Jump to content

Karmamechanic

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes. The problem I ran into several months ago is that the virgin, perfectly configured, powerful system did not run the projects as well as the junked-up, obsolete computer I was using, and am still using since I returned the new one that would not run my projects. So now I am wondering if power is really all there is to it, or if the system has to be catered to the way Cakewalk uses the power. If spending $1000 more on a system that has better specs will result in worse performance, then I would like to know that up front, understand why it has worse performance, and instead get a system that performs better.
  2. Have to get a new DAW computer. Lifetime Cakewalk/Sonar/Bandlab user. Desktop. Any recommendations on CPU? The vendor I'm looking at offers i9-11900K (8 cores) or an upgrade to a i9-10980XE (18 cores but lower ghz). The extra expense is no problem. I tried to upgrade computers a few months ago, but the new one choked on the same projects the old computer could play smoothly in spite of every effort, and every setting change, by me and the vendor to get it to not choke. Here's that thread if you're interested... My best guess at this point is that my project had a lot of plugins on one track, Cakewalk was running all those on one core, and since the new laptop had lower Ghz per core than the old, it choked even though it had more cores. Or that Cakewalk couldn't use the 12th gen CPUs correctly. So now that I'm trying again, I wonder if I should go with the CPU that's faster per core, or the one with way more cores. The extra expense is no problem, I just don't want another brand new wonder machine that can't play what my dirty old obsolete one can, or that can't play what a cheaper one could. I finally have the means to afford something good, so I understandably want to know which machine will just run my stuff. Any recs on these two processors and whether Cakewalk can use them? Or another CPU? Thanks!
  3. Yes, the redder it gets the more it sputters and drops out. Yes, less red would be nice. It's understandable on the old machine, but on the new one I can't figure out why it's worse, nor can the vendor. Setting to 48/24 causes Cakewalk to freeze. Twice now. I've never actually changed sample rate after starting a project. The suggestion on the table with the people I'm talking to is that maybe Cakewalk can't handle Win11 properly or the 12th gen CPUs properly. It's just a guess because so much else has been ruled out. Thanks.
  4. For DAW use. CPU power min and max are and have been 100%. Same as old computer. I had not tried: EnableSetThreadIdealProcessor = False, MixThreadCount = {number of cores minus 1} ...but that has no effect. All drivers are up to date using either Windows update or manufacturer's website. Drivers are probably not up to date on old computer. Yes ASIO, 96/24, 4096 buffer size. Same as old computer. The performance module is lit up, bouncing around, and hitting red alot. Same as old computer. The project is very intensive. I figure it's about the most the old computer can handle. It's more than the new computer can handle. Thanks for your suggestions, and I welcome more.
  5. Hi. I got a new laptop: Win11, i7-12700h, 32gig, SSDs. It sputters and drops out on the same projects the old one can play without issue. The old one is Win10, i7-9750h, 16gig, SSD for OS, hard drive for audio. All the usual config stuff has been checked on the new one by two people who have done it for years and know what they are doing. Latest version of Cakewalk. Latency mon shows that the new laptop should be better than the old. Is it possible Cakewalk is not yet ready for Win11 or that it is not optimally using the P-cores and E-cores of the 12th gen CPUs? Is there anyway to check its core usage to see if it using all the cores? Thanks.
  6. Thinking about trying this on the next project. Cleanest possible vocal tracking I have access to, like Neumann TL103 through Grade Design M101, then dirty them up as needed with tape and tube emulations. Any experiences or advice with this strategy? Or will I end up disappointed because there's nothing like real analog saturation? Thanks.
  7. I've had results I like with Native Instruments Supercharger. I think it's free. Different character than the VC64, so not sure if it will work for your stuff. Worked well for me with light compression and in parallel. I'm looking for an optical comp vst to take the place of VC64.
  8. Well I found the true peak setting on PSP Xenon. And I can't tell it's in circuit in a blind test.
  9. What optical compressor vst should I get? I used to use the VC64, but now that things have been changed around, I need to consider other options. Thanks.
  10. Hey thanks for the replies. Yeah that's why I don't understand what they're doing that makes me be able to tell they're in circuit. I'm setting up the test by using the Youlean loudness meter to make sure there's no loudness change between in and bypassed. And it's on a 2 channel mixed down 32bit 96k track with no parallel routing of anything. And the test is blind with me using only ears to determine if it's in or out. Of the ones suggested in this thread, I've tried Limiter No6, and can tell 100% when it's in circuit. PSP Xenon, I can't really tell, but it's not true peak, unless I missed something there. Every Sonar limiter, true peak or not, I can tell. Haven't gotten around to trying the other ones suggested here yet. Haven't ever used the upsampling. Will try that.
  11. I can't find a true peak limiter that doesn't affect things negatively. Have tried all the old Sonar ones, Adaptive Limiter included, and a few other ones. They all box in the sound and make it less open and more fatiguing, even when the threshold is so high that there isn't even any limiting going on. Merely turning them on boxes in the sound. I can close my eyes, randomly click on bypass to set it to a state unknown to me, and then switch back and forth between bypass and enabled with my eyes closed and can tell 100% percent of the time when it's enabled even when it is not actually limiting anything due to the less open sound that it creates. Anyone else have this experience and can recommend a true peak limiter that doesn't affect the sound like that? I've been using Audacity, which is not a true peak limiter. I can't tell that its limiter boxes in the sound.
×
×
  • Create New...