Website for optimizing computer performance for Audio
restpause
#91
20th June 2011
Old 20th June 2011
  #91
restpause
Guest
 

There's nothing wrong with disabling search indexing (the first tweak listed in the dude's link).

There's no control over when search indexing happens or doesn't happen and it's almost never completely done working because the system is always changing.

In my opinion, searching only needs to be done when the user needs to search. Even using old (non-indexing) search programs, it doesn't take long to search for files, and some of them have better interfaces than what comes with Windows. So in my opinion, it's best to use search only when you need to search for files, using a program with a better interface. Everything else (windows indexing) is a waste of resources and could potentially cause background disk thrashing.

If it doesn't cause disk thrashing, please point to some actual facts instead of just saying "tweaks bad bad".
#92
21st June 2011
Old 21st June 2011
  #92
Lives for gear
 
Timur Born's Avatar
 

Which goes to show that you don't know how indexing is done in Vista/W7. My point is not to ridicule you, but to tell you that you are pushing buttons without knowing the outcome. You can just as much trust me in telling you keep it running as you trust anybody to tell you to turn it off.

Turning off indexing on Vista/W7 is a non-tweak! Indexing by "searching" is only done *once* at the very beginning when the index is built up for the first time. Everything after that is done without "searching", the indexing service gets all information on file changes directly from the NTFS subsystem (don't delete the USN journal!) and thus doesn't need to do any scanning of its own anymore. When a file is created or modified the index is told about it and saves the changes right along.

And since you can define which folders/files to index and which not you have very precise control over what is worked on and what not. Anyway, both CPU and HD caused by Windows Search (there is an optional "Indexing" service installable for legacy compatibility reasons) is negligible, as in "towards zero".

Quote:
Windows Search uses a different architecture and a new indexer compared to Indexing Service.
Quote:
Unlike Windows Desktop Search on Windows XP, the Windows Search indexer performs the I/O operations with low priority, the process also runs with low CPU priority. As a result, whenever other processes require the I/O bandwidth or processor time, it is able to pre-empt the indexer, thereby significantly reducing the performance hit associated with the indexer running in the background.
Quote:
The Windows Search service provides the Notifications API component to allow applications to "push" changed items that need indexing to the Windows Search indexer.[10] Applications use the component to supply the URIs of the items that need to be indexed, and the URIs are written to the Gather Queue, where they are read off by the indexer. Microsoft Office Outlook 2007, as well as Microsoft Office OneNote 2007 use this ability to index the items managed by them and use Windows Search queries to provide the in-application searching features. The Notifications API is also used by the internal USN Journal Notifier component of Windows Search, which monitors the Change Journal in an NTFS volume to keep track of files that has changed on the volume.[20] If the file is in a location indexed by Windows Search and does not have the FANCI (File Attribute Not Content Indexed) attribute set,[10] the Windows Search service is notified of its path via the Notification API.
Quote:
While indexing, the indices are generally maintained in-memory and then flushed to disk after a merge to reduce disk I/O. The metadata is stored in property store, which is a database maintained by the ESE database engine.
And that's just one of so many non-tweaks haunting the web.
#93
21st June 2011
Old 21st June 2011
  #93
Lives for gear
 
Timur Born's Avatar
 

All the answers to these questions are already in the quotes of my last posts.

When you write to a file then the index gets the changes mostly from memory = no reading. If it has to read from disc it does so on lowest CPU and I/O priority, usually at idle times.

When the index file itself is written it is first done in memory = no writes, at least until there is enough information gathered and there is idle time for writing left. And even then the writing is done at lowest I/O priority and usually takes less than a second, because there simply isn't much to write.

And frankly, if you are running Windows 7 you can be expected to use hardware current and performing enough that the resource usage by indexing is like a mosquito's stitch on an elephant.

You can try the *worst* case scenario yourself, have your index rebuild (*really* reading all files and writing a completely new index file) and watch Resource Monitor while it's happening. Average CPU load on my setup is mostly less than 2% with peaks below 5%. Indexer will state "Indexing speed is reduced due to user activity".
restpause
#94
28th June 2011
Old 28th June 2011
  #94
restpause
Guest
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timur View Post
All the answers to these questions are already in the quotes of my last posts.

When you write to a file then the index gets the changes mostly from memory = no reading. If it has to read from disc it does so on lowest CPU and I/O priority, usually at idle times.

When the index file itself is written it is first done in memory = no writes, at least until there is enough information gathered and there is idle time for writing left. And even then the writing is done at lowest I/O priority and usually takes less than a second, because there simply isn't much to write.

And frankly, if you are running Windows 7 you can be expected to use hardware current and performing enough that the resource usage by indexing is like a mosquito's stitch on an elephant.

You can try the *worst* case scenario yourself, have your index rebuild (*really* reading all files and writing a completely new index file) and watch Resource Monitor while it's happening. Average CPU load on my setup is mostly less than 2% with peaks below 5%. Indexer will state "Indexing speed is reduced due to user activity".
This is the first time you've actually backed up your opinions about computer tweaking with actual facts and research that I've seen.

I admit I was wrong about indexing and you've shown me how I was wrong with these facts. I wish you'd do this more often instead of making snide remarks criticizing people or just giving people slaps on the wrist without saying why exactly a particular tweak or optimization is good or bad.

You make yourself look arrogant when you don't give supporting details. But like I said, this time you gave the details and you look informed.

As an aside, not everyone who runs Win7 is running it on new hardware. And my opinions on Vista are based upon experiences with configuring it for about a year before I downgraded to XP SP3. But to be fair, I never installed the Vista service packs because at the time my companions at another audio website were reporting some serious problems with their service pack installs. I have the suspicion now that maybe I wouldn've had fewer problems with Vista if I had installed the Service Packs and IF they had worked.

Overall, I found that Vista kept thrashing my hard drive and overworking my CPU even while I was running my DAW and it spoiled a lot of my recordings. That's real actual unforgetable experiences. And although Vista got better as I added tweaks and optimizations, it was much much better when I downgraded to XP SP3. That's the reality for me despite what anybody else says about THEIR system. I know what happened on mine and I don't lie.

But there was much less mystery and frustration while configuring XP SP3. Even XP SP2 was better than Vista on my computer.

Anyways, I'm rambling on a bit now. But I just think people need to keep in mind that we each have different experiences with our different gear and different configurations and versions. And also we need to stick to discussions about actual detailed facts instead of speculation or sweeping generalizations.

Again, I admit I was wrong about indexing, however, disabling indexing in no way will degrade a DAW. Just use a manual non-indexing search program with a better interface, use it when you want to run it, and the wait really isn't that long, and you'll still have gained a tiny bit of control back even if it's negligeable due to low overhead of indexed searches.
#95
28th June 2011
Old 28th June 2011
  #95
Lives for gear
 
Timur Born's Avatar
 

Nope, this is the first time you *noticed* me backing up my opinions about computer tweaking. I've written most of this on GS and other forums in the past already. But even if I did not then my arguments would still be just as valid as all the ones who claim the opposite with either just as little facts or even false information.

I only used Vista since SP1, but compared audio performance of XP, Vista and then W7 on the very same hardware with the very same audio interfaces and could not see much of a difference as far as low and medium latency was concerned. For my own usage cases Vista SP1 performed just as good as XP and added a better indexer/search on top.

Worst culprit with Vista SP1/2 was driver support, especially for 64-bit. Next came a memory leak of Windows Update Service and the extra memory overhead of Superfetch, both of which can easily be deactivated (and reactivated without need for a reboot). In a real side by side comparison XP 32-bit only uses slightly less RAM than Vista/W7 32-bit and ironically W7 uses slightly more RAM than Vista for both 32 and 64 bit.

There are still some specific issues affecting audio application with Vista/W7, but these happen mostly due to the missing adoption of current methodology of developers. GUI drawing is one of them, although one has to be fair that it's a complicated change/issue. Audio/Midi thread priorites are still a problem. Sure it would be nice if Aero wouldn't use the same high non-realtime priority that all DAWs used for ages. But it would be even better if DAWs adopted the use of realtime priorities for their realtime tasks.

And no, disabling indexing will not degrade DAW performance but neither will it boost performance. It will just degrade your capabilities to search the *content* of files, IE history and e-mails (Outlook search doesn't work without it at all). Nothing to win there. Better turn off Superfetch while recording, this at least makes some sense.
restpause
#96
1st July 2011
Old 1st July 2011
  #96
restpause
Guest
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timur View Post
Better turn off Superfetch while recording, this at least makes some sense.
Well I agree with you on that. I'm glad we agree on that point.

After I disabled SuperFetch during my long list of Vista tweaks, the hard drive thrashing decreased a bit. It's strange though because there are tons of forum discussions on other sites where people say you should never do that. But I prefer to try things out and see if there is improvement. Disabling SuperFetch seemed to help my (Vista) system.
#97
1st July 2011
Old 1st July 2011
  #97
Lives for gear
 
Timur Born's Avatar
 

The trashing happens because Vista's Superfetch fills all available RAM with cache data. Once RAM is filled it more or less stops. And even while trashing happens it only happens at lowest I/O and CPU priorities (still moves the r/w head though). On W7 Superfetch begins work only after about 2 minutes after booting (Vista immediately) and does not fill all RAM (albeit this is not exactly a benefit or disadvantage). So in W7 it "trashes" less, but I would prefer it to make more use of RAM. Balance is always hard to achieve.

You should not disable the Superfetch service permanently unless you know how to disable Readyboot! RB and Prefetching need the Superfetch service to work properly (else Windows will prefetch/cache the wrong files during boot). Instead disable Superfetch only when needed or disable it via Registry key (there's also a small utility to do all that via GUI).
restpause
#98
3rd July 2011
Old 3rd July 2011
  #98
restpause
Guest
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timur View Post
You should not disable the Superfetch service permanently unless you know how to disable Readyboot! RB and Prefetching need the Superfetch service to work properly (else Windows will prefetch/cache the wrong files during boot). Instead disable Superfetch only when needed or disable it via Registry key (there's also a small utility to do all that via GUI).

Yeah I disabled those too. It all worked out.
#99
3rd July 2011
Old 3rd July 2011
  #99
Lives for gear
 
Timur Born's Avatar
 

How did you disable Readyboot? Just turning off Prefetch is not sufficient.
soulstudios
#100
3rd July 2011
Old 3rd July 2011
  #100
soulstudios
Guest
 

Due to some pleasant remarks from some users, I decided to get my ass into gear and update the guide for modern times - it now supports Vista and Win7 as well.
In addition, the guide's been completely re-written based on my current recipe for teh happy computehs...

Recently travelled through Canada staying on organic farms - end up fixing up more laptops than I did farmwork- about 17 all told - so I can say without a shadow of a doubt these suggestions work.
Anywho, enjoy:

http://www.xpfree.org
(at some point I'll get around to buying a more accurate domain - but at the moment I'm a bit lazy).


Some Pcmark Vantage benchmark results from a couple of average-joe laptops I worked on (in particular look at the productivity scores - these indicate speed of general usage and interaction)
Windows 7:
before
after

Vista:
before
after

word up
#101
3rd July 2011
Old 3rd July 2011
  #101
Lives for gear
 
Timur Born's Avatar
 

Sorry, but I consider several of your "tweaks" dangerous and/or non-tweaks (indexing again?)!

