- #SAMPLETANK 3 32GB CONTENT DOWNLOAD HOW TO#
- #SAMPLETANK 3 32GB CONTENT DOWNLOAD SERIES#
- #SAMPLETANK 3 32GB CONTENT DOWNLOAD MAC#
That way my VI drive and Soundfile drive could achieve maximum efficiency. I am not aware of any FW audio interface running at 800, therefore was interested in the USB audio interfaces. I've heard that if a FW400 device is part of a FW chain that everything will run at 400, negating at least partially (yah, by half!) the speed of the bus. I'm not worried about the future loss of FW, I'm just trying to maximize the performance of the FW800 bus. Mhschmieder wrote:Oh, if you are future-proofing your audio interface against loss of FW (which I don't think is going to happen anytime soon, but does limit which notebooks you can use if you choose not to use the iMac for on-location recording), by going USB2 for that part of the audio and recording chain, don't forget the new USB half-rack interface from RME, which is said to have the best performance (maintained throughput speed, that is) of any USB-based audio interface yet. Nevertheless, that wouldn't be at the point where the fastest possible device read/write speed is determined it would be further down the pipe in the internal data busses of the iMac. So I think it's unlikely they fold down to the same bus internally, but I remember reading that at one point (and probably in my old iMac) they did. Oh, if you are future-proofing your audio interface against loss of FW (which I don't think is going to happen anytime soon, but does limit which notebooks you can use if you choose not to use the iMac for on-location recording), by going USB2 for that part of the audio and recording chain, don't forget the new USB half-rack interface from RME, which is said to have the best performance (maintained throughput speed, that is) of any USB-based audio interface yet.Īs for how USB and FW relate to each other inside the computer, I'm not sure any of us can know as the i7 iMac is a different architecture than previous iMacs in that it is somewhat closer to a MacPro as it uses mostly non-notebook parts and boards.
#SAMPLETANK 3 32GB CONTENT DOWNLOAD MAC#
There are very few scores, including the ones just mentioned, where it would not outperform all but the most decked-out Mac tower, and coming in at 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.
#SAMPLETANK 3 32GB CONTENT DOWNLOAD SERIES#
Whichever way you cut it, this is the biggest leap the iMac series has ever seen, and huge bang-for-buck. We are in a unique situation where there are certain aspects of the current i5 and especially i7 iMac that outperform the MacPro - though not across-the-board, as PCIe is faster than FW800, for instance, as well as Ethernet (not that many people use the latter yet).
#SAMPLETANK 3 32GB CONTENT DOWNLOAD HOW TO#
If this is how you work, then you have probably already encountered limitations previously and know whether they affect you or how to work around them.
For instance, if they don't have zero-latency capabilities in their combined hardware/software setup (for cue-mixing) and are delivering feeds to people in separate isolation chambers, rooms, or booths and/or several people are using headphones to hear what the other musicians are doing while they do their own parts. Some people might need zero or near-zero latency during initial tracking, depending on how they record. I'm not concerned, as I can handle ten channels fine on my ancient G4 iMac, and don't need low latency during initial tracking - just during overdubs. The only limitation that I have seen documented, on a different forum that I don't read but encountered via Google, is that FW800 might be a bottleneck much beyond 8 simultaneous channels, if you need low latency. Yep, this topic has come up several times here in the past few weeks.
0 kommentar(er)
