Newbie Needs Advice!, software/hardware setup can't decide Options

[mook noodler]

Thanks manexmachina! I appreciate all the help I can get. Except it almost seems like the more info I get the more confused I am! Sure wish Logic had a demo, and PT had one I could use. The Cubase demo is pretty cool, but Sonar for PC is all I have to compare it to.

Sure would like to hear from a Logic fan!

[PlasTree]

To be quite honest, I chose DP because it was simply the most charming out of the bunch. I found it to be uniquely inviting to work with (I never once referred to the manual when learning it), and it just seemed to fit my sensibilities well. One of the most helpful features it has are context-sensitive balloon help dialogs, which describe almost every function on screen as you roll over them. I found Logic to be immediately offensive to my tastes, with the dark, PC-like graphics and obscure naming scheme (Hyperedit Mode, Environment, etc.). I tried it out for a day, got mostly nowhere, and never touched it again. Protools came across as solid, but a bit out-dated and lacking a few of the efficiencies that I've come to love about DP3, not to mention a lesser ease of use (for newcomers, anyway).

The point is, I can't possibly speak for everyone, because we all appreciate different qualities. You really should find a way to try out each of the programs that you're interested in before you buy, or when you buy, make sure there's a return policy.
I'm sure you could be equally capable with all three of the aforementioned programs, so it's just a matter of taste, really.

I, for one, refuse to work with a program that I find disagreeable, no matter how technically capable it is. Perhaps I'm more picky about interfaces than most, but I can't get over seemingly meaningless decision-making on the developer's part when it comes to such things. These are all subjective statements of course, and you Logic users out there need not take my comments personally. Whatever floats your boat...

[mook noodler]

PlasTree, thanks again. When you said you didn't even have to get out the manual to learn DP, that REALLY makes me want to check it out. I like the MOTU 828 too. So I've got one more question for you: I noticed that the 828 lacks a word clock, which comparable interfaces seem to have. Now, I don't wanna sound like a moron, but what is a word clock and will I ever need it? From what I gather it's for syncing multiple midi devices? I've been recording midi for a couple years and have never used a word clock (at least not that I know of), but I've never used more than one midi device at a time.

Thanks again to you and everyone else. I feel like I'm inching closer to a decision now. Just gotta find a way to test drive everything!

[manexmachina]

General note - i totally agree that DP wins the beautiful interface caegory - and seeming simpleness. I will add, however, that Cubase also is an app which needs little manual reading to comprehend. The DP usage of balloons is notably impressive however, and I'm wondering what they are doing in DP X since there are no help balloons anymore.

PlasTree - question for you would be - do YOU ever experience latency on your playing - are you using virtual instruments? MAS? A VST Wrapper?

[PlasTree]

mook noodler-
Word clock is a sort of "metronome" that governs the sample timing of interconnected digital audio gear. It is mainly used in larger studios that have lots of different digital devices that need to communicate with each other. Interfaces such as those included on the 828 (ADAT and S/PDIF) include their own clock signals in their data streams, but sometimes it is necessary to sync all devices via word clock to prevent audio "jitter", or clicks and pops that can ruin a recording. Word clock is not used for midi timing.

That said, you probably have little use for word clock. I doubt that you'd ever run into sync problems at your scale, assuming that you even own any equipment with digital output/inputs. This is why MOTU decided not to include the feature in the 828.

manexmachina-
I use a 600mhz iBook and a 867 Quicksilver with DP. My experiences with latency are pretty much the same with either machine. When monitoring through the virtual mixer with abundant plugins and bussing, the latency of incoming audio is very hard to notice. I don't know the exact milliseconds. It seems as good as the latency in Protool's "Low Latency Mode". I use MAS and VST plugs through the VST Wrapper, and haven't noticed a difference in latency between the two formats. I don't use virtual instruments, so I can't comment on their performance, unfortunately.

When I use midi to control my synths, however, the latency starts to get noticeable. It's not an issue when recording or editing midi notes, but when I record the audio of my synths that are being controlled by midi tracks in DP, I always end up having to back the audio tracks up by, I'd guess, 15-20 milliseconds. This, in my experience, is far from unique to DP. I've always had to compensate for latency when recording audio from midi-controlled synths. Supposedly CoreMidi reduces this issue considerably, so I can't wait untill DP4 comes out.

The DP usage of balloons is notably impressive however, and I'm wondering what they are doing in DP X since there are no help balloons anymore.

I wonder if this is what's taking them so long! haha

[lepetitmartien]

I wonder if this is what's taking them so long! haha

Mhmm… could be… ©Tex Avery

[mook noodler]

Thanks to everyone for all the great advice! I still haven't made a decision but now I know what each program is about. Might end up going with DP when it finally comes out for OSX, which MOTU tells me could be "as early as 4 to 6 weeks". I'm assuming that means longer...

Thanks again!

[lepetitmartien]

From Yukulele on the FR forum part an hint from a MOTU reseller is a release of both DP X and MachFive at the same time mid April.

hope hope

[manexmachina]

I wonder if this is what's taking them so long! haha

I'm pretty sure what is taking DP so long is this:

1. they're rewriting from scratch. It's just a hunch and I'd love to know the truth - but for such an incredibly mac-centric application (one that actually USED the balloon features), I would imagine these programmers would want to write their code at the core level. I spoke to the author of another program who upgraded to OSX and he commented that he took the short cut (writing at a higher level), but thought perhaps other programmers would want to rewrite from scratch.

2. if this is not the case, I'd say that they are mostly likely using all their resources focused on the MACH5 because they know that this will be a cross-platform money maker - so from an economic point of view, they'll want to keep it their number one priority.

[PlasTree]

I should certainly hope that dp4 is a complete rewrite. I wouldn't want anything less, and I'm willing to wait for it to be done right. It sure would be great and (mostly unprecedented) to have a fully functioning, bug-free version x.0 major audio app at my disposal. That's wishful thinking, though.