heh ..
What i found now that .. Block Overlap is really enough on 20-25% and "slope overlap" (whatever it is
) is enough on 50-60% .. and from 36-40% (my)cpu usage, 20-31%.
| Stereo Tool https://forums.stereotool.com/ |
|
| Low latency secondary input (microphone) https://forums.stereotool.com/viewtopic.php?t=853 |
Page 22 of 75 |
| Author: | hvz [ Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Low latency secondary input (microphone) |
Uploaded as BETA3A again. Note: You need to manually set the latency to 4096, otherwise you get the 'extra latency' version. |
|
| Author: | Bojcha [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Low latency secondary input (microphone) |
What is Slope Overlap ?.. i get much less cpu usage with Full Overlap. edit: Sound and mpx are still Good at 60% . and much less cpu usage. |
|
| Author: | hvz [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Low latency secondary input (microphone) |
Quote: What is Slope Overlap ?.. i get much less cpu usage with Full Overlap.
LOL - the funny thing is that I still have to finish the implementation of Slope Overlap. Right now it's identical to lowering the slope steepness (both sliders). I think I can change it to have less effect on the sound than it has now - then it won't be identical to steepness anymore.
edit: Sound and mpx are still Good at 60% . and much less cpu usage. |
|
| Author: | Bojcha [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Low latency secondary input (microphone) |
heh .. What i found now that .. Block Overlap is really enough on 20-25% and "slope overlap" (whatever it is ) is enough on 50-60% .. and from 36-40% (my)cpu usage, 20-31%.
|
|
| Author: | hvz [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Low latency secondary input (microphone) |
Quote: heh ..
True!What i found now that .. Block Overlap is really enough on 20-25% Quote: and "slope overlap" (whatever it is
That might be true - but not for lower latency values.) is enough on 50-60% ..Quote: and from 36-40% (my)cpu usage, 20-31%.
I'm going to try to adjust Slope Overlap (which is a wrong name - I'll rename it too) such that it can also be used for lower latency values (and if that works, higher values than 50-60% should also sound good @ latency 4096). Do you hear any difference between the current version (latency 4096) and v4.22? Looking at frequency analysis results they should be nearly identical now... |
|
| Author: | Bojcha [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Low latency secondary input (microphone) |
here are final settings for high quality vs cpu usage - 4096 samples - Block overlap 25% - Slope overlap 55% With this setting quality is still enough good but best thing is that cpu usage is same (maybe bit lower) as default v4.22. Now.. Me and Prelimiter... I still think that pre-limiter needs to be faster at down speed (erlier). i still get small distortion on some songs when from low level song goes to first loud beat. |
|
| Author: | hvz [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Low latency secondary input (microphone) |
Quote: here are final settings for high quality vs cpu usage
"good enough" = less than v4.22? And is it "as good as v4.22" with lower Slope overlap values?- 4096 samples - Block overlap 25% - Slope overlap 55% With this setting quality is still enough good but best thing is that cpu usage is same (maybe bit lower) as default v4.22. Now.. Me and Prelimiter... I still think that pre-limiter needs to be faster at down speed (erlier). i still get small distortion on some songs when from low level song goes to first loud beat. The next step (if the quality is equal to v4.22 with Slope Overlap 0) for me is to try to reduce the CPU load by removing some processing that has no effect on the end result. About the pre-limiter: I haven't tested it yet, but I think it's caused by "remove remaining peaks". I think I've set its response a bit steeper than in v4.22. I know that if I set it one step steeper, I do get a lot of distortion - I'll reduce it by one step to see if that solves the problem.) |
|
| Author: | Luke [ Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Low latency secondary input (microphone) |
lol, good job Hans! The 38KHz is gone. No idea why so .... |
|
| Author: | hvz [ Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Low latency secondary input (microphone) |
The CPU load improvement I had hoped to be able to use doesn't work unfortunately (well it works, but the effect is very small)... I have found another one that will DEFINITELY work, but it will take some time to implement it. Expected improvement: Loudness CPU load should be about 15% lower, with no effect on the sound quality. (Actually, I think there's a small bug in the current code that would be solved by this. I tried to fix it in the current version as well, but the CPU load went up another 15% so I've postponed it for now - new lower-CPU-load version won't have this problem anyway). For now I'm posting (in an hour) a new version with a VERY slightly (3%) lower CPU usage for Loudness+Hard Limit, and improved pre-limiter loud peak removal as requested by Bojcha. I hope to be able to implement the CPU load improvement tomorrow - if not I probably won't have time until next friday. |
|
| Author: | Bojcha [ Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Low/ultralow latency STEREO TOOL |
I need to correct myself. This is best quality vs cpu usage and same quality as v4.22 .. and for sure even better because better multiband, stereo boost, etc... and still work on intel E5200 but on the edge.  Now i can't figure out what is difference between "As much as needed" and 4096 samples on First one is little less cpu usage. |
|
| Page 22 of 75 | All times are UTC+02:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|