Quad core vs dual core in X1

Page: < 123 > Showing page 2 of 3
Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/13 09:10:37 (permalink)
kson


edjay


I have an AMD 5600+ dual core as my studio CPU and I have a QX6700 core 2 quad extreme and mobo sitting here that's up for sale at the moment. Is there any real evidence of the benefits of X1 and quad core? Are there any Task Manager screenshots or anything?

The dual runs almost 50/50 in Reaper.


Here is an article on the subject to clear it up for you:

Core explanation


Thanks kson

I wouldn't say it clears it up, there's a lot of basic hype that's been on the block for a while, and it mentions nothing about music software.

What RAM,  CPU and system are you using?
#31
jm24
Max Output Level: -54 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2127
  • Joined: 2003/11/12 10:41:12
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/13 11:31:37 (permalink)
Bristol_Jonesey


edjay


Bristol_Jonesey


My system has 4Gb of RAM running with a Q6700 in Win XP/32, and I have run out of memory on larger, complex projects.


Are you sure it's the RAM you're running out of? How did you check this?

Ar you sure it wasn't the CPU bottoming out?


Er, from the "Out of Memory" message that Sonar produces.
 
Is the Pagefile limited in size?
 
I have am AMD phenom 2 core, 4 gig, 3 gig switch, and I have almost hit 2 gig used by sonar.
Not using contact. But can have a dozen instances of dimension pro, with vsampler,....
 
W7 has better multicore management than wX and Wv. So even with 2 cores it is happier.
 
J
#32
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/13 12:11:27 (permalink)
jm24

 
I have am AMD phenom 2 core, 4 gig, 3 gig switch, and I have almost hit 2 gig used by sonar.
Not using contact. But can have a dozen instances of dimension pro, with vsampler,....
 
W7 has better multicore management than wX and Wv. So even with 2 cores it is happier.
 
J
Hi jm24

AMD 5600+ 2G DDR II 800

Pagefile size is 1508MB used and 2585MB available - that's with a template that I'm working on but there's no audio in there yet. I'm just finding my way round X1. I think it's going ok.

I don't understand "3 gig switch"?

I've got the Phenom 2 550 in this computer.

I'm pleased to say that the RAM usage with X1 in Win7 seems to be a bit lower than with Reaper and XP? I'm not sure what I was doing to make it always hover between 1.3/1.67G? I've only been with X1 a few days but things are generally looking good. I don't expect it to be a completely smooth ride.

I also read that X1 Essential is straight 32bit but can be used with 64bit Win7 but I'm not sure how that affects the 32bit limitations?

One thing I do know is, that manufacturers will always say more is better whatever the reality.  :)


#33
jm24
Max Output Level: -54 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2127
  • Joined: 2003/11/12 10:41:12
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/13 15:04:27 (permalink)
w7 install is NOT an upgrade for wX. It requires a clean install.

I recommend you get w7 first as it does provide better core and memory management;  Create a new partition and install the 64 bit version. And then install S8.5.3 32 and 64 bit, and start testing for driver and plug issues.

The best rule is to change one thing at a time.

DO NOT DELETE THE CURRENT INSTALLTION/partition.

And, do not delete S8,... when you get and install SX1.

I would use the 4 core board.  If you chose to change boards do it with XP, and then create the new partition and install w7.

It is nearly impossible to recover w7 from such major hardware change. I have had 2 comps that could not be repaired after the vid cards died and were replaced.

w7 does not have a disk based in-place upgrade option as wX does. Another MS attempt to not help users for no intelligent reason.

Don't get me started.

J


 
#34
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/13 16:44:07 (permalink)
jm24

Don't get me started.

J


 
lol!  :)


Fresh Win 7 installed on a new drive 3 days ago. I have this horrible affliction called Wipe-your-drive-eritis and it's my cure-all for Windows investigations. I still have my Reaper drive, untouched, that can go straight back in my system - that's with XP pro - if anything goes seriously amiss. I'm not moving from S8, I'm moving from Reaper. Sorry, I didn't make this clear.

Things seem to be going ok, although it looks like I'll be starting my first song on X1 with 1.3gig template and I'll just have to see how far I get on my present 2 gig. I should know more by this time tomorrow. I get the idea that my RAM use will go up by about 400MB with what I've seen so far?

I can't afford to set up the Quad Extreme right at the moment -  I need a case and a hard-drive - but I'm going to get that together over the next few weeks and then give it a try without having to disturb my new Win7/X1/kontakt setup.

Thanks


#35
jm24
Max Output Level: -54 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2127
  • Joined: 2003/11/12 10:41:12
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/13 19:43:57 (permalink)
what do you mean "1.3g template"?
#36
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/13 20:39:58 (permalink)
My template of the instruments I normally use for my band sound appears to be taking up 1.3gig of memory to run without any midi or audio recorded. As it stands at the moment I've not really added the basic effects either.

An update on that from earlier:

I've been messing away with a growing song, and funny, at first I'm struggling to get the RAM to go above 1.05gig, I've been looking at things like the Sonitus eq and rev, adding 3 separate core players etc and the memory usage still stays more or less the same? Then I've just closed the project and opened it again and it's using 1.46gig? Beginners luck.  :) It's all interesting.

I'll get on to vocs and trumpet tomorrow.

Got 3 minutes remaining on the download of my piano, so it looks unlikely that I'll be going to bed after all. 2 minutes.........   complete.
#37
kson
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 540
  • Joined: 2008/12/12 10:30:44
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/13 21:28:47 (permalink)
edjay


kson


edjay


I have an AMD 5600+ dual core as my studio CPU and I have a QX6700 core 2 quad extreme and mobo sitting here that's up for sale at the moment. Is there any real evidence of the benefits of X1 and quad core? Are there any Task Manager screenshots or anything?

The dual runs almost 50/50 in Reaper.


Here is an article on the subject to clear it up for you:

Core explanation


Thanks kson

I wouldn't say it clears it up, there's a lot of basic hype that's been on the block for a while, and it mentions nothing about music software.

What RAM,  CPU and system are you using?


I use an AMD Phenom 2 965, Phenom 2 965, with Windows 7 32bit and 4g ram.  My DAW is Sonar X1 Producer.  I can run Trilian, Omnisphere and other plugs with no issues.

www.reginaldkson.com
#38
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/13 21:59:23 (permalink)
Sounds nice. :)

Go on, how much RAM do you see being used then?
#39
kson
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 540
  • Joined: 2008/12/12 10:30:44
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/14 00:00:38 (permalink)
It totally depends on the programs within the plugs.  Omnisphere and Trilian can get pretty hungry if you call up big sounds, especially multis.

I usually bounce/freeze tracks to save ram.

www.reginaldkson.com
#40
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/14 07:12:29 (permalink)
Ok, I'm sort of getting the idea.

I have to ask: Does anyone here actually use task manager to see how many cores are working and how much, and how much RAM's being used, or am I in the minority here? Task manager can be found by right-click on the task bar > task manager > performance in the tabs. I mean, it might not even be accurate for all I know, but it does come as a part of the operating system. It can also be used for closing programs that freeze or lock up and it also gives details of what system resources are being used in real-time.

Hey Kson, nice music on your site.
#41
Grem
Max Output Level: -19.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 5562
  • Joined: 2005/06/28 09:26:32
  • Location: Baton Rouge Area
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/14 09:32:06 (permalink)
Yes I use Task Manager. I use it to see how it compares to Sonars CPU usage meter. Did you know about that one?

Sonar's CPU meter measures differently than Task Manager. I really don't know the tech specs behind the difference, but I do know that Sonar's meter lets you know what is happening in relation to Sonar only. But since Sonar is deep in the OS, it has a better understanding of it's own needs. If that makes any sense to you!

And there has been some discussion about how accurate Sonar's CPU meter is. I didn't follow that thread too much. Look for it on this forum.

From my experience with my machine, I can go alright with a project in Sonar X1 at about 60 - 70% Cpu use and about the same with HD. Looking at my specs below you can see I don't have a very powerful machine. Once I get along really far into a project where I want to get vocal takes, I am freezing a lot of trks to keep latency low.

I have never paid that much attention to the memory usage so I really can't give you any figures on that. But my Page File use stays fairly constant. It not dramatic in it's use.



Grem

Michael
 
Music PC
i7 2600K; 64gb Ram; 3 256gb SSD, System, Samples, Audio; 1TB & 2TB Project Storage; 2TB system BkUp; RME FireFace 400; Win 10 Pro 64; CWbBL 64, 
Home PC
AMD FX 6300; 8gb Ram; 256 SSD sys; 2TB audio/samples; Realtek WASAPI; Win 10 Home 64; CWbBL 64 
Surface Pro 3
Win 10  i7 8gb RAM; CWbBL 64
#42
deanx
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 113
  • Joined: 2008/10/05 10:11:10
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/14 12:23:03 (permalink)
edjay


Ok, I'm sort of getting the idea.

I have to ask: Does anyone here actually use task manager to see how many cores are working and how much, and how much RAM's being used, or am I in the minority here? Task manager can be found by right-click on the task bar > task manager > performance in the tabs. I mean, it might not even be accurate for all I know, but it does come as a part of the operating system. It can also be used for closing programs that freeze or lock up and it also gives details of what system resources are being used in real-time.

Hey Kson, nice music on your site.

I'm sure everyone here knows about and uses Task Manager for somethings although maybe not for monitoring Sonars performance. I used to use it for checking my CPU status when I first started out and was getting glitches all the time. Sonars CPU would get to 60 - 70% fairly easily and and audio would stutter but Task Managers CPU reading was only 30 - 40%.
 
There are many conversations about this subject on numerous forums. I've not read any in depth but believe most CPU meters within audio applications refer to processing being under taken by the actual program and it system files (dlls I guess) and not how much system CPU the app is using.
 
Although currently in the process of upgrading to a 64bit machine ( i need to install X1) I've learned how to get the most out of my 2GHz Dual Core, 4GB Vista Home Premium PC.
 
These include, temporary freezing tracks during tracking. Amplitube 3 and Superior Drummer 2 are quite greedy on RAM and CPU, temporarily Freezing (which I couldn't live without) is my first choice for increasing performance and regaining lost RAM.
 
Turn of any Input Echos when not required.
 
Increase Audio Buffer when mixing or when input echo isn't required. At this point I find I can unfreeze all the frozen tracks and stop and playback wihtout any glitches. Which just goes to show how much processing power is used to get no / zero latency.
 
Hope that helps, the more techie people may be able to elaborate a little more.
 
Dean
 
 
#43
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/14 13:11:36 (permalink)
Grem


.......Sonars CPU usage meter. Did you know about that one?


I did, but I got rid of it as it seemed too small to be of any use? But on second looks, when I hover the mouse I get a larger readout.

It tells me it has committed 1.6G of RAM and this is 39%; so that might mean it's basing the figure on the theoretical 4G max of a 32 bit system. Knowing that it's committed 1.6G is interesting as I've never seen this CPU use more than that. It could be an indication of that being the max this CPU is capable of using?

Task manager is displaying about 1.2G at the moment.

Interesting, a few people mentioning freezing track to free up things. So far, so good anyway, I'll do some vocs and trumpet tonight to see where it ends up.

Thanks Grem
#44
kson
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 540
  • Joined: 2008/12/12 10:30:44
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/14 13:28:42 (permalink)
edjay


Ok, I'm sort of getting the idea.

I have to ask: Does anyone here actually use task manager to see how many cores are working and how much, and how much RAM's being used, or am I in the minority here? Task manager can be found by right-click on the task bar > task manager > performance in the tabs. I mean, it might not even be accurate for all I know, but it does come as a part of the operating system. It can also be used for closing programs that freeze or lock up and it also gives details of what system resources are being used in real-time.

Hey Kson, nice music on your site.


I usually use Sonar's system monitor.  I park it in the upper right corner.

Thanks Edjay.

www.reginaldkson.com
#45
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/14 13:40:40 (permalink)
deanx

 
There are many conversations about this subject on numerous forums. I've not read any in depth but believe most CPU meters within audio applications refer to processing being under taken by the actual program and it system files (dlls I guess) and not how much system CPU the app is using.
 

