I got the cracked version of Kontakt 5. I see I can export patches+samples from a .nki of a library. I have lot of space in my hard disk, so I am thinking about changing some of my NKI's samples (stored in compressed .nkx files at te moment) to ncw or wav.
Does it increase instrument's loading in Kontakt?

Thanks!

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. No one could answer even if they wanted. No big deal, we've all been through learning about Kontakt - it is a trip of despair because you mostly realize what you would really want is not possible or too hard. But to try to answer what you may be actually asking, loading time decreases significantly only when you (batch) resave the patches - nothing else would make much difference (except putting your instrument on an ssd).

 

Oh, compressed .nkx and .ncw is the same. Also older libraries like chris hein guitars use .nkx extension even though inside them are .wav samples, so .nkx extension does not guarantee the samples are compressed.

 

My easy question is
IS KONTAKT FASTER WORKING WITH NKX OR NCW FILES? THERE'S NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO WAYS? THANKS
Don't mind other technical shits please

 

No difference there. Only different between compressed and uncompressed samples. If you have a library in WAV, it is faster to compress it to NCW.

 

Yes but .ncw uses more cpu resources. OP, I new you were going to feel insulted; I apologize. It is just that we see too many questions like these on this forum; don't know what to think about that. Again, apologies.

 

Impact upon CPU is negligible at best Has been tried & tested most users report no noticeable impact upon CPU
When you consider the important aspects as far as Kontakt is concerned such as RAM & Diskspace the conversion to .ncw is of great benefit. Especially when you consider the small disc size of say expensive SSD which is often the way to go.
How many time do you overload the CPU as compared to run out of RAM?
Normally, extensive CPU can be attributed to internal processing within Kontakt itself i.e Number of Voices or Polyphonic effect processing on group level or extensive convolution FX
When we consider the benefits i.e Huge RAM savings, Disk access & faster loading then conversion to .ncw is an obvious choice for the majority of users

 

On HDD compressed .nkx are faster than separated .ncw the more fragmented the drive is. Fragmentation leads to literally more distance between different samples and more access time.

 

Which is another reason to use SSD as although fragmentation normally imparted by file system occurs performance is not affected. Defragmentation a waste of time an actually shortens lifespan? What would the difference on SSD be due to or would there be none?

 

"Defragmentation a waste of time an actually shortens lifespan?" - absolutely true for SSD, but not for HDD. It can actually prolong the lifespan as the moving parts need to move less on a defragmented HDD, especially if the files are big, defragmenting a HDD really helps. If you have a HDD full of samples you only need to do it once, anyway.

 

hi there, I'd have a doubt: I need to chooes between downloading a library in NCW and downloading one in NKX. my questions are:
- which one will take less space on disk (I cannot see the exact dimension now) and why?
- which one will load faster and why?
- which one is loadable in library tab?

thanks.