[[email protected]]

Any suggestions about audio programs that directly support dual
processors? Specifically dual core?

Thanks!

Kevin

[Sonic_Hero]

Sonar has had multi-processor / multi-core support for a few generations
now. It scales very well too, I literally got twice the performance when I
upgraded from a single core to a dual core Athlon about 6 months ago.

That said, wouldn't it make more sense to choose a product that meets your
specific audio needs first? What are you wanting to do? Edit or
multi-track? Do you need midi editing? Do you prefer pattern-based loop
editing, or do you tend to work in a more linear fashion?

Choosing your DAW/Sequencer/Editor purely on multi-processor compatibility
may not actually get you the tool you need.

"Audio programs" is incredibly general. I have a number of audio apps, all
with different uses.

Bill.


wrote in message
ups.com...
Any suggestions about audio programs that directly support dual
processors? Specifically dual core?

Thanks!

Kevin




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mr.T]

"Sonic_Hero" wrote in message
.. .
That said, wouldn't it make more sense to choose a product that meets your
specific audio needs first? What are you wanting to do? Edit or
multi-track? Do you need midi editing? Do you prefer pattern-based loop
editing, or do you tend to work in a more linear fashion?

Choosing your DAW/Sequencer/Editor purely on multi-processor compatibility
may not actually get you the tool you need.

Even more to the point is that even a modern single core CPU is usually
*more* than enough for 99% of Audio tasks. Unless you *need* to run a
hundred simultaneous plug-ins of course.

OTOH if we were talking about video.... :-)

MrT.

[Sonic_Hero]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

Even more to the point is that even a modern single core CPU is usually
*more* than enough for 99% of Audio tasks. Unless you *need* to run a
hundred simultaneous plug-ins of course.

OTOH if we were talking about video.... :-)

MrT.

Of course it depends on the plug-ins and how low a latency he wants to use.
For example, a convolution reverb at low latency will tax even a modern CPU
once you get a few instances loaded up. Also, most DAWs will do samplers &
synths in software. If you want near-realtime performance from these
things, you'll need quite a bit of horse power.

More reason for the OP to get more specific in his post.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mr.T]

"Sonic_Hero" wrote in message
.. .
Of course it depends on the plug-ins and how low a latency he wants to
use.
For example, a convolution reverb at low latency will tax even a modern
CPU
once you get a few instances loaded up.

Funny, I never had any trouble with using SoundForge Acoustic Mirror on a
very old Celeron, and with any Core Solo processor, it's not really an issue
IMO. But then I know how to use proper routing (and even pre-rendering)
instead of a dozen or more concurrent instances.

Also, most DAWs will do samplers &
synths in software. If you want near-realtime performance from these
things, you'll need quite a bit of horse power.

Compared to what? The latency is governed by more than the CPU. Simply
increasing the CPU performance beyond even the cheapest of modern
processors, provides little improvement, for any given sound card, IME. And
things like the amount of memory available have as much affect when using
very large sample libraries for example.

Personally I find that anyone who uses modern software soon finds out what
hardware is necessary to provide adequate performance for THEIR own needs.
Any other speculation is just a waste of hot air IMO.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Sonic_Hero" wrote in message
.. .
Of course it depends on the plug-ins and how low a latency he wants to
use.
For example, a convolution reverb at low latency will tax even a modern
CPU
once you get a few instances loaded up.

Funny, I never had any trouble with using SoundForge Acoustic Mirror on a
very old Celeron, and with any Core Solo processor, it's not really an issue
IMO. But then I know how to use proper routing (and even pre-rendering)
instead of a dozen or more concurrent instances.

Also, most DAWs will do samplers &
synths in software. If you want near-realtime performance from these
things, you'll need quite a bit of horse power.

Compared to what? The latency is governed by more than the CPU. Simply
increasing the CPU performance beyond even the cheapest of modern
processors, provides little improvement, for any given sound card, IME. And
things like the amount of memory available have as much affect when using
very large sample libraries for example.

Personally I find that anyone who uses modern software soon finds out what
hardware is necessary to provide adequate performance for THEIR own needs.
Any other speculation is just a waste of hot air IMO.

MrT.

[Sonic_Hero]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Sonic_Hero" wrote in message
.. .
Funny, I never had any trouble with using SoundForge Acoustic Mirror on a
very old Celeron, and with any Core Solo processor, it's not really an
issue
IMO. But then I know how to use proper routing (and even pre-rendering)
instead of a dozen or more concurrent instances.

I bet you a twinkie that if you insert a convolution verb onto a bus and
attempt to use if for real-time monitoring, you'll need more bang than your
old celeron could give ya ;o). As PC's have become more powerful, this is
what the punters want to do with them. Sure you can "freeze" them to reduce
your CPU load to zip, but not if you want to use them in real time, as many
people do these days.

And if you're implying that I don't realise that I can put the thing on a
bus and assign sends to it, you'd be wrong. That said, it's pretty common
to see folks load up a separate verb on each track (not suggesting this is
"right").


Also, most DAWs will do samplers &
synths in software. If you want near-realtime performance from these
things, you'll need quite a bit of horse power.

Compared to what? The latency is governed by more than the CPU. Simply
increasing the CPU performance beyond even the cheapest of modern
processors, provides little improvement, for any given sound card, IME.
And
things like the amount of memory available have as much affect when using
very large sample libraries for example.

Yes, the latency is governed by more than just raw CPU power. Obviously the
lowest buffer size available for selection on the sound card has a lot to do
with it too. But, I can tell you with absolute certainty that when you drop
the latency of the audio engine in any host based DAW, CPU utilization goes
up and becomes the effective ceiling for VSTi/DXi instruments and
particularly heavy FX such as convolution reverbs.

Personally I find that anyone who uses modern software soon finds out what
hardware is necessary to provide adequate performance for THEIR own needs.
Any other speculation is just a waste of hot air IMO.

Agreed, which is exactly why I've been calling for the original poster to
get specific. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you sigh.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mr.T]

"Sonic_Hero" wrote in message
.. .
Agreed, which is exactly why I've been calling for the original poster to
get specific. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you sigh.

Me either. Seems we are in agreement, except maybe for how much you can get
out of a Core Solo Vs a Core Duo.
(But why not a quad core then anyway? :-)

MrT.