CVPiano sure makes Cubase LE4 skip a lot.

[Paul[_13_]]

It sounds good, when it's not digitally skipping!

It's gotta be my Pentium 4, 3.0Ghz, single core system
just cannot handle all the modeling (reverb, etc.) and the voices in
the
CV piano VST. I believe it's set to 64 voices, but I don't know where
to
adjust it to be lower.

It's one of the better free VSTs, but I gotta learn how to tweak
it
for my system, or get a faster system......

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Paul wrote:
>
> It sounds good, when it's not digitally skipping!
>
> It's gotta be my Pentium 4, 3.0Ghz, single core system
> just cannot handle all the modeling (reverb, etc.) and the voices in
> the
> CV piano VST. I believe it's set to 64 voices, but I don't know where
> to
> adjust it to be lower.
>
> It's one of the better free VSTs, but I gotta learn how to tweak
> it
> for my system, or get a faster system......


They don't particularly get faster* than 3.0 GHz - just wider ( more
cores, 64 bit data paths - none of which will probably help much ).

*some do, but they're some high end systems.

--
Les Cargill

[Paul[_13_]]

On Jul 22, 2:38*pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> "Paul" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > * * It sounds good, when it's not digitally skipping!
>
> > * * It's gotta be my Pentium 4, 3.0Ghz, single core system
> > just cannot handle all the modeling (reverb, etc.) and the voices in
> > the
> > CV piano VST. *I believe it's set to 64 voices, but I don't know where
> > to
> > adjust it to be lower.
>
> > * * *It's one of the better free VSTs, but I gotta learn how to tweak
> > it
> > for my system, or get a faster system......
>
> I'm running Steinberg's "The Grand", on an ancient 1.4 gHz Pentium 4. *But
> it takes 2.5 GB of ram to keep all the samples in memory. *How much memory
> do you have?
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511


The same as you, 2.5Gigs of RAM. Is your "grand" VST a free
one?

If not, how much? I suspect the CV piano is more
computationally
intensive, as you can adjust an incredible amount of things in the
algorithm.

Have you tried CVpiano? It's free, and I'd be interested to
see
how it fairs on a slower computer...

[Paul[_13_]]

On Jul 22, 5:35*pm, Les Cargill > wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
> > * * * It sounds good, when it's not digitally skipping!
>
> > * * * It's gotta be my Pentium 4, 3.0Ghz, single core system
> > just cannot handle all the modeling (reverb, etc.) and the voices in
> > the
> > CV piano VST. *I believe it's set to 64 voices, but I don't know where
> > to
> > adjust it to be lower.
>
> > * * * *It's one of the better free VSTs, but I gotta learn how to tweak
> > it
> > for my system, or get a faster system......
>
> They don't particularly get faster* than 3.0 GHz - just wider ( more
> cores, 64 bit data paths - none of which will probably help much ).
>
> *some do, but they're some high end systems.
>
> --
> Les Cargill


Dual core would probably help in this case, because one of
the ways to reduce the CPU workload, it to turn off the reverb,
etc...

Things which a parallel processor could probably handle better.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Paul wrote:

> Dual core would probably help in this case, because one of
> the ways to reduce the CPU workload, it to turn off the reverb,
> etc...

> Things which a parallel processor could probably handle better.

Audition 1 to 3 offers fixing - ie. pre-rendering - some of the tracks as a
way to bypass that problem as well as also some "low cpu" verb alternatives,
look at your cubase options ... perhaps you can do similarly.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Paul[_13_]]

On Jul 23, 3:22*am, "Peter Larsen" > wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> > Dual core would probably help in this case, because one of
> > the ways to reduce the CPU workload, it to turn off the reverb,
> > etc...
> > *Things which a parallel processor could probably handle better.
>
> Audition 1 to 3 offers fixing - ie. pre-rendering - some of the tracks as a
> way to bypass that problem as well as also some "low cpu" verb alternatives,
> look at your cubase options ... perhaps you can do similarly.
>
> * Kind regards
>
> * Peter Larsen


Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a way to bypass this
horrible digital skipping, I should be able to turn off all
reverb and other effects, record the VST to an audio track,
and only then apply the reverb plug-ins to the dry audio track.

