[ardour-users] 48 channels on ardour

[Thomas Vecchione]

By the way, in my case it tends to be doing multiple channels of sound
effect playback and recording a show multi-track at the same time.  It
becomes important.

                  Seablade

Works in theater sound design;)

On 7/18/07, Thomas Vecchione <seablaede at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Or you would have to ahve limited resources, which the average home studio
> has.  Remember it is NOT a linear degredation in available tracks when
> adding recording and playback to the same drive.  You lose a LARGE chunk of
> performance much faster.
>
> Meaning, lets say, hypothetically a single 200 Gig 7200 RPM drive has the
> capacity to do 32 tracks of playback(I pull this from my previous post, but
> still consider it a vast estimation) in real life.
>
> If you do one track recording, and 4 tracks playback, it does NOT equal 5
> tracks of that 32 track capacity.  In fact more than likely you are probably
> bordering on using up a third of that disk performance with just that,
> instead of the sixth you might expect, due to the amount the head might have
> to move around, to read from one section of the drive, and write to another.
>
>
> Exactly how costly it is depends on many factors, how fragmented your
> drive is, how much reading and writing, etc.  but the end result is the
> same.  You can record much more reliably if you record to a drive that is
> only used for recording, and read from a different drive.  And when you are
> talking about something on a limited time frame, that reliability can be
> important, for instance doing playback of backing tracks in a live instance,
> while recording your performance, not exactly uncommon.
>
>                     Seablade
>
> On 7/18/07, Kevin Cosgrove <kevinc at doink.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 18 July 2007 at 7:39, "John Emmas" <johne53 at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > 2 HDs would be better, one for recording to, one for playback,
> > > >
> > > This doesn't make sense to me.  Surely you'd have to play the
> > > audio back from the same drive that it was recorded on - or
> > > would you copy the audio from the record drive to the playback
> > > drive after it's recorded?
> >
> > That does sound a bit confusing, doesn't it.  If a person is
> > recording one part of a performance (e.g. guitar) along with a
> > recording of other people (e.g. piano), then they'll need to hear
> > the playback while they're recording.  Moving audio around during
> > a tracking session doesn't sound fun.  One wouldn't have to be a
> > purist about this.  It'd probably be fine to have the guitarist
> > hear they're just recorded track playing back on the same drive
> > where they'll be recoding overdubs.
> >
> > Certainly separating audio files and system (OS) files onto
> > separated disks would be good.
> >
> > Cheers....
> >
> > --
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ardour-users mailing list
> > ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> > http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-users-ardour.org/attachments/20070718/706873f9/attachment.htm>