This past weekend I had planned on getting caught up with J2I hosting duties as we've had numerous new submissions, and I wanted to catch all the sets I haven't yet heard before we rotate them out. However, with the radio server being down, I instead decdided to re-install my copy of Fusion and get down to the business of trying to figure out how to apply all my Pro6 mix techniques with Fusion.

Overall, I have been quite pleased with the results I've been getting. There are some things that are cumbersome, some features that seem to be missing entirely and some annoying little quirks that really should be fixed, but all in all, I think it's well on its way in being able to take up the Pro6 challenge. Not entirely there yet, but it is obvious that it will get there soon.

However, I've come across a strange CPU utilization issue that I cannot possibly believe is normal. My machine is well above the recommended minimum and the nature of the issue is such that it "smells" of some sort of bug.

Within my overall consulting practice I specialize in the custom construction of high-end small business servers and specialty workstations. My particular studio workstation is a custom system with a high-end Dragon motherboard, AMD 2600+ Thoroughbred CPU (equivalent to about a 2.9 ghz Pentium), 1.2 gig 333mhz ram with ATA 133 HDDs and a Delta 1010 LT PCI sound card. The system has been working spectacularly over the last several years with Pro6 for both live performance and my studio work. The average CPU utilization in Pro6 has always been about 20-25%.

After downloading and installing the latest version of the software (7.0.8), I breezed through all of the tutorials and was about 50% into mixing a set, being pretty excited about all the new effects, when suddenly I got to the 7th selection in the set and the program started having problems processing the sound files--pops, clicks, and overall stuttering performance. However, I wasn't doing anything that should have caused performance issues. I hadn't even added any effects tracks to the 7th track yet. So, I brought up the task manager and noted the CPU cycle utilization was at 100%.

So, I started troubleshooting the issue. The crazy thing about this issue is that I had forgotten to enable my ASIO sound driver for the 1010LT through the advanced setup options in Fusion. It was already set to WAVE output. When I enabled the ASIO functionality, the problem got even worse. So, then I checked my driver version for my M-Audio Delta 1010 card, noted that I was one version behind, then downloaded and installed the latest driver. Still no better. Than, I upped the DMA latency from 256k to 2048k and that didn't help either. The only way I could get through the 7th track selection without the stuttering performance was to set the audio output to WAVE and then set the playback response all the way to the left side to reliable. But, the software was still utilizing 85-95% of the CPU cycles even at this setting.

So, then I knew something had to be wrong beyond simply some deficiency in my hardware, and I decided to watch the CPU utilization for the entire set from the beginning. This is where it gets interesting. Until Fusion gets to the 6th track in my set, it is only averaging a 25-33% CPU utilzation. When it gets to the 6th track, for some reason it suddenly jumps up to near 80% and then on the 7th track climbs to 100% CPU utilization and can no longer perform properly. Within the first 5 tracks of the set, I added multiple effects to various sections of the tracks and I experienced no issues. Then suddenly CPU utilization jumps to near max capacity for seemingly no reason. That's very odd behavior.

There is obviously something going on here beyond simple hardware mechanics. Perhaps Fusion has some problems with certain type of encoding in mp3 files? I don't know. But it is very odd, and it is not something that's going to be resolved with fiddling around with the hardware.

Aaron, anyone? What's going on here?

Thanks!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tepmix,

Ok, well, I realize one thing that I had done to these particular tracks that did affect the CPU utilization a bit--raised the key a semitone. That seems to require a bit more processing power. However, even when I reset the keys to their original modalities, these particular tracks are still utilizing about 50% more of the CPU cycles than the other tracks in the mix, even when playing by themselves. Furthermore, the reduction in CPU cycle use by playing in the original keys does not reduce the use significantly enough to play both tracks properly during the transition (intro/outro) between the two. And, of course, I need to be able to make track key adjustments here to properly harmonize with the mix anyway, so that won't help no matter what.

I've now also tried re-converting the tracks to a different bitrate with my mp3 converter--still no luck in reducing the CPU cycle usage. It remained the same. I haven't been able to figure out what's different about these tracks that would cause them to behave so differently from the rest of the tracks in the set. These 2 particular tracks came from my emusic.com subscription service and Ultra Records online store directly. But, the previous tracks in the mix were also from the same sources.

Very frustrating.

Hi Tim,

When using the Task Manager and going to the "Processes" tab, what process name is using up the CPU cycles?

I have seen "svhost.exe" go through the roof in the recent past, but that was because there was a bug in "Microsoft Update" (not "Windows Update").

There was a strange interaction between Microsoft Update and Office 2003. So I finally disabled Microsoft Update and the problem went away.

Tepmix,

This is not something I have ever noticed on my machines (one XP SP2 one Vista Dual Core), I'd suggest you raise a ticket with Support and let them work it through with you.

R.

