Best reasons to upgrade to 2.1?

[Deen]

I've been using 1.2 for some time, almost know it
completely. But I have an itch to go for 2.1. My system
is 800 mhz Duron, 256 DD ram, 40 gig HDD- partitioned
20 for system, 20 for audio. Would upgrading to 2.1
cripple my PC. I plan to do 24 tracks. I am interested
in Realtime effects but would my processor be able
to handle it. Perhaps processing them first eats up
more HDD space but it's easy on the processor. Any thoughts
on this? Real time effects save disk space but give
the processor more work. So whick is better for my system
1.2 or 2.1?

THANKS

[dobro]

I reckon your system could handle 2.1 easily.

[FattMusiek]

Is 2.1 an upgrade I can download from 2.0? If so, where can I get it?

[dobro]

2.1 is an upgrade from 2.0. You have to go to Syntrillium to either buy 2.0 or download the upgrade for free if you've already got 2.0.

[Deen]

Thanks Dobro,

I'm going for it man!

[Chrisjob]

I'm running 2.1 on a PIII 600 mhz with 512 of RAM and have no problems. I've had upwards of 25 tracks or so (with no real-time effects, mind you)

If you need the real-time effects, just use them to audition what sound you want, and then bounce it down to the track. Be sure to save an copy of the original track that you will not effect, and then you can correct any mistakes

Good Luck
Chris

[Herm]

I upgraded to 2.0 and then 2.1 and am using a 600 meg celleron.

I made the mistake of not reading the fine print about what size processor you need.
ANy way realtime effects with this size computer is just not an
option but i do like some of the improvments and it is easier
to apply effects than it was with 1.2.

I would use my newer computer 1.8 meg with cool edit but my sound card will not work with win xp and i am stuck with using
win 98se, the sound card company went out of buisness so there are no new drivers to go to xp. And im not good enough
at computer stuff to even try a dool boot system.


Its a visious circle.

[Deen]

Thanks guys,

I'm presently chewing on 2.1's innards. It seems
Herm's rsponse has made me think against expecting
to run the realtime effects to my heart's content using
only an 800 Duron. I tested 2.1 realtime effects using only
one reverb and Antares Mic modeler on a voice track.
The voice sounded like a slowed down horror sound effect.
I ditched the Mic modeler and the reverb sounded pristine.
It seems my processor isn't up to my expectations.

Hey Chris, it's nice to know a 600 can handle 25 tracks
wtih no problems ( no realtime fx ) on 2.1. I tend to like
1.2 's processing just fine though.

I think upgrading my processor is the best thing to do
in the future. I still going for the 2.1 though. Not for
the realtime effects at the moment, but actually the interface
is too hard to ressist.

Like Herm said it's a vicious cycle.
I think most of us are just prey for software, computers
and the people who make them. They just never stop getting better.

[Strryder]

I use Cool Edit Pro 2.1, and think it's a great program, I love the way it sounds and looks, it does okay on my system up to a point, maybe 8 to 10 tracks, no trk fx, and just one instance of quickverb on bus "A", I tried to run 16 tracks and it just can't seem to keep up, the HD runs like crazy, every 20 seconds or so the playback starts to drop out, and I have to hit "pause" and let CEP "catch up".It is really a great editing program, but as a multi-track it just doesn't cut it for me.
(I have tried many different setups as far as size & number of buffers, nothing seems to help)

I run Sonar 2.2 XL on the same computer, and with a bit of straining it has given me 32 tracks, with 40 real-time plugins, and if I keep the plugins down to about 24 or less, it runs very smoothly, and would certainly run quite a few more tracks! Same computer, same soundcard, and at LEAST 3 times the track count.

The system is a 3 1/2 year old Gateway..

P-III 600 mhz
Intel 440BX mobo
384 mb ram
Windows 2000 Professional
One 7200 rpm 20 GB HD partitioned into two 10's
Matrox G-550 dualhead AGP card
Two 17" flatscreen LCD's
One Delta 1010 soundcard

I'm not really bitchin' about what CEP can do, it really is a great editor, and it does mp3, and sample rate/bit rate conversions, but as a multi-tracker... maybe with a more powerful computer, but then, with a more powerful computer, Sonar would probably STILL run rings around CEP as far as plugins and raw track counts go.

[Deen]

Yo Stryyder,

I think I'll check out a demo of Sonar. I've
always had the impression it is more of a
resource hog than CEP. But you seem to put that in
contradiction. So I'll give it a shot. I'm actually very interested in Midi too. hehe. So using Sonar and Cep did cross my mind.
Thanks for the input.

[FattMusiek]

Can someone post some screenshots of what it looks like? I'm curious but I'm not ready to upgrade just yet...

[Strryder]

Deen, I really bought CEP mainly as an editing/home mastering setup, and in this role it is an exellent choice, it's very easy to learn and use.

I like that CEP shows up in Sonar's tools menu, so you can select a track in Sonar's track view, then click on tools, then CEP, and the selected track will then be opened up for you in CEP's edit view, you can then edit away, and when your done, click on file, then save, then close CEP, at this point Sonar will tell you that the track has changed, and asks if you would like to reload it, hit yes, and then the edited track replaces the original in Sonar, super easy to do.

And yes actually, Sonar will use ALL of the available CPU, every time you hit play/record, it's not trying to be nice.. it wants to run correctly!

In a 16 track song with let's say..

10 EQ's on the tracks
4 compressors on the tracks
2 delays on the tracks
1 reverb on aux 1
1 chorus on aux 2
1 delay on aux 3
1 EQ on the L/R main out
1 compressor on the L/R main out

My setup would probably be looking like this on Sonar's status bar meters CPU about 60-70% HD about 10%

Of course at this point you would need to have the latency slider up a bit, so if you were going to be recording more tracks, input monitoring in Sonar wouldn't work, I use a combination of my Delta's monitor mixer, and a hardware mixer with an outboard reverb to monitor while recording.

[Strryder]

Deen, one more thing, If you decide to go with Sonar, I would recomend dropping the extra hundred bucks on the XL version, the Sonic Timeworks EQ and Compressor X are absolutely worth the added cost, they really kick ass!!! I couldn't imagine NOT having them in the arsenal.

[Deen]

Hi Strryder,

actually I was thinking of just making midi music on Sonar
with some good softsynths and converting these to waves.
Then I plan to open them in CEP. I've grown accustomed
to the way it records and mixes.

Actually I haven't tried pushing Cep to it's track and processing
limits but I think I'll do that pretty soon, since your posts
have gotten me questioning my computers capabilities.
Thanks, these things do help a lot.