Login

AlexB V2 comp

Officially Licensed 3rd Party Developer Libraries
Free 3rd Party Programs

Re: AlexB V2 comp

Postby dacaveprods » Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:51 pm

ngarjuna wrote:Personally, I will buy a 2.0 version of any and every Alex library I own, which consists of:
5 consoles
6 EQs
5 comps
2 other
But not a single one of them has been updated yet. So for me, that's why I haven't bought any 2.0s yet.



About the same... EXACTLY!!!
dacaveprods
Member
Member
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:36 pm

Re: AlexB V2 comp

Postby ianc » Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:30 am

The cpu usage just fries my brain, so I'll take Tim's word about whats really happening, I've got a project open in 44k and the 44k presets usage is slightly more than the 96k of the same preset. :o Other presets are the other way round, so I'll just put this down to differences in the presets settings as a possibility, there's not such a large enough distance between the 2 to get a headache about
Last edited by ianc on Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
I wish I could drum half as well with two hands as one of Terry Bozzio's feet
User avatar
ianc
User Level X
User Level X
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:17 pm
Location: UK

Re: AlexB V2 comp

Postby Tim Petherick » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:05 pm

ianc wrote:The cpu usage just fries my brain, so I'll take Tim's word about whats really happening, I've got a project open in 44k and the 44k presets usage is slightly more than the 96k of the same preset. :o Other presets are the other way round, so I'll just put this down to differences in the presets settings as a possibility, there's not should a large enough distance between the 2 to get a headache about


The only reasons I can think of cpu being different is because maybe the total amount of samples may of been 1 or 2 less between versions and maybe a slight difference in kern length. I have never really compared cpu's of converted and native, so I'm not sure where this was seen, may of been a misunderstanding.
User avatar
Tim Petherick
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:07 pm
Location: Bath , Uk

Re: AlexB V2 comp

Postby russianpolecat » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:26 am

AlexB wrote:
hwasser wrote:Btw, the v2 versions are also in 44.1 kHz. Does 44.1 use less ram and cpu usage than 99.6 version when used in a 44.1 project?


The new releases, new libraries and v2.0 upgrades, are sampled at 44.1kHz and 96kHz. The 44.1kHz sounds a lot better than any Nebula internal resample process or the library resampled by SRC. Native 44.1kHz preset uses less Ram and CPU load also.

The improvement in sound quality of the new A*I and N**e libraries will leave you with open mouth.
Alex, do you have an ETA on these updated libraries? I want to give you my money!! (esp for the N**e :))
russianpolecat
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: AlexB V2 comp

Postby tyrrell » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:47 am

I have a mix waiting for the MBC v2.
tyrrell
User Level V
User Level V
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:26 am

Re: AlexB V2 comp

Postby tumburu » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:54 am

I'm also waiting for that one… v1 was in use for almost 5 years here.
User avatar
tumburu
Vip Member
Vip Member
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:00 pm

Re: AlexB V2 comp

Postby tyrrell » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:18 pm

I am interested in the v2 of the N**e consoles too I already use two stage A*I preamp the capi vp28. I have read that it is best to use a N**e desk after an A*I preamp I'm just not sure which one I would prefer yet.
tyrrell
User Level V
User Level V
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:26 am

Re: AlexB V2 comp

Postby cdsoundmaster » Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:55 am

Hi Tim,
Not sure if this helps, but this can also be a result of the coordination of audio latency/buffer settings chosen in the DAW, Audio Interface, and Neb Instance.

Using NebPro Reverb instance, dspbuffer setting matched to the audio interface and DAW can make the response improved for one rate over another. Too large a buffer on playback and interface compared to NebPro can make longer waits and spikes. All 3 being too short for samples and number of instances can pause or crash or glitch audio. Too long can make too much cpu and mess with calls to and from audio drivers.

I always recommend setting up a fresh DAW environment, load a single stereo track at the sample rate used for testing. Load a single instance of the NebPro program at that same rate.

Play it once with Neb bypassed and look at CPU.
Play it once with Neb on and look at CPU.
Now, adjust playback buffer audio interface buffer, and Neb mast dspbuffer to a higher number than current (if using a really small buffer, start by doubling it- if using a really huge buffer, start by dividing it in half). If the cpu improves with this change, reduce/increase it again. Keep doing this until you have improved as much as possible.

Now, do the exact same thing at 96kHz for a 96kHz program. This can suggest if you will gain something by keeping a record of amounts of buffer to use for different sessions at different rates.

Just as an example, with a moderate computer with decent hard drive speed and the minimum 4 gig ram for capping 32 bit can run more instances at 8192 than it can at 2048, but if the persons audio interface drivers are terrible, or commands between DAW playback and interface are terribly different from NebPro, then this may be incredibly inefficient.

Too low- almost guaranteed problems even on super fast 64 bit system. For instance, not many people with fast enough drive, memory, and processors to load 100 stereo tracks at 96kHz with a full 10 Kernel preamp program 10 times on each channel with a 32 sample audio buffer, but some get dozens and dozens of instances running smoothly at 4096 buffer on Neb, Audio device, and DAW.

Tim Petherick wrote:
ianc wrote:The cpu usage just fries my brain, so I'll take Tim's word about whats really happening, I've got a project open in 44k and the 44k presets usage is slightly more than the 96k of the same preset. :o Other presets are the other way round, so I'll just put this down to differences in the presets settings as a possibility, there's not should a large enough distance between the 2 to get a headache about


The only reasons I can think of cpu being different is because maybe the total amount of samples may of been 1 or 2 less between versions and maybe a slight difference in kern length. I have never really compared cpu's of converted and native, so I'm not sure where this was seen, may of been a misunderstanding.
cdsoundmaster
Vip Member
Vip Member
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:18 am

Re: AlexB V2 comp

Postby Mercado_Negro » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:37 am

cdsoundmaster wrote:Hi Tim,
Not sure if this helps, but this can also be a result of the coordination of audio latency/buffer settings chosen in the DAW, Audio Interface, and Neb Instance.

Using NebPro Reverb instance, dspbuffer setting matched to the audio interface and DAW can make the response improved for one rate over another. Too large a buffer on playback and interface compared to NebPro can make longer waits and spikes. All 3 being too short for samples and number of instances can pause or crash or glitch audio. Too long can make too much cpu and mess with calls to and from audio drivers.

I always recommend setting up a fresh DAW environment, load a single stereo track at the sample rate used for testing. Load a single instance of the NebPro program at that same rate.

Play it once with Neb bypassed and look at CPU.
Play it once with Neb on and look at CPU.
Now, adjust playback buffer audio interface buffer, and Neb mast dspbuffer to a higher number than current (if using a really small buffer, start by doubling it- if using a really huge buffer, start by dividing it in half). If the cpu improves with this change, reduce/increase it again. Keep doing this until you have improved as much as possible.

Now, do the exact same thing at 96kHz for a 96kHz program. This can suggest if you will gain something by keeping a record of amounts of buffer to use for different sessions at different rates.

Just as an example, with a moderate computer with decent hard drive speed and the minimum 4 gig ram for capping 32 bit can run more instances at 8192 than it can at 2048, but if the persons audio interface drivers are terrible, or commands between DAW playback and interface are terribly different from NebPro, then this may be incredibly inefficient.

Too low- almost guaranteed problems even on super fast 64 bit system. For instance, not many people with fast enough drive, memory, and processors to load 100 stereo tracks at 96kHz with a full 10 Kernel preamp program 10 times on each channel with a 32 sample audio buffer, but some get dozens and dozens of instances running smoothly at 4096 buffer on Neb, Audio device, and DAW.

Tim Petherick wrote:
ianc wrote:The cpu usage just fries my brain, so I'll take Tim's word about whats really happening, I've got a project open in 44k and the 44k presets usage is slightly more than the 96k of the same preset. :o Other presets are the other way round, so I'll just put this down to differences in the presets settings as a possibility, there's not should a large enough distance between the 2 to get a headache about


The only reasons I can think of cpu being different is because maybe the total amount of samples may of been 1 or 2 less between versions and maybe a slight difference in kern length. I have never really compared cpu's of converted and native, so I'm not sure where this was seen, may of been a misunderstanding.


I ran a similar test a few years ago when I switched to 96kHz for mixing and recording. I've had 3 audio interfaces during that time and I've always used REAPER. My results have always been the same: DSPBUFFER at 2048 and an interface buffer size of 512 give me the best balance between CPU load and smoothness.
i7 3770k :: Asus P8H77-V LE :: 16Gb DDR3 @1600MHz :: Geforce GT 520 :: OCZ-Vertex 128Gb :: WD Black Series 1Tb and Green Series 1Tb :: F*******e Liquid56 :: REAPER 64bit and StudioOne 64bit (both latest versions) :: Win 10 64bit
User avatar
Mercado_Negro
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:30 am

Re: AlexB V2 comp

Postby Tim Petherick » Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:39 am

Thanks, but I think there has been a misunderstanding, maybe I'm missing something but-

They way I read ianc's comment was that had mentioned somewhere in the past that there was a CPU difference between using say for example a 44.1 native preset and a src'd 96k down to 44.1. I don't remember saying this anywhere. You'll need to read back a few comments. maybe I read the initial comment wrong?
Last edited by Tim Petherick on Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tim Petherick
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:07 pm
Location: Bath , Uk

PreviousNext

Return to 3rd party libraries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: congasquad, soundskiller and 2 guests