Performance issues with plugins

  • Thread starter Thread starter Englebert
  • Start date Start date
E

Englebert

New member
Hello everyone and thanks in advance for all the responses!

I am a promising old talent from Finland and I´m having little problems with my DAW.

A little background first: I have been making music with Cakewalk for some years now (first PA8, now Sonar 2.0). Few months back I decided to get a second PC dedicated solely for recording purposes. While I didn´t have the money the get an absolute top-of-the-line-machine I did a fair amount of research to ensure good performance and avoid conflicts between components. Here´s some comparison between the machines:

Old:
Athlon 1600XP
512Mb
40Gb HD (5400 rpm)
Guillemot Maxi Studio ISIS
Win98

New:
Celeron 2.0Ghz
512Mb
40Gb HD (7200 rpm)
Terratec EWS88MT
Win2000

As you can see the upgrade was not a huge leap but my main idea was to get a "clean", tuned-for-recording PC without any non-music-related soft- or hardware. Biggest step hardware-wise was changing the soundcard. While I was fairly satisfied with ISIS, it had few major drawbacks: no WDM-drivers (and hence huge latency) and no support for Win2000. The EWS88MT had all that and 24/96 to boot. The software was transferred as it was (beside the OS, of course): Sonar 2.0XL, Waves Gold Bundle 3.5 and numerous freeware plugins.

Now I am a little bit confused because I have had somewhat mixed results. Without plugins the audio performance is very good; I can play 25 tracks of 24/44.1-audio with only about 10% strain on CPU, even with fairly low latency. The sofsynths also work fine...

...but problems start at mixing stage. The plugins seem to be putting ridiculous amounts of load on the CPU, even though I try to use processor-light plugs (such as Waves AudioTrack) Some old, plug-in-heavy 16-bit projects that played back just fine in my old PC are giving me constant dropouts in my new DAW, even with latency set way up (even higher than with ISIS!). I had to disable almost all plugins (mostly Waves AudioTracks) before I could listen the songs through. And when I try to mix my new 24-bit projects...oh boy...

I´ll give an example: Six (6) instances of AudioTracks, one C1 compressor-gate, one TrueVerb (in aux bin) cause the song with those 25 24/44.1 tracks I mentioned earlier to dropout after 5-10 seconds. The CPU load skyrockets from ~10% to 60-70% and eventually to the warning-zone. TrueVerb seems to be the main culprit, but even after disabling it I don´t get stable playback - just few seconds of extra time before another dropout.

So what gives? Is it the soundcard, the PC or Sonar? What kind of results have people with similar setups had? I have tweaked the audio options but for no avail. I have also done just about every OS tweak they have at www.musicxp.net and similar sites, so I don´t think there´s much to gain on that department.

Or is this normal? Are the AudioTracks really that heavy on the CPU? And if so, how come my old machine dealed with them so well? Was the ISIS actually the ultimate mixing card?
 
Englebert said:
Are the AudioTracks really that heavy on the CPU?
The Audiotrack effects have low CPU usage.

Of the top of my head I would say that you've set your latency too low. Try to raise it (under Options -> Audio). You can even try ASIO drivers, and see if they are more efficient for you. ;)
 
Re: Re: Performance issues with plugins

moskus said:
The Audiotrack effects have low CPU usage.

Of the top of my head I would say that you've set your latency too low. Try to raise it (under Options -> Audio). You can even try ASIO drivers, and see if they are more efficient for you. ;)

Um... I don´t know the official definition for "low latency" but I don´t think >200ms fits that bill. That´s how high I have to set it to play back that 25-track song (let´s call it the "Work Not In Progress") and even then I get dropouts every now and then.

And as I said, on my old machine I could use a ton of plugins with lower latency (about 170ms or so) and no glitches.

I also tried the ASIO route, didn´t notice any difference compared to WDM.

I know there are ways around this problem (raising latency to astronomical levels, "printing" the FX, submixing), but that´s not my point. I have hard time to believe that my old machine with a crappy soundcard, ancient OS and all kinds of extraneous crap installed can kick my dedicated DAWs ass...
 
Celeron 2.0Ghz

Celeron ? It's not even half as good as original Pentium for this kind of job... I think Athlon XP is way better for it. Believe me, don't use Celeron for complex algorithmic process such like audio plugins... and you said 24 bit audio... hhhmmm... my original PIII866 will beats any 1.7GHz Celeron for number of plugins used... IMHO... ;)

BTW, you can upgrade Waves 3.5 to version 4 for free!!! Check their website :)

;)
Jaymz
 
This is not my area of expertise, but I tend to agree with James here. Many of these plugins are very math intensive, and the Celeron lacks the math co-processor that the Pentium has. I suspect that is where your problem lies.
 
James Argo said:
Celeron 2.0Ghz

Celeron ? It's not even half as good as original Pentium for this kind of job... I think Athlon XP is way better for it. Believe me, don't use Celeron for complex algorithmic process such like audio plugins... and you said 24 bit audio... hhhmmm... my original PIII866 will beats any 1.7GHz Celeron for number of plugins used... IMHO... ;)

BTW, you can upgrade Waves 3.5 to version 4 for free!!! Check their website :)

;)
Jaymz

Argh! That´s what you get when you take advice from anybody: I had decided to get an Intel processor to avoid compatibility issues and my friend at work said that Celeron is "just as good as genuine Pentium, P4 is essential only in some special applications". I guess homerecording is a special application... well, new CPU won´t cost a fortune.

Great news about that upgrade! I´ll better head to the Waves´ website so until next time...

Thank you!
 
In my experience, it's o.k. to use pentium, but Athlons are much cheaper, I'd stay with AMD to the end these days, especially since nvidia seems to be catering to them when it comes to the nforce chip compatiblilty. And you'll likely find that most people are swearing by nforce2 chips in the mobo's when it comes to building new DAW's.
 
This is just personal, however from my limited experience with PC's (10+ years), if you are going to be using a computer for Graphics/Video/Audio, only go Intel Pentium. For business apps (Word/Excel), you can get away with Celeron.

In saying all that I believe that AMD is picking up the game with processors and will be in good competition with the Intel Pentium chips soon.

Porter
 
I would say that Amd is already in many ways superior to intel not just in performance but importantly in price IMHO
 
I just want to point out that the AMD-Pentium debate is a completely different from the Celeron-Pentium debate.

Celeron loose...;)
 
Re: Re: Re: Performance issues with plugins

Englebert said:
Um... I don´t know the official definition for "low latency" but I don´t think >200ms fits that bill.
You're right, but that was my first guess since you didn't say anything about your latency... ;)
 
Hey Engelbert Humbertdicker...

Not very wise move from Xp1600+ to Celeron 2.0,
it seems more like downgrading your PC performancewise!
Athlon XP1600 gives you much more CPU muscle to play
Fx and softsynths...

So, upgrade your athlon PC to XP2400+ (if mobo
allows, XP2400 is about 90 eur in Finland) and maybe
add 512 Mb more RAM, you're in halfway to CPU heaven!
And, of course, move you better soundcard (Terratec) and 7200 rpm harddsik to
Athlon PC!
 
Back
Top