Old 02-19-2017, 08:44 AM   #1
borg64
Human being with feelings
 
borg64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 75
Default FX on folder tracks more CPU demanding?

Hey Reaper folks!

I use folder tracks as busses a lot when mixing in Reaper. For example, I usually put all my drum tracks under a folder track called DRUM BUSS, which often also contains nested folder tracks (e.g. Kick Buss, Snare BUSS, OH Buss, Perc Buss etc.). I work like this mainly for two reasons; easy to mute/solo entire sections as this approach fits my preferred mix project layout (most of my client mixes creep up to around, or well above, 100 tracks these days), but also to apply general (often more CPU intensive) FX processing to the whole buss folder rather than on individual tracks.

When inserting more CPU-taxing AUs/VSTs on these folder tracks, I often get a lot more glitching/pops/clicks than if I use the very same FX on the ”child” tracks - I can get away with loads of instances of these FX on the child tracks, but may experience dropouts with just singular use on folders.

The most obvious occurrence is when I create a top master folder for all my other folder and tracks (i.e. a 2BUSS folder, nesting the rest of the project contents underneath), which then goes to my MASTER track. If I insert a buss compressor and EQ on the 2BUSS folder, the system occasionally gets bogged down quite fast. If I instead move these FX to the MASTER track, system runs smooth again.

Is this behaviour to be expected? I’m going to try routing stuff ’the old fashioned way’ and create AUX tracks with sends/receives for my next mix project, but just wanted to check if there’s something I’m missing here.

Reaper version is 5.33/64 bit on a Mac Pro 2012 with 3.33 GHz 6-core Xeon and 24 GB of RAM running OS X 10.9.5. My system, mix and audio library disks are on three separate SSD:s from Angelbird.

Many thanks for your time!

Sven
__________________
Mixing, mastering and too much coffee.

Borglab website and Borglab on Twitter.
borg64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 08:50 PM   #2
Sweet4
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 11
Default

5.35 and 5.40 version better with cpu and plugins like SLATE DIGITAL 32bit handles better on my el capitan
Sweet4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2017, 06:43 PM   #3
borg64
Human being with feelings
 
borg64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet4 View Post
5.35 and 5.40 version better with cpu and plugins like SLATE DIGITAL 32bit handles better on my el capitan
Hey Sweet4 and thanks for the reply,

This doesn’t seem to be a CPU vs. specific plugins issue; it seems related to the handling of folder tracks in Reaper. I work strictly in the 64 bit version.

Happy weekend!

//Sven
__________________
Mixing, mastering and too much coffee.

Borglab website and Borglab on Twitter.
borg64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2017, 01:22 AM   #4
vanhaze
Human being with feelings
 
vanhaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,771
Default

Because plugins on MASTER Track don't benefit from anticipative processing, it's always advised to make a folder track in which al tracks are nested, so this folder
track serves as the master track.
Just like you do.
So, The fact that you get better performance when placing the "master plugins" on Reaper Master Track instead of the "master folder track" is weird imho.

The other issue you describe: better performance when placing plugins on individual child tracks instead of their folder track is something hopefully someone can explain, enlighten about.
Would like to know if this true ..




Quote:
Originally Posted by borg64 View Post
Hey Reaper folks!

I use folder tracks as busses a lot when mixing in Reaper. For example, I usually put all my drum tracks under a folder track called DRUM BUSS, which often also contains nested folder tracks (e.g. Kick Buss, Snare BUSS, OH Buss, Perc Buss etc.). I work like this mainly for two reasons; easy to mute/solo entire sections as this approach fits my preferred mix project layout (most of my client mixes creep up to around, or well above, 100 tracks these days), but also to apply general (often more CPU intensive) FX processing to the whole buss folder rather than on individual tracks.

When inserting more CPU-taxing AUs/VSTs on these folder tracks, I often get a lot more glitching/pops/clicks than if I use the very same FX on the ”child” tracks - I can get away with loads of instances of these FX on the child tracks, but may experience dropouts with just singular use on folders.

The most obvious occurrence is when I create a top master folder for all my other folder and tracks (i.e. a 2BUSS folder, nesting the rest of the project contents underneath), which then goes to my MASTER track. If I insert a buss compressor and EQ on the 2BUSS folder, the system occasionally gets bogged down quite fast. If I instead move these FX to the MASTER track, system runs smooth again.

