tenfoot
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2186
- Joined: 2015/01/22 18:12:07
- Location: Qld, Australia
- Status: offline
FX insert VS FX send resource usage
Hi folks. A quick question regarding VST fx. It seems to me that there is little or no difference in cpu load between inserting separate instances of the same vst effect (a reverb for example) in each track's fx bin, and setting up an fx bus in order to send multiple tracks to a single instance of the same effect. By doing that I just lose individual control of parameters for each track. In other words, 6 x Reverbs ( 1 each on 6 different tracks) uses the same resources as 6 x tracks sent to 1 reverb bus. Do I have this right or am I delusional? Thanks:) Bruce.
Bruce. Sonar Platinum 2017-09, Studio One 3.5.3, Win 10 x64, Quad core i7, RME Fireface, Behringer X32 Producer, Behringer X32 Rack, Presonus Faderport, Lemure Software Controller (Android), Enttec DMXIS VST lighting controller, Xtempo POK.
|
mudgel
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12010
- Joined: 2004/08/13 00:56:05
- Location: Linton Victoria (Near Ballarat)
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/21 21:27:20
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby tenfoot 2015/02/21 22:03:36
Generally thinking the more of any plugin you insert, the more of a hit your computers resources are going to take.
In your specific example perhaps that isn't a big difference but you will eventually find a ceiling where you will tax your system to its limit.
As for reverb if you're just mucking around with weird noises that's one thing but if you're trying to seriously learn to mix then that many different reverbs will create a wash that will make your music pretty unpleasant.
The idea to send the tracks to a bus with the fx probably applies more to a reverb than any other fx as you're trying to create or recreate a space. When you think of how music is played live every sound is in the same space. So only need to have the one. That's generally speaking and probably a good place to start.
Other fx like eq and the various dynamic fx are more suited to individual sounds and tracks. Again generally speaking. Hope that gives you a starting point. Go through some of the variety of tutorials, videos and blogs on the Cakewalk site and watch and read and keep asking questions. Also welcome if you're just new here.
Mike V. (MUDGEL) STUDIO: Win 10 Pro x64, SPlat & CbB x64, PC: ASUS Z370-A, INTEL i7 8700k, 32GIG DDR4 2400, OC 4.7Ghz. Storage: 7 TB SATA III, 750GiG SSD & Samsung 500 Gig 960 EVO NVMe M.2. Monitors: Adam A7X, JBL 10” Sub. Audio I/O & DSP Server: DIGIGRID IOS & IOX. Screen: Raven MTi + 43" HD 4K TV Monitor. Keyboard Controller: Native Instruments Komplete Kontrol S88.
|
tenfoot
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2186
- Joined: 2015/01/22 18:12:07
- Location: Qld, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/21 21:42:59
(permalink)
Thanks for the response Mike. I understand the concept of an fx bus - and you are absolutely right about it's use with regards to reverb. My question is more from a technical point of view in that the same amount of processing is going on in both examples. Good advice with the traditional vs more creative use of reverb as well! Thanks for the welcome - though it is really just a login change since the new Cakewalk store:) This is a brilliant forum thanks to knowledgeable and incredibly helpful people like yourself.
Bruce. Sonar Platinum 2017-09, Studio One 3.5.3, Win 10 x64, Quad core i7, RME Fireface, Behringer X32 Producer, Behringer X32 Rack, Presonus Faderport, Lemure Software Controller (Android), Enttec DMXIS VST lighting controller, Xtempo POK.
|
scook
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 24146
- Joined: 2005/07/27 13:43:57
- Location: TX
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/21 21:47:55
(permalink)
There should not be much difference. Routing is pretty efficient especially when compared to the load imposed by the plug-in.
|
tenfoot
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2186
- Joined: 2015/01/22 18:12:07
- Location: Qld, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/21 22:01:32
(permalink)
Bruce. Sonar Platinum 2017-09, Studio One 3.5.3, Win 10 x64, Quad core i7, RME Fireface, Behringer X32 Producer, Behringer X32 Rack, Presonus Faderport, Lemure Software Controller (Android), Enttec DMXIS VST lighting controller, Xtempo POK.
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 01:03:32
(permalink)
It used to be different when a single convolution reverb would crash your system because of the CPU drain. Computers are much faster now. Still, 6 is bigger than 1. Bound to take more CPU. @
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
tenfoot
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2186
- Joined: 2015/01/22 18:12:07
- Location: Qld, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 03:11:16
(permalink)
AT It used to be different when a single convolution reverb would crash your system because of the CPU drain. Computers are much faster now. Still, 6 is bigger than 1. Bound to take more CPU. @
Thanks for the input AT. I fear however that you may have swerved around the point of my question and gone straight to some oversimplified maths. The numerical representation of my question is not 6 vs 1. It is more like 6x1 vs 1x6.
Bruce. Sonar Platinum 2017-09, Studio One 3.5.3, Win 10 x64, Quad core i7, RME Fireface, Behringer X32 Producer, Behringer X32 Rack, Presonus Faderport, Lemure Software Controller (Android), Enttec DMXIS VST lighting controller, Xtempo POK.
|
jb101
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2946
- Joined: 2011/12/04 05:26:10
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 05:20:32
(permalink)
tenfoot
AT It used to be different when a single convolution reverb would crash your system because of the CPU drain. Computers are much faster now. Still, 6 is bigger than 1. Bound to take more CPU. @
Thanks for the input AT. I fear however that you may have swerved around the point of my question and gone straight to some oversimplified maths. The numerical representation of my question is not 6 vs 1. It is more like 6x1 vs 1x6.
No, I think your maths is incorrect. It is six effects processing six streams of audio, versus one effect processing one stream of audio. I think AT was right.
|
tenfoot
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2186
- Joined: 2015/01/22 18:12:07
- Location: Qld, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 06:11:25
(permalink)
Thanks Jb1 01. I hear what you are saying. Thinking in terms of an analogue desk, there is only one stream of reverb processing from the six sends. However, if you do the experiment yourself in sonar and load up an intensive effect, firstly by inserting it on separate tracks individually, then by sending all of the tracks to a single bus, the cpu load seems to be about the same. This is why I asked the question. As counter intuitive as it is, it seems the digital processing required was about the same. I would love to hear from someone who could perhaps shed some technical light on this.
Bruce. Sonar Platinum 2017-09, Studio One 3.5.3, Win 10 x64, Quad core i7, RME Fireface, Behringer X32 Producer, Behringer X32 Rack, Presonus Faderport, Lemure Software Controller (Android), Enttec DMXIS VST lighting controller, Xtempo POK.
|
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2567
- Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
- Location: West Midlands, UK
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 10:03:06
(permalink)
The load from one plugin on an aux send bus is less than running multiple instances of the same plugin. Any of us who were running DAWs in the 1990s can testify to that. As AT says, there was a time when a single plugin needing high computer resources could bring a PC to its knees unless tracks were frozen to reduce the total load.
Todays i7 quad-cores are so powerful that they can handle far more, but add enough plugins and you will eventually overload even a modern PC.
As for putting reverb on tracks versus an aux send bus, I set up a bus with a room reverb on it and use that as the overall reverb, so that everything sounds like it was recorded in the same acoustic space. The reverbs I use on tracks tend to be spring or plate emulations used for deliberate effect purposes, and those tracks also have sends to the ambient room reverb.
Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board, ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre. Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
|
tenfoot
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2186
- Joined: 2015/01/22 18:12:07
- Location: Qld, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 10:31:08
(permalink)
Thanks for chiming in tlw. I was running daws in the 90's too and recall all of the nightmares involved! We certainly have it pretty good with modern computers. Did you try the experiment that I suggested? I am not suggesting that this is the way to add reverb to your tracks - I use exactly the same methods you describe. I was just surprised to find that sending multiple tracks to a single reverb used roughly the same amount of cpu as adding individual reverbs to the same number of tracks. In a way, from a digital perspective there is some logic to it. Each track still has to be processed. Just a quirky observation that has probably taken up too much of everyone's time:)
Bruce. Sonar Platinum 2017-09, Studio One 3.5.3, Win 10 x64, Quad core i7, RME Fireface, Behringer X32 Producer, Behringer X32 Rack, Presonus Faderport, Lemure Software Controller (Android), Enttec DMXIS VST lighting controller, Xtempo POK.
|
bvideo
Max Output Level: -58 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1707
- Joined: 2006/09/02 22:20:02
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 11:07:05
(permalink)
☼ Best Answerby tenfoot 2015/02/22 19:56:53
It's hard to tell, tenfoot, if you're fully satisfied by the answers or not. It sounds like your question is subtly related to two different performance-related concerns, one being the overhead of routing and mixing, and the other being the effect processing. In the case of a single effect on a bus, the 6 audio streams are mixed into one and processed by a single pass through one instance of the effect. In analogue terms, the signals are mixed onto an aux bus and passed into a single input on an effects box and the output is mixed back in on an aux input or channel. Then the output of that bus is mixed with the rest of the project and sent out the main bus. In the case of effects on 6 tracks, separate audio streams are passed separately into 6 copies of the effect, each requiring a pass of an audio stream through the algorithm. The CPU used for the effect is thus six times in the previous case. Then the six effect outputs are mixed into the rest of the project. In analog terms, you would have to buy 5 more boxes to do that processing using channel inserts. The analogue vs DAW reasoning is somewhat similar: you want different parameter values in each of the 6 effects. The routing and mixing overhead is virtually the same in the two cases. You could argue that there is an extra bus required in case 1, like the aux bus on a mixer, but the actual CPU used by the existence of that bus is negligible. At most it requires an extra step in summing the audio stream from that bus into the main mix, whereas in case 2, you could sum all audio streams at once into the main bus mix. But in technical terms, mixing audio streams is negligible compared with processing audio streams through an effect. To complete your experiment, you would need to run your project with no effects, then add the one effect to see if that effect is using enough CPU to be measurable. Then your 6-effect case would be easier to interpret. In other words, first find an effect that uses significant CPU, then try six of them. You could also separate your measurement of using the extra bus or not, by running the project with and without the extra bus, but with no effects, to see if that difference is measurable.
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 11:40:35
(permalink)
Yea, just keep adding Perfect space to a project and keep an eye on the usage. @
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
tenfoot
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2186
- Joined: 2015/01/22 18:12:07
- Location: Qld, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 12:06:12
(permalink)
Thanks b video - that's a brilliant explanation and indeed what I would have expected to be the case. Just to be clear I have understood, given that the routing and mixing overhead is the same in both cases, and that using six instances of the effect algorithm will logically use 6 times more processor, I should be seeing a difference in cpu usage between the two scenarios. In my previous test, I fully expected this to be the case, but I saw no such difference. I never expected the additional bus to cause any extra load. I did expect the six separate effects to use more cpu than sending the same 6 tracks to a single fx bus. The trouble is - they just didn't. To be clear: Inserting a reverb on a single track used roughly the same cpu as sending a single track to the same reverb on an fx bus - no surprises there. Inserting 2 instances of that same reverb on separate tracks used roughly the same amount of cpu as sending the same 2 separate tracks to a single instance of the same reverb via an fx bus. That I did not expect! This correlation continued as additional tracks were added. In light of your explanation it just should not happen. I should see an ever increasing difference in load between the two methods. I will try with a different plugin when I get a chance. Perhaps there is something peculiar to whatever effect I was using. Thanks again for your time - much appreciated:)
Bruce. Sonar Platinum 2017-09, Studio One 3.5.3, Win 10 x64, Quad core i7, RME Fireface, Behringer X32 Producer, Behringer X32 Rack, Presonus Faderport, Lemure Software Controller (Android), Enttec DMXIS VST lighting controller, Xtempo POK.
|
brundlefly
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14250
- Joined: 2007/09/14 14:57:59
- Location: Manitou Spgs, Colorado
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 12:42:21
(permalink)
Yes, the load of separate plugins is additive. To see it on a high-powered system with a lighter weight FX, try this: - Create on audio track and insert your chosen FX on it. - Set the Fader to -40dB - Make 99 clones of the track (yes, I'm serious; the output of 100 tracks at -40dB will be equivalent to 1 at 0dB) - Watch what happens to your performance meter in SONAR when it finishes cloning.
SONAR Platinum x64, 2x MOTU 2408/PCIe-424 (24-bit, 48kHz) Win10, I7-6700K @ 4.0GHz, 24GB DDR4, 2TB HDD, 32GB SSD Cache, GeForce GTX 750Ti, 2x 24" 16:10 IPS Monitors
|
tenfoot
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2186
- Joined: 2015/01/22 18:12:07
- Location: Qld, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 19:42:04
(permalink)
Thanks for your input and patience everyone, and for the detailed explanation and detecting my unease bvideo - I think that I am a step closer to getting to the bottom of this. I have 3 DAW setups that I use; a main studio rig, a live rig, and a backup live rig. The system I have been testing on is the backup live rig. I chose this particular system as it has the lowest specs and is easiest to see any change in cpu usage. If I create a new project, import a single track of audio, insert a reverb into the track fx bin, then clone the track 30 times, I see the cpu load go up significantly, exactly as you would expect. But here's the thing that lead to my confusion; If I create a new project, import the same audio, create an fx send on that track and insert the same reverb over the fx bus, and then clone it 30 times, I see exactly the same increase in CPU usage as before, despite there being 30 tracks feeding 1 fx bus. However I then repeated the same test on my studio system and live rig, but this time the results were exactly as you would expect and everyone has described - the cpu load with the individual fx was much higher than with the individual send. A breakthrough! It is clearly something on that specific system causing the errant behaviour. My search has begun! Thanks again for all of your input. Due to my ridiculously small research sample of 1 and resultant dodgy conclusion, I would have been left with a niggling feeling that something was bizarrely skewed in the world of digital fx processing if it weren't for your help. Who knows how that may have ended - awkward at parties at the very least:) This forum is brilliant!
Bruce. Sonar Platinum 2017-09, Studio One 3.5.3, Win 10 x64, Quad core i7, RME Fireface, Behringer X32 Producer, Behringer X32 Rack, Presonus Faderport, Lemure Software Controller (Android), Enttec DMXIS VST lighting controller, Xtempo POK.
|
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2567
- Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
- Location: West Midlands, UK
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 20:17:29
(permalink)
Just a thought, but for some reason my copy of Platinum when I first installed it turned out to be only using two of the eight available cpu cores (out of 4 physical and 4 virtual ones doing the hyper-threading). It was also showing very odd cpu usage behaviour as plugins were added or removed. It turned out the solution was to go into Sonar's preferences and tell ot to create a new aud.ini file. My guess is the problem was due to settings having been successively imported from x1 to Platinum via X2 and X3 and their sub-versions with something finally not transferring over as intended.
It might be worth a try in your case. As might checking Window's core parking is switched off.
Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board, ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre. Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
|
tenfoot
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2186
- Joined: 2015/01/22 18:12:07
- Location: Qld, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: FX insert VS FX send resource usage
2015/02/22 20:45:00
(permalink)
Thanks for the tip Tlw. Core parking is disabled. I will definitely try the aud.ini file.
Bruce. Sonar Platinum 2017-09, Studio One 3.5.3, Win 10 x64, Quad core i7, RME Fireface, Behringer X32 Producer, Behringer X32 Rack, Presonus Faderport, Lemure Software Controller (Android), Enttec DMXIS VST lighting controller, Xtempo POK.
|