FL Studio Tracks and CPU...

[Debutante]

I've in the past loaded stems - from low teens to 60 tracks or so, and on initial play with no plugin activity registered 2-3% CPU usage. Recently I had a playlist of about 50 tracks and it was using +40% cpu JUST FOR PLAYBACK!?!

I looked at the file properties and couldn't really tell the difference. What is the difference between these and other sets of tracks?

[MuzikFreq]

This is why I fear ever really using FL Studio. The way it has been handeling CPU buffer loads is really bad in comparison to Ableton, Studio One, Reason, and obviously nothing can touch Reaper's performance.

[antic604]

I've in the past loaded stems - from low teens to 60 tracks or so, and on initial play with no plugin activity registered 2-3% CPU usage. Recently I had a playlist of about 50 tracks and it was using +40% cpu JUST FOR PLAYBACK!?!

I looked at the file properties and couldn't really tell the difference. What is the difference between these and other sets of tracks?

I don't know much about how FL works with audio, but perhaps in the 2nd case it's warping / stretching them to match the tempo?

Or maybe it converts bit-depth and/or audio rate on the fly to compensate for the difference between samples and project?

Last but not least, DAWs usually report DSP load (not exactly the same as CPU load, as it should include pottential bottlenecks in RAM and HDD/SDD), so perhaps the samples are much bigger this time and it simply still loads them from the HDD to memory? Or is even streaming them due to not enough RAM?

[rlared]

I've in the past loaded stems - from low teens to 60 tracks or so, and on initial play with no plugin activity registered 2-3% CPU usage. Recently I had a playlist of about 50 tracks and it was using +40% cpu JUST FOR PLAYBACK!?!

I looked at the file properties and couldn't really tell the difference. What is the difference between these and other sets of tracks?

Why is this a problem? Was it glitching?

[Carbonboy]

I've in the past loaded stems - from low teens to 60 tracks or so, and on initial play with no plugin activity registered 2-3% CPU usage. Recently I had a playlist of about 50 tracks and it was using +40% cpu JUST FOR PLAYBACK!?!

I looked at the file properties and couldn't really tell the difference. What is the difference between these and other sets of tracks?

You were missing something.

As noted above, its most likely you set a bunch of Stems to "Stretch" mode. This will use more CPU as an algorithm is used that is processing the wave ready to be pitched at any moment.

[Carbonboy]

This is why I fear ever really using FL Studio. The way it has been handeling CPU buffer loads is really bad in comparison to Ableton, Studio One, Reason, and obviously nothing can touch Reaper's performance.

This is bollocks.

Yes reaper is spectacularly good due to anticipative processing, but that has its downsides too.

There is nothing bad about how FL Studio performs in comparison to Live.

[MuzikFreq]

This is why I fear ever really using FL Studio. The way it has been handeling CPU buffer loads is really bad in comparison to Ableton, Studio One, Reason, and obviously nothing can touch Reaper's performance.

This is bollocks.

Yes reaper is spectacularly good due to anticipative processing, but that has its downsides too.

There is nothing bad about how FL Studio performs in comparison to Live.

If I open Spire 3 times in FL Studio, each instance can cause the CPU to climb each time that much further.
Live 10 3 times is really just the same performance and takes 12 instances to get it to where FL Studio got with only 3

[Carbonboy]

This is why I fear ever really using FL Studio. The way it has been handeling CPU buffer loads is really bad in comparison to Ableton, Studio One, Reason, and obviously nothing can touch Reaper's performance.

This is bollocks.

Yes reaper is spectacularly good due to anticipative processing, but that has its downsides too.

There is nothing bad about how FL Studio performs in comparison to Live.

If I open Spire 3 times in FL Studio, each instance can cause the CPU to climb each time that much further.
Live 10 3 times is really just the same performance and takes 12 instances to get it to where FL Studio got with only 3

Then you are doing something wrong. Sounds like you have not updated to the latest version that fixed the problem reported here https://support.image-line.com/action/k ... e/?ans=145

I see Reveal Sound have removed their FL Studio note. So it looks like they solved it.

Anyhow you don't base your assessment of DAW CPU usage on a single plugin.

[MuzikFreq]

This is why I fear ever really using FL Studio. The way it has been handeling CPU buffer loads is really bad in comparison to Ableton, Studio One, Reason, and obviously nothing can touch Reaper's performance.

This is bollocks.

Yes reaper is spectacularly good due to anticipative processing, but that has its downsides too.

There is nothing bad about how FL Studio performs in comparison to Live.

If I open Spire 3 times in FL Studio, each instance can cause the CPU to climb each time that much further.
Live 10 3 times is really just the same performance and takes 12 instances to get it to where FL Studio got with only 3

Then you are doing something wrong. Sounds like you have not updated to the latest version that fixed the problem reported here https://support.image-line.com/action/k ... e/?ans=145

I see Reveal Sound have removed their FL Studio note. So it looks like they solved it.

Anyhow you don't base your assessment of DAW CPU usage on a single plugin.

Ah I see they did fix the need for the fixed buffer length.

Actually I am impressed. 12 instances and it's taking less than the others.

I take it back it's still broken

[Carbonboy]

Then you better report it to Reveal Sound.