Ok, today I was thinking about computer based music through years and my actual PC and MAC machines and I got some conclusions.
Now days, there is a one main thing: it's a CPU, RAM etc... If you look back, almost every day we have problems with plugs, DAW's etc... and every of these problems is related with
some parameters, CPU, HDD, RAM, IDE drivers and what else not!
Just, if we put Core30 CPU and run some of these things, still not work correctly. For the years I have this symptoms too,
so when I have:

* latest Intel PIV, I also run Cubase 3 and some early NI stuff like Absynth 3 and FM7 etc... FM8 and there is a problem with CPU
* latest Core2Duo, I run Live9 and now days plugs etc... there is a CPU problems

... and yes it's true, Maschine 2 or Diva or what else use one core probably just for graphics and GUI + database so how can't be problems

Look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8G6QWUT-4U

It's a Atari from 80's and guy showing some drum programming and synth programming and that works and sound great. What are the CPU performances of this ATARI !!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_ST

Listen this song RMB - Redemption (Rolf Maier Bode, see blog: http://www.rolfmaierbode.com/blog/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdq5LAMHuig

This song is writen on Atari completely, and still sound like now days music. It's absolutely great even if it's based on 16bit system.

I can't figure out, if things are worked on Atari, why it's not easier to work with Core2Duo or i7 etc...

It's funny but when you read about Diva synth and some who want's to run on i7 and 16Gb ram bla bla bla (machine from dreams) and still get crackling and pops

More of Atari...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldTWp2d4eDM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BhEaIfabHA

How we going to future thing's are more complex ...

If we put this Atari ST and his performances against today basic machine Quad difference is obvious.

ATARI ST
- CPU: Motorola 68000 16-/32-Bit CPU[43] @ 8 MHz. 16 bit data/32 bit internal/24-bit address.
- RAM: 512 kB or 1 MB

8 Mhz vs 4 or 8 core with 3Ghz or lot

This one is intresting too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDzG9n6FByM

intresting links:

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2005/06/best-platform-for-music-atari-st/
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2010/03/10/atari-ste/

Final conclusion:
Something is so bad here!

 

It's today like it was all the time.

The dedication and talent is what matters, equipment is always on second place

 

Well, but the Atari was used as a MIDI-controller. It had not to emulate analog gear, emulate samplers and so on.

I think, complexity is often the problem and it is useful to have computer knowledge. Or to buy a Mac.

I am really shure, you would not have any performance issues, if you would use a modern PC or Mac only for MIDI-controlling external equipment.

 

hello, nikon, hello, all,

the atari was, as freeldr77 already mentioned, used solely for midi sequencing, with monochrome graphics (if those were any to mention so), also please do not forget the healthy (or rather unhealthy) dose of daily system crashes (one changed the tiniest wee thing then felt compelled to click save project still before hitting the space bar), with notator, with cubase, was the same... *yes*

this here me still remembers his first hard disk drive, twenty megabytes, big box with its own power supply, hmmmmm... *yes*

those were, of course, very interesting times, in perhaps the most pioneering ways, but this here me never would go back there, with the knowing of the possibilities of our times... *yes*

programming all the sounds on synclavier, on fairlight, systems, with, through, the apple ii, was also very good to do, even if somewhat arduous as one's daily task item... *yes*

would not think anything is "so bad here"... always felt happy to live within our time segment... *yes*

being in the present helps... me wishes to all of you all the best of the best, plus then some...

 

I do not miss the 'simpler' days whatsoever. Real PIA to be honest and often a creativity killer. By the time you loaded up your sampler, setup your mixer, loaded your sequencer, tamed the hiss, the initial inspiration was long gone.

I think its incredible what you can get out of a basic PC nowadays and if your cpu is struggling then its time for an upgrade. If you only need midi sequencing then by all means treat yourself to an Atari.

 

I know purpose of Atari, I just made little comparsion.

8 mhz

 

I always think of computers as data routing,if you can keep the transfers
uninterrupted it will run with out glitches,,if it has to keep interfering
or transferring the data to different places or the cpu you run into problems
remember it needs to clear and reverse the entire highway ,if you can keep
this to a minimum the programs run smoothly,if you have various devices
all on the same highway,you need to block different off ramps, change
traffic direction,and deal with different traffic volumes ,,,this adds
time delays and operational performance problems

 

yes, in comparison with the operating systems of our present time, the atari, one could say, nearly had none... *yes*
user interface calls, operating system layers, in-out tasks, multi-tasking, security checks, can not really list what countless other things, are using up our dearest processing cycles... *yes*

well... wish to all of you better hardware with less problems but zillion times more processing capability...

 

That's right, we need light new OS in monochrome

Thanks to all for reading.

Look, nowdays problem is related first to GUI, I don't know why everybody invest into this part, I mean I know - it's because of comercial... if it looks nice sure is good too.

I have no problems at all if DAW look's like software from windows 3.1 if it has all functionality and if I feel comfortable when I using it.

This is acceptable for me



If doing a good job. And for sure use a less cpu power (use a cpu power for compressing) insted of something like this



when we occupied graphics power, cpu power and more cpu power for doing primary job - compressing.

This one in audacity is more primitive



And Audacity work flawless and use minimal cpu power. If company decide to make gorgeous looking product CPU will increase 30-40%.

Reaper's internal fx are created this way (REA).

 

We already have one, Unix Bash shell

Just kidding, there are 16 colours

Linux is probably the most resource effective OS ever made. *yes*

 

What Nikon said is a very important variable while making music with a computer. Too many developers are just focussed on making big and hardware like looking GUIs instead of focussing on sound and efficiency of their plugins. Just take a look at these Native Instruments plugins, for instance. They're 95% GUI and 5% sound and you load 10 of these in a project and your computer is begging for mercy. Then again you have Molot compressor, GUIless version, that you can load 100 instances of, get great sounding mix while using much less RAM and CPU. I am completely alright with a plugin that uses minimal resources, looks minimal, but sounds good. I've got and use loads of these because thankfully not all developers are cretins and there are loads of plugins like that for you to download. An interesting thing about GUIless or minimal GUI plugins is also that most of the time you can get them for free. They usually work better with automation, too, since they only use CPU for sound. One more thing about GUIless and minimal GUI plugins is that you can concentrate more on the sound and not look at the fancy looking knobs and screens.

Some people say they cannot work with a plugin that doesn't look nice. Well, I can bet these guys are the ones who also like fake tits and "silicon babes", and eat chemicals instead of food... also got anywhere from 20kg to 100kg too much weight on them to carry around at completely wrong places. Their whole life is an illusion and they're alright with it. I am, on the other hand, not alright with any of it at all, obviously, and I'm slim, healthy and looking 10 years younger, and my wife is slim and healthy, too, and no silicon anywhere, except for the contact lens that I use.

I used ATARI back in the day for MIDI and it was VERY stable. I used to work with Cubase for days without powering it off. I remember only a few occasions when Cubase crashed. However, it is so much more convenient to have it all in one place now and total recall. I'd never go back. The only problem I see is that operating systems and software are not as good, stable, and especially as efficient as they could be. That is a big problem with today's making music on a computer. We've got incredibly great and powerful hardware that runs crappy, inefficient and bloated OSes, with inefficient and bloated crappy software, made by crappy people, with some rare honourable exceptions who know how to deliver nice sounding and efficient software. It's also interesting to notice that this kind of software usually comes not from the US, but usually Europe and Russia.

What I would really like to see is boom in music making on Linux. Now that's an efficient OS to start with, but we need more great software for it.

Cheers!

 

That's what I'm talking about well done

 

SineWave
That's because when it comes to computers your best bet for getting programmers that know what they're doing is to call in the Russians. *yes*

 

Thanks for the trip down some memory lanes like learning to program on a Tandy and being amazed that the Amiga could do more than beep music.
Forgive my asking a rather self serving question and possibly diverting the thread, but based on some of the comments here is there a desire to have non-GUI versions of Kontakt 5 instruments?

 

That reminds me of today's Kontakt libs.

By default, my 1.86GHz C2D could play 1,800 24bit voices on instrument without GUI and scripting, at 15ms latency. (EWQL SO Platinum)

With simple true legato script, the number diminished slightly to 1,600 voices (Westgate woodwind legato)

With added scripting, that with all respect, adds nothing except convenience, it went down to 1,200 (Most Spitfire libs)

With eyecandy GUI and unnecessarily complex scripting and FX, which appear to not alter the sound at all, it goes down to 500 (Cinematic Strings 2)

Heavier CPU burden is added in form of convolution reverbs, chorus and phasers, that are active, only output is bypassed, 200 voices it is! (CineSamples)

More mic positions, multiple convolution reverbs, inefficient scripting and CPU-heavy GUI brought down our super strong 1.6GHz to 50 voices! (ProjectSAM Lumina)

50 Voices, and we started with 1,800 !!

Yes, we need to stop developing more powerful CPUs and rather try to improve effectiveness.
Windows 9 should be like 98, with 30-70MB RAM requirement at idle and the good ol' simple graphics we have been accustomed to since W95 and very small and tightly coded OS core. *yes*
Look at PS3, such a "weak" hardware, but capable of runnning latest games. *yes*

Wow I completely missed your post yet we ended up on the same topic.
Personally, I don't need eye-candy GUI with animation, and stuff, it's nice to look at, but some of us are more interested in making music, rather than watching the harp spin (Sonokinetic Arpeggio).

Simple GUI, composed of wallpaper and articulation switcher is more than enough for me. Something like Spitfire does in their libs, maybe slightly simplier. *yes*

 

On earlier post I said:

* Stainberg Grand 3Gb
* Steinberg Hypersonic 2 - 2Gb

and such great plugs and libs. Light on CPU.

Now I've must buy 2Tb hdd to enjoy and pleasure some kontakt stuff (Spitfire etc...)