You are here

Windows XP and large sample libraries.

For anything relating to music-making on Windows computers, with lots of FAQs. Moderated by Martin Walker.

Moderator: Moderators

Windows XP and large sample libraries.

Postby Ozymandias » Sat May 07, 2011 2:30 pm

Hi all,

I'm about to purchase some libraries for a project I begin work on next month. Among them will be the cut-down 16-bit version of LA Scoring Strings (First Chair + Lite) and a few VSL Download Instruments (mostly brass & woodwind - Epic Horns, Flute, Clarinet, Triple Horn, Trumpet).

I have no experience using libraries of this size, so my worry is that XP's 3GB limit won't be enough. The obvious solution is to upgrade to Windows 7 and buy more RAM. :headbang: Unfortunately, this is complicated by a couple of things:

1. I use E-mu Emulator X2 an awful lot for sound design, but it won't run in Windows 7. The cost of upgrading to Emulator X3 (64-bit) and Windows 7, along with adding more RAM would definitely stretch me at the moment. I suppose I could dual boot XP and Windows 7 to continue using X2, but having to reboot to render separate parts might get tiresome.

2. The Windows 7 drivers for my E-mu 1212m card are still in Beta, so I'm not certain how stable an upgrade to Windows 7 would be.

Has anyone had success eking by with XP while using libraries of this size? I understand it very much depends on how many instruments and articulations you're using simultaneously, but any kind of "real world" experiences would be useful. (I should perhaps add that my VST host is Reaper.)

Thanks. :)
Ozymandias
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:00 am

Re: Windows XP and large sample libraries.

Postby OneWorld » Sat May 07, 2011 4:41 pm

What are you using to actually play the samples, as far as I know a lot of software samplers/players use disk streaming so I don't think memory is such as issue?

I am in a similar predicament though, I have both hardware and software samplers/synths and some won't work with Win7 64bit, so I either scrap the old stuff and upgrade or as I often say to myself, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, the Beatles, Gershwin, Cole Porter et all managed with a piano, pen and paper and that didn't seem to affect their creativity, so I reckon I can muddle on with XP
OneWorld
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:00 am

Re: Windows XP and large sample libraries.

Postby Exalted Wombat » Sat May 07, 2011 4:52 pm

OneWorld wrote:What are you using to actually play the samples, as far as I know a lot of software samplers/players use disk streaming so I don't think memory is such as issue?

I am in a similar predicament though, I have both hardware and software samplers/synths and some won't work with Win7 64bit, so I either scrap the old stuff and upgrade or as I often say to myself, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, the Beatles, Gershwin, Cole Porter et all managed with a piano, pen and paper and that didn't seem to affect their creativity, so I reckon I can muddle on with XP

Unfortunately, a lot of the secret of reliable software sample playback is in having sufficient RAM that on-demand streaming is minimised.

Of course, you won't be using ALL the samples in the library in any given piece of music. And computers can be very canny in working out what to cache!
Exalted Wombat
Jedi Poster
Posts: 5701
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:00 am
Location: London UK
You don't have to write songs. The world doesn't want you to write songs. It would probably prefer it if you didn't. So write songs if you want to. Otherwise, dont bore us with beefing about it. Go fishing instead.