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
Tim Cook on Mac Desktop commitment Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 20th June 2017
  #931
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
But he doesn't mention PC's, you do...
Haha I think it was implied...at any rate, this thread is about the new iMac not what was used in studios around the late 90s..!
Old 20th June 2017
  #932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tui View Post
I miss the good ol' days of Mac vs PC... We had so much fun!
You mean yesterday?
Old 21st June 2017
  #933
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollandturbine View Post
seriously the average iMac (hipster facebbok machine) user has more clutter on their desk than I do.

I find it fascinating you go around analysing people's desktop clutter and classify their machines into hipster/non hipster categories. Where do you find the time? (I'm only joking, sorry)

Seriously, the reason Macs got a reputation as music machines was Core Audio and plenty of software not being Pro Tools. I suggest the music business and what's around it is wider and more varied than one might think.

Currently though I'd agree Apple hardware is seriously behind, when it doesn't need to be. The last MBP may be an exception depending how you look at it.
Old 21st June 2017
  #934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
Seriously, the reason Macs got a reputation as music machines was Core Audio and plenty of software not being Pro Tools. I suggest the music business and what's around it is wider and more varied than one might think.
I disagree. Mac has been THE music puter years before CoreAudio was introduced. Windows boxes were not up to the task, the old OS incarnations were an ongoing drama. First Windows 2000 and XP changed that into a usable platform, late PIII CPU's were gaining on G3 and P4 was gaining clearly on G4, performance wise. W7 is the first Win OS which was really user friendly IMO. Apple did great with OSX, since 10.3 it really was a good OS and left the dramatic days of OS9 which became unbearable in some regards as well.

IMO the reason why Macs still are so strong (in audio) is that Apple offers a great out of the box experience and these boxes are available everywhere.
Dell & HP don't offer that experience in the same way, Windows on those systems still is too generic for many people to mess with it.
Many self-builts and off-the-shelf are simply bad configurations, which is THE major cause for people to think Windows sucks and is unstable.

Windows only needs a few tweaks to make it great for audio, which is already too much for some - which I fully understand.

CoreAudio is very nice, yet it doesn't cover all advantages over ASIO - like DirectMonitoring and a hidden buffer you can't get rid of.

In short: Macs always have been working fine out of the box, Windows requires either user knowledge or a good vendor - the latter not being easy to find for everyone. The technical differences and workflow is subjective in regards what is better, I think professionals and amateurs on both platforms show either platform offers enough capability to do a solid job.
Old 21st June 2017
  #935
Lives for gear
 
lowkey's Avatar
 

I think that's about right.
And despite what a lot of people on GS might think, there are plenty of DAW users (like me) who want to make music, not tinker with computers.

I "switched" from PC to Mac back in the 486 days and have never made it back.

On a forum where people happily pay $2000 for a single channel pre-amp it's sometimes seems weird to read how we can save a couple of hundred bucks by building our own computers. But I appreciate that many people actually love to do that too!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
I disagree. Mac has been THE music puter years before CoreAudio was introduced. Windows boxes were not up to the task, the old OS incarnations were an ongoing drama. First Windows 2000 and XP changed that into a usable platform, late PIII CPU's were gaining on G3 and P4 was gaining clearly on G4, performance wise. W7 is the first Win OS which was really user friendly IMO. Apple did great with OSX, since 10.3 it really was a good OS and left the dramatic days of OS9 which became unbearable in some regards as well.

IMO the reason why Macs still are so strong (in audio) is that Apple offers a great out of the box experience and these boxes are available everywhere.
Dell & HP don't offer that experience in the same way, Windows on those systems still is too generic for many people to mess with it.
Many self-builts and off-the-shelf are simply bad configurations, which is THE major cause for people to think Windows sucks and is unstable.

Windows only needs a few tweaks to make it great for audio, which is already too much for some - which I fully understand.

CoreAudio is very nice, yet it doesn't cover all advantages over ASIO - like DirectMonitoring and a hidden buffer you can't get rid of.

