12 cores not being used equally (cpu errors)

[Eric Lambert]

Vienna isn't the fix here. I have it and use it constantly but it's only going to frustrate you further as it's not a platform suited for improving your mix workflow, it's best suited for VIs. And it's not cheap, nor is it easy to get started with a demo version.

What WILL help is operating at 96K. What WILL help is avoiding certain plugins (some have been mentioned already) which tend to play horribly with ProTools. You can enable them one-by-one to see which cause the cores to populate unevenly. I don't remember if you're working at higher buffers but that also makes a world of difference when in mix-mode.

In the end, it's likely going to be a fact of life (at least for now, until Avid fixes this) that PT simply isn't optimized and is going to hog the CPU in ways which it shouldn't. We've all accepted the fact, even if in revolt, that we have to find a balance between the total amount of plugins usage and CPU usage in order to get through a session.

[stevedresser83]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

I buy a Ferrari and damn it I cannot drive it everywhere at 300 km/h. It is obviously the fault of the car.

If you want to convince other folks here you need 192 kHz because it sounds better then provide some link to blind tests showing that. Surely with this debate running for decades that must have been demonstrated by now.... Oh there is no convincing proof? Well expect people to point that out when you claim there is a difference.

Problems operating at 192 kHz are largely a self inflicted problem.... want to try to get work done, I would be dropping the sample rate to 96kHz and testing stuff.

Silly false analogy... Also this thread was never about convincing you or anyone else that YOU or anyone else NEEDS to work in 192. It was about me wanting to for my own reasons which i explained and then asking for community help in trying to figure out a strategy to do so because of the limitations of avids software. If there is not a solution so be it but why all the passive aggressive jabs throughout? Serving no one but your seemingly irritated ego..

[JFreak]

If you have your needs to work at 192k why wouldn't you just wait for the rumoured and demoed 2019.3 software that supposedly gives us huge performance increase?

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by stevedresser83

Silly false analogy... Also this thread was never about convincing you or anyone else that YOU or anyone else NEEDS to work in 192. It was about me wanting to for my own reasons which i explained and then asking for community help in trying to figure out a strategy to do so because of the limitations of avids software. If there is not a solution so be it but why all the passive aggressive jabs throughout? Serving no one but your seemingly irritated ego..

You came here asking for advice about solving your problem. You have been given it, from multiple other users, you don’t like/want to ignore much of that well that is your problem. I am not being “passive aggressive”, I (and others) am pointing out you are wrong and confused. You said stuff that is just technically confused including how you “proved” your opinion. This is a technical user forum, ask for help, you got it, State stuff that is wrong, expect to get that corrected as well...

[killah_trakz]

I use VEP to as a plugin host for acustica stuff mainly. And it’s NOT only for instruments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by stevedresser83

Silly false analogy... Also this thread was never about convincing you or anyone else that YOU or anyone else NEEDS to work in 192. It was about me wanting to for my own reasons which i explained and then asking for community help in trying to figure out a strategy to do so because of the limitations of avids software. If there is not a solution so be it but why all the passive aggressive jabs throughout? Serving no one but your seemingly irritated ego..

Steve:
You have no idea who you're dumping on - these are some of the most technically knowledgeable people in the recording world. People who have been and still are in the trenches and they know what works, what doesn't and why for each instance. Sure some are more knowledgeable in areas that others aren't but on the whole you'll not find a better source to get answers to your problems.

If anybody here has an ego I suggest you take a look in the mirror. Nobody posts here to stroke their egos - there's Gearslutz for that

[stevedresser83]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

You came here asking for advice about solving your problem. You have been given it, from multiple other users, you don’t like/want to ignore much of that well that is your problem. I am not being “passive aggressive”, I (and others) am pointing out you are wrong and confused. You said stuff that is just technically confused including how you “proved” your opinion. This is a technical user forum, ask for help, you got it, State stuff that is wrong, expect to get that corrected as well...

I was given work arounds and I thanked people and continued to learn more about other alternatives. I haven't ignored anything, you seem to be reading deeper into something then is actually there. You continue to twist what I have said and in doing so the purpose of this thread. All i said I proved was that people who claim there is 0 difference between 44k and 88k are wrong. Btw something i picked up years ago on this "technical thread". Then I said my ears tell me 88k and then 192k when tried sound better in a blind test and encouraged others to try it. Also if you would have read my posts I said I plan on mixing in 96k now because its way more practical... so you are completely wrong in me not taking advice from this thread.

Btw a better analogy would be you have a car that is advertised at going 200mph, but when you purchase it you find out that only 100mph is practical and safe, 200mph results in a mechanical failure and a crash everytime. The restriction is internal to the car/protools not speed limits or traffic / owning a bad computer that doesnt sufficiently support protools.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by stevedresser83

I was given work arounds and I thanked people and continued to learn more about other alternatives. I haven't ignored anything, you seem to be reading deeper into something then is actually there. You continue to twist what I have said and in doing so the purpose of this thread. All i said I proved was that people who claim there is 0 difference between 44k and 88k are wrong. Btw something i picked up years ago on this "technical thread". Then I said my ears tell me 88k and then 192k when tried sound better in a blind test and encouraged others to try it. Also if you would have read my posts I said I plan on mixing in 96k now because its way more practical... so you are completely wrong in me not taking advice from this thread.

Btw a better analogy would be you have a car that is advertised at going 200mph, but when you purchase it you find out that only 100mph is practical and safe, 200mph results in a mechanical failure and a crash everytime. The restriction is internal to the car/protools not speed limits or traffic / owning a bad computer that doesnt sufficiently support protools.

Steve, great. Sorry I missed you were going to try to mix at a lower sample rate (and my emphasis in advice was to *try* it and see). Thanks for pointing that out. But ah damn I did like my car analogy. Avid and other vendors talk about super high sample rates, but and they eat CPU or DSP resources like crazy, I hope people get a feel for why they are so impractical. I would hope more people know it’s pretty impractical without Avid needing to state that, but maybe they should.

Digital audio has an amusing history, some early products and certainly some early digital content had issues. I have convinced myself of issues at 44.1 with some of that and assumed it was issues with antialias output filtering. And plugin sample rates/wether plugins upsample or not can be a black hole... as others have aluded to here, mere mortals basically end up trying to triangulate what plugins sounds best and at what CPU load, we rarely know if the plugins are upsampling internally or not, but trying 96kHz can give benefit/a clue there.

Even when I think I can hear say antialiasing filter effects (e.g. with location “smearing”) I would not bet my life on that in a blind test. Have been humbled a few times trying. There are some very interesting blind test suites online that seem to keep showing people cannot tell lots of differences between signal specs. And very high sample rates invites new issues, including ultrasonic reproduction/distortion. There is lots of interesting technical stuff under the surface here. Some mentioned in the articles linked previously and this video is a great more technical intro:

https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM

Which hopefully starts to give a feel of why simple reasonable sounding arguments of “more slices” likely don’t make actually sense.

(I have a background in physics reasearch including signals processing/analysis, I love how this guy explains stuff, even if his “analog” signal generator, the same exact model I have used many times, is actually digital. But that changes nothing he is saying.).

[stevedresser83]

Watching the video now. I do appreciate your time and input. I also did learn a ton from this thread, enough to look back at a few days ago and see "slices" and understand why you would chuckle to yourself. Moving forward from here. Thanks

[metalmixer]

[QUOTE=Darryl Ramm;2520279 Avid and other vendors talk about super high sample rates, but and they eat CPU or DSP resources like crazy, I hope people get a feel for why they are so impractical. .[/QUOTE]

I am working on a project now all @ 192K I am even using a 2018 MBP i9 on Mojave (not even supported) - and the CPU is killing it for me no spike issues and have not even had to freeze any track (yet). I did a blind test with one of the band members and he picked the 192 bounce and I even just sent him MP3's he had no idea what the difference was and he picked it right away.