That should work, right?

[polymod]

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 22, 5:35 pm, Les Cargill > wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
> > It sounds good, when it's not digitally skipping!
>
> > It's gotta be my Pentium 4, 3.0Ghz, single core system
> > just cannot handle all the modeling (reverb, etc.) and the voices in
> > the
> > CV piano VST. I believe it's set to 64 voices, but I don't know where
> > to
> > adjust it to be lower.
>
> > It's one of the better free VSTs, but I gotta learn how to tweak
> > it
> > for my system, or get a faster system......
>
> They don't particularly get faster* than 3.0 GHz - just wider ( more
> cores, 64 bit data paths - none of which will probably help much ).
>
> *some do, but they're some high end systems.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

>Dual core would probably help in this case,

I think that's the key right there. My system is dual core and I have no
problems whatsover using that VST.


Poly

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Paul wrote:
> On Jul 22, 5:35 pm, Les > wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>> It sounds good, when it's not digitally skipping!
>>
>>> It's gotta be my Pentium 4, 3.0Ghz, single core system
>>> just cannot handle all the modeling (reverb, etc.) and the voices in
>>> the
>>> CV piano VST. I believe it's set to 64 voices, but I don't know where
>>> to
>>> adjust it to be lower.
>>
>>> It's one of the better free VSTs, but I gotta learn how to tweak
>>> it
>>> for my system, or get a faster system......
>>
>> They don't particularly get faster* than 3.0 GHz - just wider ( more
>> cores, 64 bit data paths - none of which will probably help much ).
>>
>> *some do, but they're some high end systems.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
>
> Dual core would probably help in this case, because one of
> the ways to reduce the CPU workload, it to turn off the reverb,
> etc...
>

I could be wrong, but I expect one 3.0 GHz processor will still
do what your single core will do.

> Things which a parallel processor could probably handle better.

SFAIK, it's not true parallel processing.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Paul wrote:
> On Jul 23, 3:22 am, "Peter > wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>> Dual core would probably help in this case, because one of
>>> the ways to reduce the CPU workload, it to turn off the reverb,
>>> etc...
>>> Things which a parallel processor could probably handle better.
>>
>> Audition 1 to 3 offers fixing - ie. pre-rendering - some of the tracks as a
>> way to bypass that problem as well as also some "low cpu" verb alternatives,
>> look at your cubase options ... perhaps you can do similarly.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Peter Larsen
>
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a way to bypass this
> horrible digital skipping, I should be able to turn off all
> reverb and other effects, record the VST to an audio track,
> and only then apply the reverb plug-ins to the dry audio track.
>
> That should work, right?
>

Yes.

--
Les Cargill

[Paul[_13_]]

On Jul 23, 8:43*am, "polymod" > wrote:
> "Paul" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jul 22, 5:35 pm, Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul wrote:
>
> > > It sounds good, when it's not digitally skipping!
>
> > > It's gotta be my Pentium 4, 3.0Ghz, single core system
> > > just cannot handle all the modeling (reverb, etc.) and the voices in
> > > the
> > > CV piano VST. I believe it's set to 64 voices, but I don't know where
> > > to
> > > adjust it to be lower.
>
> > > It's one of the better free VSTs, but I gotta learn how to tweak
> > > it
> > > for my system, or get a faster system......
>
> > They don't particularly get faster* than 3.0 GHz - just wider ( more
> > cores, 64 bit data paths - none of which will probably help much ).
>
> > *some do, but they're some high end systems.
>
> > --
> > Les Cargill
> >Dual core would probably help in this case,
>
> I think that's the key right there. My system is dual core and I have no
> problems whatsover using that VST.
>
> Poly


You've got CV Piano? What application are you running it in?
Cubase?
What computer setup you have?

