[LAU] another cpu question

[Ede Wolf]

Because it can be useful to put f.e. drums, rather parts of it, in a 
very small room, maybe even lofi - just to change or slightly fatten the 
sound but not use this very room for anything else? I do not use those 
settings for a global reverb and just controlling the amount with the 
aux sends as the settings are completely different.

Same is true basically for synth - nearly each digital synth and most 
modern analog ones have their own effects unit used to enhance or shape 
a sound - and nearly always a reverb plays an important part. You hardly 
turn that off because of a global reverb I believe you are referring to.

Again, I am not mastering or producing, I am creating sounds which I 
hope will play well together. Each track servers one instrument, and 
each instrument may or may not have an own room. Harmonizing that is a 
challenge, but there we go.

The reverb, if not used too extreme, is foremost part of the sound, not 
of the mix, though of course one can easily ruin the other, if not used 
carefully. No doubts here, again, that's part of the challenge.

But, while I would not mind to open an extra thread for this, I just 
would like to use this thread for CPU and/or Software recommendations - 
and not focus too much on the reverb.

I just believe, that a reverb is most likely the most complex effect 
requiring the most CPU power. I may be wrong here, too, that's why I am 
asking.

I am not even claiming I will be using a reverb on each channel, but I 
would like to setup the rack for each track in such a manner as I do not 
want to play around too much with it. Set up 16 tracks and the ones not 
used, well, are muted. I just want to set up the rack once with somewhat 
sane defaults and then use it.

In other words, I want to start that application and have a rack with 16 
cahnnels and 3 or 4 effects in each. Set up ready to use. Of course I 
will need to adapt the settings anyway, but basically it will start up 
the a reverb, a delay and an EQ in each channel. As those are the most 
commony used so far. That does not mean, that all are active all the 
time, but if it sounds crap, I would like it not to be the CPUs fault.
I want to minimize the time spent with the computer. Making it as much 
an appliance as possible. But sure, it'll need some attention.

Quite simple: I am looking the the best available CPU for whatever 
effects calf or invada are offering running as much of them in parallel 
as proves to be sensible - and usable.

And how much is sensible for a given set shall be decided by my ears, 
not by the CPU.

So if I am asking for a CPU that _could_ run HQ reverb on 16 channels in 
parallel does not mean I will be doing that. But if it could do that, it 
surely will be powerfull enough to run any other effect desired. That's 
my theory and I do not mind at all getting proved wrong. In fact, that's 
why I am asking.

Some people here are coders, as are you, and know, what "part" of a cpu 
is used most for their algorithms. Or so I hope and was asking for a 
recommendation.

Sure my fault, I wrote too much, again, I just had a simple question: 
Which (not too high end) CPU would you recommend for running as many lv2 
effects in parallel as possible. And why, if you are kind enough to share.

I do not care for ladspa, vst, dssi, softsynths or recording. Just a 
little midi for the delay, but that is not toooo timing critical (please 
don't get off on this, I am not saying it does not matter, but a 
_minimal_ shuffle in timing is quite acceptable for a tapped delay)

Just send audio from a mixing consoles insert, process the audio as fast 
as possible and get it back to the mixer. On as much channels as 
reasonable possible. And if not all are used at once, then speedstep is 
happy.



Am 13.09.2014 20:47, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 03:44:33PM +0200, Ede Wolf wrote:
>
>> The effects stack will for most channels most likely look like this:
>> reverb, delay, EQ and maybe one of flanger, chorus or rather
>> seldomly compression.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> However, I do suppose, the reverb will be the most cpu consuming
>> item
>
> But why on earth would you have a separate reverb on each track ?
> There is no need to do this even if you want to control the amount
> of reverb on each track separately. And mixing different reverbs
> is almost never a good idea, apart from maybe some special one on
> solo voice.
>
> Ciao,
>