Forums | Search | Archives

All Forums  Third Party Plug-ins  CPU usage high with Dx effects

Author	Topic
andyeb Posts: 45	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 2:06 am  I've been toying with the idea of upgrading to CE Pro from 2000 for mastering purposes. I have one concern though - CPU usage seems to be much higher for the same chain of plugins in CE Pro than it does in other applications like Sonar and n-track studio. My mastering chain typically consists of 10 to 12 plugins - these generally run with 30-60% CPU utilisation in n-track and the sonar demo, but in CE Pro demo, the sound is breaking up big time before I have even added all the effects. I already have n-track studio, but need to upgrade in order to get better plugin automation facilities and better stability... so I've been evaluating a number of different options. In some ways, I'd quite like to buy CE pro since I've been a CE user since before version 3! thanks, Andy
post78 Location: USA Posts: 2887	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 2:49 am  Hi Andy. I don't have an answer for you, as I don't use CEP for mastering, but I do have a question. Why so many plug-ins? If I'm mastering a project (which I'd rather not do) I usually only use maybe two or three. _________________ Answer = 1. Probably.
andyeb Posts: 45	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 2:53 am  Well I use lots of different plugins to alter the sound by a very small amount, each in its own unique way. I find I need to do this to get the sound I'm after... if you can do it with less plugins and be happy with the result then thats cool! The fact remains though - I have a feeling some serious optimisation is needed for realtime Dx plugins! ;-) Andy
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 3:56 am  This is a can of worms! The figures that get reported aren't always to be trusted. And as MS themselves point out, even measuring this contributes to the load! But the realtime issue probably has everything to do with the way in which the DX plugins are accessed by the host program. I think that you may be looking at the difference between a serial chain and quasi-parallel access. This would seriously alter the processing requirements. But I have to say that I'm in some agreement with post78 here. 10-12 apps for mastering? I would seriously suggest that if you are finding that you need that many, there is something wrong with the mix. Usually, I use what's in CEP, and Ozone. And I don't get complaints. And people even come back for more... _________________
andyeb Posts: 45	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:34 am  Well ozone uses about 10 steps internally doesn't it? I learned basic mastering technique from their PDF manual - just do something similar with hand picked plugins, using a technique I have refined myself... Andy
post78 Location: USA Posts: 2887	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:56 am  Quote: Well ozone uses about 10 steps internally doesn't it? But in the new Ozone, they (wisely) give you the option to completely bypass certain processors. This takes them completely out of the loop. Even if you set your processors to flat, the signal is still passing through them. Quote: I learned basic mastering technique from their PDF manual...just do something similar with hand picked plugins... I highly doubt that, considering it was written by Bob Katz, an absolute minimalist to the bone. _________________ Answer = 1. Probably.
andyeb Posts: 45	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:14 am  Quote: Quote: I learned basic mastering technique from their PDF manual...just do something similar with hand picked plugins... I highly doubt that, considering it was written by Bob Katz, an absolute minimalist to the bone. Aren't you thinking of the TC document on mastering by Bob Katz? I've read that one too. The document I originally referred to explained the default process used by ozone - and that has lots of steps. I'm not saying that you have to use lots of steps; quite the opposite in fact - I use the minimum needed to get the job done - but sometimes that is 10 or so plugins stacked up. Yes, music that needs that much work needs fixing in the mix, but if you are working on someone elses material (which I am more often than not), you don't always have a choice. Anyway, this wasn't intended to be a thread on mastering technique... (which is very much down to personal preference anyway.) The fact is, I might need to use 10 plugins and that is something I can do in n-track (30 dollar shareware app) but not in cool edit pro (several hundred dollar app). Andy
post78 Location: USA Posts: 2887	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:46 am  I'm talking about the "Mastering with Ozone" (or whatever) document. If you're referring to something else, my mistake. ;-) I realize that this wasn't the point of the thread, it just sounded to me from your explanation of how Ozone works and using a similar technique that you naturally default to using 10-12 plug-ins and simply leave the ones you don't need flat. I just wanted to make sure that you understood why that isn't the best idea. Anyway, back on point. _________________ Answer = 1. Probably.
