Feedback computer config

Related
25

This is what the bindings page should look like:

grafik
grafik1002×490 7.37 KB

I use the 64 bit version of Tyrell - maybe that contributes to the issues?

All five instances use the preset “PV - JX Choir”

Audio settings are default from installation (except limiter switched off)
grafik

Cheers,

Torsten

26

Yes, my studio PC is a full-size tower PC, the Live Cube is a small form factor (2 liters) ASRock Mini-PC running a desktop processor.

27

Hey your live cube has better results?!

SmartSelect_20200731-102127_Chrome
SmartSelect_20200731-102127_Chrome624×551 167 KB

Is it something like that?

https://www.mifcom.de/gaming-cube-i5-9600k-gtx-1660-ti-ssd-id5558

28

Here some more data:

  • my current live laptop (Core i7 9750H @ 2.6 GHz): average around 34.5% , max around 36%
  • my old live laptop (Core i7 4720HQ @ 2.6 GHz) average around 43.3%, Max ca. 50%
29

it’s even smaller: the ASRock Deskmini 310:

https://www.asrock.com/nettop/Intel/DeskMini%20310%20Series/index.asp

30

Now here’s an interesting discovery:

  • I start Cantabile, set audio engine to “Null Audio”
  • I load the song “Perftest” - Time load settles at around 32% average on my studio PC
  • now I stop the audio engine (on/off switch) - time load (obviously) goes down to zero
  • now I turn the audio engine back on - bindings fire again and start playback (since Song->onLoad also fires on turning the audio engine back on)
  • now the time load is only at around 14% average and 20% maximum
  • same on my old live laptop - average drops from 43% to about 19%
  • no such effect on my new live laptop - average stays around 34% after engine cycling
  • also no effect from engine cycling on my live cube

@brad: any idea what’s going on here? Maybe you can reproduce this?

Cheers,

Torsten

31

Hi,
Sorry for the late I was “on the road”

My studio PC is "core I7 - 7820X 3.6 GHz, memory access : 3600 Mhz

Time load : 53% - Average 38,6 %
But I wonder if it is not more relevante to observe the CPU load dedicated to Cantabile with the cantabile ‘profiler’
CPU Load (Cantabile) : 1.9 %

What do you think of that ? There is a huge difference between the "time load and the CPU load, what is the more important ?

My gig configuration will be largely under my studio configuration (certainly i5 6th generation) …

Next I will try on my professional laptop (just for the test) it has a Xeon
Pierre

32

I have now used this song on four different machines with Tyrell installed in different VST directories: C:\Vstplugins, C:\Program Files\VstPlugins, C:\Program Files\Steinberg\VstPlugins

It loaded and started flawlessly on all four machines - just out of interest: where is the Tyrell dll installed on your machine? And: are you using the 32 bit or 64 bit version of Cantabile? I’m using 64 bit on all machines.

Cheers,

Torsten

33

Time load is the more relevant metric for using Cantabile live - it measures how much time it takes Cantabile to fill the audio buffer compared to the time to play the buffer. Once time load crosses above 100% you start getting drop-outs, irrespective of overall CPU load.

See @brad’s explanation here.

34

I played manually the E-major. Here is the result:

  • 43.2% average. 45.3 max (i7-4810MQ@2.8GHz) Null Audio/256
  • 42.1% average. 44% max. same processor. Audio Board ASIO/256

I’m unable to reproduce your “19%” conundrum.

Paolo

35

Hey
I expreminented the same thing…
Strange.
Stop and reopen and you win some extra %… well I saw that too.

36

I tried Torsten’s “perftest” song file, with null audio @ 44.1 / 256

Average time load - 68.0%
Maximum time load - 89.4%

I’m using a 10 year old 1st generation i5-750 @ 2.67GHz 4 core desktop.
Ya I know it’s antiquated, but has been reliable. And actually survived (barely) this test. :slight_smile:

I did not experience the load % changing after stopping and starting the audio engine like Torsten experienced.

38

I got better performances in aggressive mode. Not so much as you. About 8%

39

still better :slight_smile: than nothing

40

I RESUME
I made new test with the same parameters.

Surface pro 2 i5 70% 75%
Surface pro 3 i7 68 % 78%
Surface pro 7 i5 1035G4 48% 60
Dell inspiron i7 8565u 43% 50%
Pc (2014) i7 4770k 42% 45%

41

This is not directly related to your search for an older system, but I thought I’d mention that early this year I went through an exercise of trying to find a powerful laptop to handle a live VST/etc. laptop. I tried a few “loaded” consumer laptops in sequential order because none of them worked for me and I had to return them as I tried them. Yoga, Thinkpad, Dell. I selected the most current/powerful/fast CPU, 32GB, dual SS drives, etc. The only thing I didn’t spend on was the graphics/monitor. All of the laptops I tried had audio cracks & pops to some unsatisfactory degree. Even if I got a small glitch every 5 minutes, I considered it a failure. I performed all sorts of tuning, cleaning up, … nothing helped. I read, and was told, that the laptop power management (due to having to manage battery power) got in the way of clean-performance, … and that I should try a Clevo chassis (or any other “gaming laptop” type chassis). I ordered one (which did cost 30% more than the consumer laptops). I have not had any glitches at all on my current laptop and am extremely happy with it.
What I run “live” on the laptop:

  • 2 instances of standalone NI Kontakt (keyboard VSTs for 2 keyboardists)
  • Cantabile, which runs 3 instances of NI Guitar Rig in stereo. This results in 3 vocalists having 6 channels of plugin-effected vocals. Also an occasional Waves Tune Real-time “auto-tune” plugin.
  • ShowBuddy Lighting software
    *** Both Kontakt and Guitar Rig interface to a QSC TouchMix-30 digital mixer
1 Like
42

Hi @Torsten

I’ve had reports of this from some users before but never been able to reproduce it myself. Also never heard of it with the Null Audio driver, but I guess that’s rarely used. Leave it with me I’ll do some tests in the next day or two.

In the meantime it’s probably worth running a CPU reporting tool to see if any of the cores are being throttled or parked before vs after.

Brad

43

Hi guys,

I’m on an i9 7700x @ 3.3 GHz (10 cores - HT Off) and hit around 33% not quite the heights one would expect to hit over a lot of the i7s but does show that it’s not necessariy the number of cores that gives you the performance…

Cheers, and thanks to @Torsten as always.

P

44

It seems there are very different experiences, and a few processors to evaluate. I’m about to gather our posts to create a small database. I think I’ll use an Excel sheet, in old .xls format (Office 97-2003). So, it will be compatible with G-docs, OpenOffice and more. Here’s a possible screenshot. Any feedback will be appreciated.
In the meantime, I’d like to see more test like the one @Torsten proposed.

cpu-template
cpu-template808×116 4.31 KB

45

More cores can help. The most important parameter is the frequency. The higher GHz the better.That’s why desktop win on laptop.