|
thank you everyone for the input! i was going to build a 2nd computer as a backup...but decided to try to build a better cpu and see if i can hit the 64 buffer size and will try to document the various configurations and see if there is any 1 or 2 things that seems to make the most difference- im very curious to try windows 7 as ive always used XP for audio and i hear windows7 is much more lightweight and efficient- i shelled out the cash for a RME800 very early in this game as everyone claimed it was the best, but thank you rainer for shedding some light on the reasons why ill let you guys know what i find, any other input/suggestions always welcome fro > Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:28:14 +0100 > From: moinsound@googlemail.com > To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com > Subject: Re: anyone running @ 64 buffer size? > > FRO DIDDLY schrieb: > > if i can run @ 128 with a dual core, should i be able to run 64 with a > > quad core? ;oD im sure that logic does not hold its weight, but where > > does the bottleneck occur for digital audio processing? > > > > i know to use a firewire card with the texas instrument chip set- > > i know to avoid the motherboard display output and use a separate > > video card- > Basically (and others did in part already tell you so - would expect > Andy Butler to chime in here soon ;), every component in the chain from > audio interface to your application (and back) plays its role here. This > is (without any claim of completeness): > * communication chipset of the interface ("your audio card") > * communication protocol from interface to computer (e.g. firewire) > * computer-sided communication adapter (e.g. firewire card/adapter > in the computer) > * system architecture of the computer (i.e. how the data gets from > the adapter to the cpu) > * computer BIOS > * computer OS > * computer's adapter driver > * any layers in between driver and application (e.g. ASIO) > * application > > And then there's of course the CPU speed... > > Now theory would say that using some dedicated interface structure will > bring down your required buffer size. I had the best experiences with > RME HDSP technology (which is a proprietary interface for some of their > older interfaces, e.g. multiface (II)/digiface) and can easily reach a > buffer size of 64 on my Kentsfield-equipped computer. > The reason is that a lot of the components in this chain are done by RME > (who take great pride in their designs, and rightly so), in that case > everything from the (ASIC) communication chipset, the communication > protocol (RME's own design and optimized for that application), the > computer-side adapter and the drivers, and the adapter interfaces > directly to the PCI(e) bridge, and that is usually designed well on most > computers. > > There's also manufacturers who build audio-optimized computers - > basically something you can do yourself if you spend days on end > researching the necessary info. The best idea may be to define the > unmodifiable starting points for your system (e.g. if you definitely > need/want to use your specific audio interface) and then build around > those conditions, considering some of the ideas you mentioned. You can > in some cases also be lucky with some non-TI firewire chipsets, and also > with an onboard graphics adapter...so make sure to try before you buy > (and in the best case using the exact hardware/software setup you intend > to use). > > Some other tricks: > * DPC latency is an important parameter. Setup your computer > including audio interface and use this tool: > http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml > * there are interfaces that work well with USB2. RME's earned good > reports, but I also had success with the (discontinued) Marian UCON. > Most of the time, USB is a problem on Macs. > * Depending on your OS, use the means at your disposal to optimize > it for audio. Caveat: there's a lot of sites out there which give you XP > (or earlier)-optimized suggestions under the "Vista" or "Windows 7" > header. But generally, turning off everything you do not need (NICs, all > of those odd services, Aero etc.) is a good idea. > > > Rainer > > -- > http://moinlabs.de > Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/moinlabs > Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn More. |