do mono tracks always use double the CPU?

[bruce]

Originally Posted by XoechZ

Well, that's what send FX are made for :-)

It's true that sends could be used as a work around, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that's what they are for. I think most people would find it an awkward work-around to use sends for all their effects just because of a strange limitation in the insert effects architecture.

[XoechZ]

Originally Posted by bruce

It's true that sends could be used as a work around, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that's what they are for. I think most people would find it an awkward work-around to use sends for all their effects just because of a strange limitation in the insert effects architecture.

Ok, maybe I'm an old fashioned guy, but this is no work-around. This is standard audio signal processing. You can read this in every book about mixing.

Just think of harware mixing consoles. You have mono channels and stereo channels. Of course there you would bring every mono signal to a mono channel. You can insert mono FX there. If you use a stereo FX on that channel you can either connect the left or right (usually left) inputs and outputs of the FX. So your FX becomes mono. I think most plug-ins work this way too.

So, if you want stereo processing you build a send from the mono to a stereo channel.

Of course, with modern digital DAWs like Reaper, you are no longer tied to these "limitations". You can mix any kinds of signals on one channel and build crazy routings which would never be possible on a hardwware console.

All I wanted to say is, if true mono channels can save ressources and are not too hard to integrate into Reaper, why can't we have them? All the guys who don't want to think about this don't have to use them :-)


Greetings,

XoechZ

[bruce]

Originally Posted by XoechZ

All I wanted to say is, if true mono channels can save ressources and are not too hard to integrate into Reaper, why can't we have them? All the guys who don't want to think about this don't have to use them
XoechZ

Totally agree. Apologies for implying otherwise.

[Fingle]

Originally Posted by XoechZ

Well, that's what send FX are made for :-)

for sure, but it can't be the only way.

i don't think to make a new bus for every stereo FX is a good way to work. even if it's the same stereo chorus, it doesn't mean i want to use the same settings for all sources.

[Fingle]

Originally Posted by XoechZ

Ok, maybe I'm an old fashioned guy, but this is no work-around. This is standard audio signal processing. You can read this in every book about mixing. Just think of harware mixing consoles....

respectfully, imo it's something like "cds are not as good as vinyls because they don't have treir limitations".

the "standard way of working" is a limitation itself, we have to look foward.

[XoechZ]

Sure, everyone has a different workflow. And Reaper opens possibilities for all kinds of users and workflows.

I, for myself, have learned it the "standard way" and I am used to it. Send tracks and busses are much easier to handle for me than insert FX.

For example: If you have added chorus on a track and during mixing you think you added too much chorus. For me it is much easier to just lower the fader of the chorus channel than to open the FX window and adjust dry/wet mix.

But as said above, Reaper is flexible enough to suit everyones needs. In my opinion true mono tracks would be a good and useful addition to it. And maybe I am not tho only one who thinks this way and one day we will get them.

Greetings,

XoechZ

[Dstruct]

Is REAPER fully complying with the VST specs at all? I don't think so (when looking at Steinberg Cubase/Nuendo mixer).

No proper mono channel in REAPER. No proper surround capabilities yet. Sidechain handling is much more user friendly with VST3 and so on ...

[Mich]

Originally Posted by Dstruct

Is REAPER fully complying with the VST specs at all? I don't think so ...

I think if you can point out _exactly_ where REAPER isn't "fully complying with the VST specs" (with an appropriate reference to the SDK) Cockos will be glad to fix it.

[bruce]

Originally Posted by Mich

I think if you can point out _exactly_ where REAPER isn't "fully complying with the VST specs" (with an appropriate reference to the SDK) Cockos will be glad to fix it.

As an amateur plug-in author (and the originator of this thread), it is my belief that there is nothing incorrect or non-compliant about Reaper's VST implementation.

Of course there is not an official spec at all for VST, there are just a bunch of things a plug-in or host can do, and some informal conventions about how all this should work together.

