Mark A

A question about Glaceverb

Hi Mark :)


Have you noticed that Glaceverb tends to be rather CPU intensive ? I really like alot of the verb sounds it gives me but it’s kinda killing me on CPU usage, so much so that i have had to greatly reduce my usage of it and look for other solutions.

I was just wondering if that was your experience also ?


Thanks,

Ted

Don’t forget that you can freeze the track, or print a track that is just reverb and mix it in with the dry track. That’s what a lot of us did a few years back when machines were slower and CPU of reverb was a bigger issue.

Hi Ted,

I can’t say I really noticed. Having started this recording lark on an AMD k6 350MHz, and then spending 2 years with a PIII 1.0GHZ, my 2.4 GHz P4 seems soooo very fast. On my old rig I was always running at close to 100% cpu and now I’m no where near so I don’t take that much notice.

You could be right however - I’ll check it out next time I use it in a project. The last two songs I’ve done I’ve used SIR. That’s much more of a cpu hog!


Mark

Thanks Guys,

Good point TomS, I should make more use of the freeze function, I use it very little right now.

Ah Mark it must be nice to have a mammoth 2.4 Gighz baby. I am currently using a 1.2 myself, but it does run very well. I have been hesistant to upgrade it because I dont want to open up a whole new can of stability issues, right now I have practically no problems.

I have been running a short and a long freeverb 2 reverb on the auxes and just dialing in the amount I need on the individual channels. This has dropped my CPU usage waaaay down. I am currently using the glaceverb plugin on only a couple of tracks where I think it is essential to get the sound I am looking for.

Thanks for your feedback guys, I appreciate the help.

Ted :D

I love the freeze function, and the new function that bounces all the waves/edits in a track into one single wave file with no edits.

One thing to consider when freezing tracks - Freezing a track will setup a scenario where a single stereo wave of the bit depth set in the preferences replaces the original wave and some but not all plug-ins. If there plug-ins don’t use much CPU and the wave is a mono 16 bit file (for example), then it’s possible to need more CPU after freezing, like when the freeze bit depth is 24 or 32 bits. Instead of reading a mono 16 bit file n-Tracks needs to read a 24 or 32 bit stereo file off of the hard drive.

That’s a special scenario, but it can happen. Don’t worry about it, but keep an eye on it, especially if the CPU usage doesn’t seem to be going down after freezing a bunch of tracks.

Almost any reverb will use enough CPU that freezing will help though, and saving reverb CPU internsity will probably be enough to overcome any mono-16 to 24-stereo differences.

One trick I’ve used occasionally is to freeze all the tracks individually, then hijack the freeze files. I copy them into a brand new song to start a new mix. I’ve also tried it by freezing the groups but that hasn’t worked nearly as well.

After opening the copies of these files in a new song you can get a fell for what has been frozen and what wasn’t. Volume set with the mixer sliders and volume curves aren’t frozen I don’t think, and it’s possible that the track EQ isn’t frozen either. What is frozen is the plug-ins add to the insert. It’s possible nothing more. That’s still enough to save a lot of CPU depending on the plug-ins.

You don’t really need to copy the freeze files, but doing that keeps the original song from overwriting them (refreezing will do that, but unfreezing won’t delete them) – they are being referenced in a new song so they need to be treated as original waves. I actually move them to a new folder altogether.

Also - reverbs are going to be the most CPU intensive of plugins, given the amount of processing necessary for a good, smooth sound.