PT Performance - Davec I & Davec II Tests
 

*** Background ************************************************** *******************************
Now 5 years in the running, the following information is to compare your systems performance to others in the community. This is a very specific test and the point is not to list your rigs' inventory but two fold: 1) total track count of test, 2) MOBO + CPU + RAM + HD --that's it, plain and simple. We all must follow the parameters of the test exactly as defined below otherwise the results are meaningless. We have to keep the test consistent.
************************************************** **********************************************
************************************************** **********************************************
*** Update 2005-11-21 DAVEC II Test PT 6.x & Above
************************************************** **********************************************
*** I've created a greatly improved version of the davec test. This includes tone generation
*** on all audio channels and include automation (fader, pan, etc) which should resemble an actual
*** mix (not a real mix but for sure should be more intensive). What I've done is
*** have them available on my website for download which will save everyone
*** the time to actual perform the test. All you'll have to do is download the session file and
*** load in your rig. I have different versions 16track, 32track and so fourth so all you'd
*** have to do is load the first series and if you pass go to the next. They're zipped.
*** Also I've saved the sessions in PC/MAC compatibility mode for MAC users as well.
***
*** I've purchased the hardware upgrade to 002 Rack w/PT 7 and will be creating the new test
*** for PTv7 002 soon provided PTv7 people can reach up to Test-7. The test is the following:
*** Test-1 16 mono audio channels
*** Test-2 32 mono audio channels
*** Test-3 32 mono audio 16 Aux mono channels
*** Test-4 32 mono audio 32 aux mono channels etc. etc. until we can reach the full 32+128
*** maximum for 6.4cs9
***
*** Here's the link: >>>>>> Protools Davec II Challenge - I dare y'a! <<<<<<<
***
************************************************** ************************************************

*************************************
* For PT 5.1 & 5.3.1
*************************************

Download start-up file here -> Davec I Test - Original Test

See link for how to proceed with 5.x test after you download the session file.

Re: PT Performance
 

Hello,

I duplicated this test exactly, and heres what I got.

PT Version: 5.1
Tracks: 22
MOBO: Intel VC820
CPU: PIII 1Ghz/133
Ram: 256/PC800 RDRAM
Drives: 2X 7200 IDE

I think this is a good test. I'm interested to see if a similar system with standard SDRam gets similar results, as I suspect that I'm not getting much benefit from having the "faster" (and more expensive) PC800 RDRAM

I'm also interested to see if a system with a little more juice than mine (such as the 1.2 ghz Athelon) could do the max of 24 tracks.

Re: PT Performance
 

If you can achieve the full 24 tracks with record enabled and can record for 60 secs. start adding Aux tracks with the same plug-ins and keep going until you hit RED. I would really be interested to know if there are any MOBO + CPU combos out there that can achieve the full 24 and beyond.

Any system builders out there, I'm sure anyone who owns a Digi001 rig for Windows would be interested to know hard numbers for system-builds not only for potential purchases but to know where they stand with their current rigs. We've all spent a fair bit on these rigs and I've personally come to the point where I've spent more on my rig than my computer so for me it would be worth it to spend the extra cash to upgrade my MOBO + CPU if it can give me the full 24 track + full plugin use, and maybe more. AT most for an upgrade we're talking about a 300$US expenditure. I've invested over 5k$ in my rig and all I get is 18 tracks (90 plugins). So if someone out there has a combo that can get phenominal results: a) at the very least I want to know about it, b) I'll probably want to buy it. http://duc.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif

------------------
--D

Re: PT Performance
 

I think your test is interesting, but it's nothing like the real world. Who the hell uses a slap delay, medium delay, and long delay on the SAME track, much less on ALL their tracks?

You'd be better off getting 24 tracks with compression and eq, then adding aux tracks with mono or stereo D-Verbs. I have no doubt, judging from the performance you two already got, that everyone can hit the 24 track limit in a real world situation, and telling them that their system is only getting 19 tracks or 22 tracks in a ridiculous theoretical situation is only gonna start another Digi flame war re: "my system isn't getting enough tracks!"

Re: PT Performance
 

i agree with digi9billion....... i tried the test anyway......

24 tracks + 3 aux tracks
1.2GHz Athlon
Giga-Byte GA-7DX
512MB PC2100
2x 7200 seagate ata66

and i had the DUC page in the back the whole time..........

Re: PT Performance
 

I agree with Digi9000000. Try the test with plugins that everyone uses, comp, D-verb, EQ's...

Re: PT Performance
 

PIII 1GHz/133
256MB SDRAM (133)
Asus CUSL2-C
Maxtor 7200 RPM 30 Gig


As for the original test:

22 tracks

As for a more (but still not totally) realistic test:

Each track has 4b EQ and Cmp
6 Stereo Aux inputs with 4b EQ and D-Verb
Master fader with 4b EQ, Cmp, and Dither.

24 tracks recorded for one minute.

-Mike Pope

Re: PT Performance
 

Digi90000 -- Your points are valid on face value; however, you failed to see the point. I took a scientific approach not a "musical" approach to measuring performance. The second point you missed was I'm not trying to figure out how far I can push PT, I wanna know how far I can push my rig and what others are experiencing with theirs. The reason why I choose the "sends" I did was to: A) Use plugins that came stock with PT so that "Joe" isn't using a MoogerFooger in his test while "Peter" is using a ReverbOne in his; B) I used those specific plugins because of the load they represented when I enabled them on a track (which I subjectively measured). So just so you know, I don't produce my music with the same configuration I test the software. In the business, this is called stress-testing. Again, I'm using a scientific approach and used elements that I know for sure every PT user would have at their disposal. I didn't say go out and produce a Grammy winning album using these effects, did I? This test is purely mathematical not artistic and for Gods sakes not political. Since I started this topic, I will take the responsibility of moderating it and stopping any flame wars that may occur. Lastly, we ALL DON'T get the same results as you can see by the posts which means pound for pound some MOBO+CPU combo's are better than others and I want to know which ones they are plain and simple so that I can judge the effectiveness of my rig and possible opt to switch to a system that performs better. I spent 5k on my rig, why would I go so far as to try to discredit the same company I invested in by starting a flame war? or even permitting one? Sorry...


------------------
--D

Re: PT Performance
 

Digi900000, I think you missed the point.
It's true that this is not a real world test. It is completely obvious that nobody would ever use this setup in a "real world" situation.

I have also done the test you recomended.

Is that more "real world" than this test? I don't think so. (Incidently I got 11 D-Verbs)
It is less important for a test like this to be "real world", than it is for it to be consistant.
The point is to compare system performance, and this test does that effectively. Take from it what you will. There is no point in bashing it by calling it a "ridiculous theoretical situation" In fact, it is a -HYPOTHETICAL- situation. A situation from which one can draw a theory.

By the way......da BaSsTaRd! sounds like your system ROCKS!!

Sevan

Re: PT Performance
 

PT Version: PT 5.1
Tracks : 22
MOBO : CUSL\2
CPU : PIII 1000/133
RAM : 200MB/133
Drives : 2x 7200 WD

200 megs of ram, with the explorer window open. Why would you want to record on more than 18 tracks simultaneously anyways?

Personal Advice -> Don't use a Celeron processor for anything.


Keny