Hello
My name is Francesco and I am new in this forum.
I’m Italian and I do not speak English well. I hope you will forgive my mistakes.
I have Cubase 6 (Full), and I have a Mac 8 core (2 Xenon 5400, 3.8 GHz - last 2008) with Snowleopard. My sound card is the Motu2408Mk3, PCIe-424. Work with the buffer at 64
Before you use Cubase, I used Logic.
I have these problems:
As soon as I open Cubase, the Asio resources shown in the panel, already consumes a 5-7% of the cpu
When I open 35 audio channels, already consumes 30%
If on each channel I insert the VST “Mono Channel” of SSL-Duende (which is a DSP that does not make full use of the CPU) arrival to 60-70%
I have something wrong on my Mac, or even on your Mac, Cubase consumes so many resources?
With Logic (I am not exaggerating) with the same project, consumed 5% of the CPU …
I demand your help …
Yes. PCI-E 424…
I find this of Motu, or i find the drivers of system.
I upgraded to the latest version my cubase and I set the various parameters in order to work with cubase at the best …
Hello and thanks for your screensaver.
I have the settings the same as yours.
My problem is that I can not work with the buffer “so high”. Must be 64. Many musicians, when I did the mix, with all the vst, they want to record new tracks in the same project…
It seems odd that Cubase with the buffer to 64, uses so much resources
OSX has poor performance at low latency compared to properly configured Windows systems - this has been common knowledge for some time. Also, you may want to consider an RME interface instead of MOTU, as RME typically outperforms everything else at low latency (at least on Windows systems).
I’m sorry, but with that many audio tracks etc. your buffer setting is too low…period. What do you mean you can’t work with a higher setting?? Latency would still be unnoticeable at 5 or 6 msec as per Weasel’s images. Why not try it and see?
I always knew (but I could be wrong) that Motu he was having problems with Windows, but Rme and was better under Os Microsoft. Motu, under OSX, worked better
already at 128, some musicians complain…
5ms latency to be honest sometimes it bothers me …
I used the other software of Apple, because he had 2ms latency without burdening the CPU. I do not understand why cubase works differently with the same driver and same vst…
Do you really mean CPU? Or do you mean the ASIO performance meter? If you can playback that many tracks with all plugins processing in Logic at 5% CPU, you have the worlds greatest MAC/Logic setup in history.
If you are talking about having the template loaded, but NOT playing back, then you are probably talking about ASIO performance and not CPU, as neither Cubase nor Logic should show much if any CPU load at rest.
If we are talking ASIO performance, then there are multiple explanations. But, keep in mind that cocoa and/or AU plugs behave differently than VST plugs. For example, VST3 allows for loaded plugins to NOT process when not being used. VST2 plugs are always processing (not entirely true, but enough true for this discussion).
And again, if we are talking ASIO performance, the way Logic and Cubase report ASIO load is different and can’t be compared % to %. They aren’t reporting the same thing.
Are you using plug-ins that add additional latency to the monitoring loop back to the musicians? It makes no sense that the “musicians” are complaining. Why are they getting ANY latency from the DAW? I track at 256ms regularly. Hell, I’ve tracked at 1024 when I had a full 32 ins from a desk. Never had a problem with the musicians.
I have understanding that cubase don’t works correctly with the buffer of less than 128.
If my Motu she had the Directmonitoring option, I would have solved the problem. On the PC is enabled, not in OSX … but the responsibility, as well as of Steinberg is also of Motu and Apple.
Glad to see someone else talking sense about “latency” although 1024 does usually generate complaints but 128 should not be a problem and to say 5ms bothers you, is it really 5ms?
If musicians were bothered by 5ms no one could ever get anything done.
Cubase Performance (F12) is an ASIO load indicator, not necessarily a CPU load indicator. Although there is a correlation.
Logic shows you CPU load. These are not the same thing. And, the two systems measure differently. Plus, AU reports differently than VST. Even within version of the VST and AU SDKs the features for performance reporting/usage are different.
My point is you are looking at a horse and a cow and can’t figure out why they don’t look the same.
The better test is to look at the actual CPU meter (not the one in either host) while playing back a song with similar plugin setup. My understanding is that Logic runs a little better than Cubase on OSX, but OSX is a pig compared to Windows for audio. Almost every measurement I’ve seen comes to this conclusion.
How far away do you sit from you speakers? 6ms is equivalent to 2 meters, so for headphones it equivalent to sitting 2 meters away from a speaker and saying the propagation delay is too much to work with?
There may well be some other factor thats increasing the reported latency?
I understand what you mean. Have you explained it very well
In fact, my problem, without to look at performance indicators, is that the buffer 64 and the number of plug-in DSP with whom I usually work, cubase does not hold up the workload
