Why is everyone so obsessed with plugin CPU consumption?

[Hunter]

If you cant understand why people are obsessed with CPU consumption, you obviously dont use any decent plug ins.

OK so only 'decent' plugins use lots of CPU, or does a plugin have to use lots of CPU to be 'decent'?

I have some plugins including one particular monsta that can drain my CPU like mad straight away, but I'm not complaining about it, just work around it. Likewise I have some very 'decent' plugins that use hardly any CPU.


I just find it weird how some people here pick up on a plugin or update using 3% more than plugin x therefore that plugin is no good etc, and also the whole Kore thing I can's understand, with people complaining that it uses 10% of their CPU or whatever, well, what do you expect? magic non-cpu using things to suddenly be developed? quantum vst's that produce the sound without being run?

[Subfix]

you'd be surprised at what you can accomplish with just a few plugins. try to limit yourself and be a bit more creative.

Some have mentioned that they like playing around with a lot of effects, etc. I think this plays into creativity...

I think that all of this really depends on the workflow of an individule... some people are bouncing and freezing tracks all the time, it's part of how they make music. Other people would rather throw down some tracks and be able to tweak almost anything at any time.

Personally I have had tracks where I know that I can freeze it and not worry about it, and I have also had tracks where I have frozen it, but later I come back and want to tweak it, but then I end up unfreezing, tweaking, freezing, rinse and repeat.

I suppose if you have the power, you can use and abuse it, and if you don't, you pretty much have to learn to work around it It nothing really worth debating as workflow is a matter of preference...

[pekadan]

Hmm, just curious... Am I the only one who feels RAM is a bigger problem? I load up a drum kit, a piano, two rhythm guitars, one lead guitar and a bass. Then maybe some strings and maybe one or two solo instruments. All sampled stuff. I'm maybe at 90% full then. Fine. But if I at some point want to replace a sample set, then I usually need to unload the first set, then save the project, restart the host and reload the project before I can finally load the new set. Memory is not reclaimed it seems or fragmentation is really bad. Not sure if it's supposed to be like this or if this is a host or sampler problem. Anyway it bothers me more than CPU consumption (heavy sample user as I am) since there's no efficient workaround (like bouncing, which is efficient compared to restart...).

[Sascha Franck]

I'm using a laptop, so CPU issues ARE crucial.
And no, freezing is in no way what I'm looking after, as it'll completely spoil my workflow.
And that's all there is about it. Might change once I'm on a MacBook, we'll see.

[Subfix]

Hmmm, I've never had a real problem with RAM (I only have 1GB), but then again I've never worked with a LOT of samples... interesting enough.

The average sample library doesn't eat up that much ram does it? I suppose a few of the large ones might eat up 100-200mb? The average is probably like 10-50mb? I don't know much about that subject... seems like a good enough time to learn

[spacefox]

One more thing about bouncing and workflow: it works great when working in a traditional sequencer (Cubase, Sonar, Tracktion whatever). Make the track, bounce the track, move on to next track.
What about a monster modular setup with plugins spewing MIDI and sound in all directions, signal chains entangled? There are no discrete paths to bounce.

[Sascha Franck]

One more thing about bouncing and workflow: it works great when working in a traditional sequencer (Cubase, Sonar, Tracktion whatever). Make the track, bounce the track, move on to next track.

That never works for me. I change previous tracks all the freaking time. Seems I'll never use freezing, unless when working on, say, some loops or so.

[whyterabbyt]

The average sample library doesn't eat up that much ram does it? I suppose a few of the large ones might eat up 100-200mb? The average is probably like 10-50mb? I don't know much about that subject... seems like a good enough time to learn

Considering 'the large ones' get shipped on multiple DVDs, you just might find they take up slightly more space than '100-200mb'.

Learn first, then make the assumptions, mebbe.

[Subfix]

I'm using a laptop, so CPU issues ARE crucial.

Indeed, I would think the vast majority of people having issues with CPU usage would be on laptops... a bit harder to upgrade, huh?
I've never used a laptop for really anything, I used to think that having one would be cool, but I don't see why I would use one for this sort of thing... if I were to ever buy one it would be some underpowered little machine to perform simple tasks, stuff like word processing... then again I don't get out much if I did get out a lot, a little mobile studio would be neat, but anything bigger than a 12-key MIDI controller would seem like a hassel in itself.