In short: Macs always have been working fine out of the box, Windows requires either user knowledge or a good vendor - the latter not being easy to find for everyone. The technical differences and workflow is subjective in regards what is better, I think professionals and amateurs on both platforms show either platform offers enough capability to do a solid job.
Old 21st June 2017
  #936
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
The Mac was popular as a music computer because it worked in an era when PCs didn't. I built my first music PC around '98 - it took me about 4 months to get it running to speed because of some weird motherboard driver issue. Macs were limited component machines that could be tested and certified easily, and problems sorted out.

This isn't a Mac vs PC discussion thread though, remember...?
The Mac filled the void left by the demise of Atari which was arguably the more popular music computer at the time and just as we can attribute the initial popularity of the Atari to it's integral MIDI interface so too can we attribute the Mac's initial popularity to the third party DSP hardware which made it far more capable than the old Atari's and PC's at that time and for many years to come, even when it could be said that perhaps the PC had an advantage in regard to native processing, hence Apple's switch from the power PC architecture and that's really what I am talking about here, the importance of the architecture and form factor of the Mac and it's future continued popularity as a Music computer.

I am not even about that Mac vs PC BS, it's more about tower vs all-in-one, slots for DSP hardware vs native processing and that sort of thing, so don't get it twisted.
Old 21st June 2017
  #937
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollandturbine View Post
The Mac filled the void left by the demise of Atari which was arguably the more popular music computer at the time and just as we can attribute the initial popularity of the Atari to it's integral MIDI interface so too can we attribute the Mac's initial popularity to the third party DSP hardware which made it far more capable than the old Atari's and PC's at that time and for many years to come, even when it could be said that perhaps the PC had an advantage in regard to native processing, hence Apple's switch from the power PC architecture and that's really what I am talking about here, the importance of the architecture and form factor of the Mac and it's future continued popularity as a Music computer.
Well yes it did - but the Atari didn't dominate audio recording in the same way Apple did, as you know it was primarily for sequencing.

And yes the 3rd party DSP cards made it capable of running audio when the computer wasn't up to it - but those cards (and the software) was for the Mac platform BECAUSE of the reasons I stated - they could be tested, certified and guaranteed to work in a way that it's hard to do on PCs (hence specialised builders and small sets of approved hardware). I'm not really disagreeing with you, but it's not the whole picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hollandturbine View Post
I am not even about that Mac vs PC BS, it's more about tower vs all-in-one, slots for DSP hardware vs native processing and that sort of thing, so don't get it twisted.
Then don't use terms like "hipster iMac".
Old 21st June 2017
  #938
Lives for gear
 
trock's Avatar
 

I'm not a computer tech guy and all I want to do is record music. For me, who has had both, I have had good experiences but for me, I have found the Mac platform to just work, with 2 mac pro's over the years, 2 Imac's and a macbook pro i have never really thought about them, i just plug my stuff in and it works. and I prefer the OS much mroe then Windows.

I have had 2 PC's in that time and they worked fins as well but i did spend more time updating them and having mors issues with drivers and maintaing them. it wasnt anything big and I have no complaints but for me the Mac experience, for my music has just been better and I enjoy the platform more.

my Imac now is a 2013 and these new regular Imacs, fully loaded will be where I head next. Whil the Imac Pro COLOR is awesome I have no need for that power.
Old 21st June 2017
  #939
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Well yes it did - but the Atari didn't dominate audio recording in the same way Apple did, as you know it was primarily for sequencing.

And yes the 3rd party DSP cards made it capable of running audio when the computer wasn't up to it - but those cards (and the software) was for the Mac platform BECAUSE of the reasons I stated - they could be tested, certified and guaranteed to work in a way that it's hard to do on PCs (hence specialised builders and small sets of approved hardware). I'm not really disagreeing with you, but it's not the whole picture.



Then don't use terms like "hipster iMac".
Actually despite the fact that audio recording hardware was first developed for the Mac the Atari not only made use of third party DSP hardware but Atari's last machine had integral DSP hardware and of course Cubase and what is now Apple Logic existed on the Atari first and not just as versions limited to MIDI either.

Of course despite the fact that a lot of cats were still rocking the Atari machines around 1996 (most probably using ADAT) the Mac really was the most obvious choice for developers to move things forward and you are not wrong despite the fact that at one point Apple was embracing the clone thing like IBM did.

