KVR Audio

djones · Post by **djones** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:26 am

I need some help on this.
I have a P4, 2.4Ghz, 768mb ram PC.

After about 8 Vst instruments running, with hardly any FX added in the mixer, my Cpu is running to its limit.
Has this all got to do with my computer's Cpu or could the Ram also be the problem?

If it's the Cpu: Would a new and faster Cpu really add much to it, or do I really have to use the freeze function for some extra Vst's?

You know I really hate the Freeze option of Cubase SX 2, it's too slow and I rather just work everything in realtime.

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:29 am

What instruments? What kind of patches? how many active voices?

KrunietZ · Post by **KrunietZ** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:38 am

well, if your running 4 instances og BFD and 4 instances of let's say Reaktor, it's nothing to be worried bout.

but what ARE you running?

djones · Post by **djones** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:42 am

Z3ta, Albino, Fxpansion GURU, Karma and Audiorealism Bassline.

And not even chords!

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:51 am

I was EASILY crushing my 2.53GHz Intel. I upgraded to an AMD X2 3800+ and a project that hit 100% only hit 30%-ish at its peak after that. Upgrade your machine.

Devon

KrunietZ · Post by **KrunietZ** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:52 am

dunno what's going on then , personally im running a amd2100+ (1.7ghz) with 512 mb ram and when using the Grand2,bfd, ewqlso,rmiv,2xalbino,absynth3,hypersonic and a couple of inserts in the same project i still don't feel the need to freeze.

Have you been setting the os up for smooth music production, disable non-needed services etc etc...
or are you browsing the net at the same time?

KrunietZ · Post by **KrunietZ** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:54 am

and maybe as devonB is saying, update your system and for christsake avoid those intel cpu's

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:58 am

He's using zeta. Depending which patches he's using, I can still crush my X2 3800+ pretty quickly. zeta+ seems to perform better on the AMD than the Intel. I sent someone a sample project with zeta+ that was doing 50-55% CPU on my machine, but put an Intel 820D dual core to 100%. On a more balanced project of multiple plugins, the X2 was 10% less CPU load over the 820D.

Devon

KrunietZ · Post by **KrunietZ** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:01 am

ok the zeta just slided from my mind when writing, but yes it certainly is a cpu hog when hitting the right patches.

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:16 am

Also Karma, while being a great thing, isn't the most CPU friendly thing on earth either.

Try having a look at the used synth patches. Do they use a lot of effects such as reverbs? If so, better set up a generic reverb or two on SX' FX channels, rather than having each synth using its own reverb.
Many synth presets are pretty much stuffed with FX that you may not need in a mix situation because they're allready running on some busses anyways (you probably won't need a dedicated reverb for each and every sound).

In addition, if you can afford (i.e. no audio software monitoring needed), try to set your audio cards buffer sizes to 512 samples (or even higher, when mixing).
Cubase is wellknown to operate pretty badly at very low latencies (basically anything below around 10ms).

Waynemendozza · Post by **Waynemendozza** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:42 am

I don't own any of these plug ins you're using, so I can't tell how much they usually occupy the CPU. I have single plugs that will eat a lot of power (Symphonic Choir, BFD eg). So this is a matter of the plug in. Maybe these plugs have a setting where you can control the count of outputs to the mixer (helped a lot in my case). Most of the time they produce more outputs than really needed and used.

I think changing to a stronger CPU is always helpfull, but the day when this won't be enough again will come for sure. Freezing instruments is a very helpfull and easy to use feature and a lot cheaper than upgrading hardware.

Good luck!

djones · Post by **djones** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:55 am

Upgrading my memory with 512 or 1Gb wouldn't that help either?

Josmoker · Post by **Josmoker** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:09 pm

Upgrading my memory with 512 or 1Gb wouldn't that help either?

No, if it's definitely the cpu that hits its limit a ram upgrade won't help.

Cheers, Jo

cimoc · Post by **cimoc** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:24 pm

I got back more than 30% cpu by applying just the most basic tweaks found in musicxp.net, not touching the registry.
Sure, more ram helps a lot. And faster cpu. And new mobo. Not being an expert, from what I read, ram is the best bet, if you are on a budjet. But DO THOSE TWEAKS!!!

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:53 pm

Sascha Franck wrote:Cubase is wellknown to operate pretty badly at very low latencies (basically anything below around 10ms).

Under 6ms on mine, yes, but I notice no improvement with CPU usage between 6ms and 12ms (256 samples vs 512 samples) in my experience with Cubase. Been pretty even. I just stick with 6ms.

Devon

Cubase SX Cpu overload.