Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
>
> "Les Cargill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:hb8cik$l4j$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> bond audio wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 11:20 pm, Soundhaspriority <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> "Gareth Magennis" <gareth.magen...@virginmedia.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> As for a net book I own an acer one, and I would never use if for
>>> recording. The "net" in "netbook" really describes there intended
>>> usage.
>>
>> We've direct testimony from someone with a non-netbook
>> Atom 330 board doing 16 tracks and the machine loafing
>> along.
>>
> An Atom 330 is a 2-core machine. An Atom 270 has only one core. Steve
> quotes 35-55% CPU usage for his dual processor system.


Steve's report is anomolous. There's something Wrong there. That's a
full order of magnitude over expected value. And single-core
versus dual-core seems a nonstarter.

> A single core
> system would have about double that, for 70 to >100% CPU usage, ie.,
> overload.
>
> With respect to your suggestion of wireless storage, these points should
> be noted:
>
> 1. The actual maximum throughput of a "54mb/s" 802.11g interface is 27
> mb/s. The "54" refers to the raw air interface, not the actual throughput.
>

Of course. 24/48k @ 16 tracks is probably not all that likely to
work. I've done something quite similar with 8 tracks at 16 bit, and it
worked well. Dunno how well 802.11n performs ( we can probably
assume very good control of the proximity of the fileserver ).

And I don't really know enough about SMB to know how well it
behaves under lossy conditions. I've used it when somebody
turned on the microwave (wiping out an 802.11g link ) and
it didn't just *fail*.

> 2. At a sampling rate of 44.1k/s, a channel requires 1058400
> bits/second. Provided the wirless connection is unimpeded, it could
> handle 25 channels, which may be sufficient. However, some of us prefer
> high bit rate recording. At 96K, the capacity of the link drops to 11
> channels.
>

Right.

> 3. The wifi adapter in a netbook is software driven. This means that
> TKIP or AES is implemented in software. It's a considerable drag on the
> CPU, so be careful!
>

Yup. Good points all. Still, it's kinda neat-o conceptually. If one
could press 100BaseTX into service, that'd make for a really cool
remote rig.

Until you think about the input device problem. The various 24bit/24
track dedicated recorders make much more sense.


> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

--
Les Cargill

Steve Maki wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:37:49 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>>>> We've direct testimony from someone with a non-netbook
>>>> Atom 330 board doing 16 tracks and the machine loafing
>>>> along.
>
>>> An Atom 330 is a 2-core machine. An Atom 270 has only one core. Steve
>>> quotes 35-55% CPU usage for his dual processor system.
>
>> Steve's report is anomolous. There's something Wrong there. That's a
>> full order of magnitude over expected value.
>
> Say what? The expected value is 1/10 of what I'm getting?
>
> Steve Maki

Yeah, I think so. I get between zero and 5 percent CPU utilization
for the scenario described, on an old P5 single core from
2005.

Require clarification, over.

--
Les Cargill