TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- reason DPU problem
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]
yeah, reason is cpu efficient but even so, if you use a low end pc it gets maxed out in the end.
i think an entry or middle level dual core cpu is fine.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by music2dance2 Did you ever get to the bottom of this mate? My latest track that screwed my PC was probably the over use of devices - I remember seeing one of your tracks before. How many are you using in the project concerned? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by lowski yeah the problems are that reason only uses one core so it don't seem to matter how fast of a computer i get i will always have that problem. The other thing is that i can always be more efficient with how I use my devices. Although the one thing i'm not interested in is bouncing everything to audio to use in the NN-XT. You lose too much control and I often go back and change things so much that it almost really becomes endless, but that's another topic I guess with some styles of dance music Reason would be able to handle making beats pretty well but when you are trying to write really busy sounding uplifting trance you can get maxed out before you finish a track unless you really watch how you are doing things. But then again kandi is rumored to use Reason by it self, and his productions sound amazing. So i'm sure there is still alot more i need to learn I would say the main things i have been doing to conserve lately are; filling up my Redrums before I start a new one. But keeping control by using the different out patches on each redrum then running each to it's own EQ and/or mixer channel, Unless im making a percussion loop and adding effects to the stereo out. Also I will have mutliple track lanes for the Redrums to keep things looking orginized and for fast mass editing. I use the NN-Xt the same why when I'm loading Fx samples. The mixer send/return I now only use on one main mixer then chaining it when before i would have the same send return set up on 3 or 4 of the mixers. And last but not least I almost never use the Thor, mainly becuase i haven't taken the time to sit down and really dive into it, and becuase that device appears to use CPU like crazy One bad habit i got into though was using a combinator for almost all of my synths so i can keep the rack looking more orginized and so i wouldn't have to build a new track line if i wanted to automate a delay or some other device attached to the synth. But I kind of remember reading that the actual combinator doesn't use much CPU, so.. Anyway hope that helps. If you want i could take a look at your song, just drop a pm. |
3-4 mixers?
that means 56 channels ! 
ive almost never used more than two but most of the time i only use one. usualy three redrums, five thors, and the rest is samplers for efex, breaks, loops etc. u might want to learn how to limit your tracks down, its very likely u wont need all the sounds u have added. i think if u continue like that it will never matter how good computer u have u will max it out anyway. im also guessing u have a hard time finishing your projects?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by palm 3-4 mixers? that means 56 channels ! ive almost never used more than two but most of the time i only use one. usualy three redrums, five thors, and the rest is samplers for efex, breaks, loops etc. u might want to learn how to limit your tracks down, its very likely u wont need all the sounds u have added. i think if u continue like that it will never matter how good computer u have u will max it out anyway. im also guessing u have a hard time finishing your projects? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Stef I see nothing wrong with that many channels at all, i think of it as optimization of sounds. For example i seperate every sound i used down to groups EX: mid bass1 mid bass2 sub bass, arp, pluck, background, acid, pads, strings, lead1, lead2, sub lead, and other random things i need. Point is that every combinator has at least 1 mixer in it with usually around 4-8 synths in each combinator. I love to just layer different sounds together to create something nice and thick sounding. It takes me more time to eq everything...but i think it is worth it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by palm 3-4 mixers? that means 56 channels! |
Its a very much each to their own situation. If it works then its cool. There are advantages to using all techniques. Lowski is still learning and I'm in the same boat but you can go overboard with processing, i.e. eq and/or compression or the type of device you use - Use a less cpu hungry device to do the same job. I only say this cos i saw one of your projects and it was a monster, containing many, many devices.
I think with a combination of different techniques eventually it will work out but its madness to think that you cant produce your tracks in reason because the pc isnt pwoerful enough? I mean where will it end? After all the more power you have the harder you'll push and be in the same situation everytime, simply because you can. There are great tracks made in reason so that alone should inspire you to keep going, especially as you have learnt so much about reason so far.
Like I said before my last project I just kept on adding devices without a 2nd thought, or because I thought I needed it. when in fact I didnt need them and hadn't utilise all the other functions in reason which would give the same result and use less at the same time. This is down to remembering everything that is available to use at all times, and also understanding why you need to use something or not. I guess the question is before you use something just think, do I really need to use this or not?
About bouncing audio - I would do this maybe once or twice if really needed. It can be useful, but as derail said reason doesnt play back after the start point of the file so its not something Id do all the time.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.