Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)
I think I may have found a major culprit in a problem I've been having
regarding popping/static during playback of audio tracks in Cakewalk Pro
Audio 8.
I just found out you can watch a CPU usage graph in the Task Manager in XP.
Playing a stereo 44.1/16 file brings the CPU usage to 100%. Playing the
exact same file in both Soundforge and Voyetra's Digital Orchestrator Pro it
seems to bounce around from about 2% to 13%.
System is a PIII 933mhz Compaq Deskpro running XP Home, 512 megs RAM.
Something's clearly not right. Any suggestions regarding how to remedy this?
Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)
The task manager is actually not a good measure of what is happening here.
A program can request the CPU and utilize it, but be prepared to release it
to other tasks when asked. I'm not familiar with CWP8 specifically, but it
is probably true there as well. It is simply a programming technique that
gives a different impression in a tool like Task Manger.
Now, that is NOT to say that you don't have CPU issues, only that this means
is suspect for determining that. And it would be good to continue looking
for any solutions. You might try this little free tool, Ulysses Performance
Monitor, it is pretty basic but seems to give a more accurate picture of how
hard your system is working. Go here:
http://mark-knutson.com/t3/ and select 'Ulysses' on the left. Just
another tool, may or may not help with this.
Good Luck,
--
Sue Morton
"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
newsjwOe.640$FW1.201@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I think I may have found a major culprit in a problem I've been having
> regarding popping/static during playback of audio tracks in Cakewalk Pro
> Audio 8.
>
> I just found out you can watch a CPU usage graph in the Task Manager in
> XP.
> Playing a stereo 44.1/16 file brings the CPU usage to 100%. Playing the
> exact same file in both Soundforge and Voyetra's Digital Orchestrator Pro
> it
> seems to bounce around from about 2% to 13%.
>
> System is a PIII 933mhz Compaq Deskpro running XP Home, 512 megs RAM.
>
> Something's clearly not right. Any suggestions regarding how to remedy
> this?
>
>
Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)
In newsjwOe.640$FW1.201@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net the killer
robot "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> grabbed the controls of the
spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons...
> I think I may have found a major culprit in a problem I've been having
> regarding popping/static during playback of audio tracks in Cakewalk
> Pro Audio 8.
>
> I just found out you can watch a CPU usage graph in the Task Manager
> in XP. Playing a stereo 44.1/16 file brings the CPU usage to 100%.
> Playing the exact same file in both Soundforge and Voyetra's Digital
> Orchestrator Pro it seems to bounce around from about 2% to 13%.
>
> System is a PIII 933mhz Compaq Deskpro running XP Home, 512 megs RAM.
>
> Something's clearly not right. Any suggestions regarding how to remedy
> this?
I'd try re-profiling the audio card, and check the i/o buffer size. I
don't remember where it is in Cake8, but it's somewhere in the audio
settings, and should be set somewhere between 128 and 256. Seems like Cake
defaults it to something ridiculous like 16. The other very possible thing
is that MME audio is emulated in XP because WDM is the audio standard in
WinXP. Cake8 is so old, it doesn't know how to do anything but MME audio,
which would cause your audio card to have to jump through more software
hoops. Sonar 1, 2, 3, and 4 all have native WDM driver support, and are
made to run on WinXP.
--
Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to reply by email.
_______ _____ ___ _____ ____
/ ___/ / / __/ |/ / |/ / _ )/ __ \
/ (_ / /__/ _// / / _ / /_/ /
\___/____/___/_/|_/_/|_/____/\____/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Glennbo These go to eleven
Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/jambits
Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)
I'm under the impression that CWPA8 is not supposed to be compatible with
XP. You may want to check the cake web site.
Mikey
Nova Music Productions
"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
newsjwOe.640$FW1.201@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I think I may have found a major culprit in a problem I've been having
> regarding popping/static during playback of audio tracks in Cakewalk Pro
> Audio 8.
>
> I just found out you can watch a CPU usage graph in the Task Manager in
> XP.
> Playing a stereo 44.1/16 file brings the CPU usage to 100%. Playing the
> exact same file in both Soundforge and Voyetra's Digital Orchestrator Pro
> it
> seems to bounce around from about 2% to 13%.
>
> System is a PIII 933mhz Compaq Deskpro running XP Home, 512 megs RAM.
>
> Something's clearly not right. Any suggestions regarding how to remedy
> this?
>
>
Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)
"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
newsjwOe.640$FW1.201@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I think I may have found a major culprit in a problem I've been having
> regarding popping/static during playback of audio tracks in Cakewalk Pro
> Audio 8.
>
> I just found out you can watch a CPU usage graph in the Task Manager in
> XP.
> Playing a stereo 44.1/16 file brings the CPU usage to 100%. Playing the
> exact same file in both Soundforge and Voyetra's Digital Orchestrator Pro
> it
> seems to bounce around from about 2% to 13%.
>
> System is a PIII 933mhz Compaq Deskpro running XP Home, 512 megs RAM.
>
> Something's clearly not right. Any suggestions regarding how to remedy
> this?
Cakewalk products have always been designed to demand the CPU's full
attention. Task Manager (or whatever it used to be called in previous Win
versions) has always shown 100% usage for Cakewalk products, no matter how
much or how little CPU is being used.
Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)
"Steven Myers" <tididitYOUknowWHATtoDO@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:A5COe.611$9i4.114@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Cakewalk products have always been designed to demand the CPU's full
> attention. Task Manager (or whatever it used to be called in previous Win
> versions) has always shown 100% usage for Cakewalk products, no matter how
> much or how little CPU is being used.
??
Why would this be? I ask that skeptically but also from the standpoint of
not being a tech so willing to be persuaded that there's a good reason. I
thought it was always a good idea to have some horsepower headroom.
I e-mailed Cakewalk Tech Support regarding the issue, I'll be curious what
they say. So far, they're the only computer gear company I've dealt with
that actually has some semblance of decent tech support.
Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)
"Steven Myers" <tididitYOUknowWHATtoDO@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:A5COe.611$9i4.114@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Cakewalk products have always been designed to demand the CPU's full
> attention. Task Manager (or whatever it used to be called in previous Win
> versions) has always shown 100% usage for Cakewalk products, no matter how
> much or how little CPU is being used.
Also, I should mention that it only exhibits this behavior when playing
digital audio. When I mute or archive the audio tracks and play only midi,
the CPU use drops to next to nothing.
Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)
>> Cakewalk products have always been designed to demand the CPU's full
>> attention. Task Manager (or whatever it used to be called in previous Win
>> versions) has always shown 100% usage for Cakewalk products, no matter
>> how
>> much or how little CPU is being used.
>
> ??
>
> Why would this be? I ask that skeptically but also from the standpoint of
> not being a tech so willing to be persuaded that there's a good reason. I
> thought it was always a good idea to have some horsepower headroom.
This is a guess.
Streaming audio and applying real-time effects, from a computer's
perspective, is very labor-intensive. Perhaps Cakewalk reserve its own head
room for itself, so there's less chance that other things might interrupt
its work. Cakewalk tells the OS "gimme all of it," and the OS says, "OK,
it's yours."
PA 8 was a million years ago, and I don't remember whether the CPU usage
indicator had yet been included in the app.
Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)
"Steven Myers" <tididitYOUknowWHATtoDO@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gNGOe.666$_84.392@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> This is a guess.
> Streaming audio and applying real-time effects, from a computer's
> perspective, is very labor-intensive. Perhaps Cakewalk reserve its own
head
> room for itself, so there's less chance that other things might interrupt
> its work. Cakewalk tells the OS "gimme all of it," and the OS says, "OK,
> it's yours."
As further input, running a similar file under 98SE I'm having no such
problems on a less powerful system - PIII 550mhz Win98SE w/384 megs ram vs
the PIII 933mhz WinXP w/512 megs ram. Looking at the resource monitor, it
shows System Resource, User Resources, GDI resources (whatever that is) all
in the 70's percentage wise running the file on Cakewalk while on the
internet. Not sure if this reflects CPU useage. Definitely not getting any
popping or clicking on this slower system w/98SE.
Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)
"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7_FOe.762$9i4.207@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
> "Steven Myers" <tididitYOUknowWHATtoDO@earthlink.net>
> wrote in message
> news:A5COe.611$9i4.114@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>> Cakewalk products have always been designed to demand
>> the CPU's full attention. Task Manager (or whatever it
>> used to be called in previous Win versions) has always
>> shown 100% usage for Cakewalk products, no matter how
>> much or how little CPU is being used.
>
> ??
>
> Why would this be?
Any program that is interactive or interacts with common I/O
equipment like a sound card ends up waiting for the next
occurence of an event or a one of a list of events.
There are two commonly used means to have a program wait on
the next occurance of a given list of events. One is called
"interrupt driven" where the program tells the operating
system that it wants the system to go to sleep and wake
everything up when the next event happens. The other is
called "idle loop" where the program checks to see that the
event has not happened, and if so turns right around and
checks again.
Of necessity an idle loop makes the system CPU 100% busy,
but in fact the system can either be busy doing work or
waiting for the next event to happen, but its hard for the
system monitor to tell the difference.
Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)
Recently, Steven Myers <tididitYOUknowWHATtoDO@earthlink.net> posted:
> "Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
> newsjwOe.640$FW1.201@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> I think I may have found a major culprit in a problem I've been
>> having regarding popping/static during playback of audio tracks in
>> Cakewalk Pro Audio 8.
>>
>> I just found out you can watch a CPU usage graph in the Task Manager
>> in XP.
>> Playing a stereo 44.1/16 file brings the CPU usage to 100%. Playing
>> the exact same file in both Soundforge and Voyetra's Digital
>> Orchestrator Pro it
>> seems to bounce around from about 2% to 13%.
>>
>> System is a PIII 933mhz Compaq Deskpro running XP Home, 512 megs RAM.
>>
>> Something's clearly not right. Any suggestions regarding how to
>> remedy this?
>
> Cakewalk products have always been designed to demand the CPU's full
> attention. Task Manager (or whatever it used to be called in previous
> Win versions) has always shown 100% usage for Cakewalk products, no
> matter how much or how little CPU is being used.
>
I've never seen anything like this in any of the Cakewalk products I've
used since early DOS versions.
When going full-tilt, Sonar typically taxes my CPU with 1% to 3% usage.
;-P
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.