Is this behaviour to be expected? I’m going to try routing stuff ’the old fashioned way’ and create AUX tracks with sends/receives for my next mix project, but just wanted to check if there’s something I’m missing here.

Reaper version is 5.33/64 bit on a Mac Pro 2012 with 3.33 GHz 6-core Xeon and 24 GB of RAM running OS X 10.9.5. My system, mix and audio library disks are on three separate SSD:s from Angelbird.

Many thanks for your time!

Sven
vanhaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2017, 06:53 PM   #5
borg64
Human being with feelings
 
borg64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanhaze View Post
Because plugins on MASTER Track don't benefit from anticipative processing, it's always advised to make a folder track in which al tracks are nested, so this folder
track serves as the master track.
Just like you do.
So, The fact that you get better performance when placing the "master plugins" on Reaper Master Track instead of the "master folder track" is weird imho.

The other issue you describe: better performance when placing plugins on individual child tracks instead of their folder track is something hopefully someone can explain, enlighten about.
Would like to know if this true ..
Hey vanhaze,

Thanks for your input!

To clarify, if I create another folder track above my 2BUSS folder track (i.e. an EXTRA 2BUSS folder, which nests everything beneath including the 2BUSS) and move my 2BUSS plugins there instead, performance is back to normal. As is plugins inserted directly on the actual Master Out track, as long as I have an empty 2BUSS folder ”between” the Master Out and the rest of the session tracks. E.g. the empty track is nesting everything else, before it hits the Master Out.

This is definitely a functioning workaround, but I’d rather not have to layout my sessions this way as it occasionally becomes overly complicated when there's subsequent folder tracks, which in turn may (or must, depending on how the CPU is reacting) contain even more folder tracks ”between” child tracks and the BUSS folders. Maybe I’m just abusing folder tracks too much.

The more child tracks summed to a folder (e.g. a buss), the more punishment on the CPU perfomance on these buss/folder plugins. So a 2BUSS folder, nesting the entire session directly underneath it, becomes unusable for less CPU-economic plugins. In this case I leave the 2BUSS folder empty and just use it for session automation, then put my master FX on the actual Master Out track.

If this is to be expected due to how Reaper sums child tracks, I will happily continue creating these in-between CPU-saving folder tracks. But it just feels like a bug right now, and I wanted to check if I’m doing something wrong here. Which is quite possibly the case.

Apologies if this made no sense whatsoever, maybe I should screenshot this…

Have a nice weekend!

//Sven
__________________
Mixing, mastering and too much coffee.

Borglab website and Borglab on Twitter.
borg64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2017, 07:34 AM   #6
vanhaze
Human being with feelings
 
vanhaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,771
Default

I gotcha, well explained.

Would be nice if we could get official Cockos statement / clearification about this.
vanhaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2017, 12:35 PM   #7
Lokasenna
Human being with feelings
 
Lokasenna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,076
Default

I just did a quick test, making ten nested folders and putting the same FX chain on each folder track. There was no difference in CPU usage for any of them.

Not a particularly thorough test, I'll admit.
Lokasenna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2017, 01:49 PM   #8
mlprod
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 661
Default

I have the same experience here Sven. Moving plugins from the Master folder track to the master track easesn up the burden on the CPU a little bit.

Its definitely the case that reaper gets hit with more CPU load when having a really folder based work flow with lots of plugins/processing on busses (folders).
mlprod is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2017, 05:47 AM   #9
borg64
Human being with feelings
 
borg64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna View Post
I just did a quick test, making ten nested folders and putting the same FX chain on each folder track. There was no difference in CPU usage for any of them.

Not a particularly thorough test, I'll admit.
Hey Lokasenna!

It seems more likely to happen with larger projects and more CPU-demanding plugins, especially when there are lots of child tracks and folders underneath. I guess there’s some complex math happening under the hood when the parent folder track does its summing of nested child tracks and folders, but I only notice the bad hit performance-wise when there are plugins on the immediate parent track.

I’ve noticed this happen with only light processing on the child tracks, it’s the heavier stuff on the immediate parent folders that causes the issue here.

//Sven
__________________
Mixing, mastering and too much coffee.

Borglab website and Borglab on Twitter.
borg64 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 04:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.