Does Protools do the horrible digital "skipping" that Cubase
does?
I've recorded with a old VS-840, and it was NEVER like this at all.
Sure, it
was a bit compressed, but it never skipped like Cubase does. Yes, I
do disconnect my ethernet internet cable when I'm recording!

[Paul[_13_]]

On Jul 23, 11:22*am, Les Cargill > wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 5:35 pm, Les > *wrote:
> >> Paul wrote:
>
> >>> * * * *It sounds good, when it's not digitally skipping!
>
> >>> * * * *It's gotta be my Pentium 4, 3.0Ghz, single core system
> >>> just cannot handle all the modeling (reverb, etc.) and the voices in
> >>> the
> >>> CV piano VST. *I believe it's set to 64 voices, but I don't know where
> >>> to
> >>> adjust it to be lower.
>
> >>> * * * * It's one of the better free VSTs, but I gotta learn how to tweak
> >>> it
> >>> for my system, or get a faster system......
>
> >> They don't particularly get faster* than 3.0 GHz - just wider ( more
> >> cores, 64 bit data paths - none of which will probably help much ).
>
> >> *some do, but they're some high end systems.
>
> >> --
> >> Les Cargill
>
> > * * * *Dual core would probably help in this case, because one of
> > * the ways to reduce the CPU workload, it to turn off the reverb,
> > etc...
>
> I could be wrong, but I expect one 3.0 GHz processor will still
> do what your single core will do.
>
> > * Things which a parallel processor could probably handle better.
>
> SFAIK, it's not true parallel processing.
>

From what I've read, older programs often do not
take advantage of a dual or triple core processor, in which
case the dual processor isn't any faster. I don't know if
Cubase LE4 does this or not, or if the VSTs themselves
are able to utilize parallel processing.

[polymod]

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 23, 8:43 am, "polymod" > wrote:
> "Paul" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jul 22, 5:35 pm, Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul wrote:
>
> > > It sounds good, when it's not digitally skipping!
>
> > > It's gotta be my Pentium 4, 3.0Ghz, single core system
> > > just cannot handle all the modeling (reverb, etc.) and the voices in
> > > the
> > > CV piano VST. I believe it's set to 64 voices, but I don't know where
> > > to
> > > adjust it to be lower.
>
> > > It's one of the better free VSTs, but I gotta learn how to tweak
> > > it
> > > for my system, or get a faster system......
>
> > They don't particularly get faster* than 3.0 GHz - just wider ( more
> > cores, 64 bit data paths - none of which will probably help much ).
>
> > *some do, but they're some high end systems.
>
> > --
> > Les Cargill
> >Dual core would probably help in this case,
>
> I think that's the key right there. My system is dual core and I have no
> problems whatsover using that VST.
>
> Poly

>You've got CV Piano?

Yes, I've used it for a couple of years now. I will say it's a CPU hog, but
I've not had any issues with it so far.

>What application are you running it in?
>Cubase?

Sonar 7 producer and Reaper. It works in both flawlessly.

>What computer setup you have?

Pretty modest by todays standards....but it works for me.
AMD Athlon 64x2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
2.1 GHz
4 Gigs Ram

Poly

Does Protools do the horrible digital "skipping" that Cubase
does?
I've recorded with a old VS-840, and it was NEVER like this at all.
Sure, it
was a bit compressed, but it never skipped like Cubase does. Yes, I
do disconnect my ethernet internet cable when I'm recording!

[yrret]

> From what I've read, older programs often do not
> take advantage of a dual or triple core processor, in which
> case the dual processor isn't any faster. I don't know if
> Cubase LE4 does this or not, or if the VSTs themselves
> are able to utilize parallel processing.

As long as its running XP or newer then the Windows stuff can take advantage
and that will help.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"yrret" > wrote in message
...
>> From what I've read, older programs often do not
>> take advantage of a dual or triple core processor, in which
>> case the dual processor isn't any faster. I don't know if
>> Cubase LE4 does this or not, or if the VSTs themselves
>> are able to utilize parallel processing.

