What's new

DAW Performance Test Results

rlw

Rod Wilson
That must sound awesome.

Maybe a couple more PC satellite computers? I'm down to three, but it helps a lot. Raises complexity in other ways of course.

Mixing on, and monitoring through, a separate PT Mac also helps since the DAW computer isn't suddenly taxed with mixing and recording tasks on top of everything else.
John, I really like the sounds I am getting for the SF Orchestra. I am really much happier wth SF brass now than before the extention. It is so much more improved. I really used the Cinebrass alot before I acquired the mic extentions. My only issue is that my CPU performance was impacted. I expected the memory to be impacted but I have double the kontakt instances now due to the fact that the extended mics are in a separate session. I have each instrument with all the mics and articulations in one session of VEP. Then I do a shorts track and and Longs Track in Logic. The memory is not hurt with the duplication because VEP and Kontakt use the same samples in memory, but the Midi traffic is multiplied with the setup. I use Artz-id for Switching. That part works great and I created Instruments in Logic that automatically create the VEP session. However, I find after about 20 tracks are recorded, I have to begin freezing and/or having to manually avoid the Live mode. If I had a big gig now, I would choke because my workflow is so badly affected. I was hoping my powerful iMac Pro would give me head room. I run a buffer of 256 and at times 512 buffer. Playing in and recording is limited far more than I like. I am having to compose and record tolerating the cracks and studders that accompany the hot CPU core problem. Once I get out of Live mode for playback everything works great. I do not want to sacrifice the sound of the additional mics for workflow. I am trying to see if Cubase will help my workflow. I know that it crashes alot more and saving time can be a really challenge. I may have to go to an additional slave computer to see if that will lighten my CPU pressure.
 

rlw

Rod Wilson
People with newer macs keep telling me that Cubase is running great for them. I wish one of them would do a comparative test as I have done in order to find out for sure. I have a metal GPU and everything else on my mac increased performance substantially under Mojave...but Cubase10 just runs like a dog...and increasingly so with more tracks added, which means...its probably the DSP that is causing the problem more then anything. Move the DSP to VEP and it runs considerably better, though still not nearly as well as the other DAW's with VEP. We can only speculate what the problem with Cubase is, Steinberg has to be the one to figure that out.

If you want to use Cubase on a mac, my recommendation is absolutely use VEP. It can still be used for workflow reasons, just realize its going to use more CPU then the other offerings. But as long as you can play all the tracks you want to play and play with low enough latency..does it matter if the CPU is pegged to 60% vs 40%? Not really. I could not playback 90 tracks on my system without VEP, but with VEP it could play it..though using a lot more CPU..I don't know when and where it would max out... but it could still be perfectly usable if Cubase workflow is what you want and need! But I highly recommend you plan on using VEP with it.
For sure I am using VEP.
 
OP
Dewdman42

Dewdman42

Senior Member
you have a few interesting dilemmas that makes it not an easy choice for you. Since you are depending on ArtzId, then you can't give up LogicPro unless you're ready to figure out a new solution for articulation management.

Using VEP slaves will definitely help. With the Artzid approach you are probably generally creating a VEP instance for each instrument track, yes? That might be an issue depending on how you have the VEP preference set for threads per instance.

But when you use VEP slaves there will be some limit to how low you can go on latency, not much way around that.

Live mode in LPX can be a PITA, I empathize. What do you have your LPX audio preferences set to for the multithreaded setting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rlw
OP
Dewdman42

Dewdman42

Senior Member
Cubase will not work with Artzid. FWIW.

On my system Cubase performance is really really bad. I will be interested to hear your results with it on your hardware.

I use a large process buffer range mostly. I find that I get dropped midi notes from dense midi tracks without it.
 

rlw

Rod Wilson
What do you have your LPX audio preferences set to for the multithreaded setting?
Here is how I have Logic Currently Set and the memory used. I have 66 VEP sessions on the iMac Pro DAW and on the PC Slave I have 53 sessions. I some times switch Multithreading to Playback & Live when I am trying to record live. But then I go back to just Playback Tracks. The Process Buffer Range seems to work best with "Medium" I am open to suggestions. I don't have Cubase yet to play with but I should have it in the next week.
Cubase will not work with Artzid. FWIW.

