Processor comparisons

Discuss Demos / Games / Applications written by Atari coders

Moderators: Mug UK, Silver Surfer, Moderator Team

fidzen
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:13 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby fidzen » Wed Jul 26, 2017 7:43 pm

I will make a little contribution to this infected thread. :-)
I used my Falcon with CAF for professional recordings until 1997.
After that I switched to PC, and along with the switch all the problem.
It took at least 2 years before the PC was equal to my Falcon setup.
That means a PC from 2000 running Pentium and with dedicated sound card
Event Echo Layla that was really expensive.
The HW used on my Falcon was Line Audio IN8 and OUT8, and that was rock
steady all the time.
Atari Falcon, 14Mb RAM, CT60e, Supervidel, Svetlana, 512Mb RAM, 8Gb CF.
Atari Falcon, 14Mb RAM, CT63, 256Mb RAM,4Gb CF.
Firebee Series 2, 16Gb CF, 2Gb SD, MEGA ST Keyboard and Atari Mice.
Atari 2600 4-switch Woody

Atarieterno
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:40 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby Atarieterno » Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:10 pm

Miguel wrote:...now as for DSP processing you could run a Yamaha CBX-D5 on a PC just like you could on an Atari and then there was TDM which also did all the heavy lifting for the computer...


The Yamaha CBX-D5, year 1992, is a digital track recorder (4 tracks) originally intended to be used with either an Atari or a Macintosh computer but later (later, later ...) compatible with PC. All the data processing takes place inside the CBX-D5, so there is very little demand on the controlling computer and for this reason the CBX-D5 can be used with some of the less powerful such as the PC-Windows; Any Atari ST can handle it together with Cubase Audio. In addition, STs have other recording systems such as the ADAS-ST (Plasmec Systems), ADAP I and II (Hybrid Arts), Digital Master (Hybrid Arts) and DMEX (16 audio tracks, Digital FX Inc.).
And we have not yet reached the Falcon that records "native" audio, so we are commenting that a processor 386 that in theory has enough power (so they say) has not had an architecture around and an operating system that makes it possible to compare it to a Falcon, even external systems like the CBX-D5 or later the CBX-D3 were entrusted to a PC many years later and with Intel processors of other generations.
Regards.
ST/fm/e, STacy, Mega ST/e, TT, Falcon, C-Lab MKX... and more music tools.

Atarieterno
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:40 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby Atarieterno » Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:19 pm

fidzen wrote:I will make a little contribution to this infected thread. :-)
I used my Falcon with CAF for professional recordings until 1997.
After that I switched to PC, and along with the switch all the problem.
It took at least 2 years before the PC was equal to my Falcon setup.
That means a PC from 2000 running Pentium and with dedicated sound card
Event Echo Layla that was really expensive.
The HW used on my Falcon was Line Audio IN8 and OUT8, and that was rock
steady all the time.


+1
Blessed times, when Atari dominated the music scene.
ST/fm/e, STacy, Mega ST/e, TT, Falcon, C-Lab MKX... and more music tools.

Miguel
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:59 pm

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby Miguel » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:22 am

Atarieterno wrote:Dear mate; I still disbelieve as Thomas the apostle, that PC I do not think that was able to record 16 audio tracks, I have seen more powerful configurations and failed for those years.
Are you sure of its effectiveness?


That's Ok, nothing wrong with a little scepticism.

Yes I am quite sure that I was able to record 16 audio tracks and rather than just present you with anecdotal evidence I will refer you to page 179 of the audio recording manual of Cubase for Windows version 3.0 which sates the following...

"A setup consisting of...
a Pentium 100 with a 256KB 2nd level cache and 24 MBytes of RAM...
a VESA or PCI local bus E-IDE or SCSI hard disk interface with a data transfer
speed of 10 MBytes/second or more...
an E-IDE or SCSI hard disk with an average seek time of 9ms or better, 512k
onboard cache, 5400/7200 RPM rotation speed, 5MBytes/second minimum
sustained data transfer rate (or better)...

...should be able to provide eight stereo channels at 44.1KHz sample rate."

Now bear in mind that it says eight "stereo" channels here, so actually 16 mono channels.

Now regarding the Roland RAP-10, it's a full duplex sound card with a decent ASIO driver, however if I recall correctly monitoring during recording was done in mono only and of course a more high end card with multiple inputs and outputs would have actually been a lot more taxing on the system, of course it's a whole different story if we are talking about a card making use of dedicated DSP hardware that does the heavy lifting which would otherwise be done using native processing, in other words the computer's CPU rather than the DSP hardware and the reason why I bring it up is because the awesome thing about the Falcon was it's integral DSP hardware which was far more advantageous than relying upon native processing as was the case with my Windows 95 DAW.

User avatar
calimero
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2069
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:01 am
Location: STara Pazova, Serbia
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby calimero » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:15 pm

And if you look at wikipedia:

"Cubase Audio XT 3.0 1996. - Recording multiple tracks at once was possible".

so only (?) XT version was capable of multitrack recording?
using Atari since 1986.http://wet.atari.orghttp://milan.kovac.cc/atari/software/ ・ Atari Falcon030/CT63/SV ・ Atari STe ・ Atari Mega4/MegaFile30/SM124 ・ Amiga 1200/PPC ・ Amiga 500 ・ C64 ・ ZX Spectrum ・ RPi ・ MagiC! ・ MiNT 1.18 ・ OS X

Atarieterno
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:40 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby Atarieterno » Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:12 pm

Miguel wrote:Yes I am quite sure that I was able to record 16 audio tracks and rather than just present you with anecdotal evidence I will refer you to page 179 of the audio recording manual of Cubase for Windows version 3.0 which sates the following...

"A setup consisting of...
a Pentium 100 with a 256KB 2nd level cache and 24 MBytes of RAM...
a VESA or PCI local bus E-IDE or SCSI hard disk interface with a data transfer
speed of 10 MBytes/second or more...
an E-IDE or SCSI hard disk with an average seek time of 9ms or better, 512k
onboard cache, 5400/7200 RPM rotation speed, 5MBytes/second minimum
sustained data transfer rate (or better)...

...should be able to provide eight stereo channels at 44.1KHz sample rate."



You know well that one thing is theory and another practice ... then come the problems of latency, lack of synchronization, "CPU out of time" (I can not remember well the name that had CPU saturation in Windows systems) .
I do not doubt your word, mate, I just doubt the effectiveness of those PCs at that time, it took them many years to get a recording without problems.
On the other hand I have doubts that perhaps other more technical people could confirm it: IDE hard disks with 9 ms of access time, at that year?
I insist: an ST with a Digital Master FX could record 16 channels of audio, many years before the PC could dream of that. With some external device, a Pentium (not a 386, which was the trigger of this skepticism) could try with a SoundScape (year 1993) of 8 channels of audio, in fact I have known some "working" in different recording studios of that Time and caused many problems with the PC and finally complete the recording with an analogic system...
Regards.
ST/fm/e, STacy, Mega ST/e, TT, Falcon, C-Lab MKX... and more music tools.

Miguel
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:59 pm

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby Miguel » Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:53 am

Atarieterno wrote: You know well that one thing is theory and another practice ... then come the problems of latency, lack of synchronization, "CPU out of time" (I can not remember well the name that had CPU saturation in Windows systems) .
I do not doubt your word, mate, I just doubt the effectiveness of those PCs at that time, it took them many years to get a recording without problems.
On the other hand I have doubts that perhaps other more technical people could confirm it: IDE hard disks with 9 ms of access time, at that year?
I insist: an ST with a Digital Master FX could record 16 channels of audio, many years before the PC could dream of that. With some external device, a Pentium (not a 386, which was the trigger of this skepticism) could try with a SoundScape (year 1993) of 8 channels of audio, in fact I have known some "working" in different recording studios of that Time and caused many problems with the PC and finally complete the recording with an analogic system...
Regards.


Yeah the Cubase manual says it "should" be able to provide eight stereo channels because there is always the possibility that it might not work in practice for whatever reason, I wouldn't say that implies that it's strictly theoretical though as it is actually possible to obtain those eight stereo channels, it's just that there is no guarantee, I mean you kind of have to bear in mind that at that time you could buy some garbage IBM compatible with dummy chips soldered to the motherboard! Fortunately my local computer store specialized in servicing the local music store, a niche carved out from it having first been an Atari specialist, but yeah, the PC was not without it's issues such as latency, which kind of got worse over time before it got better.


Social Media

     

Return to “Non Atari Platforms”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests