I explained that quite clearly.
How do you know this? Is it documented anywhere?
Exactly - where is the source for this information? Is it valid for the OSX version too?
There has been a mention of optimizations by Fabio. Not sure if it’s in the manual, it would be more a marketing call out or buglist callout than something described in a manual.
I’ve got no experience with c9 on MacOS (as it’s called now)
But besides that I think it’s good for everyone to test for themselves, just like I did. And make up their own mind, rather than just dropping a question and waiting for someone esle to confirm. Or question me, without testing yourself.
It’s not hard to just load your most demanding project and experience that it runs better and you probably can load a few more instances of whatever stuff you are using, that you were not able to load before.
I personally can’t understand how people are happy when a meter either stays under 5% or craps out into the red.
Some more observing people opened topics about that before. That has been fixed now.
IMHO discerned users should discover 2 things in 9:
- The meter scales in a more lineair way, better representing the real workload
- Overal performance improved for the better.
Like Nike says “Just do it!” Rather than looking for marketing confirmation. It’s a great improvement.
Again, I’m talking windows, no C9 MacOS experencience.
The topic title is also wrong, we are not facing lower CPU Performance, we are facing different meter behaviour.
I’m not trying to attack you here, I’m simply trying to gain information on what optimizations have been made in C9 since to my knowledge nothing has been made public by Steinberg. So by your response I gather that this is something that you’ve concluded on your own by your own testing. Nothing wrong with that, glad it’s working for you. Unfortunately, doesn’t help me, especially as we are on different systems.
Yes MacOS is a different platform, I still use 8.x elements on there
With respect, you seem to have extrapolated your own personal experience of asio meter behaviour to suggesting this is what everyone now experiences. This is not sound reasoning, and it is not true. A quick look over the forum will show you that there appear to be a number of different experiences of asio meter behaviours. Nothing in your description of meter behaviours applies to me at this point. I run 8.5 and 9.01 on PC and Mac, and thus far, for me, it is hard to see the difference between meter behaviour on 8.5 or 9.01, on either PC or Mac. At some point in the 8.5 development cycle, my asio meters changed from predictable movement according to size of load, to always on red, whether a project was one track or twenty, and whether I was playing or not. It did not affect the audio stream. Hey ho.
It is of very little use for you to tell people what they should expect from their meters, when it is blindingly obvious people have experienced different behaviours for a very long time.
Steve.
Steve.
I think my answer was crystal, this is MY experience, others did other tests and had simmilar experiences being able to load more instances. then I also advised to test it yourself.
YMMV, but for me the meter is better representing workload in 9 than 8 and I have better performance.
If you don’t feel that’s the case with your system, that’s your experience, which is fine too.
What’s your point? My experience is not real?
+11111111111111111111
and he does that on different forums. Very fishy.
So 8.5 used to work fine and then it didn’t? Then there must be a maintenance version you can go back to that still works fine, and it would be useful to share which one is more optimal.
However, it’s more likely that it wasn’t Cubase 8.5 that changed, but something on your side.
Oh dear, someone is positive on the internet about improvements…
Your point being?!?
As the OP I thought I might give my assessment of a couple of weeks use. Despite the fact that all the major additions - Lower Zone, Frequency etc that I am not at all interested in, the experience of using C9 has been surprisingly good. The spiking CPU has seemingly gone and not reappears since that first use. In fact everything has behaved itself. If this remains the case I will feel that it is money well spent.So much of what Steinberg think sells Cubase I’m not interested in. I will not be downloading the extra content I wouldn’t waste my time. All I want is a DAW that “Does What I Want”.
No - Cubase has continued to work well. I was pointing out that my experience has been the asio meters have changed, but there has been no problem with my real world use of Cubase. I thought Raphie was saying, with no justification, that his experience of the meters was universal and we should see it through his lens.
Steve.
That’s good news!
Did you test if you did find more headroom in 9?
