- #Mixbus 32c crashed first few days stable now full
- #Mixbus 32c crashed first few days stable now pro
- #Mixbus 32c crashed first few days stable now code
I then tried the Pultec Pro plugin instead, and it also crashed very quickly. Then I took the same session and put in a few Pultecs (and also pulled a few other UAD plugs to still keep the usage at 90%) and PT9 crashed within a couple minutes of "save as" actions. I also ran overnight test with a song looped and the autosave set to save every minute.
#Mixbus 32c crashed first few days stable now full
Sure enough I took my same test session and pulled all the Pultecs (and added a couple other UADs to get the UAD usage meter back up to 90% which I was testing at) and PT9 didn't crash during 400 "save as" actions! A couple errors came up, but never a full crash or lock. You are right!!! Many thanks go out to you solving this mystery.
As soon as I removed all instances of that plug, I quit running into problems. The FREE PULTEQ eq that came with the card was the issue on mine. Remember me? I was having UAD issues too. I however seem to be fine running my system on the 2 procs my MacBook Pro has. This is even more important with some 3rd party VI's.
#Mixbus 32c crashed first few days stable now code
Setting it the RTAS engine to one less than available, or even more, gives the computer a processor to run the non real time code on. When you set the RTAS engine to use all available processors you are taking a chance there will be some real time and non real time code running side by side. Even when running only Pro Tools, there are other processes running, that may or may not be real time code. It likes to be only running real-time code. The issue comes in with the "real-time audio suite" engine. I can't imagine this is a common scenario. I guess having one CPU free would prevent this. The *only* thing I can think of would be if I maxed all my CPU's out to 100% and it locked the system. Modern CPU's should be able to balance their own loads. I'm inclined to believe this strategy is a holdover from the PPC days. I've done a lot of testing in this regard - and I can see *no* performance difference whatsoever. If my CPU's aren't maxed out to 100% usage - can anyone explain the science behind limiting process to a certain number of CPU's? Doesn't the thread scheduler handle this? Aren't multi-tasking CPU's better off doing this themselves? What happens when you max out the 1,3,5, or 7 CPU's and the other ones sit there idling away? My UAD2 Solo purrs like a kitten with PT9. It seems like this QUAD card is ONLY finnicky in PT9. I had a 'finnicky' UAD2 Quad card - so much so I had to send it back. Truthfully I don't think there's any problem with the UAD and PT compatibility in the rig in question. Even on my Core2Duo Laptop (older 15" in my signature) I'm good to go on most mixes with setting only '1 processor' to PT9. I set '4' of my 8 cores to ProTools usage and I work hard and long all day every day without a hiccup - buig mixes and a number of VI's. I've never read anything about the 'odd number' of processors. Never set ProTools to use more than 'half' of the available processors in that window. So people run headlong into that window setting ALL processors to ProTools and wonder why they get light instability. ProTools allows ALL processors to be allotted to its running without using a window to set 'work priority' which Digital Performer, Logic and Cubase all have. Your computer needs processor room too to stay stable. Even with 2 processors, I should set a 1?
0 kommentar(er)
