![]() ![]() ![]() What can be done to improve the use of multiprocessors on a mac? Specifically is there any other strategies similar to the PC’ers bios options? You can also just deactivate the energy save mode of the CPU in your mainboard Bios (AMD Cool’n Quiet Enhanced Intel Speedstep (EIST) Enhanced Halt State C1E). The core parking issue should not be a problem today, if you just activate the “Steinberg Audio Power Scheme” in Cubase and the Multi Processing. The HALion 4.5 is capable of using Multi core systems in an awesome way. Steinberg has made a very impressive step into the future and developed an awesome feature in the HALion 4.5. I don’t want to blame on them, but in the year 2012 where DAWs normally have at least 4 cores, this is a pity for the user. Many most popular third party VST Plug-Ins are not able to use Multi cores in an efficient way. I am coming back to the original topic: Multi core support.Ĭubase can use Multi Processor systems since Cubase VST 5.x and Cubase 6 is capable of using Multi Core systems in a very efiicent way.īut the used VST Plug-Ins also need to be able to use Multi cores/ processors. It worked out fine… although in the future, I might try working at 96kHz which would be a nice compromise on CPU vs sound I think. I have no regrets about doing this project at 192kHz. I decided the difference was noticeable enough though that I wanted to experiment with producing an entire album at this sample rate - which is what I have done. Some plugins actually do sound better to me at 192kHz relative to 44.1kHz (it is a very slight difference though - and like I mentioned earlier in this thread, it is debatable whether it is worth the CPU cost). They obviously imply that some processes are superior at 192kHz.īefore deciding to do my project at 192kHz, I did many many experiments with plugins at all of the different sample rates. You have to keep in mind they are aiming to emulate an analog preamp/EQ - not aiming for the least artifacts. 1.: In an absolute sense, meaning processing at 192 kHz is always better, and 2.: 192 kHz is better because the design choice was made by UAD to optimize their processing at this frequency for the internal filters. Mmh, from your quote, this can be read in two ways. If you still have questions, search and you shall find the answers to them. These plugins you mention already do it internally and that’s all that’s needed for them to provide the highest quality possible. But, as far as recording goes, there is nothing you will gain from recording at quad speeds, especially considering the points already mentioned in my previous posts. Actually, you will also see metering and limiter plugins using over sampling as a way to interpolate the analog waveform in order to detect inter-sample peaks. The same applies to ADC, synths, and pretty much anything that uses high quality filters. ![]() You already know that these plugin manufactures use over sampling to remove artifacts produced by the digital filters as much as possible from the audible range. ![]() It’s not that I’m not acknowledging your question, it’s just that I thought it wasn’t necessary to answer it after all of the responses you’ve gotten. I will agree though with you in this regard - it is a small difference (so if it’s worth the CPU cost or not is debatable). If you and Dan Lavry cannot hear it, I don’t know what else to say. I have heard it, and apparently many other plugin manufacturers have heard it as well. In reality, it’s much more of a grey area… And there may be some tiny benefit. Here it is again: Why do YOU (Jose) think some plugins manufacturer’s such as Universal Audio upsample their plugins? For fun? Before you accuse me of being dismissive and defensive… Why are you so resistant to even share your opinion on this question/subject? It “appears” that you are just ABSOLUTELY against even the slightest possibility that there is ANY benefit whatsoever to 192kHz. I have asked it 3 times now, and yet you refuse to even acknowledge it. Isn’t it really YOU that is dismissing MULTIPLE MANUFACTURERS, AND me by still refusing to answer my question from earlier? Others here have even answered it for you. You honestly think it’s more likely a marketing ploy than for technical reasons? Some of them don’t even talk publicly about it - you have to read into depth to find this information. Also, there are MANY plugin manufacturer’s that upsample. I have only said that the only benefit I can see may possibly be that “ some plugins may sound better - others do not sound any different”. I have made no claim of better sounding recordings. You say I just dismiss Dan Lavry and you. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |