This is ticking me off!
I really like n-Track studio, it is a wonderful environment to record music in.
I have a very simple setup as follows…
n-Track v2.2, AMD K6 300MHz, 32Mb ram, Win98, Single full-duplex stereo sound card
The problem is when adding more than one track on anything greater than a sampling frequency of 16000Hz I start to get short dropouts in the newly recorded track.
I simply hit the record button and hear my previous track being played while recording a new track and even the playback (while recording) jumps and sticks after a few seconds of recording.
Lower sampling frequencies work great but I really need to record at 22050 or better because anything less sucks.
With my old computer (130Mhz, Win95) it was the same story, nothing greater than 16000 or dropouts and speed problems. I thought that upgrading to a 300Mhz PC with Win98 would cure the problem but it didn’t.
So I thought it was the soundcard but I have tried various sound cards now and they all work fine. It must be N-Track?
I’ve tried increasing priority setting, increased buffer settings and still have the problem. Even without effects, even mono only tracks! I hide the vu meters, done everything said in the built in help files and still have the problem.
I just can’t seem to go beyond 16000 or even 11025 sometimes! 
I would think for sure that my PC could handle higher settings.
Any ideas, tips, ANYTHING!?
Thanks for any help.
I’m dieing to make music but stuck on this.
I should also mention that with <16000 I can have 6 or more stereo tracks without any problems, but anything above 16000 and I can’t even work with 2 tracks without dropouts in recording/playback.
I typically use 24/48 to record and I have a over the counter Dell 4600 stock pc. I never have the issues you have, so with the information you have shared, I don’t think it is N-track. Although having lots of RAM is not important, I still wonder if you do have enough.
Would a newer version of ntrack possibly help?
NO, I think it would only compound your problems. Have you checked you rtask manager to see if something is hogging precious processing power?
I also streamlined my system, turning off processies(?) to increase efficiency. There is a website that shows you how, but something tells me this is not the root of your problem.
Your post is new, I’d come back tomorrow but Monday for sure to check for other responses, and if you have been here before, you know that questions rarely go unanswered. There is a fine bunch here. Give them a chance to help you. They are out playing on the weekend. They’ll be here.
| Quote (syn707 @ June 12 2005,07:21) |
| NO, I think it would only compound your problems. Have you checked you rtask manager to see if something is hogging precious processing power? I also streamlined my system, turning off processies(?) to increase efficiency. There is a website that shows you how, but something tells me this is not the root of your problem. Your post is new, I'd come back tomorrow but Monday for sure to check for other responses, and if you have been here before, you know that questions rarely go unanswered. There is a fine bunch here. Give them a chance to help you. They are out playing on the weekend. They'll be here. |
Thanks. I plan to check back often. There is no background processes running that are using up cpu time. My system is very clean and simple. Basic Win98 install.
The only thing running is the absolute basics needed to run Win98 and NOTHING more. Like said, I have tried many ISA/PCI sound cards and I encounter the problem with all of them. Maybe a 300mhz cpu just isn't fast enough? I would think it would be though, and even the help file said something about 6 mono tracks at 44khz on a 486 dx2, so I shouldn't be having these problems on a 300! I'm only recording one track at a time. Hope all this information will help diagnose my prob.
Personally, I think you are just running an old PC with not enough oomph to multitrack record audio reliably. The PC I use is 4 years old - 1.4Athlon, and I can manage playback of about 20 tracks with plugins at 16/48. A PC of this vintage should now be obtainable very cheaply. You might even be able to beg a freebie from a company that has had a clearout. I suggest you try and find something a bit newer. I run n-track 3.3 BTW.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| n-Track v2.2, AMD K6 300MHz, 32Mb ram, Win98, Single full-duplex stereo sound card |
You’re asking a lot from such an old machine. I started recording on a K6 350 I didn’t get much more than 8 or 10 tracks at 16/44. That was on V2.x of n-track.
It’s really your harddrive speed that’s limiting things - the speed at which 6 or more tracks can be read from the drive at once. A newer, faster drive would help matters (if you could get the BIOS to recognise it), or even a second drive to host the recorded wavs leaving the O/S to it’s own drive.
Also, check that you have DMA enabled on your drive. I seem to remember W98 would turn it off at a whim if it didn’t like something.
But really, you need a faster machine to do anything sensible.
Mark
Some more thoughts…
Do a fresh, minimal install of W98. Never install anything you don’t need (games etc), never let the machine on the internet. Format your drive first.
