|
What kind of performance boost can I expect with this upgrade? (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Perhaps, if it weren't for the fact that every time I mention how I myself do things, and how they work and Ive been doing them for years, I get a boot in the face.
Like how Ive used 2048 samples for many years and Its never had a downside, but I am apparently doing something wrong. |
you weren't addressing the problem stated by the first poster. The problem is lack of CPU for vsts. Latency , except for extremely low ones ie 128, don't really touch CPU. A higher latency will reduce clicks and pops but that wasn't the problem. You were wrong, not because how what you use, but rather because it was irrelevant to the issue.
You also don't mention your specs, which from an another thread is onboard audio, which is not the norm for most producers on here. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
A CPU is slow, so you give the CPU more time to process, How does that NOT help?
Yeah I use onboard sound, as a music producer in 2009, an actual sound card won't benefit me any. My DAW won't even use it for anything other than routing. I don't need any of the input the card comes wither either. And the extra processing power will not be used [or needed] |
|
|
| RichieV |
according to your logic doubling your latency would double your CPU power. Latency is set at your soundcard. It has no control on CPU processing. Higher latency allows your soundcard to digest the information from your CPU which is then converted to audio to your spealers. In theory ( in a perfect world) , they have absolutely no relation.
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Yeah I use onboard sound, as a music producer in 2009, an actual sound card won't benefit me any. My DAW won't even use it for anything other than routing. I don't need any of the input the card comes wither either. And the extra processing power will not be used [or needed] |
onboard sound suffers from videocard interference. They also have very poor converters so mixing will always be less accurate. This might be perfect for your situation because you don't really need accurate monitoring. But others do and herein lies the problem. You assume people have the exact same needs as you. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Well, over time it would double. Lol.
Measure how much a CPU can process in 1 minute, then give the CPU two minutes, I bet is processes double. But I get what your saying.
Assume people have the exact same needs as me because of the quality of music I hear. It would be crazy to go to an art site full of images that look like they were done in photoshop, and not assume that everyone there uses photoshop.
Everyone reading this, come to http://www.stickam.com/fattybeats Mystical Ninja is doing a live show :D |
|
|
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Well, over time it would double. Lol.
Measure how much a CPU can process in 1 minute, then give the CPU two minutes, I bet is processes double. But I get what your saying. |
no you still don't get it.
Think of the CPU as a faucet and the vsts used as a system that creates the pressure of the faucet. The communication is oonly going one direction. Now think of the soundcard as a buck under the faucet. Now think of latency as holes in the bucket. Latency allows the soundcard enough time to convert the digital data into audio. If the latency is no enough, the bucket might overfill( pops drop outs and clicks, but it will never have any impact on the actual faucet.
| quote: |
Assume people have the exact same needs as me because of the quality of music I hear. It would be crazy to go to an art site full of images that look like they were done in photoshop, and not assume that everyone there uses photoshop.
|
you assumed i had the same needs as you concerning ram concerning classical music production without knowing what I do. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Yes I know. And Higher latency makes the bucket fill slower.
But the thing I was joking about was that the CPU will process double the amount of data if given twice the amount of time to do it again.[asuming the cpu speed doesn't change and all that] Nevermind. Lol. My statement is me stating the obvious.
 |
|
|
| RichieV |
| so then you understand then why latency won't affect cpu. Sorry i didn't catch the joking part. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| Yes, I was of the understanding the CPU processes everything and the soundcard is just the guy in the middle of the assembly line passing things on. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Though no one has explained why its bad when your not using hardware, so who knows. |
You are a complete idiot if you don`t understand the advantages of faster play/stop response and more accurate recording of MIDI and automation in the sequencer.
And i`ve already said it many times.
You can go on with your "i just do this and that so its no problem" bull, but for sake, wake up and step outside that ing bubble of yours, there is not a single person in the whole damn world that agrees with you on anything here, you simply make no sense, and all you want is attention so you can go on further with your sense-less talk.
And the you said "I would have used 2048 samples latency anyways, even if i had 5 times more CPU power" makes absolutely NO ING SENSE at all.
Using a latency of 512 or 1024 on a decent CPU does not affect performance at ALL. It has ONLY benefits, so there is not a single reason not to use it, how hard is that to understand ?
I know you have a CPU, so i CAN understand why you would use such a high latency.
But can you honestly say, that you still dont see why people would use low latencies if they can ? |
|
|
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Yes, I was of the understanding the CPU processes everything and the soundcard is just the guy in the middle of the assembly line passing things on. |
well there you go , you learned something from a place you considered devoid of knowledge. Anyways i'm out for the night. Take care.
jeez subtle - i spent way too much effort to calm things down. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
I don't see why people use low latencies if they don't have to.
Using low latency is like saying [I'll only get 256MB of ram because that is all I need.]
The "benefits" of low latency are insignificant at most. Just like the "benefits" of bouncing audio instead of using freeze mode. They are too insignificant to even be a factor in the choice. They have utterly no effect on the work flow. Untill this forum Ive never met anyone who preferred high latency when they didn't use hardware. The whole issue of latency or delay is not even relevant to my world. I jack it up to 2048 simply because I know I won't get stuttering, who cares if the stuttering stops at 512 or 1024? I can go to 2048 and be extra sure it doesn't happen. And no loss to me. Even if I record with a midi keyboard, I can do that regardless of the latency, because midi information doesn't lag. |
|
|
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
I don't see why people use low latencies if they don't have to.
Using low latency is like saying [I'll only get 256MB of ram because that is all I need.]
The "benefits" of low latency are insignificant at most. Just like the "benefits" of bouncing audio instead of using freeze mode. They are too insignificant to even be a factor in the choice. They have utterly no effect on the work flow. |
your ram analogy makes little sense. People use more ram because they require things to go faster ( low latency) yet you equate high latency ( slow ) with more ram.
anyways, one benifit , which is really important for alot of people is the ability to record midi information from a keyboard. That might not be for you but to assume it isn't for anyone is silly. |
|
|
|
|
