ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: SIFM equivalent on the (ahem) other platform  (Read 3670 times)

Riley Casey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1473
Re: SIFM equivalent on the (ahem) other platform
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2018, 09:21:56 pm »

Well maybe...

After years of running XP on MacBooks cleanly and effectively against all comers including controlling Ashly serial ports via USB to serial adaptors, configuring Crown iTechs with System Architect over ethernet and talking to BSS DSPs it looks like the gears may not be meshing so well.  I've just spent a week butting heads with a new install of Windows 10 on a 2016 MacBook Pro that has only Thunderbolt / USB C ports.  About half way thru I had to drop back and punt, using my older MacBook with its native USB 2 and Ethernet ports to get the work done.  After accomplishing the configs I needed to do with the older machine I dug back into the various processes  and finally after another day and a half got the new machine and OS to actually talk to the outside world but things that took two minutes ( updating firmware in a DSP laden powered speaker ) took almost half an hour after threading its way thru the Windows OS, thru the VMware software, out the USB C ports to the assorted dongles that represented the legacy ports.  My faith in virtualization is currently shaken.  I'm going to have to replace my dead shop IBM machine and probably have to add another cheap Windows machine for show site use if I can't resolve this.  I just don't have time to wait for the 2.5 Ghz machines to think it all through.


All the more reason to go with a VM. You only have one platform to support. ...

frank kayser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1504
  • Maryland suburbs of Washington DC
Re: SIFM equivalent on the (ahem) other platform
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2018, 09:54:52 am »

Well maybe...

After years of running XP on MacBooks cleanly and effectively against all comers including controlling Ashly serial ports via USB to serial adaptors, configuring Crown iTechs with System Architect over ethernet and talking to BSS DSPs it looks like the gears may not be meshing so well.  I've just spent a week butting heads with a new install of Windows 10 on a 2016 MacBook Pro that has only Thunderbolt / USB C ports.  About half way thru I had to drop back and punt, using my older MacBook with its native USB 2 and Ethernet ports to get the work done.  After accomplishing the configs I needed to do with the older machine I dug back into the various processes  and finally after another day and a half got the new machine and OS to actually talk to the outside world but things that took two minutes ( updating firmware in a DSP laden powered speaker ) took almost half an hour after threading its way thru the Windows OS, thru the VMware software, out the USB C ports to the assorted dongles that represented the legacy ports.  My faith in virtualization is currently shaken.  I'm going to have to replace my dead shop IBM machine and probably have to add another cheap Windows machine for show site use if I can't resolve this.  I just don't have time to wait for the 2.5 Ghz machines to think it all through.


I'm going to take your statement "My faith in virtualization is shaken" as an indication of the abnormal vs something to expect.

Not bashing virtual machines, MAC OS, or Windows, I have gotten to the point where few things bother me more than wasting time on ANY computer or software that is fighting me. >:(   Been there, done that too many times.  Riley, I sure hope you were just having a bad computer day.  There are days (few and far between) when inanimate objects gang up on me  :o - like working late into the night without solution, yet in the morning, everything is working again, and the solution is obvious.


frank

Logged

Bob Charest

  • Lab Lounge
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 819
  • Westbrook ME, USA
    • Bob Charest Band
SIFM equivalent on the (ahem) other platform
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2018, 10:04:11 am »

Is latency an issue when running Windows operating system under parallels? I always thought that those sorts of solutions came with the penalty of a certain amount of latency. Am I incorrect about this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged

Riley Casey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1473
Re: SIFM equivalent on the (ahem) other platform
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2018, 10:23:53 am »

My experience seemed to indicate that operations with the virtual machine that were pretty comparable to native functioning with regard to controlling external devices became substantially slower and more difficult to establish when the added layer of USB C dongles was required. 

Mac Kerr

  • Old enough to know better
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6814
  • Audio Plumber
Re: SIFM equivalent on the (ahem) other platform
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2018, 11:46:15 am »

Is latency an issue when running Windows operating system under parallels? I always thought that those sorts of solutions came with the penalty of a certain amount of latency. Am I incorrect about this?

As far as just running the software, no. All the apps I run in emulation on my Mac run at least as fast as they do on the Windows laptop I also have for when I need 2 computers. Granted the Mac is a much higher sped'd machine, but it is my general purpose computer. I do not generally connect to other equipment with Windows except by USB. I have had no difficulty with USB connections.

Mac

Logged

Bob Charest

  • Lab Lounge
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 819
  • Westbrook ME, USA
    • Bob Charest Band
Re: SIFM equivalent on the (ahem) other platform
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2018, 12:17:39 pm »

Thanks, Mac


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged

Bob Charest

  • Lab Lounge
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 819
  • Westbrook ME, USA
    • Bob Charest Band
Re: SIFM equivalent on the (ahem) other platform
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2018, 12:18:56 pm »

My experience seemed to indicate that operations with the virtual machine that were pretty comparable to native functioning with regard to controlling external devices became substantially slower and more difficult to establish when the added layer of USB C dongles was required.
Hi Riley,

Maybe be time for me to do some testing as Iíve recently gotten a Mac Mini


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged

Scott Holtzman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5951
  • Ghost AV - Avon Lake, OH
    • Ghost Audio Visual Systems, LLC
Re: SIFM equivalent on the (ahem) other platform
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2018, 03:29:23 pm »

Hi Riley,

Maybe be time for me to do some testing as Iíve recently gotten a Mac Mini


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RAM and I/O are the bottlenecks, not CPU.  I am wondering if VMWare player has the same USB C issues.

In production data center environments we install a VM Hypervisor (Either Linux VZ or ESXI, which is VmWare) on a system with just one host to make backups and migrations easier.  Performance penalty is almost unmeasurable.

Logged
Scott AKA "Skyking" Holtzman

Ghost Audio Visual Solutions, LLC
Cleveland OH
www.ghostav.rocks

Russell Ault

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 632
  • Edmonton, AB
Re: SIFM equivalent on the (ahem) other platform
« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2018, 05:42:46 pm »

Russel -   As I understand it, SIFM is a tool that will dig deep into the IM world and produce multiple system proposals based on some parameters input into the program.  I've seen it demonstrated and it looks like it would fit the bill.  As it was used in conjunction with WSM, I ass-u-me-d it provided tools and data that WSM would not.  I cannot really address what SIFM does that WSM does not, but Sennheiser supports both programs, leading one to question why.

As far as WWB, I've heard their IM discovery tools are quite good, and runs on OS-X.  I'm trying to determine whether it is the best MAC software to compliment WSM.

I'm still not sure I quite understand what you mean by "system proposals"; if you're looking to generate frequencies for wireless equipment that will try to avoid interference from intermodulation, WSM will do that reasonably well in-box. As I mentioned, I use Shure's WWB for generating coordinated frequency lists (even on shows where I'm only using Sennheiser equipment), largely because it's a tool I'm familiar with, it deals well with coordinating equipment from multiple vendors, and I've been consistently happy with the results I've gotten using its frequencies (also, because I don't do enough coordination to justify the cost of IAS). My (admittedly quick) testing suggests that WSM's calculations are more conservative than WWB's (which, as I understand it, are still more conservative than IAS), so anything WSM spits out should be workable, although you might get fewer usable frequencies from WSM than WWB given the same parameters.

My understanding is that this functionality (up to a professional standard) was not available when WSM was originally released, which might explain why you were seeing it used in conjunction with SIFM. We as an industry aren't exactly fast to update (I think there are still copies of Sennheiser's Multimon out on the road with touring Broadway shows right now; they were using it on a tour I did local work on last year, anyway), so Sennheiser still giving out downloads of SIFM is likely a courtesy to these "legacy" users. Incidentally, this "support" doesn't extend to updates: the last version of SIFM appears to have been released in 2006.

-Russ
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: SIFM equivalent on the (ahem) other platform
¬ę Reply #18 on: February 19, 2018, 05:42:46 pm ¬Ľ


Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.089 seconds with 25 queries.