Can more RAM increase my track count?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cominginsecond
  • Start date Start date
cominginsecond

cominginsecond

Decentralized Media Mogul
If I upgrade to a gig of ram from 256 megs, will that significantly improve the number of tracks I can playback on my DAW (n-track)? I was hoping some of you more experienced computer recording guys/gals could tell me.
 
Nope.

Only things that would change that would be a new CPU and possibly a better soundcard if yours doesn't support WDM or ASIO drivers already.
 
I had heard conflicting things about this, but it seems as if my fears were confirmed. thanks!
 
Are you running a secondary drive dedicated to your audio??? You want a screaming fast drive to stream the audio data; that's what'll get you a bigger track count.

I'm running a PII-450/384MbRAM with two 7200rpm drives and with N-Track I normally run over a dozen 24-bit tracks and have run as many as 33 16-bit tracks without a problem.
 
Adding RAM can help if you're already maxing out your physical memory and you're getting a lot of disk paging. At 256MB, I can guarantee that you're not going to be using up all that memory on your multitrack software and plugins. Even hitting over 128MB physical on a beastly OS like Windows 2000 is kind of rare.

Now that's not to say that 256MB is the most memory anybody will need when doing audio. If you're loading up massive soundfonts, extra memory will help. If you're doing a lot of looping, it can help to load loops into memory. Adding more memory can also make the machine feel more responsive, especially if you do a lot of repetatitve tasks (like opening and closing the same programs or files repeatedly during a session). But other than situations like that, I would actually avoid going to 1GB unless you really do have a specific reason. Having unused memory is a waste of money, and you'll just depreciate it a away. I'm sure there's somewhere else that the money can go! Also, having such large memory sizes can lead to headaches; assuming your board supports it, consider using registered memory if you go over 512MB.

P.S. I often work on 24 track 24bit/44.1khz projects with lots of effects using a Celeron 850Mhz, 256MB PC100, 7200RPM HD's, and a Delta1010 (yay, just upgraded from a Delta44!!).

Slackmaster 2000
 
Even hitting over 128MB physical on a beastly OS like Windows 2000 is kind of rare.
Click to expand...
Happens to me every day...though not doing audio work.

I think adding more RAM can increase your track count a good deal, but not in the conventional sense. I think if you had a large amount of RAM (> 512), you could set up a RAM drive and move your project files to that drive and work from there. I'd like to have somebody try it (I would, not enough RAM though) to see how it works out.
 
>Also, having such large memory sizes can lead to headaches

What sort of headaches?

Are you referring to the 4x greater probability of getting a bogus memory module using a Gig over 256 MB?

Or the greater heat generated in the box by the extra memory?

Or the greater draw on your power supply?

I just like the idea of being able to address a gigabyte. Plus, DV rendering can benefit from "ridiculous" RAM amounts.

>I'd like to have somebody try it (I would, not enough RAM though) to see how it works out.

Me too. It would be very cool for applying non-destructive effects in a hurry just to see how it sounds.
 
More RAM can increase track count in some software, like Samplitude, where there is a RAM mode recording and playback system.
 
Think of it this way: in most DAW's, CPU gives you your plug-ins, storage (hard disk) gives you your tracks, RAM is the number of different apps you can have open at once (i.e. audio editor, sequencer, softsynths, etc.). Video acceleration can also speed up screen redraws. The idea is to have a balance of all.
 
Yes, the extra memory can help with samplers, looping applications, and so on...as I mentioned.

For general audio tracking, no, it will not help you.

Doc, the "headaches" I refer to are random lockups, explorer crashes, data corruption...the usual memory problems. A lot of motherboards spout off about supporting 1GB of memory, but that doesn't mean that the manufacturer anticipates people using large memory sizes! One of the most common things you'll see in a BIOS revision log is a reference to "fixing such and such with memory sizes > 512M", etc. Then of course Windows 9x has a few problems with large memory sizes, but they have workarounds (plenty of FAQ's on the net in this regard). With memory sizes over 512MB, it has historically been advised to use registered memory....without going into detail, let's just say that registered memory drives itself, while unregistered memory is driven by the board. Crucial.com has some good faq's regarding memory selection, and they get into some of the technical stuff without getting nerdy. Yes, mixing and matching a bunch of sticks is also a headache...if you go to 1GB the best configuration is probably 2 512MB sticks of the same make & model.

A RAM disk is kind of an interesting idea but.....man....can you imagine tracking several takes and then having your computer crash? I guess you could just load playback tracks into the RAM disk. The only problem with that idea is that a single 7200RPM drive is going to do you for at least 32 tracks on a well-working system.

Maybe we should ask "how many tracks is *more* tracks?"

Slackmaster 2000
 
>Maybe we should ask "how many tracks is *more* tracks?"

It's not just about more tracks. As I mentioned, Once the tracking is done, I'd like a FASTER way to experiment with effects (e.g. trying a dozen gradations of compression on a track to find the best). There's no risk of losing anything. Only spending less time looking at that hourglass.
 
Why do you destructively apply effects? If it wasn't for realtime processing this whole PC recording thing would be a pain in the ass.

Slackmaster 2000
 
>Why do you destructively apply effects?

I don't. I just want the non-destructive processes to go faster.

Bypass the HD and I'd expect some serious performance increases. Then when I've settled on what I want, write it to disc.
 
I don't understand how the non-destructive processes could possibly go faster. Only destructive processing which requires reading the entire file from the disk, applying processing to each sample, and then writing the file back to disk would see any kind of performance increase.

But even then, a 50MB wave file only takes about 2-4 seconds to load from disk, but it can take maybe 20-30 seconds to process with a heavy plugin. Loading into memory isn't going to help.

If you're not doing destructive processing, then you can chain 20 compressors on one track and switch between them and adjust each one as much as you want, in real time. This has nothing to do with memory size. Even if the track was loaded into memory, it wouldn't process any faster.

Slackmaster 2000
 
>applying processing to each sample, and then writing the file back to disk would see any kind of performance increase.

I see what you're saying now. I still want a GB. HAHAHAHA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top