Hi Everybody.
I have LunaII 4 its audio quality, and 4 little bit of Dsp fun.
I use Cubase on CUSL2-C P1000, and the most of my arrangement is based on Dx and vsti's.
Altogether this is all very stable, but sometimes I need more power, not Dsp power but Cpu. so I thought to sell the CUSL2+PIII and buy an Amd machine.
I read what many users here say about the CUSL2-C... but I use only a Luna, and sometimes I only run a few effects on it and that's all, So do you think I should avoid an AMD machine anyway? or is it that CUSL2-C superiority is only when using pulsar/scope and when there is allot of dsp activity?
I have a great opportunity 2 sell my CUSL2C+PIII 4 a great price and i have 2 decide, please help me.
10x (-:
CUSL2/C superiority....on which setup?
The ASUS A7M266 is wery good for Pulsar/Luna users. Almost as good as the ASUS CUSL2. And it runs AMD processors.
Check out http://www.infinitevortex.com
Check out http://www.infinitevortex.com
-
marcuspocus
- Posts: 2310
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Canada/France
The real problem with AMD is not AMD processors, it's the MOBOs, so whatever you do, don't take VIA chipset, in fact, the only chipset to be known as a well working one is the AMD760 chipset (Asus A7M266).
Don't try to save a couple of bucks on the MOBO, really take an AMD760, or wait, and try a P4 2Ghz 0.13micron!
Don't try to save a couple of bucks on the MOBO, really take an AMD760, or wait, and try a P4 2Ghz 0.13micron!
____________
Marcus Pocus
Marcus Pocus
I'd wait just a LITTLE longer, and make do with your current setup (which incidently, is the same setup many people with LARGE Dsp systems & developers & large producers are using).
The AMD is what I'd get if you had like a less than 600Mhz system and wanted to get something new, but with a 1000mhz setup, it would only be a small incremental upgrade (it is noticeably faster, but less PCI)
The AMD is what I'd get if you had like a less than 600Mhz system and wanted to get something new, but with a 1000mhz setup, it would only be a small incremental upgrade (it is noticeably faster, but less PCI)
10X 4 THE KIND REPLY'S (-:
Subhuman, when u say "less pci", you mean this will be noticable even when using a Luna II, often loaded to only 50% of it's dsp capacity?
I mean, as great as the Dsp stuff is, I dont use it alot. As I said, I use ALOT of Vsti's and Dx plugins.
I thought that Good pci throughput is important mainly to support the Dsp activity on creamware's boards, there 4, in my case
an AMD machine would do BETTER...Is this correct?
Also, may I ask you what do you mean by saying "LITTLE" ? what & *when*?
Jupiter8, 10x 4 the link. BTW, I look 4 a BETTER setup not something that is "Almost as good as..." (-:
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: shloomper on 2001-08-30 15:55 ]</font>
Subhuman, when u say "less pci", you mean this will be noticable even when using a Luna II, often loaded to only 50% of it's dsp capacity?
I mean, as great as the Dsp stuff is, I dont use it alot. As I said, I use ALOT of Vsti's and Dx plugins.
I thought that Good pci throughput is important mainly to support the Dsp activity on creamware's boards, there 4, in my case
an AMD machine would do BETTER...Is this correct?
Also, may I ask you what do you mean by saying "LITTLE" ? what & *when*?
Jupiter8, 10x 4 the link. BTW, I look 4 a BETTER setup not something that is "Almost as good as..." (-:
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: shloomper on 2001-08-30 15:55 ]</font>
The PCI load is not as dependent on how many DSP:s you have as to what you run on them. Reverbs are by far the worst. Then there is samplers. They are however much friendlier to that precious PCI bandwidth than reverbs. Synts take very little PCI bandwidth but a big chunk of DSP instead.
When i said almost as good i meant that the AMD motherboard is almost as stable and nearly the same PCI capacity BUT!! it can run faster processors than the CUSL2 namely AMD processors instead of Intel. So in that case it is a better motherboard.
When i said almost as good i meant that the AMD motherboard is almost as stable and nearly the same PCI capacity BUT!! it can run faster processors than the CUSL2 namely AMD processors instead of Intel. So in that case it is a better motherboard.
10x for the detailed info Jupiter8 !! (:
Now I understand that.
hmm.. i think to myself, who needs dsp power after cpu power has become so cheep...?
I think, its better to invest cpu power than
to use these dsp's....and b worried all d time weather they get there f*****G pci throughput or not....
May be this C.ware was the right thing few years ago
when the cpu's and mobos were slower and more expancive.
Now I understand that.
hmm.. i think to myself, who needs dsp power after cpu power has become so cheep...?
I think, its better to invest cpu power than
to use these dsp's....and b worried all d time weather they get there f*****G pci throughput or not....
May be this C.ware was the right thing few years ago
when the cpu's and mobos were slower and more expancive.
If you have either of these MOBO:s and a Luna i can guarantee you that you don't have DSP enough to load reverbs to the point where the PCI bus can't handle it anymore. Simply put: those MOBO:s+Luna= no PCI overflow.
So you don't have to worry about it.
DSP vs CPU. There will always be different opinions on that one. For me i'll go for both.First the Pulsar card lowers the latency considerably. That alone is worth a lot.
Secondly the performance from DSP is more predictible as it only runs synths. I'm running my Pulsar synths much smoother then my softsynths.
Thirdly. I don't compare my Pulsar with my CPU, i compare it to a hardware synth. And there is none that can do what the Pulsar can. A 64 voice sampler one moment and a modular the other. Or some of both.
Fourthly. The quality of my Pulsar synths is considerably higher then my VSTi:s (except for Reaktor). They sound so much fuller then the VSTi:s.
Thats my opinion on CPU vs DSP.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jupiter8 on 2001-09-01 02:33 ]</font>
So you don't have to worry about it.
DSP vs CPU. There will always be different opinions on that one. For me i'll go for both.First the Pulsar card lowers the latency considerably. That alone is worth a lot.
Secondly the performance from DSP is more predictible as it only runs synths. I'm running my Pulsar synths much smoother then my softsynths.
Thirdly. I don't compare my Pulsar with my CPU, i compare it to a hardware synth. And there is none that can do what the Pulsar can. A 64 voice sampler one moment and a modular the other. Or some of both.
Fourthly. The quality of my Pulsar synths is considerably higher then my VSTi:s (except for Reaktor). They sound so much fuller then the VSTi:s.
Thats my opinion on CPU vs DSP.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jupiter8 on 2001-09-01 02:33 ]</font>
-
peripatitis
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 4:00 pm
Hello jupiter for once more
I was wondering ,i see all the advantages of
a dsp system like pulsar however it seems that the dsp offered by the card isn't enough to rely just on it to fully work within it , how many dsp's do you have and which the most complicated setup you managed to get away with on you system?
and thanks a lot for your answers on the laptop issue
I was wondering ,i see all the advantages of
a dsp system like pulsar however it seems that the dsp offered by the card isn't enough to rely just on it to fully work within it , how many dsp's do you have and which the most complicated setup you managed to get away with on you system?
and thanks a lot for your answers on the laptop issue
I have a Pulsar 2 with 6 DSP. I have the STS 4000 so i mostly use that one. Then i have enough voices. And what is left of DSP i use for synths. And some softsynts in Logic. I do all my music on a Pulsar 2 and Logic. No external synths. If i run out of DSP or CPU i just record them to HD. Just bought me a 75 gig so i have plenty of space on that one.