Just for the record, I got 44 mono tracks on Logic the first night I got it running, and they were all totally diferrent guitar tracks. Half dozen midi tracks too. Not the slightest problem - I only stopped cause I got tired of noodling pointlessly on the guitar.. (!) Running: G5 350 Mhtz w/ internal UATA 33 and 230 Meg RAM (logic set to 96 Megs, I think, which is self-indulgent, could probably be set to way less. BTW, anyone know optinum RAM settings? I've just kept mine on the default config so far). Joeri Vankeirsbilck wrote: > From: Joeri Vankeirsbilck <joeri@...> > > Hi, > > > > I agree! Just got the Hammerfall and it's rock solid with Logic! Although EASI > > > drivers would be nice.... ;-) > > Can you in due time give some latency figures , and maximum track record > > / playback figures Joeri ? > > Well, I just fooled around with lots of audio and enjoyed the stable performance of > Logic. I've programmed the faders and knobs of my digital mixing desk so I now have > _real_ faders to control the audio features in Logic (Ramsa DA7 desk for those who > are interested). > > Anyway, you wanted a track count. Well, I just tried to make some audio tracks that > were playing the same audiofile. I first wanted to check the load of the CPU etc and > not the harddisk. So, I made tracks... and tracks... and tracks... until I had used > all 64 audio STEREO tracks... all playing the same file. No phasing, just the same > sound... much louder of course (had to put the master at -50 dB)... and the system > performance meter showed this: Audio: 20%, harddisk 1%... The harddisk was of course > just 1% since I simply copied the same file to all tracks... but the audio > performance surprised me: 20% with 64 stereo tracks... not bad... especially since > the system still felt as fast and fresh as it was playing 1 audiotrack. Is this test > correct? I mean: 20% is wonderful, but is it because I was only using 1 stereo > audiofile for all the 64 stereotracks? Could anyone with a different system (Mac or > PC or whatever...) confirm/compare ? > > Before going on with the tests, let me give the facts and specs in a short list: > Computer: PC, Win98 SE, Celeron 500 Mhz, 128 Ram, Western Digital 13.8 Gb harddisk > (ATA66/2048cache/7200tour), Abit BP6 motherboard, ATI XPert@work PCI 8Mb videocard, > Unitor8 and dongle on COM1, RME Hammerfall with latest ASIO driver (driver 2.2 just > posted yesterday). > > * First test: 64x 16-bit 44 kHz stereo audio tracks playing the same file: harddisk > load: 1%, audio/CPU load: 20% > * Second test: adding FAT EQ's as insert on each of the 64 tracks: harddisk load: > 1%, audio/CPU load: 50% > * Third test... let's add some compressors: the same 64 stereotracks + 64 FAT EQ's + > 26 compressors -> this is the maximum: CPU load 93%... if I add one more compressor, > the system gives CPU overload when switching between screensets. > Once I got over 80% CPU load, the system started feeling slow... > > So, this was the promised CPU test... A test with separate audiofiles will follow > when I find some more time. I guess the test with different audiofiles will give me > less performance since it's an ATA66 disk and not a SCSI disk (IDE needs some CPU). > > I noticed that performance was best when I left the ASIO settings at the factory > standard: 2048/46ms. With a buffer of 23ms, the audio meters didn't follow the audio > correctly etc... very weird stuff. EASI drivers would be very welcome to eliminate > things like this. You asked about latency? Ehm, well... maybe it's just me, but I > don't "feel" any latency at all when using the audio stuff. I guess I'll notice it > when recording... although this Zero-latency-monitoring trick of RME will fix the > problem there. I hope this was informative for some of you... > > Ciao, > Joeri > -- > Joeri Vankeirsbilck > joeri@...