Regarding the discussion in another thread about binaural processing, I’d like to raise the following question here: why do I barely notice, if at all, any increase in Pianoteq’s CPU usage when I use the binaural patches? My understanding is that this involves much more complex processing than a standard stereo image, or am I mistaken?
Regarding the discussion in another thread about binaural processing, I’d like to raise the following question here: why do I barely notice, if at all, any increase in Pianoteq’s CPU usage when I use the binaural patches? My understanding is that this involves much more complex processing than a standard stereo image, or am I mistaken?
Interesting question. I'm not sure but for me binaural mode is just a stereo mode with two specific microphones in specific positions (in the positions of the ears), which is probably associated with an acoustic treatement simulating an artificial head located between these microphones. Presets with three, four, or five microphones are certainly more demanding for the processor.
Regarding the discussion in another thread about binaural processing, I’d like to raise the following question here: why do I barely notice, if at all, any increase in Pianoteq’s CPU usage when I use the binaural patches? My understanding is that this involves much more complex processing than a standard stereo image, or am I mistaken?
Indeed I don’t think it is more demanding than standard microphones . Heavy usage , pops and latency issues are more likely to appear when you add external binaural plugins that use heavy convolution (HRTFs) to position a sound spatially .of course the current setup you use is important as CPU is a queuing device which responds hyperbolically to usage . So if you are already in the 50-60% CPU usage zone with standard microphones and if for any reason modeling for binaural is slightly more demanding ( which i am unsure of) , you may notice a difference .