> As long as its running XP or newer then the Windows stuff can take
> advantage and that will help.

Simply not true.

It takes both an OS that enables multi-core operations, and application
software that actually exploits it.

Most of the first-tier video editing software exploits multiple cores. Most
freeware does not.

IME, most DAW software, does not. Single core operations are not such a
problem for audio, but it can still be a big loss.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> >> From what I've read, older programs often do not
> >> take advantage of a dual or triple core processor, in which
> >> case the dual processor isn't any faster. I don't know if
> >> Cubase LE4 does this or not, or if the VSTs themselves
> >> are able to utilize parallel processing.

> > As long as its running XP or newer then the Windows stuff can take
> > advantage and that will help.

> Simply not true.

Simply true Arny, vst's and application and os threads will be
distributed over the available logical cpu's.

> It takes both an OS that enables multi-core operations, and application
> software that actually exploits it.

> Most of the first-tier video editing software exploits multiple cores. Most
> freeware does not.

What he says is that the OS will use the available cores wisely even in
case an application is singlethread due to programmer not bothering to
read post DOS programming guidelines.

> IME, most DAW software, does not. Single core operations are not such a
> problem for audio, but it can still be a big loss.

Even if only disk handling goes to another logical core it can help.
However it can be wise in case the application(s) aren't multithreaded
to disable logical cores and rely on physical cores only, otherwise max
cpu available to a single threaded application is half a physical core.
OTH logical cores are a great bulwark against cpu-hogs such as old
busywaiting games.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Paul[_13_]]

On Jul 27, 1:50*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "yrret" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> * * * From what I've read, older programs often do not
> >> take advantage of a dual or triple core processor, in which
> >> case the dual processor isn't any faster. *I don't know if
> >> Cubase LE4 does this or not, or if the VSTs themselves
> >> are able to utilize parallel processing.
> > As long as its running XP or newer then the Windows stuff can take
> > advantage and that will help.
>
> Simply not true.
>
> It takes both an OS that enables multi-core operations, and application
> software that actually exploits it.
>
> Most of the first-tier video editing software exploits multiple cores. Most
> freeware does not.
>
> IME, most DAW software, does not. Single core operations are not such a
> problem for audio, but it can still be a big loss.


But shouldn't more than one core enable more playback
or record tracks to be used at once? And enable a plug-in
VST to be smoother, without digital skipping? I suppose
it depends on the application.

[yrret]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "yrret" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> From what I've read, older programs often do not
>>> take advantage of a dual or triple core processor, in which
>>> case the dual processor isn't any faster. I don't know if
>>> Cubase LE4 does this or not, or if the VSTs themselves
>>> are able to utilize parallel processing.
>
>> As long as its running XP or newer then the Windows stuff can take
>> advantage and that will help.
>
> Simply not true.
>
> It takes both an OS that enables multi-core operations, and application
> software that actually exploits it.
>
> Most of the first-tier video editing software exploits multiple cores.
> Most freeware does not.
>
> IME, most DAW software, does not. Single core operations are not such a
> problem for audio, but it can still be a big loss.
>
>
No Windows won't create multi-thread capability. It has extra room to run
processes and other programs in other cores, there's just more room to put
things. Still helps.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Larsen wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>>> From what I've read, older programs often do not
>>>>> take advantage of a dual or triple core processor, in which
>>>>> case the dual processor isn't any faster. I don't know if
>>>>> Cubase LE4 does this or not, or if the VSTs themselves
>>>>> are able to utilize parallel processing.
>>
>>>> As long as its running XP or newer then the Windows stuff can take
>>>> advantage and that will help.

>>> Simply not true.

>> Simply true Arny, vst's and application and os threads will be
>> distributed over the available logical cpu's.

Doesn't happen if the majority of the CPU use is due to one application,
which is very common.

Obvviously, you have no experience with applications such as Premiere that
can easily use every core in sight at close to 100% while rendering. Compare
that to older technology softare that is single-threaded while rendering.

