What is KVR Audio? | Submit News | Advertise | Developer Account

Options (Affects News & Product results only):

OS:
Format:
Include:
Quick Search KVR

"Quick Search" KVR Audio's Product Database, News Items, Developer Listings, Forum Topics and videos here. For advanced Product Database searching please use the full product search. For the forum you can use the phpBB forum search.

To utilize the power of Google you can use the integrated Google Site Search.

Products 0

Developers 0

News 0

Forum 0

Videos 0

Search  
User avatar
KVRAF
 
9659 posts since 18 Jun, 2008, from Melbourne, Australia
 

Postby ZenPunkHippy; Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:14 pm

themossinator wrote:just wondering.....if i install the beta version will it affect any of current projects that use Alchemy?

It depends which version you're running now, but from v1.50.0 -> v1.50.2 the answer is yes. The preset format has been updated to add some new features, which prevents backwards compatibility.

I'd have to check if v1.50.1 -> v1.50.2 changed the format - but I think the answer is also yes.

If you're interested in testing the new version quickly could always install - check preset load times - then re-install your current version. That would not cause any harm, as long as you don't save any existing projects.

Note: it is not necessary to (re) install the content when doing this - so just run the installer from the desktop without any Camel Sounds present The DB already exists so no scan would be required.

Peace,
Andy.
User avatar
KVRAF
 
3946 posts since 28 May, 2005, from Netherlands

Postby Nielzie; Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:15 pm

Just installed Alchemy Plugin v1.50.2.3175 - PUBLIC BETA (Windows) and I can clearly notice the GUI loading improvements on my system (Intel Core i7 920, 6GB RAM, Windows 8 64-bit).

Thanks for that! :tu:
RIP Reason Lahalla
User avatar
KVRian
 
788 posts since 24 Jul, 2008, from North-West England
 

Postby audiosabre; Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:45 am

Will moving content and doing a fresh install affect performance (sluggish & slow load times)?

I've had Alchemy since it was released & all my content exists in this location (windows):

C:\Program Files (x86)\Steinberg\VstPlugins\Alchemy\Alchemy

That's where the content was first put by the very first Alchemy installer, and I haven't changed it since.

Many soundbanks later, before I go ahead and attempt to move 23GB content, I was wondering if it will actually affect performance in any way.

Alchemy takes 26 seconds to load, & is definitely the slowest plugin I have in both load time and browser response.

I thought maybe doing a complete uninstall/reinstall (I've always just updated) and a content move may fix this. I've read time and time again in the change logs 'improved loading times', and similar, but nothing has ever changed for me in this respect.

System: AMD phenom II 955 BE, 3.2GHz, win7 Ultimate SP1 x64. 16GB DDR3 1600. Still using a 7200RPM Seagate barracuda. I've got the very latest beta (and installed most installers since initial release), but nothing has ever changed.

So, I'm willing to back everything up and do whatever it takes to get Alchemy upto speed. Any help would be much appreciated :)

Btw Andy, I'm about to PM you a link to a video showing how long it takes Alchemy v1.55 to load on my system (usually ~ 26 sec) :(
Pretty Boy Johnny
Image Image
KVRian
 
755 posts since 13 Jun, 2006, from Cornwall, UK
 

Postby MWSOS; Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:20 am

audiosabre wrote:Will moving content and doing a fresh install affect performance (sluggish & slow load times)?

...Many soundbanks later, before I go ahead and attempt to move 23GB content, I was wondering if it will actually affect performance in any way.

Alchemy takes 26 seconds to load, & is definitely the slowest plugin I have in both load time and browser response.(


Hi audiosabre,

26 seconds is certainly a long time - Alchemy fires up on my latest Ivy Bridge PC in 3 to 4 seconds from a Solid State Drive, but even on my old dual-core 2.4GHz machine built back in 2006 it took nowhere near 26 seconds :(

Initial loading time will depend on the speed the data can be accessed from your hard drive as well as the speed of your processor. The 7200RPM Seagate Barracuda drives are good (I've used them myself in the past), and although a more modern drive should certainly speed up loading times, while replacing your system drive with a Solid State Drive (if possible) should make a huge difference, you shouldn't NEED to do either of these things to get better performance than you're getting at the moment - Camel Audio do go to great lengths to check that all their products will work well on more modest computers as well as the latest models.

However, it's possible that if you've systematically installed new sound libraries over the years their contents have ended up scattered all over your hard drive (i.e. heavily fragmented), which could slow things down to some extent.

Try doing a check with the Windows Defragmenter utility to see whether your system drive would benefit from being defragmented. If you're already considering doing a complete reinstall of Alchemy and all its libraries then defragmenting the hard drive may give you very similar improvements if this is the problem area.


Martin
Image
KVRist
 
186 posts since 26 Aug, 2010

Postby Melodyshine; Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:08 am

It's the same with the Alchemy Player. When I click on a sound library I have to wait some seconds until I see the presets. But version 1.25 is very fast.

EDIT: Apparently my problem is another one.
Last edited by Melodyshine on Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
KVRist
 
178 posts since 22 May, 2012

Postby Cimbasso; Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:09 am

Last version fixed it for me.
KVRist
 
178 posts since 22 May, 2012

Postby Cimbasso; Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:12 am

audiosabre wrote:Will moving content and doing a fresh install affect performance (sluggish & slow load times)?

I've had Alchemy since it was released & all my content exists in this location (windows):

C:\Program Files (x86)\Steinberg\VstPlugins\Alchemy\Alchemy

That's where the content was first put by the very first Alchemy installer, and I haven't changed it since.

Many soundbanks later, before I go ahead and attempt to move 23GB content, I was wondering if it will actually affect performance in any way.

Alchemy takes 26 seconds to load, & is definitely the slowest plugin I have in both load time and browser response.

I thought maybe doing a complete uninstall/reinstall (I've always just updated) and a content move may fix this. I've read time and time again in the change logs 'improved loading times', and similar, but nothing has ever changed for me in this respect.

System: AMD phenom II 955 BE, 3.2GHz, win7 Ultimate SP1 x64. 16GB DDR3 1600. Still using a 7200RPM Seagate barracuda. I've got the very latest beta (and installed most installers since initial release), but nothing has ever changed.

So, I'm willing to back everything up and do whatever it takes to get Alchemy upto speed. Any help would be much appreciated :)

Btw Andy, I'm about to PM you a link to a video showing how long it takes Alchemy v1.55 to load on my system (usually ~ 26 sec) :(


Weird..my system is exactly the same (well, except for RAM which is 1333) and Alchemy loads in about 2 - 3 seconds. No SSDs, Cubase 6.5.4 64-bit.

I don't put plugins in that default folder though. I have one folder named VST 32 and the other named VST 64.
Previous

Moderators: ZenPunkHippy, ugo, biomechanoid, Ben [Camel Audio]

Return to Camel Audio