CPU Usage
in [Cakewalk]
|
From: moonpie on 14 Jun 2010 09:36 Hello all. I have a question that I'm afraid I may already know the answer to, and I dont like it... I'm doing a mixdown of a song my band is recording, and there are quite a few tracks, with many effects. Whenever possible, individual tracks are routed to a Bus with effects on the bus (and not on the individual tracks) Even so, when i'm mixing down, I get CPU usage of 48% and its causing the dreaded dropouts. Short of eliminating effects, or freezing/bouncing tracks, would adding more RAM to the machine help with this issue? I'm running Home Studio 6 under Windows XP, with 2 gigs of ram. I'm thinking no, it wouldnt help, only a faser processor would... but I dont know. Any advice would be appreciated.
From: Sue Morton on 14 Jun 2010 10:00 Since you're mixing, and not recording, have you increased the latency/buffers? When I record I have my ASIO latency set as low as possible, this is often sufficient for mixing too... but when there are many synths and/or many tracks, many effects, etc. I have raised latency as high as 100+ in order to work. Latency really means nothing unless you are recording from outside source, or working with realtime video. Give that a try? N.B. "If five is good, then 20 is better" in my experience does NOT apply here. Some soundcard drivers can introduce new problems if latency is too high. Go only as high as you need to get the job done is what I recommend. Good luck! -- Sue Morton "moonpie" <mr_rc_moonpie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:spbc169t35hmjt03m9okagvplcfs8bd5su(a)4ax.com... > > Hello all. > > I have a question that I'm afraid I may already know the answer to, > and I dont like it... > > I'm doing a mixdown of a song my band is recording, and there are > quite a few tracks, with many effects. Whenever possible, individual > tracks are routed to a Bus with effects on the bus (and not on the > individual tracks) > > Even so, when i'm mixing down, I get CPU usage of 48% and its causing > the dreaded dropouts. Short of eliminating effects, or > freezing/bouncing tracks, would adding more RAM to the machine help > with this issue? I'm running Home Studio 6 under Windows XP, with 2 > gigs of ram. > > I'm thinking no, it wouldnt help, only a faser processor would... but > I dont know. > > Any advice would be appreciated. >
From: Gary R. Hook on 14 Jun 2010 10:37 On 6/14/2010 9:00 AM, Sue Morton wrote: > Since you're mixing, and not recording, have you increased the > latency/buffers? When I record I have my ASIO latency set as low as > possible, this is often sufficient for mixing too... but when there are > many synths and/or many tracks, many effects, etc. I have raised latency > as high as 100+ in order to work. Latency really means nothing unless > you are recording from outside source, or working with realtime video. Right. The only oddity you'll experience is a delay between stopping playback (hitting the spacebar?) and actual cessation of sound. Or tweaks to an effect before it becomes audible. But even at 100+ ms the delay is not unpleasant. Also agree that you don't want to make it too long. But something in the 100 - 130 ms range can alleviate a lot of stress on the CPU while still providing modest playback performance.
From: moonpie on 14 Jun 2010 11:23 On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:37:43 -0500, "Gary R. Hook" <obfuscate(a)nospam.net> wrote: >On 6/14/2010 9:00 AM, Sue Morton wrote: >> Since you're mixing, and not recording, have you increased the >> latency/buffers? When I record I have my ASIO latency set as low as >> possible, this is often sufficient for mixing too... but when there are >> many synths and/or many tracks, many effects, etc. I have raised latency >> as high as 100+ in order to work. Latency really means nothing unless >> you are recording from outside source, or working with realtime video. > >Right. The only oddity you'll experience is a delay between stopping >playback (hitting the spacebar?) and actual cessation of sound. Or >tweaks to an effect before it becomes audible. But even at 100+ ms the >delay is not unpleasant. > >Also agree that you don't want to make it too long. But something in >the 100 - 130 ms range can alleviate a lot of stress on the CPU while >still providing modest playback performance. I'll try that, great idea. Never considered that. Its a work in progress, like most i suppose... mix some, then somebody says, well, you should really add an electric 12 string to double this part... So then I have to add another track, and then turn off all the effects on everything, just to be able to record another track without it dropping out.,.. very weird, but if thats how it is, then ok one thing i've noticed, i often get a hard droput near the very end, at the same spot every time. I've noticed it "hangs up" when it gets to a spot where the audio on two tracks ends suddenly, the rest of the tracks keep going. Its like the play bar gets to the spot where those two tracks run out of audio, and it just stops. Is it possible that a sudden end to audio information could cause a hiccup like that?
From: polymod on 14 Jun 2010 13:04
"Glennbo" <vdrumsYourHeadFromYourAss(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:Xns9D976D1F95CADBrownShoesDontMakeIt(a)85.214.73.210... > In news:f3ic1655m5s8eph2tglms7mr2v0q13fnmh(a)4ax.com the killer robot moonpie > <mr_rc_moonpie(a)yahoo.com> grabbed the controls of the spaceship > cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > > > Is it possible that a sudden end to audio information could cause a > > hiccup like that? > > I've seen that with Sonar before, and ended up adding recorded silence to > the end of the song, then bouncing the audible and silent clips into one > single clip. Sonar's audio engine is pretty finicky, and easy to cause > pops, clicks, and even dropouts. Yup. Reaper 3.60 is up<g> Poly |