Misha

Thanks, but as I mentioned in my post, everything is (Halion 6) fresh install (from Steinberg download manager) so all stuff is up to date. My guess it is either driver (video) or some sort of security issue... All drivers are fresh install too from chipset to video... Unfortunately do not even know what I should look for.

Hi Folks. Have new system issues (never happened on old setup) Halion Sonic VST crashes Cakewalk every time. Some time from the start, at times 5-10 minutes after. Error c000005. Screenshot is at the bottom. How it is setup: i7/win10/32g ram. I run computer as administrator (all privileges )Halion Sonic 3 is on e-licenser. I have done e-licenser "maintenance", so everything is up to date. Fresh version on Sonic directly from Steinberg (not update of previous version). Fresh install of Cakewalk about 2 weeks ago. I thought Cakewalk was having trouble with VST3, so I removed that, re-scanned VST and tried VST2 of Sonic.., still crashes. I wrote to Steinberg but as I understood, it might take weeks before they respond, not necessarily resolving the issue. This forum (usually) rocks! So I will try my luck here. I have the minidump from Cakewalk, but not sure what to do with it. Would appreciate a good start point of trying to resolve this. Thank you!

Yep, this topic went wondering, but it kind of remained within scope of "reducing CPU usage". I actually learned a couple of interesting things from some side stuff mentioned. Twisted Fingers, I think you and I share the mania of using many instances of same VSTs I gave up on Izotope newer products for this specific reason (CPU usage - topic) Their older stuff (Nektar 2 suite) runs fine with multiple instances with several modules ticked on each. They make nice plugins, but only if you have a rocket of a machine or use only a couple of instances to have things run smooth. I found that switching to other, similar plugins made major difference in CPU usage. I guess the key here is simply keeping the balance of resources available.

Scook, is it possible to "assign" this PaUsE button to some other button? I could not figure that out also Thank you.

ien, thank you for balanced answer. This is what I have i7 7600U 2 CPU cores 2.8 - turbo 3.9 GHz, I was thinking of upgrading to the comp with 8650U, but seems not much of the upgrade is there, even when it has double the cores of my setup... The 7600U was not the first choice of computer for audio recording, but I had it and that is what I am using. Here is note to skeptics. I had doubts initially, but after almost a year of testing, I must say it runs Cakewalk absolutely great with 5-7 instances of CPU hungry VSTs, such as Neutron, Nectar, Kontakt etc. on about 12 audio tracks (some of them with multiple takes) +5-8 midi channels.

Msmcleod, thank you for detailed information. Yes, I have read the blog you mentioned prior to posting. I guess, these are what tripped me off: 1) "Most programs still function in a linear fashion, making use of only one core. In these cases, clock speed is king." 2) Why "load balancing" was not set by default in Cakewalk, as it seems to make more sense of having it checked for efficiency...? I guess the essence of my question is related to Cakewalk specifically. Does it use core efficiently or "just makes use of them". speed vs cores

Kaustub, thank you for input. SomeGuy, thanks, I do understand difference between "U" and "H". My question is not about general choices of a computer or laptop. My question is more specific: Tracking / handling of VST in Cakewalk...which resource is more important / responsible for handling things better # of cores or speed? *And sub question. Assuming it is speed of a single core (linear) that plays main role, does "Turbo Boost" number makes any difference or it is minimal for the tracking/VST? I used " plug-in load balancing" that Scook suggested and It got the project I am working at under control, but buffer is more than I want to be. I am amateur musician and I know my limits for DAW recording. Meaning, I can "predict" my largest project . I do not need an expensive gaming machine for that. There are very specific laptops I am looking at, that fits my budget and want to make educated choice, so it handles tracking and VST better than my current setup. Would appreciate an answer from somebody with specific knowledge to answer my question(s). Thank you.

abacab thanks, that does not answer the specific question I asked. I will repeat it , because some folks have tendency of answering to last/previous poster rather than initial question: Cakewalk ... how it handles VST plugins and tracking? If I have to choose more cores - less frequency vs more frequency less cores, what would be a better choice?Particulary i7 7600U 2 CPU cores with Hyper-Threading support clocked at 2.8 - 3.9 GHz (2 core Turbo also 3.9 GHz) OR i7-8650U four cores but at a lower base frequency of 1.9 GHz. The Turbo Boost can go up to 4,2 GHz ? Thank you.

One older article I found online on subject "More cores - less frequency vs more frequency less cores" had this: " Faster clock speeds means more responsiveness when running heavy linear tasks such as running single-threaded applications. Most programs still function in a linear fashion, making use of only one core. In these cases, clock speed is king." Can anybody shine a light this and if it relates to Cakewalk on how it handles VST plugins and tracking? If I have to choose between: more cores - less frequency vs more frequency less cores, what would be a better choice? Particulary i7 7600U 2 CPU cores with Hyper-Threading support clocked at 2.8 - 3.9 GHz (2 core Turbo also 3.9 GHz) vs i7-8650U four cores but at a lower base frequency of 1.9 GHz. The Turbo Boost can go up to 4,2 GHz ? Main concern is which of these CPUs will handle better multiple instances of VST on separate tracks and tracking (no "bouncing" or archiving or freezing advise please. This is a specific CPU question) Thank you.

