Old 01-22-2018, 08:08 AM   #1
Lorenzo
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3
Default Session structure for best performance

Dear Reaper Community,

this is my first post but I am a long time Reaper User. Go Reaper!

I mostly do Mastering which means low track count with a few CPU hog plugins in a row.

My Session structure is:

1 Track for soloing original routed to master bus(Muted when not soloed).

1 Track for playing back audio routed to Group1-)Group2-)Group3-)Track with record output for recording the mastered audio-)Track for level offset-)master bus.

Each of the Groups is a processing step:EQ-)DS-)Comp-)EQ-)Analog insert-)Limiter

I did a stresstest CPU 60%/RT CPU 8% @buffer 64 samples in the soundcard Result: occasional clicks and stutter(especially when soloing).

The same test with 512 samples buffer: CPU 20%/ RT CPU 200%

When I increase the buffer of my soundcard the RT CPU goes thru the roof.

I tried every option (in the buffer preferences) I can think of with no success.
I also tried every plugin bridging option with no success.
Disabling the Plugin PDC didn't help.
All plugins on 1 track doesn't work as well.

I would highly apreciate someone explaining me what is going on.

Platform: Win 10/AMD Threadripper 1950X/32GB Ram/RME HDSPe AES(with MMCSS enabled)
Plugins: DMG, Fabfilter, TDR, Acustica audio

Thanks a lot
Lorenzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018, 02:36 PM   #2
Philbo King
Human being with feelings
 
Philbo King's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 3,201
Default

I have little advice for you, except:
- Don't put FX on the master track (CPU use shoots up). Instead create a master folder for those FX with source track(s) as children.
- From your post it sounds as though you do real-time recording of the final track. This might be to take advantage of primo quality D/As? Anyway, if so, consider just rendering your output to a file.
- You can do 'freezing' of your groups, one at a time. This removes the CPU load of whatever FX are in that group by doing a sub-render with FX of that track and taking its FX offline. It is completely undo-able AFAIK.
- It is possible to associate FX with a particular CPU core, though I don't have any specifics for you off the top of my head.

The buffer thing seems odd. I'd start by verifying your audio interface drivers are up to date. And it might be time well spent experimenting with that buffer size and taking notes as you go. You might be able to find a sweet spot.

Last edited by Philbo King; 01-23-2018 at 02:45 PM.
Philbo King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2018, 07:15 AM   #3
Jason Lyon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philbo King View Post
- Don't put FX on the master track (CPU use shoots up). Instead create a master folder for those FX with source track(s) as children.
Apologies to Lorenzo, but I'm curious about Philbo's point here. Is this demonstrably true? If so, would creating a sort of "finalising FX buss" track and routing everything through it, then treating the Master as nothing more than a trim fader lead to better CPU performance?
Jason Lyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2018, 10:29 AM   #4
Lorenzo
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3
Default

Hi Philbo,

thanks for the reply.

I didn't get the Parent/Children/masterfolder thing.
I believe routing is not possible in both ways when the tracks are in the same folder?
Freezing tracks is not really an option for me.

Meanwhile I have a "workaround" which I have to check under real life circumstances.

Run @64 Samples, increase Mediabuffer and protect Reaper with dedicated only reaper CPU cores.

But the main thing still is that when the tracks are routed one into the other the RT CPU starts freaking out @ higher latencies.

I guess this must be something fundamental
Lorenzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2018, 03:45 PM   #5
Philbo King
Human being with feelings
 
Philbo King's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 3,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Lyon View Post
Apologies to Lorenzo, but I'm curious about Philbo's point here. Is this demonstrably true? If so, would creating a sort of "finalising FX buss" track and routing everything through it, then treating the Master as nothing more than a trim fader lead to better CPU performance?
This is 'word on the street' in the forum. I've seen it mentioned multiple times, but haven't verified it myself.
https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...5&postcount=21
https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...62&postcount=8
https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...07&postcount=4
https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...4&postcount=35

Last edited by Philbo King; 01-24-2018 at 04:02 PM.
Philbo King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2018, 03:51 PM   #6
Philbo King
Human being with feelings
 
Philbo King's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 3,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorenzo View Post
Hi Philbo,

thanks for the reply.

I didn't get the Parent/Children/masterfolder thing.
I believe routing is not possible in both ways when the tracks are in the same folder?
I've never run into any situation where having a track in a folder limits routing in any way. You can easily route a send from a track in a folder to any other track. All the folder does is create a stem mix of all the items in that folder: Tracks and other (sub)folders. That stem mix then is sent to the Master track (by default).

What do you mean by 'both ways'?
Philbo King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2018, 10:01 PM   #7
Jason Lyon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philbo King View Post
Well, proof of the pudding is in. I've tried it on an FX chain, including among other things a CPU-guzzler of a Tube Saturator, which I previously used for post-mixing. Now I can run it inline on real big jobs.

Part of me's interested to know why and is curious why REAPER architecture has this issue on the Master track.
Part of me wonders whether a fix is possible and might feature in an upcoming update. If it can be fixed, I'd say it's a priority - after all, why have the Master FXable at all, if it's not optimised?
But most of me is just happy it works.

Thanks for pointing it out (and if you're lurking Dr Bob, thanks to you too).
Jason Lyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2018, 02:34 AM   #8
Philbo King
Human being with feelings
 
Philbo King's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 3,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Lyon View Post
Well, proof of the pudding is in. I've tried it on an FX chain, including among other things a CPU-guzzler of a Tube Saturator, which I previously used for post-mixing. Now I can run it inline on real big jobs.

Part of me's interested to know why and is curious why REAPER architecture has this issue on the Master track.
Part of me wonders whether a fix is possible and might feature in an upcoming update. If it can be fixed, I'd say it's a priority - after all, why have the Master FXable at all, if it's not optimised?
But most of me is just happy it works.

Thanks for pointing it out (and if you're lurking Dr Bob, thanks to you too).

It's possible this problem varies according to the multicore arrangement. Hard to collect data like that with only one PC...|
Philbo King is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.