- I had crackles in 8.5.3 with 5% CPUload meter pegging red on a 5% bar.
the meter is now far more realistic. - projects that crapped out on 8.5.3 now run perfect on 9.
this is what I experienced and shared, wether that’s an universal truth or not remains to be seen. And again, I’ve got no 9 Pro MacOS Sierra experience.
It’s not hard to just load your most demanding project and experience that it runs better
It is if you haven’t got the new version 
Many users are still wondering whether they should upgrade. That is one reason they look to this forum for help.
Just upgraded my computer and Cubase and did some tests with the Dawbench 2014 RXC-EXT test. (http://www.dawbench.com/benchmarks.htm)
C8.5 and C9 performed the same except at 64 samples in which C8.5 got one to two more compressors. I did these tests several times.
C9.01 with asio guard OFF.
32 - 197
64 - 212 / C8.5 - 214
128 - 229
256 - 247
512 - 252
With asio guard on at normal
32 - 260
1024 - 270
I also compared projects filled with virtual instruments and plugs. C9 and C8.5 performed identical in asio meter and windows task manager CPU. The meters spiked and jumped around equally at 32 samples and calmed down and became more even as I increased the buffers.
I am happy C9 is not using more resources here with my set up and also enjoying the quicker start up in C9. Especially when doing these tests
So here’s a thing.
I am a fully paid up member of Steinberg and its products. Yesterday I was working on a project, but wasn’t connected to my UR 242 audio interface.
I was connected (in the device menu) to generic low latency asio driver.
I was not recording just playing back and semi mixing an early track. The track has 3 rendered (from instrument) tracks, 3 disabled instrument tracks and 5 mono audio tracks, so no great loading there.
The individual tracks had compression and EQ effects all Steinberg plugs.
Now here is the thing, I noticed that when I was playing and editing the track, the Performance Meter stayed in the 25% region and the red warning was not lit.
The red warning did not light up while I messed about with the track, no matter what I did, and the meter stayed at the 25% mark??
When I got home I tried the track again, but this time the device was my UR242. Performance was up to just under 50% and the red warning was immediately lit?
I am posting this here as I am not sure if its a Cubase or UR242 issue.
Anyone else seen this?
Could a mod let me know if I should repost this in the UR forum?
My understanding is that the asio meter is some kind of measure of how well your machine is managing the real-time in/out demands of your music. So this will be related to your computer (clock speed, processor, memory speed, sample buffer size, i/o conflicts, etc.) but also to your audio interface and the efficiency/integration of the audio interface driver. So changing the computer/interface combination is likely to change the overall efficiency of your in/out capabilities. Is that right?
Steve.
Hi Steve,
Not sure if that is the case but I will wait and see if anyone else has noticed the difference.
Thanks for your input.
Have a great Christmas!!
Jim B
I’m experiencing this same issue. I recently switched from Cubase 8 (Not 8.5) to Cubase 9. The ASIO meter is all over the place in Cubase 9. I’m currently working on a session that has 2 instances of Kontakt with 9 libraries being used between the two them, 7 of them being Exhale by Output. In the session, I also have Omnisphere 2, ~10 Slate plugins, ~10 waves plugins and a few Soundtoys plugs. My ASIO meter is constantly hovering around 60% and peaking at 75%.
I’m running a brand new Alienware Area-51 with an i7-6950x @ 3GHz (10 cores) and 64 gigs of ram. My system drive is a 512 SSD, but I’ve also got a 4tb SATA drive for storage.
Cubase is up to date. So are my drivers and plugins. There is absolutely NO reason that I should be experiencing this amount of activity this early on into the project.
As a test, I opened one of my most taxing sessions from Cubase 8 in Cubase 9. This session contained over 100 audio tracks, 50 VST’s (Including libraries loaded into Kontakt) and a mix of over 100 Waves, Slate, Soundtoys and NI plugs. The session couldn’t handle much more in Cubase 8, but in Cubase 9 it was a constant peak. I couldn’t work in it in Cubase 9.
I hope we can resolve this issue. I LOVE the new features in Cubase 9.