QuadCore Disappointment

by **Vicious_Angel** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:59 pm

Dont get me wrong but even my i7 920 can fall to its knees really easy.
Its all the same again. A bad coded plugin can eat the same amount of your cpu as your current one. As i can see it now its all about ghz, so? Start overcloacking

by **Vicious_Angel** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:02 pm

And because you need food for thought http://www.digitalprosound.com/Htm/Soap ... Apogee.htm

by **Christophe** » Tue May 05, 2009 7:16 am

it's important to record external audio in 24/96 but for the majority here, using only orion internal synth or vsti it's useless !
if you don't understand why, read again articles without forgetting that they are talking about recording
your cpu will thanks you and some vsti does not even work well in 96 !

by **V/M** » Tue May 05, 2009 7:52 am

We should all remember that DaZoid sends his stuff off to get mastered, and they probably demand 24/96 because it gives them more to work with.

Quality arguments aside.. if there is a noticable difference in the sound between 44 and 96, and the target rate is 96, then it would make sense to work in the 96.

by **Richard** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:17 am

Regarding realtime playback:

- The bit rate is irrelevant when using ASIO. Orion will typically deliver 24-32 bits to the driver anyways, so you get the best possible quality.

- When the intended stream target rate is 96 kHz, use 48 kHz while working on your project, as it is exactly half that rate and should be closest soundwise.

- If important samples/clips used in the project were recorded in 44.1 kHz, choosing 44.1 kHz is optimal.

by **DaZoid** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:28 am

V/M wrote:We should all remember that DaZoid sends his stuff off to get mastered, and they probably demand 24/96 because it gives them more to work with.

Wow, V/M you must have a memory like an elephant. Beside my personal preference for 24/96, yes, indeed, my mastering studio demands 24/96 or if possible, they prefer 32/96.

by **Richard** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:29 pm

Vicious_Angel wrote:Dont get me wrong but even my i7 920 can fall to its knees really easy.
Its all the same again. A bad coded plugin can eat the same amount of your cpu as your current one. As i can see it now its all about ghz, so? Start overcloacking

True. Those plugins (or patches) are aimed at impressing the hobbyist, who has one instance open and doesn't notice it eating half his CPU ressources.

Understanding the plugin, knowing its inner workings and parameters and their impact on CPU usage helps. There's also a big disparity between CPU usage and sound quality. Don't think just because a plugin consumes 50% of system ressources, it sounds ten times better than a plugin consuming 5%. Programmers are geeks, so most plugins are mathematically motivated, rather than psychoacustically. CPU cycles may be wasted on things that are completely inaudible, or even degrade the sound quality.

by **DaZoid** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:47 pm

Richard wrote:Programmers are geeks, so most plugins are mathematically motivated, rather than psychoacustically. ...

That's why we are so lucky to have you. Very competent programmer, very low nerd level ;-)

:biglol:

by **Vicious_Angel** » Tue May 05, 2009 4:19 pm

Well explained Richard

by **HYPNAGOGIA** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:39 pm

Richard wrote:Those plugins (or patches) are aimed at impressing the hobbyist, who has one instance open and doesn't notice it eating half his CPU ressources.

:hihi:

I'm already imagining someone sitting in front of the screen, checking out patches of a synth and pacman gobbling on his head, and he doesn't even notice. :superlol:

Who is online