Render in place unbearably slow in Cubase 12 and 13...why?

I’m on a Mac Pro 16 M1 8 Performance cores 2 efficiency cores, when using render in place it is pretty much the same as real time play back. On PC it used to render really fast, it feels like Cubase 13 is rendering offline using a single efficiency core or something like that. What is up with this on the Mac?

Yep , all this behaviour started for me after the last media bay update , the first render takes ages , but if you render the same again it’s faster , as you say , painfully slow and this is on Pc

That is odd behaviour…rendering is supposed to be a time saver and I usually only ever render a file once. Steinberg can you fix this please as it used to be a real time saver not a go and make coffee moment.

1 Like

Yep , i find it takes longer for render in place with Steinbergs own Vsti’s than it does with third party , which tells me it’s something to do with the media bay again , they keep breaking stuff with this mediabay , i think it’s to introduce new code but again this needs sorting asap ,its a complete workflow killer

1 Like

I just don’t use media bay, it’s quicker and less hassle to audition from a folder outside of Cubase and drag the filer in.

But Cubase is using Media Bay anyway. It’s a background service.

2 Likes

Exactly , this is why i asked for the install to be an option , imagine in a couple of years time , you are still on C12 but a long waited fix for Halion 7 has been added to the download manager you are forced to load the latest Mediabay which might be for C14 and not compatible , results … Broken system

They will put it right But again it boils down to how long it takes , so many things broken and slowly getting worse before our eyes .

1 Like

I have a real computer and it works as expected.

Apple is doing strange things with the M1 and M2 machines, and everybody is blaming the software developers.

“highly controversial post”
:innocent:

1 Like

I have a real computer and everything worked as expected before the updates , so thats irrelevant ,all this tells me is that you are claiming to be one of the lucky ones .

1 Like

Oh yes, I am a lucky one regarding Cubase 13. :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

But there is an increasing amount of problems regarding the MacOS updates from the last two years and the switch from Intel to the ARM platform. :man_shrugging:

And the problems are not only DAW related.

Well my “non real computer” Mac 16 Pro laptop eats my i9 9900k 32GB water cooled 5.1ghz overclocked desktop pc that I use to use for cubase and it’s silent as well. Render doesn’t work on pc’s either since the last few updates, it’s supposed to be a time saving device.

Luckily this non real computer Mac M1 can run double the plugins my i9 9900k can so I render less.

1 Like

Thanks for this information. I need to upgrade to M2 ultra (I’m on AMD) and I was hesitating in front of the Mac -PC comparative benchmarks. So, do you think M2 is really stronger in processing?

Nuendo 12 and 13 are way slower than Pro Tools when rendering or freezing tracks. I am slowly switching over to Nuendo for mixing. But the slow rendering and the VCA and Folder functionality is keeping me working in Pro Tools for now. I really want to use Nuendo as my main system, but…

@Mute the weird thing is that the Mac Pro 16 M1 is faster in Cubase than the M3 because they reduced the core count on the M2 and M3. But as long as you get a mac with at least 8 performance cores I just don’t see how a PC can compete with all the power, heat and compatibility issues they have. I have been a PC user and builder forever until last year.

1 Like

But back to the topic, the rendering speed has made me start learning Bitwig which is a dangerous path for Cubase as I have been with Cubase ever since jumping from Emagic Notator on the Atari ST.

Can you please sort this out, it used to be so much faster what did you do in the last 2 versions? Oh and an answer would be nice rather than silence Steinberg :slight_smile:

Can we have at least some sort of official reply to this issue Steinberg? Rendering out at 10% speed is a bit of a pain in the butt… enough of one to start using another DAW if it renders at the proper speed. Time is time after all.

the same conversations are had on the Reaper forum about render speeds. It’s a complex issue and there’s more to it than we think.

Big Killers are OS plugins. Do you have any of those in your project? complex bussing etc also can slow things down IIRC. Some plugins have dual modes whereby they operatate at a certain sample rate etc when playing back but then switch into heavy over sampling on offline renders. I use 2C audio Aether and this is a killer for render times with my settings.

M

I hear what you are saying but the same plugins are insanely faster on say Cubase 11. Looking at my cpu usage when rendering out a track it looks like it is only using barely 1 cpu core. It used to be faster by a lot and it suddenly slowed to a crawl on the last few versions.

I’ll do some tests on OS plugins, mainly using Slate Digital suite and SSL plugins which do have oversampling but something definitely slowed down, but I will invetigate more. This doesn’t excuse the complete lack of reply from Steinberg.

same here. got me a m1 max with 64 gig 4.5 times faster than my i9 pc that i just built before that. i’ll naver look back…

It’s frustrating that Steinberg don’t even address the fact that they’re not addressing it. Working on an M2 Max here and the render is slooow…

Cubase sx3 rendered faster on a duo core back in the day…

My theory is that the Volume Precision Automation feature on the latest two versions is the culprit. It has its advantages but the trade off is a nightmare. I’d rather render with a low buffer rate or in real-time.