Skip to main content

Delta 66 vs. Delta 1010 (...and my unfortunate CPU)


I've been using Delta 66 for recording and mixing the last year, with increasingly quality on my results as the time has went on. Now I want to upgrade, but ain't sure of the consequences this will lead to.

The card I kind of have decided for, the Delta 1010, fills my needs perfect, and seems like the "one". My computer, with Delta 66, is getting CPU-overload-issues when I'm running Cubase with 20 tracks, and approx. 3 realtime-fx's on each track. How will this evolve with the Delta 1010? Will the performance improve (caused by more power from the soundcard) or worsen (caused by more inputs/outputs running simultaneous and more tracks/fx's)?

By the way; is the Delta 1010 a good choice?

Thanks for any response!

Knut Andreas Kvåle (Norway; sorry for the possible langauge blunders)


AudioGaff Mon, 06/04/2007 - 01:17
Welcome to RO. Your English is just fine.

If you have maxed out the performance of your system, adding a new or even a different audio interface is not likely going to make much of a difference and can even make things worse.

You can try to optimize your PC for audio work only by disabling any service, startup or other programs/applications that non audio related. This includes any virus, spyware blocker, internet connection/browser. Defrag your hard disk often even if Windows reports that it is not needed. A seperate hard drive just for audio, may also help. has some good tips.

Bottom line is that your CPU and your PC system overall needs to be up to the challange. No way to get around that...

Pro Audio Guest Sun, 06/10/2007 - 17:29
The Delta 1010 has a little brother, the Delta 1010LT. It's about $200 cheaper yet still provides 10 I/Os, S/PDIF, MIDI I/O, but no rackmount breakout. It has breakout cables instead. I use it, and it gives me no trouble.

You need to do as AudioGaff said, optimize your PC even to the point of dedicating it to recording only, and dump everything else off of it.