[jwvm]

On Aug 27, 5:43*pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"jwvm" wrote ...

Typically, the antivirus stuff doesn't seem to consume all that many
CPU cycles but they do require memory.

I dumped McAfee completely because the "cure" was worse
than the disease. *No virus scanner has EVER reported a real
"infection" on my computers. OTOH, it was getting to the point
where once or twice per day, the virus scanner would completely
lock up my machine and make it unusable for minutes at a time.
No keyboard or even mouse response. Might as well get up and
get some refreshment while you wait on your computer. :-(

I use the version of McAfee (VirusScan) that is distributed to
universities and I have never had that problem. I have seen the free
version of Norton do that but I perhaps their enterprise version may
work better. YMMV but I just don't see much CPU usage with . Was it
causing serious page faulting?

[jwvm]

On Aug 27, 4:31*am, Laurence Payne wrote:

snip

But what would be the "demand" while running a DAW? *We've pulled the
plug on the Internet - what new file requires checking?

How about this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...tops_infected/

[Richard Crowley]

"jwvm" wrote ...
I use the version of McAfee (VirusScan) that is distributed to
universities and I have never had that problem. I have seen the free
version of Norton do that but I perhaps their enterprise version may
work better. YMMV but I just don't see much CPU usage with . Was it
causing serious page faulting?

Dunno, unable to even open Task Manager while it was locked up.
Don't care anymore. Switched to (free) AVG and much happier
camper now.

[Keith]

Dunno, unable to even open Task Manager while it was locked up.
Don't care anymore. Switched to (free) AVG and much happier
camper now.

This works well but is hard on the memory......each day 140 tracking
cookies come in,are removed,and the next day come back again. All
the time slowing the process, so at the scan time I turn it off and do
a complete scan once a week.

[jakdedert]

Keith wrote:
Dunno, unable to even open Task Manager while it was locked up.
Don't care anymore. Switched to (free) AVG and much happier
camper now.

This works well but is hard on the memory......each day 140 tracking
cookies come in,are removed,and the next day come back again. All
the time slowing the process, so at the scan time I turn it off and do
a complete scan once a week.

I leave mine on all the time and schedule the scans for after 3
am...except for the stupid Google-supplied Norton AVR won't take it's
scheduling. No matter what I schedule, it scans on Friday afternoon. I
think it's intentional. They want me to buy the full version.

Ain't gonna happen. I've not really had all that much trouble with
viruses. Even when I went 'barefoot', I usually only picked up some
spyware here & there. Now that I have AV, it only ever picks up a
tracking cookie or two...weekly.

jak

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Keith
wrote:

Dunno, unable to even open Task Manager while it was locked up.
Don't care anymore. Switched to (free) AVG and much happier
camper now.

This works well but is hard on the memory......each day 140 tracking
cookies come in,are removed,and the next day come back again. All
the time slowing the process, so at the scan time I turn it off and do
a complete scan once a week.

Current versions of AVG Free allow you to choose a priority setting
for the daily scan that make it much less intrusive. But I agree, on
a DAW it's best to disable the full scan, or at least schedule it for
a time you know you won't be working!

Be clear that we're talking about the scheduled full system scan, not
the background monitoring function.

[Monty Parts]

Laurence Payne wrote:

But what would be the "demand" while running a DAW? We've pulled the
plug on the Internet - what new file requires checking?


A lot of virus scanners run a resident program that sits in
waiting...using resources to do so...even if not called up.

Also your network card will make periodic calls even if not connected to
the internet. It's a good idea to disable it completely...and get it off
the task bar.

I suggested Black Viper's page because when looking at your services
running you can track what's being used that you can't see, or don't see
loading on startup. He gives a detailed list that goes from barebones
speed machine to a basic internet machine.

PN

[iarwain]

I guess it's been established here that RAM is not that much of an
issue when playing multiple audio tracks at once. What about effects
and such though? I was running a number of tracks smoothly the other
day, but when I opened a rather large VST plug in it started to
struggle. Would having more RAM help in this case or is it again not
really an issue? Is there any instance where more RAM would be
helpful?

[philicorda[_6_]]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:31:25 -0700, iarwain wrote:

I guess it's been established here that RAM is not that much of an issue
when playing multiple audio tracks at once. What about effects and such
though? I was running a number of tracks smoothly the other day, but
when I opened a rather large VST plug in it started to struggle. Would
having more RAM help in this case or is it again not really an issue?
Is there any instance where more RAM would be helpful?

This is not something you should have to guess at.

Take a look at the CPU usage meter in your recording application, and
also at the amount of memory the application is using.
If you are running out of CPU time before you run out of memory, then
that's the problem.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:31:25 -0700 (PDT), iarwain
wrote:

I guess it's been established here that RAM is not that much of an
issue when playing multiple audio tracks at once. What about effects
and such though? I was running a number of tracks smoothly the other
day, but when I opened a rather large VST plug in it started to
struggle. Would having more RAM help in this case or is it again not
really an issue? Is there any instance where more RAM would be
helpful?

There's little excuse these days for not installing all the RAM your
computer will take (on a 32-bit os anyway:-). But it could equally
be that you're running out of processing power.

[Scott Dorsey]

iarwain wrote:
I guess it's been established here that RAM is not that much of an
issue when playing multiple audio tracks at once. What about effects
and such though? I was running a number of tracks smoothly the other
day, but when I opened a rather large VST plug in it started to
struggle. Would having more RAM help in this case or is it again not
really an issue? Is there any instance where more RAM would be
helpful?

Why was it struggling? You have to actually watch memory and disk
utilization while it's running, so you can see what is actually going on.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jwvm]

On Sep 2, 1:31*pm, iarwain wrote:
I guess it's been established here that RAM is not that much of an
issue when playing multiple audio tracks at once. *What about effects
and such though? *I was running a number of tracks smoothly the other
day, but when I opened a rather large VST plug in it started to
struggle. *Would having more RAM help in this case or is it again not
really an issue? *Is there any instance where more RAM would be
helpful?

What "rather large" VST plug-in was it? That sounds really strange
when there is no problem running 5 or 10 plug-ins on a machine with
half the memory and half the speed that you have. BTW, as Scott noted,
are you should be monitoring memory and CPU usage. If your DAW doesn't
have monitors, run the task manager. You might also want to look at
your running processes in task manager and see which ones are CPU and/
or memory hogs.

[iarwain]

What "rather large" VST plug-in was it?

It was Addictive Drums - the system requirements recommend 1.5 GB RAM,
that's why I figured it was pretty large. I was just experimenting at
the time so I didn't try any further. I did still have the virus
protection enabled at the time. I'll have to check out the task
manager and see what's going on. It sounds like my computer is slower
than it should be from all the comments here - not sure why.

[iarwain]

your running processes in task manager and see which ones are CPU and/ or memory hogs.

Just sitting here with the task manager open along with the browser it
says CPU usage 5% and available physical memory of over 1 GB (I'm
guessing that's the RAM that's not presently being used?). If there
are things running in the background which are slowing my machine down
so much, wouldn't they be making their presence felt in a larger way
than that, even with the machine mostly "at rest"?

I'm guessing if there's a problem it's more in the CPU, the usage
seems to spike quite a bit whenever I do something, whereas the memory
doesn't seem to change much at all (if I'm reading it correctly). I
don't know what could be done to improve that, outside of getting a
faster processor, do you?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
iarwain wrote:
your running processes in task manager and see which ones are CPU and/ or memory hogs.

Just sitting here with the task manager open along with the browser it
says CPU usage 5% and available physical memory of over 1 GB (I'm
guessing that's the RAM that's not presently being used?). If there
are things running in the background which are slowing my machine down
so much, wouldn't they be making their presence felt in a larger way
than that, even with the machine mostly "at rest"?

Not if they are hitting the disk or network constantly, and slowing down
your disk and network access.

I'm guessing if there's a problem it's more in the CPU, the usage
seems to spike quite a bit whenever I do something, whereas the memory
doesn't seem to change much at all (if I'm reading it correctly). I
don't know what could be done to improve that, outside of getting a
faster processor, do you?

That's what the CPU usage does.. when you do something, the CPU usage goes
up. That's fine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jwvm]

On Sep 4, 8:12*am, iarwain wrote:
What "rather large" VST plug-in was it?

It was Addictive Drums - the system requirements recommend 1.5 GB RAM,
that's why I figured it was pretty large. *I was just experimenting at
the time so I didn't try any further. *I did still have the virus
protection enabled at the time. *I'll have to check out the task
manager and see what's going on. *It sounds like my computer is slower
than it should be from all the comments here - not sure why.

OK, from other comments on the web, it does seem to be a demanding
plug-in but it is usable.. Worst case, you can render your drum tracks
when you start and then record the rest of your tracks. Also, as noted
previously, make sure that your IDE controller is set up for DMA
transfers and not PIO.

[iarwain]

Worst case, you can render your drum tracks

Yeah, I've been planning to render my drum tracks to wave anyway, just
seems more efficient. Perhaps the problem was that I was playing the
multiple audio tracks when I opened the Addictive Drums program.
Maybe if I had stopped the play before I opened it, there wouldn't
have been a problem. I'm still pretty new to this. I've been using
Addictive Drums along with playing several other audio clips at once
without any difficulty, though not as many as when I experienced the
glitches.

[iarwain]

I hate to keep dragging this thread back up, but I have some new
information. I did try checking the task manager while playing back
multiple tracks, and it appears the RAM does play a significant part.
The available RAM starts out at about 1 GB, and reduces with each
audio track I add. By the time the available RAM is reduced to 100 -
200 MB, the machine starts to struggle and the pops and crackles start
happening. The CPU usage doesn't seem to be as affected. This result
seems to be somewhat surprising when compared to some of the comments
in this thread. Maybe some more RAM would be helpful after all.

Maybe it has something to do with the way FL Studio deals with audio
clips? Maybe it's somewhat unique? I know I've read that Edison, one
of their wave editing plug ins, works entirely within RAM. Also,
remember these audio tracks I'm playing are fairly large - each one is
about 50 MB. I suppose the next step would be to try playing back the
tracks using some other software and compare the results. I could try
downloading a demo of Sonar or something, or I have Ableton Live,
which came free with my 2496 card.

[Steve L.[_3_]]

iarwain so you saynews:7f24cde4-2587-417c-ae86-
:

By the time the available RAM is reduced to 100 -
200 MB, the machine starts to struggle and the pops and crackles start
happening

Windows starts using virtual RAM when physical RAM runs low .. ie: it
uses a swap file on your hard drive. now random hard drive access will give
you pops and clicks.. so yeah .. more RAM will help.

[iarwain]

Experimenting further, I was able to get rid of the pops and clicks by
increasing the audio buffer size, as some here kindly suggested.
Right now I'm running about 20 tracks simultaneously without any
discernable latency effects. I do have a (perhaps final) question
however. Even if there are pops and clicks when playing back multiple
tracks, will they disappear when you render down to stereo? Or will
they still be there?

[jwvm]

On Sep 11, 10:44*am, iarwain wrote:
Experimenting further, I was able to get rid of the pops and clicks by
increasing the audio buffer size, as some here kindly suggested.
Right now I'm running about 20 tracks simultaneously without any
discernable latency effects. *I do have a (perhaps final) question
however. *Even if there are pops and clicks when playing back multiple
tracks, will they disappear when you render down to stereo? *Or will
they still be there?

Congrats!! Your machine is very suitable for your application. Clicks
and pops should not be a problem when you render since there is no
need for real-time output. They can be really nasty if they occur
during recording sessions.

[Geoff]

iarwain wrote:
I hate to keep dragging this thread back up, but I have some new
information. I did try checking the task manager while playing back
multiple tracks, and it appears the RAM does play a significant part.
The available RAM starts out at about 1 GB, and reduces with each


I used to hasve Vegas (7) running on a 256MB laptop, of which 92MB (?) was
snavvled by the video card.

Used to record tens of concurrent tracks without a hickup.

geoff