Set DFH up properly? (mac G4-Digi001-Battery-DFH)

[Demesisx]

Hi guys,
I have been using my roomie's computer to sequence my DFH, but I keep coming up with odd problems with it. I am just wondering whether anyone here uses Pro Tools Digi 001, Battery, and DFH successfully. When I first got DFH, I decided to get Battery and Pro Tools specifically because they are what the pro's use, so that I could finally have a "drummer" who could actually do what I want him/it to do. But as soon as I got it installed, I wasn't able to get the proper sample sounds out of it when I ran it alongside Pro Tools even though I have been told by most people (including the dumbasses at Native Instruments and Toontrack) that it should work. Now, I am pretty sure that my problem has to do with my RAM (I have 528 MB of RAM) on a G4 450 Mhz Mac. But, I would just like to be sure why I am not able to just play a note into my keyboard that is input into the Digi 001 Midi input/out and it goes out through the channel's bus and into Battery and then back into Pro Tools as a REAL sound like it should. I wish I had specific instructions, but every time I try to get a DRUM sound out of it, it sounds more like the buffer is over-running or something. I wish I knew whether or not buying a new computer will remedy this as I am saving for a Macintosh Quicksilver 2.5 Ghz G4 Mac as we speak. If any of you have Pro Tools and Battery and DFH, is it working for you with a Mac or should I seek professional help with this huge setback.

[timdog]

How much of the DFH are you loading into memory?
I heard the full thing would take over 700 megs of ram to hold.

[Tsorovan]

Yeah, try only loading a snare or something in Battery. Those .txt files you know...

Oh btw, I could never get DFH to work with LM4 when I tried loading the actual LM4 configuration scripts. Had to load those drums one by one. I found that slightly humorous. Worked with Battery though, I think -- was a while ago.

[timdog]

Just scrap your Mac and get a PC.. bwaahahaha

[Demesisx]

Just scrap your Mac and get a PC.. bwaahahaha

I was a PC user and I did a lot of programming for years and I have to say, Macs kick the shit out of PC's in EVERY category that metters to me....especially reliability and the fact that Microsoft hasn't had their programmers complicate everything like they've done with PC's. I hate the way that things are on PC's. IMO, Macs never crash, run faster, and are better.

Anyhow, I have tried loading the kits sample by sample, but that could take hours to load each sample.. That would piss me off to have to do that kind of crap just to get it to work!

[timdog]

PC's are better gaming machines and are also much less expensive.
I'd have to challenge you when you say Mac's run faster. I work on both at work and my PC kicks Mac-ass on everyday tasks like browsing and loading programs. (Comparing 800mhz-P3 to G4 733).

[Demesisx]

Well, I am getting a Dual 1.25 Ghz processor. It's a fact that it runs up to "90% faster than a 2.53 Ghz Pentium 4 based PC". Also, the RAM is DDR SDRAM which allows the system to read and write data on both the rising and falling edge of the clock cycle. The resulting throughput between the main memory and the system controller is 2.7Gbps, more then doublt the throughput of the previous dual 1Ghz Power Mac G4.

I think it sounds pretty kick ass.....and I like the way that Mac's don't bombard you with corporate shite the way that Bill Gates' system does.

[timdog]

Yah, that's pretty nice.
Too bad it's about a million dollars. hehe

[Demesisx]

$3,200 to be exact for the tower. Not bad for the best Mac system to run Pro Tools 5.1 w/ DFH, and Battery.

[Tsorovan]

Well, I am getting a Dual 1.25 Ghz processor. It's a fact that it runs up to "90% faster than a 2.53 Ghz Pentium 4 based PC". Also, the RAM is DDR SDRAM which allows the system to read and write data on both the rising and falling edge of the clock cycle. The resulting throughput between the main memory and the system controller is 2.7Gbps, more then doublt the throughput of the previous dual 1Ghz Power Mac G4.


90% faster? That's the most preposterous thing I've ever heard. I guess that was written in Apple's PR material? They've always tried claims like that, always lying their teeth out. Also, how fair is it to compare a dual processor system with a uniprocessor system? Not at all. It's all bullshit anyway.

Oh, and 2.7 GB/s isn't that much...the P4 with dual channel RDRAM1066 has what, 4.2 GB/s bandwidth over the main bus? The AMD NForce chipset has 3.2 GB/s if I'm not mistaken...and those are 12-18 month old designs. There will soon be faster chipsets. Apple has been 1½ years behind the hardware evolution and is only now catching up, when it's time for the PC architecture to get another speedbump again...oh well...I could go on and on with this, but I've learned my lesson in a massive email discussion on a mailing list 6 months ago...it was fruitless and very time consuming.

Check out some independent (as in, no Apple/Intel/AMD-sponsored) benchmarks...I know there are some out there; for example a pretty decent graphic workstation test between a 2.4GHz P4 and a dual 1 GHz G4. The P4 owned the G4 of course, as any person with any hardware knowledge would understand, just by checking the specs. But hey, I shouldn't be so condescending...I'll just say: don't believe the hype.

[Demesisx]

The problem with your argument is that Apple systems run 1/2 the code that PC's do. Hence the processor doesn't even need to be half as fast as the PC in order to get the same speed. Look it up! PC's need more code to do the same damn thing. I am getting a Mac because I liked it better compared to my PC at home. I was using a 1.25 Ghz PC and a 450 Mhz Mac and the G4 came out on top every single time. The code in Mac's OS is just much less robust and also has FAR less errors on it. Did you ever notice that Digidesign and Avid are both standard Macintosh applications? I did and I objectively compared the two platforms and found the Mac to be better. You can think all of the great things you want about PC's, but I have just grown to hate them from how much they can/will crash every time I want to tax the processor with difficult tasks inversely, I have taxed the fuck out of that 450 G4 Mac and have only had one crash in 4 months! I think I'll stick with Macs, because despite what you say, I find them to be better every single time I do a comparison.

[Tsorovan]

Okay, I was probably a bit too viperous, and I apologize for that. If you like it better, then ok, that's your opinion. Just don't mess with the facts though :)

Like the classic RISC vs. CISC design as you brought up. That's a myth. RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) and CISC (Complete ditto) is a dead concept. Nowadays, most processor architectures have sort of a blend between the two...they are neither CISC nor RISC. Dead concept. Forget about it. :)

OK if you bring up the differences in pipelines...the P4's (sillily named "NetBurst" as if it had anything to do with the Internet...eh...PR, sigh) pipeline is the longest pipeline in any mainstream processor yet, 20 stages instead of the P6's (Pentium, P2, P3, Celeron, K7 (Athlon)) architecture 8-10 stages. I believe the G4 has a 12-stage pipeline, but I'm not entirely sure. That means it does more per clock, BUT it takes a longer time to go through the stage (the performance loss alleviated with an aggressive and incredibly effective caching method and hardware prefetch), hence the famous debate with P4 vs. AMD and the latter's performance rating numbers. AMD Thunderbird 1600+ (1.4 GHz) is (across the board) roughly equal to a Pentium 4 (Willamette, not Northwood) 1.4 GHz. The same applies to all Motorola/IBM PowerPC architecture designs of late...but as we all know, it's not raw number crunching that is the be-all-end-all of computing. Lots of other stuff comes into play. L1, L2, optional L3 cache size...instruction sets...caching/prefetch algorithms, bus speed/bandwidth, memory subsystem...north-/southbridge bus word length/bandwidth...you name it.

Dang, I fell into the trap. Just "look it up" and you'll see that RISC is a dead concept and should be abolished in all discussions about modern processor design.

Opinion is ok though. If you say you like them better that's fine, that's a good argument. Let's just agree to disagree, but please don't just believe the hype mmm'k?

[Demesisx]

Okay, I won't believe the hype. Thanks for clearing those things up too. You definitely know hwat your talking about. I looked it all up...damn. As for cache size, it has an L3 cache. Anyhow, I am going to get it at the end of the spring and then I Can really tell how I will like it. I definitely think I will though. Thanks again for the intelligent input.

[Tsorovan]

Yeah...I'm sorry I got so wound up, but if you just knew how the real Mac zealots are, and how you have to fight them (just cold logic doesn't work)...nice to see you're not one of those blind ones. And yeah, they are finally starting to get their age-old architecture up to standards, but I think it'll be too late. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple goes x86 later, or Clawhammer perhaps. Steve Jobs has already hinted at it, and IBM sure doesn't like making so many PowerPC chips at a loss...it was a wonder they decided to do the upcoming one.

Have fun with your new comp. I wish I had a new computer myself :)

[mr marcus]

smashing through the boundaries
lunacy has found me
cannot stop the battery
pounding out agression
turns into obsession
cannot kill the battery

cannot kill the family
battery has found in me...

BAT-TER-Y

BAT-TER-Y!!. :lol: