> Joeri Vankeirsbilck <joeri@...> wrote: > > 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 ? > > Ciao, > Joeri > -- > Joeri Vankeirsbilck > joeri@... I've just installed a new LAM system, B+W G3 (400 mhz), 2x888, ATTO SCSI card, 4 x 16gig cheetah drives in a Glyph Hotswap chassis. Running a similar test to the above, laying out 64 *different* audio tracks, I am unable to get more than 28 mono tracks (26 with cycle enabled) playing simultaneously before I get a "Disc-too-slow-or-fragmented" error message. My 9600-based system does much better..... DAE buffer is set to 2, other buffer settings appear to have little impact on this problem. All four Cheetahs are attached to one of the ATTO ports. I know I'd probably be doing better to split them, but I'm thinking I should be able to get better performance in this configuration - I've run 48+ tracks off one drive before - and I'd rather keep it like this if possible. All discs freshly defragmented and checked by Dr Norton. Can anybody give me some ideas to try to improve this? Many thanks mdv