BillFitzmaurice.info

The server OS is user-configurable for Foreground or Background optimization.
If you are using a server OS, it should be configured foreground.

Serious server hardware is designed for multiple processors with multiple cores.
I'm seeing 1333 FSB speeds in the new DL380-G5 servers I'm installing at work.
Memory speed is typically DDR2-800, and they uses SAS disk arrays.

I believe it was mentioned here that SAC is single-processor aware.
This means multiple FSB hardware such as high end server boards go unused. Waste of money.
You can build a screaming Core2 Duo with an E8400 processor and Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R board for inexpensive.
I place these in my client machines, and they flat out haul ass.

Be sure to avoid the trap of factory-overclocked memory, i.e. Corsair et al, running DDR2 higher than the stock 1.8v JEDEC specs. I'm having a number of these burning out over time. You can buy G.Skill DDR2-800 that runs 1.8v and 4-4-4-12 timings, as stock SPD items. This will avoid the 10% or higher memory burnout down the line. OCing the ram to 2.1v is only worth a 3% boost for Writes (measured). Not worth the risk.

I'm running Corsair Dominator DDR2-1066 at 1.8v, 800 MHz, and 4-4-4-12 timings with complete reliability.
I had to, because the Dominator premium line was failing in the 3~12 month period when running at 2.1v.

The biggest boost for Windows performance is removing all antivirus software.
After that, you can disable a wide range of useless/eye candy services. I have XP running in a 97mb footprint.
The memory gain is negligible when 2+gb is installed, but the gain of free CPU cycles is quite significant.

high end server boards go unused. Waste of money.

That's what I wondered in this discussion, as resources demands for audio are small compared to video.

After that, you can disable a wide range of useless/eye candy services.

Could you make some suggestions of which to strip and leave for this app.
Thanks

bgavin wrote: I have XP running in a 97mb footprint.

97mb hard disk or active RAM usage? If it's hard disk, did you achieve with nLite or something similar? I've considered using nLite to strip my audio system's XP install but I'm not quite sure of what to leave in and what to cut out.

Thanks for the input all. Brent - are you using SAC?

I've been putting it through it's paces for a few months on a test machine. Funding for the whole rig hadn't come through until this week. My spec hardware will be in thursday and it (hopefully) goes live next monday on my big gig (decent sized church camp meeting).

This rig is going to find it's home in my church, and I don't make decisions regarding that lightly. I am thoroughly convinced that this software is simply the future of mixing.

BrentEvans wrote:

bgavin wrote: I have XP running in a 97mb footprint.

97mb hard disk or active RAM usage? If it's hard disk, did you achieve with nLite or something similar? I've considered using nLite to strip my audio system's XP install but I'm not quite sure of what to leave in and what to cut out.

RAM, easily done with nLite. nLite has some protections built in where you select major features you need and it helps prevent you from stripping out required components. For SAC you can strip a lot of the web, firewall, uPNP, network tracking type stuff. IPSEC and the like can go. If in doubt, leave it. You can always test disabling services after the fact. Watch your event log for errors while using SAC and turn things back on if remote connections stop working. For that you need basic networking and user security enabled so SAC can read and write the files it needs over the network.

Do you have a config file for NLite that's worked well fr you?

BrentEvans wrote:Do you have a config file for NLite that's worked well fr you?

I might. I'll have to look.

BrentEvans wrote:This rig is going to find it's home in my church, and I don't make decisions regarding that lightly. I am thoroughly convinced that this software is simply the future of mixing.

+1

I had a good conversation recently about a friend stepping up to a Digidesign Venue system. Apparently the national acts are now specing the Digidesign systems and/or Digico systems. Not as much call for PM5D or M7 for that matter. Things they are a changin' and for the better in my opinion. SAC isn't far behind those systems either, seriously. We took a long hard look this year at a new 01v96 or stepping up to an LS9 (which was financially going to be a struggle). We are happy with our choice in SAC and I really like mixing on it. It's gives me complete freedom to get my job done. No worries about patch cables, shoddy outboard gear, none of it matters.

The only thing left analog that I still like are my outboard EQ's. I feel secure for feedback issues with that control surface instead of the digital eq's.

I've decided to buy in 100% and so far it's been good to me.
-Matt

Sydney wrote: Could you make some suggestions of which to strip and leave for this app.

I use this.

The single biggest memory pig is antivirus.
It simply isn't required on any machine that is free of email and the internet.

+1+1

BrentEvans wrote:I've been putting it through it's paces for a few months on a test machine. Funding for the whole rig hadn't come through until this week. My spec hardware will be in thursday and it (hopefully) goes live next monday on my big gig (decent sized church camp meeting).

This rig is going to find it's home in my church, and I don't make decisions regarding that lightly. I am thoroughly convinced that this software (SAC) is simply the future of mixing.

And I would have to wholeheartedly disagree with you.

SAC is a cool toy that has its place in budget-limited applications, but it will never gain traction in the professional world.

Let's compare SAC to the latest console I have acquired, a Digidesign Venue SC48.

