RANT (mostly fixed by PH)

[Gorgon]

Or do you mean that actually the BIOS on Windows is Open Firmware?

As said above, it is analogous, that is, has a similar function and is used pretty much the same way. However, if you look up BIOS on your Mac you won't find it. LA is new to Macs, so he'd better learn the proper terms, no?

Yeah you're not going to find anything. ANYthing.

mac bios.png (47.33 KiB) Viewed 2295 times

[BonsaiMacKay]

Or do you mean that actually the BIOS on Windows is Open Firmware?

As said above, it is analogous, that is, has a similar function and is used pretty much the same way. However, if you look up BIOS on your Mac you won't find it. LA is new to Macs, so he'd better learn the proper terms, no?

Yeah you're not going to find anything. ANYthing.

mac bios.png

Exactly. Nothing called BIOS on a Mac. If you were familiar with Macs you'd know. Now, on the internet you'll find lots of Mac newbies asking where the BIOS is and people will point them to the Mac equivalent, which is NOT called BIOS, but EFI (Open Firmware is no longer used). Anyway, you're late to the party. This has been covered already. Read the thread...

[Gorgon]

Exactly. Nothing called BIOS on a Mac. If you were familiar with Macs you'd know. Now, on the internet you'll find lots of Mac newbies asking where the BIOS is and people will point them to the Mac equivalent, which is NOT called BIOS, but EFI (Open Firmware is no longer used). Anyway, you're late to the party. This has been covered already. Read the thread...

BIOS isn't some kind of brand. It's an essential part of any computer. If Apple wants to give it some funny other name, it doesn't change the fact that it's a BIOS.

[esselfortium]

Exactly. Nothing called BIOS on a Mac. If you were familiar with Macs you'd know. Now, on the internet you'll find lots of Mac newbies asking where the BIOS is and people will point them to the Mac equivalent, which is NOT called BIOS, but EFI (Open Firmware is no longer used). Anyway, you're late to the party. This has been covered already. Read the thread...

BIOS isn't some kind of brand. It's an essential part of any computer. If Apple wants to give it some funny other name, it doesn't change the fact that it's a BIOS.

No, Bonsai is correct. Modern operating systems typically run on UEFI, not BIOS: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified ... _Interface

[aeox]

i didn't mean to start a debate by asking if there was a bios, some may have known what i meant.


maybe this is better: is there an interface to change what hardware is used by default, such as integrated vs non-integrated graphics(for my PC, that interface would be called a BIOS, as far as I know.)

although, none of this really matters anymore

[stratatonic]

.










.

[ejanuska]

Exactly. Nothing called BIOS on a Mac. If you were familiar with Macs you'd know. Now, on the internet you'll find lots of Mac newbies asking where the BIOS is and people will point them to the Mac equivalent, which is NOT called BIOS, but EFI (Open Firmware is no longer used). Anyway, you're late to the party. This has been covered already. Read the thread...

BIOS isn't some kind of brand. It's an essential part of any computer. If Apple wants to give it some funny other name, it doesn't change the fact that it's a BIOS.

No, Bonsai is correct. Modern operating systems typically run on UEFI, not BIOS: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified ... _Interface

I learned something good today. Thanks.

[BonsaiMacKay]

Exactly. Nothing called BIOS on a Mac. If you were familiar with Macs you'd know. Now, on the internet you'll find lots of Mac newbies asking where the BIOS is and people will point them to the Mac equivalent, which is NOT called BIOS, but EFI (Open Firmware is no longer used). Anyway, you're late to the party. This has been covered already. Read the thread...

BIOS isn't some kind of brand. It's an essential part of any computer. If Apple wants to give it some funny other name, it doesn't change the fact that it's a BIOS.

Really, I know English isn't your native language and Google Translate may screw up things sometimes, but you are the only one talking about brands here, probably not your fault. I also know you are not familiar with Macs, and there is no problem with that. Just relax a bit and READ the thread.

[etyrnal]

Reason doesn't use the correct graphic card, with the discrete card (if there is one in your mac), it works ok if you turn off Automatic Graphic switching in the preferences. Still, performance is not up to what I would have expected from Reason.

I agree that PH needs to fix this. People who don't have 2 graphics cards in their Mac are in for an almost unusable program. And Reason needs better multi-core support.

I can't stand it when style starts pushing function out...

People demanding super high resolution graphics so stuff can look pretty... but then people whine and cry when the computer can't keep up with the graphics and gui interaction...

I'll take stable, efficient, high resolution sound over pretty graphics any day

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[etyrnal]

Switch to Cubase or Studio One. You'll never look back or be this angry again.

He will once he realizes that neither Cubase or Studio One are as fun to work in as Reason (and I say this as a Studio One owner). [emoji38]

Exactly

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[etyrnal]

i'd just like to point out that an "i7" is not a very descriptive term for a processor. you could have gotten an old i7. or a dual core i7. neither of which are very good for reason. what kind of processor is in you mac book?

What the hell is a dual core i7? Aren't they like octacores?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[etyrnal]

So I'm messing around while checking the Activity Monitor and noticed it says my CPU is running anywhere from 48 - 155+% , depending on whether or not I have the spectrum EQ open or not. How can it be over 100%? Memory use is around 8 out of 32 gigs.
I'm running in low resolution, 44.1 @ 512 buffer in this picture. Trying 256 right now and getting 2 DSP bars max and no audio blips so far.
It seems to be working a lot better in low resolution mode which doesn't look too bad and I can deal with for now. So it's a PH coding thing with normal/high resolution on Sierra from what I can tell.

Using 1 and a half cores worth of cpu

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[etyrnal]

In this picture it's over 183% and it says there's over 3 million faults. I'm not sure what all this means but do you think I'm onto something?

Memory issue? Lame driver?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[EnochLight]

What the hell is a dual core i7? Aren't they like octacores?

There is an entire line of dual-core i7 (mostly mobile, 7th generation).

[The_G]

This is not Mac hate. I have no hate for Macs or Apple. I'm just stating WELL KNOWN facts. You are paying 2-3x price of the similar PC hardware when you purchase an Apple computer (I've owned iMac once - and on a positive side, you can sell your Mac hardware and make most of your money back).

Compatible means that the software can be run. Is there any mention of performance on Props side?

Part of the problem is that my 2,5 years old PC is more powerful than the latest Mac that just came out last week (or whenever).

I'm not challenging the fact that Apple hardware is overpriced. But the hardware itself - in general - is absolutely fine. Anyone on OSX should be getting performance on-par with the same hardware counterparts on Windows. That's not LA's problem though - something is clearly wrong with how Reason is performing on certain builds of OSX. Raapie also has had issues with OSX and Reason, and I'm guessing there's others.

I've run reason on every iteration of OSX/MacOS and never had this or any other problem--which isn't to doubt that others are experiencing these issues, but rather to question the assumption that they are widespread.

Also, I use both Macs and PCs; in my experience Macs run Reason better than similar spec'd PCs (because OSX/MacOS and Core Audio are more efficient in how they handle audio than Windows and ASIO) and can then run the software for longer (e.g. my 2008 iMac still running R8 reasonably well, even though it's 9 years old).

The main advantage of PCs is that they are cheaper and modular, which means you can get more RAM and get faster processors for less money. That's a significant advantage. But every time I use Reason or Live on a PC, I'm reminded why I vastly prefer Macs for audio.

[EnochLight]

I've run reason on every iteration of OSX/MacOS and never had this or any other problem--which isn't to doubt that others are experiencing these issues, but rather to question the assumption that they are widespread.

Also, I use both Macs and PCs; in my experience Macs run Reason better than similar spec'd PCs (because OSX/MacOS and Core Audio are more efficient in how they handle audio than Windows and ASIO) and can then run the software for longer (e.g. my 2008 iMac still running R8 reasonably well, even though it's 9 years old).

The main advantage of PCs is that they are cheaper and modular, which means you can get more RAM and get faster processors for less money. That's a significant advantage. But every time I use Reason or Live on a PC, I'm reminded why I vastly prefer Macs for audio.

From what I gather, the issues with certain Macs and Reason has something to do with Retina/4K+ displays and OSX's auto-switching between integrated graphics and dedicated graphics. If you're running a Mac that doesn't rely on this sort of thing, then the bug won't affect you.

[MannequinRaces]

Just to chime in, first of all sorry to hear you are having problems with your new iMac LA. I believe it is your graphics card that is causing the issue or an issue with your graphics card not playing nice with Reason. The ahem, reason I say this is because I have a late 2015 iMac Retina 5k with an AMD Radeon R9 M380 2048 MB graphics card and I am not having issues. You mentioned that you had a different / better graphics card correct? This also might not have anything to do with your issue but is all of your RAM from Apple or did you buy some from 3rd party? And one thing to try that you might have already done is change the resolution on your iMac and then change it back again to the setting you want.

[The_G]

I've run reason on every iteration of OSX/MacOS and never had this or any other problem--which isn't to doubt that others are experiencing these issues, but rather to question the assumption that they are widespread.

Also, I use both Macs and PCs; in my experience Macs run Reason better than similar spec'd PCs (because OSX/MacOS and Core Audio are more efficient in how they handle audio than Windows and ASIO) and can then run the software for longer (e.g. my 2008 iMac still running R8 reasonably well, even though it's 9 years old).

The main advantage of PCs is that they are cheaper and modular, which means you can get more RAM and get faster processors for less money. That's a significant advantage. But every time I use Reason or Live on a PC, I'm reminded why I vastly prefer Macs for audio.

From what I gather, the issues with certain Macs and Reason has something to do with Retina/4K+ displays and OSX's auto-switching between integrated graphics and dedicated graphics. If you're running a Mac that doesn't rely on this sort of thing, then the bug won't affect you.

My Mac has both, but have not had any issues with auto switching on Reason.

But if someone is having those issues, all they have to do is go into system preferences, then energy and uncheck "automatic graphics switching."

[Gorgon]

Also, I use both Macs and PCs; in my experience Macs run Reason better than similar spec'd PCs (because OSX/MacOS and Core Audio are more efficient in how they handle audio than Windows and ASIO) and can then run the software for longer (e.g. my 2008 iMac still running R8 reasonably well, even though it's 9 years old).

This has nothing to do with Mac or PC. This has to do with the specifications of the specific device. A $2000 PC Desktop from 2008 can also run Reason 8 "reasonably well".

The main advantage of PCs is that they are cheaper and modular, which means you can get more RAM and get faster processors for less money. That's a significant advantage. But every time I use Reason or Live on a PC, I'm reminded why I vastly prefer Macs for audio.

And why is that, exactly?

[The_G]

Also, I use both Macs and PCs; in my experience Macs run Reason better than similar spec'd PCs (because OSX/MacOS and Core Audio are more efficient in how they handle audio than Windows and ASIO) and can then run the software for longer (e.g. my 2008 iMac still running R8 reasonably well, even though it's 9 years old).

This has nothing to do with Mac or PC. This has to do with the specifications of the specific device. A $2000 PC Desktop from 2008 can also run Reason 8 "reasonably well".

I said that a Mac will run audio software more efficiently and for much longer than a PC with similar specs. You need considerably better hardware on a PC to run audio comparably well--the $2000 PC from 2008 you mentioned, for example. In the end, you have to spend a comparable amount of money to get comparable performance for a comparable period of time.

(...and then you are stuck using Windows, which to me is an unpleasant experience--MacOS is just much lighter and more efficient. Yes, Apple can be annoyingly paternalistic, but as I see it, Microsoft is the same, only not as competent.)

[sublunar]

. You need considerably better hardware on a PC to run audio comparably well--the $2000 PC from 2008 you mentioned, for example. In the end, you have to spend a comparable amount of money to get comparable performance for a comparable period of time.

HA. Not even close. I brought this up earlier in this thread but I'll say it again since you are sharing misinformation as fact. I spent 400 bucks 10 years ago to build an XP machine that ran everything I threw at it: Video rendering, audio production, graphic design, etc. If you bought a machine with similar specs off the shelf, yeah you'd be looking at about the $2000 ballpark you guys are referring to. But anyone who buys a computer off the shelf for $2,000, be it Apple or Windows based, are throwing money away and at that point it doesn't really matter what you buy. My XP machine is still running strong but I replaced it a couple months ago when I needed Windows 7 applications. Yes I was still running XP on my main production machine a few months ago. It was replaced with another $400 build (4GHZx8 core with 16GB ram, SSD, etc). I also bought a laptop used for $50 that has an 8 core i7 with 8GB's ram which runs Reason and Arturia side by side (onboard audio!). I replaced the optical drive with another SSD and everything runs great. Try getting equal performance per dollar out of an Apple product.

[selig]

. You need considerably better hardware on a PC to run audio comparably well--the $2000 PC from 2008 you mentioned, for example. In the end, you have to spend a comparable amount of money to get comparable performance for a comparable period of time.

HA. Not even close. I brought this up earlier in this thread but I'll say it again since you are sharing misinformation as fact. I spent 400 bucks 10 years ago to build an XP machine that ran everything I threw at it: Video rendering, audio production, graphic design, etc. If you bought a machine with similar specs off the shelf, yeah you'd be looking at about the $2000 ballpark you guys are referring to. But anyone who buys a computer off the shelf for $2,000, be it Apple or Windows based, are throwing money away and at that point it doesn't really matter what you buy. My XP machine is still running strong but I replaced it a couple months ago when I needed Windows 7 applications. Yes I was still running XP on my main production machine a few months ago. It was replaced with another $400 build (4GHZx8 core with 16GB ram, SSD, etc). I also bought a laptop used for $50 that has an 8 core i7 with 8GB's ram which runs Reason and Arturia side by side (onboard audio!). I replaced the optical drive with another SSD and everything runs great. Try getting equal performance per dollar out of an Apple product.

Does "equal performance" account for your time/energy spent taking the DIY path? Sincere question, not trolling - just have not heard anyone make this argument AND factor in these mitigating factors.

Is it not fair to account for the time and experience it takes too build a box from scratch? If I was smart enough, I could build a LOT of things from scratch that were better and cheeper than off the shelf options. But first, I'd have to have the experience and the time to properly research and build the stuff. OTOH, if this approach is not something that's in my nature, I'd probably spend TWICE as much taking the DIY path since I'd make many mistakes and probably at least a few bad and costly decisions - even if not, my TIME is worth SOMETHING, no?

Or to put a number on it, how much would an experienced builder charge me to put together (and warranty) that $400 worth of parts? What do I do when there's a problem I can't fix myself (and how much more do I add to the cost to account for this)?

In the end there are those who can tear down and rebuild their car engine no problem, and those who just want a reliable vehicle to get them from point A to point B and are willing to pay for the privilege!

Basically I'm suggesting we do not forget to factor in the cost of our time, both for learning how to build a PC and for actually building it - not to mention the fact that the time spent researching/building/maintaining the PC is time not spent making music.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[sublunar]

. You need considerably better hardware on a PC to run audio comparably well--the $2000 PC from 2008 you mentioned, for example. In the end, you have to spend a comparable amount of money to get comparable performance for a comparable period of time.

HA. Not even close.

Does "equal performance" account for your time/energy spent taking the DIY path? Sincere question, not trolling - just have not heard anyone make this argument AND factor in these mitigating factors.

Is it not fair to account for the time and experience it takes too build a box from scratch?

Good question and yeah that's a fair point.

As far as my background: I started trying to acquire a working computer to make music with back in the 90s when I was a broke teenager. Mostly used junk other people were throwing away. It took some work at first, for sure. But how much time did it take for me to become *proficient* in building a computer? Hard to say. Spread out among all the computers I've built/worked on it would be difficult to calculate but it would be minimal. I hadn't put much thought into it before but I feel that anyone who makes music with a computer should know how a computer works. But I've rarely bought anything new and have been consistently broke my whole life so things like warranties never really played a part in my decision making/thought process. Now that you bring it up, I can see why new with warranty might be an attractive option for someone who isn't proficient and has money to spend. But then you're relying on someone else to fix things for you and that's just not how I roll. For me it just makes sense to learn what I'm using and own that thing entirely and save as much money as possible. That's why I use a PC, because it's the cheapest way to work. I owned a used macbook and a mac server. Didn't care for them. My equally spec'd Lenovo ran circles around the macbook AND had a stylus with which I could draw on the screen in photoshop. Apple laptops STILL don't do that.

Disregarding time spent on previous learning/attempts, it's a piece of cake to match up a CPU/MOBO/Memory on Newegg. And it takes about an hour to get it all setup and running. Not much to worry about really as long as you're careful (and have the CPU fan connected before powering on).

Of the two computers I've built from brand new, I've had one power supply go bad. Easy $60 fix. When I was desperate and piecing together used machines, there were much more failures. Western Digital drives burned me over and over again. Luckily I've always backed up my data.

All that aside, I was arguing The_G's ridiculous claim that you need "considerably better hardware" on a PC to run audio comparatively well against an Apple product. Also you can build your own PC with brand new components for a fraction of the cost of a new Apple. Therefore his claim was false. Unless we're strictly talking about off the shelf units. In which case, you're still paying a premium for Apple devices. But I would concede that you're at least going to be in the same ballpark at that point.

Still, I'm confident that with minimal effort on ebay used PC's are still cheaper than their Apple equivalents. I'm comparing my Dell e6520 (2.9GHZ i7 which runs Reason 8 and Arturia and inside of which I have two SSDs) to a similar Macbook pro A1425 which is going for $419 on up (way up). The e6520 starts at $159 with free shipping. I don't have all day to compare, but I'm not surprised by my initial findings.

[normen]

insult you with the most basic troubleshooting imaginable! Stuff like: check your internet connection... check your audio settings... check your computer specs... ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Hehe.. Do ONE day of phone support and you won't EVER say anything like that again

[Oquasec]

Propellerhead needs 64bitdepth.