Grem Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 1 hour ago, kevin H said: How long do we have to pick the freebies after GB ends? i miss the graphs and jokes Feels like going back to work after a long vacation heheh Yeah... it's kinda getting.... boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toffo Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 Amplitube 5 (latest version) loaded in 10 seconds for me. Launched again immediately and it was 4 seconds. I have no doubt the issues you're reporting on your end are true. Sure sounds like your experience is incredibly frustrating, Kenny, but to take it out on Peter... two wrongs don't make a right. I hope you get your issue resolved because Amplitube 5 is a great product. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grem Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 14 hours ago, telecode 101 said: it a MEMS Arc 3 or MEMS Arc 2.5 mic? Mems mic for ARC 2.5 and above. https://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/arcmic/?pkey=mems-measurement-microphone-for-arc-system Was $69, but with JP I was able to get it down to $48. I also have the old mic from ARC 2. They are not the same. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telecode 101 Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 1 hour ago, Grem said: Mems mic for ARC 2.5 and above. https://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/arcmic/?pkey=mems-measurement-microphone-for-arc-system Was $69, but with JP I was able to get it down to $48. I also have the old mic from ARC 2. They are not the same. I am wondering if the MEMEs mic that IKM sell is the same one that B&H sell or whether its a newer one made for Arc 3. My issue is no SKU numbers on IK site. I have access to a suppler I deal with for servers and parts who also can get IK stuff.. but without SKU #'s .. its hard to figure out what hardware is what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grem Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 1 hour ago, telecode 101 said: but without SKU #'s .. its hard to figure out what hardware is what. I can look at the box when I get home. May be able to.see.on my order... let me check. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mibby Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 I'm done. No Tape Machines for me, only 3 X-Gear pedals. (only???) I guess I'd rather be making stuff right now rather than mixing. Besides, now I can get the tapes as a bundle if they go on sale. They sound amazing by the way. I was leaning towards the 440 as my single pick. Then I listened to the demo on the X-Gear Vibe and picked it. Thanks IK and @Peter - IK Multimedia for all of the plugins! Where to start? Wow. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abacab Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Grem said: Mems mic for ARC 2.5 and above. https://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/arcmic/?pkey=mems-measurement-microphone-for-arc-system Was $69, but with JP I was able to get it down to $48. Plus $12.99 for IK ground shipping... I priced the Dayton EMM-6 at Amazon $67.57. It's free shipping, but a few bucks more than the Mems from IK at $61 with Jammies and shipping. https://www.daytonaudio.com/product/911/emm-6-electret-measurement-microphone https://www.amazon.com/Dayton-Audio-EMM-6-Measurement-Microphone/dp/B002KI8X40# Edited October 22, 2021 by abacab 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Boileau Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 10 hours ago, Peter - IK Multimedia said: Either way, I'm sure any issue can be resolved and if anybody has opened a ticket and they are not satisfied with how it is going or needs me to bump someone for some clarification I can and surely will. I'm willing to help and I do understand that frustration can result in aggression so just let me know if and when you do need/want my assistance if you haven't had luck with the support system. Thanks! I don't want to participate in the rant, I just want to give info. And it is what I have done from the start. I know you were responding to Kenny, but since I have been involved in reporting this problem, I do feel I need to clarify my position. First, I would caution people in blaming AT5 taking forever to load up. When an app is starting up, all of its files are checked by your virus scan! Depending on how efficient your virus scan is, this may have an impact and not AT5's fault at all. If you are up to it, you can temporarily disable your virus scanner and start AT5 so you can see which is really causing the slow load. I have opened a ticket exactly a month ago, about the CPU usage, not the loading time. The ticket number is #3712804. I was asked to send info about my machine, which I did. I was told they where looking into this with other users. I answered I would gladly offer more help if needed. If you want to check the status of the ticket, I leave it to you to decide, but would be grateful to get any news. My intervention in reporting this as always been to help, IK and its users. I honestly want AT5 to be the best product of its kind and if I see something that could potentially derail it from that, I will report it. If the devs want to test on my machine, either by sending beta versions that I test or even connecting remotely to my machine, they are welcome to it! I will be glad to work with them on this. The problem with this increase in CPU usage is that it probably affects everyone to some degree. But, if you have a recent more powerful machine you will probably not notice it. For example, if you have a recent, powerful machine and AT5 used to take 1% CPU usage and it doubles to 2%, it won't be apparent and you won't care even if you are made aware of it. If you have an older machine and it used to take 5% CPU usage and it then doubles to 10%, you will notice and will care that it does. On a multi guitar tracks song, it is of course even more noticeable and can bring your mix to its knees. Some facts about the problem: AT5 approximately doubled its CPU usage from version 5.0.3 to 5.1.0, at least on some machine if not all. There was no big functionality added, as per the release notes, for the user between these 2 versions that would warrant this. Support and devs have been made aware of the problem and responded they are looking into it. Some solutions proposed by me and others: Stick to AT5 5.0.3. Not the best thing since we all want the new stuff, especially the X-Gear, but can do while the devs look into it. Upgrade your machine. This would help in many ways other than with AT5, but is certainly not feasible for many and buying AT5 should probably not come with this requirement. At least, I don't want to upgrade just yet a machine that performs really well in all other aspects. Let's not send our PCs too quickly to the landfill, it is not ecological. Mine is an i7-4790. Old, but audio work is not as intensive as video work for example, and should still do fine for a while. Freeze tracks. This is probably the best solution, but it is time consuming. 6 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Waidelich Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 52 minutes ago, Jacques Boileau said: Some solutions proposed by me and others: Stick to AT5 5.0.3. Not the best thing since we all want the new stuff, especially the X-Gear, but can do while the devs look into it. Upgrade your machine. This would help in many ways other than with AT5, but is certainly not feasible for many and buying AT5 should probably not come with this requirement. At least, I don't want to upgrade just yet a machine that performs really well in all other aspects. Let's not send our PCs too quickly to the landfill, it is not ecological. Mine is an i7-4790. Old, but audio work is not as intensive as video work for example, and should still do fine for a while. Freeze tracks. This is probably the best solution, but it is time consuming. I am using an i7-4770 for my dedicated music DAW which I built earlier this summer so I have no plan on upgrading anytime soon. I haven't updated to latest AT-5 yet and was going to wait and check forums before doing so... However, I plan on getting the X-Gear plugs once my iRig Midi arrives (hopefully Saturday ?) so I may update then if the X-Gear isn't compatible with my current AT-5. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluzdog Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 5 minutes ago, Jake Waidelich said: I am using an i7-4770 for my dedicated music DAW which I built earlier this summer so I have no plan on upgrading anytime soon. I haven't updated to latest AT-5 yet and was going to wait and check forums before doing so... However, I plan on getting the X-Gear plugs once my iRig Midi arrives (hopefully Saturday ?) so I may update then if the X-Gear isn't compatible with my current AT-5. F.w.i.w.... I'm running AT 5.2.0 on my laptop. It has an I7 8750H processor. Load time is 12 seconds and the CPU hit is negligible. It loads the 4 X-Gear pedals without issue. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAGinz Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 1 hour ago, bluzdog said: F.w.i.w.... I'm running AT 5.2.0 on my laptop. It has an I7 8750H processor. Load time is 12 seconds and the CPU hit is negligible. It loads the 4 X-Gear pedals without issue. About the same here….on all counts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abacab Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 3 hours ago, bluzdog said: F.w.i.w.... I'm running AT 5.2.0 on my laptop. It has an I7 8750H processor. Load time is 12 seconds and the CPU hit is negligible. It loads the 4 X-Gear pedals without issue. Can you quantify "negligible" in an actual CPU percentage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluzdog Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 30 minutes ago, abacab said: Can you quantify "negligible" in an actual CPU percentage? That assessment was made with the stand alone version. I just created a Studio One project and added 2 instances of AT 4 and 2 instances of AT 5. The load time was super fast for both versions but AT 5 does use about twice the CPU power. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abacab Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 8 minutes ago, bluzdog said: That assessment was made with the stand alone version. I just created a Studio One project and added 2 instances of AT 4 and 2 instances of AT 5. The load time was super fast for both versions but AT 5 does use about twice the CPU power. Hey thanks! It's that doubling effect that has some folks with older PC's concerned. As in multi-tracks with the plugin could drag the PC down quickly. I'm sure it's fine in standalone with just one instance. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Patrick Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 Welp...just to join in...It takes my super duper hot computer (built by Jim Roseberry) about 2 or 3 minutes to open Amp5 either standalone or in Cake. But it also takes a good bit to open Guitar Rig 6...tho not as long as Amp5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bapu Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 11 minutes ago, Steve Patrick said: Welp...just to join in...It takes my super duper hot computer (built by Jim Roseberry) about 2 or 3 minutes to open Amp5 either standalone or in Cake. But it also takes a good bit to open Guitar Rig 6...tho not as long as Amp5. AT5 standalone takes about 5 seconds to open on my I9 10900K processor O.C. 5.0GHz and about the same on my MacPro Dual Zenon. Annoying nag about try and buy, like Kenny. But since I rarely use Standalon, no biggie here. Also, it loads in about 4 seconds as an FX in CbB. No annoying nag about try and buy though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abacab Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 (edited) This is not going to be a popular opinion, but a reasonably current state of the art computer might be required to run the latest gen virtual instruments and effects. Sure, the new stuff is much more capable, but it also takes more computer horsepower to make it go around. I'm not saying that excuses developers from optimizing their products for efficiency, but there will be physical limits to how far that goes. The same computer that can run 100 tracks of audio, might hit the wall when asked to load up a bunch of hungry VST's. However, I think that there may be a disconnect in the problem discussions with IK. It's likely true that a single instance of AT5 might be a negligible CPU hit for a standalone performance on an average computer. But different use cases need to be acknowledged, and performance issues dealt with for those specific uses. Such as multi-track DAW recording. Users are going to expect to put a guitar amp sim on every guitar track in their DAW project. If a new version eats up 20% of the CPU per instance, rather than 5% like their old amp sim, what's the solution? Edited October 22, 2021 by abacab 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Walton Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 1 hour ago, abacab said: This is not going to be a popular opinion, but a reasonably current state of the art computer might be required to run the latest gen virtual instruments and effects. Sure, the new stuff is much more capable, but it also takes more computer horsepower to make it go around. I'm not saying that excuses developers from optimizing their products for efficiency, but there will be physical limits to how far that goes. The same computer that can run 100 tracks of audio, might hit the wall when asked to load up a bunch of hungry VST's. However, I think that there may be a disconnect in the problem discussions with IK. It's likely true that a single instance of AT5 might be a negligible CPU hit for a standalone performance on an average computer. But different use cases need to be acknowledged, and performance issues dealt with for those specific uses. Such as multi-track DAW recording. Users are going to expect to put a guitar amp sim on every guitar track in their DAW project. If a new version eats up 20% of the CPU per instance, rather than 5% like their old amp sim, what's the solution? Considering they make a version of this application that runs on a phone....I think it is reasonable to expect that we shouldn't need a state of the art computer to run the sister application on a reasonable spec computer. Not only that but fire up a plugin alliance Amp sim that only takes up like 20megs of HD space, uses very little processing power and sounds and responds as good as anything in AT5 and we are left wondering about the efficiency of an app that takes longer to load than any other VST I have out of a couple thousand. I like AT5, big upgrade from 4, but the Amplitube Plugin which is a plugin that one REALLY needs to run at the lowest possible latency - which by nature will tax a computer, needs to be one that is efficient. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abacab Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 4 minutes ago, Brian Walton said: Considering they make a version of this application that runs on a phone....I think it is reasonable to expect that we shouldn't need a state of the art computer to run the sister application on a reasonable spec computer. I agree with the rest of what you said, but the first part about running on a phone is a similar use case to running ST5 standalone on a PC. It's a single performance, so as long as the latency is fine, then it doesn't matter how much CPU use is required to pull it off. It's not competing with multiple instances of itself for finite CPU cycles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Walton Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 1 minute ago, abacab said: I agree with the rest of what you said, but the first part about running on a phone is a similar use case to running ST5 standalone on a PC. It's a single performance, so as long as the latency is fine, then it doesn't matter how much CPU use is required to pull it off. It's not competing with multiple instances of itself for finite CPU cycles. True, but I feel like I can't make an full blown rig with it in standalone (on a machine that is older but still capable in most respects) and run it at the latency I want either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now