Hey
I just bought Zebra 2 and the cpu goes through the roof if I use the distortion modules in combination with long release. Is this a bug? Or a common problem? Or a setting I missed?
I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Regards,
Toon
Zebra 2 Distortion CPU
-
- u-he
- 30216 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
The per-voice distortion modules can be quite expensive, but shouldn't go through the roof on any modern CPU.
Would you kind sharing a preset for us to look at?
Also maybe tell us which kind of CPU you use, in case we missed something.
Thanks,
- Urs
Would you kind sharing a preset for us to look at?
Also maybe tell us which kind of CPU you use, in case we missed something.
Thanks,
- Urs
-
- KVRAF
- 4197 posts since 23 May, 2004 from Bad Vilbel, Germany
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 6 posts since 1 Mar, 2019
Okay trough the roof is maybe an overstatement. I cleaned the fans of my laptop and it got a bit better. The CPU used in the patch is now 40% less which is huge. But it still uses a lot in my opinion and when I compare it to a friend of mine who uses zebra. When he uses the same patch he gets far less CPU usage than me. And the specs on his laptop are not too different from mine.Urs wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:25 pm The per-voice distortion modules can be quite expensive, but shouldn't go through the roof on any modern CPU.
When I have the patch just with a high release, it's in between 1-2% of CPU, which is fine. But when I use the distorion it suddenly goes to 6-8% CPU. When I add another distortion unit it reaches 11-13% CPU (buffersize 512).
I use a macbook 2012 13 inch
I use reaper as my DAW (but I checked on Ableton and Studio one and it was worse those)
intel core i5 processor
16 GB of RAM
512 GB SSD drive
I don't know about the CPU itself. Is that a thing? I thought the RAM and processor determent the CPU.
I attached a midi file and the patch. The midi file should be played at 166bpm (4/4 time measure) to compare it to what I wrote above.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- KVRAF
- 3817 posts since 8 Mar, 2006
A thing about Reaper..
Do you like to put tracks into folders (folder bus) or bus the 'regular' way? For some reason at the moment folder tracks seem to be single-core.. so if you bus through folder tracks the whole chain or tracks will accumulate and you will be getting under-runs (RT-CPU) way before actual CPU ceiling in some cases.
anyway, good distortion units are known to use quite a bit more CPU because the sometimes 8x oversampling I guess.
Do you like to put tracks into folders (folder bus) or bus the 'regular' way? For some reason at the moment folder tracks seem to be single-core.. so if you bus through folder tracks the whole chain or tracks will accumulate and you will be getting under-runs (RT-CPU) way before actual CPU ceiling in some cases.
anyway, good distortion units are known to use quite a bit more CPU because the sometimes 8x oversampling I guess.
-
- KVRist
- 215 posts since 21 Nov, 2012
This was news to me. What do you mean with “bus the 'regular' way”?3ee wrote: Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:43 am A thing about Reaper..
Do you like to put tracks into folders (folder bus) or bus the 'regular' way? For some reason at the moment folder tracks seem to be single-core.. so if you bus through folder tracks the whole chain or tracks will accumulate and you will be getting under-runs (RT-CPU) way before actual CPU ceiling in some cases.
anyway, good distortion units are known to use quite a bit more CPU because the sometimes 8x oversampling I guess.
-
- KVRAF
- 3817 posts since 8 Mar, 2006
^busing the regular way... when you deactivate tracks that go directly to the master channel and send them though annother track instead.
The folder track is doing basically the same thing but with the added benefit of folding for more GUI space.
Will report this to the Reaper devs very soon..
The folder track is doing basically the same thing but with the added benefit of folding for more GUI space.
Will report this to the Reaper devs very soon..
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 6 posts since 1 Mar, 2019
No even when I have only one track with zebra on it I have this problem. The thing is I'm starting to think that this is to blame on my Macbook. I tested a little bit and I'm having issues with high CPU usage in other synths like massive too. When I turn up the release time, it starts to hit like 10% or more on CPU. I also have high CPU usage on pitch plugins like Alterboy.3ee wrote: Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:43 am A thing about Reaper..
Do you like to put tracks into folders (folder bus) or bus the 'regular' way? For some reason at the moment folder tracks seem to be single-core.. so if you bus through folder tracks the whole chain or tracks will accumulate and you will be getting under-runs (RT-CPU) way before actual CPU ceiling in some cases.
It just seems so odd to me because I think my mac has pretty good specs, and I've never noticed anything like this until recently. Can someone tell me if (with the specs my Macbook has) this CPU usage is abnormal or just due to my Macbooks specs not being powerful enough.
That would really help me out!
Thanks!
-
tasmaniandevil tasmaniandevil https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=62450
- KVRAF
- 2171 posts since 22 Mar, 2005 from a planet called u-he
If you are generally having a high CPU usage when using plugins, maybe try raising the buffer size of your audio interface. Small settings like 32 or 64 samples will have quite a hit on the CPU. Maybe try 128 or 256 samples, just to see how it affects the CPU performance.TPB3333 wrote: Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:24 pm The thing is I'm starting to think that this is to blame on my Macbook. I tested a little bit and I'm having issues with high CPU usage in other synths like massive too. When I turn up the release time, it starts to hit like 10% or more on CPU. I also have high CPU usage on pitch plugins like Alterboy.
That QA guy from planet u-he.