-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Stereo Tool V.7.03
- Thread starter oldiesstation
- Start date
Looks inviting but as soon as I go past 5 bands of MB, the audio starts breaking up. I finally got it to where it was stable with 7.03 but it looks like Beta 040 has a bigger CPU load 
I'm interested in playing with this program. I must profess something, though.
I am seeing a lot of comments on CPU load. If I were to put this in a working environment, it would be built on a new machine, running from an SSD. You can put together a killer machine for <600, so I suppose I don't understand the complaints...
I would never trust station processing to an old computer I had laying around, so I just don't see why he should be expected to code for that. I'd rather him hit the CPU harder to get me a better product. Just my opinion, though.
I am seeing a lot of comments on CPU load. If I were to put this in a working environment, it would be built on a new machine, running from an SSD. You can put together a killer machine for <600, so I suppose I don't understand the complaints...
I would never trust station processing to an old computer I had laying around, so I just don't see why he should be expected to code for that. I'd rather him hit the CPU harder to get me a better product. Just my opinion, though.
Really need to have a robust CPU and Ram. Solid state drive.Like you say,build a great machine,tweaked for audio,under 600.00.I'm running 9 bands and cpu is just under 45.Just ain't gonna work great on an older bloated machine.
Excellent point Chris...and if I were entrusting this to a mission critical application, I'd be on board. I'm playing with this using a $140 rebuilt dual core 3.4ghz machine I bought on Ebay. It handled BBP with ease, but ST seems to have more going on under the hood and therefore is hungrier. It's using a Marian Trace Alpha into a Broadcast Warehouse 1 watt exciter into a few inches of wire and is monitored by an Inovonics 530 monitor. It's my playtoy & if it worked reliably on this fairly modest system, then I could have total confidence that it will be worthy of a better system to support it in a "real" application where there's something more than my own entertainment on the line. Thing is, it's not able to work at full potential on this system so I'm unable to make that call with confidence. I've tried to get someone to tell me the minimum processor speed needed to ensure that it can run ST under the harshest conditions (BBP clearly spells that out on their site) but I'm getting "you can't judge it just by the processor speed" answers which make me unwilling to invest in something better at this time.chriscollins said:
What are the specs of your machine in terms of processor type & speed, RAM ,etc?oldiesstation said:
I5-3330 quad 6gb ram. win 7. i've seen systems by dell and hp under 600 that would work fine or just roll your own.
Bob, my test pc for ST is only a Core2 Duo 2.93 GHz E7500 with 2GB RAM on XP with a Julia card for MPX output. Latest ST beta is rock solid on that pc @ ~55% reported peak cpu usage with most ST modules enabled.
I've run three instances of ST ok on a Win7-64 I7 3.4 GHz pc with 4GB of RAM with <45% reported CPU use. Hope that helps.
I've run three instances of ST ok on a Win7-64 I7 3.4 GHz pc with 4GB of RAM with <45% reported CPU use. Hope that helps.
Thanks Oldies...at least now I have an idea of what's needed if I want to give this thing the ability to rock to the max of it's potential.oldiesstation said:
Yes...that does help. That's still a fairly modest machine...much appreciated.Storm905 said:
BobOnTheJob said:
Hi Bob,
Personally, I haven't built a computer with anything less than a Core i5 since all the price drops. I always overbuild. For instance, I rebuilt our AudioVault system for Flex 2 years ago (with SSD's & 1st Gen i5's). Those machines will die before they are unable to continue to run AV.
Now, I always build my own PC's... So, if I were building now, it would be a minimum i5 3570K with 8 Gig of RAM. You can do that for that $600 price point and it will destroy any radio driven app you throw at it.
I'm working (as some of you have seen) on a new multiband compressor that's more 'standard' than before - it finally has things like attack, release, release hold, gate, knee, a configurable number of bands, with configurable frequencies and band filter steepness. Things are currently changing every day, there are still some unresolved issues and there aren't many presets for it yet (and I haven't had a chance to try most of them), but from my own experience I can tell you that with tweaking the settings for just 5 minutes I can already get a much better sound out of it than from the previous multiband compressor. I never knew how bad it was until I wrote this new one! The biggest improvement I hear on rock music (which sounded somewhat squeezed and thin before) and some Abba songs (which sounded very harsh before).
I've just posted a new beta, 041, which is basically identical to 040 except that the multiband compressor uses a lot less processing power (total CPU load is 15% lower when using 5 bands).
About using it on-air: I expect these betas to run stable, but they have not been tested extensively. As long as you don't touch them they will probably run without problems, but be careful when changing settings (I had a report a few betas ago that changing the number of bands could cause the software to crash, and if you currently load the built-in 'Big O V2' preset it will also crash).
I've just posted a new beta, 041, which is basically identical to 040 except that the multiband compressor uses a lot less processing power (total CPU load is 15% lower when using 5 bands).
About using it on-air: I expect these betas to run stable, but they have not been tested extensively. As long as you don't touch them they will probably run without problems, but be careful when changing settings (I had a report a few betas ago that changing the number of bands could cause the software to crash, and if you currently load the built-in 'Big O V2' preset it will also crash).
As I search for a computer upgrade, I have a couple of questions that while not directly related to ST, are vital to the computer system that supports it. They are :
* Is there a 64 bit driver for the Marian Trace Alpha?
* IS there a 64 bit driver for the M-Audio Delta 192?
* Will these cards work in a PCIe slot?