I could check that as task manager does say how much each application is using. And yes, it's general GUI reading would be a reading from all system processes, not just Sonar - I hadn't really thought of that I don't think; although it seems really obvious now you mention it - I just checked that and Sonar is using about 800MB (that includes kontakt 4 as a plugin) which leaves roughly 400MB for Win7.

 
Increase Audio Buffer when mixing or when input echo isn't required. At this point I find I can unfreeze all the frozen tracks and stop and playback wihtout any glitches. Which just goes to show how much processing power is used to get no / zero latency.
 

That's a good point too: I normally keep mine at my cards default of 256smpls, as I use direct monitoring, I don't normally change it. Does that mean I don't need to keep the buffer low at all? What do you normally put your buffer up to?


.....so hey, less technical is fine by me and not necessarily less useful.
 
 



#46
Grem
Max Output Level: -19.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 5562
  • Joined: 2005/06/28 09:26:32
  • Location: Baton Rouge Area
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/15 15:09:09 (permalink)
I am changing my buffer rate all the time. Depends on what I am doing. Tracking something that I need low latency I use 64 samples. If I am mixing the final project, with my machine, I use 1064 and have quite a few trks frozen.

It's like Dean was saying. Even with a low powered PC Sonar gives you the tools to get the job done. You just have to learn to use them. It took me a while to learn my setup. But I did it just as you are doing. Research, coming here and asking questions, and trail and error!!

Grem

Michael
 
Music PC
i7 2600K; 64gb Ram; 3 256gb SSD, System, Samples, Audio; 1TB & 2TB Project Storage; 2TB system BkUp; RME FireFace 400; Win 10 Pro 64; CWbBL 64, 
Home PC
AMD FX 6300; 8gb Ram; 256 SSD sys; 2TB audio/samples; Realtek WASAPI; Win 10 Home 64; CWbBL 64 
Surface Pro 3
Win 10  i7 8gb RAM; CWbBL 64
#47
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/15 15:31:20 (permalink)
Grem

....Research, coming here and asking questions, and trail and error!!
I've just been through a day of changing buffer sizes, rbowser went into a bit of detail about that here so there's been some ( laymanish ) scientific advancement again today. Knowing this stuff can only help if it digests ok: It's when your mental buffers are constantly fulll that the computer is in danger of living in the yard!  :)


#48
Grem
Max Output Level: -19.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 5562
  • Joined: 2005/06/28 09:26:32
  • Location: Baton Rouge Area
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/15 15:40:37 (permalink)
edjay


It's when your mental buffers are constantly fulll that the computer is in danger of living in the yard!  :)


Dude, I went through that back in '98! I had Windows 95 (POS OS) and a sound card that had drivers that weren't too stable. I spent more time learning to get things to work than I did recording. I mean I learned an awful lot about computers that I never intended!! IN the long run it was good that I did learn all that stuff. But like I siad, I never intened to! And on more than one occasion that PC almost went out the window!!

Yeah I remember well, finally got the drum part down (no simple task back then) and start recoding the guitar part and when you think you just got a GREAT take you look up and the it's the BSOD!!!

Grem

Michael
 
Music PC
i7 2600K; 64gb Ram; 3 256gb SSD, System, Samples, Audio; 1TB & 2TB Project Storage; 2TB system BkUp; RME FireFace 400; Win 10 Pro 64; CWbBL 64, 
Home PC
AMD FX 6300; 8gb Ram; 256 SSD sys; 2TB audio/samples; Realtek WASAPI; Win 10 Home 64; CWbBL 64 
Surface Pro 3
Win 10  i7 8gb RAM; CWbBL 64
#49
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/15 15:53:04 (permalink)
Grem


....and when you think you just got a GREAT take you look up and the it's the BSOD!!!

LOL! I'm so glad to be getting acquainted with Windows 7. MS have come a long way in 15 years.

#50
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/22 19:19:54 (permalink)
Just a quick update:

The X1 performance meter was reading 1.9G committed today and I'm regularly using between 1.5 and 1.7G of RAM now I've got 1 vocal and 1 trumpet track going. That's using between 3 and 8 midi tracks and quite a few effects as well - this also includes kontakt 4 for my piano.

I had my first "Sonar says you're out of memory" popup today when I tried to open a new project at the same time as having one open. :-/

I think it may have to rain dimm sticks at some time.

QX6700, 4G RAM, DELTA 192, Samplitude 11 Pro, Win 7 32bit.
#51
travismc1
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 191
  • Joined: 2010/02/01 10:50:23
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/24 12:48:22 (permalink)
I've used task manager.... on my system all 4 cores show about 20 to 30 percent usage during an export.  With 9 gigs of memory, I barely see 20 percent of memory being used.

X1 does not seem slowed by the power and availability of my system as it seems to be slowed done by my systems hard drive.

If I've used audio snap's alignment a great amount, AND loaded each track with numerous effects, the mix down time can be excruciatingly slow.  I have had a 5 minute song take an hour and a half to export at 46,000 and 16 bit.  96,000 at 32 bit took all night... I'll not make that mistake again.

Can I tell a difference VS sonar 8.5 and Pentium D 820...?  Night and day.  8 tracks with heavy editing could be extremely time consuming.  Ableton Live 8.0 would choke under the weight of about 6 tracks and many synthesizer.  These are 32 bit issues.

X-1 and my quad core has been an excellent choice.  Perhaps not as noticeable on recorded audio tracks but definitely significantly digitized synth material.

Dell XPS Studio / Core I-7 920 / 8GB DDR-3/  Windows 7/ 2-1 Tb SATA hd.  SONAR X3b Producer / Axiom49 (2nd Gen)/ Profire 2626 / ProTools 11 

http://bigtstudio.com/
#52
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/24 13:37:56 (permalink)
travismc1


I've used task manager.... on my system all 4 cores show about 20 to 30 percent usage during an export.  With 9 gigs of memory, I barely see 20 percent of memory being used.

Do you see any more RAM than that being used on the playback of a project? Glad to hear about the core usage.

I have had a 5 minute song take an hour and a half to export at 46,000 and 16 bit.  96,000 at 32 bit took all night...

I'm a relative novice and so far my only mixdown experience is with Reaper. All my mix-downs to 44.1K @ 16bit happen in real time: IE, a 5 minute song takes 5 mins, so I don't know what's happening there?

Perhaps not as noticeable on recorded audio tracks but definitely significantly digitized synth material.

...and I thought that would be the other way around? But as I'm beginning to see with the kontakt and kore stuff, it does tax the system.

Thanks Travis.





QX6700, 4G RAM, DELTA 192, Samplitude 11 Pro, Win 7 32bit.
#53
travismc1
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 191
  • Joined: 2010/02/01 10:50:23
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/24 14:16:15 (permalink)
No, the RAM usage seldom fluctuates during playback.  I have had 16 tracks (3 were soft synths) each loaded with heavy usage of effects when I first got the system just to see how much abuse I could put it under... NEVER EVEN HAD A DROPOUT!!!

A song that my band plays and I do rough mix down of takes approximately 10 to 20 seconds, if that long.  The nuts and bolts of heavy editing like moving transients back and forth to make the drum beats line up with the bass notes, then adding various effects to clean the sound or make the sound more lush is what eats up time.  If I freeze a track then only adjust volume up or down, i don't lose too much time processing a wave file when I'm ready for a mixdown.  But if I leave everything unfrozen... ah crap it can seem like forever...
But even freezing a heavily altered track can take a moment.

As for 96k @ 32 bit VS 44.1K @ 16 bit, Sonar defaults to the higher bit rate... the only thing is, between working in factories, driving big trucks, farm equipment and being in the military around explosives all since I was a young,  I'm not sure that my ears can distinguish the minute details of variation between the two... but I know don't like my hard drive having a  480 megabyte WAV file that no one can play in a car stereo.

Soft synth and VST eat up resources.  This is where 64-bit computing shines over 32-bit.  The cpu cycles the info through different paths in such a manner that the cpu never even hiccups, I use NI's Guitar Rig... love it... but it's resource hungry... I've had four tracks with 4 different instances using different sounds, I could never have gotten away with that on my Pentium D system...  64 bit win7 and X1 shines on my system.

