[bblue]

Originally Posted by yyyesbaby

When recording (I sit in front of my amp). I use Windows Remote Desktop because I can't reach the 003.

While in theory it shouldn't matter, you might find behavioral differences in PT while running remote desktop. If some of the errors you report occur when RDT is active, try them experimentally without RDT for comparison.

I see that the "Utility" report picked up the \Line 6 subDir under the \Plug-ins folder. Can I create subDir(s) under the \plug-ins(unused) folder (so I can organize that stuff) and the report will pick it up also?

I believe so.

What do you mean by "overall performance"? My display and... the "mechanics" of using the GUI and... the 003 hardware... already feels snappy. Is there some "extra headroom" benifit (in thwarting potential errors) by using FASTER RAM?

Mostly, it would improve PT and overall system performance when PT was active with lots of plug-ins, virtual instruments, tracks, etc. As you add more and more tasks for PT to maintain it makes demands on the entire system, so anything that can be done to improve speed and performance will improve how PT operates. But if you aren't dealing with high track counts, plug-ins and all, it shouldn't be an issue.

Usually any of the name brands, Corsair, OCZ, Patriot, etc., are good choices. It's more a matter of the RAM specs than the specific brand.

When you say "not using Strike" do you mean... put it in the UNUSED folder?

No, when you're just not using it. I.E., it's not an active plug-in for that session.

I have since switched to BFD2, but when I was using Strike I found that it was quite memory hungry even at what should be modest settings, AND it started acting strangely (it and the entire system) after making a series of kit piece substitutions, mixer changes, etc. Once things got to that point the only solution was to close PT and restart.

NO NO NO... don't tell me that. Strike's my drummer buddy!!

I thought I did my homework back when I got the 003. I needed a drum plug-in and everybody (DigiTechs, Music Store, friends) said to bite the bullet on the $300 and get Strike. Digi did mention it was a memory hog but that I wouldn't have a problem with a Quad + 4Gb + dedicated local drives.

My only bitch with it is... the style editor SUCKS. Other than that... it's tones, subPlug-in capabilities (mics, EQ, effects, etc), kit builder, mixer, and huamanizing algorithms are all GREAT!

Maybe if I get to know it's configuration settings menu a little better (especially since I use it ONLY to RECEIVE midi data).

Those were much the same arguments I heard before buying Strike. As long as you're aware of its peculiarities and recognize the behavior patterns and when it's time to re-run PT it can do a fine job. But it can be frustrating and confusing otherwise.

BFD2 is not without its own anomalies, they're just more subtle and less destructive.

Does PT8 benifit from a PageFile (I create one on all my PCs out of habit)?

Since the 32-bit OS's that PT requires to run are memory-limited to 3G, it's a good idea to have the pagefile configured. Usually at 1.5 to 2x the amount of RAM, though some use a size the same as RAM. It only matters when there's a lot of paging going on, and for typical PT systems it shouldn't be that much.

>>
I've seen almost all these issues at one time or another when PT8 (especially) runs memory starved, but it can also happen with PT7.
<<
Why do you say... "PT8 (especially)"??? The more PT matures... the more you need to treat it with kit gloves???

Well, er, yes. The PT8 we're using is a first release and is, uh, pretty far from bug-free.

I just did a 6hr session... including walking away for an hour from the open (non-playing) session.

Playback Engine settings were set at
H/W Buffer = 512
RTAS Processors = 4
CPU Usage Limit = 85%
RTAS Engine = unchecked
Disk Buffer Size = Level 2
Cache Size = Normal

NO ERRORS... NO REBOOTING... 5 ROCK SOLID hours of FUN... yyyyyyyyesBaby !!

The only thing I noticed was PT took about 5-6 seconds to kick in AFTER I was away for that hour I mentioned (above).

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. You wouldn't happen to be female would you? <grin>

Ah, no.

It's not unusual for PT to delay a little bit after being idle for a period of time. The OS writes parts of inactive processes to the pagefile, and that delay is their recovery.

I think most of your recent session success was the increase of memory from the addition of /3G.

Last year (when I first got the 003) I got all excited and transfered some of my analog multi track tape stuff (2 days worth of work not including setup) at... 88.2. I have since learned to use 96 as the default. The material is Classic Rock style uptempo and ballads. Is converting 88.2 files to 96 (within PT) noticable or... do I need to transfer the tape again at 96?

If you really have to have those sessions at 96k for compatibility with an external 'standard', I'd re-transfer them. otherwise, leave them at 88.2k. I saw tom@metro's reply about the 88.2/44.1 relationship, and while there are a number of people that prefer that 2:1 relationship, I don't believe it matters all that much whether you step down from 96k or 88.2k because of the way the resampling occurs.

I usually record and track everything at 96k (even if starting with 48k or 44.1k tracks recorded elsewhere), and bounce final mixes to 48k. They then stay at 48k for any subsequent post, until the final pre-mastering stage which is dithered to 16-bit and forever left alone after that. Always use Tweak-head conversion level when asked.

--Bill