Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community (http://duc.avid.com/index.php)
-   003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) (http://duc.avid.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Another PTLE Stress Test- "DaVerb Bounce Test" (http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=96146)

BioFeedback 02-02-2004 08:38 PM

Another PTLE Stress Test- \"DaVerb Bounce Test\"
Hi everyone,
Ok, don't kill me... But, I felt the need to share my stress test. I thought the DaveC test is great, but does create some confusion for people. The Dverb test is more simple and to the point. So, I ripped off..ehem I mean, was inspired by these great ideas and added one more step. Bounce to Disk! I even call it, "DaVerb Bounce Test" ...Hey, Gotta pay hommage!

Click the link for the instructions and 60 second wave file of noise to download.

PTLE Stress Test

I am open to any suggestions and/ or critisism!

Watching guys fly past the 32 track limit got me thinking we could use a harder test. Basically, My point is to come up with a simple standard we all can use to messure our systems. I put 60 seconds of noise together that pulses. This way we all use the same sound.

I look forward to hearing opinions,
Mike P.

P.S. My Toshiba 1g Celeron laptop could not even bounce one track! Obviously NOT compatable. The same computer did 11 tracks on the DaveC test.

BioFeedback 02-04-2004 04:21 PM

Re: Another PTLE Stress Test- \"DaVerb Bounce Test\"
Ouch, no replies is worse then getting crap for posting this. Let me mention again, ANY comments are welcome. These include:
1-"your a moron."
2-"we already have a standard test, go screw."
3-"I'm affraid to download your mystery noise"
4-"your page doesn't work"

I thought the idea of us all using the same sound was important. You see, I created a 60 second wave file that pulses a bit. This moves the faders, hence, using alittle more CPU. When I think of having the most consistant test possible for us all to compare our systems, it only made sense to use the same audio. So, I took it apon myself to come up with one for everyone to use.
I know this might sound obsessive, But hey we're guys that hear differences in what cables our Mics are hooked up to. My point is, every little bit matters.

So again, please give this test try. PTLE Stress Test
Comment, help us settle on a standard...or tell me to go screw

Mike P~

jodyjfk 02-09-2004 07:52 AM

Re: Another PTLE Stress Test- \"DaVerb Bounce Test\"
I downloaded your file but have not been able to check it out yet due to an intense session I'm involved in at present.
I could see this test being helpful to suss out the BTD problem. Is it a bug or system dependent?
A couple of months ago I wanted to see if my system had the BTD "bug", so I took an existing session of 16 tracks (with no plugins) and added a stereo D-verb to each track. It played fine but would not BTD. I haven't done any mixing since (just insane amounts of recording and editing). I figured I would work on the problem when I had to actually mix this project.

Maybe you could post your results? (or is the laptop the only system you're using?).

where02190 02-09-2004 10:41 AM

Re: Another PTLE Stress Test- \"DaVerb Bounce Test\"
We PTle users already have an adopted standard test (DAVEC) and another would be confusing. we've got a standard already, sorry.

JPS 02-09-2004 10:42 AM

Re: Another PTLE Stress Test- \"DaVerb Bounce Test\"
I think that Bio is looking to help solve the BTD "issue" with PTLE and might have a little more success, but most people here have TFS - Testing Fatigue Syndrome. So the idea of downloading a file and running another test probably doesn't have a lot of appeal.

The primary issue with BTD is that people are able to mix a session, but not able to bounce it. So the BTD problem, as I see it, is basically the "percent" loss of your DAW resources going from mix-to-bounce.

I agree that some standard test would be helpful to "quantify" the problem and see how severe it really is on different systems. But it is certainly a problem, and it is not hard to prove. Hello, Digi, anybody home?

I earlier "bounced" the Davec test results to see how much CPU resources were used. I found that on the Centrino Laptop the bounce feature consumes 20% of the CPU resourcesn from "playback" to "bounce." That means that you would have to remove 20% of the plugins from a full session in order to bounce it. That seemed like a lot to me, until my desktop consumed 25-40% of CPU. Other than bounce, my desktop system is perfect. I really think this is a code issue in PTLE and something has been overlooked. So, I have concluded that the bounce problem is very real.

I'll see if I cannot run Bio's test to see if it shows anything new, but I would recommend that there only be one D-verb per track so results can show a little more difference. It would also be better if his test showed how many tracks with the audio clip and D-Verbs could be "played" and then compared to how many can be "bounced". Then I think we would have some very useful information.

BioFeedback 02-11-2004 05:48 AM

Re: Another PTLE Stress Test- \"DaVerb Bounce Test\"
Hi guys,
Thank you for giving this test a shot. I actually, wasn't aware of a BTD bug. My concern was more consistancy in testing. Some guys would get different results from the same machine (without tweaking) I now believe that could be tempurature related.
Anyhow, I did notice the CPU drain when I would try to bounce a session. (JPS, I can't believe it zapped 20% out of your session. That bites!) So, I thought BTD was important, more so, then just recording. But, DaveC got here first, so, i'll continue to use his test and the Dverb test as well.

In the end, our machines should go far beyond what we need. Then we can get back to being creative, not testing 1dimm ramm vs 2dimm, or whatever the case may be. ...but, on second thought, someones got to do it.

Thanks again for being good sports!

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com