Subject:SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Posted by: Jack from Multiview Inc.

Date:2/3/2010 8:51:06 AM

I did post something about this a long time ago and no one knew the real answer. I had a dual core Dell system last year and when editing large files, the cpu cycle, while processing a file (say wavehammering), did not use the full dual core it only used 50% of it total. Now that I have a Dell Quad core system, it's still does not use the full potential of the cores. I'm processing at only 25%!! Is SoundForge optomized for multiple cores??

Jacques

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: jackn2mpu

Date:2/3/2010 2:12:43 PM

Could it be that SF is so efficient that it doesn't need to use 100% of the machine?
Look at it this way: last year your system with a dual core worked at 50% and this year's machine with twice as much in the way of processing power runs at 25%, so yeah, I'd say it's using all your processors, at least without running some kind of utility to see the load on each processor.

Edit:
Just went and looked at the thread you mention and it seems that those posting DID give you an answer but you refused to accept it. Those that posted there are some of the most knowledgeable on this forum outside of Sony personnel like Peter (PCH).

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: Jack from Multiview Inc.

Date:2/4/2010 7:18:29 AM

Thanks for answering. I went back and look at those answers again. Most of these answers still does not make sense to me except that last post. I did not see that last post. the problem with this forum (unless I'm doing something wrong (I used to be a moderator for a computer forum before)) is you don't get an e-mail back telling you someone answered your post. Anyways, the last post may have the answer; the disk drive. The fact that a plug-in uses only 1 core may also make sense but I'm not sure about that one as when processing, I look at my CPU cores and all of them seem to work but just barely (for a total of around 25%). I will have to try processing with a Solid State drive and see the results. I wonder using a USB key instead would be a good test since I don't have a Solid State drive?

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: jackn2mpu

Date:2/4/2010 8:46:53 AM

The type of drive has nothing to do with how much of your machine gets used for a process. All an SSD will do is to allow faster access to the data, nothing more. And a USB key drive would be even slower - there's another layer of processing to get to any USB port - they're dumb ports, unlike FW ports.

Why can't you accept the fact that SF is not stressing your computer as much as you think it should? That is, using 100% of all your cores? Even Pro Tools won't use 100% of a computer's processing ability and that's at a max count. Think of it this way - if a process used 100% of processing ability then there would be nothing left to run the other processes that should be running.

And no, you did nothing wrong as to getting email notifications. That's something sorely lacking on this forum, along with a proper quote ability and having a sig file. And Sony has no urge to add these features which every other forum on the net has.

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: Jack from Multiview Inc.

Date:2/4/2010 12:28:08 PM

Cool. Thanks for clarifying this.

How can I say this in a proper way. In the field I work in, time is very important. Faster I can process a file, more files I can process in the least amount of time. So if I can cut 1 minute per file, that is huge for me at the end of the day. That's why I try to find ways to process faster. I mean, I don't really want to process at 100% but a nice 100% boost would be nice, or something like 75% of CPU while processing. I'm not sure why the Isotope plug-in will use 92% CPU while Waves Crackle will only use 25% of CPU! I process 1 to 2 hour long files (or more) so they are not music files of 3-4 minutes (which process are real fast in this case, even at 25% CPU cycle).

Let me give you an example: I just did a Wave Crackle on a 2 hour file. It took exactly 4 minutes and 44 seconds to process. Wow! How can I cut this time by using more CPU cycles?

As for the e-mail notification, that's too bad. Probably a lot of e-mail responses are missed because of that.

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: musicvid10

Date:2/4/2010 1:41:50 PM

All that <100% CPU usage means is that in that given situation, it is not the system bottleneck. True, some operations can be optimized to take better advantage of the aggregate of physical resources, but thinking that there is some way to speed up CPU cycles extrinsically is usually incorrect.

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: Jack from Multiview Inc.

Date:2/4/2010 2:02:46 PM

Sorry, I meant how can I use the available CPU %.

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: musicvid10

Date:2/4/2010 4:24:12 PM

I am explaining that it will use exactly (and only) as much CPU speed as it needs to keep up with the total system throughput, anywhere from >0% up to 100%.

If you have a water source that is capable of 1,000 gallons per minute, and there is a pipe somewhere in the chain that limits the throughput to 500 gpm, increasing the capacity to 2,000 gpm will not increase the output. You will still get 500 gallons per minute!

Sorry, that's the very best I know how to explain it.

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: Jack from Multiview Inc.

Date:2/4/2010 7:36:05 PM

Oh I see what you mean. So there is a bottleneck somewhere. Do you have an idea what that could be? This laptop is top notch (Core i7), that's why it surprises me.

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: musicvid10

Date:2/4/2010 9:11:26 PM

There is always a bottleneck. That was my point. You can buy a car that will go 160mph but the interstate limit is still 75. Enjoy your new laptop, knowing that mine barely pushes 65 at full throttle.

Take a big render (say 1000MB final file size). Divide the number of MB by the number of seconds it took to render it (SF will tell you how long it took). That is your rendering throughput in MBs. If you want to run benchmark comparisons on your system using various renderers there are a bunch of them out there, and rendering throughput vs. compressed output quality is an entirely valid and accepted basis for comparison, since as you mentioned earlier, time is money.

I find it odd though, that your subject title implicated Sound Forge without giving the source and render codecs and settings you used, nor did you post any examples of why you thought SF was any slower than any other comparable solution. Yes, some are slower than others, but CPU percentage alone is an entirely bogus basis for either comparison or indictment in that arena.

For instance, I found that Mainconcept h264 in Vegas renders fully 15%-20% slower than x264 in Handbrake using the same settings and bitrate, but with slightly lower quality, yet the CPU is pegged at 100% on both cores during both renders. I would find myself completely at a loss to explain that one using your theory . . .

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: Jack from Multiview Inc.

Date:2/4/2010 9:37:52 PM

I just thought about something. I used Handbrake last week to compress a video to be played back on my iTouch and the CPU was going at full speed 100% on all 4 cores and compressing the video. Why would Handbrake use all 4 cores all their full capacity but not SoundForge? I'm now not sure my system as a bottleneck somewhere since it worked fine with handbrake. Can someone explain this to me because it just doesn't add up. I'm not trying to be nasty, just looking for answers. Don't get wrong either, I LOVE working with SF. Such a great software!

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: musicvid10

Date:2/4/2010 9:44:07 PM

". . . the CPU was going at full speed 100% on all 4 cores and compressing the video."

That is because h264 is a lossy, high compression, long GOP video codec that is CPU-intensive, and requires billions of more CPU calculations per second to do its work than any audio codec.

You are a nice guy, but sorry, if you are unable to accept the answers that have already been posted (I just read your other thread too), then I am done trying to explain this to you as well.

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: Jack from Multiview Inc.

Date:2/4/2010 10:16:40 PM

It's funny because I'm looking for answers like some of them you're mentioning here which are things I don't know about and yet you're telling me if I'm unable to accept the answers to stop asking them. It's not that I am not accepting the answers but I probably don't know the back end of it and I'm trying to understand. I thought these forums are there for that, helping people understand.

Man, I've got a lot of experience and tons of knowledge in the audio field and when someone comes and ask me questions, I help them understand because I know this is sometimes not easy to do so. But this is just new to me, that's all. Thanks for your answers.

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: musicvid10

Date:2/4/2010 10:25:30 PM

OK, good luck to you.

You said, "Now that I have a Dell Quad core system, it's still does not use the full potential of the cores."

Then, you said "This laptop is top notch (Core i7), that's why it surprises me."

cya

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: pwppch

Date:2/6/2010 6:52:09 PM

In general, processing audio through a audio DSP plugin is a serial process. This means that the process (plugin) runs on a single thread. It has to for the most part. It processes audio one sample frame at a time. In general, a plugin is not multithreaded. It cannot be because it is fed samples serially. The first buffer must complete before the second buffer, etc. In many cases the results of the second buffer are dependent on the previous buffer. Again, it is a serial process.

So, this is why you will only see a single core at best being pushed. Even then, it may not be at 100% usage. That depends on the DSP requriements of the plug-in.

Peter

Subject:RE: SoundForge NOT optomized for DUAL or QUAD cores!

Reply by: Jack from Multiview Inc.

Date:2/12/2010 12:48:56 PM

Oh I see. Now this makes total sense to me. So I guess it all depends of the single core speed in this case. Thank you to clarify this to me. I've been wondering for a long time.

Jacques