I am attempting to run Cubase smoothly.
I am unable to cut a second section of tracks.
Ex: I have recorded 4 tracks, and am ready to record the next 4.
I am using an i3 core and 16g. I know it isn’t the “best” ~ but…
Would it help to reinstall cubase?
It doesn’t seem to matter if I am running at 32 and 192.
I am using the UR824 and the CC121. I am only running the neve plug ins and 1 reverb.
I have seemingly tried everything
Any thoughts?
Please help!
SOS
It doesn’t seem to matter if I am running at 32 and 192.
What do you mean by this sentence…not quite sure what you’re saying but if you ARE running 32/192 then you’re asking a lot of a lower specced machine.
You should run resplendence latencymon and see if that throws anything up and give some more info…specifically, your o/s and the buffer size you’re working at.
Thank you for replying.
Well, how about I shift the question to ~ How powerful of a computer do I really need to run Cubase at 32 bit and 192 khz.
I am attempting to record separate chunks of tracks at a time, at least 20 tracks.
SOS?
I ran the latency check and every thing is very green, and low, there are no spikes.
The signal is just dropping out for the second chunk of tracks (5-8) if you will.
?
Don’t take this the wrong way, and I apologise if I misunderstand you, but I have a feeling you don’t know what you’re doing 
.
32-bit 192KHz is the most demanding way of recording on your system, and unless you are into professional movies or some other very specific task, you really shouldn’t use it. 24-bit 44.1KHz is perfectly fine for most musicians and will allow you to run many more tracks without problems on a low spec machine.
I don’t think anyone can really answer your question, as it depends heavily on what plugins you use etc. 16GB RAM is plenty, that shouldn’t hold you back. the CPU is your bottleneck.
Well, I am just attempting to use the Rupert Neve Comp and Eq in addition to a single reverb on each channel, and it won’t let me do it.
If I use no plug Ins, IT WORKS, but that isn’t going to get the job done ya know.
I did a number of tests: ~~ I cut 24 tracks, and then tried to put on the plug ins (just for post mixing), just 3 per channel, it wont let me do that either.
I have to disagree with cutting at 44.1 or even cutting at 48 or anywhere near that, as cd’s end at 16 and 44.1 and dvds end at 48. You still have to go through quantization per a master, or any other outlet. You really WANT to double down, not double over! 
It still does the same thing at lower rates. Strangely, it won’t even let me cut a track at 44.1 and 16.
Perhaps the CPU is the answer, but I mean I can’t seem to do anything past the initial tracks, while using plug ins.
Why oh why are you recording at 192kHz/32bits? There is no reason to do it.
Hey guys,
If the OP wants to run at that, that is their prerogative. We are all entitled to record at whatever we want. That is NOT for you to badger them about it. If is a psychological problem for you to help them if they do, rack off, and let someone else help.
Perhaps it would be better to focus on the issue, which is that, beyond the initial channels, it’s NOT working at ANY sample rate with those plugins, whereas it does at the required rate without them!
@SeaofSound, what Neve plugins are you using? There are several available from different makers, including for the UAD cards (where they run internally at 192k).
Nonetheless, up to how many can you load of what you have, when adding one at a time?
sounds like the plugins are the problem… but @ 192Khz you will run into problems as you add more. so even if you get plugs that like 192Khz you will severely limit the amount of plugins you can use during mixing.
To kind of answer your initial question, you will need a very powerful computer, setup really well to get good usage at that samplerate.
Upping the buffer size may help for a while.
Yes. We will need to wait until we know what make they are, as until then, we have no idea of how much resources they use, nor of any specific issues they have.
I would suggest leaving the issue of recording at 192k completely off the table here, as it is only likely to generate irrelevant arguments, and while it may ultimately limit how many plugins can be used on the machine, it does NOT appear to be relevant at this stage.
Let us keep our eyes on the OP’s prize rather than our own preferences/prejudices.
OP: “Well, I am just attempting to use the Rupert Neve Comp and Eq in addition to a single reverb on each channel”
Those comps and eqs are not particularly heavy on the CPU and shouldn’t be be a problem on four.
Depending on what reverbs he is running, one on many channels could be problematic too…
24bit audio already comfortably exceeds the dynamic range of human hearing with plenty of headroom spare - why would anyone want to record in 32bit?
32bit uses floating point arithmetic, and has a 24bit mantissa (accuracy) with an 8bit exponent (scaling). So it has the same accuracy as 24bit fixed, but is more accommodating of level variations.
It is used internally in Cubase, and its advantage is that it is almost impossible to overload a channel. This makes it suitable for prosumers as it doesn’t require precise gain staging, though that is advantageous for metering.
It is converted when interfacing to:
a) ADCs, which are typically 16/24bit fixed.
b) DACs, which are typically 16/24bit fixed.
c) Files that are NOT 32bit floating.
So, you have learnt something new today!
I get that, but I’d be VERY surprised if Cubase (or any top DAW) didn’t do full 32bit FP summing internally - so I still don’t get why people would want to slow down their machines and waste disk space for nothing. Anyone “professional” enough to require top-end sound quality will have their channel levels sorted! 
Storage is cheap enough for the extra 30+%, and SSDs easily handle it.
The only place where this is all relevant is for writing audio files. Fixed point is TOTALLY UNFORGIVING of overloads, so it makes it difficult to maximise levels without risking overloads. The only way to guarantee never exceeding full scale is to put soft-knee limiters on each channel output, and that would sap performance.
For very little net performance loss and cost, a HUGE risk is taken off the table. Gain staging is then NOT critical, but just a help for metering, rather than an essential fastidious engineering task. Certainly makes it easier for hobbyists and the less technically inclined.
There may not even be a performance loss. Since Cubase uses 32bit internally, using the same for the files means that no conversions have to happen on the fly, which may save some CPU.
Samples tend to be fixed, as they have been optimised for levels already, so they can benefit from the aggregated space savings.