Get a second drive. Use it for audio only.
Get a bit more RAM. Whilst audio is really only dependent on drive speed, 32M is not really enough for the O/S alone. I bet poor old windows if having a hard time and is swapping to disk while you are trying to record/playback. That’s really bad news.
Or, google up “98 Lite” - it’s a cut down version of Win98 that will get you a few more cpu horses. Would fine for me back then.
Mark
Well I do have good fast harddrives in this computer. Standard IDE though, but quantum fireball at 7.5gb for my storage drive and 10gb maxtor for the os. Win98 is freshly installed. If Mark A could get 8 or 10 tracks at 16/44 why can’t I even get 3 at 16/22+? I’m using no effects or asking hardly anything from the system. N Track is saying that I’m only using about 25% of the CPU with no lag time indication but it still is hickuping.
When overdubbing I can hear everything fine but when playing back the new recorded material it is skipping often in places and after 4+ secs of audio the whole track becomes out of sync with everything because of the dropouts from recording.
I’ve tried everything in the help files.
Maybe my computer just won’t cut it Guess it’s time for an upgrade. I still don’t see why it can’t get the job done though considuring people with MUCH less can get more tracks in at even higher bit rates.
With all due respect… Your PC is painfully outdated. I’m not saying that this is the root of your current problem, but for a few bucks (maybe $300?), you could upgrade the Motherboard, CPU, RAM, and buy an Audiophile 2496 souncard ($99). 
| Quote (John @ June 12 2005,16:55) |
| With all due respect... Your PC is painfully outdated. I'm not saying that this is the root of your current problem, but for a few bucks (maybe $300?), you could upgrade the Motherboard, CPU, RAM, and buy an Audiophile 2496 souncard ($99).
|
Yea, now all I need to do is get the money. I just wish I could make music NOW! Well this is a good time to practice patience I guess
Hmm… I used to get 10 tracks with effects on a 300 mhz computer. The effects were minimal, e.g., only one reverb in an aux, but still…
You have messed around with the buffers, right? edit: I re-read, you did – but wait a minute, weren’t there problems with those AMD chips and audio?
Ditto Tom,
I used an AMD 300mhz back in the day. (IBM I think)
Anyway…soundblaster standard Live card at the time…1996?
Depending on the effects and lenth of tracks was gettin’ up to 10 easy…with some lag around the 8th track or so. Nothing that couldn’t be edited to line up though.
I found it worked better if you selected (mono playback during recording) pretty shure I increased the buffer speed, but don’t over do it…'cause it does more harm than good.
Program Highest Priority in settings,
And cross your fingers…just don’t use effects during recording for best results.
Actually I would go back to the oldest version of N you can find…for that system. 2.3 or 2.0 if Flav will give it–email him.
Doesn’t make sence to have a 7.5 g hardrive for that slow of a processor IMHO? Is that 7.5 buffer speed? or the capacity? Same with the 10G? sounds like capacity not speed to me. I have a 120G drive now…and the buffer speed is only 8.5buff with a 1 G proc. I get 26 tracks or so with effets no prob.
Anyway…I don’t see a benifit of having the OS, on one drive and the rest on another when using a 300mhz…but i could be wrong.
I would use one or the other drive, with the fastest buffer speed (I’m asumming the 10g drive is faster in the buffer area 3.0 maybey?). and put the OS on the same drive…but that’s just me. I’ve read ((I think here?) That it actually causes more problems to have two drives if the proccesor can’t handle the request. It’s like trying to put 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound bag! 
With only one drive…and all other things in place…I would think you could record at least at 16000 maybe even 24 with luck.
take care
jerm
I second the notion that your machine is old & weary.
Yes, old and weary.
I recently acquired a 633Mhz Celeron that I set up with Win98, 256k. It could not handle 8 tracks with effects.
You might run msconfig (Start, Run, msconfig, startup tab) and see if you can turn off some of those applications. It may help.
Good Luck
I checked around for some info on those particular AMD chips, and indeed there were a bunch of problems with both audio and images. My bet, FWIW, is that there is your problem. Mind you, I’m no expert… 
In the deep recesses of my mind (it’s messy in here) I seem to remember an Windows 98 patch specifically for the K6 CPU.
Try googling it up. Might help.
Did you check your DMA settings?
Mark
Nope I was wrong, (should have googled first me self)…Was for Win 95.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows…ult.asp
Mark