12 cores not being used equally (cpu errors)

[stevedresser83]

Thanks Daryl. Here is the Sandra Report

SiSoftware Sandra

ID
Host Name : DESKTOP-HG0V8RM
Workgroup : WORKGROUP

Computer
Model : GigaByte
Serial Number : To be fille***********
Chassis : GigaByte Desktop
Mainboard : GigaByte X79S-UP5
Serial Number : To be fille***********
BIOS : AMI (OEM) F3 08/31/2012
Total Memory : 32GB DIMM DDR3

Processors
Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz (6C 12T 3.5GHz/3.8GHz, 3.5GHz IMC, 6x 256kB L2, 12MB L3)
Socket/Slot : FC LGA1567

Chipset
Memory Controller : Gigabyte Core (Sandy Bridge-E) DMI2 100MHz
Memory Controller : Gigabyte Core (Sandy Bridge-E) Integrated Memory Controller Registers 100MHz, 4x 4GB DIMM DDR3 1.6GHz 256-bit

Memory Module(s)
Memory Module : G.Skill F3-17000CL9-4GBZH 4GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-16000U DDR3-2000 (11-11-11-29 5-40-13-6)
Memory Module : G.Skill F3-17000CL9-4GBZH 4GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-16000U DDR3-2000 (11-11-11-29 5-40-13-6)
Memory Module : G.Skill F3-17000CL9-4GBZH 4GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-16000U DDR3-2000 (11-11-11-29 5-40-13-6)
Memory Module : G.Skill F3-17000CL9-4GBZH 4GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-16000U DDR3-2000 (11-11-11-29 5-40-13-6)
Memory Module : G.Skill F3-17000CL9-4GBZH 4GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-16000U DDR3-2000 (11-11-11-29 5-40-13-6)
Memory Module : G.Skill F3-17000CL9-4GBZH 4GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-16000U DDR3-2000 (11-11-11-29 5-40-13-6)
Memory Module : G.Skill F3-17000CL9-4GBZH 4GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-16000U DDR3-2000 (11-11-11-29 5-40-13-6)
Memory Module : G.Skill F3-17000CL9-4GBZH 4GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-16000U DDR3-2000 (11-11-11-29 5-40-13-6)

Video System
Monitor/Panel : VIZ M321i-A2
(1920x1080, 41.9")
Video Adapter : NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (1CU 48SP SM5.5 1.62GHz/1.15GHz 40% OC, 1GB 998MHz, PCIe 2.0 x16)

Graphics Processor
OpenCL : NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (48SP 1C 810MHz/1.15GHz, 1GB 998MHz)
D3D 11 : NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (48SP 1C 810MHz/1.15GHz, 1GB 998MHz)
OpenGL : GeForce GT 610/PCIe/SSE2 (1GB)

Storage Devices
Samsung SSD 840 PRO Series (256GB, SATA600, SSD) : 238GB (C:) (I:)
Seagate ST1000NM0033-9ZM173 (1TB, SATA600, 3.5", 7200rpm) : 932GB (D:)
Seagate ST1000NM0033-9ZM173 (1TB, SATA300/600, 3.5", 7200rpm) : 932GB (E:)
WDC WD1002FAEX-00Z3A0 (1TB, SATA300/600, 3.5", 7200rpm) : 932GB (F:)
WDC WD40EZRX-00SPEB0 (4TB, USB3/SATA300/600, 3.5", 5400rpm) : 4TB (P:)
HGST HTS721010A9E630 (1TB, USB3/SATA600, 2.5", 7200rpm, 32MB Cache) : 932GB (N:)
Seagate ST1500DL003-9VT16L (1.5TB, USB2/SATA300/600, 3.5", 5900rpm) : 1TB (G:) (M:)
Seagate ST5000DM000-1FK178 (5TB, USB2/SATA600, 3.5", 5980rpm, 16MB Cache) : 5TB (Q:)
SAMSUNG HD204UI (2TB, USB2/SATA300, 3.5", 5400rpm, 32MB Cache) : 2TB (H:) (O:)
TOSHIBA DT01ACA200 (2TB, USB2/SATA150/600, 3.5", 7200rpm) : 2TB (L:)
SAMSUNG HD204UI (2TB, USB2/SATA300, 3.5", 5400rpm, 32MB Cache) : 2TB (K:) (T:)
Flash Disk (128.8GB, USB2/NVMe) : 120GB
HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH24NS95 (SATA150, DVD+-RW, CD-RW) : N/A (J:)

Logical Storage Devices
System Reserved : 500MB (NTFS, 4kB) @ Samsung SSD 840 PRO Series (256GB, SATA600, SSD)
DROPBOX (D:) : 931GB (NTFS, 4kB) @ Seagate ST1000NM0033-9ZM173 (1TB, SATA600, 3.5", 7200rpm)
KONTAKT (E:) : 931GB (NTFS, 4kB) @ Seagate ST1000NM0033-9ZM173 (1TB, SATA300/600, 3.5", 7200rpm)
SAMPLES (F:) : 931GB (NTFS, 4kB) @ WDC WD1002FAEX-00Z3A0 (1TB, SATA300/600, 3.5", 7200rpm)
PT 5 Backup (M:) : 1TB (NTFS, 4kB) @ Seagate ST1500DL003-9VT16L (1.5TB, USB2/SATA300/600, 3.5", 5900rpm)
Seagate Expansion Drive (Q:) : 5TB (NTFS, 4kB) @ Seagate ST5000DM000-1FK178 (5TB, USB2/SATA600, 3.5", 5980rpm, 16MB Cache)
FantomHD (O:) : 2TB (NTFS, 4kB) @ SAMSUNG HD204UI (2TB, USB2/SATA300, 3.5", 5400rpm, 32MB Cache)
2014 BACKUP (L:) : 2TB (NTFS, 4kB) @ TOSHIBA DT01ACA200 (2TB, USB2/SATA150/600, 3.5", 7200rpm)
PT3 2010 (T:) : 2TB (NTFS, 4kB) @ SAMSUNG HD204UI (2TB, USB2/SATA300, 3.5", 5400rpm, 32MB Cache)
RECOVERY (I:) : 6GB (NTFS, 4kB) @ Samsung SSD 840 PRO Series (256GB, SATA600, SSD)
Hard Disk (C:) : 231GB (NTFS, 4kB) @ Samsung SSD 840 PRO Series (256GB, SATA600, SSD)
Hard Disk : 470MB (NTFS, 4kB) @ Samsung SSD 840 PRO Series (256GB, SATA600, SSD)
EFI : 299MB (FAT32, 4kB) @ WDC WD40EZRX-00SPEB0 (4TB, USB3/SATA300/600, 3.5", 5400rpm)
4tb Mac Drive (P:) : 4TB (HFSJ, 8kB) @ WDC WD40EZRX-00SPEB0 (4TB, USB3/SATA300/600, 3.5", 5400rpm)
EFI : 197MB (FAT32, 512bytes) @ HGST HTS721010A9E630 (1TB, USB3/SATA600, 2.5", 7200rpm, 32MB Cache)
G-DRIVE ev RaW (N:) : 931GB (HFSJ, 4kB) @ HGST HTS721010A9E630 (1TB, USB3/SATA600, 2.5", 7200rpm, 32MB Cache)
Removable Drive : N/A @ USB Flash Disk (USB2)
Hard Disk (G:) : N/A @ Seagate ST1500DL003-9VT16L (1.5TB, USB2/SATA300/600, 3.5", 5900rpm)
Hard Disk (H:) : N/A @ SAMSUNG HD204UI (2TB, USB2/SATA300, 3.5", 5400rpm, 32MB Cache)
Hard Disk (K:) : N/A @ SAMSUNG HD204UI (2TB, USB2/SATA300, 3.5", 5400rpm, 32MB Cache)
Optical Drive (J:) : N/A @ HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH24NS95 (SATA150, DVD+-RW, CD-RW)

Peripherals
LPC Hub Controller #1 : Gigabyte Patsburg LPC Controller
LPC Legacy Controller #1 : ITE IT8728F
Audio Device : Gigabyte Patsburg High Definition Audio Controller
Audio Device : EVGA HDMI Audio stub
Audio Codec : nVidia 001C
Disk Controller : Gigabyte Patsburg 6 Port SATA AHCI Controller
Disk Controller : Intel Patsburg 8-Port SATA/SAS Storage Control Unit
Disk Controller : Gigabyte 91xx SATA 6G Controller
USB Controller #1 : Gigabyte Patsburg USB2 Enhanced Host Controller #2
USB Controller #2 : Gigabyte Patsburg USB2 Enhanced Host Controller #1
USB Controller #3 : Gigabyte FL1009 USB 3.0 Host Controller
USB Controller #4 : Gigabyte VL80x xHCI USB 3.0 Controller
FireWire/1394 Controller #1 : Gigabyte VIA VT6308 1394 OHCI Controller
SMBus/i2c Controller #1 : Intel ICH SMBus
SMBus/i2c Controller #2 : Intel MCP2-E(P) XMB Ch 0 SMBus
SMBus/i2c Controller #3 : Intel MCP2-E(P) XMB Ch 1 SMBus

Printers and Faxes
Printer : Send To Microsoft OneNote 2010 Driver (1200x1200, Colour)
Printer : Microsoft Software Printer Driver (300x300, Colour)
Printer : Microsoft XPS Document Writer v4 (600x600, Colour)
Printer : Microsoft Print To PDF (600x600, Colour)
Fax : Microsoft Shared Fax Driver (200x200)
Printer : EPSON Artisan 730 Series (360x360, Colour)

Scanners and Cameras
Scanner : Microsoft EPSON6652C5 (Artisan 730) (Scanner, USB)

Peripherals
Media Player : WD Elements 107C (3.64TB)
Media Player : FANTOM HD204UI (1.82TB)
Media Player : FANTOM HD204UI (1.82TB)
Media Player : G-DRIVE ev (Gen2) (931.2GB)
Media Player : Fantom External HDD (1.36TB)
Media Player : Fantom External HDD (1.82TB)
Media Player : Seagate Expansion Desk (4.55TB)

Network Services
Network Adapter : Intel(R) 82579LM Gigabit Network Connection (Ethernet)
Network Adapter : Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller (Ethernet, 1Gbps)

Operating System
Windows System : Microsoft Windows 10 Professional 10.0.17134
Platform Compliance : x64

Performance Enhancing Tips
Warning 2513 : TPM not detected. Some security features are unavailable.
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.

[albee1952]

I think a better test of whether 192K is worth it is: compare the actual final product. IOW, I agree that comparing a 192K session to 44.1K would(should) sound much much better. However, what format is the final product going to be? Compare that final format when the original session was done at both 192K, then down-sample the 192K session to 44.1K and bounce out the same mix. My personal preference is 48K(but my deliverables are going to iTunes and/or CD). Having said all this, a song becomes a hit based on everything OTHER than the recording resolution

[stevedresser83]

No doubt, to your final sentence! Some of my favorite songs sound like **** from a technical standpoint. However, part of the art and fun of creating music for me is to maximize the sonic quality what is coming out of the speakers. I often am doing pop music where the more clarity, crispness, transients, the better. I often want that and 192 achieves that easier than 44 or 48. If I don't want it, I can just as easily distort, clip, or mangle the audio in 192 to achieve what I want.

Also for the record, the 2 bounces I compared in my experiment were 320 mp3's (what would be streaming from spotify or apple music) and the 192 (converted to mp3) was clearly better, subtle but also clear that there was a difference. Even on blind tests for other musical friends everyone picked it. I'm so surprised actually how the norm in audio is that 192 does nothing, cause when i finally got around to testing it, it seems so obvious that it does. Only negatives i'm seeing still is the track count and processing power.

[Eric Lambert]

I just checked and throughout the internet there are 16,777,216 different threads discussing 192KHz vs. all others SRs, and nearly as many opinions about which is best. In my world, 96 is the max.

The handling of 12 cores within PT is a great topic, however, and something we have hope of answering.

[stevedresser83]

Interesting statistic Eric, thanks for that. Yeah maybe its more my experience that almost everyone says 192 is virtually impossible to hear compared to 44. By 96 being the max do you mean you don't see or hear any real improvement in going higher then that? I haven't done much comparison of 96 to 192. Really just 44 and 88 with one mix, and then 44 and 192 with a few things. 96 or 88 seems much more practical right now, especially if I plan on sticking with protools as my daw.

[Eric Lambert]

The final SR for nearly all of my projects is 48 or 96, and with all the VIs and CPU-hungry reverbs I use, higher rates only serve to constrict productivity. I'm also one of those in the camp that the benefits of 192 vs 96 are often missed by the ears, and almost certainly once the file is dropped to 96 or 48. And I've read strong arguments suggesting that rates above 96 are actually detrimental to the product. I've not ventured into that science in quite a while, so perhaps things/theories have changed, but, in the big picture, there's essentially no reason to travel above 96K and many reasons to stay at or below it.

[the.engineer]

Originally Posted by stevedresser83

I was curious though and for fun I did a save session copy of my mix up to 88k. Changed nothing about the mix at all and bounced. The 88k mix sounded better to my ear and a few other people. So then i said well is it really? I imported both bounced files (44k mix and 88k mix) into a session and inverted the phase on one and sure enough there was lots of high end information coming through. 88k really did sound more "crisp".

This is curious, if you recorded at 44.1 and then converted to 88k, surely nothing will change as the audio is still 44.1. The missing samples can’t be added in by upsampling.

I suppose what may have happened is you had amp sims or virtual instruments that were converted to 96khz?


James Welch
Recording Engineer | Producer
Masterlink Productions

Mac Pro 5,1 (Mid 2010) | 3.46GHz Six-Core Intel Xeon | 32GB Ram | AMD Radeon R9 280X 3072 MB | 256GB Samsung SM951 SSD Blade (PCIe) System Drive | 1TB WDC Sample Drive | 4TB RAID 0 Seagate Audio Drive | UAD-2 Quad PCIe
Sierra 10.12.6 | Pro Tools Ultimate 2018.10 | HDX | Avid Omni | Avid 16x16 HD I/O x2 | Digidesign 192 | Digidesign C24

[stevedresser83]

Nope the plugins work better at higher sample rates. Sample rate is basically the amount of snapshots per second. So 88k is twice as many snapshots per second. This allows the plugins to be more accurate in how they draw an eq boost or cut, or compress a signal, or whatever it may be. Even when i imported a drum loop (recorded 44k) into a 192k session and did 1 single plugin boosting high end, that alone created a difference compared to the same drum loop, same eq boost at 44k. The proof is I bounced both, flipped the phase on one and i hear high end content when played together. Conclusion is that plugins manipulate the audio better at higher samples rates.

[arche3]

Or just boost hi end eq and stay st 44.1. ?

Lol.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Eric Lambert

In my world, 96 is the max

Same here. I would have voted for 64k but that topic is so old nobody remembers

(early digital stuff actually were 32k and doubling that would have put imperfections of analog filters into inaudible range. then came cd and we all know 44.1 was a compromise. then came the doubling frenzy and suddenly it was easier to talk about 96k or 192k instead of 88.2k or 176.4k -- but nobody came back to WHY the sampling rate of early digital stuff was not good enough.)

Back to the point; if you could produce "perfect" AD/DA conversion, then by Nyquist 44.1kHz sampling would sound perfect too, and you would only gain from a higher sampling rate if:
- your ears can hear >20kHz
- your DA conversion does not cut at 20kHz
- your analog gear can handle >20kHz
- your speakers are able to reproduce >20kHz
- your room is so good it actually sounds nice.

If anything on that list is a no, then it comes down to a plugin that sounds better at 96k because it doesn't need to oversample and downsample internally (which actually is a fair point) but other than that you are only wasting your computer's resources with higher sampling rates -- doubling the sampling rate doubles the storage capacity requirement, doubles the storage performance requirement, doubles the CPU usage, doubles the memory usage, and increases chances of sudden spikes when you use lower buffers. In theory anyway.

With that said, I could see myself record a piece of classical music at 192k for preservation purposes, but any processing I do would be at 96k max.