- SAC wins on price (by quite a bit).
- Venue wins on sound quality. Yes, there really is a huge difference between the venue's preamps and the cheap preamps in 8 channel adat preamps like the Behringer one that seems so popular for SAC users.
- Both can be run remotely via laptop or tablet pc with full access
- Venue has lower total system latency
- Venue doesn't drop audio if the software crashes or a plugin crashes
- Venue is stable - SAC can be stable but the user needs to know how to configure their system properly
- Venue has a very nice physical interface that is quick to navigate, much faster than working with a mouse. Good luck using SAC on busy festival shows or multi-band events with short changeovers.
- Venue's software GUI doesn't suck. SAC's interface to me is extremely ugly and not nearly as straightforward, and status of various things is harder to see. I hate the EQ section.
- Venue comes with great plugins that are MUCH better than any of the free VST plugins, and can run many other TDM plugins. Sure, you can add good plugins to SAC at additional cost, but in my experience the better plugins such as the Waves plugins introduce additional delay.
- Venue has recallable head amp gain (mic pre's). SAC does not. Dealbreaker for me here.
- Venue looks like a professional product on a show, SAC makes no visible impression with clients.
- Venue has rental income potential. SC48/Profile/DShow all run on the same software and preamps, so touring acts can load their shows on any of the 3 control surfaces. Good luck renting SAC.

jeffbabcock wrote: - SAC wins on price (by quite a bit).
- Venue wins on sound quality. Yes, there really is a huge difference between the venue's preamps and the cheap preamps in 8 channel adat preamps like the Behringer one that seems so popular for SAC users.

Turn it around the other way - SAC can be properly installed for as little as $2000, or as expensive as you want to get, with a large scale of price and quality options. SAC can be run with better preamps which would raise the price, but improve the sound quality. I'd be interested to hear head-to-head comparisons with comparable preamps. Venue can't be implemented inexpesively.

- Both can be run remotely via laptop or tablet pc with full access

Is Venue's interface nearly exactly the same on the host and remote? Seamless integration for SAC there, will be perfect when plugin control is complete.

- Venue has lower total system latency

Venue advertises 2.8ms plus plugin latency of .1 per plug. SAC runs stable on 32x1 (.7ms) on a well configured system, and does not allow plugins that introduce added latency. I'm sure there's some system overhead, but the difference overall latencies will be negligible.

- Venue doesn't drop audio if the software crashes or a plugin crashes

SAC has not dropped audio for me during a program in spite of network crashes, plugin crashes, and total system freeze on the host caused by trying to load plugs that aren't even code-compatible (stuff that came with Adobe Audition).

- Venue is stable - SAC can be stable but the user needs to know how to configure their system properly

SAC is relatively early in its development. Venue probably wasn't even public at the same stage of development, as is the case with most commercial software. New major features are still being added frequently. It is not designed to be run on dedicated hardware, but runs quite well on MANY configurations. Venue requires its own hardware to run at all. SAC also resides in less than 70mb of hard disk space.

- Venue has a very nice physical interface that is quick to navigate, much faster than working with a mouse. Good luck using SAC on busy festival shows or multi-band events with short changeovers.

Interfaces are a matter of taste. People are doing those types of shows with success. There is no difference than a physical console here, except that you can easily set up and recall mixes. SAC is more like an analog board than anything else. You can configure it to look and feel however you want. I can get around quicker on SAC than on analog, and that's the point.

- Venue's software GUI doesn't suck. SAC's interface to me is extremely ugly and not nearly as straightforward, and status of various things is harder to see. I hate the EQ section.

SAC's interface is customizable with shades (skins). This feature, while fully functional, is not yet activated because the interface is still in major development, in fact the most recent update (2.1) included some changes that made shades designed for prior versions need redesign. As far as the EQ section, I love it. Again, it's a matter of taste. I have plenty of plugs available to me to draw pretty pictures with if I want to EQ that way, but SAC's EQ is fast and accurate.

-Venue comes with great plugins that are MUCH better than any of the free VST plugins, and can run many other TDM plugins. Sure, you can add good plugins to SAC at additional cost, but in my experience the better plugins such as the Waves plugins introduce additional delay.

I have Waves, some work, some don't. There are plenty of good, low cost plugs that work just fine.

- Venue has recallable head amp gain (mic pre's). SAC does not. Dealbreaker for me here.

SAC does have an on-strip attenuator. Even with the cheapy Behringer pres, there's a working option - set the mechanical pot to 6db below the lowest needed level to prevent hardware clips, and gain up on the channel strip (noiselessly). This gain is recallable within SAC, and works very very well. If you absolutely must have hardware recallable gain, use the RME Micstacy, at a large price jump.

- Venue looks like a professional product on a show, SAC makes no visible impression with clients.

At least five times per night at a show of 500 country church folks, I got asked "Are you running the PA from that computer?" or "Where's all the equipment?" and many more times "This is the best sound we've ever had!" Running pro-level audio with only a table and a laptop looks darn impressive. Want to spend more money and look more impressive? Get two big plasmas.

- Venue has rental income potential. SC48/Profile/DShow all run on the same software and preamps, so touring acts can load their shows on any of the 3 control surfaces. Good luck renting SAC.