Now, I have read posts that folks with core I5 processors (dual core) laptops are having just as good a result as I'm having with a core I7 workstation.  Sonar had some early news releases about having worked with the Intel Core I engineers... maybe this is where the collaboration has paid off well.

I have used Cubase, Ableton, Magix, Sonar and and I've even dabbled a little in Protools (although not enough to develop a good enough awareness of it)  I am fully content with Sonar X1 over everything I've used.

Dell XPS Studio / Core I-7 920 / 8GB DDR-3/  Windows 7/ 2-1 Tb SATA hd.  SONAR X3b Producer / Axiom49 (2nd Gen)/ Profire 2626 / ProTools 11 

http://bigtstudio.com/
#54
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/24 17:48:49 (permalink)
travismc1


No, the RAM usage seldom fluctuates during playback.  I have had 16 tracks (3 were soft synths) each loaded with heavy usage of effects when I first got the system just to see how much abuse I could put it under... NEVER EVEN HAD A DROPOUT!!!

So if you're recording, exporting or mixing, your RAM use is always about 20 to 30%?

A song that my band plays and I do rough mix down of takes approximately 10 to 20 seconds, if that long.  The nuts and bolts of heavy editing like moving transients back and forth to make the drum beats line up with the bass notes, then adding various effects to clean the sound or make the sound more lush is what eats up time.  If I freeze a track then only adjust volume up or down, i don't lose too much time processing a wave file when I'm ready for a mixdown.  But if I leave everything unfrozen... ah crap it can seem like forever...
But even freezing a heavily altered track can take a moment.

So what's taking the time is the mixing and preparation for the final mixdown of the track so it's ready fro CD or MP3. Sorry, I thought you meant the actual rendering time.

As for 96k @ 32 bit VS 44.1K @ 16 bit, Sonar defaults to the higher bit rate...

This is not talking about getting finished recordings on CD though?

Soft synth and VST eat up resources.

Now that's language I'm beginning to understand!




QX6700, 4G RAM, DELTA 192, Samplitude 11 Pro, Win 7 32bit.
#55
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/24 18:19:49 (permalink)
Ok, much progress:

My template now takes about 1.5Gig of RAM, that includes all of X1 and having effects ready and waiting on some tracks = 2 audio tracks + 15 midi tracks. With a song playing = 1 voc, 1 trumpet, 6 midi tracks and various effects, I'm using 1.7G and my CPU's scuffing the boards.

My present conclusion: It's fine to work with 2G of RAM in XP with lightweight plugins and several audio tracks, but to try the same thing using samplers, Win 7 and X1, this needs more RAM and possibly a more potent CPU. When I started this thread, I didn't believe a 5600+ could use more than about 1.4G, but now I've seen it have a go at 1.7G. Then unfortunately, more RAM and a better CPU it is at some time.

It's been highly educational, thanks a lot!  :)

QX6700, 4G RAM, DELTA 192, Samplitude 11 Pro, Win 7 32bit.
#56
travismc1
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 191
  • Joined: 2010/02/01 10:50:23
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/24 18:22:08 (permalink)
I got home a few minutes ago, I've started rendering Long Cool Woman our version of the hollies's classic... 6 tracks in all... lots of transient movement in 4 of the tracks to tighten the sound.  At least 3 effects per track.  1 Send- bus for the HF EXCITER... vintage channel on the master chanel.  All ProChannels tweaked a little.

8182 phys mem.... Cached - 2291 MB so about 20 - 30 % usage.

Out of my four cores, only 1 core took a hard spike in usage, probably because I was typing this message.  All others didn't quite make it to 50% usage.

Started Export at 5:56.... export stopped at 6:06 - Ten minutes in all at 44.1 @ 16.

Mixing and preparation does take awhile because I'm always finding something to change / tweak.

As for 96k @ 32 bit VS 44.1K @ 16 bit, Sonar defaults to the higher bit rate...

This is not talking about getting finished recordings on CD though?

I'm listening to the finished song in Windows Media Player just to get a feel for it as I have finalized this mixdown.  I've read reviews on higher cycles and larger bit rates, but I'm not sure I can hear a distinct difference.  CD for commercial / older players only play 44.1 at 16 bits and I've enjoyed every song I've heard since the invention of the CD Player, in terms of sound quality.  You have to tell sonar to use 44.1 at 16 bits, otherwise you get a song that can only be played on computers, even then only ones set up to play that size of file.  The mp3 encoders that I have used do not like to convert some of these super large files.  To get the song to CD, I use Roxio, and burn an audio cd of the exported wav file.

One of the things about Sonar that I have figured out is that sometimes there are subtle changes in the sound after the export/render played through a car stereo that I did not here through my studio monitors.  The program uses one kind of algorithm for recording and playback, and a different for "offline" mode.

Dell XPS Studio / Core I-7 920 / 8GB DDR-3/  Windows 7/ 2-1 Tb SATA hd.  SONAR X3b Producer / Axiom49 (2nd Gen)/ Profire 2626 / ProTools 11 

http://bigtstudio.com/
#57
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/24 18:53:40 (permalink)
travismc1

8182 phys mem.... Cached - 2291 MB so about 20 - 30 % usage.

Out of my four cores, only 1 core took a hard spike in usage, probably because I was typing this message.  All others didn't quite make it to 50% usage.

Started Export at 5:56.... export stopped at 6:06 - Ten minutes in all at 44.1 @ 16.

Ok, so you're still only using just over 2 Gigs of RAM doing all that work - and that does sound like a lot! CD quality export sounds like what I've seen so far too.

I see then that "Rendering" in Reaper is "Exporting" in Sonar.

The rest of your post is about nuances of quality in finished recordings.......I think? I've lost your point. You seem to be mixing up recording sampling frequencies and bit depths with playback on household gear frequencies and bit depths?

I record @ 48K 24 bit and "export" or mixdown  to 44.1K 16 bit  - or pick one of the MP3 formats if you want to play the song on the web.

"As for 96k @ 32 bit VS 44.1K @ 16 bit, Sonar defaults to the higher bit rate... !

I still don't know what you mean by that or how it affects RAM usage?


QX6700, 4G RAM, DELTA 192, Samplitude 11 Pro, Win 7 32bit.
#58
travismc1
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 191
  • Joined: 2010/02/01 10:50:23
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/24 19:32:52 (permalink)
I'm sorry info overload...

The 96k @ 32bit extremely lengthens the render time only.  It has no noticeable effect on cpu cycles per minute.  the rate stays the same for the duration of the render.  RAM usage is unaffected by 96k @ 32 bit... or 44.1 @ 16, the ram usage is still in the range of 20 to 30 percent of the duration of the render.

I hope this helps

Dell XPS Studio / Core I-7 920 / 8GB DDR-3/  Windows 7/ 2-1 Tb SATA hd.  SONAR X3b Producer / Axiom49 (2nd Gen)/ Profire 2626 / ProTools 11 

http://bigtstudio.com/
#59
edjay
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 162
  • Joined: 2008/12/11 04:41:07
  • Location: North Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Quad core vs dual core in X1 2011/05/25 18:29:53 (permalink)
travismc1


I'm sorry info overload...

The 96k @ 32bit extremely lengthens the render time only.  It has no noticeable effect on cpu cycles per minute.  the rate stays the same for the duration of the render.  RAM usage is unaffected by 96k @ 32 bit... or 44.1 @ 16, the ram usage is still in the range of 20 to 30 percent of the duration of the render.

I hope this helps
You've lost me there Travis, I don't know anyone that's recording 96K @ 32 bit???

Great news though; I've been blessed with 4Gigs of DDR II 800! I now find my crackles and pops are gone until I reach about 75% on my CPU. My basic songs are now using about 1.84G RAM and generally between 40/60% CPU.

Still one or two odd things going on, but I'll leave them for another thread.

QX6700, 4G RAM, DELTA 192, Samplitude 11 Pro, Win 7 32bit.
#60
Page: < 123 > Showing page 2 of 3
Jump to:
© 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1