Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
DeeAa DeeAa is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:58:08 +0200, "DeeAa"
wrote:


You get the picture why I'm constantly busy getting to the next task at
hand
;-) ?


Well, I get a fair picture of a butterfly mind who obsesses on saving
a few seconds here and there but will happily waste a whole evening
rebuilding his computer system.

(His? Or am I talking to a woman? This smells rather of that female
"Look at me! I'm SOOOO busy!" thing :-)

I'm a dude...and I'm NOT happy about rebuilding my system once again as it
works fine. But what can I do...this is an AGP based system and I've used
all options for upgrading it. I can swap the innards for (only) slightly
better but Pci-e system for free, as my friend is upgrading his machine and
he'll get the same money whether he gives my stuff in trade or his own - and
if I swap parts with him, I can again upgrade with the newest displaycards
and memory etc. and not have to swap the whole system at once the next time
I need to do that. Believe me, I've been trying to avoid it but it's a sweet
deal. I get a better platform for free, and can finally get a decent
displaycard for games without having to spend $1000 at once.

BUT I just made a test...in fact the programs are loaded much faster all at
once rather than separately.
I opened all the everyday-use programs I have on the QuickLaunch bar as
quickly as I could click 'em - 20 of them including Cubase and Wavelab - and
it took 1 minute 26 seconds till the disk light went out again and all were
running. Even before that I would have been able to write at least one or
two quick email replies or start d/l:lling headers etc. on the programs that
had completed loading already.

I then tried to give the programs time to load properly, but also tried to
launch the next the same instant the previous one finished loading, and I
could not get them all launched under 2 minutes even though they had just
been launched and the all-at once test was just after a cold boot, even if I
hastened it a bit and launched the next one a bit early.

So it does work faster to open programs simultaneously :-)
Probably would not on a single-drive system but I have 3 separate zero-raid
setups on this...

What soundcard? Is "Release driver in background" selected in
Cubase?


Yep, but it doesn't help. If I try to click anything outside Cubase, the
playback freezes right away. If I proceed to load another audio program it
complains about the driver OR says nothing, but won't give any audio.

It did that both with Echo Layla and now MAudio Firewire 410.


  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jim Gilliland Jim Gilliland is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:24:24 -0400, Jim Gilliland
wrote:

I'm not complaining. This system is fast enough. g But if I wanted to make
it faster, I'd have to speed up the disk - probably adding another drive or two
to the RAID. Adding more memory or a faster CPU wouldn't give me much benefit.


We'll have to agree to disagree about that :-)


Really? Sorry, but I can't even imagine what the disagreement would be about.
Are you saying that you doubt my word on this? If so, well, don't! vbg You
can tell me all you want about how your system behaves, but it wouldn't make
much sense for you to try to tell me about mine. Not when I'm here observing it
firsthand! Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your remark - if so, I apologize.
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jim Gilliland Jim Gilliland is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

Tobiah wrote:

The bottom line is that more memory will always help to
some degree, because it reduces the amount of redundant
disk reads. I don't know how Windows handles this, but
if it is not in a similar way, then it is quite lacking
in this regard.


Perhaps, but that kind of caching provides almost zero benefit in audio
processing. Sequential reads of long files don't really take much advantage of
a cache. Especially when you're processing a dozen or two of them concurrently.
  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jim Gilliland Jim Gilliland is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

Laurence Payne wrote:

I thought you said a faster processor WOULDN'T make any great
difference?


Laurence, I think you're getting your correspondents mixed up. g
  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in
message
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:24:24 -0400, Jim Gilliland
wrote:

Sure it does. That two hour concert that I told you
about takes around 30 minutes to render into a stereo
mix. On last year's machine, it would have taken
about 60.

And the difference between last year's machine and this
year's is solely a faster disk system? :-)


No, I updated most of the system. But I/O was the
limiting factor on both.

I'm not complaining. This system is fast enough. g
But if I wanted to make it faster, I'd have to speed up
the disk - probably adding another drive or two to the
RAID. Adding more memory or a faster CPU wouldn't give
me much benefit.


We'll have to agree to disagree about that :-)



Memory can indirectly speed up disk operations by allowing more RAM for disk
caching. Dual channel RAM as opposed to single channel RAM has the
potential to indirectly speed up disk operations by allowing the RAM buffers
to work faster.




  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

"Jim Gilliland" wrote in
message
Tobiah wrote:

The bottom line is that more memory will always help to
some degree, because it reduces the amount of redundant
disk reads. I don't know how Windows handles this, but
if it is not in a similar way, then it is quite lacking
in this regard.


Perhaps, but that kind of caching provides almost zero
benefit in audio processing. Sequential reads of long
files don't really take much advantage of a cache. Especially when you're
processing a dozen or two of them
concurrently.


When files are small enough to completely fit in RAM, and the RAM doesn't
get stolen for other uses for long enough, then recurrent operations upon
the same file can take place primarily in RAM. Changes will be written out
to disk as possible.

This is much more likely to happen with smaller files, but if you have
enough RAM, a whole track or even a collection of tracks can start fitting
into the "smaller" category.


  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jim Gilliland Jim Gilliland is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

Arny Krueger wrote:

Memory can indirectly speed up disk operations by allowing more RAM for disk
caching. Dual channel RAM as opposed to single channel RAM has the
potential to indirectly speed up disk operations by allowing the RAM buffers
to work faster.


True, but it's not likely to have the same kind of impact as adding another
drive to a RAID array. Again, assuming large files accessed sequentially.


  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

"Jim Gilliland" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Memory can indirectly speed up disk operations by
allowing more RAM for disk caching. Dual channel RAM as
opposed to single channel RAM has the potential to
indirectly speed up disk operations by allowing the RAM
buffers to work faster.


True, but it's not likely to have the same kind of impact
as adding another drive to a RAID array.


I don't know about that. As I've said before, when you're doing sequential
copies, doing them drive-to-drive as opposed to on the same drive (even a
drive that is implemented as an array) is one of the cheapest thrills
around.

Once upon a time I built the same machine twice for running Audition/CEP.

(1) 2 120 GB drives striped, with all files on the array
(2) 2 120 GB drives, temp files on one drive, permanent files on the other

(2) blew (1) away through a normal record/save/edit cycle involving 30
minute 16 track recording/editing sessions.





  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] kwgmatthies@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

On Mar 20, 4:29 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:31:54 -0800, spud wrote:
Is there a specific problem you are looking to solve?


With 16 main tracks and just a few clips on maybe 10 others, after I
add fx the machine runs at roughly 70% and feels glitchy and sometimes
shows funky screen redraws. I thought adding memory might solve that.
Also, I meant gig of memory not meg, sorry.


Maybe the key is in that throwaway line "...once I add fx...." :-)

Manufacturers delight in making e.g. high-quality reverb plugins that
are very resource-hungry. It's no great trick to max out ANY hardware
by adding instances of these.

Tell us about your FX structure. Are you using a single Send FX for
several tracks where possible?

You could maybe spend a lot of money and buy a new machine that
allowed 50% or even 100% more plugins. Or you could maybe rationalise
your use of FX and require enormously less resources.

Anyway, tell us how your tracks and FX are set up?


Yes, I agree--could very well be the FX stealing CPU cycles,
especially if they are running on multiple tracks.

Always best to bounce multiple tracks to a single track before
applying plugin if possible.

  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
DeeAa DeeAa is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jim Gilliland" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Memory can indirectly speed up disk operations by
allowing more RAM for disk caching. Dual channel RAM as
opposed to single channel RAM has the potential to
indirectly speed up disk operations by allowing the RAM
buffers to work faster.


True, but it's not likely to have the same kind of impact
as adding another drive to a RAID array.


I don't know about that. As I've said before, when you're doing sequential
copies, doing them drive-to-drive as opposed to on the same drive (even a
drive that is implemented as an array) is one of the cheapest thrills
around.

Once upon a time I built the same machine twice for running Audition/CEP.

(1) 2 120 GB drives striped, with all files on the array
(2) 2 120 GB drives, temp files on one drive, permanent files on the other

(2) blew (1) away through a normal record/save/edit cycle involving 30
minute 16 track recording/editing sessions.

Doesn't surprise me at all. But then again, I use r zero-raid arrays; one
for system, one for data and one for temps. Works pretty well...get the best
of both worlds.

The basic zero-raid ain't that superfast or anything on the level of 'whoaa'
when it comes to performance.
But it does do away with the constant 'bzzz bzzz' of the hardrives and lets
them run real cool, because they share both the load and the seek tasks.
That's the best part of raid arrays in my book.




  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jim Gilliland Jim Gilliland is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jim Gilliland" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Memory can indirectly speed up disk operations by
allowing more RAM for disk caching. Dual channel RAM as
opposed to single channel RAM has the potential to
indirectly speed up disk operations by allowing the RAM
buffers to work faster.

True, but it's not likely to have the same kind of impact
as adding another drive to a RAID array.


I don't know about that. As I've said before, when you're doing sequential
copies, doing them drive-to-drive as opposed to on the same drive (even a
drive that is implemented as an array) is one of the cheapest thrills
around.

Once upon a time I built the same machine twice for running Audition/CEP.

