Return channels and CPU usage

[chris vine]

Greetings, Have just reached the 12 return track limit and I noticed a post on KVR forum stating that each return channel uses CPU, hence the limit to 12.

Out of interest, what is more CPU efficient: using return channels or inserts/racks for FX? I am building a set to process live guitar using only sends from the gtr input (avoiding any latency on the direct guitar input) for the FX.

Floating the second window (arrangement, minimized) on top of session view, allows me to view a list of the return tracks displaying their full titles - which is an improvement over the limited title info in session view on a small laptop screen.

[jimfowler]

for cpu usage reasons, i try to avoid using send/return tracks in ableton. there are other ways to get your audio where it needs to be.

[fenderguy4life]

Greetings, Have just reached the 12 return track limit and I noticed a post on KVR forum stating that each return channel uses CPU, hence the limit to 12.

Out of interest, what is more CPU efficient: using return channels or inserts/racks for FX? I am building a set to process live guitar using only sends from the gtr input (avoiding any latency on the direct guitar input) for the FX.

Floating the second window (arrangement, minimized) on top of session view, allows me to view a list of the return tracks displaying their full titles - which is an improvement over the limited title info in session view on a small laptop screen.

According to Ableton:
How to reduce CPU load in Live?
"Put CPU-heavy effects into Return tracks so that you can process more than one track with the same effect."
Further references - https://www.ableton.com/en/articles/reduce-cpu-load/

[chris vine]

in other words: it's "horses for courses", depending on what you want to achieve.

I guess my question is - does adding a return track in itself add to CPU load? Why would a simple addition of a send and return increase CPU?

Just curious.