VoodooRadio Location: USA Posts: 3971	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:49 am  Quote: music that needs that much work needs fixing in the mix And I think it's more a matter of nomemclature at this point. If your still using that many processes at this point, your actually still "mixing". Of course as you allude to... "... (which is very much down to personal preference anyway.)". _________________ I said Good Day! Voodoo
ozpeter Location: Australia Posts: 3200	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 6:15 am  There was a lot of material about N-tracks vs CEP (esp re use of resources) in [url=http://forums.syntrillium.com/topic.asp?FORUM_TITLE=Cool Edit&CAT_ID=4&TOPIC_ID=10073&FORUM_ID=15&TOPIC_TITLE=Random Skipping%2FJumping in CEP 2%2E0 Multitrack&REPLY_ID=59373]this recent thread[/url] in case it's relevant. - Ozpeter
Craig Jackman Location: Canada Posts: 909	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 6:21 am  Maybe we're all missing something more basic here. What processor and what system are you running? My old computer wouldn't run Ozone cleanly even with most of the modules turned off. The new computer will run everything twice and still have processing room left over. Lastly, the last shot at CEP was poor. If you were really happy with your $30 shareware, you wouldn't be looking at other options. So CEP costs $200. Big deal. Priced out the equivilant Pro Tools recently? ... and yes, Pro Tools vs CEP is a more natural comparison than CEP vs n-track. Also, I'm beginning to think that plugins are the SUV of the audio world. Conspicuous consumerism. "My sound is better than your sound because I have Waves Native." "Mine has to be better than that as I have Waves Native Gold". I've gotten rid of all of my plug ins, and am starting over with just what I can't do with the CEP built ins ... iZotope Vinyl, iZotope Ozone, pi Warp, and those teeny weeny Ceballos CEP transforms that were freeware. Oh ya, the free Syntrillium tremolo too. That's it. Everything else is removed. I'd love to put the Waves Rennaisennce compressor and C4 back in (I love those 2), but I haven't seen the need. Are you really REALLY sure that you need a dozen plugins? All running at once??? Are you sure you recorded it right to begin with?? You can spend hours polishing a turd, but in the end it's still just a turd. _________________ Craig Jackman Production Supervisor CHEZ/CKBY/CIOX/CJET/CIWW Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
andyeb Posts: 45	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 6:32 am  Craig Jackman wrote: Maybe we're all missing something more basic here. What processor and what system are you running? My old computer wouldn't run Ozone cleanly even with most of the modules turned off. The new computer will run everything twice and still have processing room left over. System specs: Athlon 1.2Ghz 1GB PC133 SDRAM Abit KT7A M/B M-Audio Audiophile 2496 sound card Windows XP Quote: Lastly, the last shot at CEP was poor. If you were really happy with your $30 shareware, you wouldn't be looking at other options. It was intended as an observation rather than a "shot". Anyway, to be more specific, the plugin automation features in n-track don't meet my requirements, that is why I'm looking elsewhere. Quote: Are you really REALLY sure that you need a dozen plugins? All running at once??? Are you sure you recorded it right to begin with?? You can spend hours polishing a turd, but in the end it's still just a turd. I'm actually mastering stuff for other people for free, or in return for a donation towards costs. I'm doing this to get some experience for mastering, beyond my own music. It is not my job as a mastering-engineer-in-the-making to pass judgement on other peoples work, rather its my job to make it sound as good as possible. If that takes a shed load of plugins (used in the right way) then so be it. Andy
Syntrillium M.D. Location: USA Posts: 5124	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:55 am  Hmm...well, without commenting on the 'volume' of plugins used for the single task, perhaps you could let us know which plugins you're using? This might give us an idea of what's going on, and as SteveG mentioned, it could also be a matter of re-routing (and varying the parallel/serial configs) to get better performance. ---Syntrillium, M.D. _________________
