|
Subject:ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Posted by: patrick2003
Date:2/25/2003 10:53:51 AM
Is it true that Acid Pro 4.0 is not made to run more than 2 extended length tracks, and even when the program isn't using much of the computers memory-- Acid will cause latency problems even on a fast computer because Acid Pro itself doesn't have enough virtual memory within the program or is not designed to handle unlimited extended length tracks? |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: MyST
Date:2/25/2003 10:58:36 AM
Download the demo and see for yourself how it runs on YOUR machine. M |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: patrick2003
Date:2/25/2003 11:19:25 AM
I already have Acid Pro 4.0 and have have been using it... I have a fast computer and a killer sound card. I have 256K of memory, which seems sufficient and I'm using a separate hard drive for storing files. The memory display at the bottom of the Acid 4.0 window reads that it is using 9/256 K on a project that has 6 audio tracks, once I go to record another track somewhere around 6 or 7 audio tracks, the latency begins even when the program & project is only using 9/256 of memory. This has happened on numerous projects as I get to know Acid more and more. I have had to create a new wave file from the 6 tracks and then copy that wave file into a new Acid project to add additional tracks to what I previously recorded trying to avoid latency problems, of course, until I get to around 6 or 7 tracks then I have to repeat the exercise of creating a new .wave and new file to add more tracks. Now somewhere within Sonic Foundry I actually read that Acid isn't made to run more than two extended length tracks, but I don't remember where exactly and if this is the case. Am I stupid here or is it a necessary evil to have to get to know how to use the buffers to avoid latency? I thought latency was caused by lack or memory when adding to a project, yet I have just oodles of memory that I even take with me to the can to wipe my ass with when I take a break from Assid |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: Maruuk
Date:2/25/2003 3:22:04 PM
This has always been a huge can of worms between Acid users and SOFO. After a firestorm of protests about this long ago back in 3.0-land, SOFO issued an official statement: "Acid is a looping tool. We do not support Acid as a multi-track recording/playback environment." Even though it says right in the promotional material, "Unlimited audio tracks." Lies, lies, and more lies. Bottom line, you can get away with a few long tracks, if you're lucky, depending on your system. But you're pushing your luck. If we had ReWire, we could simply sync to an app that supported audio tracks and bob's yer uncle. But we don't, do we SOFO? Hmmmm? |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: patrick2003
Date:2/25/2003 4:39:52 PM
That's EXACTLY the answer I was looking for dude! Thanks. Thus, the neverending latency issues posted on this board from a million f'ing users. |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: coolout
Date:2/25/2003 6:32:23 PM
i've used acid as my main multitrack app for about 3 years and it rock solid and stable over here. i've also been using logic since the days of the atari st. if you don't need to record any more than an mono source or stereo pair acid works great. i did a acoustic guitar/vocal project in acid pro 3.0 last year. i choose acid over logic because it was easier to have the artist play to different percussion loops (to maintain the feel of the song) and to use the simple GUI of acid to comp multiple vocal and instrument takes. i used about 40 tracks on a given song. the project i working on now has on the average 15 tracks of recorded audio (vocals and various instruments) plus acid loops and wav files imported from reason and orion. the average song has 40-50 tracks total in acid pro 4.0b and is rock solid as long as i don't use asio. the SOFO asio driver is only at version 1.0 and it shows, but sound mapper is rock solid at 0.22sec buffering. |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: Maruuk
Date:2/25/2003 6:43:18 PM
Obviously, for Patrick's rig, and my own which is about average, the audio capabilities of Acid are "not supported", and they sound like they're "not supported". With my old Celeron, audio got totally out of sync almost at once, not to mention the brutal zaps and zoinks all the time. Now, with an Athlon, it's somewhat better, but very limited. You just have to be careful and limit the volume of tracks. But with an average machine, you can lay down a little acoustic guitar and vocal action without mishap. Just don't expect a true multi-track experience, and never, never trust the sync. Always check as you go, because Acid loves to subtley slip audio sync as you add more material on. Especially further down the track. |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: SHTUNOT
Date:2/25/2003 8:59:19 PM
Patrick...some more info on your rig would really help. "I have had to create a new wave file from the 6 tracks and then copy that wave file into a new Acid project to add additional tracks to what I previously recorded trying to avoid latency problems, of course, until I get to around 6 or 7 tracks then I have to repeat the exercise of creating a new .wave and new file to add more tracks"---Are you bouncing down the audio? ie: Ctrl+M=render to new track The way you imply it sounds more difficult than it has to be. Are you using asio or waves classic drivers...what settings for both? I'd stick with the wave classic drivers. What kind of "killer" soundcard are you using...driver version,etc... To be honest I don't record audio using acid. I use either Vegas 4 or Sonar 2.2. So all these files were imported into acid from another session. How about doing the same and see what the results are for you. Might be a bug floating around still. Don't know. When you say "not designed to handle unlimited extended length tracks" what exactly are you implying? I have a project in front of me with 22 mono wave files at 24bit 44.1. What is your definition of "unlimited" or at least what do you feel is an appropriate track count that you'd like to handle? BTW: I wasn't running any fx yet in the mix just balancing audio to find the best takes. So I guess the answer to your question is "yes" but it depends on many different factors[cpu,ram,hd,properly maintenanced system,etc]. So now what else would you like to know? Ed. |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: SHTUNOT
Date:2/25/2003 9:04:01 PM
"Obviously, for Patrick's rig, and my own which is about average, the audio capabilities of Acid are "not supported", and they sound like they're "not supported"---Maruuk. How did you come to that conclusion when all patrick offered as info for his system was "I have a fast computer and a killer sound card. I have 256K of memory...". Could you please educate me on how "obvious" that was. Ed. |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: coolout
Date:2/26/2003 4:28:05 AM
yeah, the fact that patrick doesn't list any specs really makes me question his setup. what soundcard is he using? with what driver? at what settings? is there an additional defragged HD just for audio? what speed is it? is the o.s. tweaked for audio? is he recording at 16 or 24 bit? i think casual users who read this forum sometimes get the wrong idea. most of us only complain AFTER everything has been properly setup and tweaked, but a few lazy people haven't done the research into what make a computer stable for audio work and have the nerve to blame acid pro. here's a couple of premptive solutions: No, you shouldn't use your stock soundcard and fragmented 5400rpm boot harddrive for recording audio. Yes if you're using a usb audio interface with other usb devices they can AND will use precious usb bandwith and cause problems with your audio. i've never had a problem with acid pro drifting out of sync. i think i've used acid pro 3+4 in almost every type of project: 1. commercial remixes (yes i got paid) where all i recieved from the artist was an accapella as a mp3. imported mp3, beatmapped it, added loops and more recorded audio. total track count=37 2. guitar/vocal where the majority of the song was about 20 tracks of stacked guitar and comped vocals, plus percussion loops and drums chopped in acid. total track count=47 3. a megamix of about 20 songs recorded off vinyl, cd, and mp3. beatmapped and mixed with tempo changes, plus voiceovers and sound effects added all in acid. total track count=34 all these projects contained huge sections of audio (3 or 4 minutes) mixed with loops and one shots. I NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING DRIFTING OUT OF SYNC. KEEPING AUDIO TOGETHER IS WHAT ACID PRO DOES BEST. the only driver latency problem that seems to be constant on this forum is the SOFO asio driver. it doesn't work as well as other programs (it's only version 1.0) and if you don't use vsti it doesn't matter. tracks would only drift if there was a problem with software finding the data on the harddrive or the audio driver itself, but not an application that tempomaps and time stamps all audio that comes into it. when they said acid wasn't a multitrack recording app they were referring to the support of multchannel soundcards as if you were recording say 10 seperate tracks at the same time. that's what vegas is for. i'm pretty sure they have the same audio engine just different implementation. if you're recording stereo or mono acid works fine. |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: SonyJennL
Date:2/26/2003 12:09:56 PM
Patrick (and others)- If you are having problems with ACID you need to- 1. Contact customer support. Believe it or not, they can help. 2. Post your system specs with your complaint. Though we are on the forums trying to help, there is not much we can do if we don't have enough information. Systems behave differently based on processor power, memory, soundcards... thanks, JC |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: Maruuk
Date:2/26/2003 1:16:19 PM
Yo Special ed. "Unlimited Audio Tracks"--is that a lie, or is that not? SOFO says it IS a lie. What's it gonna be, genius? Is SOFO wrong and YOU'RE right? What a loser. |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: patrick2003
Date:2/26/2003 4:55:36 PM
I can't call anyone without paying something like $100 bucks a year for phone support though right? or can I call and have it billed to Maruuk's number! just kidding |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: patrick2003
Date:2/26/2003 6:52:29 PM
I do have two systems, but wanted to dedicate this system to sound production. I may have to swap and try my luck to my more powerful PC. The other I use for graphic design and some video applications so... thanks |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: SHTUNOT
Date:2/26/2003 9:23:42 PM
If I read on the box "unlimited audio tracks" off a LOOPING software then I would assume that by said persons daw level of performance that it would handle LOOPS in such a fashion. You trying to make myself/others/sofo look bad because of how you and a few others "misinterperet" a statement is sad when your trying to use it to help the rewire cause. Your hurting it NOT helping it. Please define what you feel is so limiting in acids approach. Again coolout myself and others are working with good track counts...Are we "all" lying losers here to start trouble or maybe we have our sh!t together and don't need to manipulate a "advertisement" to prove ones WEAK point. Again you forget to answer my question...How did you come to that conclusion when all patrick offered as info for his system was "I have a fast computer and a killer sound card. I have 256K of memory...". Could you please educate me on how "obvious" that was. I would really like to know why you "dance" around the tough questions but as soon as you can find a opening you'll strike at peter haler and sofo like they have no feelings at all. What gives you the right besides feeling 10 feet tall in a chat room on the internet. Dude when your wrong your wrong. Making my work easier by the day. Ed. |
|
Subject:RE: ACID 4.0 -SONIC FOUNDout -using extended length tracks vs sectional loops
Reply by: coolout
Date:2/27/2003 4:24:45 AM
just in case you guys didn't see this on the other thread. ah, he finally posted his specs... the fact of the matter is the sync problems patrick is having are not due to acid. many users on this forum have shown great results in using acid to run many full length tracks without any issues. it's probably: a.) your soundcard, the ess is a very cheap consumer soundcard and is known for compatability issues. even if it did work the signal-to-noise ratio is horrible and your recording would sound like crap anyway. one of my old machines had one of these. b.) your SCSI setup is wrong. what version of scsi are you using? what's the throughput? is it terminated? SCSI brings the possiblities of slow disk speed to a whole new level. i once had issues with sync on a mac using a scsi-2 external interface and logic audio...5 years ago. it's obvious your computer is at least 3 three years old and you're probably using a slow scsi-1 or scsi-2 interface with a cheap consumer soundcard known for compatability issues. don't blame acid or SOFO, blame yourself. keep acid, buy a real soundcard and a cheap internal IDE drive. Maruuk you ought to be ashamed for defending this guy. |