Cubase not using extra CPU cores for plugins?

If the white papers written by Dan Levry himself weren’t enough, then I simply have nothing else to add. I do truly wish you the best with your CD release, as I’m sure it was produce with the utmost care.

Good luck!

P.S. Just wanted to add that I did do a project at 192 KHz long ago, when I first got my RME FF400, and quickly realize what I have been saying here (that it is a waste of resources and marketing snake oil).

Sorry about that, Mr Roos. My system didn’t have any problems with this, so I also assume that that Core Parking tweak you performed must have had something to do with it.

If the white papers weren’t enough… enough for what? To convince me to trust a white paper and not my own ear? Is that how you make creative decisions in your own production? By reading white papers and doing what they tell you to do? Like I clearly said above, I cannot detect any different in the quality of the recorded sounds at 44.1kHz vs 192kHz on my converters. The only benefit I can hear is possibly some plugins sound better. Dan Lavry himself even says the difference should not be detectable - and that there “may be increased distortions” with 192kHz. If there are increased distortions, they are negligible. ALSO like I stated above, doing these projects at 192kHz was an experiment. I do not feel it has hurt anything at all. Is any possible benefit worth the hassle of added CPU cost? I’m not sure… Probably not… but it was interesting to try this whole thing, and it certainly didn’t hurt the sound.

By the way, you never addressed my question above. Why do you think some plugins manufacturer’s such as Universal Audio upsample their plugins? For fun?

As far as your wishes for my release and your sarcasm about it being produced with care… What’s with the attitude? I don’t agree with you so you post something sarcastic regarding the success of my record?

By the way, you never addressed my question above. Why do you think some plugins manufacturer’s such as Universal Audio upsample their plugins? For fun?

I know I’m not who you were asking but my take:
Obviously because they feel it gives some improvement in quality but perhaps partly because it’s good for marketing and to stay competitive when every other manufacturer is doing it?
Many plugs supposedly do sound better upsampled, but for me and I’m sure the majority of users in home mix environments it’s barely noticeable if at all.
Steven Slate posted on Gearslutz that when using his own plugs VCC (I think…or VTM) on a mix recently he had concluded that it actually sounded better to him with oversampling switched off. (in that instance at least)

As far as your wishes for my release and your sarcasm about it being produced with care… What’s with the attitude? I don’t agree with you so you post something sarcastic regarding the success of my record?

I didn’t see any sarcasm or attitude in that statement, he really is wishing you luck…which makes your response look very ungracious!

There can be down side as well as an up side to upsampling.

Hi guys,

I am coming back to the original topic: Multi core support.

Cubase can use Multi Processor systems since Cubase VST 5.x and Cubase 6 is capable of using Multi Core systems in a very efiicent way.
But the used VST Plug-Ins also need to be able to use Multi cores/ processors. Many most popular third party VST Plug-Ins are not able to use Multi cores in an efficient way. I don’t want to blame on them, but in the year 2012 where DAWs normally have at least 4 cores, this is a pity for the user.
Steinberg has made a very impressive step into the future and developed an awesome feature in the HALion 4.5.
The HALion 4.5 is capable of using Multi core systems in an awesome way.

The core parking issue should not be a problem today, if you just activate the “Steinberg Audio Power Scheme” in Cubase and the Multi Processing [Devices/Device Setup/VST Audio System].
You can also just deactivate the energy save mode of the CPU in your mainboard Bios (AMD Cool’n Quiet; Enhanced Intel Speedstep (EIST); Enhanced Halt State; C1E).

And I want to add that it’s not a good idea to enable/disable Hyperthreading, unless you prepare to spend a day or two reauthorizing your softwares…


You have taken all of my comments very personally when all I’m doing is trying to help. I do apologize if it seemed like I was attacking you but, I promise you, I wasn’t. I was simply having a friendly discussion. At the end of the day, what matters the most is that you’re satisfied with the end results, and that seems to be the case here.

My wishes towards your new CD release are genuine, and were not meant to be sarcastic in any way, shape or form. No attitude intended either. Like you said, we simply don’t agree and I’ve already accepted that. I’m not sure why you still want me to answer your questions if you’re simply going to dismiss them, just as you did with Dan Lavry’s papers (and he’s a respectable figure in the audio industry). If he wasn’t able to persuade you, then much less myself. That’s all I meant to say with the comment you quoted above. No need to read between the lines.

Well, that’s all I have to say. Take care!

If you were just being helpful and there was no sarcasm, then I am sorry I misunderstood, and thank you for the good wishes!

You say I just dismiss Dan Lavry and you. That is not true. I have made no claim of better sounding recordings. I have only said that the only benefit I can see may possibly be that “some plugins may sound better - others do not sound any different”. Also, there are MANY plugin manufacturer’s that upsample. You honestly think it’s more likely a marketing ploy than for technical reasons??? Some of them don’t even talk publicly about it - you have to read into depth to find this information. Isn’t it really YOU that is dismissing MULTIPLE MANUFACTURERS, AND me by still refusing to answer my question from earlier? Others here have even answered it for you. I have asked it 3 times now, and yet you refuse to even acknowledge it. Here it is again: Why do YOU (Jose) think some plugins manufacturer’s such as Universal Audio upsample their plugins? For fun? Before you accuse me of being dismissive and defensive… Why are you so resistant to even share your opinion on this question/subject? It “appears” that you are just ABSOLUTELY against even the slightest possibility that there is ANY benefit whatsoever to 192kHz. In reality, it’s much more of a grey area… And there may be some tiny benefit. I have heard it, and apparently many other plugin manufacturers have heard it as well. If you and Dan Lavry cannot hear it, I don’t know what else to say. I will agree though with you in this regard - it is a small difference (so if it’s worth the CPU cost or not is debatable).

Upsampling is interpolation, it adds samples which never were sampled but calculated, so it basically alters what there is and does not want to reproduce more accurately, but process.
Higher sample rate is something else. It wants to reproduce more accurately and doesnt.

Exactly… upsampling aims to “process” differently - possibly more accurately. Also, when working natively at 192kHz, any plugins that would normally “upsample” to 192kHz no longer have a need to upsample. Funny that everyone will acknowledge this question of mine except Jose… and yet he is the one that accuses me of being dismissive.

It can NOT be more accurately. Upsampling possibly adds information to the sound which never was there. In fact upsampling means processing LESS accurately.

There is no NEED, never ever. Unless the plugin want to sound different (not more accurately!) than it would without.
A plugin might even upsample to twice or four times the sample rate it oparates. If it doesn’t, it probably sounds different to when not upsampling. Probably plugins don’t upsample when running @ 192 simply due to CPU stress, so they really sound different to how they’d sound @ 44.1 with upsampling. However, they’d sound the same @ 192 with upsampling, so there is no need to run it @ 192, it just stresses your system.

Show us your proof please… Dan Lavry only addressed the accuracy of “recording” at 192kHz, but nowhere in his paper did he discuss “processing” at 192kHz. Please provide proof of this claim.

Once again… please provide some kind of proof… Here is a quote below from Universal Audio’s website regarding upsampling. Maybe you can PROVE they are incorrect for us all here.

Here is the link - or see the quote below: UA WebZine "Plug-In Power" May 06 | The Neve 1073 EQ
…like the Pultecs, the UAD Neve 1073 upsamples incoming audio to 192k in order to get the resolution the numerics required to accurately emulate the filters. Due to this upsampling, a single UAD-1 can run only 5 mono or 3 stereo versions of the UAD Neve 1073. Because of this, we decided to design the UAD Neve 1073SE, a less DSP-intensive version that does no upsampling. The 1073SE gets 16 mono or 15 stereo instances on a single UAD-1 card.

I am assuming though that you have some kind of irrefuteable proof that this is incorrect? If so, please share!

DId it help?

It’s weird… I am now having some kind of problem even loading multiple instances of Reverence. I have one instance active. I copy and drag to another FX buss… it works fine. Then I try to copy that one and drag to another buss, and it refuses to copy! Nothing happens! Very strange! It’s almost like Cubase refuses to load the plugin. It’s weird because there is plenty of CPU left. I believe you are correct, but that there may be some kind of bug with Reverence here…

I even closed the project and reopened… Same thing. Cubase will only allow me to create 3 instances of Reverence for some reason.

Reverence is not about CPU, it´s about RAM IIRC. You´re not mentioning anything about your system though…

Hmm… maybe my RAM is maxed because of the 32-bit limitation.

Here are my system specs:

Intel X5690 Xeon Processor - 6 cores (each runs at 3.46 gHz) - hyperthreading currently disabled
24GB of Ram
Windows 7 64-bit (running Cubase in 32-bit mode because of compatibility with some of my plugins)
System drive is SATA, 7200rpm
Audio drive is SAS, 15,000rpm
I am running 3 monitors simultaneously on a Matrox 9140 graphics card
I have one single UAD quad card installed
I have two RME AES (PCIe) cards installed

jBridge is 15€

Your system is yawning with Cubase x32, even when it sounds tight @ 192

I have never used jBridge… it works pretty well? I assume it works with UAD plugs also?

Demo it?