I keep trying to use Mixbus 32c, but...

[gamehits]

I can't understand why the threshold for CPU overloading is so low compared to Cubase. In Cubase when I'm composing something, I can run 20-30 tracks of midi and audio, tons of dsp effects, vst instruments, so on, and track it all in real time. In Mixbus 32c, I run 3 or 4 tracks with effects and I start getting CPU overload messages...and I'm running a gen 9 i7 with plenty of throughput. I love the Mixbus native plugins...how about you just bring ALL your plugins over to VST (reverb, phaser, gate, etc.)...because I keep _trying_ to use Mixbus and then I just give up in frustration. I mean I'm open to suggestions...

[Tassy]

Is it really CPU not the DSP that overruns?

MB mixbuses and other built in features start DSP load higher than other daws that do not have these features.
MB also saves/calculates some DSP need if a plugin is just inserted and not used in order not to get surprised when used and overload may appear.
Some MB plugins use also more DSP than others of the similar kind.

When I used to meet this overload thing I spent time experimenting with my VSTs which needs the lowest DSP need and prefer using them. There exist not so many plugins that cannot be changed for another with the same result.
Cubase MIDI is the best I have ever met in the golden SX times from all regards a MIDI may have
When I used to compose music in MIDI, never effected the midi tracks, I edited them then exported to wave and mixed all waves as normal.
Is to drums like EZdrummer I also spread and record the part in wave and always mix only waves.
In your case I wold do the midi task in cubase then export the track in wave and use them in Mixbus to get a great mix.
Tassy

[madmaxmiller]

In Mixbus 32c, I run 3 or 4 tracks with effects and I start getting CPU overload messages...and I'm running a gen 9 i7 with plenty of throughput.

3-4 tracks seems a bit little to me. As Tassy said, it's most probably DSP you are talking about. Plus, you have three high quality "plugins" on each channel and three on each mixbus and four on the master bus already. Are you using them at all? They save a lot of third party plugins.
Still, 3-4 tracks is little, so have a look at your system as a whole. If DSP load is high, no matter which Uber CPU is in your computer, there's a bottleneck elsewhere. You need to find it.
Maybe this video helps understand this.

MMM

[johne53]

have a look at your system as a whole. If DSP load is high, no matter which Uber CPU is in your computer, there's a bottleneck elsewhere.

The first thing to try is to increase your audio buffer size (especially if you're using a very low setting like 256 or less).

[JamieLang]

Yeah--that's the problem. He said MIDI tracks...

256 at single rate digital is far north of hardware synth latency.

[gamehits]

all good suggestions. but i've kinda tried them all. yes, increasing the latency does help. but i have two comments: 1 in Cubase, unless it's absolutely necessary, i NEVER bounce down/freeze synth tracks. BIG NOTICABLE hit in fidelity by doing that. there's a pretty big difference between 64/32 bit processing too. the plugins loose their sheen and depth. i'm not saying i'd never do that to be able to use mixbus instead, because the trade off would be a better interface (at least for mixing...not so much for editing), and the harrison compression algo is better than the stock cubase compressors. but at that point i'd still need to be able to run more than 5 tracks of synths. and unless i want to bounce down every one during the writing process (cumbersome), that's not really an option. also, does mixbus have anything like a "freeze" function or am i missing that? i can bounce to another track...but man that would slow everything down (again). and 2 considering i write with guitar in mind, constantly playing with the latency/audio buffer settings to record an "in the box" guitar track seems like another time waster. especially considering on the same computer i can run all the synths and plugs i want at 128 latency and never have to worry about the guitar not feeling right when i play it. I'm going to stick with my first suggestion for Harrison: release your summing algo and proprietary plugs all as vsts. seems like at the end of the day, that's a smarter play...considering we're on version 6 and i've had this problem since ver 3. as to the pc bottlenecking...i can run vegas 17 and cubase 10.5 flawlessly with tons of effects. no bottleneck there... more thoughts? i'm still listening...

[madmaxmiller]

depth. i'm not saying i'd never do that to be able to use mixbus instead, because the trade off would be a better interface (at least for mixing...not so much for editing), and the harrison compression algo is better than the stock cubase compressors. but at that point i'd still need to be able to run more than 5 tracks of synths.

Cubase seems to be a specialised and optimised synth host and sequencer, while mixbus is champion in - mixing.
Maybe you can try to route your Cubase tracks through Mixbus: create an aux bus for every Cubase channel in Mixbus, then connect their inputs to the Cubase channel outputs. Not actually playing back material from the Mixbus tracks means you don't have to synchronise and run Mixbus' transport - thus you have a huge mixer "plugin".
It will be resource-friendlier because you are not running everything in the same process and so you make more of your i7.

Apropos i7: oldie but goodie: have you tried switching off Hyperthreading in BIOS?

MMM

[johne53]

Yeah--that's the problem. He said MIDI tracks...

I'm confused This is the bit I read...

I love the Mixbus native plugins... how about you just bring ALL your plugins over to VST (reverb, phaser, gate, etc.)...because I keep _trying_ to use Mixbus and then I just give up in frustration.

So are we talking about 2 different problems here

[Frank]

Monitor from your interface, and increase buffersize.

stop comparing to other daws.

I did a coldturkey switch to mixbus few years ago. And never looked back.

Think 3 times before you add a plugin or another track.

I came from working live, where the desk was the desk.

In Mixbus i work faster and cleaner, because you can

and train your ears

regards

Frank

[gamehits]

Monitor from your interface, and increase buffersize.

stop comparing to other daws.

I did a coldturkey switch to mixbus few years ago. And never looked back.

Think 3 times before you add a plugin or another track.

I came from working live, where the desk was the desk.

In Mixbus i work faster and cleaner, because you can

and train your ears

regards

Frank

Frank...

I can use waves NLS plug, and get the analog sound of mixbus. is it the same, no. is it better, no. is it just as useful tho different, yes.

as to trading cubase for mixbus and "not looking back", clearly you haven't read the previous threads, and considered what I use a DAW for...as I've clearly said I CAN'T use mixbus as it CHOKES on what I do to compose. I get that you're a fanboy, but that's NOT very helpful...

---

depth. i'm not saying i'd never do that to be able to use mixbus instead, because the trade off would be a better interface (at least for mixing...not so much for editing), and the harrison compression algo is better than the stock cubase compressors. but at that point i'd still need to be able to run more than 5 tracks of synths.

Cubase seems to be a specialised and optimised synth host and sequencer, while mixbus is champion in - mixing.
Maybe you can try to route your Cubase tracks through Mixbus: create an aux bus for every Cubase channel in Mixbus, then connect their inputs to the Cubase channel outputs. Not actually playing back material from the Mixbus tracks means you don't have to synchronise and run Mixbus' transport - thus you have a huge mixer "plugin".
It will be resource-friendlier because you are not running everything in the same process and so you make more of your i7.

Apropos i7: oldie but goodie: have you tried switching off Hyperthreading in BIOS?

MMM

Ok this is a useful reply. THAT may be the way to proceed. can you tell me HOW to do this??

thanks!