Login

Look at Cubase vs Studio One Performance

Tips & tricks, working results, technical support

Re: Look at Cubase vs Studio One Performance

Postby kindafishy » Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:06 pm

basaristudios@gmail.com wrote:KindaFishy, i am checking Reaper, the funny thing is, Diva in
Divine Mode MC off uses less CPU then when MC is On. LOL.
Why in the world i can not see al the tracks in the Floating
Mixer, just the Master track and why all track play at the same
time, not like other DAWs only the track you select.
I'm not familiar with Diva so I can't speak to that. I am not a midi guy, so I also can't really speak to the midi capabilities of REAPER either.

I have never seen nor heard what you are describing with not seeing all tracks in the mixer panel. It is possible to collapse tracks that are nested under a parent track, so it's possible that it is just something like that.

Your best bet is to join the REAPER forums and post a couple questions there combined with exploring the program a little bit to see if it might be a good fit for you.
kindafishy
Vip Member
Vip Member
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:08 pm

Re: Look at Cubase vs Studio One Performance

Postby malekmusic » Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:06 am

looks like you did not engange asio guard in cubase. if you turn that on, you will have much more power. all the benchmarks i have seen with asio guard engaged (cubase 8) beats studio one easily.
malekmusic
User Level V
User Level V
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:47 pm

Re: Look at Cubase vs Studio One Performance

Postby basaristudios@gmail.com » Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:35 am

Nope, it is with AsioGuard, knew about it since long ago,
some plugins on asio guard even use more CPU.
Prime Total, Nebula Server 3, Scarlett 3, Amethyst 2, Aquamarine 3, Titanium, Magenta 3, Navy, Sand, Pink, Pink Compressors.
User avatar
basaristudios@gmail.com
Vip Member
Vip Member
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:09 am
Location: New York City

Re: Look at Cubase vs Studio One Performance

Postby malekmusic » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:04 am

It seems i have to check out studio one. Thank you for this.
malekmusic
User Level V
User Level V
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:47 pm

Re: Look at Cubase vs Studio One Performance

Postby enriquesilveti » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:58 pm

basaristudios@gmail.com wrote:
enriquesilveti wrote:
basaristudios@gmail.com wrote:Hey Enrique, both are in MultiCore and both are using 6 Cores.


Intel I7 5820K has 6 CPUs and 12 cores (http://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Int ... o-3_60-GHz).

Leaving one core for OS task should be enough, you should test also with 0 and 2, and measure how good or bad is the thread sincronization in each host.


Sorry, now i am more confused. Or you confused Cores with Threads?
This is a 6 Cores CPU...but anyways, how am i to split the Cores?
Nebula alows this to actually split the Cores in some settings?
I know in Cubase you do not have any option like this.

Edit:
I just checked the link you provided, it is 6 Cores, not 12,
it is 12 Threads which on mine MultiThreading is dissabled as
per Steinbergs own advice. And no Cubase or Nebula do not deal
with Threads but with Cores.


My computer was running 1133 threads while reading your post...
Attachments
i7G4.png
Enrique Silveti.
Acustica Audio customer and technical support.

MBP 11.5 (i7-4870 | 16 GB | 512 SDD)
SP4 (i5-6300 | 8 GB | 256 SDD)
UFX | Lyra2 | USBPre2
VM U15 | VM Win10 | VM OSX 10.12
N4/NAT4 | SPX3 | RX5 | LN2C | Smaart8 | R5 | PT12 | PX10 | NIK5
User avatar
enriquesilveti
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Lodi | Madrid | Buenos Aires

Re: Look at Cubase vs Studio One Performance

Postby basaristudios@gmail.com » Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:39 pm

And now even more confused...we should just forget this i think.
This now has nothing to do i guess with my original request.
All i know is that my processor is 6 Cores 12 Threads...
That's what it also states on the manufacturers site.
My Hyperthreading is off on my PC in the BIOS.
Prime Total, Nebula Server 3, Scarlett 3, Amethyst 2, Aquamarine 3, Titanium, Magenta 3, Navy, Sand, Pink, Pink Compressors.
User avatar
basaristudios@gmail.com
Vip Member
Vip Member
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:09 am
Location: New York City

Re: Look at Cubase vs Studio One Performance

Postby namooz » Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:56 pm

kindafishy wrote:
basaristudios@gmail.com wrote:The pictures speak for them selves, you see how in Cubase you can not utilize your computer power fully, it chokes at 30% CPU Usage while in Studio One its even 30-30 so it shares and spreads everything evenly. With Studio one you get at least double the Effects you can open in Cubase. Time to spend some money.
https://picload.org/image/wrawgla/1.jpg
https://picload.org/image/wrawgll/2.jpg
Recommend that you experiment with REAPER before you spend money on S1. The community is great, and there is a chance that you may find the same benefits over S1 that you just saw between S1 and Cubase. REAPER is incredibly well coded and very CPU efficient. There are a lot of REAPER users here as well.


This is good advise……I experienced the same problems only with PT9. There is a learning curve but it is well worth it. Cheers.
namooz
User Level VII
User Level VII
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:07 am

Previous

Return to Working with Nebula

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], daniddd, Pol Poil and 5 guests