Why not 128 tracks at 96k ?

[stevegalante]

I mean, where is the bottleneck ? For those of us who are considering to upgrade it would be nice to have, say, at least 24 tracks (voices) more at 96k. If not 128 at least 96 !!! I'd like to have an official response from Digi, thanks

[Robert U]

I think that the limitation lies more in the computers than in the digi hardware.

Remember how a lot of ppl got "PCI to busy" errors...and that was on 44.1.


-Robert

[Chucky]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stevegalante:
I mean, where is the bottleneck ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's very simple - for each second of audio, you need to process TWICE as many samples at 96 kHz as you do at 48 kHz. That requires TWICE as much processing power. So you get half as many tracks. It's not an artificial limitation, you just have to do twice as much for each 96 kHz track as you do for each 48 kHz track.

Maybe there's some kind of extra overhead/hoops to jump through such that there are "only" 24 tracks at 192 kHz instead of 32. Still, 64 tracks at 96 kHz is pretty amazing. I don't know where else you can get this kind of guaranteed performance.

C.

[stevegalante]

Chucky, I was well aware of that; I was just asking who in the whole architecture has the responsability of this limitation. PCI bus ? SCSI bus ? Digi cards ? Or what ?

[CO2]

Hello CHUCKY:

You raise a valid point, which got me thinking.

Wouldn't the interleaved multiprocessor (Dual, Quad or who knows what Apple is brewing) scheme alleviate a lot of this?

It seems to me, in my simplistic view, that Digi would greatly benefit from making PT HD run OS X Native.

I am sure I am confusing HD internal processor power with host based Mac processor power. But IF I am, why doesn't Digi just use a proprietary multiprocessor scheme in its interfaces.

[img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

Best Regards

[stevegalante]

Hey Digi, we're just curious !!!