If the application doesn't spawn the multiple threads, then there are no
multiple threads to run concurrently on different cores.

What happens in that case is that often the thread gets passed around the
CPU cores, and each one (of say 4) runs at just over 25% usage. If the app
spawned 4 threads, each one could run on a different core, each core would
run close to 100% CPU, and the processing would run in roughly 1/4 the
time.

That is the theory and that is the practice.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 27, 1:50 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "yrret" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> From what I've read, older programs often do not
> >> take advantage of a dual or triple core processor, in which
> >> case the dual processor isn't any faster. I don't know if
> >> Cubase LE4 does this or not, or if the VSTs themselves
> >> are able to utilize parallel processing.
> > As long as its running XP or newer then the Windows stuff can take
> > advantage and that will help.
>
> Simply not true.
>
> It takes both an OS that enables multi-core operations, and application
> software that actually exploits it.
>
> Most of the first-tier video editing software exploits multiple cores.
> Most
> freeware does not.
>
> IME, most DAW software, does not. Single core operations are not such a
> problem for audio, but it can still be a big loss.


> But shouldn't more than one core enable more playback
or record tracks to be used at once?

Depends on how the appliation is written.


> And enable a plug-in VST to be smoother, without digital skipping?

Multiple cores can help with that a little, perhaps enough to make a
difference.

> I suppose it depends on the application.

Yes, and it also depends on whether you can somehow schedule different heavy
CPU use apps to run at the same time. IME that is hard to keep going for
long.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>>> From what I've read, older programs often do not
>>>> take advantage of a dual or triple core processor, in which
>>>> case the dual processor isn't any faster. I don't know if
>>>> Cubase LE4 does this or not, or if the VSTs themselves
>>>> are able to utilize parallel processing.
>
>>> As long as its running XP or newer then the Windows stuff can take
>>> advantage and that will help.
>
>> Simply not true.
>
> Simply true Arny, vst's and application and os threads will be
> distributed over the available logical cpu's.
>
>> It takes both an OS that enables multi-core operations, and application
>> software that actually exploits it.
>
>> Most of the first-tier video editing software exploits multiple cores. Most
>> freeware does not.
>
> What he says is that the OS will use the available cores wisely even in
> case an application is singlethread due to programmer not bothering to
> read post DOS programming guidelines.
>

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but I don't see it here. When you
execute a "render" on an ancient DAW ( N-Track 3.0 ), it shoots up
to exactly 50% CPU* utilization, which I presume to mean "one
core is fully engaged in this activity." Granted, all I have
is the nifty speedo meter meter on Win7.

*dual core machine...

The audio stream(s) themselves are fully serialized, so it's not
impossible that they're done in parallel.

>> IME, most DAW software, does not. Single core operations are not such a
>> problem for audio, but it can still be a big loss.
>
> Even if only disk handling goes to another logical core it can help.
> However it can be wise in case the application(s) aren't multithreaded
> to disable logical cores and rely on physical cores only, otherwise max
> cpu available to a single threaded application is half a physical core.
> OTH logical cores are a great bulwark against cpu-hogs such as old
> busywaiting games.
>

DOSBOX itself seems to do a proper job of handling that, anyway. It's
a VM.

> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

--
Les Cargill

[polymod]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jul 27, 1:50 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "yrret" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> From what I've read, older programs often do not
>> >> take advantage of a dual or triple core processor, in which
>> >> case the dual processor isn't any faster. I don't know if
>> >> Cubase LE4 does this or not, or if the VSTs themselves
>> >> are able to utilize parallel processing.
>> > As long as its running XP or newer then the Windows stuff can take
>> > advantage and that will help.
>>
>> Simply not true.
>>
>> It takes both an OS that enables multi-core operations, and application
>> software that actually exploits it.
>>
>> Most of the first-tier video editing software exploits multiple cores.
>> Most
>> freeware does not.
>>
>> IME, most DAW software, does not. Single core operations are not such a
>> problem for audio, but it can still be a big loss.
>
>
>> But shouldn't more than one core enable more playback
> or record tracks to be used at once?
>
> Depends on how the appliation is written.
>
>
>> And enable a plug-in VST to be smoother, without digital skipping?
>
> Multiple cores can help with that a little, perhaps enough to make a
> difference.
>
>> I suppose it depends on the application.

Yes.
For sh*tz and giggles, why not try an alternative to Cubase LE4.....like
Reaper. It might be worth a try.
It's one of the best designed pieces of software I've seen. Projects that
would force me to raise latency for playback in other apps work flawlessly
in Reaper.
http://www.reaper.fm/download.php

The demo version is is fully functionable and just promps you with a splash
screen for about 5-10 seconds.

Poly

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> >> Simply true Arny, vst's and application and os threads will be
> >> distributed over the available logical cpu's.

> Doesn't happen if the majority of the CPU use is due to one application,
> which is very common.

> Obvviously, you have no experience with applications such as Premiere that
> can easily use every core in sight at close to 100% while rendering. Compare
> that to older technology softare that is single-threaded while rendering.

> If the application doesn't spawn the multiple threads, then there are no
> multiple threads to run concurrently on different cores.

Again, there are other threads running in the computer, and those will
be distributed.

> What happens in that case is that often the thread gets passed around the
> CPU cores, and each one (of say 4) runs at just over 25% usage.

When I see a single threaded application hog a core, physical or
logical, under xp prof, that core shows 100 percent usage.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Paul[_13_]]

On Jul 28, 8:41*am, "polymod" > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Jul 27, 1:50 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "yrret" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> >> From what I've read, older programs often do not
> >> >> take advantage of a dual or triple core processor, in which
> >> >> case the dual processor isn't any faster. I don't know if
> >> >> Cubase LE4 does this or not, or if the VSTs themselves
> >> >> are able to utilize parallel processing.
> >> > As long as its running XP or newer then the Windows stuff can take
> >> > advantage and that will help.
>
> >> Simply not true.
>
> >> It takes both an OS that enables multi-core operations, and application
> >> software that actually exploits it.
>
> >> Most of the first-tier video editing software exploits multiple cores.
> >> Most
> >> freeware does not.
>
> >> IME, most DAW software, does not. Single core operations are not such a
> >> problem for audio, but it can still be a big loss.
>
> >> But shouldn't more than one core enable more playback
> > or record tracks to be used at once?
>
> > Depends on how the appliation is written.
>
> >> And enable a plug-in VST to be smoother, without digital skipping?
>
> > Multiple cores can help with that a little, perhaps enough to make a
> > difference.
>
> >> I suppose it depends on the application.
>
> Yes.
> For sh*tz and giggles, why not try an alternative to Cubase LE4.....like
> Reaper. It might be worth a try.
> It's one of the best designed pieces of software I've seen. Projects that
> would force me to raise latency for playback in other apps work flawlessly
> in Reaper.http://www.reaper.fm/download.php
>
> The demo version is is fully functionable and just promps you with a splash
> screen for about 5-10 seconds.
>

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. In fact, Cubase LE4 skips
quite a bit, even without this CVPiano VST. It could be a badly
written version, although I'm sure the upgraded versions run smoother.

Isn't reaper the program that is essentially free, because the
prompt screen goes away, and you can still use the program
indefinitely?

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Paul wrote:
> On Jul 28, 8:41 am, > wrote:
<snip>
>
> Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. In fact, Cubase LE4 skips
> quite a bit, even without this CVPiano VST. It could be a badly
> written version, although I'm sure the upgraded versions run smoother.
>

Then something has gone horribly wrong. Unless you used really
intensive plugins - like Gigapiano - skip-free operation of a just an
ordinary DAW was to be expected about ten years ago, on a
box-store cheapie of that era.

> Isn't reaper the program that is essentially free, because the
> prompt screen goes away, and you can still use the program
> indefinitely?
>
>

If you are going to use it, pay for it. They do that because it's
impossible to say how long an eval period might last.

--
Les Cargill