Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Legacy Products > 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win)
Register FAQ Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-02-2001, 06:21 AM
bstaley bstaley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 314
Default Poor performance with 5.1.1

I have a session that is a benchmarking type session for me. In 5.1 I have the most plugins I can get without the 9128 error. I installed the 5.1.1 upgrade this weekend and now I have to remove one plugin to avoid getting the 9128 error.

What's the deal? Why would I get slightly worse performance from this upgrade? Shouldn't an upgrade improve performance or stability or both? 5.1.1 did crash on me the first time I ran it but it hasn't happened since.

I searched through the documentation to see what changes were made in this release and all I found were some new features and two new plugins. Was anything donce to fix some of the stability bugs from previous releases? I couldn't find any mention of "bug" fixes. It's almost as if Digi doesn't like to admit to having any bugs in their software.

If nothing was done to improve stability then I will go back to 5.1 because it has better performance. A more detailed explanation from Digi would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
__________________
LANPARTY UT nF3 250GB RT
Athlon 3400 DTR
G.SKILL 1G(512X2) F1-3200DSU2-1GBLC
ZALMAN CNPS7000B-CU RT
EnerMax EG365P-VE FMA 1.3 RT
GeForce2MX
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-02-2001, 07:24 AM
Mike Glenn Mike Glenn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Atlanta, Ga.
Posts: 186
Default Re: Poor performance with 5.1.1

I was shocked after upgrading to get a "running out of CPU message" on a session that was fine under 5.1. The problem was that the upgrade had reset my CPU usage to 65%. I changed it back to 85% and the session ran fine.
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-02-2001, 09:00 AM
bstaley bstaley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 314
Default Re: Poor performance with 5.1.1

Thanks Mike. I'll have to check that when I get home today. I hope you're right. If that's the case then owe Digi an apology.
__________________
LANPARTY UT nF3 250GB RT
Athlon 3400 DTR
G.SKILL 1G(512X2) F1-3200DSU2-1GBLC
ZALMAN CNPS7000B-CU RT
EnerMax EG365P-VE FMA 1.3 RT
GeForce2MX
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-02-2001, 09:39 AM
QuikDraw's Avatar
QuikDraw QuikDraw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Azle, Texas, USA
Posts: 2,116
Default Re: Poor performance with 5.1.1

Nobody owes Digi an apology. It is bad programming practice to have an update or patch that overwrites user preferences! Most programs save user preferences when a patch or upgrade is applied. Digidesign chooses to set everything back to its default values, which is a poor practice. I wish they would change this practice. It is annoying to have to go back through all the setup menus to set things back the way they need to be to run properly after an update.

It causes me no problem because I know to look out for it, but it is an unnecessary annoyance!

Mike
__________________
-- Mike
- HP Spectre x360 Convertible 14t-ea100 - 2.9 GHz (5.0 Max Turbo) i7-1195G7 32GB RAM, OLED 3k x 2k, Iris Xe Onboard Graphics
- Windows 11 - PT 2021.12
- PreSonus Quantum 2 - PreSonus Studio 24c - Mackie Onyx 1640i
- Samsung T3 and T5 SSDs - Various USB2/3 and Firewire HDDs
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-02-2001, 10:29 AM
Mike Glenn Mike Glenn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Atlanta, Ga.
Posts: 186
Default Re: Poor performance with 5.1.1

Yeah it resets all of your input levels as well which really wrecks a mix that has aux ins for drums or other midi modules.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-02-2001, 02:40 PM
Bassart Bassart is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 274
Default Re: Poor performance with 5.1.1

Just an FYI, in the 5.1.1 info the new recommended minimum Ram is 256MB as opposed
to 128MB w/ 192MB recommended.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-02-2001, 02:59 PM
jeziel jeziel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: sp-sp-brazil
Posts: 52
Default Re: Poor performance with 5.1.1

theory of the conspiracy! ehehehe!
for each new version,
must have new machine!
eheheh [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-02-2001, 03:00 PM
QuikDraw's Avatar
QuikDraw QuikDraw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Azle, Texas, USA
Posts: 2,116
Default Re: Poor performance with 5.1.1

Bassart,

Where did you get the info re: minimum RAM for PTLE 5.1.1? Everything I've read still has the same requirements listed as before... 128min. 192 recommended.

The compato docs still state the original specs, as well as the 5.1.1 addendum.

Please post link to new higher RAM requirements.

tnx

Mike
__________________
-- Mike
- HP Spectre x360 Convertible 14t-ea100 - 2.9 GHz (5.0 Max Turbo) i7-1195G7 32GB RAM, OLED 3k x 2k, Iris Xe Onboard Graphics
- Windows 11 - PT 2021.12
- PreSonus Quantum 2 - PreSonus Studio 24c - Mackie Onyx 1640i
- Samsung T3 and T5 SSDs - Various USB2/3 and Firewire HDDs
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-02-2001, 08:54 PM
bstaley bstaley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 314
Default Re: Poor performance with 5.1.1

Yes, Digi set my CPU usage back to 65%. I guess 5.1.1 may be ok afterall. Why can't they keep user settings though? I mean, you write a program as complex as Protools but you can't keep user settings?!?! Re-dragging my windows for dual monitors is getting alittle old too...

OK, I really want Win2000/XP support. When are we going to get it? These new "powered plugins" sound interesting but I'd rather build a dual AMD system on Win2k and be done with it. Digi, will this happen before the end of this year?
__________________
LANPARTY UT nF3 250GB RT
Athlon 3400 DTR
G.SKILL 1G(512X2) F1-3200DSU2-1GBLC
ZALMAN CNPS7000B-CU RT
EnerMax EG365P-VE FMA 1.3 RT
GeForce2MX
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-02-2001, 10:17 PM
Dreamware Dreamware is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 484
Default Re: Poor performance with 5.1.1

Just remember programming is not easy, DIGI is still ironing out alot of bugs. I'm sure by the end of the year there should be P4 support too. I can't see Windows 2000/XP support happening until 2002. DIGI doesn't want to slap a program together and send it on its way with poor programing. Let them perfect it first.
__________________
Alex

www.dreamware.ca
Have something to brag about...Own a Dreamware Audio PC...

My Rig:

AMD Athlon XP 1700+
512MB PC2700C2 Corsair
MSI KT3ULTRA ARU
2x 80GB Seagate Barracuda 4 in RAID 0
GeForce 2 Ti 64MB
Lite-On 40x12x40 CD-RW
16x Pioneer DVD
Intel Pro/100 +
SB Audigy
Digi 001
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poor Performance L-Dogg 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 6 06-12-2006 02:21 PM
Imac G5 poor performance jimskiwax 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 2 11-18-2005 05:37 AM
very poor performance gaus 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 17 03-07-2004 06:27 PM
Digi 001 - Mic Pre poor performance Alan John 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 0 10-03-2003 01:11 PM
G4 PT 5.0 poor Performance ProTools4 Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 2 02-24-2000 12:58 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:24 AM.


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