|
|
|
08-06-2014, 06:20 PM
|
#1
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,632
|
Anticipative FX processing trick
You can turn anticipative FX processing on globally in Preferences/Audio/Buffering and then turn if off on individual tracks with 3rd party vst/au plugins inserted.
Was 80% RT CPU use, now 30% in this particular project.
This tip should be in the manual!
|
|
|
08-06-2014, 07:01 PM
|
#2
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shaolin => NJ
Posts: 1,213
|
What exactly does anticipative FX do?
|
|
|
08-06-2014, 08:15 PM
|
#3
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bowral, Australia
Posts: 1,643
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quest The Wordsmith
What exactly does anticipative FX do?
|
It allows the effect to be processed out of time with the actual track, that is, the source sound is read ahead of time and processed and held in a buffer ready to be added to the output at the correct time. It is more efficient to do it this way, particularly with lots of FX running simultaneously. However, it doesn't work so well when recording sound at low latency because you need time to read and process the sound before playback. So then you need to disable it, particularly if using a CPU intensive effect.
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 07:04 AM
|
#4
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quest The Wordsmith
What exactly does anticipative FX do?
|
It allows you to run a LOT more fx as mentioned. But it only works for Reaper plugins. It will actually make things worse for 3rd party vst/au plugins.
This trick lets you take advantage of the process and just turn it off on isolated tracks that you insert 3rd party vst/au plugins in.
There have been a number of 'maxing out Reaper' threads lately from those of us running large sessions. Here's your solution!
The global setting is in Preferences/Audio/Buffering. Check the box.
For the per track setting, right-click (control-click) on the track in question and select 'Track performance options' > 'Prevent anticipative fx'.
Last edited by serr; 08-07-2014 at 07:32 AM.
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 07:15 AM
|
#5
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home is where the heart is
Posts: 12,109
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by serr
It allows you to run a LOT more fx as mentioned. But it only works for Reaper plugins. It will actually make things worse for 3rd party vst/au plugins.
|
I have anticipative processing turned on globally for a long time and I think I never noticed problems with 3rd party plugins.
Out of interest, what plugins are you experiencing problems with and how do these manifest ?
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 07:41 AM
|
#6
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofish
I have anticipative processing turned on globally for a long time and I think I never noticed problems with 3rd party plugins.
Out of interest, what plugins are you experiencing problems with and how do these manifest ?
|
All my 3rd party plugs. Waves, UAD, Soundtoys. Worst on Waves.
See this thread for illustrations of problems: http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=143101
Also remember that you need to be pushing Reaper before ANY of the optimization preference settings have any noticeable effect. You can run a smaller session (say 50 tracks and 80 plugins) with everything set worst case wrong and experience no problems at all and it will seem like the settings do absolutely nothing (ie. you can't break it).
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 09:33 AM
|
#7
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,008
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofish
I have anticipative processing turned on globally for a long time and I think I never noticed problems with 3rd party plugins.
Out of interest, what plugins are you experiencing problems with and how do these manifest ?
|
I have to turn off Anticipative FX processing when I'm working with Waves Tune, because whatever the buffer time is it's added to the plug's inherent latency and causes the GUI to display that much sooner than the actual audio and makes it difficult to make accurate edits.
So I've just been switching it off globally while I've been making any tuning adjustments, but doing it on just that one track is a much better option. Thanks to the OP!
__________________
"Mah blahkinned sole izz daw-kaw thawn thah blahkissed nye-eeeet!!!"
SQUONK SQUONK SQUEE!!! SQUIDONK SQUIDONK DONK SQUEE!!!
"Thah daaahhhk of thah nye-eeeet izz lye-eeek my-eee sole-aaah!!!"
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 09:37 AM
|
#8
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 237
|
One bad thing about anticipative fx processing is that all the graphical displays of you plugins like vu meters and stuff are also ahead of time. At the mixing stage this was a problem for me in one situation or the other.
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 01:20 PM
|
#9
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home is where the heart is
Posts: 12,109
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by serr
Also remember that you need to be pushing Reaper before ANY of the optimization preference settings have any noticeable effect. You can run a smaller session (say 50 tracks and 80 plugins) with everything set worst case wrong and experience no problems at all and it will seem like the settings do absolutely nothing (ie. you can't break it).
|
Thanks, this explains it probably as I rarely have really big sessions maxing out my computer.
I do notice the slightly ahead of time display though but I know this is to be expected (unavoidable).
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 03:49 PM
|
#10
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 12,792
|
So that if I dont use any reaper plugins in can turn it off globally?
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 06:59 PM
|
#11
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Too close to Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,554
|
Thanks for this topic serr!
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 07:04 PM
|
#12
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coachz
So that if I dont use any reaper plugins in can turn it off globally?
|
I am confused by this thread. I have messed with that setting so many times and every time the results lead me back to turning it back on globally. So as I read through this thread, I loaded up a rather large and CPU heavy session full of Nebula and multiple reverbs to test again. With anticipative FX enabled, I am seeing a 58% CPU load, with it off, it jumps to 70%. None of the plugins are Reaper fx... What am I missing here?
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 07:57 PM
|
#13
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,687
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by serr
It allows you to run a LOT more fx as mentioned. But it only works for Reaper plugins. It will actually make things worse for 3rd party vst/au plugins.
|
This is completely wrong. Anticipative FX processing works on ALL plug-ins, 3rd party or not. In fact, disabling this will severely cripple your performance on large projects with many FXs. Do not disable this, ever (and also keep that at its default value which is 200ms to minimize delays when playing/stoping projects).
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 08:01 PM
|
#14
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro
This is completely wrong. Anticipative FX processing works on ALL plug-ins, 3rd party or not. In fact, disabling this will severely cripple your performance on large projects with many FXs. Do not disable this, ever (and also keep that at its default value which is 200ms to minimize delays when playing/stoping projects).
|
This is exactly what ALL of my tests results told me. Now this thread is getting interesting...... I am actually not at all surprised by the idea that a Reaper setting can give wildly different results on different systems. Another example of that is the "inform plugins of offline state" setting......
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 08:13 PM
|
#15
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,687
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43
This is exactly what ALL of my tests results told me. Now this thread is getting interesting...... I am actually not at all surprised by the idea that a Reaper setting can give wildly different results on different systems. Another example of that is the "inform plugins of offline state" setting......
|
What happens when you disable this option in your case?
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 08:20 PM
|
#16
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro
What happens when you disable this option in your case?
|
I quoted you because I am agreeing with you. Read my post above (#12). When I disable Anticipative FX Processing my CPU goes nuts if I am doing a large project loaded with CPU intensive plugins.
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 08:21 PM
|
#17
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
Or are you asking what happens when I disable inform of offline state setting??
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 08:23 PM
|
#18
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,687
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43
Or are you asking what happens when I disable inform of offline state setting??
|
Yep, that's what I wanted to know
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 08:25 PM
|
#19
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro
Yep, that's what I wanted to know
|
Pm'ed you (to not derail this too much....)
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-07-2014, 10:41 PM
|
#20
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,008
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43
Pm'ed you (to not derail this too much....)
|
No, fight it out in here! In Jello!
__________________
"Mah blahkinned sole izz daw-kaw thawn thah blahkissed nye-eeeet!!!"
SQUONK SQUONK SQUEE!!! SQUIDONK SQUIDONK DONK SQUEE!!!
"Thah daaahhhk of thah nye-eeeet izz lye-eeek my-eee sole-aaah!!!"
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 05:24 AM
|
#21
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind Riot
No, fight it out in here! In Jello!
|
Bring me lime Jello, and you have got a fight!!
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 07:40 AM
|
#22
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43
I am confused by this thread. I have messed with that setting so many times and every time the results lead me back to turning it back on globally. So as I read through this thread, I loaded up a rather large and CPU heavy session full of Nebula and multiple reverbs to test again. With anticipative FX enabled, I am seeing a 58% CPU load, with it off, it jumps to 70%. None of the plugins are Reaper fx... What am I missing here?
|
I don't have any Nebula plugins. Perhaps this feature in fact works for them? (BTW are you using VST or AU or both?)
I can tell you that it works for none of my 3rd party plugins (Waves, UAD, Soundtoys). So it appeared to be intended for Reaper plugins only.
Using only Reaper plugins, the CPU load responds the same for me as you, with less load with anticipative FX enabled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro
This is completely wrong. Anticipative FX processing works on ALL plug-ins, 3rd party or not. In fact, disabling this will severely cripple your performance on large projects with many FXs. Do not disable this, ever (and also keep that at its default value which is 200ms to minimize delays when playing/stoping projects).
|
Wait. Does Spock have a beard in your world?
