Voxengo Premium Membership - All Voxengo Plugins For a Fixed One-Time Fee
Forums     Plugins     Redunoise reduce CPU load?


Hello,

I checked out the demo of Redunoise and getting good results very quickly on some noisy material.  This material was recorded at 44.1KHz and everything is working fine.  However, I also have soundfiles at 88.2KHz and I'm unable to process this realtime, because my CPU can't keep up.  I like to hear whats being removed realtime.  Is it possible to reduce the CPU load (like Pristine Space does with the quality switch) so you can tweak the settings and than render the file at maximum quality?

My computer is a 1.5GHz Pentium4, not the quickest, but certainly not the slowest.

Pieter S.


Right now I think it is impossible to introduce any kind of optimization.  So I guess upgrading your computer is the only way to get around this issue.  I also suggest to upgrade to Athlon range of processors as they show a better performance in comparison to Pentium 4 processors, at least with Redunoise.

would it ever be possible to reduce the amount of latency redunoise introduces?

Kind regards

Dave Rich.


Dave, unfortunately, no.  It is possible to implement a fully 'analog' noise-reduction plug-in with an equal performance, but it will be a total CPU hog in comparison to Redunoise.

CPU hit is high, that's for sure.

32 floating point at 96KHz wallops 70% of my Dual Xeon 3.06 rig!

BUT - that is the price I have to pay for the quality, then so be it.

www.opusproductions.com

Multichannel Audio Specialists

DVD-A, DVD-V Authoring

Mixing & Mastering to most formats


I'm OK on a 2.6GHz P4 using 44.1KHz wave files - at 96KHz I depend on Audition track locking and Sonar4 track [effects] freeze but it's [mostly] OK after that.  I wouldn't be able to do much of anything at 96KHz without locking.

Dave - what latency are you getting in Sonar4 - like a couple of ms or something?  I have Redunoise on a single guitar track in a Sonar4 mixdown project that is set to 96ms latency and evertything seems compensated for the most part.  It didn't seem like this was the kind of plug I would need 0 latency on since my use is restoration mostly - and then only after the recording stage is finished.  What's the thinking on minimal latency?  Maybe closing the 'History' window might be a way to lower the latency if Redunoise responded that way [you'd probably hear some hellacious racket till it adjusted].  Thanx


From my point of view, I really don't care about latency.

3 reasons, really.

Main one is that I tend to use this process in an offline mode.  I set it up with real time monitoring of course, so I can adjust & tune as necessary - but one I am happy, I export the clean version and bring it back into the project for any further processing.  That way, if I decide later that I got it wrong (common) or that the plug created a problem (never yet happened) I can go back to the original audio to correct things.

Second reason is that I just would not use this during mixdown,

Thiord reason is that I also have full PDC in my host app.

For me, quality is the paramount thing for ReduNoise, not CPU optimizations.  Less CPU = Less efficient, usually.  And this is a "first port of call" type of plug for me.

Get rid of the broadband noise, then all that is left are the clicks & scratches.

www.opusproductions.com

Multichannel Audio Specialists

DVD-A, DVD-V Authoring

Mixing & Mastering to most formats


the main reason I'd like the latency lower is because it can introduce bugs in sonar with the midi.

When using redunoise in a project I need to set the midi buffers to 1000ms to get smooth playback.

I take the point that redunoise can be used as an offline effect - and I probably should do just that - it's just if it were possible without too much of a cpu hit then it would make life just a little easier.  I know it's not Redunoises fault but it was worth a go ;)

Kind regards

Dave Rich.

This topic was last updated 180 days ago, and thus it was archived.  Replying is disabled for this topic.