I didn't use the term "hipster iMac" I implied that hipsters buy iMacs to use as facebook machines, but yeah that is one group of people the iMac is made for, I mean it's not like Apple was established to only meet the needs of us music nerds....of course the entire point was that all-in-one computers can actually be more messy than tucking a tower system under a desk and that goes for PC all-in-one computers too, however at least with PC you have the option to buy a tower system whereas Apple has pulled the pin.
Old 21st June 2017
  #940
Lives for gear
 
3rdpath's Avatar
The new Mac desktop/tower/modular is going to give real insight into how much Apple listens and responds to their professional base. Will they embrace the inevitability of 3rd party peripherals and incorporate that reality into the design? Whether one uses PCIe cards or not, to have slots available in the chassis is easy and inexpensive. They could make it smaller by offering fewer drive bays than the cMP and/or dedicated spots for smaller SSD drives. This new Mac really isn't rocket science and it needs to lean towards function over form. Leaning to form gave us the impractical trashcan. In the words of Quincy Jones, Apple drove past the money...

Just give us a retro rectangular box with sufficient internal expandability and a bunch of I/O ports.
Old 21st June 2017
  #941
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post

CoreAudio is very nice, yet it doesn't cover all advantages over ASIO - like DirectMonitoring and a hidden buffer you can't get rid of.
True, but conversely CoreAudio has advantages that ASIO doesn't offer. Like being implemented at system level and multi-client out of the box.
Old 23rd June 2017
  #942
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rdpath View Post

Just give us a retro rectangular box

Why does it have to be rectangular? Why does it have to be retro? Whatever works is fine.
Old 24th June 2017
  #943
Lives for gear
 
3rdpath's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
Why does it have to be rectangular? Why does it have to be retro? Whatever works is fine.
Really? As I posted in the least abstruse way I thought possible, I hope they lean to function over form. Box, rectangle..whatever.

Old 24th June 2017
  #944
Lives for gear
 

On the tangent of ASIO vs. Core Audio I thought that ASIO was at the kernel level and that Core Audio was at the near kernel level. The closer you are to machine code the less latency (giving ASIO a slight advantage for near real time computing that audio requires). In the practical world both get the job done and unless you have a test with as few variables as possible, same type CPU, ram amount - speed, same Daw app and plugs that run on both platforms set to the same latency you wouldn't be able to declare a winner. Then it probably boils down to how well each is implemented.

As for the fridge in the control room tangent, besides all the noise they make (have you ever heard a quiet one?) hopefully it's on it's own electrical branch circuit out of phase with the audio gear as they are a constant source of putting noise into the electrical mains.

For the guys who don't want to know computers tangent, it's like everything else, you can have someone else do it and pay a premium price in the process. The thing about going down that road is it's the same as for the guys who know how to set it up, things glitch / break so also plan on redundancy (you don't just have one mic cable do you) which means at least two computers. At $5k a box that means $10k.

Now back to the main topic . . .
Old 24th June 2017
  #945
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

I don't get the comparison between ASIO and Core Audio.

ASIO is "is a computer sound card driver protocol for digital audio specified by Steinberg" that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Windows operating system.

Core Audio is part of macOS and iOS, details here.
Old 24th June 2017
  #946
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rdpath View Post
Really? As I posted in the least abstruse way I thought possible, I hope they lean to function over form. Box, rectangle..whatever.
Exactly. Whatever that works. Functionality is design. Form is design. There really is no difference or opposition. Get to know some industrial designers to really understand these aspects of machine making.

Computers will not always look or work exactly the same, yet they will be functional, maybe more than today. Some new functional designs may not work out, yet some will nevertheless. Looking backwards is never the answer. Moving forward is. This does not mean you constantly have to abandon what already works fine, but sometimes you need to.
Old 24th June 2017
  #947
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
On the tangent of ASIO vs. Core Audio I thought that ASIO was at the kernel level and that Core Audio was at the near kernel level. The closer you are to machine code the less latency (giving ASIO a slight advantage for near real time computing that audio requires).
Not sure where you are getting this info, I have achieved 1.1ms at the digital outs of my Apogee Ensemble at 96k, 32 sample buffer. Not sure there is an ASIO interface that can do better than that. And I believe Protools HD Native latency 1.6ms @96k, 64 samples) is identical on both Mac and Windows OS.