Seriously though, enabling anticipative FX processing severely disables my system with crippling clicks/pops/stuttering/red transport flashing buffer underrunning madness with any of my 3rd party plugins inserted. (And again, only for large sessions. Pretty much anything goes with no issues in small sessions for all the optimization settings.)
The exact opposite of your experience apparently!
Richie43 suggests this is case by case and not simply ALL 3rd party plugins.
Alright.
I don't have Nebula to test that theory here.
Mercado_Negro, can I venture a guess that your 3rd party plugins do NOT include Waves, UAD, or Soundtoys?
Did I happen to just coincidentally hit the target for 3rd party plugins that have issues?
That doesn't seem reasonable from the perspective of Waves and UAD being fairly big players in the industry (or so I've been led to believe).
Take a look at this post where I tested different combinations of 3rd party plugins and Reaper plugins with anticipative FX processing: http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php...3&postcount=55
My new discovery after that was the ability to turn it on globally and then disable it track by track as needed. This let me take advantage of anticipative FX processing where it worked but prevent it from crashing out on plugins it didn't like. So... this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43
Now this thread is getting interesting...... I am actually not at all surprised by the idea that a Reaper setting can give wildly different results on different systems.
|
Yeah... I want to get to the bottom of this though! That's just too ambiguous an answer. What specifically is different? We should actually be able to point directly to a bug in a plugin, or Reaper. Or a specific errant setting. Or operator error.
Gross operator errors like incorrect audio interface drivers, too slow hard drives for the job, to low latency set for the hardware limits, etc result in unstable operation with any size session. This curious issue only comes up in a large session.
Last edited by serr; 08-08-2014 at 08:16 AM.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 07:58 AM
|
#23
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 195
|
It could be the UAD plugs causing the different behavior for the OP. I would imagine they wouldn't be compatible with anticipative FX being that they are processed on a separate card.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 08:15 AM
|
#24
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by serr
Mercado_Negro, can I venture a guess that your 3rd party plugins do NOT include Waves, UAD, or Soundtoys?D
|
If Try disabling it for UAD only. I do use some Waves plugins and disabling it for Waves hurts my performance, not helps. But it says right in the tips on prefs (on a PC at least) that anticipative fx processing should be disabled for UAD plugins specifically.
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 08:29 AM
|
#25
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkcloud2973
It could be the UAD plugs causing the different behavior for the OP. I would imagine they wouldn't be compatible with anticipative FX being that they are processed on a separate card.
|
Yep. And I sort of expected this with UAD's old obsolete PCI card system.
But what about Waves and Soundtoys?
It seemed reasonable to take that note from Reaper preferences as applying to any 3rd party (and they were just mentioning UAD by name for example).
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 08:36 AM
|
#26
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43
If Try disabling it for UAD only. I do use some Waves plugins and disabling it for Waves hurts my performance, not helps. But it says right in the tips on prefs (on a PC at least) that anticipative fx processing should be disabled for UAD plugins specifically.
|
I did try that. Take a look at this post where I tested different combinations of 3rd party plugins and Reaper plugins with anticipative FX processing: http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php...3&postcount=55
Hurts your performance even in large sessions?
Waves respond to this FAR worse than UAD plugins BTW. Grinds Reaper to a stop. Between Waves, UAD, and Soundtoys, UAD have the least trouble with anticipative fx processing.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 08:43 AM
|
#27
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by serr
I did try that. Take a look at this post where I tested different combinations of 3rd party plugins and Reaper plugins with anticipative FX processing: http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php...3&postcount=55
Hurts your performance even in large sessions?
Waves respond to this FAR worse than UAD plugins BTW. Grinds Reaper to a stop. Between Waves, UAD, and Soundtoys, UAD have the least trouble with anticipative fx processing.
|
I am getting the idea that this is either system specific (hardware even) or a Mac vs PC thing... In large sessions of mine, I have never found a performance gain by disabling anticipative fx processing. Quite the contrary and 100% consistently hurts my performance to disable it (I do not use any UAD and am on PC).
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 09:02 AM
|
#28
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43
I am getting the idea that this is either system specific (hardware even) or a Mac vs PC thing... In large sessions of mine, I have never found a performance gain by disabling anticipative fx processing. Quite the contrary and 100% consistently hurts my performance to disable it (I do not use any UAD and am on PC).
|
If it's hardware related...
1st: It's not an issue getting data from the drives. I even tried audio on multiple SSD's just for the exercise. Live sound (which removes the data coming from a drive part) followed the same issues as recorded when I tested that theory. (See that other post again for the blow by blow.) We're talking about 30MB/s worth of data here at most for this exercise.
Connection to the interface(s)?
Same exact response between MOTU 828mk3, MOTU 828mk2, Apogee Rosetta800-192k, and any aggregate combinations of them.
I can run live sound with a 128 sample disc buffer + record it to multitrack. Not even one small glitch in 5 years of doing this.
Is that not a benchmark for the hardware?
What have I just not considered trying yet?
Reaper with less than 100 tracks:
"You can't stop me! Live sound + recording all the inputs? That all you got? Bring it! Degrading performance settings? Haha. Not even going to have any effect. What else you got?!"
Reaper with over 100 tracks:
"Whoa there! Careful son! This is hard work you know!"
I honestly feel like this has either got to be operator error somewhere or Reaper has some internal buffering conflict at higher track counts but I'm running out of ideas to try.
Last edited by serr; 08-08-2014 at 09:18 AM.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 09:41 AM
|
#29
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
I am out of ideas as well.......
My tests may be not as relevant to you either because I only load my projects with fx (and punish the CPU) at mixing stage, almost never at low latency tracking phase. But I can run over 100 tracks and not see other than expected differences between that and "only" 100.
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 10:18 AM
|
#30
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,632
|
Here's the one clue I've come across and why I think there's a buffering faux pas in Reaper somewhere:
When I have a session that is close to the edge (one or 2 more heavy-ish plugins would push it over the edge for processing), this can happen when recording a new track:
The new track can contain buffer-underrun glitches that are evenly spaced out by the size the disc buffer is set to. (eg. Disc buffer at 1024 - glitches every 1024 samples. 2048 - glitches every 2048 samples. etc).
BUT IT HAPPENS RANDOMLY!
You can record a new track 10 times in a row and maybe only 3 of the takes will have the buffer-underrun glitches. The entire recorded track will have the glitches (they don't start in the middle or any arbitrary point that might correspond to system use). The take's 'fate' is sealed the moment you press record as it were.
And not only that:
You can assign the same input to say, 10 tracks and hit record on all of them. (This would produce 10 identical takes as they all come from the same input.) 2 or 3 of the 10 identical takes will have the buffer-underrun glitches and the rest will be perfectly recorded glitch free takes!
Now of course you can push a session OVER the edge to the point that ALL new recorded takes (in this test scenario) have buffer-underrun glitches.
But this close to the edge random behavior...
There has just got to be a clue here!
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 10:42 AM
|
#31
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by serr
Here's the one clue I've come across and why I think there's a buffering faux pas in Reaper somewhere:
When I have a session that is close to the edge (one or 2 more heavy-ish plugins would push it over the edge for processing), this can happen when recording a new track:
The new track can contain buffer-underrun glitches that are evenly spaced out by the size the disc buffer is set to. (eg. Disc buffer at 1024 - glitches every 1024 samples. 2048 - glitches every 2048 samples. etc).
BUT IT HAPPENS RANDOMLY!
You can record a new track 10 times in a row and maybe only 3 of the takes will have the buffer-underrun glitches. The entire recorded track will have the glitches (they don't start in the middle or any arbitrary point that might correspond to system use). The take's 'fate' is sealed the moment you press record as it were.
And not only that:
You can assign the same input to say, 10 tracks and hit record on all of them. (This would produce 10 identical takes as they all come from the same input.) 2 or 3 of the 10 identical takes will have the buffer-underrun glitches and the rest will be perfectly recorded glitch free takes!
Now of course you can push a session OVER the edge to the point that ALL new recorded takes (in this test scenario) have buffer-underrun glitches.
But this close to the edge random behavior...
There has just got to be a clue here!
|
Have you gotten this same weird behavior using a different system too?
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 10:58 AM
|
#32
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,687
|
I've mixed 130+ tracks projects with a lot of Waves (CLA Compressors mostly), Soundtoys (Echoboy, many many of them per session and in FX tracks only which also involves sends/receives which add to the performance hit), Cytomic, Slate VBC/VTM/VCC (a lot of them as well but as inserts), U-he Satin, Softube, Sonimus SatSon on each channel! etc., etc... and I just have a core i7-3770k with 16GB RAM and a GeForce GT520, running my projects from a solid state HDD. Also, we mix/record/master/edit at 96kHz (unless it is for video which we do at 48kHz). I can run like 150 plug-ins or more with my setup IF anticipative FX processing is ON... if I disable this then I can run like 60 and that's being lucky. Oh, and I mix at 512 samples buffer size, always.
