Envelope release and CPU consumption
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 287 posts since 7 Oct, 2005 from San Francisco
Hi!
Anyone know why the CPU-usage meter blows up to over 90% if the release setting of the envelopes
are set to high values?
That is; the cpu-usage is almost exponential to the release
I know that higher release times craves for more cpu, but this much?
I can attach some presets if someone needs a sample.
Ny specs are:
Zebra2 (the beta with the scrollwheel found in this forum)
Powermac G5 1.6Ghz 768MB RAM (damn. can't wait for the macpro i've ordered!:)
Logic Express 7.2.1, MacOS X 10.4.7
ask '' http://ask.illformed.org
Anyone know why the CPU-usage meter blows up to over 90% if the release setting of the envelopes
are set to high values?
That is; the cpu-usage is almost exponential to the release
I know that higher release times craves for more cpu, but this much?
I can attach some presets if someone needs a sample.
Ny specs are:
Zebra2 (the beta with the scrollwheel found in this forum)
Powermac G5 1.6Ghz 768MB RAM (damn. can't wait for the macpro i've ordered!:)
Logic Express 7.2.1, MacOS X 10.4.7
ask '' http://ask.illformed.org
- u-he
- 28065 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Hmmm... it's typical that long release times keep the cpu up, because more voices are playing at the same time.
To kill overlapping notes quicker, try to set Voices (in Global/FX) to "few". This should be good for solo instruments with long release tails.
Pads will commonly live well with "medium", unless they are way too complex.
If the exhibited behaviour can still not be explained this way, please send me the offending patch to urs at u-he dot com
Cheers,
Urs
To kill overlapping notes quicker, try to set Voices (in Global/FX) to "few". This should be good for solo instruments with long release tails.
Pads will commonly live well with "medium", unless they are way too complex.
If the exhibited behaviour can still not be explained this way, please send me the offending patch to urs at u-he dot com
Cheers,
Urs
- KVRAF
- 25458 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
at some point in the future, could you add more voice # options? For CPU preservation purposes, it is nice to have more control than the 'few' 'medium' and 'many' (4,8,16)
6 is a very nice number for voices too
a nice ranger for Zebra2 would be 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
6 is a very nice number for voices too
a nice ranger for Zebra2 would be 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
-
- KVRian
- 862 posts since 4 Apr, 2001 from Finland
Well, if it would be possible to choose, why not put all the options from 1-xx in there?
"2" could also be quite useful, for example.
But let's see what Urs says. I asked this before and got the impression that there is a reason why it's not like that.
"2" could also be quite useful, for example.
But let's see what Urs says. I asked this before and got the impression that there is a reason why it's not like that.
- u-he
- 28065 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
There was a reason for that, indeed. But I can't remember exactly (except for the 3 modes being different number, depending on play mode), maybe it had to do with a multpile-of-four thing that was better for optimization ?!?
- u-he
- 28065 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
- KVRAF
- 25458 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
I agree... that would be my preferencespritex wrote:Well, if it would be possible to choose, why not put all the options from 1-xx in there?
"2" could also be quite useful, for example.