>It didn't used to be this way, but now a days everyone is obsessed with using large track counts which really hinders the mixing process. Most mix engineers I know are the same way and those 100+track mixes usually end up as 25-48 before they hit the console. Well said. I've been reading this thread for days now, and I'm amazed that there is this need to have a monster amount of tracks all playing at the same time. Maybe I just don't get it. I do R&B and pop projects all the time, and agree that many tracks may need to be recorded for various reasons, but do they all need to playback simultaneously? I'm running a G5 (1.6), yes - "last years model", with 2 SATA internal drives, and I can playback more than enough tracks to get the job done. I haven't hit my limit yet, but I also do not record what I would consider an insane amount of tracks. 48 or less works for me. Bounce 'em down, comp 'em, or whatever - do it and get on with it. This is not meant as a slight to anyone that needs this kind of power, I just would not want someone to bring me a song with that many tracks... 2 cents... tg