hey Hancor! Had a chance to max out your system yet?

[Chadwick]

Hey Hans, I was just wondering if you\'ve had a chance to work your system to its limits yet.

I\'m still interested in what combination of polyphony, audio tracks, midi density, NFX and VST you\'re able to achieve.

I know this is an extremely interactive bundle of parameters, but and more info you have would be greatly appreciated.

How much weight do you put on the UWSCSI factor?

Regards

Rick

[hancor]

Hi Rick,

We\'ve sequenced up to eight tracks from GS160
into Logic Audio Platinum 4.6.1. without hiccups.

Due to my business obligations, and busy season, I have\'nt had a chance to run the requests you\'ve made. They are however on my \"To Do List\".

Given that we are running with 128MB of RAM, the higher disk I/O pipeline with the Ultra160 SCSI controller has to be part of the overall equation. When you think about it
having 512KB SRAM on an ATA/IDE solution compared to 8MB SRAM on the Quantum drives is a 16 to 1 increase in overhead room for those many megabytes of data throughput when sampling/sequencing audio files and doing disk I/O . (Note: see www.storagereview.com (\"http://www.storagereview.com\") for more info) In my debate, with my learned friend Steve Mitchell, we had some interesting discussion on the benefits of having more RAM eg 512MB and above. See the topic: anyone work with 768+ mb of ram????

As part of the dialogue, we noted the VCache is limited to 512MB for any Win9x OS. Further to this, my quote from the programming text indicates the \"HeapAlloc\" call is limited to a maximum of 256MB in win9x. Thus throwing unlimited amounts of RAM with a win9x application will not help your cause. You need to have multiple HeapAlloc calls in the program to use up the available RAM. To my knowledge, I am not convinced that this memory optimization has been coded in the program. I am open to be corrrected on this point, by our friendly programmers at Nemesys.

The slowest component in any computer is the Hard Disk subsystem. Optimizing, the Hard Disk subsystem will have a significant boost to one\'s overall performance. eg. your average 8ms seek on an ATA/IDE drive will get a real boost on a dual drive SCSI system with an average 2.35ms seek (4.7ms seek for each drive).

This results in a 70.6% boost in disk I/O speeds. Further, the SCSI controller relieves the CPU from disk I/O duties so you can run more plugins.

In Logic Audio, my colleague has managed to run up to (maximum plugins on LAW is 40 simultaneous) 32 simultaneous plugins on 24 audio tracks and 8 midi tracks before the system choked due to CPU constraints(on an Intel PIII 450Mhz). We plan to upgrade to a 1GHz Intel PIII and 512MB Ram in the near future; as prices on these items have fallen significantly, over the last quarter. The sound quality was flawless at 32 plugins, while at 33 plugins it started to crackle and then the programs crashed, but the OS was still up and running.

Hope this helps, for a quick reply.

Regards

Hans

[Chadwick]

Thanks Hans,

I look forward to your experiments.

[NAZARU]

Hans,
I currently am running a three disk drive setup. 7,200 RPM W. Digital ATA 66 (sytem drive), 7200 RPM Maxtor Diamondmax plus ATA 66 (Gigasampler drive), W. Digital 10,000 RPM U2Wide SCSI with Adaptec 2940 controller (Cakewalk Audio drive), PIII 600E CPU, Asus CU4V Motherboard. If I understand you correctly, I will benefit substantially by using another 10,000 RPM SCSI drive for my system drive. This should allow me to run an exceptionally greater amount of plugins with a 70 percent increase in disk I/O speed? Is the SCSI factor as or more important for plugin performance than upgrading the CPU to say a 1 GHZ PIII. I am getting great performance from Gigasampler but I just hate getting dropouts when processing and finalizing my projects. Last but not least, what would you consider as adequate performance for a system similiar to mine in terms of the amount of simultaneous plugins? Peace.

[hancor]

Hi Nazaru,

Obviously, getting the PIII 1GHz chip will allow you to run more plugins, since plugins are CPU dependent. What is throughput dependent is the amount of audio and midi tracks you wish to play simultaneously, here you need SCSI drives to maximize track count.
If you are experiencing dropouts, then you have a throughput problem. With throughput problems, a SCSI drive is definitely in order. The side benefit of a SCSI drive is the the host controller now does all the disk I/O duties formerly done by the CPU on an IDE/ATA disk solution. This relieves the CPU to run more plugins. eg. you get a double win.

In short, the CPU will let you run more plugins.

The SCSI drive, will cure your throughput problems and let you run more plugins without
taxing the CPU.

Note: I am running a complete SCSI solution
drives, controller, peripherals(CD-RW, DVD-ROM, HP6300C scanner)

We are using a dual Ultra160 drive setup, first drive for OS and Programs, second drive for audio and .GIG files. With this setup on a PIII 450Mhz we are able to record from GS160 into LAWP. If you are experiencing difficulty with dropouts, we note ours disappeared when we ditched the ide/ata drives for the audio/visual rated SCSI drives.

If you get a SCSI drive, make sure they are matched drives. eg. both drives I use are Quantum Atlas 10kII drives with onboard 8MB
Ultra 160 specification.

Regards

Hans

[SteveMitchell]

But Hans - If you enable DMA in the drive properties for the ATA drive, that\'ll free up the CPU to handle effects software just as with SCSI. I think SCSI is soooo overpriced vs. ATA.

I\'d love to see some empirical data that compares throughput (wave data, sample data), access time, etc., of the different harddisk subsystems running on differing hardware platforms. I\'m sure it\'d be an eye-opener.

Steve
The Classical MIDI Resource (\"http://www.classicalmidiresource.com\")
The CMR Players (\"http://www.mp3.com/cmrplayers\")

[hancor]

Hi Steve,

WRT having DMA enabled, it was. We still however experienced dropouts, despite driver updates for the chipset from Intel, optimizing the drives etc. When you\'ve done all the usual techy stuff then you look for a better solution; the Ultra160 SCSI drives were just the ticket as they resolved the dropouts we were having. Ask any physicist \"Why do you do it that way?\" Answer, \"Because it works!\" If you want a lot of empirical evidence on the sustained throughput as opposed to burst throughput I would recommend www.storagereview.com (\"http://www.storagereview.com\") as an excellent survey of these issues.

Regards

Hans

[SteveMitchell]

Cool Website. Thanks.

Steve Mitchell
The Classical MIDI Resource (\"http://www.classicalmidiresource.com\")
The CMR Players (\"http://www.mp3.com/cmrplayers\")

[NAZARU]

Thanks for the advise Hans. I think I\'ll add another SCSI drive as my system and programs drive and see how my plugin performance improves. If that isn\'t enough, perhaps I\'ll upgrade my CPU as well. I would rather wait a while until the next generation Athlons are unleashed however. I am very curious to see what kind of monsters they will be. Does it really matter if I keep the the IDE drives installed. I could use them for backup storage could I not. If my system drive is SCSI and my Cakewalk audio drive is SCSI the IDE drives will not even be in use during audio processing. Does the mere presence of IDE drives and slave CDRW slow a DAW down even when these devices are not in use? It seems to me that it shouldn\'t. Peace.

[hancor]

No the mere presence of IDE/ATA drives in the system should not affect the performance of your DAW. You will however have to reconfigure the boot sequence in your bios to: SCSI, A, C or similar selection; otherwise the OS will try to boot from the IDE drives. I would scrub the IDE drives clean by reformatting and set them to slave settings if your only using them for long term storage.

Being a purist however, I disabled the IDE/ATA interface and picked up two IRQs in the bargain; 14 & 15. This makes it easier to prevent IRQ sharing among the controller, AGP graphics card, and sound cards.

Further to this, when adding peripherals to the SCSI chain on multi-channel U2W or Ultra160 SCSI you can add up to 15 peripherals to each channel without requiring more IRQs. If the object is to make music, the SCSI solution is rather compelling; notwithstanding the premium you pay. In short, make music don\'t go through acrobatics to make a system do what it wasn\'t designed to do. Does this cost money? Yes. Does it solve the problem of disk dropout? Yes. Will you be able to create your music without pulling your remaining hair out? Yes. Will you get paid for the work you do, by completing your projects on time and on budget? Yes.

In summary, if you are a home/hobbyist using IDE/ATA may be perfectly adequate, but not necessarily so.

Alternately, if you make music for a living professionally, I can see every reason why an Ultra160 SCSI solution is justifiable.

Regards

Hans

[seclusion]

That makes perfect sense..
I was fliping through the asus motherboard page and came across a motherboard with built 2 built in scsi 160 ports right off the motherboard... Obviously it was a little bit pricey but hey that\'s what making tunes are all about..
I did have an ata 100 controller too..
I think I may go this direction even though I have only 1 scsi drive and it\'s a Cheeta 18 gig (at 80)..
At least I have the option of adding to it later.. As I\'ve already sorta filled the 18 gig up with samples in no time.
Sorry I\'ve misplaced the model # just thoughjt I\'d let people know..
Any thoughts as to any potiential problems..
Thanx.
Brian

[NAZARU]

Thanks for the advise. I want my system to smoke. I\'ll spend the money! Peace.

[Kenn159]

As Steve mentioned scuzzy controller cards and hard drives are very expensive and since giga studio is on the cutting edge of technology you pretty much have to replace your computer and components fairly often just to keep up with the software.
Therefor I don\'t want to get traped on the scuzzy train of constantly buying and replacing over price scuzzy components.

Hancor have you considered looking at this from a price performance ratio.
If I had say $300 to spend to increase the performance of my computer I would rather use it to but a to buy a large cpu and motherboard [I can get a Pentium 3- 1 gig cpu and motherboard for that] with enough head room buffer to handle disc access activity.
If I used the $300 for scuzzy It would barely be enough for the lastest fastest[Plug in Firewire and ulta controllers are still limited to the speed of the PCI buss] controller card not to mention the Harddrive.

My opinion, just get as fast of a CPU as you can afford [Dual 1 gig Pentiums will be supported with win 2000 or go with a Pentium 4 if you have the money ]
Myself Im getting ready to buy a single 1 gig pentium because Im not independently weathy and I have to keep a cap on what I spend on this stuff.

[NAZARU]

I understand exactly what you mean by not being independently wealthy Ken. I thought about going dual processors in addition to adding another scsi drive to my system and beefing up ram to 1 gig. I know that would be expensive but it sure beats the price of a pro tools setup. I look at it as an investment. You certainly have to spend it to make it. I am running everything on one computer and I rely heavily on gigasampler for my voices. Windows 2000 XP still doesn\'t exist. Who knows when MS will release it and then who knows when Nemesys will have drivers released for it. Even then, what kind of nightmares will we the user have to endure to tweak our systems ONCE AGAIN to function properly under this new operating system. Boy would I love to have dual Athlons at 1.2 GHZ but alas (no motherboards and no Giga support for windows 2000). Oh the pain the pain. Peace.

[hancor]

Hi Ken159 & Nazaru,

Have I considered the price/performance ratio? Yes. Conventional wisdom says I should run GS160 on another box and run Logic Audio Platinum 4.6.1 on another box.
I am running both programs on the same computer box with SCSI drives. This is something I couldn\'t do when on the IDE/ATA drives. The SCSI subsystem is still cheaper than buying a whole new box. Considering one pays $699 USD MSRP for the program how is paying $300 USD for a Quantum Atlas 10KII not a cost effective solution in view of the foregoing. Given that I\'m running this on a PIII 450Mhz with 128MB of RAM I think I\'ve saved at least a $1000 cost differential by not being forced into buying two computer boxes and then networking them. Further to this, I can still upgrade to the PIII 1Ghz later, when the next round of price cuts come. Even if you swapped out your
motherboard/CPU/RAM this does\'nt prevent you from migrating your SCSI subsystem to the new setup; assuming you have a non-integrated chip solution ie. an add in controller board. What you should focus on is not the money, but whether you have the correct tools, hardware, software to get the work done in a timely and efficient manner. People will pay for this, what they don\'t pay for is excuses that your computer broke down or won\'t work. If it enhances your ability to make a living, then it is a worthy expenditure. If it doesn\'t answer a problem your having in your studio, then you don\'t buy it. If you are doing a lot of multi-queuing, and multi-tasking then SCSI answers this need perfectly. IDE/ATA drives can\'t handle multiple I/O requests, SCSI drives do. My system no longer suffers from disk thrashing, or dropouts, which means I\'m gainfully employed. The time saved in frustration is worth the price of entry alone. Hope this helps.

Regards

Hans