Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

> Sure I can speak about a bottleneck.

"A" but not "the". :o) The drive speed will always influence your performance.

> The processor meter can be 
> hovering at not much over zero while the disk meter is pegged. That 
> means that the CPU has overhead to spare but the data path to the disk
> is maxed.  That is a bottleneck.

That still depends on the efficiency of the Disk IO as well as the drive 
itself.

> I don't know the details of where or 
> why that bottleneck is since it does not seem to be in the disc itself
> since cubase can do better on the same disk

Exactly.

> and it also does not seem 
> to be that the CPU is overtaxed according to the meters, it just seems
> to be one of "those things".

It's because disk IO also envolves the processor (and less so for SCSI than 
SATA/IDE), and Cubase has more processor power available for this than Logic. 
Probably because Logic has a more powerful and flexible internal engine which 
comes at a cost. You misinterpret the meters, they both partially depend on 
the CPU. Just one indicates how much more it could do on audio, and one 
indicates how much more it could do on disk I/O.

> Anyway by all means go spend your hard earned pesos on SCSI drives and
> PCI cards but I don't think you are going to get any performance gain.

I do, and in fact many have already reported about it to this list. That's the 
whole point you miss when you think in single bottlenecks: You seem to think 
when Cubase outperforms Logic, the harddisk speed can't make a difference 
anymore. Well it can, and on top of that, if you switch to SCSI you'll need 
less CPU to deal with the disk IO so not only wil both Cubase and Logic be 
faster, the difference will also be smaller.

> But hey I would love to be proven wrong.

You wouldn't be the first one to have tried (and found out) but go ahead. :o)

Maurits.