How does GS3 compare to 2.5?

[BlueScreen]

After about a year off, I am trying to update my software & wasn't sure if there was a consensus about the merits and shortcomings of version 3 compared to version 2.5.

Is 3 worth the move? Is it stable? Or does the new feature set place too many demands on hardware that would operate fine under version 2.5?

[JonFairhurst]

I find GS3 to be more stable than 2.5. Most people have great results. Some don't. Many problems have been fixed by turning off the automatic file scan in the Quicksound database. Some cards/drivers are problematic. (Teratec, for example.)

The samples load REALLY FAST. I used to be a template guy, but with this new found loading spped, I build my pieces instrument by instrument. The RAM demands are lower that way, and I can be more creative with the sound.

GigaPulse sounds GREAT, but is hungry. You want a 2.4 GHz P4 or better, or an A64 system. See the "Systems that WORK" thread for examples. And you want GS3 Orchestra to have free reign with GPulse.

The Vienna Giga Symphony is really high quality, but limited. There's lots of other great, usable content that comes along for the ride.

The signal processing and EQ are much improved.

I'm 100% happy I upgraded.

-JF

[BlueScreen]

Hi Jon.

Thanks for your reply. It sounds like 3 is worth the upgrade. I'll just check my PC to see if it's fast enough to make use of the additional features.

Thanks!

[JohnnyP]

Sagar,

Enjoyed the the tabla, guitar, piano stuff.
Missed your post brother. What have you been up to?

Sincerely
Jonathan

[kitekrazy]

It loads a lot faster, has rewire. The authorization scheme is the worst on software I've owned so far. To be on the safe side install it on WXP, some people run it on W2K-I had no success with GS3 on W2K.

[Commander]

Giga3 is a vast improvement over 2.5 and I love it to pieces - the ability to stack tracks on a single channel is in itself worth the upgrade I think. It makes mixing drums so much quicker and easier. The screen layout is greatly improved too so it's far easier to see what you are doing (the mixer page in particular is far more intuitive). Having eq and compression on every channel is fantastic (these are pretty good too) and as has already been mentioned, the samples load very quickly. I've had the odd crash here and there but then I did on 2.5 so I'm not too worried. Save as you go and you are fine!

Well worth the upgrade!

[BlueScreen]

Sagar,

Enjoyed the the tabla, guitar, piano stuff.
Missed your post brother. What have you been up to?

Sincerely
Jonathan

Hey Jonathan.

It's great to hear from you! Lately I've been up to taking care of my twin boys! :-) Now that they're a little older, I am getting back into music after a hiatus.

[JohnnyP]

Sagar,


Hey Jonathan.

It's great to hear from you! Lately I've been up to taking care of my twin boys! :-) Now that they're a little older, I am getting back into music after a hiatus.
Twins?!? Whew! Well that makes it all worthwhile!

Sincerely,

Jonathan

[Bruce A. Richardson]

After about a year off, I am trying to update my software & wasn't sure if there was a consensus about the merits and shortcomings of version 3 compared to version 2.5.

Is 3 worth the move? Is it stable? Or does the new feature set place too many demands on hardware that would operate fine under version 2.5?

If you'd like to post your machine specs (processor, RAM, drive types), I could try to give you some expectations to consider.

In the most general sense, you won't be worse off. There are architectural enhancements that would make a good 2.5 machine a better 3.0 machine.

The GigaPulse/DSP-plugin amenities might be another story depending on your specs. Really, depending upon almost anyone's specs. For that, you want some processor horsepower...it will use as much as you can throw at it, and you'll want more.