MOTUnation.com

boonier wrote: Incidently, why does DP use MAS? I never understood the relevance of running an extra layer on top of Core Audio. If core audio is the holy grail of system level audio integration, why did Motu choose not to adopt this when they went to OSX? Au plugins even run in a MAS wrapper.

It seems obvious to me why Logic wins over DP cpu wise - Its using CoreAudio as its audio driver!

It's a fair question-- which begs the question of why we're still dealing with DAE, RTAS, VST, etc. Everyone wanted their own engine format-- as with samplers, companies pushed to have their formats become the next "standard", but it never quite turned out that way. Instead, software is released with 4 or more versions on one disc, letting you choose which would work-- and that includes AU.

Understood-- DP defaults to MAS. It even skips the AU Exam for it's own VI's even when they've been installed. If you want to use the AU version of MachFive, you have to use a different app.

MAS is just part of the longstanding code, for good or ill. It's probably more trouble to remove it than to keep buffing it. But I doubt HDTM, RTAS, VST or other proprietary audio engine formats are going to go anyway too quickly, especially if PC world needs them.

Honestly, AU is only now feeling a lot better, and if DAW makers in general were to ever make AU the universal norm, the unique respective audio format engines they spent so many years developing will not go away quietly if they were ever to go away at all.

The most puzzling thing is that DP is Mac-only. MAS does appear to be the glass wall of sorts between the OS and the app.: transparent but rather peripheral.

-- Are OSX and AU increasingly making a denizen of DP/MAS?

-- Just how much fat will be trimmed with the Intel-native rewrite?

-- Will Miss Pellings keep her baby?

duh-duh-DUUUUUUUH
<dramatic chords>

Catfishmusic and Timeline may be the first ones to tell us these and other developments. I may have to TiVO this thread so not to miss anything.

sorry Frodo i should have said - i just deleted my post from this thread and started a new one. sorry for any confusion..

i'll copy your reply into the new thread.

I think, at this point, Miss Pellings absolutely MUST keep her baby for the sake of all of us.

Frodo wrote:

boonier wrote: Incidently, why does DP use MAS? I never understood the relevance of running an extra layer on top of Core Audio. If core audio is the holy grail of system level audio integration, why did Motu choose not to adopt this when they went to OSX? Au plugins even run in a MAS wrapper.

It seems obvious to me why Logic wins over DP cpu wise - Its using CoreAudio as its audio driver!

It's a fair question-- <snip>MAS does appear to be the glass wall of sorts between the OS and the app.: transparent but rather peripheral.

-- Are OSX and AU increasingly making a denizen of DP/MAS?

-- Just how much fat will be trimmed with the Intel-native rewrite?

-- Will Miss Pellings keep her baby?

duh-duh-DUUUUUUUH
<dramatic chords>

Catfishmusic and Timeline may be the first ones to tell us these and other developments. I may have to TiVO this thread so not to miss anything.

there's a difference between "audio engine" and driver...the endgame of core audio is simply wide availability of class-compliant drivers so you don't have to screw around with asio and the like anymore. AU is simply a more universal mac format for plugins...plain and simple. this is INCREDIBLE foresight/good thinking on apple's part. BUILD THE NECESSARY STANDARDS DIRECTLY INTO THE OS it's great for software dev, and the users.

dp uses MAS for the same reason steinberg uses VST, pt uses HDTM, reason has it's own engine, etc. it's their mix engine. logic has its own as well. insofar as efficiency, i'm sure logic's engine is more efficient simply because it interfaces with the au standard better. in the end, core audio/au are still peripheral if still vital to the mix engine itself.
i'd suspect "optimization" or removal of mas (or at least some of it's tendrils where they're not necessary) would be a pretty serious undertaking, that i just wouldn't expect to see anytime soon.
otoh, motu's drivers are a wonderful example of mas' benefit realized. they interact with mas is like nothing else can, because they're written specifically to do so. so mas can certainly have a pronounced positive effect...beyond great sound and unbelievable routing flexiblity. it'd be great if mas interfaced that well with au and the now "stock" core technologies that apple's provided with osx...my guess is that's where the optimization's really needed.

kell

I would love to see MOTU drop MAS if they could do so without loss of functionality or accuracy. Imagine how fast it would be. It would just fly through audio functions. At least... that's how it seems to me. I probably know nothing about it, so... don't mind me. But I do find it odd that even Logic has its own proprietary engine. I thought for sure it would go Core. Maybe Core Audio offers only a very limited set of functions. Somehow I don't think that's correct, but... I sure as heck can't figure out why even Logic doesn't use Core Audio.


