Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Steveoinpa]

I am curious what people think about how this gear sounds,
I had a guy tell me that OSX TDM systems actually sound better..
I found that hard to swallow, I think the hardware does the sound
and the computer is just a host,

Are the "reasons for staying on macos9?
besides the version specific ones..

anyway just curious

BTW

I have both a 9.2 and protools 5.1.3 system
and macosX and 6.4.1

[Custos]

Once it's in the box there are algorithms that make up
How sample rates are captured. Its one of those arguments that some ppl say u can hear and others say you can't tell the difference. For instance ppl like to say they can tell if a track was produced with fl studio because it doesn't sound as good. Now a sequencer might have a particular groove to it but the sound quality is mostly dependant upon the converters. I don't feel strongly about the subject as it seems like a placebo effect. Just my opinion.

[GaryN]

Just saying that "OSX TDM systems actually sound better.." is a generalization that takes no other factors into account that may be affecting the "sound". The correct response to that statement is: "Better than what?" and "What makes you say that? Have you ever done an actual A/B comparison test?"

If the statement is actually: "An OSX TDM system sounds better than an exact duplicate OS9 TDM system", the question becomes: What did they do (if anything) to improve the TDM components between the release dates of the two systems?

You're right. The hardware is the main factor in the "sound" of the systems and the computer is primarily the controller. The single biggest factor is the converters. Everybody has their favorite and just like everything else, it's very subjective and affected by lots of outside influences, not the least of which is the tendency to hear a dramatic improvement after you've just dropped a giant pile of $$$ on the latest batch of PT hardware, whether it's real or not.

BTW

I have both a 9.2 and protools 5.1.3 system
and macosX and 6.4.1

It would seem you have everything you need to decide for yourself. Why don't you tell us?

[Knezzen]

I am curious what people think about how this gear sounds,
I had a guy tell me that OSX TDM systems actually sound better..

From personal experience I think that the MIX cards with 888/24 and 882/20's sound much better in Mac OS 9 than they do in Mac OS X.
Tried on the same system with PT 5.1.3cs11 running under Mac OS 9.2.2 and PT 6.4.1 running under OSX Panther.

They totally remade the audio engine when moving to OSX, so they actually sound differently. I prefer PT 5.1.3cs11 under Mac OS 9.2.2

[Steveoinpa]

Thanks guys, Right now my 9x 5x system sounds better to me
but the main thing is its more stable,
( I am having issues with the "new" system) core card etc..
not sure I want to "upgrade
At some point I think I can do a proper comparison
becuase I own both systems, right now I have cheapo fostex monitors on the 10x 6x system
and they are in different rooms etc..
thanks for the input

[GaryN]

At some point I think I can do a proper comparison
becuase I own both systems, right now I have cheapo fostex monitors on the 10x 6x system
and they are in different rooms etc..

As we're discussing here, "proper comparisons" are not easy to do since they absolutely require that you eliminate as many variables as possible and then find a way to control for the ones you can't. Obviously, having the two systems in different rooms with different speakers will make any comparison invalid. Then in the end, you have to weigh any sonic differences you're certain you really hear against stability, workflow, compatibility and so forth. By the time you finally finish, you've truly learned the meaning of the word "subjective"…

[IIO]

the argument that newer systems "sound better" than older ones is neither right nor wrong if you ask this so generally.

for example many people which are still on mac os 9 PT TDM record in 16 bits. the question if that sounds as good as using a current high class interface in conjunction with PT HD is easy to answer.

the difference between PT 5 and PT 6 both using the same I/O with the same rate and depth is nil.

and i think we all know that you can do things with the L 3 16 which you cant do with the L 1.

[Trace-Elliot]

my huge mix ++ 24 system runs fine under os9 never crashed .... runnig osx always problems , system crashes , pci overflow etc.

maybe this hardware is designed for os9 ?

[Metrophage]

I don't have a ProTools setup, but for me, there are two main considerations.

First is that there is a lot of software which only runs on the older MacOS. I don't usually get very nostalgic about computers or operating systems. But I make a point to run whatever will host the software that I like, and allow me to be productive. For people who mainly use popular software there is less of a need, IMO, because there is some version which works on either OS 9 or X. But most of what drew me into OS 9 were weird quirky programs and plugins which were one-off projects, so I run an OS 9 system, or I don't get to use that stuff.

Secondly is that OS 9 can be very responsive. This makes it hugely forgiving of more modest hardware, as can easily be demonstrated by dual-booting even the best G4s with OS 9 and X. The older MacOS are basically a real-time, low-latency system, which can be great for audio and MIDI work. But there are tradeoffs, such as poor multitasking, poor security, and especially lack of protected memory. So these systems can be less stable, and take some finesse to keep them running well.

I don't know if running these old systems is worthwhile merely for the sake of doing it. But there is a lot of software out there which one can be quite productive with, and have a lot of fun. Also, to some extent, the fact that older Macs have more trouble on the web and watching HD video can also be beneficial for concentration, because there are less distractions from one's projects.