I suspect your problem is not in REAPER (plug-ins either), but your hardware. Setup, drivers, etc.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 11:02 AM
|
#33
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,687
|
Also, having Ancipative FX processing ON while recording in tracks with tons of plug-ins (or folders with several children and plug-ins in them) is probably a bad idea. I never disable this option but I know what I can and what I can't do while recording and how much power I can use.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 11:15 AM
|
#34
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro
I've mixed 130+ tracks projects with a lot of Waves (CLA Compressors mostly), Soundtoys (Echoboy, many many of them per session and in FX tracks only which also involves sends/receives which add to the performance hit), Cytomic, Slate VBC/VTM/VCC (a lot of them as well but as inserts), U-he Satin, Softube, Sonimus SatSon on each channel! etc., etc... and I just have a core i7-3770k with 16GB RAM and a GeForce GT520, running my projects from a solid state HDD. Also, we mix/record/master/edit at 96kHz (unless it is for video which we do at 48kHz). I can run like 150 plug-ins or more with my setup IF anticipative FX processing is ON... if I disable this then I can run like 60 and that's being lucky. Oh, and I mix at 512 samples buffer size, always.
I suspect your problem is not in REAPER (plug-ins either), but your hardware. Setup, drivers, etc.
|
Drivers are up to date and correct. I can run at very low latency for live sound work (with only 36 tracks of inputs of course).
I mean, your logic is sound and I can't argue with that!
So if this is operator error (which I would just LOVE to discover), what did I miss here?
PS. I never record into tracks with plugins inserted. It just never comes up the way I track. I never use folder tracks either. I use standard Reaper tracks for everything since tracks can be used as bus tracks now.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 11:19 AM
|
#35
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by serr
I never use folder tracks either. I use standard Reaper tracks for everything since tracks can be used as bus tracks now.
|
Try using folders instead of buss tracks, as an experiment. That is something that Mercado is referring to: I have not ever understood this, but the CPU hit is huge when using a ton of routed busses or fx sends and MUCH less if using the same track count and same plugins but as folders instead. I am betting we are close to an answer.
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 11:31 AM
|
#36
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43
Try using folders instead of buss tracks, as an experiment. That is something that Mercado is referring to: I have not ever understood this, but the CPU hit is huge when using a ton of routed busses or fx sends and MUCH less if using the same track count and same plugins but as folders instead. I am betting we are close to an answer.
|
Hey, a clue! Alright. I'll report back later.
Probably only possible to redo the mix signal rerouting with the folder tracks method right? I don't think you could simultaneously send to an fx bus while routing to a (folder track) subgroup bus without using a send.
And thank you to everyone following along and offering suggestions! Very much appreciated!
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 11:48 AM
|
#37
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
i forgot all about this. I split the difference, as I do need some sends. But I use folders instead of busses now for any track groupings and sub-mixes (times that I would rather use sends...), and only if the project is big AND I need a ton of plugins. Maybe one day we will know WHY the CPU usage is so different between busses and folders when using the same plugins and tracks. DEFINITELY keep us posted, I saw your other threads about this a long time ago....
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 12:24 PM
|
#38
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,687
|
I do use a lot of sends and this is where REAPER falls apart (Dax and me are investigating this but since we're very busy atm we haven't progressed too much. Justin has been very open on this and that's positive). For bussing/grouping purposes: Folder Tracks all the way.
Also, bridged plug-ins are killers as well, avoid them as much as you can. Plug-ins with tons of latency shouldn't be used on folder tracks or tracks receiving signals, this hits the system as well pretty hard.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 12:59 PM
|
#39
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro
Plug-ins with tons of latency shouldn't be used on folder tracks or tracks receiving signals, this hits the system as well pretty hard.
|
Nebula buss presets and Nebula compressors...... Ouch.
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
|
|
|
08-08-2014, 01:02 PM
|
#40
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,687
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43
Nebula buss presets and Nebula compressors...... Ouch.
|
Yep, that's why I don't use Nebula too much lately.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:43 PM.
|