Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

How does the loudness of a note relate to the midi velocity? (Assuming the 
playback of a single sample).   I can notice a lot more difference with the 
velocity 127 to 117 than I can 40 to 30. It seems to be an exponential 
relationship (like level = 2^(Midi_Velocity/32)).

I have some drum hits on my kurzweil which sound different when I sample them 
and play them in Battery. Maybe each device is different.

> How does the loudness of a note relate to the midi velocity? 
> (Assuming the playback of a single sample).  I can notice a 
> lot more difference with the velocity 127 to 117 than I can 
> 40 to 30. It seems to be an exponential relationship (like 
> level = 2^(Midi_Velocity/32)).
> 
> I have some drum hits on my kurzweil which sound different 
> when I sample them and play them in Battery. Maybe each 
> device is different. 

Yes. I suspect that it is completely up to the MIDI device as to how to
react to a volume setting of 30 as compared to 40. Maybe there is some
specification somewhere on how the curve is supposed to be implemented, but
I'm not aware of any such thing.

Kamm

Kamm Schreiner wrote:

> Yes. I suspect that it is completely up to the MIDI device as to how to
> react to a volume setting of 30 as compared to 40. Maybe there is some
> specification somewhere on how the curve is supposed to be implemented, but
> I'm not aware of any such thing.
> 
> Kamm
> 

I think Kamm's right in that its left up to the specific device to 
define its curve.. I remember the old Alesis SR-16 I had (yeah its old 
cause I spent almost $500 on it when it was new hehe), had 3 seperate 
velocity settings to choose from... Havent seen anything like that on 
too many synths though, or maybe Im not digging through the menus enough..



-- 
Chris

http://www.descentrecords.com

On Feb 1, 2005, at 6:52 AM, GAmoore@... wrote:

> How does the loudness of a note relate to the midi velocity? (Assuming 
> the playback of a single sample).  I can notice a lot more difference 
> with the velocity 127 to 117 than I can 40 to 30. It seems to be an 
> exponential relationship (like level = 2^(Midi_Velocity/32)).
>
>  I have some drum hits on my kurzweil which sound different when I 
> sample them and play them in Battery. Maybe each device is different.
>

Each device is different.

BTW I guess you are talking about the EXS here how is this thing set:

Sorry guys,

I'm sorry to start another rant. And I swear I'm not going to follow 
up, but I just had to say it somewhere.

For me, Logic 7 totally sucked the fun out of composing and 
producing. It is so sad and I truly wish I could give it back and get 
my 300 dollars and go on a weekend vacation instead.

If any of you know of a way to do that, let me know.

Hardly any cheers anymore
Hans

:(

On Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at 07:00 AM, Hans Hafner wrote:

>
> Sorry guys,
>
> I'm sorry to start another rant. And I swear I'm not going to follow
> up, but I just had to say it somewhere.
>
> For me, Logic 7 totally sucked the fun out of composing and
> producing. It is so sad and I truly wish I could give it back and get
> my 300 dollars and go on a weekend vacation instead.

Are there specific problems that you are having with L7 that we might 
be able to assist you with?

Eddie
IMS

>
> If any of you know of a way to do that, let me know.
>
> Hardly any cheers anymore
> Hans
>
> :(
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

At 10:29 Uhr -0500 01.02.2005, Eddie Sullivan wrote:
>Are there specific problems that you are having with L7 that we might
>be able to assist you with?

Yes and I talked about those so many times, I 
really don't want to hear the same suggestions 
anymore. I know this sounds bad, but if I read 
one more time to trash my prefs after having just 
rebuild them (huge pain, some of the options 
aren't there, some keycommands are double 
assigned after trashing and reimporting, some 
options I can't even set in Logic 7 have to do so 
in 6)

- matrix not responding correctly to "zoom to fit locators"
- floating windows sometimes (no pattern) 
accepting text and passing it along to the 
arrange page
- save dialog box not accepting the enter key
- clicks responding too late and as a result drag regions or tracks around
- clicks and pops on playback with 15 percent 
load (Bösendorfer 290 Piano and VSL strings)
- double assigned key commands (how can this happen?)
- open recent constantly being screwed up, what an amateur problem!
- instrument _selection_ box taking ages to appear (4 seconds!)
- small cycles (1 beat or less) only play back a 
couple of times then the audio stops
- sometimes double clicking in the matrix doesn't 
make _all_ regions appear in that window (no 
pattern here either)
- export all tracks as audio doesn't use the 
track objects name rendering the function almost 
useless
- OMF doesn't work correctly (which could solve the above problem)
- no overlap doesn't work when editing groups
- fades aren't applied to edit groups
- the edit line doesn't go past the global tracks
- global tracks selections and regular arrange 
selections do not cancel each other out resulting 
in deleted things that weren't supposed to be 
deleted.
- changing of start points / anchor points in the sample editor is not undoable
- aliases don't work correctly (I think they 
never have, but I haven't been around long 
enough, but one of the producers who works with 
Logic since about 91 and produced a couple of 
gold records I work for told me that he stopped 
using them after realizing that edits don't get 
reflected in the child)

