Buffer Size Vs. Hardware, What's the deciding factor for lower buffers? Options

[stimpy]

Hi,
What is the most important factor in determining if a Mac can run the lowest buffers; for triggering drums (therefore needing the shortest latency times) etc?

Is it RAM size or CPU speed or Software/ Hardware configuration?

i.e. If I add more RAM will I get a better performance at the lowest buffer setting (instead of crackling) or is it simply my inherent system architecture?

Thanks.

Powerbook G4 1.5 GHZ 512MB OSX 10.4.8.
M-Audio Firewire 410
CubaseSX1 / Sampletank XL 2.2

[gdoubleyou]

Hi,
What is the most important factor in determining if a Mac can run the lowest buffers; for triggering drums (therefore needing the shortest latency times) etc?

Is it RAM size or CPU speed or Software/ Hardware configuration?

i.e. If I add more RAM will I get a better performance at the lowest buffer setting (instead of crackling) or is it simply my inherent system architecture?

Thanks.

Powerbook G4 1.5 GHZ 512MB OSX 10.4.8.
M-Audio Firewire 410
CubaseSX1 / Sampletank XL 2.2

All of those are factors, but I have pretty much used the default settings with no problems, using Logic, DP4, and Live.

I could not get that kind of performance with SX, so I moved it to my PC where it ran great.

That , is probably your biggest problem. Mac SX and PC SX share the same code base. What that means is that there isn't ANY OSX optimization in the app, and you won't get acceptable performance unless you are using a G5 class machine.

In Mac DAW circles SX is known as the official G4 killer.

On my 1GHz Powerbook I had no problems with sessions of 24-32 tracks using Logic or DP. From my experience I was able to 40%-60% more instances of effects and instruments using Logic and DP.

I stopped my revenue stream to Stienberg when I realized that better SX performance would require a top of the line Powermac.