Amplitube memory use comparison: 3.0.2 vs. 3.5.1b

[andrelafosse]

(Also posted at the IK forum; re-posting here to see if other people have different results/experiences.)

It looks like 3.5.1b uses about 150 more MB per instance than 3.0.2 in Logic.

I was unable to open a larger song with 3.5.1, but it opened fine with 3.0.2. I decided to do a comparison between the two, using Activity Monitor.

In each case, this is simply opening AT and using the default initial preset that always opens with it (which is in high-quality mode by default). Logic 9.1.3, Mac OS 10.5.8, 2.66 GHz, 4 GB RAM

My findings via Activity Monitor:

AT 3.0.2:
1) Create a new song with one audio track = Memory use: 192.75 MB

2) Insert one instance of AT 3.0.2 on that track = Memory use: 376 MB

3) Remove instance of AT 3.0.2 on same track = Memory use: 278

4) Reinstate one instance of AT 3.0.2 on same track = Memory use: 386 MB

AT 3.5.1:
1) Create new song w/one audio track = Memory use: 195.09 MB

2) Insert one instance of AT 3.5.1b on that track = Memory use: 530.75

3) Remove instance of AT 3.5.1b on same track = Memory use: 331.73

4) Reinstate one instance of AT 3.5.1b on same track = Memory use: 540 MB

Would be curious if others notice the same thing. If I'm misinterpreting the above findings, by all means let me know!

[asseca]

I have added my measurements to this thread on the IK forum.
Here are my measurements for v3.0.2 versus v3.5.1 on WindowsXP-32bit using Reaper4 alpha64(R4) and StudioOne v1.6.4(S1):
(memory measurements taken from Sysinternals Process Explorer)

AT 3.0.2:

1. Create a new song with one track = R4: 117MB, S1: 223MB
2. Insert one instance of AT 3.0.2 on that track = R4: 389MB, S1: 500MB
3. Remove instance of AT 3.0.2 on same track = R4: 118MB, S1: 226MB
4. Reinstate one instance of AT 3.0.2 on same track = R4: 389MB, S1: 500MB
5. Add a second track to the same song = R4: 459MB, S1: 571MB
6. Insert one instance of AT 3.0.2 on that track = R4: 661MB, S1: 780MB

AT 3.5.1:

1. Create a new song with one track = R4: 117MB, S1: 218MB
2. Insert one instance of AT 3.0.2 on that track = R4: 443MB, S1: 548MB
3. Remove instance of AT 3.0.2 on same track = R4: 134MB, S1: 234MB
4. Reinstate one instance of AT 3.0.2 on same track = R4: 443MB, S1: 548MB
5. Add a second track to the same song = R4: 509MB, S1: 615MB
6. Insert one instance of AT 3.0.2 on that track = R4: 748MB, S1: 858MB

Conclusion:

• AT 3.0.2 uses ~275MB for the 1st instance and ~205MB for the next instance.
• AT 3.5.1 uses ~328MB for the 1st instance and ~242MB for the next instance.

i.e. for the few extra plugins from the "Custom Shop" AT 3.5.1 needs ~50MB extra.
If IK keeps adding extra models to the Amplitube3 engine at this rate, then for many users AT3.x will become unusable very soon...

Another remark:
just loading the Custom Shop application takes more 10 seconds --- that is VERY slow

[Brittlestem]

Idiot that I am, I genuinely thought that after all the badgering about excessive RAM usage, IKmultimedia would have addressed it.
But instead of a more efficient plug-in, they've created the Custom Shop - cash before customers wins again.

[musicdoc]

The enormous ram usage was the first thing I noticed about at3. For me, on XP this is practically unusable. Thus I stick with the individual packs like metal, as it only uses about 50 megs. Even when I upgrade, I intend to stay away from huge effects that will quickly bog a project down and cause it to open s l o w and make things sluggish.

[bishop666]

What about AT3.5 singles, like Line6 did?



Just the amp/stomp/rack effect that you actually need during mixing/recording as a single vst.



-> low memory



Want a more complex thing to be done? Use the big AT3.5 Suite.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

IK just needs to fix this. Granted with 12GB of RAM on my system, it's been a non-issue lately. But back when I was on XP it meant some major instability and lots of crashes if I wasn't paying attention to the amount of available RAM.

[electro]

IK just needs to fix this. Granted with 12GB of RAM on my system, it's been a non-issue lately. But back when I was on XP it meant some major instability and lots of crashes if I wasn't paying attention to the amount of available RAM.

Under 32bit XP you have a max of approx 1.7GB RAM after the sequencer is loaded. Sample Libraries and FX and Synths all have to share it.

