Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Mobile & Location Rigs (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mobile-amp-location-rigs/)
-   -   Apogee Symphony Mobile (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mobile-amp-location-rigs/104527-apogee-symphony-mobile.html)

mangoid 18th January 2007 07:26 PM

Apogee Symphony Mobile
 
Just what my mobile rig was waiting for, if the latency is as low as they say...

Symphony Mobile express card

Ghost Logic 18th January 2007 07:37 PM

boing boing wish I hadn't just bought a macbook... grrr

mlehmann 18th January 2007 07:39 PM

Wow! That seems great!

tuRnitUpsuM 19th January 2007 03:11 PM

Ghost Logic


Quote:

wish I hadn't just bought a macbook...
macbook = no pcmcia ... is that right?


cheers

blaugruen7 19th January 2007 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM (Post 1079710)
Ghost Logic




macbook = no pcmcia ... is that right?


cheers

yes

tuRnitUpsuM 19th January 2007 03:47 PM

blaugruen7

cheers ...thumbsup

Been pC based for quite some time...


So the new MAC books have no pcmcia ...nor ship with 7200 HDDs.... mezed

cheers again for the info...


( i'm considering a dual-G5, pretty cheap nowadays....( for DP 5 and Apogee symphony).... but considered a Macbook as well.....well...not anymore...)

[email protected] 19th January 2007 04:28 PM

MacBook hasn't got any card-slot. MacBook Pro has!

tuRnitUpsuM 19th January 2007 04:44 PM

[email protected]

Quote:

MacBook Pro has!

true... but also has MACpro pricing too.. heh

Might go a down-grade MacPro ... if anything.... the 2 ghz one... HDD room...plus a few more PCI-x slots...

but the Symphony mobile is a great move on Apogees part.... and a blessing to the mobile folk for sure.... man lets get the wires with fire outta main interfacing tools.... ( they're ok...... for eg... DSP boxes for plugins) but main distribution ?? tutt ... just too many problems... especially come connection time for all the wired and fired... just MHO. (note... im scared of fire and wires in the same sentences). kfhkh

cheers

blaugruen7 19th January 2007 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM (Post 1079788)
So the new MAC books have no pcmcia ...nor ship with 7200 HDDs.... mezed

i do think that nowadays 7200s is not a MUST in laptops.
hds performances do always improve.
i have word from someone whos opinion i respect that hd speed
in his macbook is NEVER an issue. its a cool machine.

but please do your own testing...

i think the prize for the macbook is killer.
apple sells like crazy.

mangoid 20th January 2007 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM (Post 1079788)
blaugruen7

So the new MAC books have no pcmcia ...nor ship with 7200 HDDs.... mezed

Interestingly, 7200rpm drives are only faster when the drive is relatively empty. Since drives slow down gradually as they become more full, a 5400rpm 160GB drive with 90GB of data on it is actually faster than a 7200rpm 100GB drive with the same 90GB on it (because the latter is 90% full, whereas the former is just over half full). And i was surpised to see this, but tests show that, depending on the percentage of used space on the drive, a 4200rpm 200GB drive can be even faster because it's less full. See this shootout. Moral: capacity can be a bigger factor than rpms when it comes to real-world drive performance.

dkatz42 20th January 2007 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangoid (Post 1081390)
Moral: capacity can be a bigger factor than rpms when it comes to real-world drive performance.

There is no single "faster" measurement, and using sustained I/O figures when thinking about DAW usage is inappropriate (and by no means "real world.")

Once you have more than a few tracks, you will become seek- and rotational latency-bound due to the drive thrashing around trying to read all those files simultaneously, and the most important thing is how fast the drive can get the heads into position and how long it has to wait for the data to rotate around under the heads (thus the high RPM drives being preferable.)

tuRnitUpsuM 20th January 2007 05:01 PM

Hi All

empty drives to full drives isnt a fair comparison.... because the read head in the full drive is working harder...

BUT... all things being equal.... ( same space taken for data... same cache..etc) the higher rpm drive wil be quicker.... thats proven...in the real-world. There is a reason...enterprise market demands faster rpm... they are at what now??? 15k.


U watch when quads are introduced into lappys.... and vista and leopard are standard... ull see 10 k rpm HDDs in the upper-range laptops...with 7200 the standard. is only natural progression.... and those when looking back... will say ...." what a dif".... is natural.

can we work on 7200 and lower speed rpm HDDs.....course we can....but in '07 to not offer a 7200.... is kinda strange....considering....they are NOT expensive drives anymore.

cheers

dkatz42 20th January 2007 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM (Post 1081902)
BUT... all things being equal.... ( same space taken for data... same cache..etc) the higher rpm drive wil be quicker.... thats proven...in the real-world. There is a reason...enterprise market demands faster rpm... they are at what now??? 15k.

