I don’t think it’s realistic to expect them to come on this thread and officially say “Yes, our engine is not as good as our rivals, we’re working on that.”
No i did not mean that…i meant something normal as any developer, to ask question,
to point out things, to do some tests, to send some projects out and stuff…
I posted 3 images below from what i did with Latency Monitor test…this stupid dxkrnl.sys thing and one more next to it always shows up on the test. So you know, my Intel Speed Step is disabled, i don’t know why LM mentions it. Now, The
whole time my computer is able to perform, that is what LM tells me, the pops happen only when i stop playback or start touching things on the computer…someone who knows computers better please take a look at the images.
Their is a Jbridge version for mac (also a demo) which runs the plugins outside of cubase. I use it on windows for running a few leftover 32bit plugins in CB64. Every plugin has it’s own thread and it spreads the load perfectly on windows. It would be easy to do a grouping vs non grouping test using one heavy jbridged plugin and see if it helps. On windows it does
Interesting, related ‘interview’ on the Sternberg site, ‘Let’s Talk about Cubase’ at http://www.steinberg.net/en/artists/stories/2016/cubase_story.html “Georg Conrads, Technical Lead Audio Engine, Christian Dettner, Product Planning Manager, and Clyde Sendke, Director for Product Planning, to talk about its creative tools, the much lauded audio engine and more”.
‘Georg: At the moment, Cubase and Nuendo share their source code for the most part’.
There are many reasons why Pro Tools has become the industry standard, but two of the main reasons seemed to be the “guaranteed processing capacity” and “I/O latency for professional use” that came with the use of the dedicated DSP card.
My main point is that I always find it strange that manufacturers of native processing DAW software do not seem to be making any serious efforts to resolve issues related to latency. In that regard, they still rely on direct monitoring of the audio interface. In terms of processing power, computers have become more than fast enough, and there is always the option of selecting Universal Audio’s UAD if processing power is still insufficient. If only issues related to latency can be overcome, native processing DAW could become a system that could take on Pro Tools|HDX…
Clyde: This is a very interesting question indeed. The first point I would like to highlight is that as of Cubase Pro 8, we have introduced ASIO-Guard 2 that minimizes input and output latency to a minimum 32 samples. Minimizing latency down to this level was simply not possible with previous versions.I do need to clarify one point here, and that is about not taking issues related to latency seriously. Overcoming this problem is one of the topics that we have focused on the most over the past few years. Unfortunately I am unable to provide any more details today. Please wait to see what the future has in store for Cubase and Nuendo.
FWIW, I find this somewhat misdirected: ASIO guard is about input latency and as they indicate, most now use inout monitoring and an audio interfaces that increasingly allow much control of that process, e.g.: RME, UAD etc with 'print to tape FX if required etc etc. Chasing the necessity to lower input monitoring latency through the DAW would seem well off topic these days & monitoring off-source is old school (to vs from tape), worked well then, works well now. I’d get over that one and concentrate on the mix, routing, output and CPU overheads associated with pretending that a DAW is a studio.
Back to the point of this thread: less about ASIO & input buffer then; more focus on multithreading and mix down power and clearly this is where Cubase /Neuendo lag against ProTools, Logic, Reaper and the rest.
Well, this thread has left me completely unsure of which Mac Pro I want to buy! Looks like you decided on a 3.7, 6-core machine, eh Headlands? Are you happy with how that’s working out? Why would you not just hold on to the 12-core and reasonably gamble that Cubase might improve over the coming year? Do I understand correctly that you felt performance was actually suffering with the additional cores?
I’m on a 8-core trashcan mac and I’m not having performance issues. Generally have large track counts and a lot of processing.
The realtime processing video that is pinned on this forum I thought was really informative.
Thanks for the input, Manike. So, working well, but can you say that you are benefiting from the additional cores? Going to check out the vid you mentioned…
There was a big difference when I upgraded from a 2.8Ghz Quad core Mac pro to the 8 Core trashcan - beyond that I don’t know.
As per a Steinberg tech support rep told me once. It makes no difference if you have a bigger faster CPU. Only RAM makes a big difference. That was in 2005. My activity monitor displays 3-4% when using Cubase 8.5 with a 24 track project.
Yeah agreed thats simply not true. Remember, it’s only since we moved to 64bit Cubase could fully make use of extra RAM.
What does your project consist of? Have you narrowed it to some offending plugins perhaps? Are you using any bridged plugins?
Also if you’re vst and sample heavy might I suggest using the trash can as a slave than a master?
Just for fun/test, I inserted 200 VST instruments/midi loops with fx and Cubase pro 8.5 VST Performance was at 75%.
With 100 VST instruments, at 50%, an excellent performance in my book. Steinberg delivered on their promises.
I am currently on a quad core and intending to upgrade though now i have reservations.
Steinberg has made big improvements and its engine is certainly quite good at cpu consumption,maybe even at the top with Reaper,though i haven
t tested anything with more than 4 cores. Funny thing is in the end of 2016 we can expect major breakthroughs in cpu development,as both Pentium and AMD will reveal new line of cpus.
AMD claims to have made a 32 core cpu for a single socket,engineers at CERN have already tested it,supposedly it`s a beast.
I totally understand your position and frustrations.
ve said i havent tested with more than 4 cores so you have a better perspective than i do.
Still i hope Steinberg fixes some obvious multi cpu support issues with Cubendo.
This has been a growing frustration for me, too. Reaper 5 eats Cubendo’s lunch in all areas of performance:
- launch time
- project open time (very slow on Cubenco 8+)
- VST performance
It feels like Cubase 8+ has taken a big step backward in performance, and reliability. Reaper doesn’t crash. Cubase does. I can’t close a project and open a new one unless I restart Cubase or it will crash. I recently had to open an old project with 7.5 and it was definitely snappier all around.
Long story short, there are features in Cubase that I’ve come to rely on (VST Expression, Note Expression, VST SystemLink), but the performance and reliability are killing workflow.
Besides performance, Reaper has some great features that no other DAW can touch (Project-in-Project, multiple open projects/tabs, automatable playback rate, take FX/envelopes, free item positioning, scripting!, …). I’m using it more and more and using it in tandem with Cubase, but it’s a real drag that the company who invented VST doesn’t have the leanest fastest audio engine. If I had a penny for every time I had to click and clear the overload indicator in the ASIO meter I’d be retired now.
I know that many of you are not experiencing performance issues and I’m envious. This is just what I experience every day. If it weren’t for the fact that Reaper performs so much faster (and flawlessly), I would blame the machine/configuration/OS, but this is a side-by-side daily experience.
Cubase and Nuendo, I love you, but get it together. Steinberg, I’m certain you’re 100% aware of how your engine performs vs the competition. Show us what you got, or you’ll be left on the side of the road. I don’t need another synthesizer and a fancier Groove Agent. Just make the fastest most reliable VST engine on the planet! If not you, who?!!!
Done with rant. Going back to work with Cubase 8.5 rewired to Reaper with Nuendo 7 following along by System Link…
It’s a lot of work to learn another DAW, but if you’re pushed to the limit…
Presonus did rewite their engine to invent Mix bus FX. The scripting in Reaper sounds verry powerfull, steep learning curve allthough. Both got VCA’s now and had visibility option before Cubase if I’m correct.
Thruth is it takes time to find the flaws in their software… But if things are not getting better…
S1 is sort of a toy DAW compared to Cubase it`s not even in the same league.
A jack of all trades and master of none.
Are your cores throttling up and down with the load? In Windows you have to go in the Bios and turn off CPU throttling. BAsically the cores slow down when the are not under load to conserve power… this shows as high ASIO load in Cubase. IF you set the cores so they don’t throttle you have maximum core speed available at all times and you shouldn’t see those “logarithmic” load situations. I might be wrong but this is what it looks like to me.
This must be because you have a very high clock rate. Also, take a look at the CPU graph and see which cores are being used – you could probably have a lot more power if Cubase took advantage of all cores (unless four cores somehow works perfectly for Cubase).
It’s easy for Steinberg to say “Just use a CPU with a higher clock rate!”, but that’s not dealing with reality for tons of its users. Let’s say you have a Mac and you need massive processing for other programs like Final Cut Pro, Pro Tools, video graphics applications, etc. – you need the high core-count systems because all of these other programs take advantage of that and Xeons are the only processors you can get for Macs (everyone: please do not start a Hackintosh or Mac vs. PC discussion – this is completely separate from that, and these problems are with any multicore processor on any platform). So if you’re a Cubase user you’re screwed in that case. Since every other DAW many of us have tried here can take huge advantage of multicores/threads and Cubase doesn’t, there’s a very clear fault with the basic engine.[/quote]
I agree it’s a lot of work to learn another DAW. That’s why I stay away from Logic… I’m also happy with Cubase
Cubase I now embedded in my brain/songwriting process. I work extremely fast with Cubase. When you can write
Lyrics in the morning and have a pro song completed with a rough mix in 8 hours and know excactly how and seamlessly. Without technology getting in the way. Cubase also works like an analogue studio. You can’t beat that.