Timeworks rev + pci overflow

Rogurt · Post by **Rogurt** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:39 am

Hi Folks,
I read a lot of threats concerning computer optimization and those about the resource hunger of the p100 and the a100 from timeworks.
I have my whole system run in acpi mode (irq sharing by win). I am able to run 11 masterverbs very stable. But I can´t get a100 and p100 run together. Do you think changing the system to standart mode will do a good job?. As I said above I always had more than enough ressources left on the pci bus the way it´s now...

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:14 am

The Timeworks reverbs seem to be massively resource hungry compared to others...here's what happened to my system when demo-ing their SFP-based 'ReverbX':

http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... forum=1&25

I couldn't even run one instance of the reverb device for some of the algorithms. In fact, Timeworks even informed me that certain algorithms weren't designed to be used 'in real-time' :-/

I this light, I'm not very surprised that you can't load both reverbs at once. I found Timeworks to be responsive, so it may be worth while approaching them with your problem.

Royston

Warp69 · Post by **Warp69** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:50 am

Hey

First of all - there is no SFP version of the ReverbX. ReverbX is only a DirectX plugin and has nothing to do with p100 or a100 (which are DSP based).

Im able to run both reverbs (a100 and p100) at the same time and still have some PCI resources left. I do not run the system in acpi mode. I have a Scope 1 and a Pulsar 2 board installed and I have changed the PCI latency time to something above 64 (located in the bios settings).

To load both you need at least a 2nd generation board, lots of dsp's and a good motherboard.

What is your current setup?

Cheers

[ This Message was edited by: Warp69 on 2004-07-24 09:51 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Warp69 on 2005-09-02 00:53 ]

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:32 am

Warp69 wrote:

First of all - there is no SFP version of the ReverbX.

Oops - sorry about that misinformation.

I wouldn't say that it has nothing in common with the a100 or p100 'verbs though - from what you say in your post, they're both pretty resource hungry too!

Royston

Rogurt · Post by **Rogurt** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:49 am

I have an K7N420 Motherboard (Asus) Nforce_Nvidia Chipset. I run a Pulsar2, XTC and a Pulsar1 together. As I said I dont have any problems running 11 Masterverbs but that doesn´t say anything anymore (unlike in the past)?
The thing is that I like the verbs very much but from a professional poit of view a pro-engineer would like to have at least 4 verbs running. One for the percussive signals ambient part, one for the percussive signals room, the same for non percussive signals (+Delay, Chorus...).
I think about having one (maybe extra) board not beeing connected via s-bus (or whatever it´s named) but running on a dedicated IRQ. The mainboard would have to be set to standart mode then. Could it be possible to run the reverbs on a different IRQ channel than the rest of a project thus enhacing the overall PCI performance I get? Can the software handle two different boards (IRQs)?
Else I would have to set up a second computer with pulsar just for 2 verbs (an eventually a third one)?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:10 pm

On 2004-07-26 05:49, Rogurt wrote:
... I think about having one (maybe extra) board not beeing connected via s-bus (or whatever it´s named) but running on a dedicated IRQ. The mainboard would have to be set to standart mode then. Could it be possible to run the reverbs on a different IRQ channel than the rest of a project thus enhacing the overall PCI performance I get? Can the software handle two different boards (IRQs)? ...

no way ! the software always detects any Scope board and treats them as a unit.
Without the S/TDM cable the complete communication of the cards is handled via PCI bus and THAT will definetely bring it down.

You're restricted to plan B with the 2nd computer, but fortunately those are cheap today. A decent mobo with onboard graphic, a simple disk and an outdated CD drive just for install - I guess no more than 500 Euro.

I have a very good PCI performance on an Intel 815 based Celeron, at least according to Mehdi's PCI test device, but of course my mem is slower than on a P4 and this could have an influence too.

cheers, Tom

Rogurt · Post by **Rogurt** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:37 pm

Where can I get this pci testing device?
Is it freeware?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:53 pm

it is not a scientific device, basically a long delay chain to put stress on the PCI bus.
It has been discussed here in the tech talk forum.
Since SpaceF has given up developing (see announcements forum) the download links are no longer valid, but the discussion may give you some impression.

The only 'real' use of that device is when someone with a regular system can only load significantly less instances - then something in the machine/OS setup is wrong.
Otherwise all systems perform pretty similiar (my Cel 1G was identical to a P4 3G or a Mac G4/800).

I have 2 Pulsar One boards and can load either the Plate or the Ambient Verb (demo), so it fits with Warp69's statement.

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2004-07-26 19:00 ]

Rogurt · Post by **Rogurt** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:21 am

Despite of the quality of these verbs they somehow put the sfp system in question. If I like to have my whole mix done with these verbs I would want to load at least 4 verbs. Naturally I would furthermore want to have the possibility to load a sampler and delay(s) which stress the pci bus again. So I would end up in having 3 PCs each with pulsar(s), monitors, mouses, keyboards AND fannoise. Wow - that´s not the kind of handling I would dream of when deciding to go digital instead of analog mixing. And it doesn´t matter if I´d buy a pulsar2 or 3Scope Boards.
Hopefully this is going to be changed either by optimizing code, faster bus handling in future hardware or whatever (maybe next shark generation?)...

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:15 am

The choke point for running SFP reverbs is the PCI bus, as the Creamware boards need to use native memory for handling the reverb algorithms. Is there anything else using your PCI bus? You could possibly gain some bandwidth by making sure that only the SFP boards are using this bus.

I'm not sure about the Nforce_Nvidia Chipset you mention (does anybody else have experience with this?) - I would go for an Intel chipset MOBO personally - it's the quality of the bridges which determines how much bandwidth you can squeeze out of the PCI bus. There are quite a few posts here on 'Z' concerning tweaking the PCI latency too which might be helpful.

As memory's so cheap, I don't see why they (CWA) don't just slap a Gig of fast RAM on the boards - problem solved!

Royston

Rogurt · Post by **Rogurt** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:22 am

I built my system after the mobo was tested in KEYBOARDS. They found it to be good concerning pci and memory load. Back then there was the topic about not beeing able to load more than 3-4 masterverbs with sfp 3.0 and pulsar1 on many systems. I can easily load 11 of them (actual version and pulsar2 board).
How many of them can u guys load?

Warp69 · Post by **Warp69** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 1:09 pm

Hey,

As stated above, its the lack of memory on the boards that seems to be the problem.

I have some serious problems when I create different devices - the ChorusDelay thing is more lush, wide and warm than any plugin, just like the high-end hardware, but it use resources like theres no tomorrow. I have to downsize the algorithm and thats the reason for the long developing time.

I could probably optimize the devices, so you could load 6-8 reverbs on a Scope board. But I can't justify the time and the money I need for that kind of performance. I need to hire sharc/x86 programmers and the number of customers is FAR from great - infact, very dissapointing.

I can load p100 and a100 without any problems. I can load p100 and two p100 lite without any problems on my system. But you need at least 2 computers with 2nd generation boards, if you need 4 instances of the reverb. I would buy a p3 with bx (intel) chipset for around 100 euro.

Kind regards

[ This Message was edited by: Warp69 on 2004-07-30 03:44 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Warp69 on 2005-09-02 00:54 ]

Post by **garyb** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 1:34 pm

think!
a pc and a pulsar is cheaper than many highend effects boxes(reverbs and compressors for example). if you get the same quality as those expensive boxes AND you can reconfigure into a different application, isn't that great? damn.

it's amazing what you CAN do with one computer. with two.......

once again, the problem is the mechanic not the tools, as the tools are all available.

would i like MORE? sure.....

cannonball · Post by **cannonball** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:17 am

hi

Warp69 thanks for the explanation
take your time for the optimizations
if you need some money for 6/8 reverb on SFP why not
if the future updates of the devices sounds good we can payed for the updates.
I would like to mix with 4 reverb, like the plate, for song.
Give us the Ambience one's.

alessandro

Rogurt · Post by **Rogurt** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:16 am

That´s an old problem: needing time and money to write proper codes. So you´d prefer to write a non optimized plug with less effort so you can sell it for less bucks? But people paying too much attention on money will prefer to have even cheaper plugs - maybe free. And you can have tons of them using vst plugs from the web. And thats a main issue of the pulsar system. I can´t really see if CW consider it to be state of the art and therefore worth all the money (which brings up questions like why can´t I load 4 REALLY good verbs and why some implemented studio features just don´t work). Or does CW go for the bang for the buck thing? Again cracked stuff on cheap soundcards will allways be cheaper.

Warp69: think about what effort it could possibly make to further enhance a REALLY good verb so that professionals would love to use it . If I am an engineer building my studio on SFP I have the money to buy 1-3 Scope boards. But I don´t want to have 2 PCs with 2 SFP-Programs on2-4 Monitors to be dealt with! Switching back and forth and saving two projects?! No way.
But maybe if you named a price I would be proven to be wrong?

Ganool · Post by **Ganool** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:52 pm

Warp69... I'm so happy to hear that you're still into the Chorus, but please... don't optimize it too much.

Cheers from a rainy Sweden,

Carl.

dbmac · Post by **dbmac** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 2:36 pm

Yeah, let's have quality over quantity.

/dave

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:10 pm

On 2004-07-30 11:16, Rogurt wrote:
... Warp69: think about what effort it could possibly make to further enhance a REALLY good verb so that professionals would love to use it ...

ok, not really my turn to answer this, but since the same situation p*ssed me off a couple of times in the last months, I mention it anyway.

No need to be a prophet to say that Warp69 doesn't even come close to achieve an adequate return for his efforts.
He is trying his best to make something available well below true value (and some tradeoffs must be taken into account therefor).
We should be grateful because the choice is either a little inconvenience ot nothing at all.
And then the all too familiar blurb about '... no professional verbs on Scope...' will start again.
People have requested the stuff Warp69 provides, and now they leave him stand in the rain.

He's certainly not the only one.
I recently aquired a native plug and I hope my 'order number' was just a random choice.
After multiplying that number with the amount paid I couldn't imagine how someone would be able to make even the most humble kind of living from that 'income'.

Imho it goes this way: people buy hardware, preferably with bundled software.
Then a sequencer at max, again with all and everything 'on board'. Be it mediocre or not - the rest is ware* or freebies.

Noone honours creative or ambitous work - the only chance (for a small number of developers) is to be aquired by one of the multis - but as a matter of fact most of the ideas simply get stolen - anyone out there to sue Apple ... ?

cheers, Tom
ps: just ideas, no personal offence intended

Post by **garyb** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:23 pm

once more, nail on head.....

dbmac · Post by **dbmac** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 6:19 pm

Yeah, when you consider the profit potential our little Scope community represents, we're extremely fortunate to have developers like Warp69, John Bowen, Flexor - world class devices that only we know about.
Their prices are tremendous bargains.

/dave