ähh,different CPU-Usage? Better rewire?
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:15 pm
Hello Guys,
I read some posts about the higher CPU-Usage of Live in in contrast to other sequencers. But I can't believe it - maybe there is another solution to my problem:
I have a song with about 18 audio tracks and 10 midi tracks. There are 6 Insert-Fxs on just three tracks and one FX-Return. And three of this FX are from the UAD-card, so they don't use that much CPU!! And Live uses about 55% of the CPU??? Hey, I wanted to put in further Fxes in the other tracks...
I arranged the same song with the same effects in Cubase and there is about 25% CPU-Usage??
Sorry, I don't get it...
The song is running in traditionell 44.1 kHz on a 2.8 Intel with 512MB.
Do you have experience with the CPU-Usage when using Rewire? Maybe it is a better solution for mixing and using lots of FXs when Live is just playing audio and all the Fxs are inserted in Cubase? Or is rewire using a lot of CPU, too? Any ideas?
Thanks!
Mareco
I read some posts about the higher CPU-Usage of Live in in contrast to other sequencers. But I can't believe it - maybe there is another solution to my problem:
I have a song with about 18 audio tracks and 10 midi tracks. There are 6 Insert-Fxs on just three tracks and one FX-Return. And three of this FX are from the UAD-card, so they don't use that much CPU!! And Live uses about 55% of the CPU??? Hey, I wanted to put in further Fxes in the other tracks...
I arranged the same song with the same effects in Cubase and there is about 25% CPU-Usage??
Sorry, I don't get it...
The song is running in traditionell 44.1 kHz on a 2.8 Intel with 512MB.
Do you have experience with the CPU-Usage when using Rewire? Maybe it is a better solution for mixing and using lots of FXs when Live is just playing audio and all the Fxs are inserted in Cubase? Or is rewire using a lot of CPU, too? Any ideas?
Thanks!
Mareco