(1) 2 120 GB drives striped, with all files on the array
(2) 2 120 GB drives, temp files on one drive, permanent files on the other

(2) blew (1) away through a normal record/save/edit cycle involving 30
minute 16 track recording/editing sessions.


Yes, I'd expect that to make a big difference. Audition uses its temp files
fairly extensively. They strongly recommend providing temp space on multiple
drives and keeping it away from the permanent files that you are processing.

The only work that I do where duration is much of an issue is rendering concert
mixes in Vegas. Vegas doesn't really use temp files, it just cranks right
through from the multiple source files to a single output file.

I have found that keeping the output file on a separate drive will make things
about 5% faster, but it's not a huge improvement. The bulk of the I/O is in
reading the source files, not writing the target.

So I'm really just looking at my own circumstances. With other software and
other processes, the scenario may be different.
  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

"Jim Gilliland" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jim Gilliland" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Memory can indirectly speed up disk operations by
allowing more RAM for disk caching. Dual channel RAM
as opposed to single channel RAM has the potential to
indirectly speed up disk operations by allowing the RAM
buffers to work faster.
True, but it's not likely to have the same kind of
impact as adding another drive to a RAID array.


I don't know about that. As I've said before, when
you're doing sequential copies, doing them drive-to-drive as opposed to
on the same drive (even a
drive that is implemented as an array) is one of the
cheapest thrills around. Once upon a time I built the same machine twice
for
running Audition/CEP. (1) 2 120 GB drives striped, with all files on the
array
(2) 2 120 GB drives, temp files on one drive, permanent
files on the other (2) blew (1) away through a normal record/save/edit
cycle involving 30 minute 16 track recording/editing
sessions.


Yes, I'd expect that to make a big difference. Audition
uses its temp files fairly extensively. They strongly
recommend providing temp space on multiple drives and
keeping it away from the permanent files that you are
processing.
The only work that I do where duration is much of an
issue is rendering concert mixes in Vegas. Vegas doesn't
really use temp files, it just cranks right through from
the multiple source files to a single output file.
I have found that keeping the output file on a separate
drive will make things about 5% faster, but it's not a
huge improvement. The bulk of the I/O is in reading the
source files, not writing the target.


When you add the second temp drive, Audition/CEP splits the temp files over
two drives, which is very similar to striping, whithout making a permanent
commitment to striping and its unfavorable reliability impact.



  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mogens V. Mogens V. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

Julien BH wrote:
Three choices the
Memory
Hard Drive
CPU

Normally the slowest of the three is the Hard drive. If you want more
speed be prepared for a salty bill. SCSI is the fastest solution, but
SATA Raid 0 is a good solution also.


Provided the right stripe size is used for the intended application.
Also, some 'fake' (i.e. pure software) raid controllers may not yield
the promised performance gains.
It's worth remembering that one failing drive in a raid 0 easily may
render all data unrescueable.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mogens V. Mogens V. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

Tobiah wrote:

Now I'm not saying that having 2gb is not necessary. In fact if you
load up VERY LARGE libraries it could be used. But most of the time
it'll stay idle and wait for some data.



On a Linux box, all available memory will quickly be consumed
for caching hard drive reads. It doesn't matter how large
the memory space is. If your memory size equals that of
the disk, you could conceivably cache the entire disk, and not
have to read from the disk again until reboot.


Not fully true. Data is sync'ed to disk all the time, so real file
changes needs to be rehashed.

The same
goes for writes, although the OS usually syncs writes to
the disk now and then to prevent loss of data through loss


Not usually; always, and not now and then, all the time.

of power. The memory is not 'full', in the sense that the
OS will simply drop cached disk reads when the memory is
needed by a process.

The bottom line is that more memory will always help to
some degree, because it reduces the amount of redundant
disk reads. I don't know how Windows handles this, but
if it is not in a similar way, then it is quite lacking
in this regard.


In this respect, M$ lacks, but it's a bit irrelevant as Linux isn't yet
useful as base for a DAW.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Doc Doc is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default XP based DAW: More than one meg of memory?

On Mar 19, 4:08 pm, "Geoff" wrote:

I doubled my memory and disc size. My CPU is 100% faster. How come my
music isn't twice as good ?



You have to pay Bill Gates for the secret update.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sampler memory [email protected] Pro Audio 1 December 7th 05 02:33 PM
Memory distortion? Martin Andér Pro Audio 25 August 31st 05 10:38 AM
Memory jog? loop2loop Audio Opinions 1 July 8th 05 11:14 AM
Flash memory recorder without built-in memory. Is there one? Bill P. General 6 February 4th 04 03:52 AM
Flash memory recorder without built-in memory. Is there one? Bill P. Tech 8 January 29th 04 10:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:43 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"