Activate Steinberg Audio Power Scheme

I can’t seem to find the option on my Mac, is this a windows option only?

I’m pretty sure that this is only on Windows 7


I’ve been running my Q6600 @ 3.24GHz (stock cooling) at temperatures of around 70C ever since I got this CPU, a couple of years I guess. I would not recommend others to do this but it has worked fine for me, when, and if it goes, I’ll have a really good excuse to upgrade my system :laughing: .

The Audio Power Scheme is not available exclusively on Win 7, it works on XP Pro as well.



Not all the CPUs are designed to support the same maximum temperature. Besides, more temperature means more noise and more heat for the other components.

The option appears in mine, but toggling it doesn’t make the fan run any louder.

I’ve got XP, so one explanation for all that is that you may be right - Windows 7 only.

(Two other possible explanations, neither one :smiley: : My fan is already so loud that it can’t get any louder, or … my hearing is so bad that I can’t tell the difference).

I like your explanation better.

I tried turning SAPS on and due to bios setting no fan increase but temperatures went up from 58 to 71 (Coretemp) which was a surprise, this makes the chips on motherboard get very hot and was more than I expected from the message I got.
I also assumed wrongly that CPus that used hyper threading would get hotter than my old Q6600 with Win 7.
Turned it off again, as I would need to re bed the chipset heatsinks and put another fan in and turn up Cpu fan, but for the next build it may have to be water cooled, as really it is better to have it on.
As far as I can remember the message that pops up when you intialise SAPS is the same in C5 and C6 but the effect seems very different.
So any more info on how and why would be good.

Waking up this old thread,

I would really like to know what this scheme is doing - this reason for this is that I have found a very annoying squeeling sound that the USB-busses generate when I set the buffer size to minimum on my focusrite interface.

I’ve tried all the different settings in the windows power scheme settings - setting the processor minimum to 100% and so forth.

I’ve also tried to disable speedstep, C1E, C3 and C6 in BIOS but nothing stops this sound. As soon as I increase to 128 samples the sound stops.

BUT - when I today found out about the steinberg SAPS and activated it - the sound disappeared - with the latency at 64 samples - WTF???

What is this setting doing that I havent’t already tried?

And YES - I have also tried the core park setting the max value to 0 - but still no…


FWIW, I have all the fancy Gigabyte power up power down, coast, cruise, whatever stuff turned off in my Bios and anywhere else something like that it can run - those types of external programs are not running on my PC. There are no programs running that are monitoring my core temp. If I want this kind of info I have to go to the Bios on start up. I have my PC set up this way because I have always heard that this kind of thing is just BS technology designed to make you think you are saving energy, or maybe worse, letting you think you are controlling your core or something. It’s stupid stuff, IMO.

Now, when someone says that they engage the SAPS and the fan starts going off the rails I don’t understand this. I have to wonder how little the processor is working normally when it starts to go ballistic when the SAPS is engaged. I just don’t see that any program should cut through the Win7 mire and kick you processor in the coal bucket, so to speak. I mean, how is it you have a PC that is using so little processor power to begin with? You should have it tuned up to the point that you are using some horsepower at idle, that’s what I am saying.

Anyway, when I activate the SAPS in 6.5.1, nothing changes on my PC. Nothing gets crazy, or better or different. Certainly my fan speed doesn’t change. In fact, I don’t use the SAPS feature - it makes no difference on my PC.

All of that said, the advice on the first page of this post was really interesting as it pertains to making some registry edits to get even core usage. I did this edit because I could clearly see that Win7 was taxing my first processor more than the others. I think this info was very helpful PC tuning advice so thank you for this post. :sunglasses: Also, I agree that Steinberg should explain in simple but exact terms just where and how the OS is being altered to give their software a boost. And also why they think C5 is behaving differently than C6 in the OP’s PC. This might be a good read actually. But likewise I think if you have a PC that suddenly gets crazy when the SAPS is engaged, you need to step up your own DAW setup game.

Well in my case something really is happening when I engage SAPS.

I have an audible squeeling sound from mu motherboard when I set my focusrite interface to the lowest latency setting. This sound stops when I turn on SAPS

And believe me - I have trid to alter EVERYTHING in windows and BIOS - turned of c1e, c3, c6, speedstep.

Well apperently I haven’t tried everything *cause when i engage SAPS the squeeling sound stops.

Even if I set the windows “high performance” power scheme to the same settings as SAPS - I still can’t get rid of that squeeling sound. I want to know what is causing that sound and what SAPS does to make it stop.

Turning off core parking didn’t help either

I know this is an old thread. But just to add my 2 cents, it looks to me like SAPS basically switches you over to the same settings as the high performance power plan from which ever you have running. I say that because the settings (in 2013) appear to be identical when I compared them. There is, however, some sort of difference because it is quieter than high performance. I asked support what else is being done besides applying the high performance settings. They said they’ll get back to me after asking their development dept. If that ever happens, I’ll post the answer. BTW, SAPS only runs while Cubase is on, then things revert to previous settings once Cubase is closed.

All I can say is that I no longer worry about either buffer sizes or latency; this is the same computer I built for Cubase 4 ( :unamused: ) and all I heard back then was “it must be the motherboard”, “it must be the chipset”, “it must be Windows”, “it must be your Firewire card”, “it must be your USB controller”, " it must be …" (insert component of choice).

Granted, it now runs Windows 7 x64 and I’ve eliminated all 32-bit plugins (I have that luxury), but the same hardware with only Cubase 7 instead of Cubase 4/5/6 runs like a dream. Go figure.

I’ve recently changed from a quad core 7600 to a hexcore i7. Now on the quadcore, activating SAPS improved the asio performance. On my hexcore the fan noise increases and the temps go up but the asio performance is actually worse.

I’ve left it turned off :slight_smile: Haven’t checked the core parking thing…

I’m alrady on a powerscheme that copies steinbergs exactly so I can’t see what difference there is there…

i never dared fiddling with SAPS, though reading this does make me curious. i’ve always been under the assumption it’s a one way street, ie. once you chose to opt in the SAPS, it does some registry tweaks that aren’t easily undo-able. so i’d thought this was an either-or feature. now it looks like it’s all just a matter of ticking and unticking a box in cubase – is that so? no risks involved then?

thank you for the clarification.

Let’s bump this thread once more: What are save core-temperatures for a cpu?

Got the same problem, with a different audio card… So at least it leads me to think it’s not bout my audio soundcard…

It’s terribly annoying that little buzz, and the more I lower buffer the more treble is the buzz… At 512 it’s kind of disappearing…


4 Years later and still wondering how this works.

My question is:

Should I activate Steinberg Power scheme or not?


Yes, you should. Then, you should go to Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Power Options on your PC and observe what changed.

It’s very similar to High Performance Mode, as was stated above.

Those interested in this thread might want to read the conclusion on this one: