Why am I running out of DSP grunt?

thomashenrydavies · Post by **thomashenrydavies** » Wed May 05, 2004 4:03 am

Hi

Last night I set up a small SFP project for recording some vocals, on my Luna2 card. The project included

STM 1632

1 analog input, routed directly to an ASIO input and a windows Wave input, and to a mixer channel
2 ASIO outputs, routed through the mixer
Windows wave inputs, fed from the mxer
Windows wave outputs, routed through the mixer.

The mixer outout is sent to the analog outs of the card.

I added a stereo pan insert to the mono input channel on the mixer, followed by a masterverb classic, so provide my singer with some reverb for the headphone mix, without it being recorded.

I must say, the east of setting up this envoronment was superb, I was away in no time.

HOWEVER, at 24 bit/96KHz, this setup maxed out my Luna. 5 mixer channels, 2 insert effects (one of nominal DSP hit), 1 input, and 2 outputs in use.

Why one Earth has this maxed out my card? Is that all I can expect to get out of my Luna? I'm only usuing half the available I/O, 1 effect, and its maxed out? *Surely* this cannot be right. I know the DSPs on the Luns are not the most powerful, but surely they pack more punch than this.

I solved the problem by switcing to 16bit/44.1 (but still using over 60% of my SPD power).

I was thinking of picking up a 2nd hand 2496 - but why should I bother? I cant even use all the I/) on my Luna, cos it can't cope with the strain!

:S

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Wed May 05, 2004 7:35 am

Try using a lighter mixer, like j9k's mega micro mix or MicroMixer. At least put the effects loose in the project instead of in an insert rack in the mixer, where they are locked to the same dsp's as that part of the mixer. You can use different smaller mixer instances to set up your routing.

You understand that if the setup takes 1 dsp at 44.1kHz, it will take more than 2 dsp at 96kHz?

thomashenrydavies · Post by **thomashenrydavies** » Wed May 05, 2004 7:44 am

Thanks, i will try these things.

However, a few tracks + one effect maxing out my system is not very impressive. You certainly don't get the impression reading reviews that the Luna2 is so pathetically underpowered.

If I'd read that the Luna couldn't handle half its I/Os with 1 reverb at 96k, I wouldn't have bought it. I mean, what are these DSPs? Zilog z80s??

cannonball · Post by **cannonball** » Wed May 05, 2004 8:01 am

hi

some friend's of mine (luna user's)
are very annoying about this problem
24 96 is to0 heavy in dsp
in all the system 3 6 or 15 dsp
maybe and i hope, creamware look in this
direction to tweak at maximum
the software and the dsp load
for work smooth with this sample rate.

ale

thomashenrydavies · Post by **thomashenrydavies** » Thu May 06, 2004 3:56 am

Just to confirm...

Is it right and proper that I should be running out of DSP capacity in the situation I describe? I've not got a duff card or anything? I am flabbergasted if so. 1 input, 2 output, 1 reverb -> too much for the card?!?!

samplaire · Post by **samplaire** » Thu May 06, 2004 4:06 am

Reverbs are very demanding. I remember my PII300 and I could open only one trueverb (waves) on it. And it was 44.1kHz/16bit. Luna is meant to be an entry level card; just for I/O handling.

It was widely disscused here if the software sold with Luna should include so many plugins. This is a good marketing move and it leads you to buy more cards. BTW when I bought my Luna card it featured only 2 mixers (stereo and surround) and 2 (two) plugins - an eq and a compressor. That time many people complained they don't have as many plugins as they would like to. Now it's what they wanted but other problems occur. So as you see it's difficult to satisfy everybody. Even if it's predictible...

_________________
Sir Sam Plaire Scopernicus

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: samplaire on 2004-05-06 05:08 ]</font>

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu May 06, 2004 5:02 am

On 2004-05-06 04:56, thomashenrydavies wrote:
...Is it right and proper that I should be running out of DSP capacity in the situation I describe? ...

yes, indead - it is expectable that way.
And At0mic already explained the why above.
To guarantee phase accuracy in a mixer the DSP code cannot be loaded at arbitrary locations, but must follow certain rules.

Btw this is exactly the way ProTools handles that stuff, so you're in good company

cheers, Tom

thomashenrydavies · Post by **thomashenrydavies** » Thu May 06, 2004 5:16 am

Ok cheers guys. I spose I was just expecting more from the card. I think I was slightly mislead as to its power by a Sound on Sound review.

Anyone want to buy a mint Luna2?

Nisse · Post by **Nisse** » Thu May 06, 2004 6:14 am

Well to be quite honest, I agree with Thomas here. Im not really satisfied with the amount of processing power we get either. (and I have 2 6dsp cards)

With todays increasingly powerful computer processors and vst instruments I feel that the Creamware processors are getting a bit outdated.

The good thing with Creamware products is the flexibility of the system, and of course the quality of the plugins. But when it comes to the processing department its not as impressive in my opinion.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu May 06, 2004 9:43 am

On 2004-05-06 07:14, Nisse wrote:
...With todays increasingly powerful computer processors and vst instruments I feel that the Creamware processors are getting a bit outdated.
...

well, think about it:
clockrate ? 1,2,3... maybe 5 or 6 GHZ

an improvement to just call lame when it comes to optimizing software alogorithms, specially in graphics and sound.

a good programmer will achieve improvements by factors of 5-20 fold, which would read 10 to 60 GHZ from current clock 'position'

Yet you won't see a monster like Reaktor (or any similiarly complex plug) with it's literally hundreds of megabytes of mediocre source code improved - it is impossible due to time restrictions.
They want to exploit and not explore their stuff

There's only a handful of programmers capable of doing such jobs and even fewer have enough 'musical' insights to tune algorithms accordingly.

The DSP suppliers have only expert staff in exactly that segment of programming - their code quality is far more efficient and often smarter as well.
Accordingly a 60 MHZ Sharc can outperform a general purpose CPU running at a 20 times higher clockrate.

When people try to predict performance results they simply multiply clock rates, but overlook that CPUs sometimes don't reach even 20% of their numeric capabilities due to improper data pathes.
That's a hell of a complicated setup on the machine language level and you can be absolutely shure that not a single supplier of VSTI stuff has the human resources to mess with that stuff.

cheers, Tom

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Thu May 06, 2004 12:42 pm

Thomas, have you tried the Dynamic Mixer, that will help. Also, remove absolutely every module that you don't need: MIDI modules, ASIO if you use Wave input or viceversa,etc.

valis · Post by **valis** » Thu May 06, 2004 1:40 pm

I'd recommend micromixer over dynamixer.

I've got 10 dsps and really never use anything else. All typical insert/send behaviour is achievable in SFP itself.

Post by **garyb** » Thu May 06, 2004 11:35 pm

On 2004-05-06 06:16, thomashenrydavies wrote:
Ok cheers guys. I spose I was just expecting more from the card. I think I was slightly mislead as to its power by a Sound on Sound review.

Anyone want to buy a mint Luna2?

i don't think you were mislead. the luna card has always really been just an i/o card. i always suggest starting with the project(pulsar card) as it can really do some stuff. all this is moot however, if you don't hear any difference between cwa cards and soundblasters. still, the "pro" soundblaster card is $300. when you have that plus a mod synth or a sampler, a luna is not a bad deal.

i remember that the sos article specifically stated that one downside of the card was that you always want more, "a bad case of dsp lust" Mr Wherry called it....

siriusbliss · Post by **siriusbliss** » Fri May 07, 2004 11:47 pm

I've been having DSP overload issues on ALL projects - even when rebuilding with newer devices. This is on all my previous projects as well as newer setups.

I'm getting these error messages DESPITE the DSP load meter showing less than 30% usage.

THE DSP BEHAVIOR IS DEFINITELY CHANGED WITH 4.0 RELEASE!!!

Post by **garyb** » Sat May 08, 2004 12:45 am

there's a problem with your computer..
i'm using mine with clients and my stuff almost daily, often for 6-8 hours and never less than a couple of hours.

valis · Post by **valis** » Sat May 08, 2004 2:29 am

I also see no negative change with sfp 4.0 here (though i've got a couple more dsps). If anything devices load faster and when I reach the limits of my dsp its better at reallocating. Are you trying to use large mixers or other large devices which would eat resources across dsps?

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sat May 08, 2004 5:09 am

Yep, I have a previous project that would always require DSP re-allocation after loading in SFP3.1c. In 4.0 it loads ok. Could be an install problem.

siriusbliss · Post by **siriusbliss** » Sat May 08, 2004 7:03 pm

there's no install problem, and no problem with my computer.

I've even uninstalled and done a fresh install of 4.0 with the same results.

Same computer, same cards, same configuration, different results.

Definitely a difference in performance with 4.0 for me. Still flushing out other possible issues, but no improvement yet.

Post by **garyb** » Sat May 08, 2004 9:11 pm

when you uninstall,it might be a good idea to go into find and search for scope,creamware and sfp, just to make sure that nothing is left behind that might not be overwritten(like the file with a problem)...also a registry cleaner might be a good idea(after the uninstall) for the same reason.

or maybe there's something in your projects that is not in mine......

arela · Post by **arela** » Sun May 09, 2004 1:34 am

hi
I've worked with a 3dsp card a long time before i got another 6dsp's.
As i found, there is always a way to deal with "i want more dsp"
For every miditrack with a dsp synth, and / or vsti's for that matter - record to wavefiles.
With just 1 track to think about, you can assign most of your 3dsp's.
At the end, you'll have a project with a lot of wavefiles, but now you can use the STM 1632 to mix it.
(i did use 8 asio source, usually with 2-3 aux-effects)
But, with 96kHz there is problems with some of the synths i think, and 44.1 kHz is easier to handle.
Guess 96kHz is the future, and agree, the future is here!
By the way, welcome, and i hope you'll find away around this probs, so you can do what you intendeed, make music!

By the way, i still record most of my tracks to wavefiles, because of comfort.