andyeb Posts: 45	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:02 am  OK, the plugins are: PSP Vintage Warmer FA Soft 20 band parametric EQ PSP stereo enhancer PSP mix bass Ultrafunk Multiband compressor PSP mix saturator PSP mix treble PSP mix pressor in various orders, all in serial. Andy
andyeb Posts: 45	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:09 pm  OK, I tried this all again today and it now works fine :blush: The only difference between then and now is that before when I tried it, I only had 256MB of RAM (not much for an XP system) whereas now a have 1GB :D Could this really make that much difference? OK, so now I'm seriously tempted by Cool Edit. However I two remaining concerns: i) to be any better than what I already have, I need to be able to automate DX effects parameters. Am I right in thinking that only some of the built in effects are automatable? I don't mind doing all the automation via envelopes (rather than realtime recording), but I must be able to automate DX effects... otherwise my wallet stays in its pocket. If this currently is not possible, is it likely to happen any time soon? I noticed that there was a call for new beta testers... ii) stability. So far this evening I've crashed the demo once and I've only been playing an hour. All I did was add a quick verb to the fx rack and move it up a couple of positions - then bang! I must say I'm quite taken and tempted by the app as a whole... but buying decisions have to make down to earth sense. Andy
Syntrillium M.D. Location: USA Posts: 5124	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 2:54 pm  andyeb wrote: OK, I tried this all again today and it now works fine :blush: The only difference between then and now is that before when I tried it, I only had 256MB of RAM (not much for an XP system) whereas now a have 1GB :D Could this really make that much difference? -Andy Certainly. By having more RAM, you're less likely to have to hit the virtual memory/swap file, and thus allowing apps (and the OS) to work more smoothly. Also, depending on how you have things setup(like the page file) you can further optimize the OS for handling digital audio. In any event, glad to hear that you're up and running smoothly. Now, in regards to effects parameter automation...You are correct in that there are only a few internal effects that allow you to do this (pan/expand, dynamic delay, dynamic EQ, to name three). We do not support parameter automation for DX effects (nor DXi)...You can, of course, automate Wet/Dry balances on any and all effects in CEP2 via envelopes. ---Syntrillium, M.D. _________________
ozpeter Location: Australia Posts: 3200	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:51 pm  Stability seems to vary greatly between users, probably depending on their system configuration and on what they are doing. There's bucketloads of previous comment on the forum about this. Some users tried CEP2 for a day and they junked it quickly, others (like me) love it to death, and don't hit the problems often enough to be put off. DX effects do, however, seem to be the area of greatest stability concern - whether that's the fault of the effects writers or CE programmers I wouldn't begin to know. If I were you I'd thrash the demo as hard as you can for as long as you can, then decide whether you really can bear to part with the demo, or to part with your money! - Ozpeter
Graeme Member Location: Spain Posts: 4663	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 6:15 pm  Obviously, there are a number of different factors which affect the running of different aplications on different system. To compare something like n-Tracks with CEP is a little bit of apples and oranges. Getting back to the original question, the easiest way to determine the CPU overhead for DX plug-ins is to go to http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/Products_3.htm and download a useful little utility called CPU Hawg. With this, you can directly measuse the resources required to run you various plug-ins - you might be surprised at the results . _________________ Graeme Don't forget to join the new CEP forum at audiomastersforum
SteveG Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6695	Posted - Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:29 pm  andyeb wrote: Well ozone uses about 10 steps internally doesn't it? Yes, Ozone can use a lot of processing power. But it has one huge advantage over a string of plugins - you can combine effects, and preview the results instantly from one app. Actually, you've always been able to turn off sections in Ozone - just not all of them! (Now you can.) And you can alter the processing order around. And it's a quality product. If you had to buy plugins that did everything that Ozone can do (and I'm sure that you can), the combined cost would be somewhat greater than the cost of Ozone, I'm pretty sure... without the operating convenience. But it's up to you. If you are not making money out of it, then the time spent playing with all those plugins hardly matters, does it? _________________
ozpeter Location: Australia Posts: 3200	Posted - Fri Feb 21, 2003 7:16 am  Thanks for that tip re 'CPUHawg' Graeme - interesting little package! - well worth a try by those interested in these matters - trying it fairly briefly I came up with some surprising results as you predicted (but perhaps not the same surprises you had in mind?) - but for once, before sounding off prematurely, I shall go over my results again and do a little further investigation. I am sure that fellow forum members will be unable to sleep with anticipation meanwhile... :) - Ozpeter
ozpeter Location: Australia Posts: 3200	Posted - Sun Feb 23, 2003 5:33 pm  In brief, CPUHawg seemed to indicate that using a DirectX plugin via the 'VB:Rack' utility (the freeware version allows you to build a rack of four effects - see this site for download) - the CPU usage was less than when testing the plugin on its own. However I think this is due to complexities arising from the figure given being a percentage of the available CPU. I also found that to get a reliable reading you need to close and reopen the CPUHawg utility each time you test a different DirectX effect, otherwise the readings become inconsistent. But, in fiddling around with this and that, I noticed that the VB Rack can help with using 'misbehaving' DirectX plugins with Cool Edit Pro 2.0 - for instance, try using the RGCAudio reverb with CEP2 in the Edit screen on a 16 bit file, and you'll get just a short crackle if you press 'preview'. But loaded into the VB Rack, it works. Also, the problems I've had with the AnwidaSoft Reverb Lite (preset values changing if you access the effect's controls when not actually playing back) are also cured by using the effect in the VB Rack. So, my tip of the day is, if you are having trouble with a DX effect, try it via the VB Rack and it might work! You can also load VST effects into the rack if you load wrapper in the rack and then the VST effect into the wrapper. - Ozpeter
andyeb Posts: 45	Posted - Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:11 am  Nice tip Ozpeter! Thanks 8) Andy
ozpeter Location: Australia Posts: 3200	Posted - Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:25 am  And another thing related to effects and mastering and the like... I've been fiddling around with a free demo copy from a magazine CD of Steinberg's 'WaveLab 3.0' which is save disabled, but not time-limited - it's been lurking on my PC for a year or so - it has an effects rack built in for 'mastering' which can handle any six VST, DX, or bundled effects - and using TotalRecorder's 'record from software' mode you can readily circumvent the disabled save command. And they didn't disable the saving of rack setups.... So for very little expense, there's another tool in the armoury. But is this procedure unethical? - Ozpeter
andyeb Posts: 45	Posted - Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:45 am  ozpeter wrote: And another thing related to effects and mastering and the like... I've been fiddling around with a free demo copy from a magazine CD of Steinberg's 'WaveLab 3.0' which is save disabled, but not time-limited - it's been lurking on my PC for a year or so - it has an effects rack built in for 'mastering' which can handle any six VST, DX, or bundled effects - and using TotalRecorder's 'record from software' mode you can readily circumvent the disabled save command. And they didn't disable the saving of rack setups.... So for very little expense, there's another tool in the armoury. But is this procedure unethical? Its even easier to do this if you have an M-Audio soundcard - you just have to point your wav editor at the "monitor" sound card device ;-). That said, the main thing I was after was FX automation. Chainer does a pretty nice job of stacking up effects... Andy
ozpeter Location: Australia Posts: 3200	Posted - Mon Feb 24, 2003 9:09 pm  In fact you can just copy the temp files Wavelab creates before you exit the program, then tell Cool Edit the format when you open them. Free audio editor, anyone? I'm really surprised Steinberg made that mistake. - Ozpeter
	Topic

Page: