Wow! Ok. Since racks didn’t work well on version 1, I ran it out of a rack, even after V2, mainly because I didn’t take the time to set everything up, and because it was working well as it was. I tested @dave_dore 's rack, and after a few small changes, he has a rack version working well. It was after testing, B5 out of rack started glitching. I found that I could go back to Dave’s rack, and it worked well in his rack. So…I am going to test a new rack soon with my presets to see if it stays stable. It makes no sense, but many things with computers don’t jive.
Hey Corky,
I’ve been listening in on this discussion about the B5 pops and clicks. So I decided to try a few tests on my Live rig. Everything is fine here with no pops and clicks at 128 samples buffer with an RME Babyface Pro with an intel 2.9 Ghz Base freq cpu with 4 physical cores. The C3 resources settle down to 12~15 % with no keys pressed, 30~45 % playing normal slow chordings on 1 and 2 tiers with rotary swell up and down included and 65~105% when smearing while accelerating the rotor plugin ( this can produce clicks when applied repeatedly). So, as plugins go for Live work this one ranks as ‘Hungry’ but your troubles seem unrelated to everyday use of the plug. I’m sure you hit the check list so I can only hope a solution comes up. After your mention of the rack I made working still it really thickened the stew, I tried to do a single instance load and it was fine with factory default sound for the C3 60 model that comes up first. Same behavior with a new rack, all good.
I’m sure of one thing, the UVI format can create some real scripting hogs and this is one of them. I’m sure both AC and UVI are trying to optimize it but the round robin sample stuff, addition chorus/vibrato samples, perc samples and the rotary speaker is making a world of work for the CPU and over running smaller buffer size time lengths. So in general the faster the base speed of the cpu the more UVI player / B5 like it when it comes to playing latency (disclaimer … many players play at much longer latencies than me and it’s fine) . More cores don’t help, it’s the base frequency speed that is the determining factor, especially when the plugin seeks to crowd a single core with the workload and doesn’t spread the work out among the cores efficiently. If we are running laps VB3 and Blue3 are lapping B5 regularly. But the sound to me is why I’m drawn to using it … just my rusty penny …
Dave
Thanx for testing it Dave. I really have no idea, at this minute, why it started doing this. Since I am gigging this weekend, I am covered thanks to VB3. Once Sunday rolls around I am going to reload B5 in case some of the data was corrupted while unloading. Hopefully I will hear from AC too, although I expect the usual stock answer I always get. I am also going to get on the boards too and see if this is a problem for others. I love the sounds of VB3, Blue3, and B5 equally (maybe an exception for VB3 
). I am also drawn to B5. As I said in an earlier post, Hammond tones are equal to guitar tones: it is a matter of personal taste, and you will be searching for “that sound” for the rest of your life. Fifty years of playing many different Hammonds made me realize long ago they, like humans, are all different and sound different. I want the particulars of my 1st B3, but I can only hope I find something close. Kinda like my first love…I would love to see her, but she ain’t coming back, and I am not willing to deal with her baggage.
1 Like
I thought about this throughout my gig this evening, and still suspected the Focusrite, even tho it did the same thing on computer sound card. Read some of the boards when I got home, and decided to check for an updated driver for the Focusrite. There WAS one available from this past June which was to correct audio drop outs and disconnects. I have been testing it for about 30 minutes and B5 is working fine so far. My loads have also reduced to about what you are getting. Going to test it further after a little shuteye.
Regards
Corky
1 Like
So armed with Neil’s advice about the ‘JBridge Trick’ I downloaded the 32-bit version of UVI Workstation and let JBridge load that along with the B5 v2 and it’s pretty much worked! I can still provoke a complete dropout by hitting both manuals at the same time with two large palm-fulls of notes but interestingly it doesn’t seem to happen if I do it on one manual. So perhaps this is something to do with sending so much info on midi channels 1 and two at the same time?
Anyway, so far in ‘normal’ playing the B5 hasn’t dropped out or clicked even though the percentage meter can sometimes show spikes of well over 100%. Do I trust it? Well, I’ll keep playing and see what happens over a couple of days. As this is not really the ideal solution I’ll also contact AS now and see if they are working on reducing the overhead of the B5.
Paul
3 Likes
Just saw this on the other B5 post:
I’ve also contacted AS for information.