And the reason that the enterprise market demands faster RPMs is that the data demands are very random (much like DAW usage) and require the minimum time to reach a particular sector on the drive.

For bulk streaming applications, higher RPM drives provide little gain, if any, and have a significant downside in capacity (which matters more for bulk streaming applications.)

All of this gets back to my point, which is that I/O bandwidth is very dependent on usage patterns, and benchmarks are very context-sensitive.

I'm just waiting for media with no moving parts...

tuRnitUpsuM 20th January 2007 10:42 PM

dkatz42


you make great points.....

but u mean to tell me.... that given bandwidth on both drives are the same.....same controllers etc.... same usage of space.... the faster spindle speed wont make a difference? .... basically stick with 4200 HDDs and break new ground bandwidth wise???? in a sense... of course not literally.... or literally?


every small detail add up.... sometimes yes....people focus on particular details...and not paying much attention to others.... but in the thick of things..... spindle rotation does matter .! for all apps...... just maybe not as much as first let on to believe..... but whatever is????

even non moving part storage media has their cons..... but will the pros out-weigh them? a quick example....right now...... is their cost!!

cheers

dkatz42 20th January 2007 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM (Post 1082486)
but u mean to tell me.... that given bandwidth on both drives are the same.....same controllers etc.... same usage of space.... the faster spindle speed wont make a difference? .... basically stick with 4200 HDDs and break new ground bandwidth wise???? in a sense... of course not literally.... or literally?

Firstly, all other things usually aren't the same, so it's kind of a moot point. But if they were, then yes, you'll see more sectors going under the heads in a given time. However, there are other bottlenecks involved, in the controller, the o/s, the application...such that you'll probably top out before hitting the theoretical max.
Quote:

Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM (Post 1082486)
every small detail add up.... sometimes yes....people focus on particular details...and not paying much attention to others.... but in the thick of things..... spindle rotation does matter .! for all apps...... just maybe not as much as first let on to believe..... but whatever is????

See above. If you're limited by something else, small details stop adding up because you're maxed out. Spindle rotation speed won't matter if the application ends up waiting for something else.
Quote:

Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM (Post 1082486)
even non moving part storage media has their cons..... but will the pros out-weigh them? a quick example....right now...... is their cost!!

Cost and capacity and volatility are the downsides. But for DAW usage, having no moving parts makes the disk part of the equation moot. I'm going to play around with RAM disks a bit and see how it goes. I'll probably write a small process that occasionally flushes the RAM disk to a hard drive, lest the power quit at an inopportune time.

tuRnitUpsuM 21st January 2007 04:31 AM

dkatz42

Quote:

Firstly, all other things usually aren't the same, so it's kind of a moot point. But if they were, then yes, you'll see more sectors going under the heads in a given time. However, there are other bottlenecks involved, in the controller, the o/s, the application...such that you'll probably top out before hitting the theoretical max.

you mean in RAID config. things aren't the same?? have you ever tried mirroring two identical HDs ...same company , same cache. lets just say 8mb..for arguements sake... but dif spindle speed ? just curious. ive mirrored before...but always the exact same drives.... anyhoo .... im willing to bet you'd come across numerous problems.... ie... the faster speed drive will be ever so slightly ahead of the slower speed drive... why? things are identical....the same RAID controller is running both... both have the same type of architecture (to a point)...their from the same company.... both have 8mb caches... why aren't they mirroring in sync.? (same O/S etc).

Quote:

See above. If you're limited by something else, small details stop adding up because you're maxed out. Spindle rotation speed won't matter if the application ends up waiting for something else.
but this is a moot point on the same token.... if thats the case....the conditions aren't ideal to come to any kind of conclusion about rotational speed....because both rpms in question are affected by outside sources.....

Quote:

Cost and capacity and volatility are the downsides. But for DAW usage, having no moving parts makes the disk part of the equation moot. I'm going to play around with RAM disks a bit and see how it goes. I'll probably write a small process that occasionally flushes the RAM disk to a hard drive, lest the power quit at an inopportune time.
i'd be interested in your findings ... kfhkh ... regardless of where we both both stand on rpm speed vs other factors.... i think its safe to say...eventually... moving parts become obsolete in storage media...hooppie

cheers

dkatz42 21st January 2007 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM (Post 1082963)
you mean in RAID config. things aren't the same?? have you ever tried mirroring two identical HDs ...same company , same cache. lets just say 8mb..for arguements sake... but dif spindle speed ? just curious. ive mirrored before...but always the exact same drives.... anyhoo .... im willing to bet you'd come across numerous problems.... ie... the faster speed drive will be ever so slightly ahead of the slower speed drive... why? things are identical....the same RAID controller is running both... both have the same type of architecture (to a point)...their from the same company.... both have 8mb caches... why aren't they mirroring in sync.? (same O/S etc).

