Absolute BEST CPU set-up for 001

[imp]

Hello,

What Mac machine would allow the absolute BEST performance from the 001 in terms of speed and overall processing power. I know this topic has been covered recently, but in this case I'm not looking for the most economical or practical solution. I'd like to know, regardless of cost etc, what computer system would make the 001 perform to it's absolute maximum capability.

I wish to be able to run tons of plug-ins, heavy automation, etc, etc, etc without any trouble. I realize that I probably really need a TDM to achieve the performance that I would like, but I'd still like to know how to get the most out of a 001.

How much RAM? CPU? Etc. Guys, sorry, I am not that familiar with computers in general, so any advice would be appreciated. Be as descriptive as you like.

Thanks

[Christoph1123]

imp,

The new Power Mac G4 867MHz looks really tasty. That's the most you'll get out of a Mac these days. You can order it from Apple.com (Apple Store) and configure it the way you want to save money. Like, keeping the RAM at 128MB and buying a 512MB RAM chip from OWcomputing.com for $68. Buying the second HD (Maxtor or IBM DeskStar), for your audio, elsewhere. You could easily be ripped off in the Apple Store. I just ordered the 867 with a CD-RW (no DVD -$400) and no 56k modem for $2194. Actually, I got a 512MB RAM chip from MacMall.com for $75 with a $15 rebate ($60)!

I'd also look into the PC's. There's been threads lately with PC guys on 1.7GHz machines kicking some serious butt. They had they're machines heavily optimized from what I can remember. Though, I've heard, that the Mac will most likely be more relaible for the most part. Unless your a PC wiz for that matter.
Regardless, you can run alot of plugs on those GHz PC's.

Genuinely, Chris

[imp]

Chris,

Thanks for the info. Much appreciated!

I just want to add... I plan to use the "virtual track" function of the 001 a lot. Well, I don't know if you call it "virtual track function", but... like on the Digi-001 video, they show the guys recording a vocalist with loop record, and the vocalist lays down three passes of a vocal ontop of ONE track.... and then somehow within this one track they took the three passes and compiled them together to make one final composite track. I would like to be able to record in this way and store these "hidden" extra passes under each and every track of a 24 track recording. In otherwords, I plan to do a lot of this type of thing. I am guessing that this would require a alot of processing power and/or drive space etc. (Again, I apologize, i'm in the dark when it comes to computer issues)

In your opinion, given what i'd like to do here, what aspect of the computer do you think should be most heavily optimized? RAM, or...??? I'd gladly add a truckload of RAM if that will help me out here.

Regarding the Mac vs. PC thing... I am typing right now on a 1.7 gig PC... I think PCs are fine. but i'd like to stick with a Mac for the 001 because all the musicians I work with all have Macs and I want to remain 100% compatible at all times. As well, as you mentioned, the Mac is probably more reliable overall for this sort of thing, and that is a big issue with me. Since I am a moron when it comes to computers, nothing frustrates me more than to have a computer related problem, especially when trying to work on audio. A computer glitch can wipe out an entire work day for me. I'd be the first guy to throw a computer right out the window due to frustration, so it is worth any dollar amount to me to have a system that is extremely reliable and that can handle anything you throw at it.

THANKS! I much appreciate the info!

[bassmac]

Allocating more than 100-125 MB for both PT and DAE doesn't seem do much at all. After that it's all CPU.

Total memory beyond 384MB seems to be a waste unless you're running other applications along side PT.

A full session with lots of plugins will be lagging from lack of CPU, not memory.

Virtual tracks don't take any more power as they're not all playing at the same time - they're simply regions.

[Carl Z]

Imp:

What your looking to do will require disk space. This feature works like a charm BTW - I use it all the time.

Make sure your audio drive is fast and big.

C

[Christoph1123]

imp,

As bassmac says, MHz is where you'll really run more plugs. I suggested (and purchsed myself) the 512MB RAM since it's so cheap and may be running other apps along with Pro Tools LE, as you may also.

Also, I didn't mention before, that 2nd HD (for audio) needs to be at least 7200RPM with at least around 9.0ms seek time. I agree, I'm a die-hard Mac person. That's all I've ever worked with for music. Thought I'd let you know all the options though.

Chris

[phamtec]

I have a G4 450 (Dual 450, but only 1 is used for PT). It has 256MB of RAM and I used another Quantum fireball (20GB, 5400) in it as the audio disk.

I placed PT on the main disk, and record all my audio on the second disk.

When I run PT, I run no other software along with it.

I haven't tweeked any settings whatsoever with the machine, but I can record all 8 tracks of audio into a session for about 1 - 2 hours with no problems.

I can also place about 4 compressors, 4 EQ's as inserts and 2 reverbs, 2 slap delays as BUS effects on all 8 tracks without any problems.

Other projects I have worked on had multiple tracks of MIDI (up to about 12), and about 5 - 6 tracks of audio with the same type of effects as above all playing back with no problems.

I have never had a glitch or a crash with PT, and have never had any CPU load problems.

I suspect that the following things are most important with any audio or MID software on a macintosh:

- Always let OMS turn your Appletalk off! Don't run networking with any sort of audio software.
- Don't use Virtual Memory.
- Don't run ANYTHING along with PT. Because the Macintosh OS 9 uses co-op multitasking through a single toolbox routine, it's possible for applications to significantly hog the CPU when they run.
- Give PT all your RAM.
- Don't run any extensions other than the ones that you need for PT.

I also only use the original PT plugins. I presume from reading this forum that the WAVES plugin's and others have significant Processor overhead, so my benchmarks won't apply.

Hope this helps you.