Jump to content

Random Questions about Random Programs


Hy Bound
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have EWQLSO Gold and really am having trouble with figuring a few things out: Namely, it rapes my lil compy (with 3.2Ghz processor) if i only have 10 of the samplers running. Is there a way of making it take up less CPU? I have been looking at the manual about how to set layers to each sampler, but havent really figured it out yet, they only play one at a time.

Also, for those of you who also use the EWQL stuff, does StormDrum do a good job at not raping my CPU? and also, is their RA and Choir libraries worth the money.

Also, i was wondering about ACID 5; is anyone else having the program not let you paint in, draw in or click on samples after you put them in the rack?

Thanks in advance and sorry if these are strange or noobish questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, "only" 10? Streaming high-memory, realistic samples is CPU-intensive. 10 instances of that thing is gonna rape ANY computer. But yeah, you're not getting it right. Each instance of QLSO Gold can load up to 8 patches. Each patch has a MIDI channel assigned to it; by default starting with 1 and increasing by 1 each time. Depending on your sequence, you need to set it up so that MIDI data is getting sent to each of those MIDI channels in the sampler instance. Each instance would then be on it's own MIDI port, thus giving you 8 channels per port (and you have unlimited ports, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have EWQLSO Gold and really am having trouble with figuring a few things out: Namely, it rapes my lil compy (with 3.2Ghz processor) if i only have 10 of the samplers running. Is there a way of making it take up less CPU? I have been looking at the manual about how to set layers to each sampler, but havent really figured it out yet, they only play one at a time.

First of all, CPU speed has little to do with your problem. Its all about how much RAM you have. If you're running 10 samples from EWQLSO on it, you probably have about 1 GB of RAM huh?

Second, I see that you are using Ableton Live, so this suggestion is probably worthless(because you pr0bably want to use it live,), but if you drop the preload buffer size and the voice buffer size as far as they go (48 KB) you can get a lot more performance out of EWQLSO at the cost of mucho mucho latency. I use this because I don't do anything live and I only have 512 MB of RAM. Works like a charm and doesn't harm sound quality at all. But this technique will greatly affect latency. Please keep that in mind. Especially since you are using a program built for live playing and recording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Cerrax, but that is incorrect. Anytime you play back samples via something like Kompakt or Kontakt you're eating up processor cycles. If you don't believe me, load one string patch and play a single note. Watch your CPU meter. Then, play 20 simultaneous notes. Your CPU will spike. That's because it takes power to play back those voices... RAM only matters for loading the samples initially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For your ACID problem - do you have the latest version? I think they are at 5.0c or d.

You should upgrade to Live 6 when it comes out :) The new Deep Freeze looks like it is the shit. You can move around your frozen pieces, split, add automation, and then when you unfreeze it applies all that to your midi. Extremely coooool. I'm looking forward to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Cerrax, but that is incorrect. Anytime you play back samples via something like Kompakt or Kontakt you're eating up processor cycles. If you don't believe me, load one string patch and play a single note. Watch your CPU meter. Then, play 20 simultaneous notes. Your CPU will spike. That's because it takes power to play back those voices... RAM only matters for loading the samples initially.

Well I can't imagine that his 3.2GHz processor is havinga problem with EWQLSO because mine's only 1.7GHz and as long as my buffer stays small, it works fine. And I'm using Garage Band (the most CPU sucking program ever)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, if you don't believe me, test it yourself. Compare the CPU on a single note with a 20 note chord.

I'm not saying I don't believe you. I'm saying that I don't think his processor's speed is the problem. Maybe the RAM isn't his problem, but since my 1.7 GHz can run 10 samples with Garage Band, I can't imagine that the processing speed is the problem, considering his is twice as fast as mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks a ton guys! I really appreciate the responses. I still havent figured out how to do the 8 channel midi things... but i havent really had the chance to try it. Anywho, i am also REALLY considering buying StormDrum. I was wondering if anyone who uses it could tell me how they like it.

Also, i do have about 1 GB of RAM and havent really tried anything with the buffering yet but i think that if i figure out the midi port thing it wont be much of a problem since i use the CPU UN-intensive Reason for about 50% of my stuff so far, but thanks for the advice!

And yes, the CPU does spike with multiple instances of a same sample set played at once. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stormdrum is a great product. It's expensive, but it will definitely fulfill your needs for big, booming percussion. It also has a lot of really good acoustic AND electronic drumkits, surprisingly, as well as a fairly strong selection of small percussive instruments. I use it all the time. The Intakt loops are useful, but somewhat recognizable to any other Stormdrum users because they're so distinct. You gotta be careful w/ em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stormdrum is a great product. It's expensive, but it will definitely fulfill your needs for big, booming percussion. It also has a lot of really good acoustic AND electronic drumkits, surprisingly, as well as a fairly strong selection of small percussive instruments. I use it all the time. The Intakt loops are useful, but somewhat recognizable to any other Stormdrum users because they're so distinct. You gotta be careful w/ em.

I feel exactly the same as zircon. Of course, I only sorta know what I'm doing, and I don't nearly have as much experience as he.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, if you don't believe me, test it yourself. Compare the CPU on a single note with a 20 note chord.

I'm not saying I don't believe you. I'm saying that I don't think his processor's speed is the problem. Maybe the RAM isn't his problem, but since my 1.7 GHz can run 10 samples with Garage Band, I can't imagine that the processing speed is the problem, considering his is twice as fast as mine.

i'm guessing you're using EWQLSO Silver. he's using Gold. Gold is 6 times bigger. and also, you're using a mac. i'm assuming he's using a PC. you're comparing apples and oranges here mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, if you don't believe me, test it yourself. Compare the CPU on a single note with a 20 note chord.

I'm not saying I don't believe you. I'm saying that I don't think his processor's speed is the problem. Maybe the RAM isn't his problem, but since my 1.7 GHz can run 10 samples with Garage Band, I can't imagine that the processing speed is the problem, considering his is twice as fast as mine.

ARRRRGH! I am SICK AND TIRED of seeing this crap....

He didn't specify if he was on Mac or PC. Also, you aren't specifying whether you are using a powerpc mac or a macinteltosh (though based on your clock speed, I'm assuming the latter).

That matters A TON in terms of CPU clock speed.

It's called the Megahertz Myth, and you can thank intel for it for advertising clock spped primarilly as their benchmark.

PowerPCs perform A LOT differently at lower clock speeds than pentiums. PowerPC chips run at lower clock speeds than pentiums for the same performance, though their performance celing turned out to be significantly lower than the pentium's, hence Apple's switch.

As the previous poster said, that comparison could potentially be apples to oranges.

Clock speed only matters if they are the same specific archetecture.

For instance: Athlons are x86, but they historically performed better at lower clock speeds than pentiums.

Even that slight difference nullified clock speed as a speed comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, if you don't believe me, test it yourself. Compare the CPU on a single note with a 20 note chord.

I'm not saying I don't believe you. I'm saying that I don't think his processor's speed is the problem. Maybe the RAM isn't his problem, but since my 1.7 GHz can run 10 samples with Garage Band, I can't imagine that the processing speed is the problem, considering his is twice as fast as mine.

ARRRRGH! I am SICK AND TIRED of seeing this crap....

He didn't specify if he was on Mac or PC. Also, you aren't specifying whether you are using a powerpc mac or a macinteltosh (though based on your clock speed, I'm assuming the latter).

That matters A TON in terms of CPU clock speed.

It's called the Megahertz Myth, and you can thank intel for it for advertising clock spped primarilly as their benchmark.

PowerPCs perform A LOT differently at lower clock speeds than pentiums. PowerPC chips run at lower clock speeds than pentiums for the same performance, though their performance celing turned out to be significantly lower than the pentium's, hence Apple's switch.

As the previous poster said, that comparison could potentially be apples to oranges.

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, if you don't believe me, test it yourself. Compare the CPU on a single note with a 20 note chord.

I'm not saying I don't believe you. I'm saying that I don't think his processor's speed is the problem. Maybe the RAM isn't his problem, but since my 1.7 GHz can run 10 samples with Garage Band, I can't imagine that the processing speed is the problem, considering his is twice as fast as mine.

ARRRRGH! I am SICK AND TIRED of seeing this crap....

He didn't specify if he was on Mac or PC. Also, you aren't specifying whether you are using a powerpc mac or a macinteltosh (though based on your clock speed, I'm assuming the latter).

That matters A TON in terms of CPU clock speed.

It's called the Megahertz Myth, and you can thank intel for it for advertising clock spped primarilly as their benchmark.

PowerPCs perform A LOT differently at lower clock speeds than pentiums. PowerPC chips run at lower clock speeds than pentiums for the same performance, though their performance celing turned out to be significantly lower than the pentium's, hence Apple's switch.

As the previous poster said, that comparison could potentially be apples to oranges.

Clock speed only matters if they are the same specific archetecture.

For instance: Athlons are x86, but they historically performed better at lower clock speeds than pentiums.

Even that slight difference nullified clock speed as a speed comparison.

Do you make music at all? Or do you spend your time trolling this forum giving bad advice and bitching about shit nobody cares about? Take it from a fellow troll, nobody likes it :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...