<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Paul Davis wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1184010907.1709.4.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 11:38 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Anyway, from now long distant memory I do think Pro Tools created
separate audio files for each pass. since I always have some pre- and
post- time in my loop recordings I suspect that there was pleanty of
time to close one before opening another but I suspect none of that
really makes as much difference with today's high powered machines. I
no longer recall how the file naming worked but I suspect that it was
done by appending something like _a, _b, or _1, _2, etc.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
the filesystem hit is not really a function of processor speed. creating
a new file involves lots of logic and synchronization with other things
that are accessing the filesystem, and although its probably faster on a
3GHz Core 2 Extreme than a 100MHz Pentium, the difference is not likely
to be anywhere close to a factor of 3000.
in all likelihood, i've just been overconservative when worrying about.
the chances are that we could open a new file on every loop and it would
be fine. so far, though, my conservatism and concern about burning
needless CPU cycles and causing slowdowns with synchronization seem to
have benefitted ardour quite well compared to some other DAWs.
--p
</pre>
</blockquote>
Maybe it's possible to physically 'cut' the audio file after the
recording is done?<br>
<br>
-H-
</body>
</html>