MOTUnation.com

Hi,
I have bidule up and running with DP 6.02, but I don't see a difference in cpu usage. It seems the same as just loading them in without it. I understand that with bidule, you're supposed to be able to exceed the 2GB memory usage, but having done this, I'm still running into cpu overload quickly and it defeats the purpose of using it.

Thanks,
Paul

I use it all the time, no cpu issue at all.
What are you system spec's?

I've got a 2.8Mhz, 8 core with 18GB of ram.

Wow you definitely shouldn't be hitting any walls with a computer like that.

I've been using Bidule with Dp6.02 on my 2.26 8 core, and other than the memory advantage, I also find that about the same CPU is used (as in using the VIs in DP).

The downside of using Bidule (unless I'm missing something, maybe someone can help me out) is that when I change DP's buffer to 1024, there is that audio delay, and the tracks are recorded like this - I'm aware I can move the MIDI forward, but is there another option?

jlaudon wrote: The downside of using Bidule (unless I'm missing something, maybe someone can help me out) is that when I change DP's buffer to 1024, there is that audio delay, and the tracks are recorded like this - I'm aware I can move the MIDI forward, but is there another option?

How are you sending MIDI to Bidule? I've only tried it w a 512 buffer, but the last post in this thread explains how I get latency free MIDI w Bidule:

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... =1&t=35516

Also, I have Bidule maxed with VIs and DP seems to run with a substantially reduced CPU hit. More or less like it has only one or two light VIs running.

I'm having the same problems (high CPU hit, big latency at 1024) with DP 6.02, OSX 10.5.7, Kontakt 3.5, and a Quad 2.66 GHz MacPro with 16 gigs of RAM.

MIDI is using Bidule 1, Bidule 2, etc... at 512 playback is acceptable (and inputting notes as well). Does anyone else get this latency at 1024?

jlaudon wrote:MIDI is using Bidule 1, Bidule 2, etc... at 512 playback is acceptable (and inputting notes as well). Does anyone else get this latency at 1024?

Check out that thread I posted above. You need to use the ReWire module for MIDI input not Bidule 1, Bidule 2 etc.if you want Bidule to be part of DP's ADC scheme.

Thanks Dix, that's helpful - I'll try it out later today.

JZilla wrote:I'm having the same problems (high CPU hit, big latency at 1024) with DP 6.02, OSX 10.5.7, Kontakt 3.5, and a Quad 2.66 GHz MacPro with 16 gigs of RAM.

Hi.

Just a thought regarding Kontakt 3.5 in your setup. The current public beta of K3.5 is WAY less efficient than K2 on the cpu in DP----and it's REALLY quite worse---as in unusable worse---if the Kontakt Memory Server is on.

I've been trying the public beta test of K3.5 and I noted my experiences on the NI public beta site with some example movies showing the different CPU usages between K2 and K3.5. Check it out:

http://www.native-instruments.com/forum ... hp?t=86145

NI says that this will be addressed in a future version, but I wonder if you tried pulling up Kontakt 2 (if you have it) if you'd have less performance issues.

Cheers.
-gabe

The current public beta of K3.5 is WAY less efficient than K2 on the cpu in DP----

How about K3.0? There's been dramatic changes in 3.5's RAM implementation etc. has there not? How's K3 stack up to K2 and K3.5?

It's important to note that I'm running 7 instances of Kontakt 3.02 with 14 to 16 Symphobia channels each plus two heavily loaded Play instances in Bidule (the max RAM allows) and DP barely notices CPU-wise and is very stable. I couldn't even think of running all that in DP alone.

dix wrote:How about K3.0? There's been dramatic changes in 3.5's RAM implementation etc. has there not? How's K3 stack up to K2 and K3.5?

I don't know how K3.02 stacks up to the others. The K3.5 beta overwrites 3.02, and I'm not going to uninstall 3.5 and reinstall 3.02 just to test 3.02 for performance. (Since K2 has always been so stable for me, I've never really used K3 even though I have it via Komplete 5.)

-gabe