Furthermore, ASIO can only handle one interface driver for both input and output. Core Audio can use separate drivers for input and output, and combine interface drivers.
Old 25th June 2017
  #948
Just because you don't want to build your music computer from scratch, doesn't mean you don't know how to fix it if it breaks. They're not mutually exclusive.

I've not built a music computer since the early 2000s; I'm still very confident in fixing computer issues. Ive never felt the need to have a 2nd system available. Redundant system drives are good enough, unless you literally need a full 2nd system - in which case it's the same situation whichever platform you choose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
On the tangent of ASIO vs. Core Audio I thought that ASIO was at the kernel level and that Core Audio was at the near kernel level. The closer you are to machine code the less latency (giving ASIO a slight advantage for near real time computing that audio requires). In the practical world both get the job done and unless you have a test with as few variables as possible, same type CPU, ram amount - speed, same Daw app and plugs that run on both platforms set to the same latency you wouldn't be able to declare a winner. Then it probably boils down to how well each is implemented.

As for the fridge in the control room tangent, besides all the noise they make (have you ever heard a quiet one?) hopefully it's on it's own electrical branch circuit out of phase with the audio gear as they are a constant source of putting noise into the electrical mains.

For the guys who don't want to know computers tangent, it's like everything else, you can have someone else do it and pay a premium price in the process. The thing about going down that road is it's the same as for the guys who know how to set it up, things glitch / break so also plan on redundancy (you don't just have one mic cable do you) which means at least two computers. At $5k a box that means $10k.

Now back to the main topic . . .
Old 25th June 2017
  #949
Gear Addict
 

Lets not forget about core MIDI and it's adventitious use of MOTU's MIDI Time Stamping protocol.
Old 25th June 2017
  #950
Lives for gear
 

Joe, I'm getting full round trip latency (analog in to analog out - through both AD and DA converters) in the low 2ms range at 48k, 32 sample buffer using three RME 9652 PCI slot cards (72 channels I/O to use with three Alesis HD24XR converter units and with an analog desk). I posted the exact figures in the Interface Database thread in this section but don't remember off the top of my head. I have not tested at 96k but when you bump up the sample rate to 96k from 44.1k-48k you about halve the latency so I'm probably right at where you are. The latency that I posted was typical of all the RME PCI and PCIe card interfaces. Run a full analog in to analog out loop test at 48k, 32 sample buffer if you want to check what you have vs. the RME's. My test was done on a 4 core tweaked for audio Windows 7 box so ASIO. The point I made about ASIO is that it skips most of the Windows OS being at the kernel level thus has the potential for lower latency but I also said it depends on how either method is utilized, thus with your testing showing the same latency results for both proving that.


Psycho, glad you are thinking about some redundancy with hard drives but I've seen plenty of power supplies, ram, video cards, and occasionally even motherboards go bad. I do agree that even if you don't build a box or know those details that there still are many computer related things to learn for those who just want to play and record. It doesn't have to be an all in thing. Good business practice for any business still is redundancy (If life critical like flying a plane then you expect at least triple redundancy). For those reading this that don't know anything about computers, at least twice a year blow out the dust with compressed air as extra heat from dust covered parts are a cause of failure.
Old 25th June 2017
  #951
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowkey View Post
On a forum where people happily pay $2000 for a single channel pre-amp it's sometimes seems weird to read how we can save a couple of hundred bucks by building our own computers.
YES
Old 26th June 2017
  #952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Joe, I'm getting full round trip latency (analog in to analog out - through both AD and DA converters) in the low 2ms range at 48k, 32 sample buffer using three RME 9652 PCI slot cards (72 channels I/O to use with three Alesis HD24XR converter units and with an analog desk). I posted the exact figures in the Interface Database thread in this section but don't remember off the top of my head. I have not tested at 96k but when you bump up the sample rate to 96k from 44.1k-48k you about halve the latency so I'm probably right at where you are. The latency that I posted was typical of all the RME PCI and PCIe card interfaces. Run a full analog in to analog out loop test at 48k, 32 sample buffer if you want to check what you have vs. the RME's. My test was done on a 4 core tweaked for audio Windows 7 box so ASIO. The point I made about ASIO is that it skips most of the Windows OS being at the kernel level thus has the potential for lower latency but I also said it depends on how either method is utilized, thus with your testing showing the same latency results for both proving that.


