![]() | All Advertisers |
| Member Services Directory | Classifieds | Reviews | Jobs | Deal Zone | Merchandise | Marketplace | Facebook App | Books, DVDs & Gadgets | Video Vault | Tips & Techniques |
| |||||||
New Reply | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| | #1 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2005 Location: NYC
Posts: 695
Thread Starter | Small Buffer Settings--Faster CPU, More RAM or Faster HD?
What hardware component makes the most difference in performance when working with very small buffer settings--faster CPU, more RAM or faster hard drive? I know all of them contribute but is there one that makes more of a difference than the others? |
| | |
| | #2 | |
| Gear Guru Joined: Mar 2005 Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 15,095
| Quote:
Each element cited has an effect. That said, its really hard to evaluate the load balance on your system without knowing what you're doing with it. Someone with only a handful of recorded audio tracks (vox, guitars, etc) but a whole SLUG of CPU guzzling virtual instruments will have an ENTIRELY different load profile than someone using no VIs but who has, like, 70 tracks of 24/96 audio. And -- before evaluating your needs -- one would also want to know why you're running those small buffer settings. As you undoubtedly know, small buffers require much more CPU monitoring/intervention. If you don't need super low latencies for virtual instruments but simply want to monitor incoming audio with low latency, you'd possibly be better off using an analog mixer for true zero latency monitoring, instead.
__________________ day job | A Year of Songs | music and social stuff | mutant pop on facebook | roots acoustic on facebook | |
| | |
| | #3 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2005 Location: NYC
Posts: 695
Thread Starter |
For me, the main purpose of running low buffers is low VI latency.
|
| | |
| | #4 |
| Gear maniac Joined: Sep 2005 Location: NYC
Posts: 292
|
i think the type, and caliber of soundcard also needs consideration.
|
| | |
| | #5 | |
| Gear Guru Joined: Mar 2005 Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 15,095
| Quote:
If they're modeling synths they may or may not use much RAM but probably won't put a drag on the HD but will tend to put a relatively big hit on the CPU. RAM-based samplers/virtual ROMplers will tend to use RAM but typically less CPU. Streaming sample players (like the high end piano packages or streaming drum packages like BFD and DKFH) will tend to put a big hit on both RAM and hard disk drive but will tend to have less impact on CPU than some modeling synths. | |
| | |
New Reply
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| How much faster are the new Macs? | sasha222 | Music computers | 6 | 10th May 2007 08:50 AM |
| mixing FASTER! | Gregg | So much gear, so little time! | 42 | 6th May 2006 06:28 PM |
| Does a faster computer sound better?? | joaquin | Music computers | 13 | 27th February 2006 01:51 PM |
| Go Powercore or faster natvie CPU | blackcom | So much gear, so little time! | 15 | 22nd October 2004 11:41 PM |
| |