KVR Audio

ezelkow1 · Post by **ezelkow1** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:42 am

Well reaper using the better interface brought it down to 8, which you said you were expecting it to be around

futurefields · Post by **futurefields** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:42 am

@ 5.6% here on my thinkpad t500 (core2duo 2.53ghz) w/ focusrite saffire 6 (that's on the default preset with everything on)

seems stable enough in reaper 3.66

i think you should slow down the knobs for the fx parameters. that's always been a problem i've had with your GUI's. i like knobs that have a little weight too them (oh my) it just feels classier and is also better for tuning things more precisely. like the knobs on my old plexi; velvet smooth and ultra weighty.

(actually the knobs on the your amp head are dialed in pretty good if you could give the knobs in the fx rack the same weight it would be an improvement)

(for comparisons sake, a guitar rig 4 patch with the hot plex amp, control room, tubescreamer, and roland-style tape echo uses 3.5% normal, 6.2% with HQ on)

Ken McLaren · Post by **Ken McLaren** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:15 am

Thanks ezelkow1, Thats about right, we'll be dropping some CPU as well I hope by the end of the week. I want to release Friday or Saturday. This beta has added some CPU as I have not done many optimizations on the new code, and I just know I'm doing something stupid in there somewhere..

Future thanks for the comparison, so, we in the ball park, we drop a another point or 2 we're in good shape..I assume that their HQ is 4x upsampling? Is there much of a difference between their HQ and normal modes? I mean I have had some other sims that have an HQ control and the only thing I noticed it did was increase my CPU...

I can slow those knobs down, interestingly I just got another request for that tonight. In Shred 2 we may make that an external setting, but it will depend on how crazy we go with optimizations. Everything costs CPU.

Anyways guys thanks for the info..

futurefields · Post by **futurefields** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:42 am

Ken McLaren wrote: I can slow those knobs down, interestingly I just got another request for that tonight. In Shred 2 we may make that an external setting, but it will depend on how crazy we go with optimizations.

Argh, no more knobs or settings pleeeeease. There's too much going on as it is. Just slow the knobs down. Sometimes less control on the user-end results in a more pleasing experience, if things are tuned well to begin with.

Ian B · Post by **Ian B** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:59 am

With me it's around 16 > 20% cpu sat idle in a otherwise empty project in FLS 9.5 on a AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core (3.1GGhz) 6000+ with 4gb ram (3.25 usable) and much the same cpu usage in Tracktion 3.

Ken McLaren · Post by **Ken McLaren** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:56 pm

Thanks Ian B..

futurefields · Post by **futurefields** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Ian B wrote:With me it's around 16 > 20% cpu sat idle in a otherwise empty project in FLS 9.5 on a AMD Athlon 64X2 Dual Core (3.1GGhz) 6000+ with 4gb ram (3.25 usable) and much the same cpu usage in Tracktion 3.

This is a testament to the power of Intel vs AMD cpus. Your AMD chip is a dual core clocked higher AND its a desktop with more ram, and my little Thinkpad core2duo uses 1/3 to 1/4 the cpu running the same plugins.

ezelkow1 · Post by **ezelkow1** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:48 pm

Thats also FL and tracktion, Id be interested to see what the usage is on that pc in reaper. As I saw on my own box, testing in ableton had the percentage ~100% higher than in reaper. So I really think it may just be how reaper calculates usage compared to ableton/fl/tracktion/vsthost/etc

Ken McLaren · Post by **Ken McLaren** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:21 pm

Well we should be maybe using the Windows task manager. At least then we have a baseline between daws...A measurement with and without Shred running, then simple subtraction..

Just a thought..

futurefields · Post by **futurefields** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:46 pm

ezelkow1 wrote:Thats also FL and tracktion, Id be interested to see what the usage is on that pc in reaper. As I saw on my own box, testing in ableton had the percentage ~100% higher than in reaper. So I really think it may just be how reaper calculates usage compared to ableton/fl/tracktion/vsthost/etc

I don't think it matters so much, as they all use the same plugin format (vst) I don't think a plugin will use that much more cpu in one host versus another.

ezelkow1 · Post by **ezelkow1** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:55 pm

futurefields wrote:
ezelkow1 wrote:Thats also FL and tracktion, Id be interested to see what the usage is on that pc in reaper. As I saw on my own box, testing in ableton had the percentage ~100% higher than in reaper. So I really think it may just be how reaper calculates usage compared to ableton/fl/tracktion/vsthost/etc
I don't think it matters so much, as they all use the same plugin format (vst) I don't think a plugin will use that much more cpu in one host versus another.

I wasnt saying that it was actually using more cpu in one host vs. another, just that the hosts themselves are using different methods of reporting back cpu usage. So the plugin is using the same amount of cpu regardless, just that it gets reported twice as high in some hosts versus others. I dont think there would be any other way to explain reaper reporting using half as much on my system as ableton and vsthost

Ken McLaren · Post by **Ken McLaren** » Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:23 am

Windows Task Manager as I said earlier, I think you guys will be surprised..

wavephonic · Post by **wavephonic** » Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:57 am

I'd like to try it, is there a difference between the 1.6 freeware on your page and the one in your 1st post.
prolly a dumb question

Ian B · Post by **Ian B** » Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:29 am

ezelkow1 wrote:Thats also FL and tracktion, Id be interested to see what the usage is on that pc in reaper. As I saw on my own box, testing in ableton had the percentage ~100% higher than in reaper. So I really think it may just be how reaper calculates usage compared to ableton/fl/tracktion/vsthost/etc

I've got a Reaper license (not the latest version, I didn't upgrade) but didn't install after a clean XP SP3 install, but I've just tried it and using Task Manager got the following results with just a idle Shred loaded

FLS > hovers between 8 and 12%

Tracktion 3 > hovers between 9 and 12%

Reaper > hovers between 0 and 3%

Ken McLaren · Post by **Ken McLaren** » Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:04 am

So, reaper actually does run at a lower CPU percentage...That does not surprise me too much...Acoutstica Mixcraft is pretty efficient as well..

Wavephonic, its not a dumb question..1.06 is an earlier version to this. 1.5X has a whole lot of new features to it, and a ton of creature comforts. This is the last freeware version of Shred as well. The next one Shred 2.0, will have 25 heads and some other goodies as well, and will sell for 25 dollars USF...

We may also be releasing a RTAS wrapper for it and a Native FLS plug as well. If we release the RTAS Wrapper for it, and thats a Big If, it will have to be sold, not sure what the price will be though...

AcmeBarGig Shred 1.5x Public Beta PC VST available here **Updated Oct 2