posted 15 January 2009 14:29            

This means that that Paca is actually the same as the basic capybara320*5. Since the Capybara320 base is a 4 processors mobo, then each card a +2procs then, this means Paca is the same as Capyraba320 + 8 DSP Cards ?... (1*4 + 8*2 = 20 DSPs = 5*4)

> Paca = Capybara320 + 8DSP cards
> Pacarana = 1.5 x fully loaded Capybara320

So, a fully loaded Capybara320 can be in some ways more powerfull than the new Paca ?

Fully loaded Capybara320 = 4 + 12*2 = 28 DSPs
So 28/20 => 40% more powerfull than the Capa.

So one may 'classify' the processing units this way :
1/ 1.0 x Paca = Capybara320 + 8 DSP cards = 20 Capy DSPs
2/ 1.4 x Paca = Fully loaded Capybara320 = 28 Capy DSPs
3/ 2.1 x Paca = Paracana = 1.5 x Fully Loaded Capy320 = 42 Capy DSPs

Can SSC confirm ?

posted 16 January 2009 07:11            

then there is the consideration that there might be some sort of upgrade offer from SSC at some point.
> I wish they could update 'us' asap on that point.

the real "sexy" factor is obviously an attribute of daisy-chaining multiple pro pacaranas...but my head is spinning at the thought of getting three of those for example.
> ..And you need the money , and just the 'need'...
When running other synths and so on, in my case I don't see the point of getting a huge processing power nor a lot of sampling ram (2Gigs here and there on my other machines etc).

posted 17 January 2009 13:12            

quote:

---

that depends i guess. two larger processors in the paca also means that you get the possibility to do computations in a less partioned manner i suppose, meaning the same raw horsepower will likely yield more *effective* horsepower on the paca. sounds that need to run on one processor due to memory access requirements come to mind....they'll probably run smoother on less, larger processors.

---

Yes, those rough equivalences were made by testing the most DSP-hungry modules (like live spectral analysis/resynthesis). For networks composed of lots of small Sounds and for networks relying on large samples, the Paca should be more efficient.

It was a really high priority for us to make the transition from Capybara to Pacarana transparent (kind of like when Apple made the transition from PowerPC to Intel processors while maintaining the look and feel of the Mac OS). However, we did do a few tweaks here and there to improve the sound quality of some of the algorithms while keeping their behavior and functionality the same (so you can open and continue working on all your current projects).

The Capybara-320 is still a great machine and we intend to support it for some time to come. Kyma is backwards compatible obviously. When changes do come, they will be in the form of *new* Sounds, new algorithms that take advantage of the additional processing power (and these may or may not be possible to implement on the older hardware). But the current set of system Sounds will continue to be supported and there will continue to be new Kyma software updates that are compatible with Kyma on the Capybara-320.

With respect to trade-in discounts, these were computed according to a formula that is a little bit like a used car trade-in: based on the amount of money a person had spent with Symbolic Sound and how long ago it was. We realize that it is kind of weird for a company to offer a trade-in discount on computers (and to offer free support to purchasers of used systems). The trade-in discounts are a small gesture of thanks to anyone who has helped support the development of Kyma by buying directly from us. And the reason we extend free support to purchasers of used systems is that we want everyone to have a successful experience with Kyma and we want to support anyone who has an interest in using it in their creative work!

posted 17 January 2009 17:29            

quote:

---

Originally posted by SSC:

With respect to trade-in discounts, these were computed according to a formula that is a little bit like a used car trade-in: based on the amount of money a person had spent with Symbolic Sound and how long ago it was. We realize that it is kind of weird for a company to offer a trade-in discount on computers (and to offer free support to purchasers of used systems). The trade-in discounts are a small gesture of thanks to anyone who has helped support the development of Kyma by buying directly from us. And the reason we extend free support to purchasers of used systems is that we want everyone to have a successful experience with Kyma and we want to support anyone who has an interest in using it in their creative work!

---

Your business model is simply the best a customer can expect.

posted 18 January 2009 11:42            

My old Capybara had 2 additional cards. Things would max out on that play on the Pacarana and barely go up to a third of the way on the meter of one processor. There are 4 processors, and even trying to paste together cpu-intensive sounds I haven't really found anything that runs out of cpu.

You can do things like make grainclouds with 500 max grains- it seems to run out of room on one processor somewhere around there (not that you would do that in a real situation).

I tend to do sounds that are lots of ordinary objects in pretty complicated networks. To get those to work on my old Capy tended to require a bit of juggling with ForcedProcessorAssignments as I approached the limits of my cpu. Now I can delete those and it all schedules on a single processor with plenty of room to spare.

Phil

posted 20 January 2009 00:51            

Can you comment on the latency through the unit? Do the Kyma preferences still include round-trip latency settings (3ms, 5ms, etc.)? How does the interface you choose to use with it figure into the latency equation?

Can timelines still chase timecode? Any way to chase LTC now that the physical LTC IN connector is absent?

Thanks,

posted 20 January 2009 14:51            

quote:

---

Can you comment on the latency through the unit? Do the Kyma preferences still include round-trip latency settings (3ms, 5ms, etc.)?

---

Yes, you can still set round-trip latency settings in the Kyma Preferences (thus setting the size of the input and output buffers on the Pacarana).

quote:

---

How does the interface you choose to use with it figure into the latency equation?

---

USB audio converters have the smallest latency. FireWire converters introduce slightly more latency. Using the Flame+Capybara•320 as your audio converter introduces the longest latency.

quote:

---

Can timelines still chase timecode? Any way to chase LTC now that the physical LTC IN connector is absent?

---

posted 24 January 2009 22:18            

quote:

---

Originally posted by SSC:
USB audio converters have the smallest latency.

---