Thinking about buying Protool 12

[The Weed]

And I would tend to take whatever Darryl Ramm has to say as clear truth too.

[The Weed]

To the OP, do rent Pro Tools and see how it goes for you. Just don't expect it to replace Cubase as a sequencer. Many, many users have a sequencing program and then port over to Pro Tools to mix.

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by the weed

and i would tend to take whatever darryl ramm has to say as clear truth too.

+1000000000000

[huzzam]

Originally Posted by moonmusic

Digidesign recommended this years ago for stability reasons....It used to be documented when they tested systems and told you what systems to use for best performance/stability....I followed this recommendation based on those documents when I put together my HD system....A lot of those documents are really hard to find or just don't exist anymore.....moon

Exactly, which might just mean that it's outdated, obsolete advice, if Digi/Avid no longer says it. I've just checked on the "Computer Optimization Guides" page, updated May 2016, and it makes no reference to matched RAM.

check for yourself if you like ~ http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/e...oting/en367983

[zion]

Originally Posted by weezul

...wh.. what? why does this matter. I understand ram works better when it's dual channel and equal for each channel but I'm fairly sure it won't make any perceivable difference to the performance of a well coded program. Can you explain how you have come to this conclusion of outright removing sticks of RAM? Surely when it comes to samples or Ram Cache, even if the bays are not equal, the extra RAM still has a massive benefit outweighed by any dual-channel bus speed/buffering mismatch. I've ran 12GB of ram for years.

I've seen some crazy explanations for Pro Tools' behaviour but this is the most interesting yet....I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just wondering where the pool of evidence is for such a suggestion that it hampers pro tools' performance

The recommendation for matched Ram has been around for a long time now and has become edged in stone for most. It is considered common knowledge these days. Most computer builds for Audio and Video and just about every kind of hardware and software Vender has recommended it in the past. It is still a good recommendation today. Many hard to find problems have been found due to unmatched Ram and Ram timing issues. Even Intel had recommended it from time to time.

[moonmusic]

Originally Posted by huzzam

Exactly, which might just mean that it's outdated, obsolete advice, if Digi/Avid no longer says it. I've just checked on the "Computer Optimization Guides" page, updated May 2016, and it makes no reference to matched RAM.

check for yourself if you like ~ http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/e...oting/en367983

I checked the link and that's not exactly what I'm talking about....They used to test machines that were on the market and would tell you exactly which systems worked....Like my Nehalem or Westmere, etc.....They also listed general info such as the always use matched RAM in those specs....I'm certainly not going to go back and forth about it...I don't care what you guys do....Just trying to help clarify to the OP that was asking for help....I'm out.....moon

[weezul]

The issue isn't that matched ram is a bad idea. Far from it. But to single it out as a reason to not install pro tools is another thing, that's all.

[TOM@METRO]

Originally Posted by zion

The recommendation for matched Ram has been around for a long time now and has become edged in stone for most. It is considered common knowledge these days. Most computer builds for Audio and Video and just about every kind of hardware and software Vender has recommended it in the past. It is still a good recommendation today. Many hard to find problems have been found due to unmatched Ram and Ram timing issues. Even Intel had recommended it from time to time.

^^^ Truth. ^^^