Thanks Wildr, I've already done that. Aaron's on the problem. I would imagine that you wouldn't notice this with a brand new Dual Core processor. It would probably handle the usage cycles. However, I'm wondering, if you bring up your task manager and watch your CPU cycle utilization during an entire set, if you notice a doubling of utilization with certain MP3s (not up to 100%, but a doubling nonetheless over other tracks). Perhaps not, depending on the files themselves and how they've been encoded (which software was used, perhaps?). But, it would be interesting if this can be correlated in some way. That sort of behavior should not be occuring when there is nothing else going on that would indicate it. The consumption of hardware resources should be consistent in behavior within the use of the software.

Thanks!

Thanks Edgy,

I already have Microsoft Update disabled on my system. I've never used it. I download all my patches directly from MS and install them by the traditional MS Qchain process. Qchain is an administrator tool whereby one cues all the patches for automatic install via a batch file, usually called "qchain.bat." So, that process has never ran on my system and was immediately disabled after installation of XP. This is much faster, easier and less annoying than the MS online update process. A qchain batch file typically looks like this:

@echo off
setlocal
set PATHTOFIXES=C:\hotfixes

%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB908531-v2-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB911280-v2-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB911567-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB912812-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB913580-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB914388-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB914389-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB916281-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB917159-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB917953-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB918439-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsMedia9-KB917734-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB917422-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB918899-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB919007-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB920213-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB920214-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB920670-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB920683-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB920685-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB921398-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB921883-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB922616-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB922760-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB922819-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB923191-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB923414-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB924191-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB924270-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB924496-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB923689-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB925454-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB926247-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB926255-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB929969-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\StepByStepInteractiveTraining-KB923723-x86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB918118-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB924667-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB926436-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB927779-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB927802-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB928090-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB928255-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB928843-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB925902-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB930178-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB931261-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB931784-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB932168-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB931836-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB923980-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB923694-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsMedia6-KB925398-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB916595-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB920872-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB917344-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB900485-v2-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB911562-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M
%PATHTOFIXES%\WindowsXP-KB887472-X86-ENU.exe /Z /M

endlocal

Tim,

Using Vista, just about any prog that's CPU intensive (Such as Paint Shop Pro for example), shows a dramatic increase and drop off repeatedly - however the same is not true of XP.

Therefore I put this behaviour down to another Vista quirk, even when it occurs within Fusion.

I've got a set of usage meters built into the sidebar on Monitor 2, so it should be easy enough to see what's happening - however most of my music has been ripped & encoded using Creative Mediasource (which I believe uses lame), so I doubt if I'd see much difference.

In order not to publish tracklistings etc, I wil probably contact you by PM once I get chance to do this and let you know the results.

The only time I see continuous high level CPU usage (80%+), is when there are several FX in use - unfortunately some of the VST effects do seem quite CPU intesive.

Good to know that Aaron's team are on the case, please publish their response (I'm fairly sure you would do anyway, given how conscientous you are with other matters here!), as I'm sure other users might find it useful.

R.

Tepmix,

Get ProcessMonitor from the Sysinternals/MS website. Here

Also have a quick read thro this blog from Mark Russinovich Blog

Process monitor will allow you to see in realtime exactly what part of MM/Win OS is causing the problem. Then you can go one level deeper by use using PSlist to see what happening to the various memory pools.
This will help you isolate the process(es) that are causing the high cpu usage.

Thanks,

Most helpful. I'll fire up Fusion again and see what I can determine, once I get it installed again. The problem right now is that every time I install it, the Fusion install is causing my CD-R/RW drive to disappear from my system entirely. So, I've got to figure out why that's happening. If anyone else has experienced this particular behavior, your thoughts would be most helpful.

Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by tepmix:
....the Fusion install is causing my CD-R/RW drive to disappear from my system entirely.....

Yep, I used to get the same thing happening.
See this thread ... maybe this might help.

This problem happened when I first installed Fuson, then again when I updated. However, when I installed the latest update (7.0.8) all was ok. Maybe the problem is now fixed.

hth

Neb.

Ney Neb,

Thanks. I installed 7.0.8. It's probably peculiar to whatever else other CD software has done to the particular system. I use Roxio on XP--an older version that's been so very stable for years, so I'm loathe to change.

I ended up rolling back my system with software restore, so for now, Fusion is on the back burner again. Although I did spend about 20 hours with it. I do like what I see, but the CPU consumption issue has not been resolved (which was the biggest problem, I'm sure I could have worked out the CD issue eventually, but I've no clue on the other). I put in an inquiry, but, have not heard back from MM on what might be causing excessive CPU consumption or how to resolve it. And, to be honest, I just don't have the time to debug the install right now. My system clients are all in peak business mode and I've been swamped with other tech work.

Well, this is at last resolved. After much back and forth with Aaron and Jeff, transferring of files back and forth, etc., the issue of CPU utilization was related to a lack of processing power, specifically as connected to the new key shifting algorithm in Fusion.

--Single CPU systems up to 3.0 GHZ in processing power are barely able to handle a single track key shifted during overlays with unshifted tracks, and once multiple tracks get overlaid and key shifted at the same time, any system in this category is pretty much useless.

--The same is true with the utilization of some of the advanced Ozone effects, etc.

The result will be choppy sound and erratic stability of the Fusion program.

The following platforms were tested and found entirely unable to perform with these more advanced Fusion functions in Windows XP:

Intel Pentium 1.8GHZ, Single CPU--512 Meg Ram
Intel Pentium 2.4GHZ, Single CPU--1 Gig Ram
AMD Athlon XP 2600+ (2.6GHZ Pentium equiv), Single CPU--1.2 Gig Ram (My existing platform at the time)
AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (3.0GHZ Pentium equiv), Single CPU--1.2 Gig Ram

Memory is pretty much irrelevant here--tends to stay pretty much flat. It's the CPU power that matters.

The Solution: An in place hardware upgrade to:

Motherboard: ASUS M2V, Socket AM2
Processor: AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core 4400+ CPU
Memory: 2G DDR2 800mhz ram, Dual Inline
Video: Asus EAH2400Pro PCI Express Video Card
Power Supply: 500 Watt Thermaltake WO100RU

The remainder of my system remains the same (Case, Drives, M-Audio sound), and since the drive controller chipset of the new main board was also VIA (VT8237A), Windows XP booted into the system with the base controller drivers for the existing install (VT8235), which was only 2 generations behind. So, no fresh installation of Windows was required. A manual upgrade (extraction, renaming and recopying to the system32 directory of the Multiprocessor HAL drivers) of the ACPI Uniprocessor driver to the ACPI Multiprocessor driver was required to enable the additional CPU in the dual core.

Now I'm rolling merrily along with an average 20-30% CPU consumption across the board with the new dual core configuration. However, the baseline recommendations that Mixmeister is currently listing for running Fusion (1GHZ Processor) are wildly off-mark for anything but very minimal work, and I would find it difficult to believe that there could be any satisfaction with running Fusion on a platform of that nature.

So, those of you who are having problems with choppy sound, be aware of these limitations on anything but the newer dual-core processor platforms. Check your CPU utilization. If you are frequently hitting 90-100% when you work, you will need to upgrade your hardware to accommodate Fusion's needs.

Thanks,

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tepmix,

Was there any indication whether these system specs were required for Studio as well? Or did it seem to be limited to a greater requirement for Fusion/Video specifically?

Or, was it recognized that certain procedures (track key shifting, use of certain advanced Ozone effects, etc.) would produce difficulties, regardless of whether it was Fusion or Studio?

I ask because, as you recall, we discovered that certain Studio playlists play without difficulties on the lower-powered systems, but at that point in the investigations, it still wasn't clear what the trouble parameters were...

You note that:

quote:

However, the baseline recommendations that Mixmeister is currently listing for running Fusion (1GHZ Processor) are wildly off-mark for anything but very minimal work, and I would find it difficult to believe that there could be any satisfaction with running Fusion on a platform of that nature.

Was there a discussion of correcting those published specs to better assist prospective users in their purchase decisions? I think this thread and the crucial information it offers is going to be of limited visibility for folks in the decision making process.

This is an interesting thread, so I did some simple tests on my system running Fusion 7.0.8:
AMD Athlon XP2500 (1.84GHz)
512MB Ram
WinXP SP2

Fine with 2 or 3 tracks overlaid with 1-2 effects running. CPU running between 5-10%

However, key-shift 2 overlaid tracks by a semitone to we're up to around 75%

Now do something like move the scroll bar in the timeline, and it'll peak to 100%. Actually, even without the key-shifting the CPU usage is really bouncing around if I do anything.

Add a controller to the mix ( ) - I've got a BCF2000 on USB - and tweak a slider or two and that's it .... flatline at 100%. This bit is interesting because I did a live set at a house party a while ago, and the sound was getting fairly course at times. This is probably why.

Time for a hardware upgrade, I think

Thanks for the heads-up on this one, Tim.

Neb.

Yep, that's a 2.5 GHZ in Pentium equivalency.
The speed of your chipset and memory will affect the efficiency of the CPU to a certain extent as well. Utilizing ASIO sound with an ASIO-enabled soundcard makes it even worse. If I downgraded my settings all the way to DirectSound, I could get the stuff to play soundwise, albeit the performance of the visual display clearly still suffering (erratic and jumpy). And, of course, you can't disable the ASIO. Listening to WAV output and Direct Sound once you've used ASIO is almost painful.

However, I just got word from Aaron today that he's working on changing the key shifting algorithm in the code to make it more efficient. So, perhaps this will help others down the road shortly. The next release is coming soon.

Still think it's wise to run Fusion only on a dual core system. Now that I've got my box upgraded, I'm really happy with the Fusion performance. The software, for me now, is actually liberating. So many great things in there--different from Pro, but really quite easy to use once you get used to the differences, and the sound quality in an ASIO-enabled system is just great.

Feeling like a kid in a candy store...

I have fusion installed on an old dell with a celeron processor. Forget about it. I have 1 gig of ram and 400GB external HD. Can't handle it at all. I am looking to get a new desktop but I do not know what to get. Everything comes with windows vista now. I am deff going to get atleast a dual core if not the new Quad core processer. Will fusion run on windows vista even with the dual core processer? or is it not worth trying.