KVR Audio

cron · Post by **cron** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:52 pm

I think it's something of an issue for me (currently trundling along with an XP2200), but that's mainly because I'm very sound design/improv-centric. I often hit my ceiling, but usually I can find a more CPU-friendly way to recreate whatever sound I had going at the time. The only thing that I can say truly bugs me with certain software is inconsistent, rather than high CPU use.

I'm happy with the limited power I've got though. Coming from a tracker background (did I just say 'limited'?), it totally amazes me that my current computer lets me compose in such an extemporaneous way.

cron · Post by **cron** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:57 pm

double post

japut_99 · Post by **japut_99** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:15 am

If this is in reference to the ps-1 thread did he not say barton 2500 at 200 mhz fsb? Two different things.

soulkraka · Post by **soulkraka** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:23 am

manytone wrote:a 200mhz processor

heh
I think my Cell Phone has more power ..

LOL...my PDA has a 640mhz...

TotcProductions · Post by **TotcProductions** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:32 am

japut_99 wrote:If this is in reference to the ps-1 thread did he not say barton 2500 at 200 mhz fsb? Two different things.

this initlally triggered me to go off on a rant. lol, i stand corrected there. noticed that earlier

.
But it's not the main source for my argument...just been reading alot of threads about cpu consumption being a problem and most of the people bitching not having a set up that can handle it in the first place.

oh well. i'm waiting for full on 4 or 5 ghz processors. lol. although they'd probably cost a testicle...but who knows.

peace!

Caleb · Post by **Caleb** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:37 am

Bah, Users!

Kill 'em all I say.

Caleb

Dunbar · Post by **Dunbar** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:50 am

The first PC I got was in 1997; it was a Pentium1 200mhz MMX, which was the fastest processor available at the time, and it came with 32 megabytes of ram.

I still use it to run old soft synths such as Audiosim. I find it's limitations make me more creative; i seem to do more with it than my multi ghz DAW.

Can't work out if thats a good or bad thing....

It leads me to the question: why did i bother spending all that money?

Alex@ProgressAudio · Post by **Alex@ProgressAudio** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:51 am

As someone who has developed audio software, I can tell you that optimising software can be a bitch to do. It makes the program more complicated and increases the chances of bugs. You have to do it up to a point, but you then reach a point of diminished returns, where you have to put a lot of effort while gaining only a tiny increase in speed.

Users should bare in mind that there is a cut off point in the performance you can achieve while still keeping the same result. After that you just have to accept that a huge number of calculations need to be done to make the thing work, and its gonna eat up your CPU

TeeLangSun · Post by **TeeLangSun** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:51 am

shamann wrote:Well, I think that priority on CPU consumption is overstated around here. If the software is excellent, you figure a way around it.

Not me. I don't figure my way around anything that's a distraction. If a plugin uses too much CPU and it effects playback or anything else, I stop using it in real time during song making. If a plugin takes too long to even load, I shy away from it for real time use. For example, Stylus RMX. It's a great drum plugin, but it uses a ridiculous amount of CPU and takes a long time to load up each instance of it. So I don't bother using it in real time. I'll use it for the sole purpose of making beats. Those beats end up in NI Battery. I lose some of the functionality of Stylus, but once I get a beat right, I'm not really concerned about that anyway. I just can't have some plugin that has me sitting there waiting for it to load up and causing my machine heartache while trying to make music. Heavy sequencers and plugins become a problem for workflow. My machine is not too old either. It's an Athlon64 3200 based machine with a gig of Ram. So it handles most things well enough.

drinelli · Post by **drinelli** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:12 am

You might have problems with a 200mhz pc, But I still have with a 2.53 ghz, It is all about what you do, and how you want to do it. I can run max 10 softsynths, at a time, without freezing any tracks. But I want to make music like Vangelis or Jean Michel Jarre, that means I need at least the double, at least to please my own ears, Variation is what I need, there are other ways to do that, but it is some rather unconvenient things to do that slows down my workflow, and sucks away my inspiration.

but well you can allways use samples, but I wanna make my own, and are at the same time making sounds for Wusikstation, so from where should I get the time, sorry about the

but that is what I feel.

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:43 am

TotcProductions wrote:oh well. i'm waiting for full on 4 or 5 ghz processors. lol. although they'd probably cost a testicle...but who knows.

Yeah, who knows? The microwave radiation leaking out of a machine like that just might cost you a testicle.

McLilith

drez · Post by **drez** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:52 am

200 Mhz?

Sounds like he just needs Reason. Problem solved.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:55 am

TotcProductions wrote:
japut_99 wrote:If this is in reference to the ps-1 thread did he not say barton 2500 at 200 mhz fsb? Two different things.
this initlally triggered me to go off on a rant. lol, i stand corrected there. noticed that earlier .
But it's not the main source for my argument...just been reading alot of threads about cpu consumption being a problem and most of the people bitching not having a set up that can handle it in the first place.

oh well. i'm waiting for full on 4 or 5 ghz processors. lol. although they'd probably cost a testicle...but who knows.

peace!

I could deal with that....I mean at my age what difference does it make if I have 1 or 2

TotcProductions · Post by **TotcProductions** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:20 am

hink wrote:
TotcProductions wrote:
japut_99 wrote:If this is in reference to the ps-1 thread did he not say barton 2500 at 200 mhz fsb? Two different things.
this initlally triggered me to go off on a rant. lol, i stand corrected there. noticed that earlier .
But it's not the main source for my argument...just been reading alot of threads about cpu consumption being a problem and most of the people bitching not having a set up that can handle it in the first place.

oh well. i'm waiting for full on 4 or 5 ghz processors. lol. although they'd probably cost a testicle...but who knows.

peace!
I could deal with that....I mean at my age what difference does it make if I have 1 or 2

hahaha. i couldn't...going on 23 soon and i'm not married. so i need my testicles.

That radiation point brought up was good to though.

maybe i'll stay away from anything higher than 3 gig

elv · Post by **elv** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:13 am

TotcProductions wrote:
japut_99 wrote:If this is in reference to the ps-1 thread did he not say barton 2500 at 200 mhz fsb? Two different things.
this initlally triggered me to go off on a rant. lol, i stand corrected there. noticed that earlier .
But it's not the main source for my argument...just been reading alot of threads about cpu consumption being a problem and most of the people bitching not having a set up that can handle it in the first place.

oh well. i'm waiting for full on 4 or 5 ghz processors. lol. although they'd probably cost a testicle...but who knows.

peace!

Hehe was waiting for you to see that

Ridiculous CPU Expectations of some users.