Hi Dragos,

The essence of this discussion has been going on for almost 2 decades. Media composer and many other Avid products have always had specific hardware requirements meaning Avid designed and tested them on a limited set of pre configured workstations and servers. Avid did this to limit the number of variables for support purposes and cost.

That doesn't mean media composer works better on these workstations compared to a diy pc build. It just gives (professional) users a: 'this is what we tested and support' reference. And most of the users follow the guidelines as their primary interest is in having Media composer reliably output the media they need before a certain deadline.

Combine that with backwards compatibility of Media composer 2022 with projects created in Media composer versions of 20 years ago and it becomes apparent quickly that Avid never saw a need to change certain parts of the design or change the code to be more efficient or compatible with a larger set of (older) hardware. Many including myself have been asking about performance related documentation to determine for example the value of a high end quadro card compared to a low end quadro or geforce card. Chris Bove, now Avid's Online Community Manager, made this great article in 2017 

https://www.avidblogs.com/how-avid-media-composer-uses-a-computer/

But that's imho the best we ever got and gives your point:

Dragos:

I also said that being CPU rather than GPU oriented ignores the biggest source of computing power available to media applications, and is bad design.

And I'll add that as long as this remains true, MC performance will stay inferior and you'll need much more expensive systems to achieve similar performance to competing apps.

some validity. Practically though it leaves you with little choice but to look for a more powerfull processor (and motherboard) if you want to use Media composer 2022.

Dragos:

So why do you bother, then, with all these defensive replies that move the focus to something else?

Believe me I am not here to trumpet Avid, I have my own very real issues with it as it stands and I won't be paying subscription when that is forced on us. It is you Dragos my friend who is being defensive, you have been given the solution but it is not what you wanted to hear, so you argued about it: Why is Avid unstable? Because your system is old and unqualified, try 2018. No it's not other apps are great. But they're not Avid. PP is better! Then use that. And on it goes. I'm sorry if I appeared rude, I sincerely don't mean to be but I have absolutly no axe to grind in your woes. But it is not a fact that 'Avid has worse performance than competing apps' - this is only true for you, for the reasons outlined. I am currently working on a TV series with 40 other editors in a remote shared environment and I have been for 4 months now and I haven't had one single crash, which I think is pretty stable.

Jeroen van Eekeres:

Hi Dragos,

[...]Chris Bove, now Avid's Online Community Manager, made this great article in 2017 

https://www.avidblogs.com/how-avid-media-composer-uses-a-computer/

But that's imho the best we ever got and gives your point:

[...]

some validity. Practically though it leaves you with little choice but to look for a more powerfull processor (and motherboard) if you want to use Media composer 2022.

Hi Jeroen,

Thanks for the balanced reply.

And thanks a lot for that link, very informative.

Wondering if anything has changed in the meantime, since on a different thread an Avid rep was saying: "We've spent the better part of 4 years renovating most of Media Composer" ( https://community.avid.com/forums/p/207863/927290.aspx#927290 ), which means this process started after that article was written.

Jeroen van Eekeres:

Practically though it leaves you with little choice but to look for a more powerfull processor (and motherboard) if you want to use Media composer 2022.

That part, I acknowledged. 

I'll have to see if I'll be willing to go with an app that seems to get less R&D than others because the owners think they can afford to.

Because in the end the ending of your post is well suited: "If you want to use MC 2022".

Or, broader speaking, the question is: why would someone switch to MC? Most of the answers here seemed to be "because you're forced to, not because you want to".

Mercer:

Believe me I am not here to trumpet Avid, I have my own very real issues with it as it stands and I won't be paying subscription when that is forced on us.

It is already.

Mercer:

It is you Dragos my friend who is being defensive, you have been given the solution but it is not what you wanted to hear

That's a strange way to read it. I acknowledged the solution and said it says some bad things about the architecture of Avid.

It might sound strange to you, but these things can go together.

Mercer:

PP is better!

You seem to need to keep missrepresenting what I'm saying, for some reason. What I actually said: PP is a worse editing app in terms of features and workflow. PP is more technologically advanced and uses the immense resources available in nowadays computers much better, and it's faster. I think it's pretty hard to argue with that, but please do, in a specific way. 

