So what's the point in having a fast computer?

and loads of RAM?..I have a project with 26 tracks, yeah…only 26 ( 2 of them midi, Nexus and Trilian) and 24 plugins, asio guard is on full (has to be or I get loads of distortion as the performance meter crashes into the red) core parking is disabled…which improved things slightly…
and my performance meter is hovering around the 90% mark, how miserable is that!!
I doubt 9 will be an improvement but I’ll give the trial a go (when it’s finally released) and will see,
Cubase used to run fine without ASIO guard, now it will not run at all if it isn’t on…what the heck are they doing with it?
my CPU usage reads 13%

meanwhile 2 other DAW’s run this project without reaching 30%…(in their performance)
I really hope they do something about this because I’m drifting away… :frowning:

best, Kevin :frowning:


I would say the goal is to have well-tuned computer. From the HW (dedicated and prooved components) point of view, same as SW (OS is optimised) point of view.

If 2 other DAW’s handle my projects easily and Cubase does not, it points to Cubase as the problem…does it not?
Cubase used to work fine without ASIO guard…now it will not work without it…
other |DAW’s do not seem to need ASIO guard, they just take the project in their stride…

I never understand these sorts of posts, if Cubase does not handle you projects as well as other programs then use them,
If you have to use Cubase because Cubase has features the others don’t do so well then the original statement that Cubase does not handle the project as well as the others is also not true as the others do not handle to project in the way you would like.

Some people have invested many years and a fair chunk of cash into learning and running and updating Cubase as their preferred sequencer.

Surely it isn’t that hard to understand they might wish for great efficiency to go along with the other great features they use Cubase for.

Thanks Grim I identify with the first statement completely.

Weirdly I was having a lot of the CPU issues that many users have commented upon, but for some reason everything has improved greatly of late. I am not sure that I could pinpoint why. Possibly I broke the habit of a lifetime and connected my machine to the internet - partly out of the necessity of upgrade certain software that can no longer be updated online. It has been during this period that my version of Windows (8.1) was fully updated itself.

It has occurred to me that as developers update their software accordingly with the latest manifestations of the Windows OS, if those bits of code are not present perhaps things don’t run so well. As I say I have no proof of this. I also have no idea why my machine is handling Cubase better. Perhaps it has been my decision to run separate instances of Kontakt - which in my experience does not seem to like running as large multi-timbral iterations. I use VST3 where possible, except for my uhe stuff and Cubase seem to run well with multiple versions of cpu hogs like Diva.

I don’t know what the answer is, only that it is not simple.

Because we are 20+year Cubase users with 10’s of thousands of hours (and pounds) invested in the product over the years and Cubase used to run like greased lightning, since V7 onwards I have had nothing but CPU issues, everything flies on Reaper and Mixbus. If Cubase is so hardware sensitive then Steinberg should put us out of our misery and list a certified list of components that they know to work well.

Why will things ever improve if you keep spending the money on something that does not work even when another working solution exists?

I’ve also been a Steinberg user for well over 20 years but if it did not work for what I needed I would simply go to something that did.

As to money invested, the programs are cheap relatively speaking to other things needed for DAW and many posters here with this sort of topic seem to have most of the alternatives already, other wise the posts do not make sense, so if they work better then simply use them.


It is also what you do with a project, not only the track count.
I have one project that I’m working on that has 16 audio tracks, and I had to increase the audio buffer to 512 samples and have ASIO Guard on Max to play the project.
On that project I use a lot of hitpoints, warping, VariAudio, and a tempo track.
The same project using the same plugins but with “fixed” audio without a tempo track, I can run at 128 sample buffer and the ASIO meter is at only around 20 %

I prefer’s a great DAW, when I use Mixbus I miss render in place and the chord track, but performance issues are making me use other DAW’s more and making do without the Cubase good bits…because they are overshadowed by the fact that it cannot handle a very simple and small project!!

