Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

On Jan 17, 2005, at 4:39 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> got this from the Adaptec website ... looks like UltraSCSI is still 
> the way to go for Music.

This would certainly be true if the drives were the bottle necks but 
from the experience people are documenting it appears more and more 
that that is not the case.  Witness the fact that cubase for example 
can play back so many more tracks than Logic can.  If the problem were 
the drive then it stands to reason that they would both crap out at 
about the same number of tracks on any give drive.

Op Monday 17 January 2005 09:01, schreef dennis gunn:
> This would certainly be true if the drives were the bottle necks

It is true just BECAUSE of what you're saying. SCSI and IDE operate at 
comparable transfer rates, but (SATA) IDE requires more processing power than 
SCSI. So especially when you notice the following..:

> but 
> from the experience people are documenting it appears more and more
> that that is not the case.  Witness the fact that cubase for example
> can play back so many more tracks than Logic can.

..in other words, Logic has less processing power available for the actual 
recording than Cubase, this only makes SCSI more favourable.

Besides, you can't really speak about "the bottleneck"; every element in the 
chain can slow things down. Especially in the case of IDE where the processor 
has to do all the work.

Maurits.

On Jan 17, 2005, at 6:47 PM, Maurits van de Kamp wrote:

> Op Monday 17 January 2005 09:01, schreef dennis gunn:
>  > This would certainly be true if the drives were the bottle necks
>
>  It is true just BECAUSE of what you're saying. SCSI and IDE operate at
>  comparable transfer rates, but (SATA) IDE requires more processing 
> power than SCSI. So especially when you notice the following..:
>
>  > but
>  > from the experience people are documenting it appears more and more
>  > that that is not the case.  Witness the fact that cubase for example
>  > can play back so many more tracks than Logic can.
>
>  ..in other words, Logic has less processing power available for the 
> actual
>  recording than Cubase, this only makes SCSI more favourable.


For the sake of clarity the problem is not in the recording tracks but 
the play back tracks.  After all it is not unusual to be playing back 
dozens of tracks at once but recording dozens at once is a 
comparatively rare situation, and what would be an even more rare 
situation would be recording dozens of tracks at once while monitoring 
dozens of recorded tracks usually if you are recording on a whole bunch 
of tracks it is an orchestral situation where you are doing basics also 
In the real world most people don't even have more than about 18-24 
inputs anyway and I have recorded that many inputs without problems.

>  Besides, you can't really speak about "the bottleneck"; every element 
> in the
>  chain can slow things down. Especially in the case of IDE where the 
> processor has to do all the work.
>

Sure I can speak about a bottleneck.  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.  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 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".

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.  
But hey I would love to be proven wrong.

> 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.

On Jan 17, 2005, at 11:31 PM, Maurits van de Kamp wrote:

>  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.
>


I see.  So what is the breakdown?  How many of what bit depth track are 
you able to play in logic with and without SCSI?

I´m going to second ( third actually) Gregory and Mauritius in this : 
I don´t know about cubase , but I do know about SCSI . If money is 
not a problem I´ll go Scsi hands down . IDE is cheap and it works , 
but just that . with scsi you can have lots of disk ( or whatever you 
want...)with ide you´re very limited on this.
I´ll tell you a recent story :
I´ve mounted a third computer on a third studio I have( Businness, 
home , and second business) I did it mainly because I liked the 
reverbs on the Lexicon core32 card . So I mounted an Asus P2b with a 
PII550 384mb and a video card... I discovered the hard way that the 
P2B only liked IDE HDs with less than 20gb, and I hadn´t one at hand 
but I had a 9gb scsi disk and a scsi card so I mounted  that for the 
moment. To be short : I love that machine , boots really fast and my 
logic project load in a snap ( Ok , there simplified versions of my 
projects , but even my simpler projects took three times longer to 
load on my PIV ). Also the number of 24bit tracks it reads and writes 
is incredible for such a machine with that memory ( I get 12 writing  
while reading 8... it´s a scsi3 card with a scsi3 hd, and it´s not 
the limit, that´s what I did last sunday )
Also I can have portable drives on that machine . 
Put a good scsi and you´ll never regret . It´s simply better.... more 
expensive but better.
kind regards


 --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Maurits van de Kamp 
<maurits@b...> wrote:
> 
> > 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.