It's true that some hosts (nubase) support more of VST. In particular the negotiation of stem formats seems to be done mostly through vst's setSpeakerArrangement(), which Reaper does not use AFAIK.

But it's really a question of how Reaper has chosen to handle tracks and channels. As far as the VST implementation, as I said, it seems very solid.

re VST3 - I wish more hosts supported it. It does address a lot of issues with VST2, including the side-chain issue, but also many more.

Most people who are already married to VST2 don't want the extra drudgery of porting to VST3 (which is non-trivial). So VST3 has been languishing, with only a few major supporters (cubase, waves).

Maybe that will change with the new VST31 sdk, which supposedly makes it trivial to a VST3 plugin to function as a VST2.4 also.

[Fingle]

wow! per FX Mono/Stereo option!!

http://forum.cockos.com/attachment.p...1&d=1281657761

[XoechZ]

Originally Posted by Fingle

wow! per FX Mono/Stereo option!!

http://forum.cockos.com/attachment.p...1&d=1281657761

Never seen that. Is this a fake or real?

If it's real, how does it work?

[Fingle]

this is not real (yet) just a suggestion :]

[XoechZ]

Ok :-)

I think this suggestion would not make much sense.

[bruce]

I don't know if it's the best solution, but I think it makes some amount of sense.

The problem, at the moment is that when you have a track with (for example) a mono source, and you add a plug-in that can process multiple channels, Reaper really doesn't know what you want to do.

So it defaults to the most general, least efficient thing it can do. The proposed UI on the plug-in is a bit strange, but it has the advantage of explicitly addressing the issue in an unambiguous way.

Personally, I still prefer what I think of as the conventional way: if you put a plugin after a mono source (wave file), Reaper would ask the plug-in: hey, would you like to configure yourself as a 1-in 1-out plugin? Most plug-is would say "sure", and end of story, no wasted CPU.

Other plug-ins (that are explicitly mono in stereo out) would answer "no, how about 1 in 2 out?".

[ this imaginary dialog is (I think) what the setSpearkerArrangement() function is all about. ]

[Kainz]

Hmh, I really think this wouldn't make that much of sense. Granted it could save tiny bit of CPU on some cases, but generally speaking it isn't worth it. Routing-wise plugin "pins" are enough, and thats about the only thing where I'd ever want to use pure mono tracks. Oh well, of course the CPU thing but bleh..

That said, if there really hast to be an option for this I think Adam's "1 channel method" would be a perfect way to do this. I think I might use it occasionally on some mono reverbs and thus, but thats about it heh.

[bruce]

Originally Posted by Kainz

tiny bit of CPU on some cases

I stand by my original assertion: the current architecture wastes fully half of your CPU in very, very, very common cases.

If all of the following are true:

1) Most of your tracks have mono sources (typical examples: drum mics, vocals, guitars (or their virtual equivalent)).

2) Most of your effects are channel inserts, and not on stereo buses.

I know all sessions are not like this, but many are.

I know many people never use all their CPU, and don't care. But I would be pretty reluctant to updgrade my computer to get more CPU knowing that Reaper is throwing away half of it.

[Kainz]

Of course more efficient is better - in no way am I against that - but I'm not entirely sure if the change in the core of channel architecture system is really worth it all? Perhaps, perhaps not. As a side not, I find it funny - especially in this context - that even with the current implemention I get more power out of my computer with Reaper than with Nuendo =)

[tls11823]

Originally Posted by Kainz

...even with the current implemention I get more power out of my computer with Reaper than with Nuendo =)

I'm also getting better performance out of Reaper than I ever did with Sonar - and I've only been using Reaper for about a week. I can't wait until I know what I'm doing! There were projects with multiple soft synths that would have had me reaching for the Freeze button in Sonar, but they just fly along in Reaper.

[Klinke]

Originally Posted by bruce

Reaper would ask the plug-in: hey, would you like to configure yourself as a 1-in 1-out plugin? Most plug-is would say "sure",

I doubt this. From my experience developing a host (and also plugins) this would only work, if the plugin supports the speaker-configuration extension of the VST specs. Some years ago nearly no plugin (and host) supported this, and i don't remember the details, but beside the bad documentation from Steinberg there where also other good reasons to avoid this part of VST. But maybe the situation has changed in the last three years.

[bruce]

I know that Juce supports setSpeakerArrangement. Obviously Nuendo (and presumably Cubase) do too.

I'm sure you are right that there are a ton of plug-ins that don't. I know that mine will as soon as I get my hands on a copy of Cubase so I can test out the trivial change to support it.

I don't know if Juce plug-ins automatically inherit the mono/stereo ability, or if devs actually have to think about it (I don't use Juce).

I also don't know if IPlug support it, but I assume not since Reaper doesn't.

You are right that the spec for the protocol is (like most of VST2.4) not written very well. It looks to me, however, that if you just try it out (and maybe peek at the Juce code) that is can't be very hard to figure out.

[Tale]

Originally Posted by bruce

I also don't know if IPlug support it, but I assume not since Reaper doesn't.

Actually IPlug does support get/setSpeakerArrangement.

[Klinke]

Originally Posted by bruce

I don't know if Juce plug-ins automatically inherit the mono/stereo ability, or if devs actually have to think about it (I don't use Juce).

I use JUCE, but the last time i wrote audio-related code is some years ago, so i don't know it for sure neither ;-) But the code fragment from the JUCE forum in the link you posted looks like it must be handled from the plugin itself.

[Fingle]

Originally Posted by XoechZ

Ok :-)

I think this suggestion would not make much sense.

we spend a lot of time tweaking each fx parameter , why not to spend some seconds to set it to mono or stereo and save cpu?

i'm not against mono tracks, i asked for it 2 years ago:
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=27636

both suggestions do make perfect sense for those who don't have a very fast cpu.

but anyway, it's a fact. reaper uses less (veeery less) cpu than all the other daws that i know, even without these changes :]

[XoechZ]

Originally Posted by Fingle

we spend a lot of time tweaking each fx parameter , why not to spend some seconds to set it to mono or stereo and save cpu?

Hey Fingle!

I said it would not make much sense because you never know how differend plug-ins work/act with this setting.

Mono source - set plug-in to mono - ok
Stereo source - set plug-in to stereo - ok

But:

What can you expect (or do you want to) if you put a plug in on a mono source and click stereo? Same if you insert a plug-in on a stereo source and click mono?


I still think the best and simplest solution would be dedicated mono tracks (1 track count).


XoechZ

[Fingle]

Originally Posted by XoechZ

What can you expect (or do you want to) if you put a plug in on a mono source and click stereo? Same if you insert a plug-in on a stereo source and click mono?

no one who knows a little about audio would do that. but answering the question:

1- mono source + stereo plugin
the mono signal would feed both L and R inputs of the stereo plugin

2- stereo source + mono plugin
both L and R signals would be reduced by 6db, mixed into one mono signal that would feed the mono input of the plugin

pretty simple, nothing would explode...

[Evan]

Mono VU meters also please. The current fixed stereo meter could be made with two mono meters. And then we can have an odd number of meters (e.g. 5) on tracks with an equal number of odd channels.

Aesthetics aside, a clearly designated mono meter in the mixer also has visual-organizational benefits. Knowing, at a glance, which tracks are mono, stereo, or multi-channel adds an extra boost in efficiency.

[Fingle]

Originally Posted by Evan

Aesthetics aside, a clearly designated mono meter in the mixer also has visual-organizational benefits. Knowing, at a glance, which tracks are mono, stereo, or multi-channel adds an extra boost in efficiency.

+1 for sure!