Psycho, glad you are thinking about some redundancy with hard drives but I've seen plenty of power supplies, ram, video cards, and occasionally even motherboards go bad. I do agree that even if you don't build a box or know those details that there still are many computer related things to learn for those who just want to play and record. It doesn't have to be an all in thing. Good business practice for any business still is redundancy (If life critical like flying a plane then you expect at least triple redundancy). For those reading this that don't know anything about computers, at least twice a year blow out the dust with compressed air as extra heat from dust covered parts are a cause of failure.
Regarding redundancy, that's the same for whether you build your machine or not though.

Actually, if my main Mac went down the fact that my hdx card is in a chassis means I could just hook in my laptop. If the hdx card itself went down I'd have a problem...but unfortunately I can't justify a $5k redundancy just in case. I'd get by.

My argument was that just because you didn't build your system, doesn't mean that you're necessarily any worse off than someone who did. Few people will keep a spare computer power supply or up to date graphics card to hand just in case; but most music professionals would be able to beg borrow or hire a spare Mac within a short time if they needed to.
Old 26th June 2017
  #953
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
I don't get the comparison between ASIO and Core Audio.

ASIO is "is a computer sound card driver protocol for digital audio specified by Steinberg" that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Windows operating system.

Core Audio is part of macOS and iOS, details here.
Pretty much semantics. Whether interface developers code CA drivers which is part of the OS or whether they code ASIO which is not part of the OS is a moot discussion. ASIO has been working great since 1997, offering very low latency and good performance and it is supported by pretty much every interface and DAW developer (except for Apogee and Metric Halo, the latter having ASIO drivers in the pipeline).

Not allowing different drivers at the same time is a missing feature, just like no direct monitoring being available on CA.
Old 26th June 2017
  #954
Lives for gear
 
lowkey's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by climber View Post
YES
And for some reason we don't see every thread about buss compressors and EQs descending into an argument about how you can save money by just building everything yourself rather than buying a brand name.
Old 26th June 2017
  #955
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Porto View Post
Not sure where you are getting this info, I have achieved 1.1ms at the digital outs of my Apogee Ensemble at 96k, 32 sample buffer. Not sure there is an ASIO interface that can do better than that. And I believe Protools HD Native latency 1.6ms @96k, 64 samples) is identical on both Mac and Windows OS.
RME/Lynx...

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/7625614-post241.html

... that's with the DA/AD round trip. The results will be significantly less staying in the inaudible, digital realm.

But beyond variously configured RTL results, the important thing is driver/firmware/OS efficiency. There have been several OS-agnostic people on this forum who have moved onto Windows because of 'ASIO' efficiency. It's obviously impossible to separate driver and OS here, but there appears to be a measurable and noticeable increase in performance going with ASIO/Windows. Efficiency meaning how much stuff you can run at those low buffer sizes.
Old 26th June 2017
  #956
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Whether interface developers code CA drivers which is part of the OS or whether they code ASIO which is not part of the OS is a moot discussion.
??
If a device is Core Audio or Core MIDI compliant, there is no need to install proprietary, separately developed drivers from the interface vendors.



It would make sense to compare Steinberg's ASIO to RME or Presonus drivers, and audio frameworks in Windows to audio frameworks in macOS. Confusing these makes no sense to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Not allowing different drivers at the same time is a missing feature, just like no direct monitoring being available on CA.

??
Devices that are not Core Audio compliant use their own drivers, not sure what you mean by 'not allowing different drivers'.
Old 26th June 2017
  #957
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
??
Devices that are not Core Audio compliant use their own drivers, not sure what you mean by 'not allowing different drivers'.
Core Audio driver can be either developed by Apple (like in the case of UAC devices) or by 3rd party vendors.. it doesn't matter who does that, it's still Core Audio driver for audio interface, which adheres to capabilities of that API.