Some of these questions exist because after testing, it turns out that my existing primary computer will run ST with a 35-40% CPU load so my plan is to upgrade the primary computer, but I'm running into PCIe card slots/64 bit versions of the OS and need to know I'm not going to obsolete the balanced I/O cards I have in my current machine as I try to transfer them to the new machine.
* Is there a 64 bit driver for the Marian Trace Alpha?
* IS there a 64 bit driver for the M-Audio Delta 192?
* Will these cards work in a PCIe slot?
Some of these questions exist because after testing, it turns out that my existing primary computer will run ST with a 35-40% CPU load so my plan is to upgrade the primary computer, but I'm running into PCIe card slots/64 bit versions of the OS and need to know I'm not going to obsolete the balanced I/O cards I have in my current machine as I try to transfer them to the new machine.
Hi Bob,
** Is there a 64 bit driver for the Marian Trace Alpha? Is there a 64 bit driver for the M-Audio Delta 192? **
Yes on both counts. Freely downloadable from the respective manufacturer websites. Note the Delta 192 is listed under Delta Audiophile 192
** Will these cards work in a PCIe slot? **
No, they are both PCI cards.
There are apparently a number of users using relatively new pc's successfully with ST and Marian Alpha cards in a PCI slot. While they are getting rarer, a number of new PC's are available with at least one PCI slot. The M-Audio forum is worth checking out though, as it contains many comments from people who have had issues with 192 KHz PCI sound cards on some I3/I5/I7 pc's, apparently due to the boards chipsets not having true native PCI slots. So it may be hit or miss. To be on the safe side if you can't test before you buy, consider a Core2 Duo pc or better still, acquire a PCIe audio interface. Marian and Motu make some excellent DC coupled output interfaces ideal for precise FM MPX. At the lower end, ESI also now make a PCIe variant of the Julia card, reported to be good value and stable. And for basic testing, onboard 192 kHz sound devices are also typically getting better, though these certainly can be hit or miss.
** Is there a 64 bit driver for the Marian Trace Alpha? Is there a 64 bit driver for the M-Audio Delta 192? **
Yes on both counts. Freely downloadable from the respective manufacturer websites. Note the Delta 192 is listed under Delta Audiophile 192
** Will these cards work in a PCIe slot? **
No, they are both PCI cards.
There are apparently a number of users using relatively new pc's successfully with ST and Marian Alpha cards in a PCI slot. While they are getting rarer, a number of new PC's are available with at least one PCI slot. The M-Audio forum is worth checking out though, as it contains many comments from people who have had issues with 192 KHz PCI sound cards on some I3/I5/I7 pc's, apparently due to the boards chipsets not having true native PCI slots. So it may be hit or miss. To be on the safe side if you can't test before you buy, consider a Core2 Duo pc or better still, acquire a PCIe audio interface. Marian and Motu make some excellent DC coupled output interfaces ideal for precise FM MPX. At the lower end, ESI also now make a PCIe variant of the Julia card, reported to be good value and stable. And for basic testing, onboard 192 kHz sound devices are also typically getting better, though these certainly can be hit or miss.
If I were you, I would run Win 7 32 Bit for this. Stereo Tool or Breakaway is going to run in the WOW layer anyway. It will slow things down a 'tiny' bit.
Just use the 32 Bit OS for this particular project.
Audiovault runs on 64 Bit, but it is still a 32 Bit program. For that reason, I run 32 Bit Windows 7 and when that program is a true 64 Bit program, I will move them to 64 Bit Windows.
Just use the 32 Bit OS for this particular project.
Audiovault runs on 64 Bit, but it is still a 32 Bit program. For that reason, I run 32 Bit Windows 7 and when that program is a true 64 Bit program, I will move them to 64 Bit Windows.
If you buy something new, please keep in mind that the CPU demands will probably keep increasing over time when I release new versions. The current version will run perfectly on one if it's fast enough - and better than it has for a long time once I've added multicore support to the multiband section - but I have some things planned that may require more cores. If you don't need a low latency mode, just ignore what I just wrote.Storm905 said:
HVZ...
A question for you. How much better could you improve the sound, if you allowed 3-5 seconds for latency? Would there be any true benefit to the extra processing time?
I have been very curious about that.
A question for you. How much better could you improve the sound, if you allowed 3-5 seconds for latency? Would there be any true benefit to the extra processing time?
I have been very curious about that.
Thanks to all who've chimed in...I'm drinking this all in and feeling like (at last) I'm gaining the insight I need to make an informed decision. Much appreciation to one and all.
Adding more latency would allow for some tricks that could improve things a bit, such as stopping the AGC level from rising when you know that some loud sound is coming soon. And I could improve the highpass filter (make it steeper with less artifacts). But except for things like this, the improvement would be very small - if I don't add any extra intelligence, the step from latency 4096 samples (85 ms) to an infinite number of samples would be equal in size to the step from 2048 (43 ms) to 4096. Basically, every reduction of the latency by half will increase artifacts and other effects by a factor 2-4. The difference between latency 512 (11 ms) and 1024 (21 ms) is quite big - in part due to a bug in my code that I'm planning to fix in the future; steps after that have far less impact. (Note that you need to add ASIO latency to all these numbers.)chriscollins said:
hvz said:
Thank you for answering that. That is good information. My primary goal is to find better processing for my Hip-Hop station. Everything we play is hypercompressed from the labels.
I use your declipper to fix up some of it before it hits the automation system, but I have found that it works well on some songs and not so well on others.
I have a nice PC built with an SSD (Core i5). I *was* waiting for the next Breakaway, hoping it would have something similar to the Undo in the Omnia 9 (which is quite effective).
Have you got anything in the works for Stereo Tool that works well on that type of material?
- Status