these are all things that bother me every second 
of the day and took the fun out of composing with 
Logic and that I didn't even have to look up in 
that feedback document that we created over on 
the LUG

Maybe I do have to go back to paper and pencil.

Thanks for the effort, however, I don't think I 
can be helped. I'm doing support myself for 
several producers and engineers, they call me if 
they have questions. I setup environments for 
them. I manage their machines (they're all on 
Lopic 6 due to my advise BTW, that's at least $ 
1500 Apple is not getting from these guys).

No offense I've had it with this version and I 
feel I've been screwed and would like to give it 
back and just use Logic 6 until there is another 
version that is actually worth it's money. Not to 
say that most of the problems aren't there in 6, 
but at least 6 is more responsive and makes it 
somewhat reasonable to get something done.

Hans

At 10:29 Uhr -0500 01.02.2005, Eddie Sullivan wrote:
>Are there specific problems that you are having with L7 that we might
>be able to assist you with?

- Track automation not being moved correctly when dragging regions. 
There is another thread on this on Sonikmatter, but I don't feel like 
pasting that text in here again.

Hans

At 10:29 Uhr -0500 01.02.2005, Eddie Sullivan wrote:
>Are there specific problems that you are having with L7 that we might
>be able to assist you with?

Stopping playback with a 95% CPU load takes about 15 seconds (I just 
turn down the mixer and walk around the room, guess that's healthy, 
but it does greatly interrupt the composition process)

Hans

At 10:29 Uhr -0500 01.02.2005, Eddie Sullivan wrote:
>Are there specific problems that you are having with L7 that we might
>be able to assist you with?

Deleting of tracks with a 30% CPU load takes about 3 seconds.

I really think I should be able to give back this update since it 
isn't worth the money or they should have clearly said: do not use it 
on a PB, it's not strong enough. I'm probably to blame... but it is 
sooooo frustrating...

Hans

> Yes and I talked about those so many times, I really don't 
> want to hear the same suggestions anymore. I know this sounds 
> bad, but if I read one more time to trash my prefs after 
> having just rebuild them (huge pain, some of the options 
> aren't there, some keycommands are double assigned after 
> trashing and reimporting, some options I can't even set in 
> Logic 7 have to do so in 6)

I'm terribly sorry your experience has been so bad. However, it does sound
like you are permanently disillusioned with Logic at this point. You may
want to consider Cubase SX3. You can buy it at a competitive upgrade price
of about $300 and it will run on either Mac or Windows. Although I prefer
Logic, I do find Cubase a very close 2nd.

Kamm

> I am going to buy a G5 too. I have too many crashes with 
> everything despite my best efforts.

What G5 do you plan on buying and in what configuration?

Kamm

> > I am going to buy a G5 too. I have too many crashes with
> > everything despite my best efforts.
> 
> What G5 do you plan on buying and in what configuration?
> 

I actually thought about it quite hard but I think the dual 1.8 is the way to 
go. Macworld had an article (which you can find online) which compared them, 
and the dual 2.0 is 9% faster overall, and the 2.5 is only 12% faster on many 
of the tasks despite a 50% increase in price (compared to the 1.8 dual). 

But their benchmarks don't include audio. I made my own index which is CPU 
speed X Bus speed.
1.8 x   900   = 1620
2.0 x 1000   = 2000
2.5 x 1.25   = 3125

Based on that the dual 2.5 is almost 100% faster for only 50% more money. But 
its a lot of extra money. And the dual 1.8 is a significant improvement 
already so the extra $900 might be better spent on waiting for the G6 next year.

