location recording performance question?

[BFSound]

I would like to know when doing a location recording project of about 16 tracks whatever sample rate and bit which takes up more CPU usage and performs better with more RAM. The actual recording itself running up to over an hour in length using little to no processing(maybe a gate or something) And the mixdown, editing process?

Thanks

[NorseHorse]

Could you rephrase/clarify your question(s)?

[surflounge]

break the whole length into sections (sample accurate for splicing)

[BFSound]

Which action uses more CPU and RAM?

A.) Doing a location recording into a DAW for up to 1 and a half hours, with no effects or processing being used other than a noise gate or something. OR

B.) Returning back with the recorded music where editing, processing and mixdown take place.

Between 10-16 tracks using some firewire mixing interface (multimix, presonus, etc...)

Thanks

[pkautzsch]

IME it's "B" using more resources, as you're typically working with some plug-ins, and the system has to "jump" between a few places on the HDD.
During recording ("A"), it's basically pushing ones and zeros from the FW or USB port to the HDD, more or less in the order they are coming in.
I'm not sure why one would need to use a gate or any plug-in during recording...?

[AlexK]

Neither of those should really put any tax on even a slightly aged computer (assuming you're not adding in huge amounts of processing/plugins). I've had 42 channels of audio + processing on each channel (maybe 2 or so plugins per strip) running simultaneously off my MacBook Pro from the internal hard drive, and it's not exactly a brand new MBP.

[DannyL]

The higher the sample rate,track count or bit depth the more disk space required. CPU usage is determined by similar factoring plus the number of plugins and how much RAM is available for GUI, etc. That being said a computer having a dual processor faster than 2Ghz, and 4 GB of ram is easily sufficient for running today's DAWS.

By the way, IMHO, you should certainly NOT record using noise gates. Or any other processes.

You might want to look into using an external drive with a spin rate of 7200RPM. The internal drives of most laptops are slower.

I use a drive dock with USB 2 and eSata interfaces. I record using USB and transfer the files to my desktop system using eSata.

Danny

[BFSound]

cool thanks for all the input. Thats kinda what i was thinking. Also why would a noise gate be any bad. You mix live with a noise gate to keep unwanted noise down why not have an analog gate patched into the kick or digital gate on the kick channel.

[7rojo7]

Do you have DrumaGog? If your gates don't trigger correctly, you can't undo it. Better to have your record path and your live mix path seperate. The EQ, dynamic and dimensional processing you do for a live mix are based on the system and the space you're mixing for and will be different than what you'll want for a mix of a live recording that you will want to sound good everywhere.
Record raw tracks and process them with automation on the plugs to get the most precision. Or, you may end up replacing everything. If your recording from direct outs, make sure that you can get the signal pre insert (or pre fader, ie, pre EQ). Then you'll be sending the signal straight from the pre and the signal will continue on to the mix path independently where you can apply processing for the live mix without worrying about fudging up your recording.

[BFSound]

Originally Posted by 7rojo7

Do you have DrumaGog? If your gates don't trigger correctly, you can't undo it. Better to have your record path and your live mix path seperate. The EQ, dynamic and dimensional processing you do for a live mix are based on the system and the space you're mixing for and will be different than what you'll want for a mix of a live recording that you will want to sound good everywhere.
Record raw tracks and process them with automation on the plugs to get the most precision. Or, you may end up replacing everything. If your recording from direct outs, make sure that you can get the signal pre insert (or pre fader, ie, pre EQ). Then you'll be sending the signal straight from the pre and the signal will continue on to the mix path independently where you can apply processing for the live mix without worrying about fudging up your recording.

I do not have that no. Thanks for the tips though, makes the most sense!