I’ve been a Cubase user for a long time…since 4 and I do not expect the DAW that I’m using to get worse as time goes by…do you?..I am moving to other DAW’s but because it’s a steep learning curve (for me at least) it takes time…but if Cubase keeps up with this miserable performance I’m gonna get there!!

The answer is obvious, lobby the makers of the other preferred programs to implement the Cubase features you need or are you already doing that and what did they reply?


Yes I have but I don’t expect Mixbus to catch up to Cubase anytime soon…when they do, I’m gone!
all I’m saying why oh why is Cubase …since around 7, getting worse in the performance area…it’s supposed to get better…

like I said…Cubase used to run fine until they bolted on ASIO guard to try and calm down whatever probs they knew existed…
love Cubase…hope 9 fixes things…really don’t want to learn another DAW

so obvious you didn’t need to say it mate…

Shadowfax - I suspect this ^^ may be a big part of it. I can say that based on personal experience, where frustratingly my project will start crawling, and then if I bounce down the VariAudio it gets all perky again.

It may be, in the big picture, that Cubase requires certain workflows to work efficiently, and if someone happens to have developed others (that also happen to work well with other sequencers), Cubase doesn’t operate as smoothly.

Also, something that helps is to deactivate audio tracks that aren’t in use on the arrange page. Since I’ve gotten in the habit of doing that, things have been better. (Especially the tracks with scores of little audio snippets from multiple takes!).

I am in the bad practice of doing absolutely zero housekeeping in the audio pool. The thought just occurred to me that deleting the pool trash (after putting unneeded audio in there) may help with performance?

Finally I believe I might remember reading something about Cubase doing better with multiple plugins spread across multiple tracks, rather than all piled up in 1 track (for example), something about spreading the workload across multiple cores.

You may be doing all of the above already, but in case you are not, maybe something there will help.

Finally, asking around for in-person DAW troubleshooting from someone you trust to be competent may help (from forum members here or at Sound on Sound that use Cubase, finding in the local music scene, etc). .

If it does in the end turn out to be a hardware incompatibility, options might include selling your computer, and buying a pre-built one from Scan, etc., knowing the hassle and expense of doing so is a one-time investment to allow you to continue using Cubase. (Making sure they have a “Call us any time, we’ll remote in if we have to” sort of policy, like ADK does here).

Maybe a part of this will help our give you another idea. I hope it works out well for you! :slight_smile:

Like any avenue of life good house keeping is important. The more junk the more things get in the way. That includes unused instruments and audio tracks. If you are unsure about deleting create another CPR file with the basic minimum of tracks and instruments.

Good housekeeping has become second nature to me…I empty the audio pool everytime I delete something, got a hotkey for it… but I’m afraid that to consider freezing midi tracks or other performance saving tricks is a bit crazy on a project with less than 30 tracks and less than 30 plugs, 7 of them Cubases own…I think Cubase should be able to handle my very average workflow,
Cubase for me , is the best DAW, it’s just terrific…but blimey, why are they letting the performance go down the Swany?
I considered going back to 7 but then I thought if I’m gonna do without render in place and the chord track then I may as well use Mixbus…the mixer is awesome…everything you need is there…no click fest!

best to you guys and lets hope 9 does it!!

Exactly - I have never run out of CPU on Mixbus or Reaper, but I feel like a fish out of water using other DAWs - I love Cubase because I know it, some of us haven’t got hundreds of ours spare to learn the intricacies of a new DAW - I just want the one I like to work properly! It is a professional piece of software after all.

totally agree my friend…I’m looking forward to trying 9, I will not buy it immediately because my confidence in Cubase is a little dented at the mo…but I’m hopeful…
I still wonder why the trial isn’t available when the DAW is available to buy… :confused:

Hi peppapig…when you say you never run out CPU while using mixbus or reaper don’t you actually mean performance in yer actual DAW? rather than your computer?
I started this post with regard to the performance of Cubase…not my computer…my computer hovers around 13% all the time…no problem there…

sorry If I’ve misunderstood mate…just checking… :slight_smile:

best, Kevin :slight_smile: :slight_smile: