More ram = more vsts ?

[davecg321]

I've recently just installed cubase artist 8.5 on my new PC, nothing special just a core 2 quad, 8gb ram, Windows 10. I'm using a presonus firestudio project as my main interface.

Everything is pretty much running as good as I'd imagined it would. I.e low latency 3ms input and 4ms output latency with low asio/cpu usage. However once I add one or two vst instruments (retrologue, groove agent) my cpu/asio meter rises to about 35%. Without high demanding vsts I can seemingly add and record many audio tracks without this issue.

Would more ram solve this issue? Perhaps upgrading to 16gb.

I've yet to try playing around with asio guard. Will this help?

Tah

 

[Tadpui]

The effects that tend to use more RAM are sample libraries like EZDrummer or a piano or something like that. Basically things that are tons and tons of samples loaded into memory, with many velocity layers. Those tend to hog RAM.

But for things like soft synths, reverbs, delays, they tend to draw from CPU power. More RAM won't really do much to help those perform better, other than allowing Windows to do less swapping between disk and memory, which in turn can take some burden off of the CPU.

What a lot of guys do is use a small ASIO buffer size for tracking, so they can get lower latency. And they'll use a larger ASIO buffer size for mixing, so they can load up on real-time effects without getting pops, clicks, and glitches. When mixing, latency generally doesn't bother us.

You can also experiment with rendering/freezing tracks to "print" FX so they're not being processed real-time. Also it'll be worth seeing if there is one particular VST that's causing your issues. Running 32-bit apps in a 64-bit environment can add undue CPU overhead, so maybe keep an eye out for 64-bit versions of your VSTs and apps.

 

[Steenamaroo]

However once I add one or two vst instruments (retrologue, groove agent) my cpu/asio meter rises to about 35%.

What are the implications? Is it just a number that you don't like or is having an effect?

More RAM won't help if you're struggling to get info from a disk quickly.
Faster CPU wont help if you're running out of memory.
It goes on.

Keep an eye on your system resources, using something outside of the DAW. and see where the weak link is if there is one.
That'll tell you what, if anything, you need to upgrade.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

You can also experiment with rendering/freezing tracks to "print" FX so they're not being processed real-time. Also it'll be worth seeing if there is one particular VST that's causing your issues. Running 32-bit apps in a 64-bit environment can add undue CPU overhead, so maybe keep an eye out for 64-bit versions of your VSTs and apps.

Tadpui covered the basics of it. I wanted to quote this for emphasis tho. If you can dial in the resource-intensive parts of a track and render them, you can save a ton of CPU/RAM. I usually do this for EZ Drummer and other VSTs as well as 'verb effects.

 

[Guitargodgt]

Just piping in to say probably not.

You can raise your buffer settings but that makes them less (a lot) playable in real time. My suggestion is to freeze the ones you don't need to monitor in real time and only unfreeze them when you need to either play them or make tweaks to the UI.

The only way to run a lot of VSTi's with low latency is a stout higher end CPU and at least as much RAM as you have.

 

[ecc83]

From my limited understanding this is a complex interplay twixt CPU speed, ram size and (some say) hard drive speed* There is a good thread about this over at Sound on Sound forum "chaired" by Pete of Scan fame.
I seem to recall a general agreement that 2core processors were pretty much past it for heavy use projects?

*Some say SSDs are magic. Others say yes, they will load stuff up faster but since that runs from ram once loaded they don't actually help that much in the rest of the processes. I know from the one PC I have with an SSD that it does get to a stable desktop much faster than this HP i3 laptop or my AMD 3K, 6 core home build but after that it seems pretty ordinary?

Dave.

 

[DM60]

From my limited understanding this is a complex interplay twixt CPU speed, ram size and (some say) hard drive speed* There is a good thread about this over at Sound on Sound forum "chaired" by Pete of Scan fame.
I seem to recall a general agreement that 2core processors were pretty much past it for heavy use projects?

*Some say SSDs are magic. Others say yes, they will load stuff up faster but since that runs from ram once loaded they don't actually help that much in the rest of the processes. I know from the one PC I have with an SSD that it does get to a stable desktop much faster than this HP i3 laptop or my AMD 3K, 6 core home build but after that it seems pretty ordinary?

Dave.

SSDs help with swapping if you are low on RAM or don't require lots of RAM most of the time (Might not be RAM quick, but damn quick, see what I did there) but for the most part, you are correct.

 

[Guitargodgt]

From my limited understanding this is a complex interplay twixt CPU speed, ram size and (some say) hard drive speed* There is a good thread about this over at Sound on Sound forum "chaired" by Pete of Scan fame.
I seem to recall a general agreement that 2core processors were pretty much past it for heavy use projects?

*Some say SSDs are magic. Others say yes, they will load stuff up faster but since that runs from ram once loaded they don't actually help that much in the rest of the processes. I know from the one PC I have with an SSD that it does get to a stable desktop much faster than this HP i3 laptop or my AMD 3K, 6 core home build but after that it seems pretty ordinary?

Dave.

It's been my experience that most sample based VST instruments load into RAM. I think I would rage if samples were being streamed from the HDD or SSD. Superior drummer 2 for example will just yell at you if you don't have enough RAM or allocated RAM for the program and some of the larger kits can eat up 2 to 2 1/2 gigs of RAM.

It's been my experience that fast ram and a fast multi threaded cpu are what's needed to run multiple instances of VST instruments at low latency settings.

 

[DM60]

It's been my experience that most sample based VST instruments load into RAM. I think I would rage if samples were being streamed from the HDD or SSD. Superior drummer 2 for example will just yell at you if you don't have enough RAM or allocated RAM for the program and some of the larger kits can eat up 2 to 2 1/2 gigs of RAM.

It's been my experience that fast ram and a fast multi threaded cpu are what's needed to run multiple instances of VST instruments at low latency settings.

SD and other sampled VSTs yes, require good RAM (still 8 gigs for most work), but those VSTs that process (Reverb, Ampsims etc.) they require CPU power more than RAM.

 

[Steenamaroo]

It's been my experience that most sample based VST instruments load into RAM. I think I would rage if samples were being streamed from the HDD or SSD.

That's true but they're loaded into RAM from a disk.
Everything is ultimately read from, or written to, a disk so while I completely agree that CPU power and RAM are often the paramount things to boost, an SSD can have a massive impact that you might not expect on day to day stuff.

It depends, like everything else. If your machine already runs very well then an SSD isn't likely to make an appreciable difference, as Dave described.
I find they make a massive difference in underpowered machines like older computers or netbooks.

 

[Guitargodgt]

I have an SSD. The difference from HDD seems to be only in the speed in which the samples are loaded into RAM.

In terms of what I think is better as examples:

I would rather have a faster multi threaded CPU over more RAM.
I would rather have more ram over faster RAM.
I would rather have all of the above over an SSD.
What I would really rather have over all that (no compromising) is a fast multi thread CPU with lots of DDR4 RAM and a couple of M.2 drives to load samples from.