Satisfied n-Track user

[Purple-Tortoise]

This forum is probably empty because everyone is too busy recording on n-Track. I'm spending every waking moment right now working on my bands latest demo. I get at least 8 tracks on my celeron 466mhz with 96ram. This software has to be the greatest deal for multitrack. I've tried some of the other programs out there such Cakewalk,vegas and whatnot. I don't know why people spend so much money on these programs just to end up spending more time getting a hold of support.

 

[drstawl]

Or they found the stuff unworkable and went elsewhere. I loaded Vegas Pro and it worked as advertised, no squeezing involved. When this same test was put to n-track, I got zip. I'm still curious about this product despite my less than enthusiastic opinion of the interface (spoiled by Vegas Pro) and that nagging problem of the program (almost) not working at all. You are correct; that is one heckuva price ratio between N-track and Vegas Pro, but I can't even give them an honest A/B comparison until I figure out how to make n-track work. And I'd rather just be using my studio to record music than using it as a software test workstation. Although both are hobbies of mine. I don't mind giving any reasonable theories a go; that's why I posted the first question in this forum 9/2/99. Second post. First Question. Getting more to my point: have you actually tested how many tracks you can really multitrack with that 466 Celeron using n-track? I went months just thinking- I've got more tracks than I'll ever need, so why run the benchmark? It struck me that I couldn't compare my system to other digital recording systems (computer based and standalone) without doing this bit of boring homework. My PII-450/128MB RAM provided 36 tracks using Vegas Pro. And these were from distinct .wav files. Not sure about n-track or Vegas Pro, but CW can access a single file reproduced on multiple tracks much faster than several distinct copies of the same .wav file, so you have to force the system to read different .wav files to get a fair benchmark of multitrack capability.

 

[hongteck]

I'm using N-Tracks with my Pentium 166 MMX machine. Could only handle 4 tracks or more with a reverb effect on each. I was thinking of upgrading my CPU to a Celeron 466 to get more. I'm worried because Purple-Turtoise's post says that his Celeron 466 can only take around 8 tracks. Is that all ? Can I do better with Cakewalk, Logic etc etc ...

 

[Slackmaster2K]

Ok, what you all have to understand is that n-Track is great because a) The PRICE and b) there is a single author who is open to suggestions and very intent on improving the product. The price is of course the biggest factor though. Without n-Track I would not be here. Really. I couldn't have afforded anything else at this point and my old 4-track was not even close to fun.

If you're talking raw mono tracks with no effects then hell...I have no idea how many you'd get...but it should be quite a few. I tend to use Reverb and Compression on most of my tracks as well as a bit of EQ here and there. I apply the effects to each track and don't usually use the AUX channels which can boost performance but you lose the ability to tweek each track.

Anyway, these effects are major CPU hogs. Simultaneously I've had:

1 stereo track w/Reverb and EQ
3 stereo tracks w/Reverb and Compression
2 mono tracks w/reverb and compression
1 mono track w/compression reverb and EQ

Those are all FULL LENGTH tracks (full length waves I should say (~3.5min long each). So that's 7 tracks with a total of 9 effect instances. OR, it's 11 mono tracks with a total of 9 effects.

That's where version 2.0 started to get pretty goofy when trying to add more tracks (playback was fine). However the latest Beta is supposed to be much more efficient. I couldn't get it to run initially on my system so I installed NT4 and it ran just fine. I haven't had much of a chance to play around with it yet but from what I've seen it's more responsive. Flavio has also changed the interface a bit so that it's more intuitive..especially in the setup. And he also added quite a few features to keep up with the big-time commercial packages.

Anyway, my system is a measly Celeron 500x83 w/64MB and a 5400RPM ATA/66 drive. I'm not unhappy with my $35 purchase of n-Track and pleased as punch to download updates FOR FREE as they become available.

Bottom line. The $500 software is going to outperform the heck out of $35 n-Track AND will probably be more intuitive. But will it be 14 TIMES more effective? I honestly don't know. When I get the money to build a real home studio I'll probably get some better software...but for now...man, I wouldn't even consider it.

So...DOWNLOAD it and try it. There's nothing to lose and it's a small download. If you can't get it to run then the best thing to do is ask on www.fasoft.com The messageboard there was the clincher in my decision to buy n-Track. To see regular posts by the author is very reassuring.

Slackmaster 2000

 

[Dondello]

It is reassuring to see regular posts from the author. I hate it when people start something, and then drop off the face of the planet...

ahem..