing tracks while in the SE.
You are genius my friend - never thought of looking there. I have the channel strip setup in the left sidebar in the consolidated window so it should be easy. I used to float it until I figured out a consolidated window setup that worked for me (the CW is WAY too busy for my tastes).

Last edited by musicman691; 26th February 2017 at 09:15 PM.. Reason: changed CS to CW
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump