R
riccol
New member
How much affect does using 24bit instead of 16bit have on the number of tracks that you can get?
Slackmaster2K
Gone
Well, you're talking about 1.3X more data, which will have a negative impact on performance, but how much depends on many many factors. I think 24/44.1 is a fine resolution to work at, and consistantly get 24+ tracks on my Celeron 850 machine using several DX/VST effects (a few of high quality).
If you've got a decent Athlon or PIII+ machine then the jump to 24bit is well worth it. I'm still undecided on the move to 96Khz though.
Slackmaster 2000
If you've got a decent Athlon or PIII+ machine then the jump to 24bit is well worth it. I'm still undecided on the move to 96Khz though.
Slackmaster 2000
Gidge
Lapdance Test Dummy
i thought 24 bit was 1.5 times more data.....
but a question for Slack:
when it comes to track count, what (in your opinion) will bog you down quicker
a slower CPU
hard drive speed
# od plugins
amount of RAM
ive found that even with a crappy 500mhz HP Pavillion, i can get 16-24 tracks easy (with buffers cranked)....its when real-time effects are introduced that i start to stt ttt tuuu ttt errr.....
also, i told someone the other day that VST effects may be less CPU hogs than DX in apples to apples comparisons....would this be accurate?.....
but a question for Slack:
when it comes to track count, what (in your opinion) will bog you down quicker
a slower CPU
hard drive speed
# od plugins
amount of RAM
ive found that even with a crappy 500mhz HP Pavillion, i can get 16-24 tracks easy (with buffers cranked)....its when real-time effects are introduced that i start to stt ttt tuuu ttt errr.....
also, i told someone the other day that VST effects may be less CPU hogs than DX in apples to apples comparisons....would this be accurate?.....
R
riccol
New member
Good question Gidge,
That's what I meant to ask!!
That's what I meant to ask!!
Slackmaster2K
Gone
Haha, I must've mistyped...sorry 
Stupid math!
Gidge, I think it's a combination of CPU and the dreaded bus. The CPU is an easy one, the bus is a lot more complex because we're talking about a majority of the devices in the machine. That's one of the reasons the chipset it soooo important. Timing is a rather critical issue when we start pumping large streams of "realtime" data.
I honestly don't think that the hard drive has much of an impact if you're at 7200RPM. Perhaps an ugly controller could be a culprit, but I can't see the drive itself being a problem. Using dskbench I've always been able to get at least 22-25MB/sec sustained multiple large file transfer rates with a 7200RPM drive, which is enough bandwidth to handle a whole boatload of tracks, even if we assume less than 1/2 that performance in real world applications (e.g. we only need 9MB/sec to handle 32 24/96 tracks).
If everything is fine until you start adding realtime effects, and your CPU usage isn't peaking, then it *could* be the hard drive, but I would suspect something lower like the controller or drivers. It could also be an inefficiency somewhere else in the chipset, a nasty device hogging the bus or stalling, etc, etc, etc. It's so hard to troubleshoot that I never get involved with "I've got a stuttering problem" discussions anymore. It could be one of a huge number of things and most people aren't willing to troubleshoot properly because it requires pulling shit apart.
Memory is not an issue as long as you've got enough. 256MB is good. Higher system bus speeds of course imply better performance.
I've got one of the good ol' 440BX machines, and I start to get stuttering right when the CPU gets up in to the 75-80% sustained usage area, which I think is pretty damn good. Very predictable regardless of what effects I'm using or how many tracks I'm running (although I rarely go over 24).
Of course the number of effects will have an impact, but more importantly, the "intensity" of the effects will have an impact. The more CPU intensive the effect, the more CPU usage (duh). So I might be able to do 3 Waves Trueverb effects before my CPU is getting up over 60%....or 15 n-Track reverbs.
Without the overhead of COM, VST plugins can be considered more efficient. How much more? Probably nothing to write home about. They are certainly loads easier to develop!
Slackmaster 2000
Stupid math!Gidge, I think it's a combination of CPU and the dreaded bus. The CPU is an easy one, the bus is a lot more complex because we're talking about a majority of the devices in the machine. That's one of the reasons the chipset it soooo important. Timing is a rather critical issue when we start pumping large streams of "realtime" data.
I honestly don't think that the hard drive has much of an impact if you're at 7200RPM. Perhaps an ugly controller could be a culprit, but I can't see the drive itself being a problem. Using dskbench I've always been able to get at least 22-25MB/sec sustained multiple large file transfer rates with a 7200RPM drive, which is enough bandwidth to handle a whole boatload of tracks, even if we assume less than 1/2 that performance in real world applications (e.g. we only need 9MB/sec to handle 32 24/96 tracks).
If everything is fine until you start adding realtime effects, and your CPU usage isn't peaking, then it *could* be the hard drive, but I would suspect something lower like the controller or drivers. It could also be an inefficiency somewhere else in the chipset, a nasty device hogging the bus or stalling, etc, etc, etc. It's so hard to troubleshoot that I never get involved with "I've got a stuttering problem" discussions anymore. It could be one of a huge number of things and most people aren't willing to troubleshoot properly because it requires pulling shit apart.
Memory is not an issue as long as you've got enough. 256MB is good. Higher system bus speeds of course imply better performance.
I've got one of the good ol' 440BX machines, and I start to get stuttering right when the CPU gets up in to the 75-80% sustained usage area, which I think is pretty damn good. Very predictable regardless of what effects I'm using or how many tracks I'm running (although I rarely go over 24).
Of course the number of effects will have an impact, but more importantly, the "intensity" of the effects will have an impact. The more CPU intensive the effect, the more CPU usage (duh). So I might be able to do 3 Waves Trueverb effects before my CPU is getting up over 60%....or 15 n-Track reverbs.
Without the overhead of COM, VST plugins can be considered more efficient. How much more? Probably nothing to write home about. They are certainly loads easier to develop!
Slackmaster 2000
Gidge
Lapdance Test Dummy
"I've got one of the good ol' 440BX machines, and I start to get stuttering right when the CPU gets up in to the 75-80% sustained usage area, which I think is pretty damn good."
oh, i see now....dumb ass me just figured you should be able to hit 100% before you have problems.....yeah, i start getting them around 70%(60 on a bad day).....so i guess im ok, and ready for an upgrade......i dont do much serious recording so im not ready to let go any $$$$.....when i really need the extra effects i just "print" the effect and take the plugin off (with a backup of the clean track of course).....
have 320mb RAM so thats not a problem........
oh, i see now....dumb ass me just figured you should be able to hit 100% before you have problems.....yeah, i start getting them around 70%(60 on a bad day).....so i guess im ok, and ready for an upgrade......i dont do much serious recording so im not ready to let go any $$$$.....when i really need the extra effects i just "print" the effect and take the plugin off (with a backup of the clean track of course).....
have 320mb RAM so thats not a problem........
Slackmaster2K
Gone
Yeah I do destructive editing too now that I *sort of* know what I'm doing from time to time. I tend to leave reverbs and compressors live as long as possible, but other effects (like special effects), I'll get them where I want them and print. And yeah man, it's good to get in the habit of saving backup copies of those original tracks
This game is all about timing. Every bit has to be in the right place at the right time for sound to reach your eardrums! With one track, you might be able to get close to that 90-100% CPU usage mark before you get stuttering....but as more data starts flowing, I've found that 70-80% is about where problems will start. In fact, I think that's where n-Track starts to redline.
Slackmaster 2000
This game is all about timing. Every bit has to be in the right place at the right time for sound to reach your eardrums! With one track, you might be able to get close to that 90-100% CPU usage mark before you get stuttering....but as more data starts flowing, I've found that 70-80% is about where problems will start. In fact, I think that's where n-Track starts to redline.
Slackmaster 2000