I can go through the whole list if you like.
restpause
#102
3rd July 2011
Old 3rd July 2011
  #102
restpause
Guest
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timur View Post
How did you disable Readyboot? Just turning off Prefetch is not sufficient.
It's been over a year since I did all that Vista fussing. I really don't remember for sure. I probably disabled both the task and the service. But it's been such a long time I don't remember. There might have been a registry entry but I just can't remember. I threw away most of my Vista junk, install disks included. With both XP and Win7 both running better than Vista I saw no reason to keep Vista around.
#103
9th July 2011
Old 9th July 2011
  #103
Have to agree,Its all cozy giving free advice,however if one cannot handle their advice coming under scrutiny,analsis,what or how valuable is said advice?

Obviously the BEST deal for ALL is to KNOW WHY-HOW turning things off/uninstalling/ditching/changing "stuff" is actually for the BEST,not just-do this coz "I"said so.CHEERS-"more knowledge please"
#104
11th July 2011
Old 11th July 2011
  #104
Lives for gear
 
Timur Born's Avatar
 

I do this for a living and probably tried more than most people on the planet, thank you. Ironically you ask exactly that from people, to "read the theory sections on websites and don't try it out", but mostly only provide "do this, do that" without explaining "why it's needed".

I don't want to rain on your parade and appreciate the effort of helping people out. But just repeating old XP wisdom without knowing the differences between Vista/7 and XP is no help for anyone. To the contrary, it makes people spent time on rather useless tweaks and may even mislead them to break things.

Also I'm always willing to learn something new here, but you have to provide arguments, not just "fact". For example, I explained already why turning off Windows Search/Indexing on Vista/W7 has little to no impact on performance. I don't see you explaining in detail why people should care to turn it off. And why should people put on the risk of *first* turning off all defensive measures (Defender, UAC) and *then* downloading stuff from the internet? Why is turning off these measures useful at all (btw. Avira offers to turn off Defender during Installation by itself)?!
#105
5th August 2011
Old 5th August 2011
  #105
my conclusion is, with the actual situation of having "enough" CPU power (i7 systems) that there is not a lot of tweaking necessary if you don't want to be on top of every gamers/tweakers list.

some of the hints of soulstudio's are indeed "risky" for system health.
#106
28th August 2011
Old 28th August 2011
  #106
Gear Head
 

wow! thanks for posting those links! it is very useful.
#107
7th September 2011
Old 7th September 2011
  #107
Gear Head
 

#108
4th October 2011
Old 4th October 2011
  #108
Gear Head
 
fluxburn's Avatar
 

Windows 7 isn't that bad for music right out of the box. I have a Macbook Pro, 6 months old vs a Desktop Dual Core Duo with 2.4 Ghz, tried Cubase recent versions; good.

Cubase on Windows 7, the audio is not as easy, nor as elite for making samples sing, Logic is King for that. At least for me, the software's audio editing makes cutting samples to perfect cuts the 1st time everytime. With Cubase I never got their.

I'm trying Protools 9 soon or I might just stick with Logic Studio. The only reason I'm getting Protools 9 soon is everyone uses it, easier to load the Protools 9 files and import to Logic, unless mixing / mastering is better in Protools 9 or 10, 11, 12. Even digital performer, was better then Protools.

Reason? Too complex and I like my way of making music. Audio is king, but Protools is King? Sorry I compose with audio more then all softsynths or it's equally as important. But Logic audio editing, splicing, zeroing in automatically, all clicks better in Logic Studio 9.

Protools I know your tools are inferior to Apple's, also I know that your interfaces aren't the best. I like your competitors, Motu, Lucid, Apogee; better. The biggest problem with Protools, is the bar for the highest, isn't the highest. Mixing console it's come a long way, visually; but the performance?

Logic Studio has good performance. Fast working and easy to use.
Cubase has excellent features, strong audio features; but it's only so fast and still even if you memorize everything; still hard to use.
Protools, took too long to make midi features, they caught up though; but the audio part hurts.

Protools doesn't make sense.

"The Best Audio Recording Online Should Be The Best"

"But the Best is Logic Studio from Apple."

"What I need Protools for mastering?"

You can do that in Cubase as well. Fierce fight for the #1; who will always be the king.

I guess we will have Mac computers regardless if still Jobs is the man.

Logic Studio; Still King of Audio, DAW, Music Creation. | Nathan Belomy
#109
4th October 2011
Old 4th October 2011
  #109
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Logic king,no but it is great.

Cubase is much faster for me plus it has Melodyne style audio editing,with the ability extend ,shorten ,quantize to grid ,straighten/add vibrato,pitch shift notes plus more.

Logic has flex audio but cubase works like Melodyne which is king!

Samples yes logic rules.stock Plugins aswellpeace!

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz.com App
SLL
#110
10th October 2011
Old 10th October 2011
  #110
SLL
Gear maniac
 
SLL's Avatar
 

Hey, first time post here :-)

I've got a new win7 64bit installation up and running, dual booted with my old trusted XP music partition. Tonight, I've compared the performance between the two operation systems. And XP do perform a little better here.

Projects that are running at about 80-95% (ASIO meter, with a few peak led blinks) on my XP setup, goes a little higher on the win 7 setup, where the peak blinks are more frequent, nearly constant lit. The sound quality (clicks and such) on high loads are therefore a little worse in the win7 setup, but not much worse then on XP.

It's the 32bit Cubase version I've installed on both setups, and the plugins are all 32bit.

Now I ask myself, why do XP perform better than win7? Hmm.. The PDC latency is a little better on my XP setup (about 30-40 us), and (60-100 us) on win7. I've fiddled with win7 optimization all night, and just can't get PDC down to the XP values. The usbport.sys and a atapi.sys driver are the cause that brings PDC more up then on XP. I don't know, if an older usbport.sys driver would change anything, but for now I'm using the .sys drivers that comes with win7. Maybe the double up PDC latency on win7 is the cause for the worse ASIO driver performance. Could also the core win7 OS, that just is slower than XP, don't know?

Do any of you have performance compared both XP and win7, and what are your findings? Have you managed to get your PDC down to a minimum (0-40) on win7? If so, how did you do it?

My hardware setup:
- win7 64bit
- Asus P5K Deluxe, Q6600, 4GB ram
- RME HDSP 9652 + Nuendo 8 I/O
- Midex8 midi interface, Cubase 6 32bit

XP is optimized into the bone, and so is win7. I've use the:
Black Viper’s Windows 7 Service Pack 1 Service Configurations | Black Viper's Website | www.blackviper.com

... and disabling all services that wasn't needed for DAW usage. Also found a few tips on Native Instruments site:
Windows 7 Tuning Tips for audio processing

And here:
TweakHound - Tweaking Windows 7, Page 5

So my win7 DAW is also running on bare-bone. Memory usage after normal boot is about 500mb. Before I started to disable unimportant services, the usage was at about 1GB (win7 default).

The win 7 stability is as good as on XP. I haven't had any strange thing happening, just running smooth.

SLL
restpause
#111
29th October 2011
Old 29th October 2011
  #111
restpause
Guest
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLL View Post
Hey, first time post here :-)

I've got a new win7 64bit installation up and running, dual booted with my old trusted XP music partition. Tonight, I've compared the performance between the two operation systems. And XP do perform a little better here.

Projects that are running at about 80-95% (ASIO meter, with a few peak led blinks) on my XP setup, goes a little higher on the win 7 setup, where the peak blinks are more frequent, nearly constant lit. The sound quality (clicks and such) on high loads are therefore a little worse in the win7 setup, but not much worse then on XP.

It's the 32bit Cubase version I've installed on both setups, and the plugins are all 32bit.

Now I ask myself, why do XP perform better than win7? Hmm.. The PDC latency is a little better on my XP setup (about 30-40 us), and (60-100 us) on win7. I've fiddled with win7 optimization all night, and just can't get PDC down to the XP values. The usbport.sys and a atapi.sys driver are the cause that brings PDC more up then on XP. I don't know, if an older usbport.sys driver would change anything, but for now I'm using the .sys drivers that comes with win7. Maybe the double up PDC latency on win7 is the cause for the worse ASIO driver performance. Could also the core win7 OS, that just is slower than XP, don't know?

Do any of you have performance compared both XP and win7, and what are your findings? Have you managed to get your PDC down to a minimum (0-40) on win7? If so, how did you do it?

My hardware setup:
- win7 64bit
- Asus P5K Deluxe, Q6600, 4GB ram
- RME HDSP 9652 + Nuendo 8 I/O
- Midex8 midi interface, Cubase 6 32bit

XP is optimized into the bone, and so is win7. I've use the:
Black Viper’s Windows 7 Service Pack 1 Service Configurations | Black Viper's Website | www.blackviper.com

... and disabling all services that wasn't needed for DAW usage. Also found a few tips on Native Instruments site:
Windows 7 Tuning Tips for audio processing

And here:
TweakHound - Tweaking Windows 7, Page 5

So my win7 DAW is also running on bare-bone. Memory usage after normal boot is about 500mb. Before I started to disable unimportant services, the usage was at about 1GB (win7 default).

The win 7 stability is as good as on XP. I haven't had any strange thing happening, just running smooth.

SLL
I don't have as much experience with Windows 7, but I have a lot of experience with Vista 32-bit Home Premium and Windows XP SP2 OEM 32-bit , and Windows XP SP3 OEM 32-bit (which I'm running now).

I think what it boils down to is that Windows 7 is a refined version of Vista, which was inherently flawed.

As I tried to tweak Vista, I kept learning over and over again that certain functions were built into the OS kernel and those were some of the same functions that conflicted with DAW performance. Also, some annoying scheduled tasks and services could not be disabled even if they were not needed on Vista. Sometimes very strange errors would start cropping up if I tried to disable too much on Vista, even though I did nothing too unusual or aggressive.

Vista was just never designed to be a DAW, and was inherently designed to thrash the hard drive with it's incessant logging and masturbatory self-examining.

Microsoft had a lot of complaints and disappointments with Vista so they got Windows 7 out the door right away and it was an improvement on Vista, just as intended.

But there's no getting away from the fact that it's a derivative of Vista. It's for that reason that I haven't tried to upgrade from XP SP3 to Windows 7. Although, I will admit that Windows 7 turned out to be not as bad as I thought it would be. But it does require more powerful hardware than XP SP3 does.

On XP SP3, I get DPC's around 12 us. On Vista I struggled to get them to about 50 us, and had to disable the DVD ROM and card reader to get that low. After over a year of weekly tweaks to Vista for improved DAW performance, it never performed as good as XP SP3 does now and did from the early days of tweaking XP for DAW use.

These are my experiences. But I haven't used Windows 7 for DAW use. I only used Windows 7 on a computer for internet access and word processing. And even though that laptop computer hardware is faster and stronger than my desktop DAW computer, Windows 7 is noticeably slow on that computer.

I also just don't like the Windows Vista/7 OS layout and GUI, so I'm sticking with XP SP3 for as long as I can.

I realise that some of what I'm talking about doesn't relate directly to your concerns but I hope that some of it does and is helpful.

Peace.
#112
31st October 2011
Old 31st October 2011
  #112
Gear nut
I did some quite crazy stuff with plugins today and seems like it was a little too much for Asio4All. Let me explain.

I made a synth sound using NI Massive and its all three oscillators, 9x unison, max polyphony (64) and highest quality. Then I made a midi pattern with some some three or four voice chords with. Then I added DMG EQuality and automated four filters of it with huge fast sweeps, the mode being Digital. Then some very light effects, don't count. Now the thing is that I heard some clicks - rare, but they were there. I changed Asio4All's buffer size from 512 to 2048 and it definitely helped. To be sure, I changed it to 96 and the clicks became much more frequent, so it was that. However - even with 2048 they appeared. Rarely, but too often for me. A tiny cut twice in a minute, perhaps. Windows Task Manager showed that one of my eight threads was about 40-50% in use - CPU can handle it.

So, the question is, would an external audio interface solve the problem? Take every cut away? I'm gonna get one anyway, but would it help this?

I have had this problem before too, but I've realized it's not the total CPU usage that counts. I can have much more stuff happening and a lot more CPU in use, but it can be just one plugin or something like that that causes the clicking.
restpause
#113
4th November 2011
Old 4th November 2011
  #113
restpause
Guest
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCrane View Post
I did some quite crazy stuff with plugins today and seems like it was a little too much for Asio4All. Let me explain.

I made a synth sound using NI Massive and its all three oscillators, 9x unison, max polyphony (64) and highest quality. Then I made a midi pattern with some some three or four voice chords with. Then I added DMG EQuality and automated four filters of it with huge fast sweeps, the mode being Digital. Then some very light effects, don't count. Now the thing is that I heard some clicks - rare, but they were there. I changed Asio4All's buffer size from 512 to 2048 and it definitely helped. To be sure, I changed it to 96 and the clicks became much more frequent, so it was that. However - even with 2048 they appeared. Rarely, but too often for me. A tiny cut twice in a minute, perhaps. Windows Task Manager showed that one of my eight threads was about 40-50% in use - CPU can handle it.

So, the question is, would an external audio interface solve the problem? Take every cut away? I'm gonna get one anyway, but would it help this?

I have had this problem before too, but I've realized it's not the total CPU usage that counts. I can have much more stuff happening and a lot more CPU in use, but it can be just one plugin or something like that that causes the clicking.
Quote:
9x unison, max polyphony (64)
High unisons and high polyphony and long ADSR releases (which affect polyphony) will usually result in greater CPU strain. Reduce those 3 to what is audibly still OK and you'll be fine. Usually all three can be reduced while still sounding good but the tradeoff gained is significant.

I can't know if that's what's causing your clicking, but it will reduce the strain if you adjust those to be lower. And what are "light effects"? If you use a convolution reverb, even if only lightly, it still might strain the system.

I suggest freezing or using things more conservatively. Also make sure you aren't clipping at some intermediate internal stage. Some ITB clipping sounds likes soundcard clicks but it's not.
#114
15th November 2011
Old 15th November 2011
  #114
Gear interested
 

Now this is a great thread, I wish I had found this forum some years ago. I spent a lot of time and money building my pc and I always kept having drop-outs. Turned out to be the mainboard the trouble maker. After I changed the mainboard and updated to Windows 7 (64-bit) everything started working fine (except Pro Tools)...
restpause
#115
5th January 2012
Old 5th January 2012
  #115
restpause
Guest
 

#116
13th January 2012
Old 13th January 2012
  #116
Gear interested
 

Thanks!
#117
5th February 2012
Old 5th February 2012
  #117
#118
15th February 2012
Old 15th February 2012
  #118
Gear Head
 

Stick with Mac and you wont have any problems...
soulstudios
#119
15th February 2012
Old 15th February 2012
  #119
soulstudios
Guest
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Necola View Post
my conclusion is, with the actual situation of having "enough" CPU power (i7 systems) that there is not a lot of tweaking necessary if you don't want to be on top of every gamers/tweakers list.

some of the hints of soulstudio's are indeed "risky" for system health.
Complete bollocks.
The vast majority of what I recommend makes the system safer, not riskier.
You're welcome to your opinion...
Cheers,
Matt
#120
17th February 2012
Old 17th February 2012
  #120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex A View Post
Stick with Mac and you wont have any problems...
how about lets not...
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
drakewire / Music Computers
21
undermind / Music Computers
13
dharma41 / Music Computers
3
justyntime / Music Computers
4

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.