Is there a fast way to reduce CPU usage, besides turning global FX off?

[Misha]

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.

 

 

[Bill Phillips]

19 minutes ago, scook said:

@Twisted Fingers

The OP asked two questions. It would be best to create a thread per question but this did not happen. That said, adding additional questions to the thread is not a good idea.

Because of they way replies get reordered in this area, The CbB General area may be a better place to discuss your issue.

Extreme settings in general are a bad idea. Having to run the ASIO driver at its maximum setting may be a problem in itself.

Understood. That makes sense. I'll do that. Thanks for the patience.

[Misha]

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.

 

[scottfa]

Yep, i was referring to the OP, Misha, not Twisted Fingers.....

[Bill Phillips]

On 1/30/2019 at 9:05 PM, Misha said:

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.

 

Misha, I think you are right. I really like iZotope's user interface, dynamic EQ and compression, the Tonal Balance display and the Masking view. I'm not ready to give up yet. I thought I had a rocket of a machine, but so far it's sputtering and I don't know why. I suspect that I'm doing something really stupid, but being really stupid, I can't figure out what it is. ? I'm going to take scook's advice and make a separate post asking for help with that.

[Wojtek Stecyszyn]

Back to reducing CPU usage:

Mind what plugins you have on your master bus - this bus is especially "sensitive".  Look if you can take some off, switch off, or replace for some lighter ones.

See if any of plugins VSTs in use could be replaced with similar but more CPU friendly.

If your computer is connected to internet - disconnect and turn of any real time protection  (just remember to turn it back on later!!!)

Be sure that no other program is running beside Cakewalk.

Find on the internet an article on how to optimize windows for music production. One dedicated to your windows version. You will find there lots of useful suggestions on how to improve things in Windows OS to make it more easy for any DAW to work.

 

[John Vere]

This thread is very very old and the original posters might have passed away since. But thanks for trying to help. 

[Bill Phillips]

23 hours ago, John Vere said:

This thread is very very old and the original posters might have passed away since. But thanks for trying to help. 

Nope. I'm not dead yet.? But I did solve that problem. 

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

On 1/25/2019 at 11:49 AM, Misha said:

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.

It doesn't matter how high your core count or frequency is if your CPU is lacking on the Instructions Per Clock (IPC) field. A good example of that is the Ryzen 3600 beating the 1700/1800 when it came out, despite having 6 cores instead of 8.

[Simon Payne]

Yes is the answer.... Solved it Cakewalk. Make your plugin chainer apply the vsts in parallel as apposed to series. They can then properly distribute the processing over multiple cores and threads. Until then Blue Cats Patchwork does the job. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Simon Payne