On my system Cubase performance is really really bad. I will be interested to hear your results with it on your hardware.

I use a large process buffer range mostly.
I know about Artzid not working. That will be another issue I will need to address. Hoping I can use the expression maps to address articulation change.
 

Attachments

rlw

Rod Wilson
That must sound awesome.

Maybe a couple more PC satellite computers? I'm down to three, but it helps a lot. Raises complexity in other ways of course.

Mixing on, and monitoring through, a separate PT Mac also helps since the DAW computer isn't suddenly taxed with mixing and recording tasks on top of everything else.
John, you have PT on a seperate Mac ? How are you monitoring in real time with the PT set up ?
 

JohnG

Senior Member
John, you have PT on a seperate Mac ? How are you monitoring in real time with the PT set up ?
The sounds leave all four computers and go straight into PT interfaces -- they never return to the DAW. The DAW hosts some sounds and runs all the midi.

John, I really like the sounds I am getting for the SF Orchestra. I am really much happier wth SF brass now than before the extention.
Me too! Though I still use other libraries, Spitfire is my most-used one today.

The rest of your workflow sounds pretty frustrating. I agree about the mic positions. I don't use as many as you, but I like a lot of them.
 

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
How quickly we go from being youthful agents of change to the last of a dying breed...

*Sigh*

What were we talking about again? :cool:
Young man, you need a pep talk!

We're still youthful agents of change! Aren't you better at everything you do than you ever were?

My dad's still at the top of his game at age 90. That's my inspiration.

What were we talking about again?
 
OP
Dewdman42

Dewdman42

Senior Member
Added Reaper5+VEP test. (see first post)

This may come as a shock to some Reaper fans out there, but it did not outperform everything else. It did better then Cubase+VEP of course, and slightly better then DP+VEP, but worse the Logic+VEP and StudioOne+VEP. Just a few percent difference, nothing to write home about.

I did not change any default audio settings other then the buffer size related to performance, but most of the DSP should have been in VEP in this case anyway. If Reaper experts provide other suggestions I will be willing to run the test again.

Later I will do a Reaper5 test without VEP. To be honest it was quite laborious to setup this test with VEP compared to the other DAW's the midi channel and port assignments was a P-I-T-A. It will really take me a long time to setup a test without VEP, so one of these days I'll get to it, but not today.

In case anyone is wondering I used the VST3 version of VEP plugin in order to continue using a single VEP instance just like the other DAW tests.
 
Last edited:
OP
Dewdman42

Dewdman42

Senior Member
i also notice something else, even though the average CPU difference is only say 3-4%, if you look on the graph, the gap looks more like 10%. So the average figure may be reducing the severity of the difference. In other words, looking at the graph there are many places with wider gaps between them in performance then the "average" would indicate.
 

CQrity

Member
How does your workflow with setting up Reaper for this test looks like? Maybe we can give some tips to save you time.
Like:
Use the routing matrix to quickly route everything. Start with one instrument/section, whatever is needed. Route it accordingly, save it as a track preset with Kontakt on the "instrument track" (Reaper doesnt has something like that, I just reference it that way to make clear which track I am writing about) and just load it as many times as needed. Just load up the instruments in Kontakt and be done.
 
OP
Dewdman42

Dewdman42

Senior Member
You would have to give me exact and precise step by step instructions as I have no experience with reaper and I don’t find it to be an intuitive program at all. It took a lot of googling just to figure out how to get reaper to “map” vst3 ports and channels to use the routing button and so forth. VERY unintuitive and extremely pita. Give exact instructions and I will try
 
OP
Dewdman42

Dewdman42

Senior Member
Just ran a test using the new AU3 version of the VEP plugin. WOW! Performance beat every other scenario. See new graph on first post of this thread. LogicPro+VEP-AU3 is the new high performance scenario.. and by a lot.
 

Shad0wLandsUK

Senior Member
In the past and I don't know if it is still true, Cubase does better on PC than on Mac.
I found the performance meter was double on macOS compared to Windows 10 for me :(
Have sinced moved 100% to Windows now

Though I do have Logic Pro X projects still, so Logic will be staying on my Mac Pro 2012 :)
 
Top Bottom