Thank you for getting technical on this subject. I struggle with my CPU load being 90-100% due to a lot of complex routing and computation heavy plugins. This gives me some useful ideas to try. Also your intro music takes me back to the days of FL Studio 3 sample projects :)
Great Video, great explanation! I was wondering what about automations? for example you have a peak controller on the mixer track of your kick and use the automation for volume ducking in different mixer tracks or direct on the instruments. does the peak controller also "link the workload" like routing a sidechain signal to another track? could it be that an envelope controller, controlling different volumes at the same time, is the better option, because no audio processing is involved to control the parameters?
Bonjour, a vrai dire et bien que je trouve super intéressant le sujet et de la façon comme cela nous est proposer , il vas me falloir repasser plusieurs fois la vidéo pour vraiment m'imprégné de cet excellent tuto. De plus je dois suivre la traduction en sous titres , mais qu'importe la flamme de la connaissance en vaux largement la chandelle . Par contre et suivant vos conseil j'ai activé " Mix in buffer switch" et Triple buffer " ai je bien fait ? . Mon processeur est un Corel i5 HP ProDesk Windows 10pro. Merci par avance. PascalH
D'après mon expérience, vous pouvez sans risque laisser les deux options activées. Tant que vous ne remarquez rien de négatif (coupures audio ou autres), rien ne peut arriver.
What about mixing at 96, 192 Sample Rate? Why can’t it be done so that each individual core processes its own sound? It turns out that even at 96 kHz it’s impossible to mix; one ozone on the master eats up about 50%, although it has a multi-streaming function, but it doesn’t work with such values!
@@esp2644 It should work too... if not it would be a bug... But remember 1. with oversampling you let everything work at least double as hard! 2. in regards to your Multicore question: only parallel processes can be splitted... not serial ones... other with some trickery which might not be supported everywhere...
Bitwig uses less resources compared to FL Studio. Logic Pro uses more resources than Bitwig and so on. It depends on how software algorithms are designed. I think straight serial or parallel computing isn't not correct because, generally, equations are computed dynamically on the processor cores. If I create the same plugins+effects chain (same sample rate, same buffer size) in FL Studio I get double the resources used than Bitwig.
I did tons over tons of different test and yes...FLS is a bit worse... but we are talking at max about more or less 10% difference but never about the double... If you get the double CPU load you are doing something wrong like i.e. unnecessary high PPQ settings or similar... Second you cannot compare the architecture between these... FL Studio and Logic Pro are dinosaurs compared to Bitwig and of course it´s easy to analyze mistakes others made in the past and try to avoid them in a new product... It´s a complete different story to change the complete basic structure of an existing product which equals to a complete rewrite... Each company has to decide if a performance difference of at max 10% is worth to postpone every new feature for 2 years or however period of time a complete rewrite would take each time a company has learned from mistakes others made to improve their product... The Bitwigs would have to do the same if they want to come anywhere near to the performance of i.e. Reaper which is still king in terms of multicore performance and maxing out the system... And DAW hoping to always use the most efficient one isn´t an option for most users either as they decided for special reasons to use DAW A over DAW B... Comparing different DAWs is pointless... This video is about getting the most out of FL Studio not about getting the best performing DAW in existence.
Thank you for getting technical on this subject. I struggle with my CPU load being 90-100% due to a lot of complex routing and computation heavy plugins. This gives me some useful ideas to try. Also your intro music takes me back to the days of FL Studio 3 sample projects :)
Thank you for the comprehensive explanation!
Awesome😊❤❤
Brilliant explanation !
Keep going mate 😍
Good explaining.
Great Video, great explanation!
I was wondering what about automations? for example you have a peak controller on the mixer track of your kick and use the automation for volume ducking in different mixer tracks or direct on the instruments. does the peak controller also "link the workload" like routing a sidechain signal to another track?
could it be that an envelope controller, controlling different volumes at the same time, is the better option, because no audio processing is involved to control the parameters?
I don´t know but I think that all of this stuff uses so little CPU that it doesn´t matter anyway
Bonjour, a vrai dire et bien que je trouve super intéressant le sujet et de la façon comme cela nous est proposer , il vas me falloir repasser plusieurs fois la vidéo pour vraiment m'imprégné de cet excellent tuto.
De plus je dois suivre la traduction en sous titres , mais qu'importe la flamme de la connaissance en vaux largement la chandelle .
Par contre et suivant vos conseil j'ai activé " Mix in buffer switch" et Triple buffer " ai je bien fait ? .
Mon processeur est un Corel i5 HP ProDesk Windows 10pro. Merci par avance. PascalH
D'après mon expérience, vous pouvez sans risque laisser les deux options activées.
Tant que vous ne remarquez rien de négatif (coupures audio ou autres), rien ne peut arriver.
What about mixing at 96, 192 Sample Rate? Why can’t it be done so that each individual core processes its own sound? It turns out that even at 96 kHz it’s impossible to mix; one ozone on the master eats up about 50%, although it has a multi-streaming function, but it doesn’t work with such values!
I don’t understand why multithreading doesn’t work when using a Sample Rate value above 48000
@@esp2644 It should work too... if not it would be a bug...
But remember 1. with oversampling you let everything work at least double as hard! 2. in regards to your Multicore question: only parallel processes can be splitted... not serial ones... other with some trickery which might not be supported everywhere...
Bitwig uses less resources compared to FL Studio. Logic Pro uses more resources than Bitwig and so on. It depends on how software algorithms are designed. I think straight serial or parallel computing isn't not correct because, generally, equations are computed dynamically on the processor cores.
If I create the same plugins+effects chain (same sample rate, same buffer size) in FL Studio I get double the resources used than Bitwig.
I did tons over tons of different test and yes...FLS is a bit worse... but we are talking at max about more or less 10% difference but never about the double...
If you get the double CPU load you are doing something wrong like i.e. unnecessary high PPQ settings or similar...
Second you cannot compare the architecture between these...
FL Studio and Logic Pro are dinosaurs compared to Bitwig and of course it´s easy to analyze mistakes others made in the past and try to avoid them in a new product...
It´s a complete different story to change the complete basic structure of an existing product which equals to a complete rewrite...
Each company has to decide if a performance difference of at max 10% is worth to postpone every new feature for 2 years or however period of time a complete rewrite would take each time a company has learned from mistakes others made to improve their product...
The Bitwigs would have to do the same if they want to come anywhere near to the performance of i.e. Reaper which is still king in terms of multicore performance and maxing out the system...
And DAW hoping to always use the most efficient one isn´t an option for most users either as they decided for special reasons to use DAW A over DAW B...
Comparing different DAWs is pointless...
This video is about getting the most out of FL Studio not about getting the best performing DAW in existence.
Oh Hi