KVR Audio

UltraJv · Post by **UltraJv** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:39 pm

It seems that unless there is a util to test the actual latency, we have to rely on reported latency. Lies, damed lies and statistics?

Alan · Post by **Alan** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:05 pm

jens wrote:Samplitude/Audio Studio are apparently all programmed in assembler (unlike all other sequencers apart from SAW)

Not saying your wrong,but why does Samplitude thread itself through Windows registry unlike SAW?

valley · Post by **valley** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:45 pm

Alan wrote:
jens wrote:Samplitude/Audio Studio are apparently all programmed in assembler (unlike all other sequencers apart from SAW)
Not saying your wrong,but why does Samplitude thread itself through Windows registry unlike SAW?

what does that have to do with the language that time critical sections of the code are written in?

original flipper · Post by **original flipper** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:03 pm

HI

I think it is obvious to anyone who wishes to do some basic tests that different host programs will have varying degrees of efficiency in how they process and power audio/plug-ins.

I have recently been using SXV3 (optomized for dual cpu usage) and Logic PC 5.5 (coded for dual cpu usage BUT not optomized - thats what is said in the manual) and in my Ambience test found SXV3 to be 30% more effective IE SXV3 = 12 Ambiences, Logic 5.5 = 8 Ambiences.

I also found that using inserts across several channels as oppossed to piling them up on 1 channel led to slightly better performance.

Flipper.

I found the most amazing audio engine. interesting read.