This is really Donnies tip - THANKS Donnie AGAIN!!!
I couldn\'t get past some 80/86 voices. I\'d been following all those \'optimise tips\' with vcache min/maxfiles to 4096 or so. BUT Donnie had it set to some 48000. So I tried putting mine to 50.000 and BINGO, 140 voices without a problem.
I have 192MB and yes, it\'ll eat some memory to add vcache, but it\'ll make a big difference to performance. At least it did here and for Donnie too. It is in system.ini yes... You should see your HD led a lot less on during GS playback (apparently because it caches more of the sample) when you have added the extra cache.
Yup! Works for me too! The vcache should be set to 25% of your RAM. I have 384MB RAM - my vcache should then be 25% x 384 = 96MB or 98304 kB (ie 96 x 1024 - remember vcache is in kB not MB). My polyphony increased from 64 to about 100 (I\'m using PIII 533 with 2 UDMA HDD, Echo Gina, all previously mentioned optimizations applied).
I\'ve yet to try using this setting with digital audio recording. Anybody?
Try this formular, based-on your DRAM:
To determine the best value for your computer, devide your installed RAM amount in MB by 4 and multiply the result by 1024.
In your case (192M) the Formular should be like this:
I have tried setting my vcache to 98304 since I have 384 megs ram. The polyphony does not change. Using the Truan Steinway B, I get about 110 voices of polyphony on 2 different machines, 1 is a PIII 500, and the other is a PII 400. I would think the 500 would give at least a few more voices. I have read how others are increasing their vcache and seeing significant polyphony increases. I would appreciate any suggestions anyone has why I, and probably some others, are not seeing changes when vcache is increased.
There are many different variables that affect polyphony - but as to vcache I suspect the following will hold true:
The more instruments you play simultaneously, the more splits in a particular instrument, or the longer the underlying samples, the less a particular vcache setting will help.
Also, if you play many different notes without repetition (e.g. C3 D3 E3 F3 ...), I think vcache will help you less than playing repetitive patterns like C3 D3 E3 C3 D3 E3.
Its all just a matter of what can fit into the available vcache area and how long it can stay there. Some data are inherently more cacheable than others, so it also depends on the individual instrument.
I would think in Danny\'s case, doubling vcache should show some difference. (Note: see below, this may cause trouble elsewhere). Of course there are other factors determining polyphony, like soundcard drivers, motherboard, hard drive, drive controllers, etc.
In my experience, certain systems will give less polyphony than expected (i.e. when you get 90 voices on an 800Mhz machine), because of suboptimal performance of the hard drive controllers (even if all drives are on separate channels). Sometimes using a plug- in SCSI or IDE card is also not a good idea, since it seems they can add significantly to the effective access/seek time. (I have seen 33ms thru such a card to a 9ms drive!).
In these cases, increased vcache may show significant performance increases, because it is counteracting a problem that crept in somewhere else.
It also seems to me that timing is an issue: if you are triggering multiple instrument notes at exactly the same time, chances are you will strike a lower polyphony limit (at least in my system).
Increasing vcache basically attempts to buffer as much of your instruments in RAM as possible, which is like going back to the RAM-based sampler...
Just a note: increasing vcache also steals ram from Giga, which means fewer available instrument \"slots.\" I.e., it seems that if you assign 25% of ram to vcache, you can only safely load instruments until the GSt memory indicator hits 75% - or face a crash.
[This message has been edited by cc (edited 07-05-2000).]