KVR Audio

uselessmind · Post by **uselessmind** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:51 pm

fizbin wrote:Official Steinberg statement -
http://forum.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=18196

fizbin

Yea forgot the link,sry.
Thx for helping me out.

jasonsantiago · Post by **jasonsantiago** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:55 pm

well, I recognize that SX2 did have encryption, but from the port sniffing done by many users (dongle calls) and the reports from the crack team are that there is much more encryption in this version than in previous versions.

Might as well test SX 1, 2, and 3.

But there is nobody that can show so far that previous versions of cubase are more efficient. Makes me think the cracker's claims are just that -- claims.

cold c · Post by **cold c** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:12 pm

jasonsantiago wrote:For the user that did try the SX2 and 3 comparison, did you check memory and hard drive usage as well (just to be thorough)?

No I only checked CPU usage (which measured the same on both SX2 and SX3).

The test projects I used did have audio tracks but hard drive usage is usually too low to notice on my system (I don't use large numbers of audio tracks) and there is also the issue of trying to measure HDD usage with an external tool from SX2/SX3, as the internal HDD usage metering could have changed (whereas it is easy to use task manager for CPU usage, I/O reads in task manager would need to be measured 'per second' not simply accumulated).

I didn't check memory usage either, but I would expect the usage to increase at least somewhat from SX2 to SX3 as it is a larger app with more features.

If you try similar tests, be sure to have the same number of inputs/outputs enabled and same buffer settings etc.

.

cold c · Post by **cold c** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:18 pm

jasonsantiago wrote:Might as well test SX 1, 2, and 3.

SX1 didn't have full PDC, there could be an overhead there for SX2/SX3, but this could be counterbalanced by performance optimizations from newer versions of compilers etc.

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm

Well I'm happy with the statement. Their results aren't surprising, but I'm glad they addressed it. Still, I'm so sick of the zooming issues and weird crashes, I may switch to something else some day. But...it is...difficult, My Liege...

fizbin · Post by **fizbin** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:48 am

bduffy wrote:Well I'm happy with the statement. Their results aren't surprising, but I'm glad they addressed it. Still, I'm so sick of the zooming issues and weird crashes, I may switch to something else some day. But...it is...difficult, My Liege...

Cubase owns everything else. Logic is no longer in the picture. Cubase 3.x will eventually be pretty much perfect. At that point SX 4.x will become experimental ground until 5.x and so forth. Thats the way it is, but at least at this point 3.x has a pretty damned full feature set.

fizbin

_starcraft_ · Post by **_starcraft_** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:06 am

ericj23 wrote: results
cubase cpu 35-41 % memory 455 MB

fruity cpu 35-41 % memory 177 MB

samplitude 35-41 % memory 357 MB

tracktion 32-45 % memory 371 MB
)

WTF!!!!!!!

com'on it can't be . u must have made some mistake in testing.

parky · Post by **parky** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:09 am

_starcraft_ wrote:
ericj23 wrote: results
cubase cpu 35-41 % memory 455 MB

fruity cpu 35-41 % memory 177 MB

samplitude 35-41 % memory 357 MB

tracktion 32-45 % memory 371 MB
)
WTF!!!!!!!
com'on it can't be . u must have made some mistake in testing.

Why?

ford442 · Post by **ford442** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:47 am

bduffy wrote:I just don't see why a dongle has to be called with each and every action - why is that necessary? So what if I decide - for some reason - to pull my dongle during mixing?...am I missing something? What's the point?

i thought about this - my guess is that mainly it's so you can't load SX - move the dongle and load it on multiple machines...

bleebsen · Post by **bleebsen** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:50 am

.. and one single check on startup would be too easy to crack...

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:56 am

fizbin wrote: Cubase owns everything else. Logic is no longer in the picture.

I don't agree on this. Logic/PC is still outperforming SX in many areas, including efficiency.

but at least at this point 3.x has a pretty damned full feature set.

And again I can't agree. SX is lacking a truckload of things.

martian · Post by **martian** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:44 pm

to the thread starter, good test, cant believe people cant see what that means!? cubase protection system is no worse than any other host so there is nothing to gain by switching. obviously it doesnt show how much cpu we are loosing to the cp, but it cant be much considering other hosts have such similar consuption, unless there is some standard they all secretly adhere to.

i have sx1,2,3 there was a slight cpu increase moving up to sx2 (pdc?), but no increase with sx2 projects opened in sx3 on my machine, and as far as i've seen this is the case with most people.

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:16 pm

Sascha Franck wrote:
fizbin wrote: Cubase owns everything else. Logic is no longer in the picture.
I don't agree on this. Logic/PC is still outperforming SX in many areas, including efficiency.

but at least at this point 3.x has a pretty damned full feature set.
And again I can't agree. SX is lacking a truckload of things.

Yeah, yeah: Logic is better than Cubase, we know, we know.

jasonsantiago · Post by **jasonsantiago** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:44 pm

heh, i can't stand logic 7 and it's missing offline processing, just missing that feature alone keeps me away from it... no vsts, that was removing functionality and shouldn't be forgiven.

but yeah the tests look good, sounds like the dongle encryption stuff is no problem.

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:05 pm

jasonsantiago wrote:heh, i can't stand logic 7 and it's missing offline processing,

?!?
What do you mean with offline processing?

sx perfomance