Not allowing different driver was response to feature differences between ASIO and Core Audio.. in one previous post was mentioned, that advantage of Core Audio apps is common ability to use different input and output devices, whereas ASIO apps at Windows allows to choose only one ASIO driver for the app (eg. you can't combine Steinberg interface for input and Presonus for output for example).
Similarly there's no built-in standard mechanism for arbitrary audio devices aggregation.. if there's aggregation capability, it has to be handled by particular vendor at lower level at their driver (for example RME interface from the same line-up can be aggregated and I/Os of all devices appears under single ASIO driver).

Anyway, whole discussion about that is kind of moot IMO.. I probably don't know anyone, who picked Mac OS or Windows just because of ASIO or Core Audio..

Michal
Old 26th June 2017
  #958
Michal already covered it, but let me add a bit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
??
If a device is Core Audio or Core MIDI compliant, there is no need to install proprietary, separately developed drivers from the interface vendors.
As Michal stated, someone writes code for CA, either Apple (UAC) or the vendor.

Quote:
It would make sense to compare Steinberg's ASIO to RME or Presonus drivers, and audio frameworks in Windows to audio frameworks in macOS. Confusing these makes no sense to me.
No, you are confusing it as it has never been a practical issue. Download drivers, install, go. To end users it doesn't matter.

Quote:
??
Devices that are not Core Audio compliant use their own drivers, not sure what you mean by 'not allowing different drivers'.
I indeed misphrased that, sorry. I meant "different interfaces with different drivers using ASIO". It is a missing ASIO feature, like DM is a missing CoreAudio feature.
Old 26th June 2017
  #959
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
RME/Lynx...

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/7625614-post241.html

... that's with the DA/AD round trip. The results will be significantly less staying in the inaudible, digital realm.

But beyond variously configured RTL results, the important thing is driver/firmware/OS efficiency. There have been several OS-agnostic people on this forum who have moved onto Windows because of 'ASIO' efficiency. It's obviously impossible to separate driver and OS here, but there appears to be a measurable and noticeable increase in performance going with ASIO/Windows. Efficiency meaning how much stuff you can run at those low buffer sizes.

I have to wonder how much that efficiency is OS related compared simply to driver related. I ran an RME 96/52 with Cubase on Windows for many years. When bought a Mac Pro, there was definitely a performance hit with the same hardware and DAW. At the time, I recall the RME having dedicated ASIO processing, and the OS X drivers were "ported" ASIO drivers for the Mac. I later found out that Cubase too was using an ASIO wrapper on OS X. That explained the performance hit. Eventually, I moved to Protools and a Symphony system, but later settled with Logic.

Point being, I think if drivers and DAW software are properly written specifically for OS X, there is no performance difference.

But still, this thread is not a Windows vs Mac thread. I have since moved to a UAD Apollo system. Still using Logic. Performance is great. The new iMac has given me hope, but holding out for a powerful Mini. But if I have to move to a Windows system, and back to Pro Tools, I am prepared. Thankfully, it seems Apple is getting the message and is back on the power user horse.
Old 27th June 2017
  #960
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Porto View Post
I have to wonder how much that efficiency is OS related compared simply to driver related. I ran an RME 96/52 with Cubase on Windows for many years. When bought a Mac Pro, there was definitely a performance hit with the same hardware and DAW. At the time, I recall the RME having dedicated ASIO processing, and the OS X drivers were "ported" ASIO drivers for the Mac. I later found out that Cubase too was using an ASIO wrapper on OS X. That explained the performance hit. Eventually, I moved to Protools and a Symphony system, but later settled with Logic.

Point being, I think if drivers and DAW software are properly written specifically for OS X, there is no performance difference.
Efficiency is of course a combination of DAW, driver and OS. Unfortunately your closing statement effectively means that unless an application is written for OSX only, the reason of it being cross platform can always be used in cases where it underperforms on Mac. And it's not possible to compare when it's Mac only.

But I do agree that drivers are a very important part of the jigsaw. We can't look at just drivers and applications and not the OS though. They are not all created equally.
Topic:
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