[Shan]

Originally Posted by Evan

Aesthetics aside, a clearly designated mono meter in the mixer also has visual-organizational benefits. Knowing, at a glance, which tracks are mono, stereo, or multi-channel adds an extra boost in efficiency.

A big + 1 to that, and the very reason I'd like to see them.

Shane

[Banned]

Mono mode ftfw.

+1.

[nikki-k]

Just found this thread...
HUGE +1000000000000 for mono please!!!

[kingocounty]

Just wanted to bump this and request mono tracks also. I use Decapitator on most of my tracks (which are all mono) and the CPU savings would be huge for me!

[Blandry]

+1000000

[kingocounty]

I've added a feature request for this located here:

http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?issueid=3344

[Mercado_Negro]

+1 for "minimum track channel count to 1"

I never tried this before but in all cases I tried here, changing the plug-ins' pins to:



saved twice the CPU.

[Billoon]

Cockos, please give us the 1 track channel option.

I (along with many others) am using plugins that can switch between mono and stereo as required. The CPU saving would be vey nice to have but there's another reason I think this is important.

At least one plugin of these plugins (Slate VTM) and maybe a few others, unavoidably introduces crosstalk when processing as stereo. As Reaper always forces the plugin into stereo mode, this cannot be avoided on mono signals/items, which obviously is undesireable from a sound quality point of view as it 'smears' the signal.

The 'smearing' is nice in small quantities ie, on the master, but I don't want this on every track. Other daws that have dedicated mono tracks don't have this problem and we shouldn't either.

Yes, I could change my daw or not use the plugin on mono tracks but I don't want to do either of those things, Reaper should just handle this properly.

[zillboe]

Originally Posted by Billoon

Cockos, please give us the 1 track channel option.

I (along with many others) am using plugins that can switch between mono and stereo as required. The CPU saving would be vey nice to have but there's another reason I think this is important.

At least one plugin of these plugins (Slate VTM) and maybe a few others, unavoidably introduces crosstalk when processing as stereo. As Reaper always forces the plugin into stereo mode, this cannot be avoided on mono signals/items, which obviously is undesireable from a sound quality point of view as it 'smears' the signal.

The 'smearing' is nice in small quantities ie, on the master, but I don't want this on every track. Other daws that have dedicated mono tracks don't have this problem and we shouldn't either.

Yes, I could change my daw or not use the plugin on mono tracks but I don't want to do either of those things, Reaper should just handle this properly.

I too REALLY Want this Feature.... It should be DEFAULT like a Real Console....go figure !!!

Cockos...PLEASE add this !

[danfuerth]

Since I am a Pin IN/OUT Freak in Reaper I never have that issue. I spend most of my time in Reaper doing the Mix with only the Pins INS and OUTs I barely use BUSES anymore

A track with 2 channels can almost be it's own independent Daw since you can place effects and set their pins to left or right or Stereo both left and right pins set then add Reasurround at the end of the fx list and then have those effects already mixed in the stereo field before that track get's sent to a bus if you wish.

This is the reason why Reaper defaults to 2 channels and not 1. If it had only one if you send that track over to another as a send think about the problems if the one receiving was set to 2, this could interfere with the reaper routing.

I would like to see mono channel tracks however now that I am so used to using the pins this would not be good for me LOL

[EpicSounds]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

+1 for "minimum track channel count to 1"

I never tried this before but in all cases I tried here, changing the plug-ins' pins to:



saved twice the CPU.

Just tested here, and it seems to depend on the plugins used.

With 10x DCamFreeComp mono vs stereo I saw only 5% difference
With 10x Devil-Loc mono vs stereo I saw closer to 50% difference.
10x melodyne essential = 0.45% cpu mono, 0.48 stereo

So for CPU heavy plugs it might be worth the time, but for basic track plugins like EQ and compressors or the ReaPlugs I'm not going to bother.

Some of my Soundtoys plugs crashed immediately when un-pinning output 2 so that's something to watch out for.

Good tip overall.