[beej]

The average sample library doesn't eat up that much ram does it? I suppose a few of the large ones might eat up 100-200mb? The average is probably like 10-50mb? I don't know much about that subject... seems like a good enough time to learn

I've got one piano that is over a gig. And that's not even a particularly big one. Streaming helps though.

When you start working with serious libraries, especially the orchestral ones, you need the biggest, fattest machines you can get.

[Subfix]

The average sample library doesn't eat up that much ram does it? I suppose a few of the large ones might eat up 100-200mb? The average is probably like 10-50mb? I don't know much about that subject... seems like a good enough time to learn

Considering 'the large ones' get shipped on multiple DVDs, you just might find they take up slightly more space than '100-200mb'.

Learn first, then make the assumptions, mebbe.

Hey, I said "I suppose..." and "I don't know much about the subject".

I stand corrected, although I didn't think that the multiple DVDs worth of content would be loaded at the same time...

[spacefox]

Hmm, just curious... Am I the only one who feels RAM is a bigger problem? I load up a drum kit, a piano, two rhythm guitars, one lead guitar and a bass. Then maybe some strings and maybe one or two solo instruments. All sampled stuff. I'm maybe at 90% full then. Fine. But if I at some point want to replace a sample set, then I usually need to unload the first set, then save the project, restart the host and reload the project before I can finally load the new set. Memory is not reclaimed it seems or fragmentation is really bad. Not sure if it's supposed to be like this or if this is a host or sampler problem. Anyway it bothers me more than CPU consumption (heavy sample user as I am) since there's no efficient workaround (like bouncing, which is efficient compared to restart...).

An efficient workaround would be disk streaming your samples, no?

[Subfix]

I've got one piano that is over a gig. And that's not even a particularly big one. Streaming helps though.

When you start working with serious libraries, especially the orchestral ones, you need the biggest, fattest machines you can get.

Wow, a piano over a gig, that's crazy (not in a bad way) !
I just recently learned about disk streaming, it seems like it would help a lot... and as far at the orchestral ones, I always assumed they were broken down a bit by section/instrument and not everything in one big lump.

[Sascha Franck]

I'm using a laptop, so CPU issues ARE crucial.

Indeed, I would think the vast majority of people having issues with CPU usage would be on laptops... a bit harder to upgrade, huh?

Even worse, apart from some HDD (which won't give you more speed) and RAM (which I can't do, due to Logic/PC not working well with anything more than 1GB) update there's not much you can do. No dual core fitting on my mainboard either... too bad.

I've never used a laptop for really anything, I used to think that having one would be cool, but I don't see why I would use one for this sort of thing...

Well, I only decided to make my main studio machine a laptop because I'm touring a shitload this year. And it already paid off to be sure.
I'd have never done so in case I'd been spending all year at home. Everything's just worse and more expensive.

but anything bigger than a 12-key MIDI controller would seem like a hassel in itself.

Well, I have a very small, extra-slim Edirol PCR-M1, which offers at least 24 (standard sized, half action height) keys. And whenever I need to, I can just connect another keyboard.
Besides, I'm a guitar player, so I concentrate on getting some guitar ideas captured when being on the road.

The low power of my 1.86GHz Pentium M is getting annoying though. It also doesn't feel as snappy as my old desktop.
That's why I'm anciously awaiting the day when I can finally afford a MacBook.

[Sascha Franck]

When you start working with serious libraries, especially the orchestral ones, you need the biggest, fattest machines you can get.

Yeah. A nightmare on my laptop.
Don't get me wrong, for such a small setup such as my laptop based one it's working amazingly well, but for the time being, I try to get back to those "RAM only" libraries. I'm just not mixing things for, say, the next half a year or so.
Not that much of a bad thing as I seem to concentrate on my "root" job a bit more (being a guitar player that is) for now. Plus, I'm really becoming a "VSTi sampling" expert as well. Those just use up less power inside a sampler than when running natively.