1/3/2024 0 Comments Digital performer 7 price![]() The benefit of that setup is that you alleviate the stress on your DAW thus requiring a smaller CPU footprint on your computer while having the benefit of monitoring and printing tracks, stems or a mix at a higher sample rate simultaneously. Higher sample resolutions can be golden if you intend to track to tape as it is reminiscent of trying to gain the most accurate and desirable saturation depth and quality by means of a good set of narrowly focused tape heads. allowing you to have the benefit of monitoring and even folding back the monitored outputs in a session putting out audio at a higher sample resolution while offloading the SRC duties to the audio interface of your choice and allowing your computer to focus more on the quantity of functions available for use and leaving the quality of it all to the interfaces. 44.1 Session upsampled to 88.2, 132.3 or 176.4 KHz - 48.0 Session upsampled to 96, 144.0, or 192 KHz) This can be accomplished with a number of devices such as a Lynx AES16eSRC, RME ADI-192 DD, Prism ADA-8XR, Weiss, Mytek, etc. For extreme sample rates in that scenario, you'll need AudioPort Universal or a more detailed (and expensive) I/O setup.Īnother approach at higher sample rates is to use a good SRC (Sample Rate Converter) to allow your DAW, VI, Soft Synth And/Or Mixing machines to remain at multiples of the output sample rate you desire (eg. Add to that a nice program called Vienna Ensemble Pro and you should be good up to about 96KHz. A 12-Core 3.33GHz might do very well, but two 6-Cores (one dedicated primarily for mix duties and one serving as your sequencing DAW and VI/Soft-Synth Machine) might give you the edge. If you intend to work at higher sample rates, then try and 'hit the ceiling' on your clock speed and cores but especially your clock speed. So, if you intend to work at 44.1, a 2009 2.93 8-Core Nehalem fitted with SSD's in RAID 0 and enough RAM to accommodate the amount of active sample data you will generally use in a given session should be just enough. Of course audio tracks in and of themselves typically use considerably less CPU than virtual instruments. Thanks!On an early 2008 Mac Pro (8-Core) At 44.1 you can get between 50 to 60 tracks of VI's native to Logic Pro. ![]() One thing I would recommend, is to use Glyph Drives or comparable for the audio, I do and have for years, they seem to not give me as much problems, but I put the libraries, on different drives and that helps. still believe it should be good enough to get serious work done, but bouncing seems to be the way, IMHO It is the 5400 model from 2009, ages ago, but. Think am going to have to bounce or freeze more instruments, which takes away from composition for me and makes it less fun and less intuitive. I have an 8 core and still run out of power, so not sure what to tell you. I need a machine that can do more and at super fast speeds.īefore I spend all of this money I'd like to make sure I get the "right one." My machine slows down a bit but it works. On my G5 I can get a good 60 tracks from both software and live. I compose for film so I'm using a lot of software synths as well as live instruments. Someone over at MOTU said the same thing. more cores? Which is better for music applications? I've been told a couple of things. I can't use any of my new software with the G5 - plus I need more horsepower! I currently have a G5 and am in need of an upgrade. I just can't figure out what I need to get.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |