24-bit Consumption

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrLip
  • Start date Start date
M

MrLip

New member
I am about to upgrade from an SBLive to a Delta 1010. (It'll be here on thursday, can't wait!!)

I was wondering how much more CPU power does 24-bit require compared to 16-bit?

I've been mixing 16-bit audio files on my P-II 350MHz for the past couple years and I'm just barely able to pull it off. The CPU meter in cakewalk reads 95% on both of the projects I'm currently working on.

Should I expect a reduction in performance (ie. number of simultaneous tracks, amount of realtime plugins) when using 24-bit audio?

Also, will having a better audio card (Delta) reduce the load on the CPU?
 
Ok, let me have a stab at this...the number of tracks may rely more on the speed of your hard drive than the processor...plug-ins are the CPU-hogging culprit...do you have a hard drive dedicated to audio(and what is its speed)? and how much RAM do you have?
 
I don't think the Delta will be able to use any less CPU power... it has no special DSP or anything to farm off the processing to off the CPU...
 
Yes, you will lose some performance at 24 bit, for a variety of reasons.

PII 350? I just upgraded from a Celery 400 to a PIII 600E, and I tell ya, it was totally worth it!

Ed
 
24 bit files, being bigger, will use more resources.

BUt I think that if you have 160-256 megs of ram, you should not have any problems with 24 bit files.
 
You'll be moving 1.5x more data. If you have fast hard drive and a good motherboard you should be ok.

While it might seem like it should, I'm not sure that 24 bit audio is any harder to crunch DSP-wise, since it will all be converted to whatever depth your software/plugin wants to work at anyways. Personally I didn't notice a CPU hit when I went from 16bit to 24bit and most of my projects hit 14-18 tracks. (Celeron 400 @ 500Mhz)

Sample rate, on the other hand, will incur a greater CPU load because you're crunching MORE numbers. I haven't tried 96khz recording yet.

Slackmaster 2000
 
CJ, I am wondering where you got your numbers for ram usage?

I downloaded a utility, a while ago, which runs like a TSR...you load it, then do your thing, and it checks actual memory usage. At the time, my system had 128 megs of ram. I did several tracks and several DX plugins at once and never got the system to use even 100 megs of ram. I cant remember what it maxed out at.

The reason I tried that utility was that my system would sometimes get dropouts due to all the stuff I was doing. I already suspected it was time to upgrade the processor, but from what I read, I got the impression that I might be lean on ram. Well, I have since upgraded the processor and the ram, but I wonder how many people's system are actually taking advantage of having more than 128 megs of ram? you have to use a buttload of dx plugins at once to do it! I've used as many as 12(I think around 8 or 9 tracks at the time) without choking my system when it had 128 megs.

I guess it's possible that the utility I used is bogus. Anyone know which program I'm talking about? I cant remember what it was called. :-(

Romeo
 
hi mr. boogie,

I use vegas, and it tells you your memory consumption.

I have 256 megabytes, and I can use all the plugins but vegas reports that I am only using 25 megabytes of ram.

When I had only 32 megs in the system, I was also only using 25 megs of ram, but I could not get 5 24/44.1 tracks in real time, the highest I could get was four, and that was a major headache. It also meant that I had to bounce backing tracks to record overdubs.

Now, I can have 21 tracks running with plugins, and record another one, all without a single hiccup.

Well, I agree with you that you have to use a boatload of plugins to use over 128 megs, but with a slower processor, that might not be so true.

I actually use over twelve plugins for every session I do, even if its just guitar and vocals, cause you have to do it in the tracks and the use some more plugins on the bus etc. And when you want 20-30 tracks on a pentium 350, the cheapest, fastest way is to just get as much ram as possible

peace
 
I wish RAM could help me.

I just went from 128MB to 256MB and it did not increase the number of DX plugins I could run.

My disk is fine. IBM DTLA 7200rpm. My disk usage meter in cakewalk never reads more than 40%. (On average I guess I use about 10-15 tracks.)

Unfortunately, my 'weakest link' in terms of computer power is my CPU. I think I'm gonna try to upgrade soon. I've been looking around the local used gear forums. I don't know if I'm going to have the cash anytime soon though.
 
Thanks for the info, CJ. Makes sense.

Now you got me wondering if there's a big difference in how efficient the different programs are at doing tracks and dx plugins.....Cubase VST vs. Cakewalk Pro Audio vs. Vegas, etc........

We always see sound card comparisons with technical specifications. It would be nice to see a very technical analysis of the various multi-track programs and how well they handle memory and cpu resources. Has anyone actually done this? Can anyone actually afford all the different programs to be able to do the comparison? hehe

Romeo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top