Mercer:

it is not a fact that 'Avid has worse performance than competing apps' - this is only true for you

Well, no. That's actually just true and that's it.

It's bizarre and funny how much some Avid users insist in dismissing technological comparisons.

I got my answers very early in this thread. The rest became something of "Me: boy, this is surely strange to see in an editing app in 2022; Avid guys: No, you got it all wrong, you need to measure Avid with a different ruler. And tech doesn't matter anyway as you don't use Avid because it's superior tech, but because you are forced to by the environment".

I have some strange impression that I actually appreciate Avid more for what it is than some of its supporters here.

Everytime I read one of these posts, and they appear in forums for every NLE out there, all I can think is:

So, don't use it. 

What do we care?

You are trying to use a product, with a horribly underpowered system, and then want to complain about it? 

Do we each get a cut if we can convince you to switch over?

Do we sleep better at night knowing 1 more editor is using this product?

"But i'm only trying this"  Well, i'm only trying to drive a nail into the wall, and my tape measure doesn't do it properly.

I don't care what you're trying, you are not equipped to use the software... so use software you are equipped for, or get new equipment.   Quit trying to get us to convert you over. 

Geez...i'm starting to sound like Bob Zelin. :)

Excellent jousting! Mercer, you played that well. It may be over...

May I ask a question?  What version of MC is in use on your 40 editor project, just curious?

Telegram!:

Excellent jousting! Mercer, you played that well. It may be over...

May I ask a question?  What version of MC is in use on your 40 editor project, just curious?

2018, don't read into that too much

Mercer:

2018, don't read into that too much

The truth is that almost everything can be linked to that Mercer. And you could even argue Dragos is spot on because of it.

But 'we' know historically why media composer is where it is. Dragos obviously doesn't (Nothing bad about that Dragos). But that doesn't mean that we can justify bad... no extremely bad choices from the past that now stop us and Avid to take our tool(s) forward. And if Avid (its marketing and finance department) would just be clear who media composer is designed for we wouldn't be having the same subject in these threads over and over again.

Dragos, we aren't being defensive towards you. We have just learned that in large broadcast and production we have no choice but to follow the natural evolution of the product we have been using for 20 years, AND FOR VERY GOOD REASONS, trust me on that. And that includes the hardware requirements, however absurd sometimes.

Jeroen van Eekeres:

The truth is that almost everything can be linked to that Mercer. And you could even argue Dragos is spot on because of it.

I spent all last year onlining and grading 2 TV series on 2020 Symphony, no real problems to speak of. Do I like the new interface? No. Do I think it is essential? No. Do I like the disaster that is Titler+? No. But fortunately we are still HD for broadcast here. In all other stable and practical terms, again over large shared environments I see no problems with 2020. I don't know of any facility that is currently using 2022 currently, though. But in my own suite I have not had any stability issues with that version either. The interface will not save workspaces consistently and this is a very very annoying thing but not a dealbreaker, here, if we are talking about stability alone.

Jeroen van Eekeres:

But 'we' know historically why media composer is where it is. Dragos obviously doesn't (Nothing bad about that Dragos).

Sure, and thanks again for your balanced replies.

The question would be "why should Dragos care?"

Jeroen van Eekeres:

Dragos, we aren't being defensive towards you. We have just learned that in large broadcast and production we have no choice but to follow the natural evolution of the product we have been using for 20 years, AND FOR VERY GOOD REASONS, trust me on that. And that includes the hardware requirements, however absurd sometimes.

I do get that.

It seems to me there are two conflicting perspectives on this and so the source of some very defensive replies I'm getting.

One: if you want to work (aka "get hired") within a particular slice of this industry, in some particular territories, then take one particular piece of software as-is, like it or not, and use it or else.

Two: I want to choose a particular piece of software to do this type of work, and the only constraint is my subjective appreciation of it and its technical abilities (that is, the most common consumer evaluation, in which the product stands by itself and needs to be convincing in comparioson with competing products).

It's useless to try to apply the arguments of case One to case Two.

Also useless to try to shout to case two things like "go play with the other toys" because the only arguments you have apply to case one.

Still, conversations can be had.

That being said, it's my conviction (based on a long experience in related industries like VFX and animation) that software which relies on case One for it's existence will be eventually displaced by competition.

Mercer:

Do I like the new interface? No.

I love it.

Which shows how much different opinions can be, depending where one comes from.

In fact, to me, today, Avid's new UI is the best of all editing softwares'. Beat PPro at its own game. Can be very flexible and very structured and organized at the same time.

Mercer:

But fortunately we are still HD for broadcast here.

Yeah, there.

Dragos:

The question would be "why should Dragos care?"

Dragos cares because he believes he can have the best of both worlds. And I can't blame you because Avid is doing the exact same thing, because the larger part of the market is doing that same thing. But all of us might want to become biljonairs or astronauts and believe all the marketing we can become one, reality/statitstics/technology/mathmatics/etc... tell us only a few can.

I bash Avid whenever I feel they deserve it and would encourage everybody to share what they think needs to be improved, but you simply need to accept that Media Composer 2022 currently is in the state with the requirements it has. If you want a version that performs better, give 2018.12.15 a try.

Jeroen van Eekeres:

Dragos cares because he believes he can have the best of both worlds.

Let's be like Dragos!

Jeroen van Eekeres:

I bash Avid whenever I feel they deserve it and would encourage everybody to share what they think needs to be improved, but you simply need to accept that Media Composer 2022 currently is in the state with the requirements it has

Yeah, I'm at this stage now. Thanks Jeroen!

Great. Please let this community (and Avid) know what the outcome is.

As I have no idea on your background Dragos, I assume you haven't worked in the TV or Film industry. So let me share my view on the hardware requirements.

Imagine being in charge of a production company using between 3 and 200 editing suites, typically on central storage. What do you do? Do you buy, let's say 20, cases, power supplies, motherboards, processors, 80 memory modules, 20 SSD's, etc... Or do you buy a preconfigured HP/Dell model? Let's say you found a DIY setup on which Media composer, Resolve, PP and other adobe products,  etc... runs great. So you buy and build 20 systems. Now imagine your previous production(s) were succesful and 1 year later you are asked to do 2-3 more. So you want to expand your setup with another 10-20 systems. Can you get the same parts from your local retailer? Maybe, but most probably some parts have been replaced by new. So do you take the risk of using what is available now, as close as the setup you already have? Do you upgrade existing as well? Do you test again before buying? You have to keep the existing productions running while expanding so your time is limited. Do you search for the exact same parts you ordered 1 year ago online? But you or your customer(s) want to start editing in 1-2 months (if you are lucky).

Now imagine that besides your editing suites, you need other software like microsoft office suite, internet access for mail, downloading/uploading remote access, etc.... Some utilities/database so you can manage who edits where and when and how shifts are paid for. Some method of keeping backups, either for you own projects or for your customers so they can take them with them when done. Maybe you need central ingest and transcoding for the camera footage, as using a whole edit suite just to copy media to a central storage stops you from editing on the system. And maybe you even want to invest in media management solutions to keep track of which media is where to manage the chaos of each editor doing/naming clips as he/she wants.

In my 25 years of building and supporting editing systems I have helped with either approach. From single user home DIY systems to large broadcasters using only HP or Dell servers in machine rooms and preconfigured workstations in the edit suites. When these systems grow beyond let's say 2 or 3 edit suites the number of variables grows so exponentially that you quickly start realizing that limiting these is one of your main concerns.

Countless times have I heard: 'Why does this timeline play in edit 1, but not edit 2 where i get this error? Why is edit 2 faster than edit 3? Why does the picture look good in edit 1 but not in edit 3? Why can I hear the actor speaking well in my audio mix in edit 1 but not in..., Why are PP, Resolve, Fusion, Nuendo running on edit XX and Media composer is not?' Like on your system.

And now imagine working for Avid selling tens or even hundreds of thousands (hope so Avid) of new media composer systems or upgrades including support each year. On how many different configurations will these be running if we include the DIY builds? Can Avid test their software for such a market?

That's why so many stick (or seem defensive) of the certified configs. Because we learned that 1 hardware component, 1 driver, 1 single update from Microsoft, Apple, Intel, nVidia, AMD, etc... AND AVID, can cripple a computer in an editing suite or even a whole production or tv station. Combine that with each of these manufacturers having their own commercial interests, some being competitors and not sharing (pre-release) information with eachother... and things become complicated.

And that is why the standardization authorities like:

the IEEE. https://standards.ieee.org/

or the SMPTE. https://www.smpte.org/

exist and almost all the manufacturers follow their rules, but what about those computers/parts found on Wish.com, Amazon, AliExpress, Banggood? Should I continue?

This post is already getting too long so here is my conclusion: The supported hardware and software configurations for Media composer are a compromise, maybe not the best for all, but one that evolved over many years while being economically viable for Avid and its customers (until recently) and us telling you to 'respect' them is our 'best' way of helping you. That said, wanting to find solutions that make Media composer perform better, 99,9999% of the people out here want. Also on unsupported hardware but we care about the supported hardware.

Jeroen van Eekeres:

Great. Please let this community (and Avid) know what the outcome is.

For now, I'm still "evaluating" it. That means, staying for one more month license and using it in real world projects, and drawing conclusions from that.

Jeroen van Eekeres:

As I have no idea on your background Dragos, I assume you haven't worked in the TV or Film industry.

I've been working in the film and TV industry for more than 20 years. I used to be a senior visual effects TD, working on high-end commercials and feature films, in top big London studios as well as in my own small (but just as high-end) studio in Bucharest, Romania.

My studio did production and delivery for the most awarded independent animated movies done in Romania in the last 2 decades.

I've been part of studios using hundreds of workstations (usually running Linux) of the certified kind (HP/Dell) and I've been succesfully using in my studio certified systems, brand built to order systems (usually Supermicro) and generic "gaming systems" built from high-quality components.

In more recent years I steered to creative direction and now developing and writing/directing animated movies. The latter part with a strong editing component, as editing is an integral part of writing and story develpment for an animated movie. So editing is now a big part of what I do, but not in the same way it is for a professional editor.

Jeroen van Eekeres:

So let me share my view on the hardware requirements.

I'm perfectly aware of all those.

Jeroen van Eekeres:

And now imagine working for Avid selling tens or even hundreds of thousands (hope so Avid) of new media composer systems or upgrades including support each year. On how many different configurations will these be running if we include the DIY builds? Can Avid test their software for such a market?

The same situation Adobe, Blackmagic Design, Unreal Engine, Houdini, Maya, Maxon and any media creation software making developer is in?

Jeroen van Eekeres:

That's why so many stick (or seem defensive) of the certified configs. Because we learned that 1 hardware component, 1 driver, 1 single update from Microsoft, Apple, Intel, nVidia, AMD, etc... AND AVID, can cripple a computer in an editing suite or even a whole production or tv station.

I'm very aware of that and I think I mentioned it. Also, all (most) of the developers mentioned above have similar lists of certified systems, graphic cards, storage.

Look, it's simple, and I said it already. I have no problem with certified systems and such. I got my answers in the very first replies on my post. The thread could end there.

The rest of it was my remark (causing some strong and occasionally patronising replies of the "hey kid let us tell you how it really is" type) that Media Composer has lower performance on a given hardware than competing software. Because it doesn't exploit current hardware as well as the competition does.

That's all.

I have no proble upgrading my hardware, but to me it looks like on the most high-end Avid certified sytem, Premiere Pro or Resolve will run faster than Avid.

So for a newcomer to Avid, like me, it becomes a choice between the better designed system (Avid) that's lagging behind and doesn't seem to bother and the badly designed sytem (Premiere Pro) that is technologically current and seems to advance (which might give hope that in some future, even the badly designed parts might improve).

That is what I would communicate to Avid, that their ecosystem looks kinda hopeless for a newcomer, even a professional one.

I thought that my replies already communicated that, but it seems I could only transmit that I have no idea of the fields of film and TV.