Scook, you are the man! I think this solved it: Plug-in load balancing. No CPU spikes! Thank you! I usually keep things manageable, but have a few larger projects that are just like a giant pasta bowl, I tried "plugin load balancing" on largest, I am sure it will work on smaller projects as well. Thank you everybody who shared their solutions! Still want to get more insight on how Vsts impact CPU... I assume, prior to enabling "plugin balancing" I was using only a single core of dual core computer?

abacab, thanks. That is what I described and exactly what I am doing. I am looking for a fast solution, similar to turn global FX off. Not clicking and un-clicking 30+ tracks to freeze/unfreeze something. I was hoping there is a setting something like temporarily reducing the quality of playback to reduce CPU load... A one or two button operation. Not 30+ clicks each time. P.S. An interesting suggestion in request was submitted by a fellow user in reply to one of my posts in Feedback Loop section. A whole BUS freeze/unfreeze. I thought that was awesome suggestion.

Mark, Thank you, but it is for tracking... Increasing Asio buffer would not work. I was hoping there is a global temporary "render quality" reduction..... or mono or similar? to temporary reduce CPU usage. Anybody else? pwalpwal, Thanks for reply, when you said "faster CPU" did not answer the question. Faster in terms of frequency or number of cores that specifically responsible for handling VST FX? Thank you.

Hi Folks! Please help with 2 questions. Trying to improve my workflow. I use a lot of FX instances on my tracks and often run into situation where CPU is just spiking, distorting the sound. This is what I know and had been using: a) Global FX on/off b)Freezing tracks c)Moving tracks to shared bus FX d)Archiving muted tracks. Questions: 1) I was wondering if something fast (and reversible), similar to Global FX on/off which is internal to Cakewalk can be done to temporarily reduce CPU usage, but still retain audible FX on channels? 2) What is the most important factor in CPU to handle FX better. Frequency or number of cores if we are talking of processors i7 processors 7th generation or higher. Thank you, Misha.

hmmm, this was a bug, that was confirmed by former gibson team, not a feature For for future feature requests... I know that MIDI 2 is coming out soon..... so lets aim for MIDI 3 to start early on development for future socket design, somewhere below right ear (left ear is optional, subscription based) where cable would go, connecting you-the artist directly to Cakewalk. 128 simultaneous track recording of ultra-hyper-444k-definition-audio-video signal.... ⏳

Noel, yep, that was the only splinter under my toenail Sure, I have feature requests, but who doesn't these days 😇 As far as problems, honestly I can not think of one. Had been using Cakewalk for 10 + years. Again, big thank you!

Recent release included a fix for take lanes that I was struggling with for a long time. Just want to thank Noel and crew! This was the only blemish for me to view Cakewalk as a perfect companion. I can not stress enough how relieved I am that this got resolved. Thank you!!!

I was also researching a way to effectively backup things recently. I decided not to use third party software...because who knows... I settled for native Windows HD "image" backup as far as whole hard drive goes. For now, I have my Hard drive image created by Windows, including recovery partitions and once in couple of weeks I manually copy folders that get new material. Somebody mentioned Microsoft SyncToy. An app that can sync 2 folders (internal/external). I tried it some time ago, for non-music related things and if I remember correctly, it worked fine. I think this is the route I will take. Make HD image once in a few months + use Microsoft SyncToy to update loose folders on external drive that get new stuff.

Erik, I believe you did not understand what I was referring to.... I was talking about new material being recorded on previously muted take lanes. see attached.

CosmicDolphin, good thinking. How about a choice of both: freeze and disable FX on the bus? Bakers!!!!!! Great idea here!!!!

Hi Folks / Bakers. I would like to suggest a feature that would allow to disable/enable FX for all tracks on particular bus. Not the global FX or Bus FX. But automated, simple way to disable /enable FX of all individual tracks FX that sit on that bus. Also, has to be dynamic, so no matter how many tracks with individual FX you add to that bus , that bus enable/disable FX feature would turn them on/off. That feature would be useful to control CPU hungry VSTs when tracking or referencing mix.

Kevin, thanks, but not it. I guess it is a "feature request" For some reason I thought it would be somewhat popular.. to be be able to disable/enable tracks FX of all tracks that sit on that bus.

Chuck, thanks. Still... Not it. This combines (and enable/disables) FX that sit on the bus itself not FX of individual tracks it is hosting.

Skook thanks.... but There are only two options for bypass FX on Bus that I see. 1) Bypass FX which is particular to global FX on that bus (It does not turn off racks for individual tracks on that bus) 2)Bypass similar, which is a totally different thing and disables those "similar" FX throughout whole project, regardless which bus they are on. If I have 10 tracks with various FX chains on these individual tracks going to one bus, is it possible to turn off /on those FX in bulk for that particular bus without touching FX settings on other busses and without manually clicking on all individual tracks on that bus and disabling everything one by one? Thanks.

Keni, Thanks for the magical Shift! I probably have to make a tattoo with Cakewalk shortcuts on my hands... Works well, but right click would still be a convenience....:)especially with a pop-up such as with "duplicate track". So you have those important choices plus maybe a choice to "name" that new track. I know that this should be in "feature requests" section. Could not help it. Tracking using take lanes is very important to me. If moderator desires, he/she welcome to move my posts there. Thank you.

Sorry to bump this up. I will try to re-phrase my last question. One of biggest limitations I face is when I use CPU hungry FX in Cakewalk. As far as choices to reduce the impact of these FX in my understanding is to : 1)Disable FX globally 2)Freeze tracks 3)Archive tracks muted tracks. 4)Move "similar" tracks to a bus-shared FX. Is there a way to disable / enable FX for particular bus that has tracks with individual FX chains (not shared by that bus) ? I hope I am making sense. Thank you in advance, Misha.