[Brittlestem]

IK just needs to fix this. Granted with 12GB of RAM on my system, it's been a non-issue lately. But back when I was on XP it meant some major instability and lots of crashes if I wasn't paying attention to the amount of available RAM.

And 12GB is useless if you're, say, using a 32bit host like Live. I'm going to demo Vandal, see if that's as good as people are saying -Sascha at least seems to know how to code efficient plug-ins.

[Hink]

IK just needs to fix this. Granted with 12GB of RAM on my system, it's been a non-issue lately. But back when I was on XP it meant some major instability and lots of crashes if I wasn't paying attention to the amount of available RAM.

And 12GB is useless if you're, say, using a 32bit host like Live. I'm going to demo Vandal, see if that's as good as people are saying -Sascha at least seems to know how to code efficient plug-ins.

when you do try VANDAL please do not overlook the wrench shaped icons, they open important features...unfortunately some have missed these and really it's where a lot of what makes VANDAL unique is at

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

IK just needs to fix this. Granted with 12GB of RAM on my system, it's been a non-issue lately. But back when I was on XP it meant some major instability and lots of crashes if I wasn't paying attention to the amount of available RAM.

And 12GB is useless if you're, say, using a 32bit host like Live. I'm going to demo Vandal, see if that's as good as people are saying -Sascha at least seems to know how to code efficient plug-ins.

In your particular case I think Ableton has to share some of the blame. There's no reason there shouldn't be a 64-bit version of Live. It's bad enough that plugin developers have been slow to respond, but at this point, every host should run a 64-bit version. That way, it's up to the user's and developers to remain 32-bit.

[BadChoice]

IK just needs to fix this. Granted with 12GB of RAM on my system, it's been a non-issue lately. But back when I was on XP it meant some major instability and lots of crashes if I wasn't paying attention to the amount of available RAM.

Under 32bit XP you have a max of approx 1.7GB RAM after the sequencer is loaded. Sample Libraries and FX and Synths all have to share it.

Can you explain this? I know that the maximum memory you can use on XP is like 3.25 GB. So where did you get the 1.7GB from. My naked DAW certainly does not eat up more than a gig

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

IK just needs to fix this. Granted with 12GB of RAM on my system, it's been a non-issue lately. But back when I was on XP it meant some major instability and lots of crashes if I wasn't paying attention to the amount of available RAM.

Under 32bit XP you have a max of approx 1.7GB RAM after the sequencer is loaded. Sample Libraries and FX and Synths all have to share it.

Can you explain this? I know that the maximum memory you can use on XP is like 3.25 GB. So where did you get the 1.7GB from. My naked DAW certainly does not eat up more than a gig

Between the OS and peripheral devices that require RAM, you're never getting anywhere near the full hypothetical limit. In reality, 1.7GB is probably about what the OS will generally have left over for apps.[/code]

[Brittlestem]

IK just needs to fix this. Granted with 12GB of RAM on my system, it's been a non-issue lately. But back when I was on XP it meant some major instability and lots of crashes if I wasn't paying attention to the amount of available RAM.

And 12GB is useless if you're, say, using a 32bit host like Live. I'm going to demo Vandal, see if that's as good as people are saying -Sascha at least seems to know how to code efficient plug-ins.

In your particular case I think Ableton has to share some of the blame. There's no reason there shouldn't be a 64-bit version of Live. It's bad enough that plugin developers have been slow to respond, but at this point, every host should run a 64-bit version. That way, it's up to the user's and developers to remain 32-bit.

While I agree that Ableton are, frankly, shite at developing in regards to speed and efficiency, Amplitube has been this much of a hog for a loooong time now, before 64bit was de facto.
I'm done complaining now anyways, the IKMultimedia money pit simply isn't worth it when the devs are so blatant in dismissing basic user requests - so they're on my "Don't Buy" list. I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.

[standalone]

I can load three instances of Amplitube Fender for every instance of Amplitube 3.5, RAM wise. The sound quality in both plugins is the same. If seems as if they are loading all the convolution data, or kernels or whatever they use in memory no matter what you are using. So, if they keep adding amps, cabinets etc., the RAM usage will keep growing. It would be better to have the option of unloading everything that is not being used, even if it brings slower loading times.

[susiwong]

On my internet machine I'm getting 3.2 out of 4 GB under XP SP3 no problem.
The price is some potentially glitchy behaviour from smaller, often hardware related tools and a few drivers, which completely disappears when pulling out 2 sticks.
I can easily live with that on an allround multimedia PC, on my DAW that would be a dealbreaker.

Just saying ...
susiwong