• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Topic: Standing on the edge, about to jump to GS3!

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Standing on the edge, about to jump to GS3!

    I've been going through pages and pages of this forum and still managed a few questions for you Gigastudio experts...

    I'm currently running Gigastudio 2.5 on my Pentium 4, AMD 2100, 768 MB Ram computer with the Audophile 2496 (for Midi) and RME 9652 Hammerfall (for Adat to Protools HD). Granted, with my limited ram, and only one MIDI input, it's a pretty weak Gigastuio system, so I'm checking my options to see what the best route is...

    Question 1: The bottleneck for me always seems to be RAM. By the time I load up a few sample libraries, I've already maxed out my ram and have to go around deleting articiulation files. I can't image being able to use all four Midi INs, when the first 16 channels already maxes out my ram. I'm thinking about upgrading ram on that computer to 2 GBs. If I put in 2 GBs of ram into that PC, does that mean I will have 2 GBs of ram at my disposable in GS? Or does it recognize less?


    Question 2: So what is the bottleneck with GS3? I do complex orchestration scores and since GS3 Orchestra has no polyphony limit, where does the bottleneck occur? I dont think I will use Gigapulse at all and will be using reverb through Protools HD plugins. Is my above computer powerful enough to handle GS3? How much RAM does GS3 recognize? I'm trying to get a good idea of how much more powerful GS3 is compared to GS2 when you ignore Gigapulse and just want to load up as many libraries as possible. Is one powerful GS3 system the equivalent of several GS2 systems? I'm trying to get a grasp on just how much hardware makes a difference when it comes to GS3 performance..This is critical for me in determining whether to splurge and build a powerful computer that may have the performance equivalent of a dozen GS2 machines (yay), or if that is impossible and you will run into a bottleneck very quickly if you use only one machine, regardless of how powerful it is, and are better off having several seperate computers (boo). If I use my current system to run GS3, does that mean I'll likely get the same or slightly better performance than my current GS2 system?


    I would truly appreciate any advice any of you have. Basically I'm trying to figure out if GS3 will indeed allow me to load/play a lot more samples at once than GS2 on an identical system (due to unlimited polyphony, maybe able to use more ram), or if GS3 runs into the same bottlenecks GS2 does, and I will not be able to load or play any more libraries at once on GS3 than GS2 right now. Thanks a lot!!!!

  2. #2

    Re: Standing on the edge, about to jump to GS3!

    Hi! you might want to look at this.

    http://www.musikbanken.se/Gigastudio/thetweak.htm

    It looks like 1050 mg is the Max. you can get in a 2 Gb GS3 Pc.

    I think i heard that some people can load more samples(more ram) in GS2.5, not sure.

    Isn't fun to know that one Gb of memory will never get old.

    Here is more reading about this,... if you like to read about that stuff.

    http://vsl.co.at/forum/viewtopic.php...50&iframe=true

    Geronimo.

  3. #3

    Re: Standing on the edge, about to jump to GS3!

    Thanks for the links, very interesting. Somewhere down the line I hearing that GS3 is powerful enough to be the equivalent of "several GS2 machines". But that is only in regards to polyphony correct? If we're talking about how many samples can be loaded at once, this is still the same.

    So if Gigastudio only uses half the amount of ram on your machine, right now I'm only getting half of 768 mb? It is still best to upgrade to 2gbs to get 1 gb?


    Also, if I dont use Gigapulse is GS3 a lot more taxing on your computer than GS2? I wonder if I should upgrade my Pentium 4, AMD 2100..

  4. #4

    Re: Standing on the edge, about to jump to GS3!

    Quote Originally Posted by VincePro
    Thanks for the links, very interesting. Somewhere down the line I hearing that GS3 is powerful enough to be the equivalent of "several GS2 machines". But that is only in regards to polyphony correct? If we're talking about how many samples can be loaded at once, this is still the same.

    So if Gigastudio only uses half the amount of ram on your machine, right now I'm only getting half of 768 mb? It is still best to upgrade to 2gbs to get 1 gb?


    Also, if I dont use Gigapulse is GS3 a lot more taxing on your computer than GS2? I wonder if I should upgrade my Pentium 4, AMD 2100..
    I have 2 gigs of ram in my dedicated GS3 workstation and can load approximately 1.3 gigabytes.

    So with your 768 mb of ram you could probably be able to load more than 500 mb of gigafiles.

    Gs 3 can load more gigs than Gs 2.5 with the same amount of ram as far as I'm told.

    Regarding gigapulse, actually Gs3 is more taxing IF you use Gigapulse. If you don't it is not. But you have to count in that 24 bit libraries are more demanding on the bandwidth of your workstation.
    best regards

    Przemyslaw K.

  5. #5

    Re: Standing on the edge, about to jump to GS3!

    From what I've seen GS3 is a bit hungrier regarding the CPU than GS2.5, but not by a huge margin. It's certainly hungrier if you use GPulse, but you've taken that off the table.

    Here's the difference between GS3 and GS2.5 for me (workflow wise): With GS2.5 I was always looking for the UltimateTemplate (tm). The reason? Load times were slow. The thing about a template is that it loads up a bunch of junk that you're not even using.

    With GS3 the load times are rocket-fast by comparison. Given this, every project I do has a different performance file. I work on a piece of music, think of the next sound that I want, and I install only that sound. For instance, if I want a trumpet, I may choose BOB for a mellow sound, QLB for a pop/jazz/bb/stylized sound, or Vienna for a controlled symphonic sound. Or maybe I don't need a solo trumpet at all...

    This leads to two advantages: 1) I don't need as much RAM, and 2) I'm more creative in my orchestration. I use 1GB, and I rarely run out of RAM.

    The bottom line is that GS3 can give you better use of RAM with compression, as well as the option to use custom template based on fast loads. Your processor has enough grunt to do okay, but to really push it I'd go for at least 1.5 GB and a bit faster processor. I got an Athlon64 3000+ about a year and a half ago, and it rocks. The prices are much lower now. I can run as many as five GigaPulse instances (though this cuts poly), so I'm pretty sure that without GPulse, I can get as much poly as the hard drives can handle...

    And don't forget that you can get SI and Westgate's legato, round robin, the DEF filter and other GS3 goodies with an upgrade.

    Here's what I'd do... Get a hard drive. Make a Ghost backup. (You can never have too many HDDs or backups.) Buy GS3 Solo. Install it. Try it out. If it rocks, upgrade. If not you've backed up your system, and you're not out much cash for GS3 solo. And there's also GVI...

    Eventually you'll upgrade your hardware. At that point GS3/GVI is a no brainer. (If you edit your Gigs, you'll want GS3 rather than GVI.)

  6. #6

    Re: Standing on the edge, about to jump to GS3!

    Thank you for your replies...Jon, I completely agree with what you said in regards to the fast load times..That would help a lot. When you say that GS3 is slightly more taxing than GS2 when it comes to the CPU, what area of performance are we talking about exactly? Assuming I dont need Gigapulse, is it worth for me to upgrade my computer right now? I think I'll definitely upgrade to 2gbs of RAM, but dont want to buy ram for my current system if it cannot run GS3 well, and I'd have to build a new computer anyways and have to buy 2gbs of new RAM for the new MB...Im tempted to purchase another computer and have two gigastudio machines, but at the same time running GVI on my Mac G5 Protools HD machine would be incredible...thoughts? Thanks again.

  7. #7

    Re: Standing on the edge, about to jump to GS3!

    Quote Originally Posted by VincePro
    I've been going through pages and pages of this forum and still managed a few questions for you Gigastudio experts...

    I'm currently running Gigastudio 2.5 on my Pentium 4, AMD 2100, 768 MB Ram computer with the Audophile 2496 (for Midi) and RME 9652 Hammerfall (for Adat to Protools HD). Granted, with my limited ram, and only one MIDI input, it's a pretty weak Gigastuio system, so I'm checking my options to see what the best route is...

    Question 1: The bottleneck for me always seems to be RAM. By the time I load up a few sample libraries, I've already maxed out my ram and have to go around deleting articiulation files. I can't image being able to use all four Midi INs, when the first 16 channels already maxes out my ram. I'm thinking about upgrading ram on that computer to 2 GBs. If I put in 2 GBs of ram into that PC, does that mean I will have 2 GBs of ram at my disposable in GS? Or does it recognize less?
    The general consensus seems to be that the maximum Giga can load is somewhere around the 1.1 - 1.2 gig mark. Mattias who did all the stuff with the memory optimisation utility said at one point he thought this was a limitation of Giga itself, and couldn't be overcome with the current code.

    The RAM you have available will be based on the RAM you have installed, minus that being used by Windows itself, drivers etc, UP TO this 1.1 - 1.2 point. So definitely yes, installing 2GB would give you significantly more than you have now. But it wouldn't give you any more than about 1.2 gig. RAM is cheap and I suggest you do it.

    GS3 contains memory optimisation parameters that you may need to set to get the best results. The default settings are sometimes startlingly restrictive, so don't be too shocked if you don't get there immediately.

    One thing I've been doing recently is converting a lot of my gig files to mono. This is very easy to do in GS3 as there's a simple routine written into it that auto-converts all the samples used. This halves the size of the file, allowing you to load twice as many instruments! In many cases the sonic difference is negligible, and sometimes it actually improves things and makes it easier to place instruments in the stereo field and makes thes mix better with other libraries.

    Question 2: So what is the bottleneck with GS3? I do complex orchestration scores and since GS3 Orchestra has no polyphony limit, where does the bottleneck occur?
    When they say that GS3 has no polyphony limit, they mean there is no limit hard-coded into it. Your polyphony will still be limited by the power of your PC.

    In practise I find, even with the maximum RAM giga can handle, that I max out RAM before I need to worry about too much else. But then I spread large arrangements of several machines, which eases polyphony strain.

    I dont think I will use Gigapulse at all and will be using reverb through Protools HD plugins. Is my above computer powerful enough to handle GS3? How much RAM does GS3 recognize? I'm trying to get a good idea of how much more powerful GS3 is compared to GS2 when you ignore Gigapulse and just want to load up as many libraries as possible. Is one powerful GS3 system the equivalent of several GS2 systems? I'm trying to get a grasp on just how much hardware makes a difference when it comes to GS3 performance..This is critical for me in determining whether to splurge and build a powerful computer that may have the performance equivalent of a dozen GS2 machines (yay), or if that is impossible and you will run into a bottleneck very quickly if you use only one machine, regardless of how powerful it is, and are better off having several seperate computers (boo). If I use my current system to run GS3, does that mean I'll likely get the same or slightly better performance than my current GS2 system?
    I'm not sure there's much difference in performance between GS 2 and 3, apart from if you're using Gigapulse. I read somewhere that GS3 loads less of each sample into RAM. I'm not sure if that's true but if it is then you should be able to load more instruments in GS3 than in GS2 with the same amount of RAM.

    It's worth considering that Tascam are practically giving away GS3 Ensemble right now. This is fully featured apart from some restrictions on Gigapulse, and the fact that it only has four ports instead of eight. GS3 handles program changes, instrument stacking etc so you can still use loads of instruments, it just depends on your workflow.

    Go to www.tascamgiga.com - it's $129 I think, which is a ridiculously low price for a product of this kind. As if that's not enough, then then offer an upgrade from this to GVI when it comes out for $100, AND (I emailed them to check about this and they confirmed it for me) you will be allowed to run your original GS3 on a separate computer from the GVI one after upgrading.

    This would seem a perfect solution for you: for $229 total you'd have a license for GS3 Ensemble and one for GVI, you can run them on separate PCs if you want to expand, or decide which you like best. This is almost certainly less than GVI will cost on its own normally, and if you decide you really need the eight ports or full Gigapulse, you can always upgrade your Ensemble license to Orchestral.

    You can't get serious sampling technology for less money than that these days.

  8. #8

    Re: Standing on the edge, about to jump to GS3!

    Yeh! I second that GS3 ensemble is the best bang for the buck, GS3 Solo is too limited 96 voice poly. is not enought. The only limitations compare to the full(GS3 Ochestra) is that you are limited at 160 voice poly. witch should be enough. Giga pulse is very limited in ensemble but you're not interested + i find it to be CPu hungry and GS3 is unstable when i use it. BTW you can use SIR, a free impusle reverbe that sounds really good. The other limitation that i see and it's the only one that makes me look at GS3 Orchestra is that you're limited to 1 rull(only) by instrument. Rull are some sorte of script(as in Kontack) that you apply to the samples(legato, round robin, DEF ect.). So you can not have let say DEF and Portamento at the same time, unless it's imbeded in the sound as in Sonic Implants lybrary. So I'm with Ouch on this one, go for ensemble and if you really miss those rulls then upgrade to GS3 Orchestra. And as Ouch said, you be able to upgrade to GVi(witch is a VST version of GIGA) for 100$ when it gets out and keep your GS3 ens. licence. So it's a no brainer i think.

    P.S. I didn't know you load 1.2 Gb with 2GB Ram, I'll have to look it up. And your mono story is very attractive this morning, i wonderhow it would sound with Sonic Implants? Ouch! DId you try it?

    Thanks.

  9. #9

    Re: Standing on the edge, about to jump to GS3!

    Quote Originally Posted by VincePro
    Thank you for your replies...Jon, I completely agree with what you said in regards to the fast load times..That would help a lot. When you say that GS3 is slightly more taxing than GS2 when it comes to the CPU, what area of performance are we talking about exactly?...
    I think that GS3 uses a bit more CPU than GS2.5 for straight polyphony. I don't know the exact amount, but maybe 50% more. Still, the hard drive is the primary limiter.

    Reading your first post again, it's not clear what your system is. You list Pentium and AMD. In any case a 2100+ AMD or 2.1GHz Pentium is probably strong enough to cope with everything your hard drive can supply.

    And I agree with what people are saying about Ensemble. It's a great deal with a nice GVI upgrade path.

  10. #10

    Re: Standing on the edge, about to jump to GS3!

    Thanks for the advice...So it looks like my current computer is fine...I think it's a Pentium MB with a AMD XP 2100 CPU. I will max out the ram to 2 GBs..If the hard drive is the limiting factor, am I alright with the current 7200 RPM Western Digital or will getting a higher RPM drive give me a major boost in performance?

    Good suggestions on the upgrade path, quick question...Let's say I get the orchestral version with unlimited polyphony, what appears to be "possible" performance wise with that version? If someone had a top end system, could they get say...300 voices? less? If getting the orchestral version and a top end system would still only get me 180 polyphony or so, then ensemble seems like the better deal...

    I would rather spend the money to have one super powerful GS3 computer that is the equivalent of several weaker computers running GS3, but it doesnt seem like current technology makes that a possibility...The RAM is still too limited on a single system, as well as current hard drive speeds...am I correct? Thanks a lot guys.

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •