Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Updates Logic Pro and MainStage, Adds 64-Bit Compatibility
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Finder yes, it was recoded for 10.6 (and not improved in the least) so it's now a 64bit cocoa POS instead of a 32b Carbon one.
iTunes on the other hand, definitely not. It's still Carbon to and through.
The finder is already a 64bit app, just open your Activity Monitor, scroll to the Finder process and if you enabled the "Kind" column you'll see "Intel (64 bit)".
About iTunes, MorphingDragon is mistaken, it's still a Carbon app and that's why it's still 32b.
is it fair to assume that if an app still uses that little watch icon instead of the beachball when the app is thinking that it's still Carbon-based?
iTunes, Photoshop, FinalCut...they all use that icon where everything else uses the beachball.
iTunes, Photoshop, FinalCut...they all use that icon where everything else uses the beachball.
Because the amount of colours it gives are above the human level of recognition. A full HD screen still cant display every single colour of the 24-bit RGB spectrum if every pixel was a different shade.
Yes I do, but they will have had almost 3 years by the time they release FCS 4 and lets face it, FCS needs the changes I outlined badly! They need to stay on top and pave the way for the next 10 years! I think it is doable for sure!
I agree. I read many people speculating Apple are more concerned with mass market products than professional user products but they have the $s to do both and I truly want to see all Pro Apps upgraded and blowing our minds. I am both a pro user and a mass market user. I am a big kid again with our ATV, iPhones and Touches and MacBooks. However, I work for a living with a Mac Pro 8 Core and Apple's pro apps and I really feel they are way over due for a major update.
Again, not the point. Higher bit-depths are used for video for the same reason they're used in audio—to preserve fidelity and fend off compounded computational errors through multiple iterations of image processing. In the case of film and video, 10-bit per channel (or higher) precision is used so that smooth, subtle gradients are preserved. 8bpc color (and especially processing only in 8-bit) can quickly lead to banded gradients that would be very noticeable on, say, film-out. It's not about displaying every possible color at once—it's about accurately displaying the limited number of colors within any one frame (and making sure precision is maintained through processing).
My argument is that the higher bitrate is useless once it goes above the human level of recognition. I'm all for improving the tech if the outcome is actually noticeable. But until then those Computational Errors are probably far less than the flaws of our ear construction.
Plus if you record at 16-bit anyway it makes no difference. You cant magically gain quality. You can guesstimate, but its forever lost.
IE 8 -> 10 Video
Apart from this argument being specious, it's also confused. What's the "human level of recognition" for bit depths? There isn't one, because bit depth simply defines digital resolution, and we are not digital beings. Sure, it's very easy to spot something where there is clearly not enough bit depth to accurately recreate the analogue waveform, but there's no notional maximum that has been declared as "beyond human distinction". I think you're confusing bit depth with sampling frequency which is a totally different ballgame. You may have a real, viable argument if you were making the case that recording with a sampling frequency of 768Khz (for eg) has no discernible benefit, as the theoretical maximum for human hearing is about 20Khz, so 768k would be overkill (even when factoring Nyquist into the equation).
Once again, I don't think you're grasping the core of the principles behind this stuff. Higher internal bitrates in the audio/image/video processing engine are not about directly improving what has already been recorded - they are about ensuring no lack of degradation when large computations are applied to the original data (beyond those that you actually intend). To discard Computational Errors as being trivial compared to the design of the ear is, in all likelihood, to not understand how processing and summing in low-bit-depth engines can produce rounding errors that have a significant and noticeable impact on the data. Ever seen posterization or banding in an image? Rounding errors. Ever heard an early digital recording that sounded "harsh" or "grainy"? Rounding errors. Were these errors below the threshold of human detection? Absolutely not.
I am same as you, consumer, and pro by profession. Heres to hoping for a 64 bit update like Logic, and a nice new FCS 4!
I think you're missing his point. If you record at the limit of what humans can see/hear and then later compress/process the sound or video, you are lowing the fidelity to a point where humans can tell the difference.
I'm sure an MP3 from a 24 bit master will sound better than one recorded in 16, 12 or 8 bit... even if the end result in both cases is a 320k MP3.
Actually, The Finder is 64 bit. And it is a lot faster than the 32 bit finder in Leopard. Going 64 bit makes a good difference
I would expect that ReWire support will take a while, because it relies on a 64-bit version of the ReWire library, which comes from Propellerhead - and probably also on the availability of 64-bit ReWire slave applications (e.g. Reason or Live). I don't think there is anything Apple can do.
The responsiveness difference might (and probably does) come from having been ported from a crusty old Carbon codebase to a more modern Cocoa one. There's no reason for 64b to have any impact on something like the Finder: it wouldn't benefit at all from lifting the VMEM limit, and it has no reason to benefit much (if at all) from the extra registers.
So .. as it stands, which, in performance terms, is better? 32 or 64? And by performance terms I don't mean what is and isn't implemented, I mean the working experience, responsiveness etc. And if on a lower powered machine does one enable higher track/plug counts than the other. That kind of thing. Cheers.
What makes you think that? iTunes is one of the slowest, worst performing apps on OSX. 64 bit would likely provide at least some performance boost (ALL other 64 bit apps have so far). It's not all about memory. And Apple has managed to get most of their other free apps to 64 bit, once the app is Cocoa (which it really should be anyway) it's really not much more complexity beyond that at all.
I own all of Spectrasonics products since 2002, so yes.The issue is that Propellerheads has not yet made Recycle or Rewire 64-bit compatible, and I believe that Stylus is 64-bit only in the respect of how much memory it can address; the audio engine itself is still 32-bit. Don't quote me on that, though.
I was talking about importing REX loops into Stylus - they become additional loops within Stylus which I find much more handy and flexible than dragging in audio loops.
Maybe some, but there IS a performance boost from going 64 bit. It's obvious by benchmarking the same app in 64 bit, then launching it again in 32.
64 definitely is noticeably more responsive. And when using 64 bit plugins, it is more CPU efficient as well, meaning probably more plugin counts.
On most applications, it's anecdotic (though depending on the exact application having double the number of registers might make quite a difference in responsiveness given how register-starved x86 tends to be).
The biggest gain on everything-to-64 as far as I'm concerned (apart from applications which *do* need it running better) instead of mixing and matching 64 and 32b is that you don't have to load the 32b subsystem (and libraries and everything) so you waste less memory.
Mac Pro not seeing the Software Update for this
Guys,
I have tried the Software Update like 20 times, and my Mac Pro 2008 still does not even see this update available for Logic Studio and Mainstage. I do own the apps, just bought them 3 months ago, and I'm currently on 9.0.2 of logic pro. Why doesn't my mac see this update like it sees all others?
The only change I've made to these apps is that I created a separate folder under Applications specifically for all the Logic Studio apps, so they all live in there. But this should not make the updates stop working.
Weird, help please?? Thanks all.
Guys,
I have tried the Software Update like 20 times, and my Mac Pro 2008 still does not even see this update available for Logic Studio and Mainstage. I do own the apps, just bought them 3 months ago, and I'm currently on 9.0.2 of logic pro. Why doesn't my mac see this update like it sees all others?
The only change I've made to these apps is that I created a separate folder under Applications specifically for all the Logic Studio apps, so they all live in there. But this should not make the updates stop working.
Weird, help please?? Thanks all.
Try taking the Logic Studio Apps out of the sub-folder and back into the Application Folder, so that Software Update can detect their presence.
This ought to work.
I've just trawled through this discussion -
http://www.gearspace.com/board/music-computers/371545-logic-pro-multicore-benchmarktest.html
- and something terrible occurs. (You'll have to stick with it) Simply put, the 2008 Mac Pro is better or the same as the 2009. Leopard gives the same performance or better than Snow Leopard does and HT is a disaster. So .. here we are in 2010 with the all new stripped down rewritten from the ground up SL and prices are sky high and the tech is no better than 2 years ago. Effectively staying still for 2 years in computers seems impossible but with Logic and either a quad 2,66 or Octo 2,26 Pro Apple has achieved just that.
And will it get worse?
http://www.gearspace.com/board/music-computers/371545-logic-pro-multicore-benchmarktest.html
- and something terrible occurs. (You'll have to stick with it) Simply put, the 2008 Mac Pro is better or the same as the 2009. Leopard gives the same performance or better than Snow Leopard does and HT is a disaster. So .. here we are in 2010 with the all new stripped down rewritten from the ground up SL and prices are sky high and the tech is no better than 2 years ago. Effectively staying still for 2 years in computers seems impossible but with Logic and either a quad 2,66 or Octo 2,26 Pro Apple has achieved just that.
And will it get worse?