GAmoore@... <GAmoore@...> wrote:
: 
: But their benchmarks don't include audio. I made my own index which is CPU 
: speed X Bus speed.
: 1.8 x   900   = 1620
: 2.0 x 1000   = 2000
: 2.5 x 1.25   = 3125
: 
: Based on that the dual 2.5 is almost 100% faster for only 50% more money. But 
: its a lot of extra money. And the dual 1.8 is a significant improvement 
: already so the extra $900 might be better spent on waiting for the G6 next year.

I don't think that this is a good model. Unfortunately, bus speed does not
have a multiplicative effect on performance. Because the bus ratio is 2:1
on all of those machines, it should have a similar effect on processing in
all of those machines. After that, the similary memory and I/O performance
(which run at their own speeds independent of bus speed) between them
narrows the gap further.

-- 
 agreenbu @ nyx . net                             andrew michael greenburg

> But their benchmarks don't include audio. I made my own index 
> which is CPU speed X Bus speed.
> 1.8 x  900  = 1620
> 2.0 x 1000  = 2000
> 2.5 x 1.25  = 3125

Ultimately a single computer has a single bus. One CPU can't access RAM
while the other is accessing it. Having two CPUs will never double the speed
of the computer - as the real world tests you provided show. I am also
thinking of buying a G5 and if I do, it will either be the 20" iMac or the
1.8 Dual that you are thinking of buying. The iMac is a much better value
overall, for starters it includes a nice 20" LCD display and a larger hard
drive, but it is only expandable externally and that means PCI cards are out
and I can't put a second hard drive inside the case for backups or other
use. If they every come out with 10 Gigabit Ethernet, I'll be stuck with
just 1 Gigabit and so on. Who knows, they just might come out with FireWire
1600 too.

Although I really hate having cables all over my workspace, the difference
in cost is significant and this is only a hobby for me. If money weren't
such a factor, it would be the dual 1.8 without a flinch.

I also may wait for OS 10.4 to come out before I buy.

Kamm

Gregory,

Do you know of any performance comparisons that have been done between the
dual G5s and the iMac G5s?

Kamm

> I think they use an imac as a reference but maybe it was a g4 
> imac that was rated 100 points, then the dual 1.8 g5 was 
> about 192 and the dual 2.5 was 217 or so. You might to check 
> the bus speed on those imacs, and then see about a firewire 
> audio interface - and forget about a powercore or uaudio card. 

It appears that the single CPU 1.8 Power Mac has the same specs as the 20"
iMac. That makes it pretty easy to compare.

Kamm

At 13:03 Uhr -0500 01.02.2005, GAmoore@... wrote:
>Hans
>Why don't you put all of those bugs into a single list in the 
>Logic_Cafe files section for bug list. I had my own list of 40 
>things I was thinking of putting in there.

Yeah, but then... does anyone who develops really care?

>I think Logic has always allowed you to double define keycommands. 
>If you assign a key command to A, then assign another command to A, 
>it would warn you that it was a duplicate but I think it would go 
>ahead and allow it. Its unclear what happens when you press A now - 
>I think only one of the two will act. So to swap keycommands I would 
>define one to some temporary key like Control Command Escape, then 
>switch, then switch back.

Well, this is the thing, when I trash prefs and import the old ones 
it doesn't _overwrite_ the assignements it _modifies_ it... so some 
of them are there twice. Yes I can do it by hand, yes, I know how to 
get my work done, yes I know 95% of the workarounds out there, I'm 
just sick of them after thousands of dollars. I'm just sick, can you 
understand that? Logic by now has taken the fun out of composing and 
arranging, which is my education and life, do the developers care? 
Are they even interested? Not anymore! I'm paying _their_ bread and 
that's why I'm mad.

I know you guys are good guys, we just have to make sure that the 
developers know who they're working for, and yes, nobody likes to be 
told that but I'm also told on every job and if I don't deliver, I'm 
replaced....

However, I have about 300 songs and sketches in Logic so this 
investment really has influence on my work, my ideas and my life and 
that's why I think it should be the best it can be which at the 
moment Logic 7 is not, it was taking 3 steps back. And that's why 
it's also a really tough decision to just switch platforms all of a 
sudden...

Hans

>>
>
> Yeah, but then... does anyone who develops really care?
I hope they do, for their own good. If they wouldn't I think that by 
now we would not be here, we'd be on the other lists, and the 
developers would be back in frigid Hamburg instead of sunny California.
>>
>
> I know you guys are good guys, we just have to make sure that the
> developers know who they're working for, and yes, nobody likes to be
> told that but I'm also told on every job and if I don't deliver, I'm
> replaced....
I know how you feel on this one.
I also use Logic as my main bread and butter, and if projects are not 
on the clients desk before deadline, not only will I sweat the phone 
call from them, but also the electric, salaries, rent....on and on. It 
just has to work, and for me it does (for the most part)
>
> However, I have about 300 songs and sketches in Logic so this
> investment really has influence on my work, my ideas and my life and
> that's why I think it should be the best it can be which at the
> moment Logic 7 is not, it was taking 3 steps back. And that's why
> it's also a really tough decision to just switch platforms all of a
> sudden...
IMHO the other ones are not that better, really. Other guys who 
invested on the "other" sequencing software have these issues too, 
different issues but none the less issues. may be the way the software 
is laid out which makes you do things another way (if not the longer 
way), their hardware issues, slow bug fixing, incompatibility with the 
world out there...etc.
I feel you pain man, I too have invested many $$$ and sweat, but I know 
what I can do with this monster, and its pretty cool.
Ciao
Gio

On Feb 2, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Hans Hafner wrote:

> At 13:03 Uhr -0500 01.02.2005, GAmoore@... wrote:
>  >Hans
>  >Why don't you put all of those bugs into a single list in the
>  >Logic_Cafe files section for bug list. I had my own list of 40
>  >things I was thinking of putting in there.
>
>  Yeah, but then... does anyone who develops really care?
>
>  >I think Logic has always allowed you to double define keycommands.
>  >If you assign a key command to A, then assign another command to A,
>  >it would warn you that it was a duplicate but I think it would go
>  >ahead and allow it. Its unclear what happens when you press A now -
>  >I think only one of the two will act. So to swap keycommands I would
>  >define one to some temporary key like Control Command Escape, then
>  >switch, then switch back.
>
>  Well, this is the thing, when I trash prefs and import the old ones
>  it doesn't _overwrite_ the assignements it _modifies_ it... so some
>  of them are there twice. Yes I can do it by hand, yes, I know how to
>  get my work done, yes I know 95% of the workarounds out there, I'm
>  just sick of them after thousands of dollars.

If you trash the prefs and and the prefs of other devices and it does 
not effect the problem then there is probably not much point in 
repeating the exercise.

OTOH if you trash the prefs and find it does help the problem but fear 
they will become corrupted again the thing to do is: after you have 
rebuilt them but before they become corrupt you should safe the prefs 
in the "golden" state in a folder named "logic pro good prefs" and put 
it in your applications folder so that you can always find it when you 
need it.  You should also put copies of other prefs relating to 
operation of your computer when you work with logic in there as well.

> I'm just sick, can you understand that?

No, not yet,  maybe if you turn on the caps lock and say it two or 
three more times....


> Logic by now has taken the fun out of composing and arranging,

If a few bugs in a sequencer can do that sounds like your emotional 
connection to your craft is pretty frail.

> which is my education and life, do the developers care?  Are they even 
> interested?

Not if you put it that way they won't be.

> Not anymore! I'm paying _their_ bread and that's why I'm mad. I know 
> you guys are good guys, we just have to make sure that the developers 
> know who they're working for,

I guess they must be working for me and not you because I am pretty 
happy in general with the direction things are going and I would not 
even be unhappy if I thought 7.0.1 was a destination, though I am quite 
sure it isn't.

I don't think replacing the prefs will help you.  I don't think going 
to another program will help (you will likely have just as many 
problems with any of the others).  Getting a more powerful CPU might 
help you some, you do say after all that this is your profession, so if 
that is the case getting a more powerful tower based system seems like 
a sensible move and a worthy investment.   You are after all talking 
about your livelihood.  Stabilizing your power sources might help but 
again not guaranteed.

I have checked out several of the bugs you mention and could not 
reproduce them.  So I don't think there is really even anything Apple 
can do about a lot of the stuff you are complaining about.   I know you 
don't think that is useful information but it actually is since it 
tells you that not everyone is having the problem which would indicate 
the conflict is somewhere in your system.

I have also seen you referring to a documented feature that has been a 
part of the logic paradigm for 13 years as a bug, and while I agree 
that the implementation is not what I would consider to be ideal I 
understand how quantize works and have no big problems with it  because 
I RTFM.

> and yes, nobody likes to be told that but I'm also told on every job 
> and if I don't deliver, I'm replaced....

Nobody ever tells me that.  I'm glad I don't work with the people you 
do.  The people I work with generally respect and appreciate my talents 
as I do theirs, so they also are willing to work with me to get around 
whatever limitations I may have, just as I try to do with theirs.  
There are sometimes on rare occasions people I encounter in my work who 
need to express their displeasure with the general state of affairs and 
to demonstrate who is boss at every juncture.  But they are the 
exceptions not the rules.   The reason they are rare at the level of 
the business that I operate at is I guess because that attitude is a 
liability not an asset, sooner or later it will fuck its owner out of 
enough business that he will either wise up or he will fail unless he 
is one of the very very few that is super-humanly talented enough to 
overcome the fact that everyone around him thinks he is a complete 
dickhead. Why?  Because it interferes with the ability of the people 
one is working with to concentrate and their will to even try to do 
what they feel is their best since they know they will be reprimanded 
for taking any initiative.  Instead they go into robot mode and start 
doing and thinking the minimum and just concentrate on getting through 
with the session.

> However, I have about 300 songs and sketches in Logic so this 
> investment really has influence on my work, my ideas and my life and 
> that's why I think it should be the best it can be which at the moment 
> Logic 7 is not, it was taking 3 steps back.

Not here as near as I can tell it is leaps ahead.

> And that's why it's also a really tough decision to just switch 
> platforms all of a sudden...

Go for it.

> I'm no expert but I am not so sure about this. What if one 
> CPU grabs some data from RAM then processes it on the next 
> clock cycle while the 2nd CPU accesses the RAM?

That's not at the same time though, is it? It's just close to the same time.

> I don't know 
> how Logic implements dual processors now - but before it used 
> to be that one CPU handled the MIDI and the user interface 
> and graphics and the other did Audio I think. So one 
> processor might be talking to the graphics buss while the 
> other is ram processing.

I have no idea of how this would be split up in Logic.

> In the case of a photoshop filter, if the task is divided 
> half for each processor, it can be pretty close to twice as 
> fast. That "parallel processing" - which we will be seeing 
> more and more. In fact one of the Apple rumor sites says that 
> there is a dual core G4 coming out soon. 

The Apple website shows the single CPU 1.8 being 20% faster than baseline
and the Dual CPU being 66% faster than baseline. That isn't even close to
doubling the speed over the single CPU version and it never will be. And you
have to take into account that the dual CPU model has a faster front side
bus [900 compared to 600] so how much of that speed increase is due to the
increased bus speed?

The data is coming from one hard drive, that hard drive is connected to a
single PCI bus (correct me if I'm wrong) that can only be accessed by one
CPU or the other. Even if both CPUs could access it at the same time, it
could only respond to one at a time (unless they were both requesting the
exact same data). The same is true of Ethernet, Audio cards, video cards and
so on. Getting the data is a big bottle neck. Hard drives are performance
dogs compared to RAM. Then you have the video display. Again, there is only
one bus connected to that card.

The only time you can possibly get close to a true doubling of speed is when
both the code and the data are small enough to fit into the CPU's memory
cache. (As far as I know.)

> That is not clear. The imac is single processor isn't it? 
> Isn't the bus speed slower? No digital audio in/out.

The CPU speed and bus speed of the 20" iMac is the same as the single CPU
1.8 PowerMac. The iMac has digital out, but only analog in. The PowerMac has
Dolby 5.1 digital out and I *think* the iMac is only stereo. That makes it
fairly easy to compare the iMac's CPU performance to the PowerMacs.

> No powercore, no scsi, no graphics board upgrade, the lack of 
> upgradability means you need to replace it sooner. Apple 
> usually hobbles these in various ways.

Yes, to all of the above. That's were I have to decide if it is worth an
extra $1000 to get the PowerMac because it costs $999 to get that 20"
display. If I put that $999 in the money market, I might have enough money
to buy another Mac in a couple of years or I could spend it on a really nice
I/O device. Right now all I have is a TASCAM US-122. Which has only two
inputs and two outputs.

> The joy of being a modern musician. I got some of those hooks 
> you hang over the door to hang shirts, and use them to hold 
> cables without being tightly coiled. I also went to the 
> hardware store got some of those plastic ties to bundle cables.

LOL! I don't have the hooks, but I have the plastic ties. ;)

Kamm

> It was me who said I might get the G5 - but not only for the 
> greater amount of power - with the hope that the newer 
> hardware is somehow more compatible with the software. I have 
> a G4/400 with a sonnet 1.2ghz upgrade board, extra RAM, a 
> Radeon 9000 graphics board, etc. I have all sorts of things 
> crash at times - more than just logic - so I was taking your 
> (Dennis's) system as an inspiration. 

I have an older 17" iMac (800MHz). I consider it a dog in the performance
department. Ridiculously slow bus speeds and hard drive. I'm not sure what
the bus speed is of your computer, but probably even slower than mine. Same
with the hard drive unless you've upgraded it. I'm only a hobbyist and would
never put up with the performance I'm getting on my iMac if it were a
business I made money from. I hope I'm remembering correctly, but I seem to
recall this is a business endeavor for you. Correct?

The one positive thing I can say about my setup is that it is mostly crash
free, but not completely.

Kamm

> My bus speed is 150 mhz - which was quite impressive coming 
> from a Mac 7500 with 50 mhz. So 900 would be a 6x increase.

Although I've found Apple to be on the leading edge of creativity, until the
G5s, they (to me) have always lagged behind PCs in hardware speed. The G5s
change that and may even reverse it to some degree. They are truly on the
bleeding edge of technology.

> I did upgrade, but hard disks have not increased as quickly.

Don't be so sure. I think my iMac has a UATA 66 HD and the new Serial ATA
drives operate 2.27 times faster. Not quite the 6x difference in bus speed,
but still very significant. (That does not consider rotational latency or
seek times.) If your HD is UATA 33, then the speed increase is 4.55 which is
almost identical to the bus speed increase. Either way you're probably going
to see a huge performance increases with any G5 that Apple sells.

If yours came with a SCSI hard drive, I have no idea of what the performance
difference might be. 

> Not me. The other guy. I have an actual job, and so I put 
> aside a few hours to work on Logic, and then when I spend the 
> whole time dealing with crashes, its a bit frustrating. But 
> at least I don't depend on it to pay the bills. 

Sounds like we are in the same boat except that mine is floating and yours
has a hole in the bottom and you have to keep bailing water out. Not fun. :(

Kamm

> Apples were way ahead in both nominal CPU speed and actual 
> processing ability for years. The motorola chips started 
> slipping behind the intel chips, although the claim was made 
> that the motorola was more efficient and that in real world 
> terms the apple was still faster. However, the intels/amds 
> have continued to race ahead. I suspect that the fastest 
> intel chips are faster in real terms as well. But I read an 
> article which compared top speed set ups on both platforms 
> and i was surprised to see that i was actually cheaper for 
> the mac, becuase to get the top speed and all the parts for 
> the pc was more.

Well, I certainly haven't done a lot of research on this. I can say that my
iMac, which was top of the line at the time I bought it, paled in comparison
to my older and less expensive PC. It didn't use the fastest IDE hard drives
available and the bus speed is horrible. Even dirt cheap PCs at the time had
faster bus speeds. Was that true in earlier Apple history? I admit I don't
know.

> my conclusion is that they are in the same ball park, and the 
> difference in efficiency is less important than the ease of 
> use, learning curve, costs of conversion. 

Yes. I think we are in agreement there. Unfortunately, you can't know the
learning curve or ease of use until you've actually tried it. We usually
have to rely on our friends for that kind of assessment and it is usually
biased information. ;)

Kamm

From: GAmoore@...

>I actually thought about it quite hard but I think the dual 1.8 is the way to
>go.

But you have to be sure you're not going to want to install more than 
4GB of RAM, which is a fatal problem for what I'm doing (using large 
sample libs).

>Macworld had an article (which you can find online) which compared them,
>and the dual 2.0 is 9% faster overall, and the 2.5 is only 12% faster on many
>of the tasks despite a 50% increase in price (compared to the 1.8 dual).
>
>But their benchmarks don't include audio. I made my own index which is CPU
>speed X Bus speed.
>1.8 x   900   = 1620
>2.0 x 1000   = 2000
>2.5 x 1.25   = 3125
>
>Based on that the dual 2.5 is almost 100% faster for only 50% more money. But
>its a lot of extra money. And the dual 1.8 is a significant improvement
>already so the extra $900 might be better spent on waiting for the 
>G6 next year.

I have a feeling that's all false maths. :)
-- 

Nick Batzdorf
818/905-9101, cell 590-9101, fax 905-5434

On 2/1/05 1:48 PM, "GAmoore@..." <GAmoore@...> wrote:

> Do you know of any performance comparisons that have been done between the
> dual G5s and the iMac G5s?

There might be some good ones here:

http://www.barefeats.com/speedtests.html

--
Thanks - RevDave
CoolCat@...
[db-lists]