Do I need to upgrade from 256mb to 512mb????

  • Thread starter Thread starter weatherbill
  • Start date Start date
W

weatherbill

New member
Was wondering if anyone knew if I need more ram?
I'm running a number of tracks and cakewlak fx in em and sometimes my cpu is running high and was wondering if more RAM would make my CPU meter lower.
Does RAM take much load off the CPU when running more and more tracks????????
 
More RAM won't solve your problem. The only way I see to take the load off your CPU is reducing the number of tracks and plugins, alternatively buy a new CPU or overclock the one you already got. Sorry.

But the additional RAM will make your computer run more smoothly, especially if you use Windows 2000 (the damn OS eats RAM for breakfast).
 
More RAM will help but there are a lot of things you can do to free up system resources. Make sure that you don't have any unnecessary programs running in the background. Hit control-alternate-delete all at the same time and it will give you the "close program" box. The only things you should have running while recording are Explorer, Point 32, and Systray, plus whatever your recording software is. So only 4 things. The exception would of course be programs you run with you recording software like a drum program and that sort of thing. But shut anything off you're not using.

Also, right click on the desktop and choose "Active Desktop" followed by "Customize my Desktop". Then click on the settings tab. Down toward the left bottom you'll see a drop down box for choosing color display settings. If it says "true color 32 bit" change it to 16 bit. You'll probably never notice the change in the way your monitor looks and it'll free up a lot of system resources. I leave mine at this setting all the time. If you want you could even drop it to 256k colors. This will make your desktop kind of ugly but you can always change it right back to 32 bit after your recording session if you want. You'll have to do a restart after every change in the color settings though.

Of course it's those darn real-time effects that are chewing up the system resources the most. I print them quite a bit. After you've been doing this as long as I have you pretty much know what effects will sound like in the final mix. In fact I use very few plug-ins at all and most often use outboard compression, reverb, delay etc. I've never found a plug-in that could match most of my outboard gear (try finding a good compressor plug-in) so this is just the way I've learned to do things. Another great thing to do provided you have a lot of tracks available is to do little sub mixes along the way. Let's say you've got a dozen or so tracks recorded and you're using real-time reverb plus another couple of effects and you're starting to run out of resources and are getting dropouts. Just do a mixdown of everything you've got so far then bring that mixdown stereo wave in to 2 spare tracks somewhere. Now mute all the tracks that you just submixed and just listen to the stereo tracks of the mix you did instead. When you mute all those dozen or so tracks it'll be like they're not even there to your system and you'll be able to record quite a bit more stuff. Then when you're done just delete the submixed stereo wave and unmute those other tracks before doing your final mix.

Also, this gets debated all the time and I'm not looking to start another one but if you're recording at 24 bit try going to 16. I personally don't think anyone could possibly hear the difference myself and it'll save you more on system resources than anything else you can do. I'm not trying to make a believer out of you in the 16 versus 24 bit debate but it looks to me like you don't have a puter that really has was it takes to record much at 24 bit so for a guy like you (and me) 16 bit may be a better alternative until you're rich enough to afford a new box with a meg of RAM and a 1000 Pen-III etc.

Hope that helps.

~Bill~
 
what cpu do u have and how many tracks and effects and what type of effects are you talking about?....also, what OS?....are you at 16 or 24bit and what sampling rate?.....
 
Here's what's going on

thanx for all that input guys!
I'm running 16 bit 44.1 recordings. I'm not too focused on 24 bit. I'm more focused on executing my playing well and if you do that, not many a folk is a gonna even hear wether it's 16 or 24 bit. They're gonna be focused on your soloing and the melody and the hook of the song.
I've got a p4, win xp, 1.5 ghz mother board, and I've got 5 tracks with 4 plug ins in auxillary. I usually record dry and then mix in auxilary, but didn't know if more ram would help much. I also get the tracks set where I want them and then bring em down to a couple tracks. Then in sonar I archive the seperate tracks I just mixed down so to take a bunch of work off the cpu. In my Sonar book it says that if I just mute the tracks, the cpu still will read em, but if I archive them, then I can always bring back later, but if archived, it won't be read by the cpu, so I'm a doin' ok, but wanted to maximize for future recordings because I will be mikin' up a drum kit with 6 along with 2 for bass and lead guitar with a band, then I can go back and do my rythem and vox alone when there's more time.
Also, got an aardvark Q-10 and I think maybe aark is still working on a final xp compatable driver that's more efficient working, so that might help a bunch in my cpu laboring less.
I'm thinking about getting an all in one multi fx processor, so I can take some processing off my cpu.
Can anyone give me some advice on what is a good multi fx processor for vox, guitar, bass......everything.
I'm looking at a $200-$300 price range, unless there's a good quality one for less.
 
"In my Sonar book it says that if I just mute the tracks, the cpu still will read em"

Hmm, I didn't know that. Well I have to say though that my CPU meter reads much lower when I have them muted so I question that a bit. Maybe it still reads them but the processing isn't nearly as burdened when muted or something...dunno.

I don't have an all in one processor myself so I can't help you much there. My keyboard guy is really big on his quadraverb. He's had it forever and I must say it sounds quite good and does most of the things you would need it for. The biggest reason I mention it is because they're so abundant. You can find good used ones all over the place.

I don't own an Ardvark but I seem to remember a lot of posts by guys who were angry about the WDM drivers not having been available as soon as they should have been and that it didn't work right with them when they finally did get em. I don't know if that issue has been resolved yet or not.

The only other thing I can tell you (and this is my web developer side talking, not my music recorder side) is that a lot of people I know who have used XP have had problems with it but recently a lot of them have gotten XP Pro and they say the difference is night and day. No more lock ups etc. So if you can afford the extra hundred dollars for the pro version it might work better for you depending on what programs you use the most and so forth. I still use W 98 2nd Ed because it works really well with most of my programs. If ain't broke don't fix it and all that....

Good luck
 
Freeing up resources:

What are your system resources at with no applications running?
You should be at least 80% if not more. If not you'll need to turn off some apps in start up. On 95/98, Me and XP you can do this by going to Start then to run and type msconfig in the run box. This will bring up the System Configuration Utility. Now look to the right and click on the Start up tab. Here you can turn off all apps except for systray, scanreg and load power profile (the last 2 are debateable). In Win 2000 you have to open the start up folders and delete unneeded apps.

After doing this check your system resources again and make sure that you resources are 80% or above.

Hope this helps.

Stray
 
here's what I got...

I did a quick test, here are my basic computer specs

pentium 2 450mhz
192megs ram
gadget labs 8/24 card
cakewalk 8
win 98

here's what I got
I played back 12 sources (16bit) with 4 realtime effects running through aux busses in cakewalk 8. All tracks had one of the effects patched in about half had 2 effects patched in. It played back fine, no errors.

All of your equipment seems superior to mine. It seems you should get at least the same results if not better. I'm guessing that sonar is a bit more of a resource hog than cakewalk 8 but I can't imagine there being too much of a difference. Some effects will take up more resources than others.

If you're having problems, things I'd try

-check the audio settings in sonar. use the instruction manual to figure out what some of the crap means (usually the wave profiler settings is good enough).

-try reinstalling cakewalk (make sure you don't delete your current projects!!!)

-reinstall your sound card and if possible update your drivers

-Sal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top