MOTUnation.com

Indeed MM, always been one. It just raises it's head like herpes once in a while..

Cool, I'll keep listenin' to you and bigfoot.
Propellorhead geekdom, here we come!

Oh, and I wanna have my head raised by herpes too.
Cheers, T, 'till T-morrow
MM

Using a MOTU 828mkII, I can run my projects with buffer set at 128 without troubles, with several Native Instruments VIs and much more mix effects. I have tried these same projects with a buffer set at 64 and DP handled them quiet well, cpu meter seems that is going to explote, but no single spike appeared.

Tracking audio: 512 or 1024
VI use: 128 or 256 (whichever feels better for whichever instrument)
Mixing: 1024 exclusively

Now that I have a PB and a G5, I plan on using the PB to run any VIs that are "icing on the cake" once my G5 is bogged down at 1024 with 60+ tracks and 100+ plug-ins. This is a great work-around for the time being, until an all-in-one solution (Intel Mac) comes along.

Jeff

One of the reasons I switched to the MacPro is I wanted to be able to run at 128 longer. I normally run at 128 until I master, then I crank it up to 1024 as I start dropping in a lot of Ozone into my drums, vocals and master fader.

On the current track I am working on, on my G5 dual 1.8 I am hitting 100% often running 3 copies of rapture, one of vanguard, one microtonic, and two ozones. On the new machine, I am running about 20%, which is nice.

I still get spikes when I first start out, but after the synths have run a bit, it goes away. I think it might be the streaming audio in Battery causing it and my lack of memory in the system.

For tracking vocals, I use the Voicemaster Pro from Focusrite which allows me to send a mix to it from DP for the headphones. Also, there is an effects loops JUST for the monitoring for the signer. It works great. I use a Lexicon MPX550 in the FX loop. The singer hears zero latency and DP gets a nice clean and on time signal (singer withstanding)

HCMarkus wrote:Using a MOTU 828mkII, I run my buffer at 128 without troubles. Last night I was running Ivory, BFD, Ethno and East-West Symphonic and two or more Altiverbs and a few misc other plugs simultaneously on my Quad at 128 buffer without any problem. Performance meters were in the 60%-70% range. I do switch to 1024 when it's time to mix so I can load up on the plug ins, but agree that latency is a problem when tracking VI's unless the buffer is set to 128....

... meanwhile, back at the ranch, Shooshie had just mounted his trusty steed, Quicksilver, the dual 1-GHz G4, to go out and wrangle that big longhorn steer named Ivory. Just when he thought he had Ivory in the chute, Quicksilver threw a horseshoe and the "SLOW DISK" light began flashing on the old saddlehorn. Tune in next week to see how Sheriff Shooshie recorded a whole octave of a C scale, and Quicksilver didn't get sold to the dogfood factory just yet.

Quad G5 and 128 buffers indeed! I need a new computer!!!

Shooshie

Hold on there partner. Let's see what happens down at the ok convention next month.

Thanks for corralling him, T.
The boy's bolted out of control; he's as keen as colonal Custard.

Well I'm sure shoo's not as outa of control as some ...
http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontent ... bay_t.html

Timeline wrote:Hold on there partner. Let's see what happens down at the ok convention next month.

Agreed! Go four eight cores, Shoosh... You'll be running the whole rodeo in real-time. Or maybe a stampede!

Note however that the clovertown cores (the quad xeons) do not seem to be offerred at the same speed points as the woodcrest cores (the dual xeons).

Look here:

http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6

Also, looking at even the prices at pricewatch.com

The quad 2.33 goes for $1029.50
The dual 2.66 goes for $689.50
The dual 2.33 goes for $469.50

And these are the dirt cheap prices. Not bad but a little more expensive.

Those who are posting their buffers should also post their sample rate. Working at higher sample rates reduces latency (and increases CPU strain obviously).

I track VIs at 128/44.1 or 256/88.2 (kontakt and battery)

With these settings I cant use any plugins.

I agree. They have to double that speed or it's a no go for me. I don't want to have to buy another machine anytime soon after I pick up an intel and I want to be able to see at least 1/8th the latency of my g5. Hmm.... That's a 10ghz machine isn't it.

Anyway, so far my dual g5 2.5 has kept me movin pretty good for two years and I'd like to stretch the next one out for 4 years. They are just too damn expensive.

Would love to be able to just update the g5 with new IBM cores comming soon. They claim big speed boosts at the IBM site.
G

grimepoch wrote:Note however that the clovertown cores (the quad xeons) do not seem to be offerred at the same speed points as the woodcrest cores (the dual xeons).

Look here:

http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6

Also, looking at even the prices at pricewatch.com

The quad 2.33 goes for $1029.50
The dual 2.66 goes for $689.50
The dual 2.33 goes for $469.50

And these are the dirt cheap prices. Not bad but a little more expensive.

Timeline wrote:Well I'm sure shoo's not as outa of control as some ...
http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontent ... bay_t.html

Whoa... they used real pelts, but it wasn't even a monkey costume.
Deflation of monkey-pelts continues unabated.

Point taken, T; Wackymeister's not that far gone.
Still, he's close!

Hopefully still in keeping with the theme:

I'm currenlty looking at guitar splitters to deal with latency. This way I can go direct with one signal and wet with the other through something outboard-ish and feel like I'm playing through an amp in real time.

Timeline, that Behringer mixer, which one is it, and do you believe it's clean enough to route work through as a splitter?

Oh, as far as buffers go, 1024 whenever possible, btw. But 128 when necessary. Have UAD-1, which helps too. Run lots of VIs. I also have RME ADI 8 DS and Digiface, so I have zero latency monitoring, but it's dry as toast.

Still working out the kinks. Doesn't matter what DAW you're on I suppose, there's always that latency ceiling... Ah, the days of tape...