Digital Performer 10 is now Ableton Live

[machinesworking]

That confirms my testing too! Everyone was telling me live was quite a lot better than bitwig. Really not so. Would be interested to see where studio one comes in, as i found that very good (not quite reaper though)

Live used to be better than Bitwig, 1.0 was way worse than Live even in track count, it's gotten a lot better over time.

I have since read up a bit on reapers pre render system (someone on reaper forum gave a really detailed reply of what the system does) and it is fascinating. I have done a test tonight, re configuring my template to maximise the potential of such a setup - and it has actually improved my performance quite a bit!!

It seems presonus have implemented something similar now, too. So there are a few that have taken the idea (which i think came from Reaper initially)

I'm pretty sure the first DAW to really do the whole prebuffering/rendering thing to save CPU was Logic. Previous to Reaper Logic was the most CPU efficient DAW. I don't think they're all doing it the same way, and it's obvious Bitwig and Live don't really do it at all.
You can change the settings in DP and Reaper though, I don't know about Cubase, Studio One etc.

Very cool stuff. I am still looking at DP - it does look like a great system now. How is the audio editing? Never seen the Zynaptiq algo in a mainstream DAW before. Great move if you ask me.
Love that docked audio editor too!!

Are you in DP full time now?

I started out in DP, then moved to Logic for years, then Live and DP again. Recently I got into Reaper for MPE and VCA faders, but it's trivial to set up MPE in DP. I do like Reaper a lot, probably spent far too much time over the last year customizing it to my tastes, but honestly I think it's clunky to look at for track counts higher than 24. DP's Tracks Overview window IMO is one of the better ones for seeing dozens of tracks in one window.

I'm also not that much of a fan of unnecessarily reinventing the wheel which Reaper does with busses and sends etc. Modular patching GUI for sends?? It's not terrible, it's just not how I would do it.

Anyway yeah I stay in DP mostly for writing, I'm working on a stem creation set up in Reaper, but so far I'm not happy about it. I don't think that's Reapers fault though, I just hate adjusting levels for stems etc.

[machinesworking]

Oh, and then there's note articulations. Logic and Cubase have cool systems for note articulations, that really make it easy as pie to set up etc. Reaper has several script attempts from various end users, nothing looks that great, and that's probably how it's going to stay. DP does not have note articulations, but I'm hopeful when it happens it's smooth, no waiting around for a script writer to come up with etc.

[Kongru]

Would be interested to see where studio one comes in, as i found that very good (not quite reaper though)

[Mies]

So, I've trialled DP10 for the last couple of days.

FWIW and to whom it may be of interest:

First thing first, it's clear to me DP10 is handling plug-ins and reporting their consumption differently from most other DAWs. The RT indicator is not helpful as a comparison point (presumably because the clever Pregen feature displaces potential issues): e.g., where, on the same machine, using exactly the same set of plug-ins, set exactly in the same way, in exactly the same order, using the same exact configuration (buffer size, etc.), REAPER reports >50% RT, DP barely reports 2 or 3%! Which really leaves the Mac's own Activity Monitor, flawed as it is, as the main fair and equal comparison point here.

On that basis, using the same combination of AA plugins and the same configuration as indicated above, DP10 performs better than Logic X, but not as well as Studio One 4 (with maximum drop out protection enabled) and REAPER: the Activity Monitor reports DP10 taking up to 149% of CPU, Studio one up to 135%, and REAPER at ca. 128% (adding more plug-ins more or less scaled up linearly from there).
In addition, Logic and DP experienced occasional drop outs (no matter how much I increased the audio buffer). It's worth noting that all 4 DAWs' bounced tracks were faultless.

Moving now to the DAW itself, it certainly is impressively featured, especially as announced on the MIDI side of things. I think I now fully get the PT comparison: like PT, DP10 tries to cover all angles and -even more so than PT- be everything to everyone. Like PT, this leads to an overwhelming UI at first (a plethora of views and ways of getting to the same result etc.), but nothing that can't be overcome after 30mn of using the tool and judicious googling, the manual despite its length not being a very useful serious source of information.

In summary, DP10 seems to be a supremely well-featured DAW, with a slightly old-fashioned interface philosophy (the new Live-like view -that presents no interest to me in my line of work- put aside) that I didn't mind but didn't find particularly attractive either, and a very respectable but not best of breed performance level under stress.
I'm sure DP experts could optimise to some extent the performance level and I do realise the preferred option is to use the stock plugins that come with DP (I noticed they were very well integrated for example in the mixing view, a really nice touch) but from my perspective and taking into account my personal requirements and toolset, my experience was not promising enough to warrant switching from my combo S1+REAPER.

I'll keep an eye on DP and its revisions though and reserve the right to revise my opinion in the future

[DavidCarlyon]

Interesting. I agree about the interface, though it seems those well versed in DP manage to customise it to their liking.
I do really like the waveform view, though.

[kris.audioplanet]

I have been upgrading it since version 2. I have version 9 and for the first time I will pass.

[machinesworking]

I have been upgrading it since version 2. I have version 9 and for the first time I will pass.

IMO it's the best upgrade since v7. I'm a huge fan of usability upgrades, and the Run Command is worth the upgrade alone. I used Logic for years as well and always wanted Logics search functions in DP's commands list, but this is better.

[machinesworking]

On that basis, using the same combination of AA plugins and the same configuration as indicated above, DP10 performs better than Logic X, but not as well as Studio One 4 (with maximum drop out protection enabled) and REAPER: the Activity Monitor reports DP10 taking up to 149% of CPU, Studio one up to 135%, and REAPER at ca. 128% (adding more plug-ins more or less scaled up linearly from there).
In addition, Logic and DP experienced occasional drop outs (no matter how much I increased the audio buffer). It's worth noting that all 4 DAWs' bounced tracks were faultless.

There are numerous problems with any test done that isn't to failure and your post points it out pretty clearly. We have no idea what machine you have, so is it 149% of a two core? 12 core? All tests not to failure are meaningless because there are dozens of variables on how a computer, DAW, OS, end user etc. comes up with 149%.

The only tests that matter at all with DAWs are to failure, then backed off to stable with no crackles. So take a CPU heavy plug in and run a MIDI note run, copy that track until you get audio crackles or drop outs, back off until it's stable with clean audio. Doing this with the DAWs I have or with full demos I got these numbers using Diva and a fast single note run on a 12 core 3.33 09 Mac Pro:

Live, Bitwig, MPC2 - 8 tracks

Logic - 10

DP9 - 11

Reaper -12

Barring slight differences in the way logic,Reaper, and DP do their pre buffering/rendering this is pretty consistent across the board.
The "modern" DAWs or sequencers are CPU heavy and the others all perform within a 10% or so range of each other. I briefly retested for DP10 a while ago and it came in at 12 tracks.

The other variable is note count, you can get more notes out of these plug ins than I did, but it's all down to the cores at some point. 12 is the magic number on a 12 core for a plug in like Diva that takes 50% of a single CPU with some spikes here and there, the DAW and OS etc. are sucking some CPU up as well etc.

The point is just looking at a DAWs or your OS's cpu meter it's not an accurate representation of the CPU efficiency of a DAW if it's not to failure and backed off to clean audio. CPU performance in a DAW is typically the amount of CPU used by a single processor before it overloads and drops out, get artifacts etc. but you will see the same 45% + maybe 5% reading for two cores used of a six core as you do for 6 cores used, the seventh instance of a plug in typically will bump it to a much larger number.

Sorry, I'm going to keep typing this until the end of time, it's been about a dozen years since I first started looking into CPU use in DAWs and to this day still people run a small set, see different numbers in different DAWs and think it has meaning, and it simply doesn't.

[Monkey Man]

I have been upgrading it since version 2. I have version 9 and for the first time I will pass.

IMO it's the best upgrade since v7. I'm a huge fan of usability upgrades, and the Run Command is worth the upgrade alone. I used Logic for years as well and always wanted Logics search functions in DP's commands list, but this is better.

From everything I've read, I agree M. Will be purchased in June.

Good to see you, bud.

[machinesworking]

From everything I've read, I agree M. Will be purchased in June.

Good to see you, bud.

Hey same at you Mr.
I’m so impatient! Hoping for the inevitable update that enhances the new features!

[Monkey Man]

I can relate, Brother M.

DP always gets there in the end 'though, so never fear!

[antic604]

With a quick dirty test I did recently with Diva, since it's a pig, I could run in each of these DAWs x amount of instances of Diva playing a fast note run:

Live, Bitwig, MPC2 - 8 instances

Logic X - 11
Digital Performer - 12
Reaper - 13

So you were right about Live being a pig, it seams all the 'real time' DAWs are, but I don't know if it's really that justifiable.

Reaper, Cubase, Studio One, DP employ a pre-rendering / dynamic buffering techniques, where all the tracks that are not record enabled are pre-calculated because they're "fixed in stone" so to speak, that's why you can run more VSTs in them.

Those "pig" DAWs as you call them do no such thing, because they invite you to change stuff up on the fly - you can easily swap instruments & effects, presets, order of playback (session view clips), have random automations / LFOs, you can have audio-rate modulations (Bitwig at least), etc. and they'll handle this without a hitch. Try doing something to your arrangement or clips when Cubase or Studio One are playing and they'll immediately stutter, cease playback of some MIDI notes or whole clips, etc. because they're NOT expecting things to change...

So, calling Live a "pig" is a bit misguided - you can't just look at the drawbacks of certain design & implementation choices without considering the benefits and weighting those pros & cons against your use case and needs.

[machinesworking]

With a quick dirty test I did recently with Diva, since it's a pig, I could run in each of these DAWs x amount of instances of Diva playing a fast note run:

Live, Bitwig, MPC2 - 8 instances

Logic X - 11
Digital Performer - 12
Reaper - 13

So you were right about Live being a pig, it seams all the 'real time' DAWs are, but I don't know if it's really that justifiable.

Reaper, Cubase, Studio One, DP employ a pre-rendering / dynamic buffering techniques, where all the tracks that are not record enabled are pre-calculated because they're "fixed in stone" so to speak, that's why you can run more VSTs in them.

Those "pig" DAWs as you call them do no such thing, because they invite you to change stuff up on the fly - you can easily swap instruments & effects, presets, order of playback (session view clips), have random automations / LFOs, you can have audio-rate modulations (Bitwig at least), etc. and they'll handle this without a hitch. Try doing something to your arrangement or clips when Cubase or Studio One are playing and they'll immediately stutter, cease playback of some MIDI notes or whole clips, etc. because they're NOT expecting things to change...

So, calling Live a "pig" is a bit misguided - you can't just look at the drawbacks of certain design & implementation choices without considering the benefits and weighting those pros & cons against your use case and needs.

All that has been the argument for Live being a pig for years, but Reaper proves it's an outdated argument. You can do all those things in Reaper and it still outperforms Live and Bitwig by massive margins. You can even set up Reaper to fire off markers in the timeline with Live/Bitwig style quantization.

MPC2, Live and Bitwig are IMO too costly for what the benefits are, 10-15 years ago coding like that made sense, now it's debatable.

[Resonant- Serpent]

I used the version 9 demo, and it timed out. The version 10 demo won't load and tells me that the demo has timed out when I haven't even used it a day. I'd really like to try and see how stable it is on Windows.

[antic604]

All that has been the argument for Live being a pig for years, but Reaper proves it's an outdated argument. You can do all those things in Reaper and it still outperforms Live and Bitwig by massive margins. You can even set up Reaper to fire off markers in the timeline with Live/Bitwig style quantization.

Yeah, I've seen the videos - it was clunky and awkward at best.

Show me an example where it's more complex than simply replaying sample loops, where you have numerous MIDI tracks with random modulation of parameters, with on-the-fly (and random) switching of instruments playing single MIDI data, audio-rate modulation between tracks, etc.

Sure, I can agree that Live or Bitwig are not smart enough and burn the precious CPU cycles even if the project at hand is a linear playback of simple audio stems, but - on the other end - Reaper can't burn those Cycles if you'd want it to. In the end it's about music I guess - if you need a massively parallel sessions, like recording of bands, where things are pretty much predetermined then you should choose Reaper, Cubase or S1; but if you want your music to contain lots of unpredictable elements, that are roughly defined but never play the same twice and it's more like jamming, then Live, Bitwig or Reason are a better choice.

I really don't care if someone can play 10 instances of Serum and I only 5, when I can do way more interesting things with those 5 instances - at least for my taste in music.