If you can pick up the most powerful CPU you will be even more future-proof of course, but the most important difference between the two models is the screen size, not sure that pro tools on a 13" screen is very convenient

Major points to Julien for both... er... points.  Being "future-proof," while ever-elusive, is _always_ a good goal, and the speed will _definitely_ help move you toward that.  I _cannot_ stress this enough.  And the smaller screen, though surprisingly "roomy" with its inherent resolution, is _not_ good enough to run _any_ of your typical DAWs without tripping all over yourself.  (Of course, I usually have a screen full of plug-ins all over the place.  Hopefully, you're not so nuts.  Speaking of nuts...)

Yeah, think Simeon Ten Holt meets Sorabji!!!  (If you don't know them, then please, look them up -- you'll appreciate the descriptions!  %^)

I just wanna know if the developers think the 2.53GHz option can handle one instance of Pianoteq in Pro Tools with max polyphony

Yes I do think so, although we do not have pro tools installed on a similar setup. If you can pick up the most powerful CPU you will be even more future-proof of course, but the most important difference between the two models is the screen size, not sure that pro tools on a 13" screen is very convenient

Honestly though, I run Pianoteq in Logic studio 8, with the laptop mentioned above and it's just amazing.  Absolutely hands down worth the money.  It's the only piano sampler I  have ever owned that hasn't failed me once during a recording or playback session.  It's solid as a tank on a Macbook Pro with Logic 8.  (It's also perfect in Mainstage for live paying, I do that too).  Logic 9 will be just as good most likely.  But I can't vouch for that yet sorry.

If it were me.  I would go for the one with the faster processor if I could afford it.  Because, you need to compensate for 64-bit coming soon.  New OS coming soon, Updates for Logic coming soon.  Updates to Pianoteq and a pro version eventially.  Nice thing about Pianoteq is that it uses almost no memory at all.  But it makes up for it in CPU.  So by having your other samplers and logic using up the Memory, but less CPU, it leaves more CPU for Pianoteq.  The other samplers are more picky about hard drive read speeds and bottlenecks of that sort.  For Pianoteq, concern yourself with bus speed and CPU speed.  Also, once you record your parts, you can freeze them in Logic which will take your CPU usage down to about 2-4% per track.  (not down 2-4%, but all the way down to literally only using 2-4% of the CPU total).

If you can't afford the higher one right now, trust me that the lower one will do the trick because it's more specs then mine is.  So get the one you can afford.  They both will work.  The higher one will simply let you do more long before you hit the wall.  I went for the most expensive version 3-4 years ago.  Here I am still using it and no where close to needing to replace it yet.  It still does all my recordings and mixes perfectly.  I will run it until it dies.

Maestro2be

I just wanna know if the developers think the 2.53GHz option can handle one instance of Pianoteq in Pro Tools with max polyphony, some string resonance, and a little reverb. Or, what they think is the safest polyphony for that CPU.

Alternatively, can anyone currently max out one instance of Pianoteq without hiccups? If so, what's your computer's specs?

Thanks!

I primarily use Pianoteq in Live 8 for now, and when I enable multiprocessing _in_ Pianoteq:  yummy!  I see a significant improvement, especially as the polyphony increases and with multiple instances (I can use about 3-4 without reaching craptacular land, though the _total_ polyphony can't be too nuts.)

Sorry to drag this off-topic, but my _main_ answer still is:  get that _faster_ processor!  It's definitely worth the extra moolah, even if it still isn't going to give you performance like a quad (or octo) setup.  And, using, Pro Tools, you'll need the horsepower!

"I think you [meaning ME ] are missing something here - there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this. That feature [I think referring to multi-core mode] in PianoTeq is the same one in most other virtual instruments that have a stand-alone mode. The feature is for when you use it stand-alone and not as a plug-in, since the host app is what handles processor distribution, not the plug-in."

So kinda like dhalfen is saying, the host uses the dual core processing, not the plug-in per se. The processor distribution should be "transparent" to Pianoteq within PT. (BTW, this is all very poetic and metaphorical for a tech n00b like myself. LOL)

But dhalfen, so you're saying that within Logic you can enable Pianoteq's dual-core mode and see an IMPROVEMENT!?!?!? Julien, how do you suppose that works??? What's Logic's special sauce?

If I disable the multi-, then performance drops (er, activity climbs) considerably in either Logic, Live, Sibelius, or standalone, especially with super-duper-high polyphony.

And the folks on Digidesign's forum _would_ have a lot to say, I'm sure.  ;^)

From what Julien says, Pro Tools' use of multicores is about as efficient as that of the current version of Photoshop -- in other words, not very!  The number of cores should, ideally, be transparent to the software, and the host/system should do all the overhead, but such is largely not the case -- yet!

I posted the question there, because it's just so hard for me to believe that they'd make software that's compatible with dual-core Intel Macs and half-ass it by not taking advantage of the dual cores. Let's see what they have to say...

You'd benefit _greatly_ from using the new Logic Pro 9 or Ableton Live 8 (which I _love_) instead of Pro Tools.  I invested a _ton_ of money in RTAS plugins (thank goodness not TDM and the uber-ridiculous hardware!!!) on my old Power Mac G4 "Quicksilver," and I finally just grew sick and tired of Avid's continuous milking of their customers (with unsatisfactory system/hardware upgrades).  The only "professional" thing about their junk is that they are a "professional" pain in the rump who force you into a narrow corner. 

Fortunately, many of those plugins have, by _now_, been produced in AU or VST form (or I just used a wrapper for non AS/RTAS things anyway) -- I'm only missing a few Bomb Factory, McDSP, and Serato plugins with maybe a genuine _hint_ of regret.  (Especially the McDSP...)

Also, you'd benefit _greatly_ from multicore rendering.  Too bad they don't have a quad-core laptop yet...  (It would be quite the furnace, anyway, until -- hopefully -- Intel's next die-shrink.)

:-)

I did comparisons and it actually performs _comparably_ to my iMac, and my iMac makes me _very_ happy (though it would be positively _stomped_ in a duel with a Mac Pro).

(Check out the following review at Bare Feats:  http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp15.html)