(saving resources in Reaper) Does this make any sense?

[Dexter_prog]

I have the following tracks: (L = hard-panned left, R = hard-panned right)
XX) LEAD FX BUS (EQ, reverb, delay, etc)
1) Guitar lead - L
2) Guitar lead - R
YY) RHYTHM FX BUS (EQ)
3) Guitar rhythm - L
4) Guitar rhythm - R

(1) and (2) have the following fx:
a) x-noise
b) tube screamer
c) amp-sim [with the tone I like for leads)
d) cabinet-sim

(3) and (4) have:
a) x-noise
b) tube screamer
c) amp-sim [with the tone I like for rhythm guitars)
d) cabinet-sim

In bold you can see the plugins that havethe same values in all 4 tracks.

My CPU is struggling (the project has more tracks that are not relevant to this case) so I wanted to save some resources.

My idea was to create a new bus for (a) and (b) (x-noise and TS), let's name it "noise TS". Send it to tracks (1), (2), (3), (4). This goes before the amp and cabinet sims, and then everything (effects a to d) are sent to their proper groups.

After trying this, I can't get it to work. And now I am wondering if this is even possible. MY idea for the tracks would be the following.

1) Track receives "noise TS"
2) track processes amp sim and cabinet simp
3) Track's effects are sent to group.

I don't know if my explanation is clear enough, if not, let me know and I'll try to make more sense. Also, if this worked would this help or the CPU use reduction would be insignificant? Is there any better way to save resources or should I just bounce each track?

 

[Jormyn]

I don't think you're going to find a Tube Screamer plugin that can handle four signals at once (though there is a stereo version of TSS floating around). The same goes, as far as I'm aware, for a noise gate. A gate that just handles four channels together wouldn't help you, since a signal on one would open all four - you want a gate with four *independent* channels, and I can't say I've seen one.

Regardless, I did a bunch of testing recently for a similar thread on the Reaper forums, and came to the conclusion that sharing plugins this way doesn't actually save you anything. It can make things a bit more organized, perhaps, but a stereo amp/pedal plugin will literally have two mono versions running inside it.

The only way this could save you resources is if you actually rendered each of your guitar tracks through Noise TS and then took it out entirely.

 

[LeSedna]

first, render your DI tracks with Xnoise only. It will save you a lot of cpu if I recall correctly what X noise is.

 

[PhilR]

Why are you even running x-noise on DI tracks? Aside from being very CPU intensive it's really designed for removing VERY obvious tape hiss or fixed rate hum. It's not a noise gate.

 

[Mutant]

Yes it does make sense if you are recording one guitar at a time.

 

[Jind]

That whole busing amp sims and such just does not work for me - it seems to introduce issues each time I've seen it come up. It's just easier to treat each signal chain independently though the guitar to the cabinet. In real life would you use a splitter and run two or three guitars into the front of an amp chain to use simultaneously? I wouldn't. I'm lost on Reaper but isn't there some form of Freeze option to free up resources? Hell, I'd rather find a sound I like and print it (saving the DI track) to free up resources than messing with non-standard busing structures.

 

[Nuno Filipe]

But why sending a noise gate to a group? A noise gate dont kill cpu ram like a ampsim. A noise gate almost doesnt notice in cpu usage. I dont see the point here. Freeze the tracks, use "apply track fx to items as a new take".

 

[Dexter_prog]

Why are you even running x-noise on DI tracks? Aside from being very CPU intensive it's really designed for removing VERY obvious tape hiss or fixed rate hum. It's not a noise gate.

Because it completely eliminates hum noise from a ground loop due to an improper electrical installation in my appartment. Someone had posted that I should process the x-hum only to save some resources. I tried that and the cpu save was 0.6%. Not worth it.

To the rest, I found some macros for Reaper to "freeze" and "unfreeze" tracks, which is doing the job perfectly for me:

[B]Freeze Selected Tracks[/B]

This automatically applies fx to items  in a track, and offlines and bypasses the fx.

Ctrl-Alt-A

Item: select all items in selected tracks
Item: apply fx to items
Track: set all fx offline for selected tracks
Track: toggle fx bypass for selected tracks

[B]Unfreeze Selected Tracks[/B]

This unfreezes the track.

Ctrl-Alt-U

Item: select all items in selected tracks
Item: delete current take from items
Track: set all fx online for selected tracks
Track: toggle fx bypass for selected tracks

Source: http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=10049

 

[Nuno Filipe]

Wasnt you the one who said that Reaper didnt have a freeze fuction? Of course it has, it´s not equal to cubase but in the end does the same shit. Reaper it´s not so bad as some people say.

 

[Dexter_prog]

Wasnt you the one who said that Reaper didnt have a freeze fuction? Of course it has, it´s not equal to cubase but in the end does the same shit. Reaper it´s not so bad as some people say.

It was me, that's why I wrote the words "freeze" and "unfreeze" between quotes to emphasize it's not a real freeze function (or at least not as in Cubase)

 

[narcossintese]

Wasnt you the one who said that Reaper didnt have a freeze fuction? Of course it has, it´s not equal to cubase but in the end does the same shit. Reaper it´s not so bad as some people say.

He clearly said that he´s using a macro. It´s a work around.

 

[Nuno Filipe]

He clearly said that he´s using a macro. It´s a work around.

I dont even know why he uses all that. I just use "apply track fx to items as a new take" and it´s almost the same as cubase. Well it´s even better because you have 2 tracks, one with fx and one without and you can use the inserts to do more eq, compression e.t.c and freeze function in cubase dont let you use the inserts of the track, unless you send the track to a group.

 

[Dexter_prog]

I dont even know why he uses all that. I just use "apply track fx to items as a new take" and it´s almost the same as cubase. Well it´s even better because you have 2 tracks, one with fx and one without and you can use the inserts to do more eq, compression e.t.c and freeze function in cubase dont let you use the inserts of the track, unless you send the track to a group.

Because using those 2 macros allows me to do all that with just one track with the ability to undo, modify and redo when you would have to: delete the stem, unmute the original track, modify, process again (which takes longer, specially the process vs apply effects as new take thing)