Shooshie

core is a standardized protocol for os x that basically allows software authors to take advantage of lower latencies, etc that are now NATIVE to the OS. so, they no longer have to write stuff like ASIO or their own weird proprietary in/out protocols. all they have to do is conform to the core standard. it also provides a single, os-wide plugin architecture to boot.
so, simply put, core just presents the spec and transport/language for the osx audio system. au is just a blueprint for how audio is to be processed in order to adehere to the core standard. this way, the same audio sources and effects plugins can also be used in ANY core-supported app on the system. it's an amazing standardization of the platform for audio on ALL levels.
core, however, does not process audio directly. so it's just not a mixing engine to be used by any daw that comes along...at least that's my understanding. it does the delivery, but cannot process (i.e. mix) in and of itself.


so, with core audio's purpose of eliminating proprietary i/o protocols (ASIO/MAS) by offering a better, standard way of doing it built right into the OS, the tricky part is that MAS is probably so engrained in DP that i couldn't imagine it being anything less than traumatic to remove it, even though it's obsoleted by osx itself.
with apple pushing the au standard, and most software following suit with support (including DP), i'm not sure why people write for MAS at all anymore. some, in fact quit doing so with the arrival of osx...

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreaudio/

kelldammit wrote:there's a difference between "audio engine" and driver...the endgame of core audio is simply wide availability of class-compliant drivers so you don't have to screw around with asio and the like anymore. AU is simply a more universal mac format for plugins...plain and simple. this is INCREDIBLE foresight/good thinking on apple's part. BUILD THE NECESSARY STANDARDS DIRECTLY INTO THE OS it's great for software dev, and the users.

...... it'd be great if mas interfaced that well with au and the now "stock" core technologies that apple's provided with osx...my guess is that's where the optimization's really needed.

kell

Hey kell, thanks for the English version! What you said.

I suppose this dicsussion wouldn't be so important if everything were really working a bit better. It's so true that when we're looking at the CPU performance meter and comparing it to what's going on in Activity Viewer that we are often at odds to determine what we're really seeing when it doesn't jibe with what we're experiencing.

It does feel as though the audio performance structures feel more like "splintered" patch protocols dying a very slow death under a relatviely new OS audio core rather than the different protocols feeling like the tightly orbiting sattelites we'd like them to be.

In that light, my projects tend to feel splintered as I load VI's and sequence in smaller bits and pieces just to keep things running smoothly. Even with less demanding modest projects-- 8 audio, 6-7 VIs, etc. -- the CPU will do the oddest things at times which I just don't understand.

This brings me to another point-- the more I learn about OSX, the less I know. So much of the info users need to deal with semi-basic fixes and optimizations remains such a secret beyond the basics. Even the information feels splintered. For example, there's more mission-critical information about the installation of DP 5.1 here on this forum than there is in MOTU's PDFs. It's clear that something is "just supposed to work" but it doesn't.

In that light, for as hopeful as I am about the Intels and Leopard, I must stop short of believing that we'll be entirely free of some of these concerns. I'd rather brace myself for a different set of issues than to let my guard down.

With these hands-off installers, it's always the case that the 'thingamabooby' file didn't make it into the 'doo-hickey' folder as it should have, and that the 'whatchmacallit' file wasn't updated at all as we were told it would be. Then you learn that you have to go into the Terminal to type some code and then tell it to 'execute', at which time the computer makes you eat the business end of a shotgun. I never liked the words 'terminal' or 'execute'...

I have a more sophisticated involvement and understanding of OSX than that, but you get my point.

Frodo wrote:With these hands-off installers, it's always the case that the 'thingamabooby' file didn't make it into the 'doo-hickey' folder as it should have, and that the 'whatchmacallit' file wasn't updated at all as we were told it would be..

The monkey's still on a typewriter, so he's a little out of his depth...

Just on this one, though, I've found Pacifist and unpkg (both freeware or close to it), can open almost any package between them.
All files in my limited experience appear nested in the appropriate folders.
If, to quote a trusted hobbit, the "'thingamabooby' file didn't make it into the 'doo-hickey' folder as it should have", then you know who's fault it is!
It's only one little aspect of your point, Frodo, but at least we can have control here...

Does logic have tempo adjusting features as comprehensive and easy to use as DP? For example adjust beats can realtively easily write tempos bar by bar or beat by beat to correspond to a fluctuating tempo performance- frequently by visual aligning bars (with adjust beats on) to visible transients in a waveform display. Can other DAW's do this (PT doesn't seem to- it's a multistep process for each tempo change)?

And then DP allows one to Quantize a legato performance (perhaps on another track) by writing the conducter tracks tempo map to the audio file (1 step) then, make a corrected tempo (1 or more steps) then in a third step "adjust soundbyte to conductor track". Voila, you have an audio track with a new tempo map (quantizing/evening out tempo fluctuations, or even creating an audio track ritardando or accelerando where one didn't exist before). Pro Tools Beat Detective might create gaps or overlaps that can't always be succesfully dealy with using the "smooth" function. This DP feature is good for trying composition ideas with audio tracks, and sometimes the quality is good enough to use for the final track. I don't think other DAW's can timeshift multiple new tempo changes in a single step like that.

re: DP in DAE mode with PT Hardware- lot's of advantages, but (at least with DP 4.6) slow open and close times and sluggish, sometimes unstable performance- moreso with big (over 30 or 40 audio tracks) sessions than moderate sessions. Is DP 5 significantly better? Can DP5 be used in DAE mode with PT 6.9? Because for not yet "optimized" RTAS plugins it is quite possible performance with be lesser with PT 7 than with PT 6.9 because some people have had to turn off dual processor mode in PT7 to use nonoptimized RTAS instruments- wheras in 6.9 both processors could be used. AFAIK most Native instruments and Sprectrasonics Instruments are not yet "PT7 optimized" - which is different than "compatible".

Yes, Logic can do these things. Sometimes it is better than DP, sometimes not so much. For instance, here is a description of their Automatic tempo matching function:

Automatic Tempo Matching

Logic offers an automatic function that matches the length of a free-form musical passage with the length of an audio Region. The length of the Region remains constant, but the sequencer tempo is varied automatically, with the Region and musical passage ending up exactly the same length.

To illustrate the use of this function, we••™ll use a one-bar drum loop as an example:

Imagine you••™ve recorded a drum loop live, or imported it from a sampling CD. You••™ve used the Audio window and Sample Editor to adjust the start and endpoints of the audio Region, ensuring that the loop cycles perfectly, without any glitches.

Now, drag the drum loop into the Arrange window, where it appears as a Region. Make sure that you place the front (left) edge of the Region at the start of a bar.

Construct a Cycle in the Arrange window Bar Ruler. Set the length to match the intended musical length of the Region. The drum loop is one bar long, so you should set a Cycle length of one bar, to match.

Once the Cycle is set to the desired musical length in the Bar Ruler, you••™ll note that the current length of the Region will be different to that of the Cycle.

Select Options > Tempo > Adjust Tempo using Region Length and Locators. The default key command is ••œT••

Rush909 wrote:

dougieb wrote:

Rush909 wrote: WRONG! For DP users... logic is just a HUGE PITA to use... man you can't even click on a soundbite and listen to it like you can in DP (click and hold)... in logic you still have to solo that track and hit play then unsolo the track... silly... silly... oh one more... silly..

(LOL) Like I said... Logic is only one sedrious GUI upgrade from squishing DP. (GUI = Graphical User Interface)

dude... that was just a repeat of your initial post, except for the spelling mistakes (sedrious = serious).

Oh Wow - Dude! Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, for those of you who couldn't figure out that by "sedrious", I actually meant to write "serious", I sincerely apologize. I know that the d is right next to the "e" and "r", so perhaps maybe it was a typo - or maybe I don't know how to spell? If I just commit harikari and have my possessions sent to your house, would that appease you "dude?" Please rescind my MENSA membership immediately!

AND - (for the cheap seats) I stated that they were one GUI upgrade from squishing DP - this was countered by someone saying, "No way - the interface in Logic is terrible" - to which I pointed out that this was the entire point I was making in the first place, so yes I repeated it - and now I'm repeating it again as it still doesn't seem apparent enough to some.

Here's the deal... if you took the UI (or a simbilance of the UI) of DP and put it on top of Logic's back end, you would have a serious contender to kick DP's ass.

Now, the argument that "oh the UI takes a lot of the processing" - well if it does, then the programmer should be shot. We were flying 200 asteroids around on an Apple II long before dedicated graphics cards and multi core Ghz processors. I'm seeing 100+ FPS of 1280x768 full motion 3d rendering on Unreal and the like, so I'm sorry... a 2D interface of ANY complexity has NO EXCUSE for being the logjam.

Logic's UI team I'm convinced has a dartboard with all of the Logic menus on it - when they add a feature, they have a monkey throw a dart to determine which menu it will go under and what technicolor label it will have.

AND... there is an AWESOME searchable .pdf of the manual - how about that? That alone would ruin 1/2 the threads on this board.

AND - (for the cheap seats) I stated that they were one GUI upgrade from squishing DP - this was countered by someone saying, "No way - the interface in Logic is terrible" - to which I pointed out that this was the entire point I was making in the first place, so yes I repeated it - and now I'm repeating it again as it still doesn't seem apparent enough to some.

...and still not apparent enough to me.
I'd again say it's alot farther away then 1 upgrade.
I wish a real programmer would join this discussion.
Someone from Motu?..who really new what they where
talking about as opposed to half guesses.

Now, the argument that "oh the UI takes a lot of the processing" - well if it does, then the programmer should be shot. We were flying 200 asteroids around on an Apple II long before dedicated graphics cards and multi core Ghz processors. I'm seeing 100+ FPS of 1280x768 full motion 3d rendering on Unreal and the like, so I'm sorry... a 2D interface of ANY complexity has NO EXCUSE for being the logjam.

This is a good point. I think it would be nice to see a really slick user interface that took advantage of the Open GL processing in todays graphics cards. This would shift a lot of processing load away from the CPU and allow for some really nice GUI animation. Plugin developers could make use of this as well.

PS: I also love Unreal.

dougieb wrote:AND - (for the cheap seats)

That's funny.

dougieb wrote:Logic's UI team I'm convinced has a dartboard with all of the Logic menus on it - when they add a feature, they have a monkey throw a dart to determine which menu it will go under and what technicolor label it will have.

------------ ------------

dougieb wrote:when they add a feature, they have a monkey throw a dart to determine which menu it will go under and what technicolor label it will have.

Are you implying something about monkeys?
Dang, all the animals, when they think "monkey", think "darts".
Talk about stereotyping.
I mean, we're good at lots of things, like... climbing trees and banana eating contests.

dougieb wrote:AND... there is an AWESOME searchable .pdf of the manual - how about that? That alone would ruin 1/2 the threads on this board.

Hard to argue with that.

sdfalk wrote:...and still not apparent enough to me.
I'd again say it's alot farther away then 1 upgrade.
I wish a real programmer would join this discussion.
Someone from Motu?..who really new what they where
talking about as opposed to half guesses.

Good ol' sdfalk; what a pro.
Thanks for the perspective.
Hyperbolic dreaming aint gonna get us anywhere.

I started on DP, switched to Logic for for 5 years and also use PT HD Accell. I love the work flow in Logic, however, as a producer I am going back to DP with DAE. When tracking to audio multiple aux tracks from multi out instances of VIs, you have to bounce each aux individually. There is no internal bussing like DAE or MAS provides. So I have gone back to a MOTU-DIGIDESIGN hybrid setup as a lot of my peers have. I compose and produce film score and records. If Logic had allowed me the ability to bus auxes internally to audio tracks , it would be way better than it is. In the end, for MIDI sequencing Logic and DP are by far the best. Pro Tools was designed for audio editing and production, only adding MIDI integration as an afterthought. However, for audio production, Pro Tools rocks!