3 instances of synths in Sonar munches my whole dual-core computer - why?

Dear Anyone.

I'll keep this brief, but you can ask for any additional details you want. I've got a legal copy of Sonar X1 Producer, and a notation program, Quick Score Elite Level 2. I have to use the notation program because I'm disabled and can't play a keyboard phisically. OK.

Quick Score Elite can handle instrument plug-ins and effects plug-ins - but it's only got 8 tracks. And it's not advanced enough to do sends/ins and outs so you have to have one instance of a synth per sound. BUT - I can happily have 8 synths going on 8 tracks and it's not even bothering the processor on my computer. IF, however, I Rewire it to Sonar and use it purely to send MIDI info into Sonar, and select just 3 synths in Sonar, and have - for argument's sake - 12 sounds going on in the 3 synths - Sonar will munch the whole computer. I've got a dualcore processor on a Gigabyte (that's the name of the company) motherboard, 32 bit, Windows XP, max memory (4 gig) and all the memory's gone, the processor is completely on max, and that's just with 3 synths going. So I can't use it because the whole computer just grinds to a dead halt.

So here's the question.

How come I can have 8 instances of any synth going in Quick Score Elite (can be 8 different ones, or 8 instances of the same one) and up to 4 effects on each instance, and the processor doesn't even wake up much - but the moment I have 3 synths going in Sonar, even if I'm still only using 8 sounds from the 3 synths (I don't have to have 8 separate instances in Sonar because it can do the separate sends/ins and out thing) the whole computer is munched? Why on Earth is Sonar so much more processor/memory hungry, when I'm doing EXACTLY the same thing with it that I would be in Quick Score Elite?

I know that begs the question 'why not just use QSE?' but its because QSE can't do buses or aux sends or anything like that, it's a good package in what it does, but it's limited. I just have to use notation because I can't play a keyboard. Why does Sonar NEED to hog so much memory/processor to do the things QSE does without thinking about them, and is there any way I can make the package a little more memory/computer friendly?

I can't really include any more info because I don't know what else to include, but if anyone asks me I'll tell them. All I know is QSE = great on memory/processor but only 8 tracks. Sonar = MUCH more mixing potential BUT will eat entire computer at a moment's notice - and I can't put any more ram/faster processor in, the board's maxed out with this dualcore, which is fast enough for anything else inc. heavyweight online games! And XP 32 bit can't go past 4 gig RAM.

Am I stuffed? Is there something else I could Rewire to - or MIDI-Yoke to - that would let me use more tracks without munching the computer?

If you want more info, ask!

Yours hopefully

Chris.
 
try increasing your asio buffer .. if your not using asio there are options in sonars audio settings for buffers,increase them (and read the manual "latency" ) ..



id try it on a max setting first (will make sonar slow to respond,like starting 1 second after clicking play) it will give the cpu more time to think before rendering audio ... if this gets you more synths then play with the buffer settings to get the best compromise :)
 
"How come I can have 8 instances of any synth going in Quick Score Elite (can be 8 different ones, or 8 instances of the same one) and up to 4 effects on each instance, and the processor doesn't even wake up much - but the moment I have 3 synths going in Sonar, even if I'm still only using 8 sounds from the 3 synths (I don't have to have 8 separate instances in Sonar because it can do the separate sends/ins and out thing) the whole computer is munched? Why on Earth is Sonar so much more processor/memory hungry, when I'm doing EXACTLY the same thing with it that I would be in Quick Score Elite?

I know that begs the question 'why not just use QSE?' but its because QSE can't do buses or aux sends or anything like that, it's a good package in what it does, but it's limited. I just have to use notation because I can't play a keyboard. Why does Sonar NEED to hog so much memory/processor to do the things QSE does without thinking about them, and is there any way I can make the package a little more memory/computer friendly? "



It seems you may have answered your own question there. A program that has more features built in, will obviously tax your processor more than one that does less. It don't matter if you are not using the features, it is still there running them. Nothing beats a powerful PC. If you wish to make the most of what you have available, then look forward to a bunch of limitations. It sucks, I know. Been there. But you cant expect more performance from a more effective DAW, without eating more of your limited CPU strength. :(
 
You might want to try working up your arrangement in the sequencing program and then writing the individual tracks to MIDI and bouncing the audio in Sonar one track at a time. You can freeze the synth for each individual track and proceed to write the next track to audio. That should save resources although it may be considerably more time-consuming.
 
Because it's not as good as QSE by miles.

just thinking ... why don't you use the staff view in sonar ?

Because it's not as good as QSE by miles. You have to input everything as quavers, then change the lengths afterwards, it's not easy to change velocity/volume as QSE is, basically the Sonar notation prog. feels like an unfinished afterthought whereas QSE is always the real deal - fast, totally intuitive, you can write down exactly what you're thinking as you're thinking it without having to stop and allow for quirks all the time. Sonar Notation WOULD be good if it was only finished - right now, it's an afterthought that doesn't really work.

Sibelius goes the other way - it's totally overcomplicated, too many menus to hunt through everytime you want to do anything. QSE is a perfect balance between the two - sure it's not as advanced as Sibelius BUT it's a lot easier and more intuitive to use. And it can handle many more than 8 staves, even though it can only handle 8 synths. Which is why it works so well with Sonar - Sonar can handle a ton of synths - in theory - and QSE can handle a ton of staves, so the two really marry together well. It's just this computer-munching business. I've GOT another computer with Windows 7 on it but some of the plug-ins/instrument programs I love using I don't think would work on Windows 7 - they're too old. And right now I can't afford to spend bundles of dough on upgrades or new programs if I can't find upgrades for the ones I'm used to.

Yours respectfully

Chris.
 
I am experiencing something similar: upgraded from sonar 6 to X1 and I find X1 is heavier, possibly because it's more graphics, I don't know, but I'm not really pleased with the upgrade.
 
Because it's not as good as QSE by miles. You have to input everything as quavers, then change the lengths afterwards, it's not easy to change velocity/volume as QSE is, basically the Sonar notation prog. feels like an unfinished afterthought whereas QSE is always the real deal - fast, totally intuitive, you can write down exactly what you're thinking as you're thinking it without having to stop and allow for quirks all the time. Sonar Notation WOULD be good if it was only finished - right now, it's an afterthought that doesn't really work.

Sibelius goes the other way - it's totally overcomplicated, too many menus to hunt through everytime you want to do anything. QSE is a perfect balance between the two - sure it's not as advanced as Sibelius BUT it's a lot easier and more intuitive to use. And it can handle many more than 8 staves, even though it can only handle 8 synths. Which is why it works so well with Sonar - Sonar can handle a ton of synths - in theory - and QSE can handle a ton of staves, so the two really marry together well. It's just this computer-munching business. I've GOT another computer with Windows 7 on it but some of the plug-ins/instrument programs I love using I don't think would work on Windows 7 - they're too old. And right now I can't afford to spend bundles of dough on upgrades or new programs if I can't find upgrades for the ones I'm used to.

Yours respectfully

Chris.

You owe it to yourself to at least try and get things running on your Win 7 machine, provided it's got a bit more than 4Gb installed and it's a 64 bit Windows installation.

I'd try loading X1 (64 Bit) on it (followed by the necessary updates) and see which plugs that you're worried about are working or not via Bitbridge

If some don't want to play - ask yourself if you really need them?
 
Back
Top