RAM Question...

**BombJack** · 04-01-2005, 12:20 AM

Ok guys and gals...

I have a laptop, and recently upgraded it's ram from 512 meg to a fully expanded 1 gig. Thing is, the new ram installed is pc2700, rather than pc3200 which was already installed.

The reason I have posted here is because of 2 things.

1) I bought the RAM because I thought it would help Cubase SX2 work better when working on my latest masterpiece. It has been sticking (ie stop/start audio as a result of too much needing processed. eg lots of plugins/fx.) Thing is I installed the new ram, and the same thing happens. It doesn't appear to have made anything better.

2) Could this be because the new ram installed is PC2700 rather than PC3200 which was already installed???

Any answers are greatly recieved.
Additionally, should I actually expect a big jump in how well cubase performs when I have this additional ram installed?

Put it this way, I'm at the stage with my new track that there are loads of parts - multiples of audio channels, and things haven't been completely bounced down. I like to keep things flexible, in case I think eqing or fx or whatever isn't quite right. So because Cubase wasn't performing as I would like, I figured I should see a marked difference when I added the additional 512meg, especially when Steinberg recommend running Cubase SX2 with 1 gig ram. What I actually got Cubase SX2 doing exactly the same as before I installed the additional 512meg.
And before anyone suggests it, I don't have such a crazy amount of things going on, that cubase is guaranteed to crash. Put it this way, if I switch of a couple of instances of TC Native reverb or whatever, things seem to work ok.

Am I expecting too much from the ram, or should I be looking more to getting a new CPU fitted.

I should add that I have a Pentium 4 3ghz installed.

any help/ advice/info/whatever would be great. I been to various computer shops and I seem to get a variety of answers to my problem, but noone has convinced me that they really know what theyre talking about. Likewise, I could go back to the place where I bought my machine for any ram I might need, but they'll be looking for an arm and a leg to py for it, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, any help would be great.

Cheers

BombJack

**Barely Human** · 04-01-2005, 07:50 AM

Its your cpu thats topping out mate, not your ram. If your using a lot of Vst fx and instruments, then its your cpu that takes the strain, not your ram. The ram really comes into being helpful if you are running a lot of audio tracks...

**RDR** · 04-01-2005, 10:43 AM

have you used the freeze function on your VSTi's yet?

(im presuming that you are running sx2 r above i know..)

**greasyfastspeed** · 04-01-2005, 11:54 AM

the pc3200 ram will now be working @ pc2700, it can only work as fast as the slowest piece of ram youve got. if that makes any sense?!

**dan the acid man** · 04-01-2005, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by splask

the pc3200 ram will now be working @ pc2700, it can only work as fast as the slowest piece of ram youve got. if that makes any sense?!

true, and i agree with iq, its your cpu thats struggling

**John Ferraris** · 04-01-2005, 12:21 PM

As mentioned above, its the cpu, nt ram, that's maxing out, and the RAM will run at the lowest of the two different speeds. What sound card u using? USB or (heaven forbid) inbuilt? CPU upgrade may be on the cards, although lowering the sampling rate of your project + latency may help.

**Basil Rush** · 04-01-2005, 01:16 PM

Bounce some stuff down, commit to some EQ settings for a bit.

I used to be well scared of commitment but now I just dive right in safe in the knowledge that if it sucks it really won't take long to do again.

How many tracks have you got going on though?

3 GHz is a lot of processor ... on laptops I've found that the disks sometimes crap out before the processor does, worth checking it's not that that that's the limiting factor, but you're saying that disabling a couple of reverbs sorts it out so seems less likely.

**BombJack** · 10-01-2005, 04:38 PM

Yeah Basil, I'm a bit of a control freak in that regard.

I think it's probably because I'm not too confident in my eqing skills, and the fact that what you think might sound good one day, sometime turns out to sound shit the next day. Plus I only have small crappy monitors which invariably screw up the mixes I do...

Maybe I'm expecting too much from my machine.

This suggestion about using Freeze looks interesting though. I have tried to use it in the past, but invariably I have aborted any attempts to use it as it has always said that it will take 10 mins or so to freeze the VST instrument or whatever. In most cases I would bve just as well bouncing down to audio, as it takes less time. Or can someone point what I'm doing wrong, or the best way to use Freeze?

Cheers folks

BombJack

**nervous systems** · 10-01-2005, 05:33 PM

for the freezing process takes a lonmg time probably because cubase runs throught the entire project not just the track you want to freeze. you need to go into your preferences and shorten the total project time ( i think its set at around 10 minutes) - shorten this to just over your total track length

**BombJack** · 11-01-2005, 03:14 PM

Nice one nervous - always handy getting these hints/tips...

cheers

BombJack

**FILTERZ** · 11-01-2005, 04:24 PM

pentium fours have a bit of a fault where music production is concerned
something about the way they do their maths
it means that if you use effects with long reverb and delay tails it can make the processor fall over quite quickly , wish i could explain this more fully , but i cant remember exactly what it is , when i get home tonight i will find out and post a link to the info.

I have a friend who builds pc`s for studios , dont touch a pentium 4 was his advice , I have one though and mine indeed does fall over much quicker than it should .

**Agility** · 11-01-2005, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by FILTERZ

pentium fours have a bit of a fault where music production is concerned
something about the way they do their maths
it means that if you use effects with long reverb and delay tails it can make the processor fall over quite quickly , wish i could explain this more fully , but i cant remember exactly what it is , when i get home tonight i will find out and post a link to the info.

You mean the Denormals issue?

**FILTERZ** · 11-01-2005, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Agility

Originally Posted by FILTERZ

pentium fours have a bit of a fault where music production is concerned
something about the way they do their maths
it means that if you use effects with long reverb and delay tails it can make the processor fall over quite quickly , wish i could explain this more fully , but i cant remember exactly what it is , when i get home tonight i will find out and post a link to the info.

You mean the Denormals issue?

yeah thats the one i think

**FILTERZ** · 11-01-2005, 04:58 PM

http://phonophunk.phreakin.com/artic...ntro-for-users

**tocsin** · 11-01-2005, 07:11 PM

Quick RAM related question. In my current audio workstation, I'm using one chip of PC2700 single channel DDR RAM. I'm tempted to shell out some cash to upgrade to 512 megs of dual channel DDR RAM if there would be a noticable advantage for audio. However, when researching this, I get more ads for RAM for sale than what I could expect to see for audio. I understand that the bandwidth for information to and from RAM is increased but, I'm just having a hard time picturing how I'd notice much of a difference with that over what I have now in production. Idea would be to upgrade to PC3200 dual channel. But, it's a bit costly at the moment.

**dan the acid man** · 12-01-2005, 08:43 PM

you can only run dual channel memory if you have an n-force chipset motherboard.
If you have one of these, you will see an improvement, dont expect it to be amazing though, but i would say its worth the money

Thread: RAM Question...

Thread Tools

Display

RAM Question...

Posting Permissions