Processor overloads with a few plug-ins

[Mr. Ins@ne]

I have a PIV 3.0 FSB 800 and about 1GB ram. I usa a S.A.T.A 120GB disc and Cubase sx 2 as my software sequencer. I have one Delta 1010 from Maudio as audiocard and interface. My question is shouldn't this setup bear a lot more than a few plugins? I mean, If I have 6 or 7 tracks with 3 pluggins each, the cpu seems to overload. 2 or 3 simple pluggins like Cubase buil-in reverb boost my cpu level to about 15%. I've been told that if I could change my latency levels maybe I could get better performance, but I don't seem to find where can I change my latency. I belive something must be misconfigurated. Anyone has a clue about how to boost my adio engime performance? I use Win XP sp2.

[crankz1]

Depending on which drivers you are using, you will change the buffers via the ASIO control panel for said driver.
Devices > device setup > VST Multitrack > Control Panel
Also under VST Multitrack, is where you select which driver you use.
This should all be in your manual. You may want to spend some time reading through it.
Bear in mind that some plugins, like convolution reverbs, are CPU hogs.

[HangDawg]

What sample rate are you recording at? 44.1k, 48k 96k

[Mr. Ins@ne]

Recording at 96k, 32 bit float

[Halion]

I am running an AMD Athlon XP 2000+ with 512mb ram and sometimes my comp can't even do 1 plugin (namely Waves XNoise). Some plugs are just really really heavy.

[HangDawg]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ins@ne

Recording at 96k, 32 bit float

That's pretty common. I bet you could get 3 times as many if you back-off to 48k 24bit.

[Easto]

I would also be looking at other things like if you have an Anti Virus running in the background, Firewall etc. Make sure you shut off anything that is not required for the music making process. Check your Startup folder for any suspicious programs that may be set to start when your computer does.

[TimOBrien]

Back off to 24bit/44.1k

Get a secondary drive and put your audio files on it.

Latency is adjustable in the ASIO control panel.

[foreverdown]

You didn't state in any of these effects are the same. If they are you should run some group channels. This may be something you already know about but I figured I'd throw it out there just in case. And definitely drop to 24bit unless you are recording something for a DVD.

[Mr. Ins@ne]

Yes, I already thought about the grouping or even using FX channels but I like to have everything individual for better and faster tweaking. Anyway, I already found where to change the latency values on my delta1010 control panel, it got better. About the bit rate, I had this idea that 32bit float would work better with a pluggin-based project as most of the pluggins' engimes work at 32bit, am I right? That's the only reason I'm using 32 instead of 24. Otherwise I may change to 24 in a near future. Today arrived my Mackie Hui controler...IT ROCKS (a lot more than the new Mackie Universal Controler)!

[manning1]

insane. with respect something isnt set up right with your system.
seriously. can you give us a history ?
did you build this yourself ?
i would get a tech to check your system. with the power you have somethings wrong. do you have any "flags" showing in device mgr ?
are you sure the hard drive is installed properly ?
heres a test. bear with me. try recording any garbage tracks. at 16 bit 44,1k.
tell me if you puff out beore 40 tracks.
if you do something isnt roght with your system.
peace

[webstop]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ins@ne

Yes, I already thought about the grouping or even using FX channels but I like to have everything individual for better and faster tweaking. Anyway, I already found where to change the latency values on my delta1010 control panel, it got better. About the bit rate, I had this idea that 32bit float would work better with a pluggin-based project as most of the pluggins' engimes work at 32bit, am I right? That's the only reason I'm using 32 instead of 24. Otherwise I may change to 24 in a near future. Today arrived my Mackie Hui controler...IT ROCKS (a lot more than the new Mackie Universal Controler)!

I think you need to increase not only buffers in your 1010 panel, which you already did, but also inside Cubase. Look for VST performance settings.
Very ofter plugins use 32 bit depth for internal processing only. Therefore you can safely lower your recording bit depth to 24. If you do that, you audio files will become much smaller in size.

