Subject: Re: [ecasound] System requirements
From: Kai Vehmanen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Apr 08 2001 - 13:48:09 EEST
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Stuart Allen wrote:
> Having read a few messages on this list, I am starting to realise just
> how difficult it is to predict how different hardware combinations
> will perform when recording with ecasound. Having said this, though, I
> am trying to find out what is likely to be the minimum spec machine
> that will allow multitrack recording. Also, perhaps somebody may have
Quoting my answer to M-Station
mstation> What sort of minimum machine requirments are we talking about
mstation> for ecasound to do say, 8 tracks with heavy "chaining"
mstation> of effects on 4 tracks?
This is really hard to say. First I must admit that ecasound
performance is not optimal. I'm interested in high-level programming
and design methods, and ecasound has always been my test bench
for new ideas. I prefer simple solutions and try to avoid unnecessary
hacks. The resulting code is easy to maintain and more stable.
But back to your question, with my P166 box I can mix about 14-16
mono tracks in realtime. But I'd say that no machine is too slow or
too fast for ecasound. If you don't have enough hardware resources,
you can do separate submixes (like bouncing with analog 4-tracks),
apply effects separately (to free cpu-power), or if nothing else
helps, you can do everything non-realtime.
... so ecasound is quite flexible when it comes to hw requirements.
-- http://www.eca.cx Audio software for Linux!
-- To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message to <email@example.com>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Apr 08 2001 - 17:29:55 EEST