2 Likes
UPDATE:
B5 working great again after Focusrite update AND UVI update. Don’t understand why B5 took a nose dive anyway, but, at least, it is back in my arsenal.
Great to hear it Corky, I am still going good on B5 and Cantabile 3 is now up to 30 plus gigs no hassles ( well … except my old man brain farts … 
). Looking forward to Acoustic Samples next update, might even get lighter on CPU, we’ll see.
Dave
1 Like
Thought I would post a problem with B5 that I had for several weeks that was finally solved, just in case anyone intends to tweak the plug. Not that any normal person would do this, but one of the bands I play with is tuned to 432. (a Tesla thing, don’t ask why) I needed an organ plug, but found VB3 nor Blue3 were capable of detuning that way. B5 could by doing it in the UVI host:
I began playing B5, but after a few seconds, it would only play key clicks and an occasional sound, usually delayed. Then, after much investigation, I discovered my load was jumping as high as 200%, but attributed it to many other things. It was the UVI host. It affected other instances of B5, including racks, that were tuned to 440 as well. I deleted all instances of the 432 tuned B5. Now B5 is working great. But, I still needed to get to 432 somehow. I then searched the UVI host for other choices.
In the right hand corner of this page was my solution.
The last 3 selections on this page (very hard to see) are oct, semi, and fine. I used the fine tuning to detune to 432. All is well again 
Many regards to @dave_dore for some great input on this issue. I am emailing this to Arno at Acoustic Samples in case there may be a link here that solves some of the pops, clicks, and high loads that some people are experiencing.
Corky
2 Likes
Interesting pieces on the A-432 Hz “debate” here:
I had never heard of this before you had mentioned it!
Terry
I’ll have to admit, I was skeptical at first, but whether it is true, or it is just psychological, it seems to be more pleasant, but tuning down from A to Ab may do just as well. Some people claim tuning upwards gives a song more excitement. If I am singing a song in A 440, and tune down to A 432, it is, of course, easier to sing, which would make it more pleasant to sing. Many composers experimented with detuning, so did many of the blues guys. Many guitar players tune to Eb still, of course it makes it easier to bend the strings, which has nothing to do with natural vibrations in nature. It is all interesting, and may have some validity, but I am not Tesla or Einstein. I am just trying to get to the next gig 
1 Like
Good thing you’re not using a real Hammond! Or an electric piano 
(Although I guess a big Vari-AC could help with the organ.)
1 Like
I second VB3 as an organ plugin
1 Like
Just got this from Acoustic Samples:
Thanks for your feedback, we’ll investigate this issue and see if we can solve this issue !
Best regards,
Nicolas
Acousticsamples support
1 Like
Now you make me curious !
Can we have some sample?
Very interesting, all to do with natural harmonics !
http://cdn1.collective-evolution.com/assets/uploads/2013/12/432-440-759x500.png
I guess you guys all know the theorie, right? =)
this is also a must see
Love the last video - great visuals!
But on the 432 vs 440 discussion, most of the cymatic experiments are grossly misleading. Remember: this is all about resonance and standing waves, which in turn depend on the geometrics and physical properties of the vibrating medium. So it’s just as easy to construct a vibrating medium (steel plate, water bowl) for a cymatic experiment that will show harmonic patterns at 440 Hz and disharmonic ones at 432 - 
But everyone needs a conspiracy theory 
Cheers,
Torsten
5 Likes
And Surely (don’t call me Shirley 
) those physical properties that contribute to standing waves and resonances or cancellations in the “medium” is going to vary from location to location?
1 Like
Leave my medium out of this - I no longer organize seances.
I know the effects of the 432 vs 440 are real, because if I tune my bassoon to 432 I can still tell the difference even while wearing my tinfoil hat, whereas if I play it tuned to 440, then the tinfoil hat merely gives me a mild headache. (But not if I’m spinning around while I’m playing… and please don’t try this at home spinning while playing a thusly tuned bassoon in a small room!)
Terry
2 Likes
You guys are really bringing up flashbacks of when I took the brown acid at Woodstock. I remember a huge crowd circling in a spiral around me and I was naked. Someone had stolen my bell bottoms and everything was fuzzy…yet colorful…and my body was in tune with the music and the smell…and the crowd and…yeah…dig it. Was it 432? No…it was the acid.
3 Likes