Crackling sound and silence in Cubase SX
Posted on Feb 29, 2008 11:23 am
Member Since: Dec 26, 2007
Am running an AMD athlon 1.3Ghz, 640MB RAM, 2496 audiophile soundcard.
When working on a song, it reaches a particular place and it goes silent then continues. The place it goes silent is not a break. Why does this happen?
For my kind of machine,what lighter sequencer can i use that will be gentle on the machine resources?
[ Back to Top ]
Keith WarrenMans reach exceeds his graspMember
Feb 29, 2008 03:49 pm You kinda answered your own question- you're barely breaking even (if at all) with Cubase SX's minimum system requirements. You could try messing with your buffers and such, but you may not accomplish much.
Since: Oct 23, 2007
As far as lighter software, you could try a free program like Krystal that doesn't eat a whole lot, but I think it's not compatible with VST's and stuff. www.kreatives.org/kristal...section=details
That's my 2 cents.
TadpuiI am not a crook's headMember
Feb 29, 2008 05:09 pm Kristal is compatible with VST plugins, just not VST instruments.
Since: Mar 14, 2003
I think that PJK was just saying how Reaper is able to get a lot of work done without hogging system resources. Might want to check that one out as well.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Mar 01, 2008 10:25 am I'll chime in for just a sec. Just a testemony to needing a bit more puter or a bit less prog. I love Cubase, I really do, but their published specs in min-computer are far from the truth. The web was buzzing for quite a while about Cubase 4 having some fatel flaw and such for quite a while after it's release. I was getting massive drop-outs and rice crispies just like yours and I had a pretty beefy computer. Not beefy enough. Had to upgrade the guts significantly before I got Cubase to perform well. Steinberg's publishing of min-spec is the biggest beef I have with the company. It made my choice to upgrade a lot more expensive in terms of 'hidden costs' than I anticipated. I'm glad I did it, but I don't know that I would have had I known. It sure would have saved me a lot of headache had I known as well, as I had many posts just like this one asking "what the hell!"
Since: May 10, 2002
Mar 03, 2008 02:35 am thanks guys. currently i will be trying out grouping channels and using minimal effects to save on resources, b4 i get a more powerful machine.
Mar 04, 2008 07:38 pm 640mB of RAM certainly isn't enough. A minimum of 1Gig. 2 Preferably. Adjusting your buffers should help. Don't expect to get 2ms of latency. 10ms is not unreasonable. If you have a lot of tracks,especially if you're using a lot of VSTIs, you could freeze them or just render them to new tracks. When you mix, increase your buffers to 1024. It's not unusual to increase your buffers during mixdown. You want to boost performance as much as possible and latency is a non issue during mix.
Mar 06, 2008 10:16 am has anyone used cubase sx 1, and if so what where your experiences? I was just going thru my cousins cds and i found a copy.
It being sx1 am guessing it will not require as much resources as the sx3, but am not really sure. what do you think guys?
Mar 06, 2008 01:08 pm It needs a dongle. Do you have that?
Mar 06, 2008 01:50 pm Yeah, give reaper a try. there's lots of guys over there that have used other programs, then switched to reaper and found much better cpu usage with reaper.
Since: Apr 08, 2004
some guys are running on 500mhz systems. not many tracks, but running.
plus, it's free to try, and it's un-crippled, so you can use all it's features, to test out before you buy.
Plus, it's the bees knees for audio work =).
Mar 07, 2008 06:46 am Deleted By Deon
Since: Nov 27, 2007
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.