Fixed my UAD-1 CPU Munching

bgc wrote on 2/10/2004, 9:03 PM
I've recently been experiencing severe CPU munching problems (DX versions with Acid and Vegas) as I've been really using lots of the UA plugs in somenew production/mixing projects.
Tired of dealing with it I did all of the standard hardware stuff like disable all of the unused usb, firewire, networking stuff and it had no impact.
I then went to the UA configuration window and starting adding more and more buffers. (My ASIO is set at a large 96msec to avoid stuttering for huge Vegas mixing projects). After I got to 8 additional buffers my CPU load for one large Acid project went from 75% to 22%. Worried about the latency that I might have added I rendered the project with 0 additional buffers and 8 additional buffers and the mixes were the same.
Hopefully this will help others having CPU munching problems for DX in Sony Acid/Vegas.
B.

Comments

stakeoutstudios wrote on 2/11/2004, 1:54 AM
if this works, I'm over the moon! this has been a nightmare for me! I'll test it today!
drbam wrote on 2/11/2004, 6:32 AM
Could you *hear* any latency problems during playback after increasing the buffer size?

Thanks,

drbam
bgc wrote on 2/11/2004, 10:27 AM
drbam,
no I didn't hear any latency problems.
and just to make sure I wasn't completely f***ing up my real-time playback plug-in alignments by applying this fix, I did a real-time mix down (not a render but a real-time playback and record) with the UAD-1 additional buffers setting at 0 buffers and then again at 8 buffers.
The two mixes were identical except that the 8 buffer setting had greatly reduced MIPS on the native CPU. I also did notice that the mix with 8 additional buffers started slightly later than the 0 additional buffer case and needed alignment, but after alignment they were the same.
i'm pretty conviced this fix isn't messing with the audio.
(since some of the tracks in the test project had UAD plugs and others didn't or had native plugs I did this test to make sure that the additional buffers weren't adding latency to some tracks and not others, which if they were would create some noticable phase differences between tracks and result in a different mix, which didn't happen.)
b.
drbam wrote on 2/11/2004, 11:40 AM
>>no I didn't hear any latency problems. <<

Thanks! Since I do 99% of my mixing through a console, this is a major factor. I may decide to purchase the UAD-1 is this is indeed a fix. Do other problems still exist?

drbam
bgc wrote on 2/11/2004, 1:40 PM
sometimes I'll get a little crackle when I start playback - UAD I/O buffers filling up and what not - which I don't get from the native plugins - but nothing drastic.

other than that no other significant problems - other than I want another
UAD-1 card now ;) they're addictive plug-ins definitely.

B.
PipelineAudio wrote on 2/12/2004, 1:28 AM
Some of us cant run certain plugs in certain combinations. Affected plugs include pultec, 1176, la-2a, fairchild, realverb and dreamverb. In short, everything but the crappy plugs
stakeoutstudios wrote on 2/12/2004, 2:31 AM
sadly the tip didn't work for me and I still have the CPU munching... thanks though for the suggestion!

Jason
bgc wrote on 2/12/2004, 10:20 AM
Pipe
Do you mean you can't run them in certain orders with other plugins (native ones I mean) or the UAD plugins in different orders? I haven't seen that.
I have seen where the UAD plugs don't like native plugins in the chain before them. I think that's mentioned in the documentation for the UAD-1.
B.
PipelineAudio wrote on 2/12/2004, 10:33 AM
if I put a la-2a or pultec or fairchild as a track insert and then send that track to an fx send containing realverb or dreamverb, I get a buffer size changed error message
bgc wrote on 2/12/2004, 11:59 AM
Pipe,
I think you mentioned that before and I think I tested my rig and found that it wasn't a problem for me? Do you remember us talking about that here before?
If not I can test my rig for the problem. Lemme know!
B.
PipelineAudio wrote on 2/12/2004, 6:24 PM
yeah a few of us were talking about it, it seems to not affect win2k guys, are you on win2k?
bgc wrote on 2/12/2004, 7:05 PM
yup, you're right. win2k
PipelineAudio wrote on 2/13/2004, 9:25 AM
damn
well maybe that narrows it down a bit :) You listening SF/Sony ?
fishtank wrote on 2/13/2004, 7:39 PM
Sony listening......?

Naaaaa.....they are too busy working on Vegas 5 and it's nifty new bells and whistles. Just look at Sound Forge 7 and see how few useful features were added to that release.

The shame of it is that Vegas 4 has lots of issues and it is obvious that Sony has no plans to fix any more of them as they are concentrating on V5. How long will it take for V5 to function properly and will they ever make it work as well as it should before they post the "Tell us what you want in V6" thread and forget about V5.

I hope I am wrong, but Sony has yet to impress me.

That reminds me.....what ever happened to JoeD??
stakeoutstudios wrote on 2/14/2004, 5:59 PM
I've got high hopes for Vegas 5... otherwise I may have to jump to another ship.

Had a look at Saw... looks great, but the interface just isn't quite Vegas! sigh.

Jason
PipelineAudio wrote on 2/14/2004, 8:33 PM
JoeD died from frustration, he is buried in an organ