I have heard the new Cakewalk-Sonar treats wave as Acid does. And, much more user friendly within one window instead of bouncing from one to another, which can get really annoying. However, I\'ve been told the minimum for Sonar is 400 cpu speed. I\'ve got a 500, I wonder if I\'ll be pressing the envelope? Cakewalk 9 is working fine for me, but I do assemble some working percussion from Acid and would love the new \'Acidify\' feature coming out in Sonar, obviously I could get rid of Acid. Does anyone have an opinion on the minimum 400 operating on a 500?
I believe it will import acid loops just as acid does. From what I understand it has a loop engine built in. You might want to ask on the Cakewalk Sonar discussion list - it\'s been pretty active lately pending the shipping of Sonar in a couple of weeks. I could assume 500mhz would be fine, although I\'m willing to bet running DXi plug-ins will take a fair bit of CPU power. The list is located at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CakewalkSonar
I\'m running SONAR on a PIII550 right now. The loops aren\'t any more CPU intenstive than a regular disk track. They are probably stretched in memory once so there\'s no on-going CPU hit for these.
I was able to get a couple of beta VSTi - DXi converters and have successfully run 4-5 plugin synths at the same time. Plugin synths vary greatly in CPU consumption, and polyphony also increases CPU consumption (though it does so dynamically).
[This message has been edited by David Abraham Fenton (edited 03-31-2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Chance: Hey Dave, I didn\'t know you used Giga. So how are you running Giga and Sonar together since Giga won\'t work w/ WDM drivers? Can you do it w/ 2 soundcards, one for GSIF and one for WDM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don\'t run GIGA on the same machine as PA9/SONAR conceivably you could do as you say one card for GSIF and the other for WDM...but I haven\'t done this...