Some people only hear what they want to hear.

I don't see anyone here disputing that Reaper is very efficient, on the contrary, I see people generally agreeing with that premise ... so I don't understand who's "not believing" something. I think I said it 3-4 times, that Reaper is (imo) the most cpu efficient host I personally own.

I thought that would be enough. Apparently it's not. Let me say it again, Reaper wins the cpu efficiency war, here, for me. I didn't vote in the poll but I actually did give an answer.

The other discussion - kinda initiated by Tony - was the idea that (universally) it's efficiency "blows everything else out of the water", which I actually can't personally confirm being true. Apparently it's not enough to just be better, it has to (for some to be happy) destroy the competition. Like Tony said, it just can't be a little better, it has to be 10x better. For some.

I certainly can't run 10 times the plugs here. A few more? Sure.

I was told that my method of comparing hosts wasn't valid and not scientific enough. All i can do is speak out of my own experience though, same for others in this thread too.

Haven't waded through the whole thread but I've noticed that DAWs CPU-efficiency appears to vary between platforms.

For instance, on OSX, Cubase, Reaper and Live use/d more CPU for me across a track with the same plug-ins than Studio One.

On the other hand I've read that Live is easier on the CPU on Windows (and I would assume it to be the case for Cubase and Reaper too).

I think you're being too sensitive about it all. I directly quote myself below where I specifically excluded you from that in the hope of you not taking it personally ...


... yet you did anyway... took it personally.

The key words and phrases there were "sometimes" and "in some cases".

So maybe relax a little. There actually is a good bit of flawed testing going on with all this stuff at various times, but I certainly didn't actually say you were doing it... and I don't think Tony did either. I think he only asked a question?

Your sensitivity meter is peaking a bit too high maybe.

I think he may have been referring to the comment I made about getting a good computer to test these things on..a benchmark type study if you will.

It really would not matter anyway because as the technology continues to develop a lot of these DAWs will also continue to develop...no sense in argying over whose DAW is better than whose....

(kicks back) "I got yer scientific science right here" points to poll at nearly 50% reap "what more could you ask?"

hata's gonna hate

I know, it's like a little mini flame-thrower

Wouldn't the real question be.."what's the quality of the music that comes out the other end?" And in that regard it seems to fall squarely on the operator not the DAW.

Just so I am not misunderstood my experience says that Reaper is the most CPU efficient host I have tried although it's workflow seems to make me a lot more inefficient.

Dan

fair question. I've actually grown weary of certain aspects of the reap lately (their REFUSAL to address midi needs/desires of a large user base, it's not like they simply cannot fix/change some of the things) but I think having efficiency with the cpu DOES increase workflow. In fact I can load up some gigantuous templates/projects with minimal cpu hit. This means I don't have to worry about freezing/cpu spiking/etc, which means I can do what I want. I can't do that in studio one.

Well sometimes it can be 'life or death' regarding using some plugins, I use Diva without too many CPU issues in Reaper, but just loading Diva only in Studio One, it is not even usable on my machine. Maybe that has more to do with my machine and I can't blame Studio One that I have an old computer, but CPU efficiency is undeniably a factor in what you can or can't do on your machine and software there are many other factors of course and just because Reaper is CPU efficient doesn't necessarily mean you will get more done or have a better end result. I personally like Reaper, didn't like Studio One when I demo'd it, but lots of people obviously do and feel the workflow is much better that it warrants whatever increased CPU usage that is required. A Ferrari just uses more gas, there's no getting around that.

Good points. I do almost no electronic music - everything is recorded instruments/vocals with the exception of the use of things like Superior Drummer, etc. Not using synths greatly reduces my need for squeezing out max use of the CPU as compressors, eq and the sends to verb and delay never really come into play.

Consequently S1 and PT work fine for me. I like the concept of Reaper's small package and mopre than reasonable pricing for the non-commercial license, I just can't warm up to the roll-your-own tweak-feast it appears to me.
Dan

Fact: If I could ever get studio one to work properly on my system (an i7btw) then I'd probably really like it. I can't even load an instance of kontakt in it w/o cpu spiking (and I'm not alone, and that is with disabling all the stuff they ask)

Remember, THEIR words (I'm paraphrasing here) "we do not optimize cpu use"



Question: WHY?

Yeah, I have seen some others state the same problem with Kontakt and S1 and yet others seem to have it working fine. Very strange.

Dan

Yeah, the reap goes deep, I think maybe a little too deep in some ways (especially when you introduce the sws extentions) Yeah, it gets crazy.