PLUGINS TEST FOR DIGI001/PTLE ON A G4/450

[KevinWild]

I tested how many plugins can be open and
operating during a 24 track mix using Protools
LE (beta) and the new Digi001. I used a
Mac G4/450 with 512Megs of Ram (150M allocated
to PT, 100M allocated to the DAE) and the
internal IDE harddrives. I played the
demo song in a place where 22 of the tracks
were simultaneously playing back. I added
plugins in various configs until an error
came up on the screen. Keep in mind, that 1 or
2 plugins before the error came up, the system
would play back very sluggishly and
the rewrite would be very slow. Here are some
of the configs I tested. These were the
maximum that would allow playback; one more
of anything and it would stop and give me the
error. As you can see, Dverb takes up the
most power. All plugins were RTAS (real-
time audio suite) beta plugins that are
included with the Digi001.
--------
12 1-band EQ's
12 4-band EQ's
4 Dverbs
2 Compressors
--------
12 1-band EQ's
12 4-band EQ's
19 Compressors
--------
12 4-band EQ's
22 Compressors
--------
8 4-band EQ's
5 1-band EQ's
8 Compressors
3 Dverbs
---------
3 4-band EQ's
6 1-band EQ's
6 Compressors
5 Dverbs
---------
No EQ's
6 Compressors
5 Dverbs
---------
7 Dverbs Only!

As you can see, it does not have the power of
a PCI based system such as Paris. Using an
outboard 'Verb would help save some power. For
a home studio musician, like myself, it will
probably be fine having 9 eq's, 6 verbs and 6
compressors at a time, but some people will
require more, especially if doing work with clients.
Hope this helps give some insight on the
number of plugins you can have open. KW

[Atom12]

Kevin--

If you need more DSP power, just get a MIX system.

Were you using the 1024 sample buffer for your tests?

- atom -

[Paul Alvarez]

Kevin (or Atom12),

I am concerned over the limitations listed in terms of how many actual plug ins can be used simultaneously. How would I get around that? I need to mix at least 16-18 tracks of music and want to be able to add enough eq and effects where desired. It sounds like I would not have enough processing power to do this. Is the limitation due to using the host computer's processor?

Atom12 mentions some other product as the means to do this but I am still learning about HD recording and am unclear on what is being suggested. I am prepared to invest in more hardware if it will provide for higher levels of plug in support. Please explain while I am waiting for my Digi001 to ship.

By the way, thanks to Kevin on the internal hard drive inputs. I will go that route when I purchase my Mac.

Regards,

Paul

[rwest]

Atom is talking about the PT24 Mix system. The Mix system costs considerably more. I think that it is around $8,000(retail), and uses it's own pci card(s) to do the processing and not the mac's. Apple is rumored to have a dual processor G4 coming out next year and that MIGHT help with the processing of the plug in limitation.

[actualsizeaudio]

Check out Creamware's Pulsar. If you had enough memory you could run Pulsar with NO LATENCY and considerably up your EQ and effects power. It is a PCI card that you would run your lightpipe directly in to. It is now Mac compatible and sells for about $1000. Also, if compatibility with other studios is not an issue, and you already have a sequencer; buy Paris by ensoniq. It will run faster, sound better (there are a few producers in Nashville that prefer its sound over the digital Neves), and give you plenty of effects, a control surface w/16 faders, Machine control, optional adat bridge, you name it. It's F****** awesome, and the software has been real;ly solid lately. I'm getting a digi001 to complement my paris system because I use Pro Tools at work, and am excited about the sequencing, and about being able to work on projects at home (I'll alkready know how to use it). Hope this helps.

-saxhole

[mike_c]

There's no such thing as "no latency", especially if you count the latency of the a/d/a. If you want to talk about latency, give us a number in milliseconds.

Mike

[UArtsMusicTech]

I'm an engineer who works on a PT|24MIX system at one of my many day jobs. I also run an AMIII at home since I can't play the 10K game for gear. Just like everybody else, I was interested to see how PT5LE and the 001 were going to perform, so I went out and did a little testing myself this week. I ran the demo session on a G4 with 320MB of RAM, yada yada. KEEP IN MIND the 001 is only an _input_ box. The 001 runs PT5LE....but so does the AMIII. So unless you're cutting a band in your house or transferring ADAT tapes (hope you have a BRC for sync...)....but I'm getting ahead of myself.

So -

Pop open the session, listen to the track (somebody tune those vocals! ) and jump right into the RTAS pool and start maxing out the host-based processor. I didn't have to go very far. There are only a few EQ's and compressors on the session and a delay. (I might have missed something else...) I maxed out the buffer and cranked the computer performance up to the edge of meltdown (75%), turned off a couple of EQs and tried putting up ONE special plug-in this machine was running. (such as one of the following: Bomb Factory LA-2A/1176/Moogerfooger - remember, not that many RTAS plug-ins exist yet...) The machine started bogging down instantly. Plug in parameters didn't move during playback when tweaked, error messages came up and the mouse started acting spasmodic. Hmmmmmmm......

Now I'm not knocking the system - just being realistic. This is probably a great place for a lot of people to start working with PT. But if you're like me and want real time FX and DON"T want to all of a sudden change to some other system, you've got to ante up. You can't expect $10,000 performance on a host based system for $1000 - it's a little unrealistic. Especially with a program that eats RAM like Homer Simpson eats potato chips (more...more...more...more...). Can you afford to buy another 128MB of RAM nowadays to run the app? You'll need it.

I didn't wear a lab coat when I did these tests - I just sat down and started working.

It's not a TDM system. Never will be.

When I'm working on a MIX system, I don't need to think about how many plug-ins I'm using. I don't worry about bogging down the computer. If I bought a 001, I would be sweating the entire time. Do you want to be that uncomfortable with clients breathing down your neck?

So now I've rambled on and on and on...and I'm not gonna buy one of these things. It doesn't make financial sense to get something that can't perform the way I need it to at this point. So it looks like a used PTIII system for me. My wallet is screaming already.

[Paul Alvarez]

I spoke to a Digi reseller about the issue of plug-in headroom described by Kevin at the beginning of this thread and was told that you could do the following as a workaround:

1) Save the dry track(s) to somewhere else on the HD
2) Assign whatever effect or eq to the track and then save it this way.

I'm told that only when the plug ins are open during the session do they place a load on the microprocessor. If the saved processed track is used it supposedly does not require CPU support. If you later decide that you want to modify the track again, you can call up the original dry track and start over.

Does this sound reasonable to those that have used the system so far?

Thanks,

Paul

[smog90]

Hey UArtsMusicTech -

What was the speed of the G4 you tested the 001's performance on?

350?
400?
450?

Thanks.

[Bones]

UArtsMusicTech

I'm not understanding this - how do Kevin's test results differ so radically from your own? Was it the amount of RAM (his 512 vs your 320)? Was there some other factor I'm not seeing?