PDA

View Full Version : Control over how much of the samples are loaded in RAM


joakimk
11-01-2012, 06:09 AM
I'd like to see a control over how much of the beginning of the samples should be loaded into RAM, just like in Native Instruments Kontakt.

I seem to have no control over how large that buffer is, and when I have a reasonably large project with Symphonic Orchestra (for example) I get drop outs because the hard drive can't stream everything. I have to load the project, then play it through a couple of times for the right samples to be loaded into RAM before playback goes smoothly. The project in my example takes only ~4 GB in RAM when loaded the first time, out of my 32 GB in my system, and then the disk struggles instead. (The same disk I got from you guys when I bought it.)

It seems like an awful waste of available resources, and I must unfortunately say that, as it is now, I usually get a lot better performance out of Kontakt than Play.

wine888riter
11-03-2012, 10:14 AM
+1

For that matter, for a small project, if I could choose to throw the entire project in RAM at times, that would be great.

aptmusic9
11-03-2012, 11:44 AM
+1

For that matter, for a small project, if I could choose to throw the entire project in RAM at times, that would be great.

You can, but it has to be each instrument individually. You go to File in the play menu and theres an option in there where you can uncheck "stream from disk" and then it loads all the files into ram instead of disk. it takes up a huge amount of ram though.

Also you could consider spreading the library across multiple drives using my tutorial: http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/showthread.php?t=37618

TGV
11-04-2012, 11:08 AM
I think joakimk's point was to use less RAM, since streaming is faster now, yet loading takes a long time, or use more when your disks don't quite cut it. It would help the people that need to economize RAM (such as us poor mac users), and those that just want everything in core (see other thread). This suggestion can do both!

+1

joakimk
11-05-2012, 02:12 AM
I think joakimk's point was to use less RAM, since streaming is faster now, yet loading takes a long time, or use more when your disks don't quite cut it. It would help the people that need to economize RAM (such as us poor mac users), and those that just want everything in core (see other thread). This suggestion can do both!

+1

No, my point was I have a lot of RAM but hardly anything of it is used. Although I can't load a whole piano patch from Pianos, for example (that would take 100 GB of RAM), I would like to load for example double or triple the length of each sample than default so the disks have an easier time catching up.

We already have an option to load the entire patch into RAM, but what I would like is to have more control over how much of the patch is loaded into RAM and how much is streamed from disk.

TGV
11-05-2012, 02:19 AM
Ok, I misunderstood that, but your suggestion would work in both directions: I would like to load less, since streaming is fast enough in my case, and you would like to load more, but not everything. It's really a good suggestion.

joakimk
11-05-2012, 02:21 AM
Ok, I misunderstood that, but your suggestion would work in both directions: I would like to load less, since streaming is fast enough in my case, and you would like to load more, but not everything. It's really a good suggestion.

I just felt I had to clarify my intention. :)

Plasuma!!!
11-07-2012, 11:31 PM
+1 here

joakimk
03-04-2013, 11:39 PM
Bump?

The performance of the plugin is really not good with the provided hard drive, even on a high end system.