The 'plugin processing' thing is *not* a bug. It is , however, an oversight in the application architecture.

geoff

Oh come now. This is a bug. If I can't use a simple EQ on each track without bringing my system to its knees, it's a bug to me...a performance bug.

I do destructive mastering in an editor (aside from fades, overlaps, and such), and just "build" my CDs with CDA. I do this by choice, so it's not a major issue with me, but anyone that really wants to "master" with CDA will certainly, rightfully call this a bug.

To say otherwise, is just plain laughable.

If 'simple EQ on each track ' brings your system to it's knees, then something in your systemis broke.

geoff

No Problems here running Waves, PSP, WaveArts, Izotope and Sonic Foundry on each wave file.

Tony Mac

And, what am I supposed to do to find out what is "wrong" with my system? To you, every time someone has a performance issue with CDA, there's something wrong with their system. Oh boy...spare me.

Everyone knows that CDA is keeping plug-ins active when going past the track that used it. Whenther this brings my system to its knees with one EQ per track or 20 effect, is not the issue here. CDA is doing something it should not. Fix it.

Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Quit trying to tell me it's my computer.

Hey, I'm a customer too.

In most cases that is exactly what the problem is. You continue to fail to understand what I meant about the plugins 'thing' not being a bug. It is *NOT* a bug. It is however a fundamental flaw in the application's architecture. It's works exactly as it was written, and does in fact work just fine with moderately-demanding plugins. In cases where it doesn't work, you have the option of rendering first.

A 'bug' would be if it was written to not have the plugins active, but did in error.

Yes, it should be addressed, but if you are complaining about something it pays to get your terminology correct.

geoff

It does the same thing during rendering. It takes an absurdly long time to render when using effects on tracks...as apposed to using none.

OK, it's not a bug. Then this "architectural" flaw must be fixed...and fast.

I fail to see the difference between architectural flaw and bug.

Hypothectical ON: If I were to design such an "architectural flaw" in an Intel microprocessor, I'd be moved to an obscure job in the mail room ;-)

Architectural flaw - you design a house with a room between the kitchen and the dining room, because you think that's the way it is done. It later becomes apparent that this room is a bit of a pain, and though it functions perfectly well as a room and the house is quite usable, it would have been better if the kitchen had directly ajoined the dining room.

Bug. You build the house with the dining room and kitchen separated by the said room (or not, as you like), but the doors were badly fitted, don't open, and you can't get through. That is a bug.

Yes, it should be addressed, as should CD-TEXT.

geoff

PS - please quantify "an absurdly long time".

Architectural flaw - you design a house with a foundation that is only 2 feet deep, intended to be built in NY state. Result: dissaster. The architect is completely ignorant of the requirements of a cold climate. Built in a warm climate, the house would be just fine. Some people reply that there is no problem and can't understand why some people are so upset.

It took about 1.5 hours to render with the simple EQ (CDA rovided EQ) on each track (12 tracks). And about 10 minutes or less with no plug-ins.

Now, my machine is no power-house, and as I stated earlier, this really is not an issue for me because I rarely do this. I prefer to destructively master my files with an editor, and only compile them in CDA.

But, the difference between 1.5 hours and 10 minutes for rendering is absurd.

Hmmm - it seems that there is some frustration here regarding CDA5.

I will be totally honest...

This program cost a lot of money, and in reality based on what I have heard it seems like other programs could accomplish the same task for much less.

If all of the mastering is done via VEGAS, ACID, and or SF6 it is much more efficient to simply import the tracks into another program besides CDA5.

Why am I adding to the fire? Well think of it like this...

You buy a five speed sports car -- but if you drive it in lets say 4th or 5th gear it will shut down after 5 mins. But the car was designed and advertised to have extensive capabilities in the 4th or 5th gears. So now you wonder why bother to buy this car? When a cheaper car could function just as good, provided that the user neglects the "benefits" of the additional 4th and 5th gear contributions.

Bottom line, CDA5 has some really interesting performance issues, these performance issues can be easily accepted if it cost the same as a common Audio CD mastering program like Music Match, LAME, or Nero.

Thanks for your patience --

rpmbassman - you are either running a '386' , have a problem with your machine , or something wonky in the plugins department. Should have taken no more than a few minutes to render *with* the plugins.

geoff

Well, I did say I don't have a power house machine (it's a celeron 633MHz...soon to be replaced by a 2.6GHz P4), but I still don't thinkit should take 1.5 hours even with this machine.

So, how do I find what the "problem" is with my machine?

1- Check that you have no superfluous apps running.
2 - Apply stdard 'realtime'tweaks', such as at http://www.blkviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
3 - Ensure your DX subsystem isn't broken. I suggest you uninstall all plugins, update DX to latest version, then reinstall.

The 'couple of minutes' I mentioned is typical on my 1G1 Celeron - not very different to your machine....


geoff