Thanx Sub for the help! I'll try 1/2 first and try to get some new RAM today. Which type would you prefer (i have to check which one P4B takes)? Or get a mobo with higher FSB (P4T 533)?On 2002-09-09 17:16, subhuman wrote:
A few things that would really help your system:
1. Install the latest Intel .INF for your motherboard, not the ones from asus, as they are usually a bit older.
2. Update your BIOS.
3. You've got a P4 with SDRAM, this is not recommended. P3+SDRAM, or P4+DDR/RDRAM is prefered. You should still be getting better performance than what you are experiencing.
4. I would remove all PCI devices except your Creamware cards to see if it is the other devices causing the problems, then add them back in one at a time, testing between each card. Some network devices have poor PCI bus activities and take too many PCI time slices. I have had problems with for example: some netgear cards in the past.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: subhuman on 2002-09-09 17:17 ]</font>
XTC 'sounding better' ?!?
Sorry DJATWORK, forgot yesterday: no IDE-RAID-system attached!
>>> PCI Slot 1 may have some problems with AGP Slot, so its recomended not to use any high troughput device in that slot. May be that can help.
-- I'll try that after sub's 1/2 rec.
>>> Had you installed XP in ACPI mode or in STANDARD mode??
-- It WAS ACPI initially but I switched over to Standard without any problem when I saw my new 'magnetic' SFP-OS after starting XP. No difference at all.
>>> As subhuman say, uninstall everything but the creamware cards. Run windows again. THEN change the SLOT 1 card to another slot. Make sure all is detected and try again...
-- OK I'll try that !!!
>>> we will kill your problem!!!!
just patience...
THANX!
>>> GREAT GUYS ON A GREAT FORUM! <<<
>>> PCI Slot 1 may have some problems with AGP Slot, so its recomended not to use any high troughput device in that slot. May be that can help.
-- I'll try that after sub's 1/2 rec.
>>> Had you installed XP in ACPI mode or in STANDARD mode??
-- It WAS ACPI initially but I switched over to Standard without any problem when I saw my new 'magnetic' SFP-OS after starting XP. No difference at all.
>>> As subhuman say, uninstall everything but the creamware cards. Run windows again. THEN change the SLOT 1 card to another slot. Make sure all is detected and try again...
-- OK I'll try that !!!
>>> we will kill your problem!!!!
just patience...
THANX!
>>> GREAT GUYS ON A GREAT FORUM! <<<
I have done some experiments on the above topic.
XTC vs. SFP in terms of sound.
and you will not believe it, but XTC is sounding majorly better than SFP. (host=SX103).
there is a considerable improvements in clarity, punch.
just for a quick test: try the initial bass drum on EDS8 under SFP and then under SX (XTC). you wont believe it.
problems I notice with XTC:
1. every additional audio track added to SX, all the plugs need to reload and reinitialize . big problem when loading multifx and then some non XTC plugs- resets their config every added audio channel.
2. automation of effects - parameters should be seen like normal VST plug because thats the whole point. not to use midi again as force behind automation but the host auto. engine.
3. few plugs - why dont CW supply us with an XTCshell like the tech . behind waveshell? obviously its possible. multiFX dev is used as a shell easily so its possible also for synths.
4. no keyboard entery etc.
5. SX XTC project recall is very flaky.
XTC vs. SFP in terms of sound.
and you will not believe it, but XTC is sounding majorly better than SFP. (host=SX103).
there is a considerable improvements in clarity, punch.
just for a quick test: try the initial bass drum on EDS8 under SFP and then under SX (XTC). you wont believe it.
problems I notice with XTC:
1. every additional audio track added to SX, all the plugs need to reload and reinitialize . big problem when loading multifx and then some non XTC plugs- resets their config every added audio channel.
2. automation of effects - parameters should be seen like normal VST plug because thats the whole point. not to use midi again as force behind automation but the host auto. engine.
3. few plugs - why dont CW supply us with an XTCshell like the tech . behind waveshell? obviously its possible. multiFX dev is used as a shell easily so its possible also for synths.
4. no keyboard entery etc.
5. SX XTC project recall is very flaky.
I've not tested it's sound quality really, but I see one thing which can be different: ASIO driver bit depths. Are they the same in both your XTC and OS project?
bendayan, I experienced about the same as you. I'll follow your numbers:
1. This is explained -but doesn't make it right- as an audio track comes in front of VSTi tracks. Have you noticed the SX mixer has become 'flexible'? Also with midi remote, the SX mixer shuffles. For XTC effects that could be solved by putting them in a Group track maybe, or do those shuffle too?
2. Automation is SUPER in SX. Each parameter is automatically recognised by SX, just like if it were a real =) VSTi
3. KimGR suggested copying a .dll to one w a new name, just like the device which you'll have to copy into the same folder as the dll. Anyone experimented with this? Keep it safe
4. no keyb is a tough one, like many inserts need param's to be insereted by keyb, ie. BPM values.
5. i dunno. SFP recall has drastically improved since I initially started using PulsarOS 1.something. I love it. But again, I don't know about XTC saving really.
bendayan, I experienced about the same as you. I'll follow your numbers:
1. This is explained -but doesn't make it right- as an audio track comes in front of VSTi tracks. Have you noticed the SX mixer has become 'flexible'? Also with midi remote, the SX mixer shuffles. For XTC effects that could be solved by putting them in a Group track maybe, or do those shuffle too?
2. Automation is SUPER in SX. Each parameter is automatically recognised by SX, just like if it were a real =) VSTi
3. KimGR suggested copying a .dll to one w a new name, just like the device which you'll have to copy into the same folder as the dll. Anyone experimented with this? Keep it safe
4. no keyb is a tough one, like many inserts need param's to be insereted by keyb, ie. BPM values.
5. i dunno. SFP recall has drastically improved since I initially started using PulsarOS 1.something. I love it. But again, I don't know about XTC saving really.
>>> SURE THEY ARE - BUT I THINK YOU ARE HITTING THE POINT, AtOmic! IN OS MODE SFP SOUNDS IF SOMETHING IS MISSING AND THIS <HAS> TO DO WITH ASIO, WHAT ELSE !?!On 2002-09-11 03:46, at0mic wrote:
I've not tested it's sound quality really, but I see one thing which can be different: ASIO driver bit depths. Are they the same in both your XTC and OS project?
From what you are saying its Cubase's internal audio engine that is doing this?
Changing the sound I mean, maybe Cubases' engine has a better gain structure.
But firstly look at your XTC project, and see what dest modules it uses, try and use the same in your SFP project.
I'm not in a position to try this at the moment.
Then why not record a track down to audio, one from XTC, and one from SFP, compare the difference, both at the same bit depth.
See how you go.
Changing the sound I mean, maybe Cubases' engine has a better gain structure.
But firstly look at your XTC project, and see what dest modules it uses, try and use the same in your SFP project.
I'm not in a position to try this at the moment.
Then why not record a track down to audio, one from XTC, and one from SFP, compare the difference, both at the same bit depth.
See how you go.
well, I have done so myself (record same synth and same source in XTC and SFP mode).
the difference is obvious.
from what I heard, CW said that the difference is that XTC sounds brighter which is suppose to explain the reason, but as a musician I can tell you, its got alot more to do with a simple high shelf. the whole sound is structured differently leaving little to be convinced.
I think from all the SFP update and CW OS the sound of the OS has degraded steadily to a point where people forgot how its supposed to sound.. wonder if someone has any old old pulsar OS to compare same synth with with SFP. I am willing to bet there is a difference.
in any case, I think it leaves me much concerened about the SFP sound quality.
any remedies for the reintialization of XTC plugs each time you add an audio track in cubase SX 1.03? and any remedies on how to keep the same ULLI setting in XTC mode in cubase without forcing to reselect the ULLI each session??
the difference is obvious.
from what I heard, CW said that the difference is that XTC sounds brighter which is suppose to explain the reason, but as a musician I can tell you, its got alot more to do with a simple high shelf
. the whole sound is structured differently leaving little to be convinced.I think from all the SFP update and CW OS the sound of the OS has degraded steadily to a point where people forgot how its supposed to sound.
. wonder if someone has any old old pulsar OS to compare same synth with with SFP. I am willing to bet there is a difference.in any case, I think it leaves me much concerened about the SFP sound quality.
any remedies for the reintialization of XTC plugs each time you add an audio track in cubase SX 1.03? and any remedies on how to keep the same ULLI setting in XTC mode in cubase without forcing to reselect the ULLI each session??
ACPI / Standard...
Microsoft recomends NOT to switch between them. To do that you have to REINSTALL the OS, and change it in the instalation process.
The only system change that Microsoft recomends (I don´t) is from MONOPROCESSOR to MULTIPROCESSOR...
DJATWORK
Microsoft recomends NOT to switch between them. To do that you have to REINSTALL the OS, and change it in the instalation process.
The only system change that Microsoft recomends (I don´t) is from MONOPROCESSOR to MULTIPROCESSOR...
DJATWORK
Luis Maria Gonzalez Lentijo
DjatWork! Optimizaciones
Buenos Aires
Argentina
DjatWork! Optimizaciones
Buenos Aires
Argentina
Thanks DJATWORK - didn't know that cause everybody (several forums) recommended to switch to Standard and only several reported problems...I'll be switching backOn 2002-09-11 13:01, DJATWORK wrote:
ACPI / Standard...
>>>> Microsoft recomends NOT to switch between them. To do that you have to REINSTALL the OS, and change it in the instalation process.
...
just kidding!I made a fresh install of SFP up to 3.1c RC3. Result: minor improvements in GUI speed. When using a 'heavy' project in SX still the same result and still COMPLETELY different sounding then using XTC with the same ASIO drivers etc.
In the creamware-forum several other guys reported the same and it is getting obvious: the SFP-GUI delivers a different sonic result compared to XTC, besides slowing down heavily the whole system including the prog. which delivers the audio: SX / NUENDO leading to dropouts, pops, crackles and a performance that doesn't allow you to be creative in terms of making music. And you have to switch between both apps to be creative!
In the creamware-forum several other guys reported the same and it is getting obvious: the SFP-GUI delivers a different sonic result compared to XTC, besides slowing down heavily the whole system including the prog. which delivers the audio: SX / NUENDO leading to dropouts, pops, crackles and a performance that doesn't allow you to be creative in terms of making music. And you have to switch between both apps to be creative!
sadly, I second steve-o completely on that one.
When you look at the benefactors of using one app compared to using two on a one system solution, you quickly understand why bill gates defines his OS's - "multitasking".
especialy with regarding realtime applications - in our case - audio - its very hard to make things right under this microsoft umbrella.
in any case, I hope CW will reply to the topic I've put up in the CW forum, because I truely think the sound quality of the pulsar OS's has degraded over time in sound quality. (digital is digital sure, but that doesnt mean we're speaking about the same bits).
if someone comes up with a solution for non XTC plugs (including synths) to work properly in SX (every additional audio track added in SX causes a complete reload of all XTC plugs - very bad if you want to keep your settings in tact).
cya.
When you look at the benefactors of using one app compared to using two on a one system solution, you quickly understand why bill gates defines his OS's - "multitasking"
.especialy with regarding realtime applications - in our case - audio - its very hard to make things right under this microsoft umbrella.
in any case, I hope CW will reply to the topic I've put up in the CW forum, because I truely think the sound quality of the pulsar OS's has degraded over time in sound quality. (digital is digital sure, but that doesnt mean we're speaking about the same bits).
if someone comes up with a solution for non XTC plugs (including synths) to work properly in SX (every additional audio track added in SX causes a complete reload of all XTC plugs - very bad if you want to keep your settings in tact).
cya.
-
marcuspocus
- Posts: 2310
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Canada/France
Hey atOmic!! this topic its going too fast!!On 2002-09-10 02:25, Steve-o wrote:
-- It WAS ACPI initially but I switched over to Standard without any problem when I saw my new 'magnetic' SFP-OS after starting XP. No difference at all.
DJATWORK
Luis Maria Gonzalez Lentijo
DjatWork! Optimizaciones
Buenos Aires
Argentina
DjatWork! Optimizaciones
Buenos Aires
Argentina
Finally we stepped out of the HW-discussion, because the real point here is 'getting results with SFP' - not hardware! Years ago my very first impression of pulsar was: the GUI which is neccessary to access the DSP-power of CW's cards interferes with the production platform (e.g. Cubase / Nuendo) and therefore handicaps the whole system! It does not add extra power - it drains power from the creative standpoint of view. Over the years with different pc-configs OSes and Pulsar/Scope-Versions THIS experience didn't change! And it is getting more and more paradoxical: why do you need better and better Hardware to add the same DSPs to your system? Because the GUI is growing, adding more and more possibilities to the platform but on the NATIVE side of the system. To cut it short: SFP utilizes way to much NATIVE power (e.g. 100% CPU when dragging windows) to add extra DSP-power. You simply can't access the DSP-power adequately. Besides that it stresses core-components of the system like PCI to death! This strategy doesn't make sense at all!
This is the reason why XTC in theory makes much more sense: it ADDS DSP power and LEAVES the native power for the productive tool (e.g. Cubase / Nuendo). But how to use the realtime-capabilities of the DSPs with XTC? No way!
Did we buy a one-way-ticket? Or do you think CW sees this growing paradoxon?
Please understand my point: I like SFP, I like 'being digital' but if the pill kills the patient you are using the wrong treatment to cure the disease!
CW needs to realize that SFP NEEDS A DIET and they MUST KILL the paradoxon described above. If they won't do NATIVE WILL WIN THE BATTLE and there will be no CW anymore in ~2-3 yrs. I wouldn't like that!
This is the reason why XTC in theory makes much more sense: it ADDS DSP power and LEAVES the native power for the productive tool (e.g. Cubase / Nuendo). But how to use the realtime-capabilities of the DSPs with XTC? No way!
Did we buy a one-way-ticket? Or do you think CW sees this growing paradoxon?
Please understand my point: I like SFP, I like 'being digital' but if the pill kills the patient you are using the wrong treatment to cure the disease!
CW needs to realize that SFP NEEDS A DIET and they MUST KILL the paradoxon described above. If they won't do NATIVE WILL WIN THE BATTLE and there will be no CW anymore in ~2-3 yrs. I wouldn't like that!