analographi Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 So, since my system is all up and running I decided to do a direct practical comparison with steinberg cubase 4. What I did, I opened a new project, added an instrument track with a "spector" and a "multiband compressor" (both native cubase plugins). I set buffer size to 128, pressed play and duplicated the track till it started to stutter. see the table: Buffer - Mac OSx - WinXP 128 - 15 tracks - 13 Tracks 256 - 18 tracks - 16 tracks 1024 - 24 tracks - 21 tracks As for I'm a UAD owner (2 x PCIx DSP card) I tried the same with a 1176SE instead of the multiband comp. Buffer - Mac OSx - WinXP 128 - 29 tracks - 27 Tracks 256 - 37 tracks - 35 tracks 1024 - 48 tracks - 48 tracks no more UAD dsp, still no stuttering) I could add exactly as many UAD plugins on both systems. Thats just one system, but given the fact, that the used OSx 10.4.8 actually is not ment for that kind of system, this is really crazy and gives room for assumptions, that OSx makes better use of ressources. When it comes to harddisk speed I didn't test, but just from moving around files I can say, that OSx is much faster. it benchmarked my SATA-2 HD to 50MByte per second. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/48225-pro-audio-system-xp-osx-same-computer-practical-showdown/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
candykane Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 lol why do you think moost major sound studio's use macs? there great at sound esecialy sinds we use intel processors they handel sound data way better then the prev G5. remember your using a hackintosh what do you imagene what a mac pro can dish out? Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/48225-pro-audio-system-xp-osx-same-computer-practical-showdown/#findComment-345371 Share on other sites More sharing options...
analographi Posted April 12, 2007 Author Share Posted April 12, 2007 Actually that WAS the case, that all monster studios use macs... today it's not true anymore... mac was behind in speed with IBM too long before they went to intel.. Anyway, I came across this, which prooves the opposite... so I have no idea why my test came out like this: ------------------ sound and recording magazine in germany (one of the top mags over here) tested cubase 4.01 to check out boot camp and how DAWs ran under windows compared to mac osx on the same computer. they turned up some interesting results, to say the least. they used several different plug-ins to see how many voices or instances you could get on cubase 4 on xp and osx, and compared with logic and live. NI Massive voices (cosy case preset) cubase 4 on osx voices: 176 cubase 4 on xp voices: 180 live 6 on osx: 140 live 6 on xp: 174 logic 7 pro on osx: 140 Arturia Minimoog v voices (ce_softbrass preset) cubase 4 on osx: 92 cubase 4 on xp: 100 live 6 on osx: 80 live 6 on xp: 96 logic pro 7 on osx: 80 Guitar Rig Instances cubase 4 osx instances: 47 cubase 4 xp instances: 49 live 6 on osx: 41 live 6 on xp: 32 logic pro 7 instances: 49 their summary: "of the hosts we tested, cubase can run the most synth voices and vsti instances". test system was mac pro 2.6 (2x2.66 ghz dual core intel xeon) with 2gb ram and rme fireface 800/400. it's in issue 1/07, page 41 (in german, obviously). ------------------------- so its all relative now. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/48225-pro-audio-system-xp-osx-same-computer-practical-showdown/#findComment-345382 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts