Running out of CPU in PTLE 7.1

Discussion in 'Recording/Live Sound' started by nickdahl, Jul 29, 2006.

  1. nickdahl

    nickdahl Member

    Messages:
    82
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I posted this over at DUC, but thought I'd try here, because I know there's some solid PT users here.....

    I built a DAW earlier this year, but now is the first time I've had opportunity to test it "under load." My problem is that I seem to be running out of CPU, and I'm unsure if I'm doing something wrong, or if I had too high of expectations for my system. Let me tell you what my computer is, and then let you know what I'm doing to get these messages.

    AMD A64 X2 4400+ CPU
    ASUS A8N-SLI Premium Motherboard
    XFX 6600GT Video Card
    4 GB Corsair DDR 400 RAM
    1 Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10000 RPM SATA150 Hard Drive
    2 Western Digital Raptor 150 GB 10000 RPM SATA150 Hard Drives
    Lite-On DVD Burner
    Lite-On DVD-ROM
    Lian LI PC-V880B Case
    Enermax Whisper II EG565P-VE PSU
    XP Pro SP2
    Dual-Boot

    DIGI 002R
    Two Dell 17" LCD displays
    DIGI Command 8

    I'm running PTLE 7.1 with the Music Production Toolkit. I also have a bunch of plugins, both RTAS and VST, which I use the Fxpansion wrapper.

    I'm working on a project where I transferred over 8 tracks of audio at 88.2 and each song is about 4 minutes long. I'm using BFD to beef up the drums, and about 10 Aux inputs to widen things up. I have these plug-ins running:

    Waves C4 (3)
    Waves RVox (2)
    Waves DeEsser
    Waves Q3 Paragraphic EQ
    URS N Series EQ (2)
    BF Pultec EQH-2
    Waves RComp (4)
    DIGI 1-Band EQ (2)
    BFD All
    Voxengo Warmifier (2)
    Smack
    URS S Series EQ (2)
    iZotope Trash (2)
    Waves C1 (2)
    DIGI Short Delay II (5)
    Hybrid
    BF76
    PSP MixSaturator (2)

    Am I asking too much of my machine? I'm using a dual-boot system that's optimized for PT and am not hooked up to the Internet.

    Any help would be great! Thanks!

    Nick
     
  2. Rusty G.

    Rusty G. Member

    Messages:
    3,084
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Location:
    Lafayette, LA
    I know that this is obvious. . .but it's not the amount of plugins that you have . . .it's the plugins that you're using that slows down the computer. . .that and the amount of tracks that you're using. Also, at least in my case, it's the amount of reverb plugs that you're using that slows down the computer.

    f.w.i.w. . .I don't use ProTools LE. . .I've got a ProTools MixPlus system. It's the old TDM.
     
  3. flatfinger

    flatfinger Member

    Messages:
    1,940
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Location:
    $an diego
    freeze some tracks. you might have to drop your sample rate down on future ambitious projects. thats because 88 is doubling the cpu calculations on the wavs(audio files)
    and plugs.

    good luck
     
  4. nickdahl

    nickdahl Member

    Messages:
    82
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Thanks. I didn't think about the sample rate. I'd hoped that a somewhat-modest (15 tracks) count at 88.2 would work without a problem. I guess I can freeze some tracks or convert them down to 44.1 for what I need to do.

    Nick
     
  5. Monkeyboy23

    Monkeyboy23 Member

    Messages:
    220
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    PT doesn't have a freeze function.
     
  6. gainiac

    gainiac Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,147
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Location:
    Da Bronx
    I know it's a little to late for you but something to consider for the future is that PTLE is now (From what I understand....) dual processor enabled.

    Meaning you can completely dedicate a whole proccesor to PT if you have a dual processor machine..............
     
  7. MichaelK

    MichaelK Member

    Messages:
    6,479
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Fort Mudge
    I'm still on version 5 and I do all three.

    I "save as" before bouncing down a heavily processed track and keep the pre-processing sessions in a separate sub-folder. That little step has come in handy many, many times.

    Also, after doing that, it's a good idea to delete unused playlists and unused regions. If you have the saved sessions you're covered.
     
  8. melondaoust

    melondaoust Member

    Messages:
    793
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    But you can shut tracks off (along with the plugins in the inserts for that track).

    Just find the "voice" tab on the track - two settings: dyn = on, and off.

    Switch to off. If you switch it back on, everything on that track will stay as you left it.

    HTH

    KD
     
  9. BluesForDan

    BluesForDan Member

    Messages:
    7,049
    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Location:
    NH
    not trying to stir trouble, but is there a problem with the source material that it needs so much processing?
     
  10. justicetones

    justicetones Member

    Messages:
    641
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Location:
    So Cal.

    Also something to keep in mind is that many great mix engineers I have met use alot of plugins but are only processing lightly. For myself I have sometimes run two different compressors on different settings on a vocal each only compressing lightly. Sometimes that gives me an effect that you just can't get with one compressor. Same with eq's. I might use one type for high end and another for low end because their qualities are very different.

    Just a thought.
     
  11. elambo

    elambo Member

    Messages:
    2,362
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    BFD is a cpu killer. It can eat your available horsepower right quick. Limit the sounds to 16bit (in the options menu, or somewhere) and maybe limit the number of voices. If possible, or necessary, print the drums to a stereo audio track.

    Otherwise, yeah, you're not going to get a generous amount of plugin power with LE if you're using a lot of hungry plugins. Perhaps opt for a more efficient plugin on a track that doesn't need the absolute best of your eqs or compressors. Reverbs in particular will be as harmful as BFD, or anything else. Try not to have too many verbs running simultaneously.

    The best settings I ever found for LE's processing was one processor set at 99%.
     
  12. Red Ant

    Red Ant Member

    Messages:
    1,358
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Thank you, Mr. Splatt. Truer words were never spoken!
     
  13. justicetones

    justicetones Member

    Messages:
    641
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Location:
    So Cal.
    BTW, I agreed 100% with you too splatt.
     
  14. Bassomatic

    Bassomatic Silver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    12,351
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Location:
    western ma
    Ask Hendrix (difficult) or the Beatles (only slightly less so).
     
  15. justicetones

    justicetones Member

    Messages:
    641
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Location:
    So Cal.

    LOL....... Although in those days they were not shy about processing stuff. The difference is it just went straight to tape. Man does it sound good though.

    :RoCkIn
     
  16. mybusinessmy

    mybusinessmy Member

    Messages:
    314
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Exactly! Ask about how many plug-ins were used on those albums? LOL
    All the digital is there to do is emulate the Analog stuff. The real thing, IMO.
     

Share This Page