View Single Post
Old 02-09-2004, 10:42 AM
JPS JPS is offline
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Ohio
Posts: 924
Default 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.
John-Q6600,GA-EP35-DS3P, Zigmatec S1283: 235 D-Verbs @ 2.4 ghz
Reply With Quote