[ardour-users] 48 channels on ardour

[John Emmas]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Vecchione" <seablaede at gmail.com>
Sent: 18 July 2007 07:06
>
> 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.
>
Actually the problems I've encountered (occasional stuttering and other
glitches) don't depend on recording at all.  They happen, even if I'm just
playing back and not recording anything.  My drives are all 7200rpm but
admittedly, I'm playing back from the same drive as my system's running
from.

After I installed OpenSuse, I was advised to install Jacklab which
(I thought) was to give me a real-time kernel.  However, there was
no improvement in performance as far as I could tell.... :-(

John



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Vecchione" <seablaede at gmail.com>
To: "Kevin Cosgrove" <kevinc at doink.com>
Cc: <ardour-users at lists.ardour.org>
Sent: 18 July 2007 07:06
Subject: Re: [ardour-users] 48 channels on ardour


> 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
>>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> ardour-users mailing list
> ardour-users at lists.ardour.org
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org
>