|
how much can e6600 take ?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| -_1_--Ben--_1_- |
how much can it take on (nuendo) projects in 24/196
like vst`s, for example hypersonic 2 , korg legacy.
and i have also a nordlead 3 which i want to route through
vst effects.
i don`t use much effects, only waves eq`s ,broadband, l1 l2
some filterbanks, rev`s, but might be getting more.
i`m just wondering how much can it take or that i`m better of with an e6850.
and does anyone have experience with ew quantum leap platinum programs
how much memory-cpu they take. |
|
|
| -_1_--Ben--_1_- |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
3 |
that`s not much :-P
i`m wondering if i`m better of with external hardware synths, going to an external mixer with some effects.
then i might save on the computer costs and put it into real synths. |
|
|
| Khayat |
| Well my E6600 is good takes allot of Vst's at the same time but I have 3 GB Ram. I think basically the processor takes allot (this is from my experience)Just use it softly and dont f*** the processor you dont have to open 10x things together :D |
|
|
| echosystm |
| ok i actually read your post... why the hell are you running 192? |
|
|
| Khayat |
| Not only 192 but he runs 196 |
|
|
| -_1_--Ben--_1_- |
| quote: | Originally posted by Khayat
Not only 192 but he runs 196 |
o sjit , lol, mistake, 24/192 i mean :-P
and why, because it sounds way better.
never heard a synth at 24/192 and 24/44 before ? the difference is huge.
i almost never tried it on 24/96, but i want the best possible quality.
so that`s why 24/192
edit: i know it for sure i want to work on 24/192, i`ve just tried the differnce between 24/96 and 24/192. (with the nordlead 3)
it`s unacceptable, it`s just more fat on 24/192. |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by -_1_--Ben--_1_-
it`s unacceptable, it`s just more fat on 24/192. |
what do you think happens when you save that as an mp3, or onto cd?
unless you're working on dvd audio, you work at 44, because what you are hearing is what the buyer hears.
if for some reason you really want to run at something higher, you use 88,200, because it is an exact multiple of 44,100 and the resampling is more predictable (half). i don't know anyone who actually does this though. |
|
|
| derail |
That's right, it's unacceptable. All those thousands of awesome, unbelievable quality trance tracks produced at 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 92 kHz - they all sound like absolute crap!
I haven't even engineered the world's best 44.1 kHz song yet (yes, I know, it's extremely embarrassing). So I know I'm not ready for anything near 192 kHz. I'd want my music to sound absolutely jaw-dropping before I'd need to go to 192 kHz, to squeeze that little bit extra out when it comes back down to CD quality 44.1 kHz.
Try an experiment - take your latest track and run it through, recording your synths at 192 kHz, and a version at 48 kHz. Then bounce both down to 44.1 kHz WAV files and post clips of both of them on here. I'm very keen to hear a producer so talented that they need to work at 192 kHz, plus I'd be interested to see how many people could pick the "better" 192 kHz version once it has been bounced down to 44.1 kHz, if they weren't told which is which.
Unless you're only releasing your music on DVD audio? If not, I'd be interested to hear the difference it makes to the end product. |
|
|
| -_1_--Ben--_1_- |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
what do you think happens when you save that as an mp3, or onto cd?
unless you're working on dvd audio, you work at 44, because what you are hearing is what the buyer hears.
if for some reason you really want to run at something higher, you use 88,200, because it is an exact multiple of 44,100 and the resampling is more predictable (half). i don't know anyone who actually does this though. |
well, i don`t think 44 is going to be here very long, since dvd players get more inexpensive and normal cd players disapear from many (living) rooms because of that.
but, it just sounds good when i hear it, it feels better..
but i don`t know what to do anymore.. because i have a tight budget.(go more hardware or better pc, pc needs to get better anyway,but i
don`t know exactly how much better because of the choice to go more hardware or not.
i believe i don`t have to worry about what buyers hear, because it takes at least 2 years before i could have something worth buying.
2 years means i hope no cd`s anymore :-P |
|
|
| Ry Thomas |
Ive got the E6700 which ive been told is very similar.
Real powerhouse, i'd love to try a quad core sometime |
|
|
|
|
