Studio One 3 - Performance in one Gif

[EnGee]

It still performs great with my hardware/software setup. I'm not going to use Mai Tai when I upgrade, so it doesn't make sense why should I care about its performance!

The only difference with some other PCs, it might be the graphic card and/or its driver. I have nVidia external card, so I don't know really if the performance related to this!

However, S1v3 is doing really fine with me. I already installed many macros about chords/scales ..etc from the Exchange server (Version 3 demo has read Version 2 configuration probably) and I already have Battery maps ..etc. So I'm "in" for upgrading but let me see how Windows 10 performs in my PC first (I had a notification today from Microsoft for a free upgrade to Windows 10!) Free?! Why not?

[beatmangler443]

Matching computer components has nothing to do with it. How can, say, Reaper perform better with less CPU load, using identical VSTs in an identical project? It is obviously the case of not properly optimized code in S1, and putting visuals ahead of performance (for one thing). Well, Reaper does do some clever buffering and anticipative processing tricks, it seems S1 crew obviously doesn't think they're important (protip: they ARE important).

I'm sure the talented developers at Presonus will fix the issue. This is the first release, their hasn't been one update to fix bugs yet.

[EvilDragon]

If they haven't fixed the issue back in S1 v2, or v1... what makes you think they will fix it for v3? v3 is not their "first release", far from it. As I said - v3.0 seems more about fluff rather than optimizing performance.

[LawrenceF]

It is what it is. They don't appear to be in a contest for CPU performance so if a person really needs that kind of performance, see Reaper. Otoh, there are many users like myself who couldn't care less about all that... and many others who don't use virtual instruments at all and are chugging away recording and mixing audio.

But I agree, it's not gonna win any 'load up and see how far it goes" cpu contests.

I actually don't think it's "broken", that's just how their audio engine and architecture performs for better or worse. Could they optimize it a bit more for that particular user base now that they appear to more be actively courting that demographic? Probably, sure.

Since Reaper can run a kazillion instruments at low latency, why would anyone who actually needs that even be using Studio One? Does Reaper need to optimize it's workflow or is there another reason why people so often compare their CPU efficiency?

[LawrenceF]

However, S1v3 is doing really fine with me.

Me too. It doesn't compare to performing as efficiently as Reaper for low latency with virtual instruments, but it's a completely different architecture. If it didn't work for people who use it they wouldn't be buying it.

I get the basic "tech nerd" interest in comparing these hosts for cpu efficiency because I too am a tech nerd , but beyond that, it doesn't matter to me as long as I can comfortably get my work done, which hasn't been an issue so far.

If the only point is to continually demonstrate that Justin coded a more efficient audio engine than most, I think we answered that question some years back. He did, Reaper wins the crown.

[do_androids_dream]

Does Reaper need to optimize it's workflow or is there another reason why people so often compare their CPU efficiency?

We've been thoroughly spoilt with Reaper so it does become a benchmark for a lot of folks. I know I compare other DAW's to Reaper (although I probably shouldn't because it always comes out worse).

[LawrenceF]

Reaper is a marvel imo... for performance. I can't say I've personally used anything that beats it's performance at low latency.

If that's all there was, cpu performance, nobody would ever use anything else. A daw is obviously a good bit more than that, overall, so while that thing is obviously very important to some, it's not the only thing.

But imo, Justin did a really great bit of engineering there on the audio engine.

[billcarroll]

Cubase appears to have closed the performance gap on Reaper

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 7&t=439505

More testing might be interesting.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

This is why V3 is un-usable for me, atleast until this is patched. Ableton is known for silly cpu usage yet ive never had this problem before.

Also the crashes... Making this gif, V3 crashed 3 times. Mainly when opening Mai Tai.

Hackintosh, i7 3770K, 16GB memory, SSD's, Not the most amazing computer but more powerful than any iMac or macbook pro.

http://recordit.co/aSzQmKLBLg (<- Gif, Too large to upload here)


Try this for yourself, Open Mai Tai, select Chillwave pad preset and run your mouse through the keys or try 5+ note chord. Watch your CPU spike to 100%

sorry no, the imac 4ghz 4k display with pci based flash is faster than a 3770. Plus, you are using a hackintosh, so that could be the entire problem in this case.

[24MTS]

I've tried something else. On my other available computer I installed S1v3 to compare. This is an Asus laptop, i5-4210U 1.7GHz Haswell, 8GB ram, 1TB hdd.

This worked flawlessly and while the other PC I have, i5-2400, 6 gb ram will eventually choke, with the same tracks and plugins, this will take probably 4-5 times more. Unscientific and I wish I could post some pics here, but I will try to make a proper comparison in the weekend. It seems the newer CPUs, even the middle-low ones, will have a better relationship with Studio One.

To the point, I could play 12 notes of the infamous patch without any glitch or choke, the CPU meter was not so dancing and it was only about 50%. I imagine another 10 notes could've been played...

Now I want to get to some testing!

[EnGee]

I've tried something else. On my other available computer I installed S1v3 to compare. This is an Asus laptop, i5-4210U 1.7GHz Haswell, 8GB ram, 1TB hdd.

This worked flawlessly and while the other PC I have, i5-2400, 6 gb ram will eventually choke, with the same tracks and plugins, this will take probably 4-5 times more. Unscientific and I wish I could post some pics here, but I will try to make a proper comparison in the weekend. It seems the newer CPUs, even the middle-low ones, will have a better relationship with Studio One.

To the point, I could play 12 notes of the infamous patch without any glitch or choke, the CPU meter was not so dancing and it was only about 50%. I imagine another 10 notes could've been played...

Now I want to get to some testing!

Can you write what graphic card each system has?

[crazyfiltertweaker]

I don use the CPU spiking plugins no more! Because it is the bad programming of the VSTs. One of those is Serum. It uses extreme amount of CPU if using Unisono 16. But with FM8 Unisono it is not even 1/16th of that CPU usage as example. Also everything with Jbridge is horror!!!

(And everything from melda, image line, antares in 64 Bit)

All my other plugins work nice with Studio One. It has the best performance ever!

[24MTS]

Can you write what graphic card each system has?

Yep, the Dell desktop i5-2400, 6gb ram, win7 home has the GPU integrated, so it is a Intel HD 2000.

The other one is an Asus laptop i5-4210U, 8gb ram, win 8.1, GPU integrated (HD 4400) but also a nVidia 840M. The system decide which one is in use.

[EvilDragon]

I don use the CPU spiking plugins no more! Because it is the bad programming of the VSTs. One of those is Serum. It uses extreme amount of CPU if using Unisono 16. But with FM8 Unisono it is not even 1/16th of that CPU usage as example.

Wrong. You cannot compare FM8 and Serum even in the slightest, they are completely different plugins. Also, CPU spiking doesn't ALWAYS mean a plugin is badly coded - in a lot of cases it means that the plugin is using some very detailed and CPU-heavy DSP (like Serum is) to sound how it sounds.

So, you're way off base with that statement of yours.

[EnGee]

Can you write what graphic card each system has?

Yep, the Dell desktop i5-2400, 6gb ram, win7 home has the GPU integrated, so it is a Intel HD 2000.

The other one is an Asus laptop i5-4210U, 8gb ram, win 8.1, GPU integrated (HD 4400) but also a nVidia 840M. The system decide which one is in use.

Thanks. I think it is related to that, but not sure of course because it is still a guess.