I just corrected a typo in my former post, the last SX 2 version is 2.2.0.39
But SX 3 is really mature after the hotfix SX_3.0.2.623, highly recommended now after a really bad start.
You should have seen how most of the complaints disappeared on the Steinberg forum, which is a rare thing indeed.
susiwong
CPU usage with Cubase SX
-
- KVRist
- 391 posts since 28 Apr, 2002
But you unfortunately don't.parky wrote:Then why did you mention Hoffman's study and the fact that in your opinionTeeLangSun wrote:
It idles on my current machine at less than that, but that's not really the point.
Cubase causes cpu useage to go off the charts. I was merely replying to that and mentioning that was NOT my experience. Live with it!
CPU is only a part of the the resources your machine needs to run.
You have a grasp of the blatently obvious.
-
- KVRAF
- 3864 posts since 29 Feb, 2004
Bduffy,
SX 2 & 3 certainly need more power than SX 1.
But that's a very fair tradeoff imho for the big increase in useability (the full latency compensation alone is worth the change imho, not to mention all the other nice little and big improvements, especially in UI and workflow).
1 GB of RAM is more than adequate for SX 3, even 512 MB should guarantee you a fast system, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T USE software samplers, but that's hardly SX's fault. Talk about my love/hate relationship with DFHS ...
On another note, however, there is absolutely no need to install anything besides audio related stuff on a DAW. I've been using multiboot with separate hidden system partitions for years (Partition Magic / Boot Magic) and Ghost for backup images, can't beat that for security and convenience.
Atm I've got a working audio Windows, a clone of that for trying out stuff before it finds its way on the main one, one Windows for graphics and office stuff and even one for (blush !) some games.
That way you can really separate the problem stuff from your audio partition. You can even disable problematic hardware in your audio windows and still use it in the others.
Definitely worth a consideration when you do your next XP install, but NEVER FORGET TO BACKUP before any partition operations, I haven't had a data loss in years but there is always a remote danger, so take care.
If you're not sure about this stuff, use an experienced friend and you'll soon learn how to do it yourself, it's not black magic.
susiwong
SX 2 & 3 certainly need more power than SX 1.
But that's a very fair tradeoff imho for the big increase in useability (the full latency compensation alone is worth the change imho, not to mention all the other nice little and big improvements, especially in UI and workflow).
1 GB of RAM is more than adequate for SX 3, even 512 MB should guarantee you a fast system, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T USE software samplers, but that's hardly SX's fault. Talk about my love/hate relationship with DFHS ...
On another note, however, there is absolutely no need to install anything besides audio related stuff on a DAW. I've been using multiboot with separate hidden system partitions for years (Partition Magic / Boot Magic) and Ghost for backup images, can't beat that for security and convenience.
Atm I've got a working audio Windows, a clone of that for trying out stuff before it finds its way on the main one, one Windows for graphics and office stuff and even one for (blush !) some games.
That way you can really separate the problem stuff from your audio partition. You can even disable problematic hardware in your audio windows and still use it in the others.
Definitely worth a consideration when you do your next XP install, but NEVER FORGET TO BACKUP before any partition operations, I haven't had a data loss in years but there is always a remote danger, so take care.
If you're not sure about this stuff, use an experienced friend and you'll soon learn how to do it yourself, it's not black magic.
susiwong
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Hey thanks for the advice. I do know about partition magic, etc. The only reason I haven't done multi-boot is that I have an OEM veriosn of XP - I don't think I can install the OS on another partition? I love the idea of being able to test things and get the multimedia stuff the hell away from my audio!
-
- KVRAF
- 3864 posts since 29 Feb, 2004
Bduffy,
no problem as long as you got a real installation CD of XP (as opposed to a recovery CD).
A quick example :
Use PQ Magic to create two primary partitions C1 and C2 (XP 1 and XP2), one extended partition with D and E (which works just like it does atm).
You install XP on C1, C2 is hidden. Do all the little tweaks you need in BOTH windows now, activate XP with MS.
Write a clone of XP1 to D or E (with Ghost it's a .gho file about 2/3 the data size of XP1. Keep this file safe, burn it to DVD, whatever. This is your insurance, you can always restore any primary partition ("reinstall your complete XP") in a matter of minutes later.
Then write back that clone (also called image) to C2.
Hide C2 again using PQ Magic from a boot CD using DOS.
Boot XP1, install Boot Magic (comes with Partition Magic).
When you reboot now, you get a simple menu which lets you choose between C1 (with XP1) and C2 (with XP2).
When C1 is active, you CAN'T access C2, it's virtually nonexistent, and vice versa.
D and E are visible in both Windows.
Then you optimize each XP partition for its special tasks, programs get installed on the C drives, all data should go to D or E.
Make .gho files of your complete windows installations, too - remember, you can always restore a corrupt windows to new condition this way while you're making coffee.
That's the basic procedure. You can add a 3rd C partition, add more logical partitions and of course additional HDs.
You will not be able to "see" more than one C partition at the same time, Boot Magic hides the other Cs. So they CANNOT influence each other in any way.
Of course there is other software that can do this job, too, but those are the market leaders and have been serving me perfectly so far. I don't know, however, if they support the new SATA drives, probably so. Ask before you buy if you need this feature.
Hope this explanation is understandable, English is not my first language.
But let me assure you, it's a lot quicker and easier to do than to explain it in words.
All the best,
susiwong
no problem as long as you got a real installation CD of XP (as opposed to a recovery CD).
A quick example :
Use PQ Magic to create two primary partitions C1 and C2 (XP 1 and XP2), one extended partition with D and E (which works just like it does atm).
You install XP on C1, C2 is hidden. Do all the little tweaks you need in BOTH windows now, activate XP with MS.
Write a clone of XP1 to D or E (with Ghost it's a .gho file about 2/3 the data size of XP1. Keep this file safe, burn it to DVD, whatever. This is your insurance, you can always restore any primary partition ("reinstall your complete XP") in a matter of minutes later.
Then write back that clone (also called image) to C2.
Hide C2 again using PQ Magic from a boot CD using DOS.
Boot XP1, install Boot Magic (comes with Partition Magic).
When you reboot now, you get a simple menu which lets you choose between C1 (with XP1) and C2 (with XP2).
When C1 is active, you CAN'T access C2, it's virtually nonexistent, and vice versa.
D and E are visible in both Windows.
Then you optimize each XP partition for its special tasks, programs get installed on the C drives, all data should go to D or E.
Make .gho files of your complete windows installations, too - remember, you can always restore a corrupt windows to new condition this way while you're making coffee.
That's the basic procedure. You can add a 3rd C partition, add more logical partitions and of course additional HDs.
You will not be able to "see" more than one C partition at the same time, Boot Magic hides the other Cs. So they CANNOT influence each other in any way.
Of course there is other software that can do this job, too, but those are the market leaders and have been serving me perfectly so far. I don't know, however, if they support the new SATA drives, probably so. Ask before you buy if you need this feature.
Hope this explanation is understandable, English is not my first language.
But let me assure you, it's a lot quicker and easier to do than to explain it in words.
All the best,
susiwong
-
- KVRian
- 611 posts since 30 May, 2004
TOTAL, the first question, eh I upgraded from 1 to 2 to 3, if have understood you correct, currently using SX 3, Cubase that is.drinelli
u say sx3 uses less resources than sx 1 or 2.
what is your daw?
on athlon2500 and 512 mb sx2 2 01 was said to be less predictable (peaks) than sx1.06
is that to say stainberg improved sx2 since then?
BTW are they still updating sx2?
did it said Predictable, I thought it said the Cpu consumption was smaller, sorry. Must Be reading too fast, or too casual, if you can say that.
as far as I can remember there was some improvement on vst Performance when upgrading 1>2 2>3, and I think Steinberg pointed that out from the beginning, I know We talked about the cpu consumption of Cubase itself, ofcoarse that is not the same, I am in quite some discussions and getting so confused I hardly know what I am thinking. Sorry. Need to attend some of the others. The last one I do not know
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Wow, thanks for the step-by-step. Unfortunately, I only have a recovery CD. I'm going to step up and get a proper full version (just for this purpose) after I get married, and my rent is cut by two thirds. Until then, I've only used PM to make partitions on my large drive for storing samples, etc. I don't use Ghost yet and I worry about Norton stuff; I stopped using it because of all the background services it "needs"!susiwong wrote:Bduffy,
no problem as long as you got a real installation CD of XP (as opposed to a recovery CD).
I will totally refer to your excellent advice when that time comes, I appreciate all your typing!
-
- KVRAF
- 13444 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
I think the main deal is that the Steinbergers don't seem to be able to straighten out their audio engine(s).
The two main points being:
- Dynamic plugin useage allocation - so it won't freeze your system when you accidentally insert a CPU hungry plugin at 90% or so, plus it won't use plugins that aren't actually in use. Logic and a few other hosts are doing this perfectly. And no, it's got not much to do with full PDC. Not THAT much at least...
- General CPU efficiency. Just recently I converted some SX projects to Logic 1:1 and the CPU useage was incredibly higher, even in case I didn't use a single bus (which would raise CPU useage due to PDC). Thing is, I can't even nail things down. On single track projects with a few plugins (to test CPU performance and the likes) the difference is barely noticeable, but as soon as you're working on more complexed projects it's just becoming all too apparent.
Seriously, this isn't meant as another "Logic is so much better" flame - I really tried to like SX 3, but in the end CPU useage made me go back to Logic (5.5.1/PC, mind you, a sequencer not being updated since 3 years) for anything I do for myself (OK, there's quite some other issues too, but that was the final experience it needed).
It's just making me wonder, nothing else.
The two main points being:
- Dynamic plugin useage allocation - so it won't freeze your system when you accidentally insert a CPU hungry plugin at 90% or so, plus it won't use plugins that aren't actually in use. Logic and a few other hosts are doing this perfectly. And no, it's got not much to do with full PDC. Not THAT much at least...
- General CPU efficiency. Just recently I converted some SX projects to Logic 1:1 and the CPU useage was incredibly higher, even in case I didn't use a single bus (which would raise CPU useage due to PDC). Thing is, I can't even nail things down. On single track projects with a few plugins (to test CPU performance and the likes) the difference is barely noticeable, but as soon as you're working on more complexed projects it's just becoming all too apparent.
Seriously, this isn't meant as another "Logic is so much better" flame - I really tried to like SX 3, but in the end CPU useage made me go back to Logic (5.5.1/PC, mind you, a sequencer not being updated since 3 years) for anything I do for myself (OK, there's quite some other issues too, but that was the final experience it needed).
It's just making me wonder, nothing else.
There are 3 kinds of people:
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Quick, unscientific test:
SONAR 3, with a rather large Multi with Brass, Strings, etc - IDLE:
Sonar 3, running, playing back Multi in Kontakt:
Cubase SX 2.2, with the same Multi, idle:
Cubase SX 2.2, playing back multi:
Just thought I'd try it and see what happens. Kind of hard to accurately define the Cubase meter, I'll admit...
Sascha Franck: from what I hear, Logic really has it together with that sort of thing. But I'll never know...
SONAR 3, with a rather large Multi with Brass, Strings, etc - IDLE:
Sonar 3, running, playing back Multi in Kontakt:
Cubase SX 2.2, with the same Multi, idle:
Cubase SX 2.2, playing back multi:
Just thought I'd try it and see what happens. Kind of hard to accurately define the Cubase meter, I'll admit...
Sascha Franck: from what I hear, Logic really has it together with that sort of thing. But I'll never know...
-
- KVRAF
- 3864 posts since 29 Feb, 2004
Bduffy,
though the partitioning and cloning should also work with a windows from a recovery CD, those things tend to install lots of stuff you don't need, so yes, get a real XP, a Home is just as well as a Pro as long as you don't plan to use a multiprcessor system.
I totally agree to your opinion about Symantec products, but with Ghost I use only the DOS version, nothing installed. PQ Magic essentially the same.
A friend of mine swears by Acronis products,but I never tried them myself.
Good luck, it's worth the effort !
susiwong
though the partitioning and cloning should also work with a windows from a recovery CD, those things tend to install lots of stuff you don't need, so yes, get a real XP, a Home is just as well as a Pro as long as you don't plan to use a multiprcessor system.
I totally agree to your opinion about Symantec products, but with Ghost I use only the DOS version, nothing installed. PQ Magic essentially the same.
A friend of mine swears by Acronis products,but I never tried them myself.
Good luck, it's worth the effort !
susiwong
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Acronis...interesting.susiwong wrote:Bduffy,
though the partitioning and cloning should also work with a windows from a recovery CD, those things tend to install lots of stuff you don't need, so yes, get a real XP, a Home is just as well as a Pro as long as you don't plan to use a multiprcessor system.
I totally agree to your opinion about Symantec products, but with Ghost I use only the DOS version, nothing installed. PQ Magic essentially the same.
A friend of mine swears by Acronis products,but I never tried them myself.
Good luck, it's worth the effort !
susiwong
I'm using Home now, and we installed Home on the Nuendo machine (unfortunately it makes signing onto the LAN awkward). I'll probably buy it soon.