Time will tell.

Jeff, you're comparing a system that is a little over a year old to a system that's been public for almost five years, and was in private development for at least some period of time before that. The design goals are also different. SAC is designed to be an easy, superior quality migration from Analog. Venue may have great quality, but it is NOT an easy migration.

Just out of curiosity, what is your level of experience with SAC? I'll freely admit that I very have little hands-on with Venue, so I'm not downing it at all. It's a widely successful system. SAC will be too, when it's complete.

- SAC is a cool toy that has its place in budget-limited applications, but it will never gain traction in the professional world.
Agreed, in the high-end high budget world. I can see SAC gaining tons of ground in the smaller single operator festival world.

Let's compare SAC to the latest console I have acquired, a Digidesign Venue SC48.

- SAC wins on price (by quite a bit).
G: No question, especially for an entry level SAC setup

- Venue wins on sound quality. Yes, there really is a huge difference between the venue's preamps and the cheap preamps in 8 channel adat preamps like the Behringer one that seems so popular for SAC users.
G: For a little more, you could buy better preamps for the SAC system. You could even purchase remote controlled preamps for a SAC system. Granted, not in the 3-4K budget range, but certainly within a 20K budget range. I'd also call into question your poo-poohing of the ADA8000's. In blind tests up against a $1K preamp, the Behringer held their own and even came out as the prefered preamp for about 60% of the listeners. I'd guess that the RME preamps and others would easily hold their own against the Venue.

- Both can be run remotely via laptop or tablet pc with full access
G: SAC can be run remotely in an AVIOM style setup with up to 28 remote clients. Arguable benefit, but still a benefit.

- Venue has lower total system latency
G: 2.3ms vs 3ms for 2x64 buffers is of dubious benefit. 1x64 or 2x32 buffers would get you 1.5ms latency through a SAC system, beating out the Venue.

- Venue doesn't drop audio if the software crashes or a plugin crashes
G: SAC itself is stable. I've had network connections and remotes crash without touching the core audio processing. I have yet to have SAC die on me in the middle of an event after several months and many many hours of run time. Plugins shouldn't be used without thorough testing, a good reason to use purchased quality plugins.

- Venue is stable - SAC can be stable but the user needs to know how to configure their system properly
G: $8K buys a turnkey setup with 32 channels of i/o, preconfigured stability. Building a stable SAC rig is not out of the grasp of most people competent enough to operate a digital console.

- Venue has a very nice physical interface that is quick to navigate, much faster than working with a mouse. Good luck using SAC on busy festival shows or multi-band events with short changeovers.
G: Been there, done that. Easily survived without scars. Pick up a Mackie MCU and you can control most things within SAC on a physical interface if you want. Other control surfaces allow fader and basic channel control with the rest on-screen.

- Venue's software GUI doesn't suck. SAC's interface to me is extremely ugly and not nearly as straightforward, and status of various things is harder to see. I hate the EQ section.
G: Personal preference IMO, SAC is also skinnable. I find the EQ section easy to work with. It doesn't have the glitzy digital curve displays but neither does an analog mixer. Personally, the look doesn't help it sound better or help my ears detect what I'm listening for.

- Venue comes with great plugins that are MUCH better than any of the free VST plugins, and can run many other TDM plugins. Sure, you can add good plugins to SAC at additional cost, but in my experience the better plugins such as the Waves plugins introduce additional delay.
G: All arguable. Plugins that add delay do not function with SAC. Waves plugins do not add delays. Much of this seems to be your opinion and bias. You'll find plenty of people out there who claim the pro-tools processing algorithms are junk compared to their prefered DAW package.

- Venue has recallable head amp gain (mic pre's). SAC does not. Dealbreaker for me here.
G: On a budget unit, certainly not. Within the application itself, likely never. That's not to say that an application like SAC couldn't be developed that interfaced with recallable preamp hardware.

- Venue looks like a professional product on a show, SAC makes no visible impression with clients.
G: All depends on the setup. SAC doesn't rquire a larger footprint out front, that's for sure. I've wandered around with my FOH laptop and made adjustments from within the audience. I've had plenty of people come up and ask what I'm doing.

- Venue has rental income potential. SC48/Profile/DShow all run on the same software and preamps, so touring acts can load their shows on any of the 3 control surfaces. Good luck renting SAC.
G: True, not much call yet for SAC systems. Of course, it gives me the tools to do what I need to do at a fraction of a Venue setup and people still rave about the sound quality. I don't have that much cost to justify for my own use. Experienced visiting BE's have taken to the interface very easily and mixed some excellent sounding groups on my SAC rig. You're right that at least right now the products are purposed for two different worlds. In the world most of us around here live in, SAC makes a lot of sense and holds its own in many regards.

G: Venue doesn't do live surround mixing like SAC can. SAC also beats the Venue pretty soundly in terms of routing flexibility. A remote mix setup would allow an additional engineer to make a separate mix for video or broadcast off the same system without touching the FOH or monitor feeds.

Oh, and one more thing. If Venue has a problem, can you call the lead developer and expect an answer, or a quick callback in person? Dunno how long it'll last, but Bob takes calls...