Favourite Synths that uses 10% or less of your cpu

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Uncle E wrote:
Karten wrote:Well, I still use Pro-53 and FM7 which use under 1% of my i7.
Try using Pro-53 with one of those oversampling wrappers. Of all the synths I tried with that, the Pro-53 and SQ80L were the two that were helped the most. Both sounded smoother and warmer.
It's not the same if we use oversampling wrappers or high sample rate with the audio interface? I don't know so that I'm asking.
Top

Post

The daw's meter may be worthless for measuring real cpu but it's essential for actually measuring what the daw itself can do. They measure the audio performance not the true cpu usage, and they are an accurate representation of headroom.

I trust logic and live's meters totally, i know at exactly what visual point, at every buffer latency i use, that i will start having pops or crackles or project overload. Same goes for cubase's asio meter.
Top

Post

Theo summarized what I mean exactly :tu:
Top

Post

EnGee wrote:It's not the same if we use oversampling wrappers or high sample rate with the audio interface? I don't know so that I'm asking.
It is the same but then all your audio files and other plugins will also have to be at the higher sample rate.
Top

Post

Uncle E wrote:
EnGee wrote:It's not the same if we use oversampling wrappers or high sample rate with the audio interface? I don't know so that I'm asking.
It is the same but then all your audio files and other plugins will also have to be at the higher sample rate.
Yes that makes sense as some plugins already oversampled internally, so it's better to control it individually if someone has oversampled plugin.

Any recommendation for oversampling plugins? I suppose it works like am audio effect, right? So, it works also with external audio input?
Top

Post

EnGee wrote:Any recommendation for oversampling plugins? I suppose it works like am audio effect, right? So, it works also with external audio input?
Here are some you can try:

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=191569
http://www.ddmf.eu/product.php?id=3
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=228881
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=191427
http://www.experimentalscene.com/software/antialias/
Top

Post

Uncle E wrote:
EnGee wrote:Any recommendation for oversampling plugins? I suppose it works like am audio effect, right? So, it works also with external audio input?
Here are some you can try:

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=191569
http://www.ddmf.eu/product.php?id=3
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=228881
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=191427
http://www.experimentalscene.com/software/antialias/
Thank you Uncle E, much appreciated 8)
Top

Post

I have just tested the 96Khz sample rate, and I was expecting a high usage of the cpu. I was shocked that it is almost the same usage with 44.1 kHz!!
Yes, there is a difference in the buffer size (256 for 44.1 kHz and 512 for 96kHz), but the latency is the same. What I gained from this setup is that old plugins I have (like ARP 2600 V2, Waldorf PPG v2, ...etc) they sound really much better now! :o

That made me even tolerate less with the cpu hogs plugins! :evil:

After all I'm very happy to reach this result, 96khz with light cpu favourites (might be very old, but it doesn't matter!) and with audio in (from external sources). I love this setup, so thanks for everyone who inspired/taught me in this thread :D
Top

Post

EnGee wrote:I have just tested the 96Khz sample rate, and I was expecting a high usage of the cpu. I was shocked that it is almost the same usage with 44.1 kHz!!
Yes, there is a difference in the buffer size (256 for 44.1 kHz and 512 for 96kHz), but the latency is the same. What I gained from this setup is that old plugins I have (like ARP 2600 V2, Waldorf PPG v2, ...etc) they sound really much better now! :o

That made me even tolerate less with the cpu hogs plugins! :evil:

After all I'm very happy to reach this result, 96khz with light cpu favourites (might be very old, but it doesn't matter!) and with audio in (from external sources). I love this setup, so thanks for everyone who inspired/taught me in this thread :D

yeah it really is audible particularly on algorithmic synths.

I like working at 88 when i have the headroom cause my audio is still ending up at 44.1. If my end target was 48 then I'd work at 96. It's not that prohibitive on modern machines. Now with the new macbook i will have a much better chance of working more at higher rates :)
Top

Post

TheoM wrote:
I like working at 88 when i have the headroom cause my audio is still ending up at 44.1. If my end target was 48 then I'd work at 96. It's not that prohibitive on modern machines. Now with the new macbook i will have a much better chance of working more at higher rates :)
In the past I was always torn between 44.1 and 48, and for some time now I'm betwen 88.2 and 96. I know from old info that it is better (as you mentioned) to have a multiple of 2 of the final goal, because when downsampling, it is better (I read that in many resources in the net).

But, because I don't care really that much now for the CD quality, I will take the DVD quality over it because anyway, the target would be either MP3 or Flac file (while I can keep the final mix at 96khz and can downsample to 48khz if I become a famous movie composer and needs the DVD quality :hihi: )
Top

Post

Got me thinking of an app for that. Launch a batch file that's configured with the path of VSTHost, your VST folder root and a benchmarking app to cycle through the folder, open em in the host, benchmark then write all the results to a friendly file. Back to bed now, yawn. Maybe Miss or MrsWatson, VSTLord, VSTSpy, VST-Scanner, VST-Plugin Unit Test or similar can be coaxed into giving performance values?
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”