[Mr. Ins@ne]

Well, in fact I built it myself and it was my first time, I've never assembled a computer before, so that's something we shouldn't overlook. Anyway, I still believe maybe the 24/32 bit issue should be the main problem. Shouldn't it? I mean, about 7 32bit/96k tracks with 3 pluggins should be heavy already even for the system I have. Still, I don't fully trust my assembling capabilities. So you are telling me my computer is ok if I can record 40 tracks at 16/44k?I gotta try that.

[manning1]

yep. mono tracks. something just doesnt seem right when some people are reporting 80 tracks on a p4.
thats a very powerfull processor you have there.
also do you have windows on the same sata drive as your tracks ?
also do you have anything in your pci slots other than the sound card ?
peace.
ps..insane out of curiosity just check in windows device mgr, under your disk drive properties that xp hasnt defaulted your drive back to a slower speed will you ?i should say i'm no sata expert on the internal workings of sata drives as they are so new. but i KNOW some people have had probs with sata drives/installs.

[crankz1]

Issues with hard drive throughput, DMA being enabled and ATA/SATA controllers are going to be issues like clicks and pops or audio data dropouts, not CPU maxing out.
However, a 96kHz sample rate will create a much larger file that the CPU must process along with whatever plugins you are using.
There's not much point in recording at 32 bit float, as you're not gaining any more information than the 24 bits your 1010 is supplying.
There may be something to be said for converting the files to 32 bit float for mixing and internal DSP, but the audio engine and plugins do a fine job dithering the 8 extra bits they pad on anyway.
I'd just go with 24 bit and drop your sample rate to at least 48kHz (unless you need 96kHz for DVD production).
Also, if your just doing mixing and DSP (no live input processing), you can raise your buffers even higher to accommodate playback track counts and number of plugins.

[HangDawg]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ins@ne

Well, in fact I built it myself and it was my first time, I've never assembled a computer before, so that's something we shouldn't overlook. Anyway, I still believe maybe the 24/32 bit issue should be the main problem. Shouldn't it? I mean, about 7 32bit/96k tracks with 3 pluggins should be heavy already even for the system I have. Still, I don't fully trust my assembling capabilities. So you are telling me my computer is ok if I can record 40 tracks at 16/44k?I gotta try that.

I just re-read and you said 3 plugins on each track. That would be 21 plugins. Reverbs are very processor intensive. My guess is at 96k, you'll only be able to run maybe 4 good verbs. If you are putting one on each track, that is why it's choking. They need to be on a send.

[manning1]

crankz - with respect unless you know the inner workings of drive controllers and this new generation of disc technology your para 1 might not be exactly true. there are all sorts of things that can affect performance.
but i agree with the rest. ive purpose built my own software to look at files recorded at 32 bit float and 24 bit and from what ive seen theres just a ton of wasted disc space. if were me...24 bit 44.1 is what i would use.

[crankz1]

Originally Posted by manning1

crankz - with respect unless you know the inner workings of drive controllers and this new generation of disc technology your para 1 might not be exactly true. there are all sorts of things that can affect performance.

The only thing in my statement that would cause high CPU usage would be not having DMA enabled and running in PIO mode. I'll agree with that.
However, if the drive controllers for this "new generation of disc technology" are implemented in a manner that they are CPU resource hungry ..... that would be several steps backward in what is supposed to be a forward movement of technological development.

[Mr. Ins@ne]

It worked. I converted one project that was already consuming about 90% of cpu performance at 32/96 to 24/48 and it came down to about 40%, and the waves are still in 32bit (I don't know how to convert it down to 24 unless mixing down everything with a dithering pluggin like apogee, and that's really boring), but next project I'll be working on will start already at 24bit so it should even better performance I guess. Thank you guys.

[manning1]

crankz. with respect ive worked on more computer systems than i care to remember. mainframes, minicomputers, pc's, networks; and the one thing ive learnt over the years is there are always issues with new technology untill it settles down. there are no hard fast rules. i have not implemented sata on my own daw yet for several reasons. one being i rarely do more than 32 tracks. thus normal ide drives are fine for my needs. secondly within a couple of years i have a feeling my industry (the computer industry)
will be upping the specs on hard drives and particularly sustained transfer speeds.

insane. i would be curious how many 24 bit 44.1 tracks that p4 of yours does. you should get a lot with your type of sysatem. did you check in device manager that your hard drive is set up properly ?