Just wondering if this is also intense for you guys? I guess a light weight reverb is better for initial tracking stages… I have pretty strong machine 17 2600k 3.4 with 16gb ram, My bare bones temmplated with this loaded sees quite an increase on the load and real time peak… Is this normal with this? Runnin at 192
Waves H-Delay plugin only has sample rate support up to 96 kHz currently, which may explain the heavy processor load and poor performance. However, recording at 192 kHz with plugins is probably going to tax any computer and plugin unless you have the very latest highend interface and computer with thunderbolt or direct PCI connection. I’d probably ask first why are you recording at 192kHz in the first place? 24bit 44.1 or 48 is still plenty good enough for most professionals. Please don’t take what I’m saying the wrong way, but it seems you’re making things hard on yourself for no reason. if maximum quality recording is your thing, I’d at least try it a 96 kHz first and see if your performance improves.
Surely running at 192 means buffer not sample rate…you don’t say what interface you’re using either.
I also just accidentally posted this in your other thread but here it is in the correct place…seems others have similar issues with this plug
H-Delay is heavy resource user. I used H-Delay Long as a test of a recent new system configuration. When I got the highest channel count with an H-Delay on each channel, then the system was fully tweaked. I could never get more than about 30 channels of it. If you look at the specs for the Waves Soundgrid servers, they show how many instances of most of their plugins will run, and H-Delay is in the top 10 for lowest instance count.
192 buffer yes. Interface is Focusrite Saffire 56 / thanks guys.