not supporting Dual CPU bug shoud be fixed in V3.1

dxl · Post by **dxl** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 5:13 pm

not supporting Dual CPU bug shoud be fixed in V3.1

we should all know why creamware programs it not be able to work with dual CPU.

kimgr · Post by **kimgr** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 5:41 pm

We should all know why you are such an idiot !!!

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Sat Apr 20, 2002 6:41 pm

I have it working on duals. But I wouldn't recommend it for most.

dxl · Post by **dxl** » Sun Apr 21, 2002 10:54 am

i'm not using dual
and hear lots los people have problem with it.
so that is what i assume.

Good for you K.

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Sun Apr 21, 2002 3:42 pm

Most cheap dual processor motherboards for PC have VIA chipsets... which don't provide much PCI bandwidth without a LOT of tweaking.

Tyan Tiger Athlon MP board rev 1.03 is the one I got working; but I prefer the P4 machine to it, easier to setup, less to think about, can get on with making music.

dxl · Post by **dxl** » Sun Apr 21, 2002 4:01 pm

you shoud said cheap boards, which they are most likly to be VIA.

only VIA will cause that?

caleb · Post by **caleb** » Sun Apr 21, 2002 7:05 pm

So I take it then that this is not actually a bug that needs to be fixed with 3.1?

I think we should probably be clear what is a bug and what isn't.

I actually expect a lot of people to have difficulties with many things with computer hardware and software that are not bugs.

Maybe to keep in line with honesty of advertising on this site, we should not be referring to things as bugs unless they are. It produces false advertising - and I'm sure people doing so could be taken to court for libel - because given enough money everything can be taken to court.

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Mon Apr 22, 2002 2:53 pm

On 2002-04-21 20:05, caleb wrote:

- and I'm sure people doing so could be taken to court for libel - because given enough money everything can be taken to court.

But who's going to spend money for that? It will be a loss of energy

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Mon Apr 22, 2002 2:56 pm

Sure, we have to be carefull for what we write and we must try to be objective if we can

On 2002-04-21 20:05, caleb wrote:

I think we should probably be clear what is a bug and what isn't.

...... ......

Maybe to keep in line with honesty of advertising on this site, we should not be referring to things as bugs unless they are. It produces false advertising ...

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Apr 22, 2002 3:12 pm

On 2002-04-21 20:05, caleb wrote:

So I take it then that this is not actually a bug that needs to be fixed with 3.1?

I think we should probably be clear what is a bug and what isn't.

<snip>

Actually Pulsar's behavior is definately substandard on a dual machine. I've run the pulsar on 3 duals now, each one an intel chipset (bx, lx, i860), and spent many months or even years tweaking each one and still have the same recurring problems.

Since I cannot afford to have 2 modern expensive machines I have had to contend with these issues. The Pulsar isn't my primary source of income and a dual machine really does boost my productivity tremendously (not to mention that logic's interface never gets sluggish ;]). Also, while neither the Pulsar nor Logic (on a pc at least at the moment) benefit from dual cpu's, Nuendo (and cubase) get a TREMENDOUS benefit from a second cpu.

Now that Win9x/Me is dead and we are moving over to the NT (2k & xp) world, NOT writing an application (or driver) to be properly threaded for a multithreaded OS is a bit rediculous. It's kind of like saying that win9x really should support DOS-level audio environments because there is no real need to multitask.

The fact that this behavior has been consistant (and actually only gotten worse with 3.0x) over the last 3.x years and the only response from Creamware is 'duals are not needed for a [read:pure] Pulsar system' does mean that your money would be better spent elsewhere. But for hobbyists that enjoy (or need) a dual for other things, it sure would be nice to use the pulsar for more than 2 24bit stereo ASIO channels without bugs.

And yes, I submit my rants about every 3 months to Creamware, and recieve the same glib responses ;]

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Apr 22, 2002 3:22 pm

Oh btw, if I didn't make it clear in that post I use my dual cpu's (xeons) for 3d and Graphics primarily, and music as a hobby.

remixme · Post by **remixme** » Mon Apr 22, 2002 3:39 pm

What gets me, is that it can't be that hard to program the pulsar software to use the first cpu and ignore the second, and not give copy protection errors every time.
Or is there something I don't know?

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Apr 22, 2002 8:06 pm

It's more than just that actually, not that I know the full depth. But there are cache contention issues (any time a pci device writes to memory all cpu caches must be flushed and refilled) and I'd assume that they would need more than one thread for the app. But still I DO wish it would work in a properly multithreaded way.

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Mon Apr 22, 2002 8:49 pm

Better dual support would be nice.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: subhuman on 2002-04-23 09:12 ]</font>

caleb · Post by **caleb** » Tue Apr 23, 2002 12:58 am

Hi Grok.

The libel thing is supposed to be a joke along with the "false advertising" remark.

It was a twist on something stated in a different thread by one of the authors.

It's supposed to be a ludicrous suggestion as it was in the other thread.

I'm sure he got a kick out of it. I know I giggled as I was writing it.

Aaaah personal pleasures.

Retro · Post by **Retro** » Tue Apr 23, 2002 4:19 am

I think the dual CPU issue stems from the fact that CW's intended market sector is recording professionals, but their product and pricing also appeals to serious hobbyists. While hobbyists will typically use their computers for more than just music production, professional recordists use a dedicated system for DAW applications only.

As a multimedia producer with an audio engineering background, I purchased a Pulsar 2 with the intention of running it on a dedicated computer while my other computers are dedicated to CG/video tasks. From experience I also knew which questions to ask, and thanks to the good people here at PlanetZ I was able to find the right people to help me ascertain exactly what kind of system the Pulsar requires. I fully understand that the average hobbyist would not be able to afford the dedicated system approach, but perhaps this highlights a need for CW to clarify the intended usage environment for their products.

In all fairness though, CW are just like any other professional audio device manufacturer in that they assume their customers are well aware of the associated requirements before purchasing their products. What makes them unique is that their products are so economically priced that they attract hobbyists who don't have such knowledge and/or experience. In contrast, a company called Avalon make extremely high quality preamps, but hobbyists are unlikely to know they even exist because a) they typically don't need such powerful beasts and b) these preamps are bloody expensive!

I know this doesn't solve the issue for hobbyists, but I was hoping to point out a plausible explanation as to why CW seem reluctant to accomodate the audio hobbyist's demands. As this calibre of technology becomes more and more affordable, perhaps all professional audio vendors will have to start clarifying system requirements in their marketing materials. After all, they wouldn't want to risk legal action would they?

Okay, if I ramble on any longer I'll be a candidate for Caleb's waffle club!

Peace!

caleb · Post by **caleb** » Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:50 am

Hey Retro. Everyone's welcome in my waffle club.

We waffle around all day waffling like big waffly waffle-waffles.

And then we go home.

Post by **garyb** » Tue Apr 23, 2002 8:26 am

those who run studios are called engineers.if ya got one and ya aren't one,it only makes sense that ya become one.

alfonso · Post by **alfonso** » Tue Apr 23, 2002 3:49 pm

hello,
im not running dual, i've built my new machine privileging pulsar (tusl2-c P III tua-512k2Lcache) and very happy with performance, but it's a fact that the n.1 seq. software company is moving rapidly to NT based systems and dual processing. so this is going to be a big problem for cw in few months. the new cubase sx will be a killing software (it's going to be the much dreamed "cubendo"

) and it seems that duals will be a must, and it's not going to run on 98!). so....problems!

valis · Post by **valis** » Tue Apr 23, 2002 3:54 pm

On 2002-04-23 05:19, Retro wrote:
I think the dual CPU issue stems from the fact that CW's intended market sector is recording professionals, but their product and pricing also appeals to serious hobbyists. SNIP

I would like to point out thought that Cubase & Nuendo support AND USE smp and Logic supports dual cpu on the mac (no benefit on the pc presently but seems to be working fine on mine). As ProTools has supposedly worked on NT 4.0 on up I'll assume it supports smp even if it doesn't take advantage of it (apologies if the assumption is wrong) and I have no idea if MOTM supports dual macs.

Still, that seems to me a large percentage of entry level to 'pro' audio applications that are supporting smp or at least don't choke on an smp machine. So why is a dual cpu machine something for creamware's 'hobbyist' sector only? There are benefits to dual machines beyond 'more plugins' or 'more rendering power'. An interface that's never sluggish, the ability to perform other tasks in the background without affecting performance, and overall smoother performance as long as your applications are properly threaded seem like things that a Pro as well as an Amateur can befefit from.

The music I write has an intended market and isn't just noodling to while away the hours between work and sleep. My Audio Budget may not match the 3d machine Budget as audio doesn't pay my bills nearly as well presently, but I suspect many smaller studios even at the pro level would appreciate being able to use a single machine for mutliple tasks as it is easier on the budget. In fact since the pulsar is similar in concept to pro-tools and seems to be targeting itself beyond the market that DSP-only devices like the UAD-1 are aimed at I suspect that anything that can leverage a Pulsar2 or Powerpulsar into a studio is an advantage. It just doesn't make sense that the Pulsar OS supports Win2000 & Xp and isn't properly multithreaded. Might as well just require it's own dedicated box (NOAH!).

Btw, I did in fact do quite a bit of research before taking a chance on buying a dual xeon. Had I not seen many gripes here about it, I would have bought a dual amd. Just unfortunate I had to be the one to confirm that dual xeons also have problems. ;]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: valis on 2002-04-23 16:58 ]</font>