hey scook,
 
What is "FWIW?" Don't know that one. The projects were all received at the same bit-depth, but I am using 96K now for a sampling rate as opposed to 48k before. I use, when importing audio, the "original" selection. Not sure what that actually does, because my screen will usually show me at 96K and 24 bit even if I've imported a 16-bit project.
 
 

FWIW = For what it's worth
As I suggested in the previous thread, you may be trying to run to large a project at 96K for your machine.

FWIW, my computer guy tells me that ram has to be used in matched pairs of modules or the system will be unreliable. I would try installing 2 ram modules and see how it works. RAM is so cheap it doesn't make sense to used mis-matched modules.

scook
FWIW = For what it's worth
As I suggested in the previous thread, you may be trying to run to large a project at 96K for your machine.

Well, as is often the case, I hear different things from different people. I had a fellow tell me the other day that running at higher sampling rates actually eliminates certain latency issues. Also, I've tried it at 44.1 & 48 as well, with no change.
 

ampfixer
FWIW, my computer guy tells me that ram has to be used in matched pairs of modules or the system will be unreliable. I would try installing 2 ram modules and see how it works. RAM is so cheap it doesn't make sense to used mis-matched modules.

I took out the 1 Gb card already in my testing, running three 2 Gb modules only at that point. No change whatsoever. I'd heard that before as well, but wondered if it made much of a difference since when I had 3 Gb of RAM it was split between two 1 Gb Modules and two 512Mb ones, and I never had any issues.
 

grizwalter
 
2nd thing a couple people asked is about my Windows version. It is, without a doubt, Windows 64-bit. Also, for the record, Windows 32-bit can only handle 4 GB of RAM, but my system shows that it has 7Gig to use. I did wonder, however, about that 2.6G (approximately) mark X3 is showing me in usage; that is the exact same number it was showing me when I was running with only 3 Gb of RAM. It is almost as if Sonar X3 doesn't realize I have the 7 Gb available or something.
 
Let's see, what else? I am not loading my Realtek at all; in fact, I have disabled all my sound options except for my USB CODEC which is the interface.
 
It was noted that using 7 Gb of RAM was odd as well, and I tend to agree. However, I've tried things using 6 Gb (three 2 Gb cards inserted) as well, and no change in any way.
 
To my mind, this is coming down to the unfortunate possible reality that what many people here have indicated is correct: RAM doesn't matter much. I find that incredibly hard to swallow and, frankly, disappointing. If RAM isn't at play, then what is the point of Read/Write Caching at all? It seems to me that system intensive programs would go out of their way to utilize the resources available to help run things smoothly. A lot of people asked about the plug-ins involved, but like any 44 track mix, one can assume there are going to be a lot of them, and of course I understand they bear down on the system. However, that doesn't change the fact that upping the RAM SHOULD have helped a lot (considering more than doubling what I had), and instead it did absolutely nothing. And as one person noted, the 2.6 Gb usage shown by X3 is just that--its usage. So when I had 3 Gb of RAM, it showed me the exact same number, meaning either it doesn't know I've added RAM, or it simply refuses to call upon it as a resource.
 
I'm pretty much stuck until someone can tell me how to get it to use the RAM I've got! I'll also be looking at the CPU upgrade prices. In this regard, I'm a complete computer idiot.

If your systems shows 7Gb,then it's ok.
3 Modules won't be better than 4. 2 or 4 Will be better because of the dual channel thing,with same size/speed modules everywhere. If I was you, I'd just change my 1Gb module for a 2Gb one, same speed as the others and it would be good, but it's not sure your daw would run better...It's just theory.Indeed memory speed wise, it should work nicely.
 
Concerning Sonar seeing 2.8Gb, just try to load some BIIIIG sample libraries and add instances. I'm kinda sure that sonar will use all what is available if needed(mine does...3.9Gb with my current project which uses BFD2 and miroslav Philharmonik and 2 Mellotrons).It just look like your project doesn't need more,so no worries about RAM usage(in fact you should only worry about RAM when sonar says it needs some more).
 
For the dropouts:
 
First, get the latest drivers and use ASIO. Do not forget to put your interface on it's own USB port..No Hub..
Sometime, ASIO4ALL works better than maker's drivers. So it may be worth a try.
 
Then:
http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml
check your pc with that. If all is green,it's good. If it's red most of time, a better CPU or a reinstall should be mandatory. If you get red spikes sometime, cpu may be a bit short so some background services should be disabled.
 
Do you have multiple HDD? If not, just get a second one and put sessions on it. It's better to have a dedicated session HDD so system's HDD accesses won't interrupt audio streaming. Mandatory with a lot of tracks.
 
Upgrade CPU. If you don't know which one to get, just tell me the mainboard model and I'll tell you which one you should get (socket). A 2nd hand phenom quad core should be under 80euros. The cheapest way. I have no dropouts with a phenom 2 X4.
 
 
 

gritzwalter wrote:
First of all, a couple people said that my A.R.T. Dual Pre unit is not an audio interface. That is incorrect. It is a preamplifier AND a Computer Audio Interface. I've had no problems with it whatsoever at any point previously, so let's take that out of the equation.
 
Hi, sorry for creating confusion here,
but now I´ve seen that there are at least 2 different arte dual pre´s:
One with and one without audio-interface.
The hind above (96 k) is imo a good one.
Are you sure about having installed the 64 bit version of Sonar?
 
best regards
Pragi

ampfixer
FWIW, my computer guy tells me that ram has to be used in matched pairs of modules or the system will be unreliable. I would try installing 2 ram modules and see how it works. RAM is so cheap it doesn't make sense to used mis-matched modules.

It won't be unreliable...It will just be slower. No impact on system stability.

grizwalter

scook
FWIW = For what it's worth
As I suggested in the previous thread, you may be trying to run to large a project at 96K for your machine.

Well, as is often the case, I hear different things from different people. I had a fellow tell me the other day that running at higher sampling rates actually eliminates certain latency issues. Also, I've tried it at 44.1 & 48 as well, with no change.
 

All things being equal, it is true. The reason is the buffers (which are responsible for introducing the latency in the first place) fill up faster. Because the buffers fill up faster, the data moves down the line faster resulting in lower latency. Lower latency however is not meaningful or necessary in all cases, for example mixing. The downside of running lower latency is higher CPU load. The downside of higher samples rates is higher disk load.

ampfixer
FWIW, my computer guy tells me that ram has to be used in matched pairs of modules or the system will be unreliable. I would try installing 2 ram modules and see how it works. RAM is so cheap it doesn't make sense to used mis-matched modules.

I agree. Couldn't hurt to try.
 
Mike

First off, thanks a million, everyone, for all the help and answers/suggestions. This is truly eye-opening. What a fantastic forum. Hope I can pay it forward sometime!
 
Basically, it seems that the CPU, after all this, is still the most likely culprit. While the RAM functionality may be slowed down somewhat due to odd-matching, since RAM doesn't seem to have anything to do with this (using only 2.6 Gb tops in X3 no matter how much the audio drops out), there's no point in worrying too much about that. Wish I'd talked to you folks before I got more RAM, although, admittedly, 3 Gb was pretty pathetic anyway, and rather embarrassing to admit. lol
 
guigz2000, thanks for the additional info and link. I'll take a look at that. But either way, I'm 90% likely going to upgrade now. The info I have on my current Motherboard and CPU are as follows:
 
Manufacturer: ECS
Name: MCP61PM-HM
I have a second motherboard name which is labeled "HP/Compaq motherboard name," and that says "Nettle2-GL8E." I suppose that's just the name they give it for their computer package.
 
Current CPU: Athlon 64 X2 (B) 5000+ 2.6 GHz (65W)
 
Is that the correct info to figure out what new CPU will work?