I'm not sure about the point you're making with RAID. With mirrored RAID, all that happens is that the slower drive provides an upper bound on the overall system performance (whether it's hardware or software RAID.) Nothing bad will happen with dissimilar drives, other than throwing away some of the performance of the faster one. Mirrored RAID isn't space-shuttle-synchronized, it's just software (or firmware) that writes the same data to both drives, and says that it's done when both have been successfully written (caches and such notwithstanding.)

But this is neither here nor there. The point is that if some other part of the system is the limiting factor, it may not matter how fast your drives are. You see this every day--take a look at the transfer rates that the drive manufacturer quotes, and then try to see those numbers in action. Even with a special case like copying a large contiguous file to /dev/null, you're still not going to see the quoted transfer rate. And with real world applications, it's even less likely.

My point, once again, is that different applications stress different parts of a hard drive. As it turns out, DAWs with significant track counts are very much sensitive to rotational latency and seek time, and the raw transfer rate doesn't play a significant factor, particularly if you take a maxed out system like a Mac Pro that has so much processing horsepower that the CPU load isn't a factor. You'll see Logic cough out a "disk too slow" message long before you ever get a "system overload" message, and the disk isn't falling behind due to the amount of data (which is quite modest in the scheme of things, even with lots of tracks) but rather because it's spending the majority of its time moving the heads and waiting for the data to arrive under them. A drive with a higher raw data transfer rate won't change the performance at all (since most of the time there's no data moving; rather, the heads are flopping around.)

To take an extreme example, there will be essentially no measurable performance difference between an ultrafast drive and a slow cheap one if all you're doing is word processing.

Or take something like a DVR--the data rate coming off of the drive is more or less fixed by the frame rate on the TV set, and it's not moving the heads too much (there may be two or three streams involved, but that's a lot less demanding than 40 or 50 or 100.) Pretty much any drive is fast enough in this application, and so the cheapest and largest drives are preferable, and a faster drive would provide exactly no benefit.

To reiterate, there isn't one "real world" but many; the performance tradeoffs in selecting a drive are very much tied to the particular "real world" in question, and there is no single best answer. That was my only point in this regrettably long-winded treatise.

tuRnitUpsuM 21st January 2007 06:37 AM

dkatz42


long-winded....but appreciated...

I brought up RAID for this reason... and this reason only...kind of an unorthodox way to make the point....but then again....i think in an unorthodox manner... (no relation to religon).

Quote:

Firstly, all other things usually aren't the same
Well as you eloquently stated.... in RAID.... both would be in the same environment under the same conditions? both controlled by software.... both react the same.... right? both in essence become the same.

but yet....

Quote:

other than throwing away some of the performance of the faster one
... so there is a dif? just not exploited by the slower Drive...ie....slower spindled drive not meeting the potential of the faster drive. ie higher spindle speed. So...if there was a "COMPROMISE" even in a RAID setting.... ie...controlled..... the question remains.... wouldn't MacBook users benefit from 7200HDDs??????

especially when the Drive would be left to its own devices..??


truly the most essential point i was making....


cheers


p.s You and I have really taken this thread way OT....lol... I apologize to original poster... on our behaves. (if i may?)

dkatz42 21st January 2007 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM (Post 1083126)
the question remains.... wouldn't MacBook users benefit from 7200HDDs??????

In general, probably. For DAW use, almost certainly. For every application? No.

Harley-OIART 21st January 2007 09:47 PM

Faster HD's have more noise due to higher spindle speeds. Secondly more cooling is required.

However, They also have lower seek times which is ideal for streaming (audio writing to disk / playback from disk).

It is really a trade off between performance, and noise / heat.

In general a laptop does not require a 7200RPM harddrive for 'standard' uses [such as email, internet, office, very light gaming, other basic tasks] which is exactly what the macbook is marketed for. The Macbook Pro on the other hand is marketed as more of a professional machine. Hence the dedicated video, faster internal HD, additional expansion ports, and stronger chassis.

So really, there is nothing wrong with the fact the macbook is a 5400RPM internal HD. Your both arguing a moot point =)

tuRnitUpsuM 22nd January 2007 02:24 PM

dkatz42

hooppie ... agree with ya 100 percent.


Harley-OIART

i agree with you as well.... except .... isn't it odd they offer dual-core processing power??? a single-core works well under this circumstances as well > ('standard' uses [such as email, internet, office, very light gaming, other basic tasks] ).

you'll give your "standard" clientele... whom may use this notebook only for email...and such.... dual-core processors..... but refuse them 7200 HDDs ?????? when the latter is a cheaper alternative than new MoBo and TWO processors?

kinda suspect no? (not meant as a war start.... im considering both platforms ...simul.) but you'd be hard pressed to find a PC notebook now without a 7200HDD or at least an option to upgrade cheaply....!

MBP ...yes is the "pro" version.... but also comes with pro pricing ! and includes a single HDD at 7200 ... then 5400...even .... a "pro" 4200 !!!! :( just because of disk capacity) ....


cheers

dkatz42 22nd January 2007 06:40 PM

How stuff like this gets packaged is marketing pragmatism, pure and simple. If they give too much in the MB, they cannibalize sales of the MBP. If they put a single core processor in the MB, it's slow compared to the non-Mac competition and they lose sales to Dell. There's nothing "suspect" about this; it's about maximizing profit, which is what corporations are required to do by their shareholders. Giving the customers what they want is a part of this, but only a part.

The trick is to package things so that folks on the cusp will choose the higher priced model. Product line management is high art in its own way.

Apple isn't wildly profitable for nothing...

tuRnitUpsuM 22nd January 2007 07:06 PM

dkatz42

Quote:

Product line management is high art in its own way.

kfhkh ....yeppers my friend..... but we can still ponder "artistic" decisions when "management" is in question.


cheers

Reggie Love 25th January 2007 11:47 PM

Oh bugger I want one! :deth:

http://www.apogeedigital.com/product...honymobile.php

http://www.soundonsound.com/news?NewsID=8852

I guess with an AD16 Xcard equipped and a MiniDAC you could get there without totally murdering you bank balance. Or a rosetta 800... Mmmm...

jon2911 2nd February 2007 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley-OIART (Post 1084211)
In general a laptop does not require a 7200RPM harddrive for 'standard' uses [such as email, internet, office, very light gaming, other basic tasks] which is exactly what the macbook is marketed for. The Macbook Pro on the other hand is marketed as more of a professional machine. Hence the dedicated video, faster internal HD, additional expansion ports, and stronger chassis.

So really, there is nothing wrong with the fact the macbook is a 5400RPM internal HD. Your both arguing a moot point =)

Agreed, but you don't mention that the 15" Macbook Pro doesn't have 7200RPM either. Don't get me started. I'm a big fan of Apple's decisions in general and it may be arguable that they had good reasons to leave it out of the Macbook, but there's no excuse to call the 15" PRO and not offer a 7200RPM drive. Biggest reason I saved so much money by NOT getting the 15" procellfone

EDIT: I completely agree with dkatz above, that the 7200RPM decision was made to push people to the 17" Macbook Pro. Apple always likes to differentiate their big boy and 7200 is the feature they chose to do it IMO. Seems to be self-evident to me, but certain Apple fans howl when you mention that they're just a company trying to make as much money as possible...

blaugruen7 2nd February 2007 10:40 AM

there is a option to stick a 7200hd into a macbook pro

lozion 2nd February 2007 08:27 PM

17 incher only.

fritzschreiner 4th February 2007 12:24 AM

I was looking at that Apogee card. nice.

but then I found out that the 16channel A/D 's and the 16 channel D/A's are 3 grand a pop.

I just can't afford the 13 grand for the card and 4 converter units.

Still looks great if you've got the cash, and that's 32 channels in and out with a mac book Pro.

Mac Pro has 3 PCI slots, and the Apogee lets you string 3 together for 96 channels in and out.

Wow.

Fritz

Harley-OIART 4th February 2007 01:58 AM

13 grand you say??? Hmmm.... time to get an HD rig w/ Magma Expansion Card

Mixocalypse 2nd March 2007 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggie Love (Post 1092861)
I guess with an AD16 Xcard equipped and a MiniDAC you could get there without totally murdering you bank balance. Or a rosetta 800... Mmmm...

This is the system I am switching to as soon as the Mobile card ships.
Ive just got the ADX16 and Iv'e had the Mini DAC for about a year now.
My ADX16 is loaded with the X Symphony card. Im just waiting for the Symphony Mobile to ship. Cant wait!

Cost me 4000.00 with ALL Cable. I already owned the Mini DAC so you could add on 800 bucks for that, $4800.00

Using a MacBook Pro 1" 2.33ghz now and will be upgrading to the symphony PCI-e card when new MacPros ship.