KVR Audio

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:36 pm

I see I've made a grave error.......

click

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:09 am

jancivil wrote:
Hink wrote:
jancivil wrote:
michi_mak wrote: so what's these "they hate REAPER" fuzz all about?
hibidy's BAAAAACK!
hibidy is a cop?
I think 'ass' -> 'azz' has extended into 'fuss' -> 'fuzz'...

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:53 am

jancivil wrote:
LawrenceF wrote:There's at least 5 more pages here minimum. You guys are slippin' ...

I think the TNT Network actually ripped off the KVR' host forum's catch phrase...

"We Know Drama".
there's drama here??? shit, go to music theory board for real entertainment...

That sub forum can get a little interesting at times...

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:47 am

jancivil wrote:
michi_mak wrote: so what's these "they hate REAPER" fuzz all about?
hibidy's BAAAAACK!

You asked for it.........

Mutant · Post by **Mutant** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:35 am

How about doing a real scientific test instead of fueling the old hateboy vs fanboy war ?

Lets design the test first:

I think if we can't do it on a single PC (because no one of us has all these hosts), then we should do it via host X vs Host Y method.

For the common host X we can choose REAPER because it is freely available to download and try for 30 days.

So...

We can pick a VST plugin that will run on all the hosts we want to test (SYNTH1 can be a good candidate).

We should set the buffer/latency to a setting available on all hosts.

We can then measure the CPU efficiency by adding new instances (every instance on its own track because not all hosts allow an infinite nuber of pluggins on a single track) of the plugin until it begins to crackle.

Then if for example on one PC we have 67 for host X and 63 for host Y, we can convert it to % of host X via 63/67*100=94,0298%.

On a sligtly less powerful PC we could then expect for it to be like 54 instances for host X and 54*94,0298/100=50 for host Y.

This way we can gather an average % of X performance from many different hosts on many different systems.

Any errors in this design or any better ideas ?

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:57 am

How bout f'n trust that some people have used more than one host on the same computer with the same plugs? Why on gods baked and molten earth would you possibly for any mathematically measurable time think I'd be trying to shit someone?

Take it or leave it, no worries here. All I know is studio one, can't do shit w/o the cpu meter freaking out like some overdriven tape saturation plug. Reap? Not so much. Sonar? Well, it wasn't as bad as studio one but it showed all the cores separately and showed too much being hogged by the first core.

Yeah, I'm kinda pissy because it's just info based on what is happening in real time. Trust me, if S1/2/whatever didn't have the cpu issues it does I'd be using it. I've ditched my fanboi card :flick:

Mutant · Post by **Mutant** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:29 am

hibidy wrote:bout f'n trust

Well... can you really trust the hateboys ? Can you trust the fanboys ?

Taking an average from lets say 10 hateboys and 10 fanboys and 10 normalboys would bring us much closer to the TRUTH.

deleted · Post by **deleted** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:40 am

DELETED

metamorphosis · Post by **metamorphosis** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:54 am

Reaper is CPU efficient. It's incredibly well-designed, technically. The gui isn't that much worse than a lot of other hosts either.

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:56 am

michi_mak wrote:
Mutant wrote:
hibidy wrote:bout f'n trust
Well... can you really trust the hateboys ? Can you trust the fanboys ?

Taking an average from lets say 10 hateboys and 10 fanboys and 10 normalboys would bring us much closer to the TRUTH.
maybe i'm missing hibidy's point but even the "hateboys" ( ??? ) and the "normalboys" gave credit to REAPER being cpu efficient, didn't they?

I think you nailed hibidy's point right there. The issue is precisely that S1v2 really does have CPU processing issues, whereas Reaper does not.

All these labels really do is avoid questions about what is really going on with these DAWs in the first place. One can label their opponent a "basher" but it still will not make the issue go away...

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:48 pm

I hear Sonar has issues with crashing and general bugginess. May be true, no clue one way or another. I don't worry about it much since I don't use Sonar and don't plan to.

Problem (that didn't exist for me) solved.

Seriously, here we have an OP that has already stated that he can't afford any host that cost $3-4-500 so... what's the point? If Samplitude is more efficient than Reaper (not saying it is) he can't afford it anyway so... I don't get it... the point in comparing things he can't use anyway.

I hear 2012 BMW 750i's have issues with gas mileage and brake wear. Good to know that... in case I ever hit the lottery.

He already owns the (arguably) least expensive and (arguably) most efficient host out there... Reaper. So... what's the search for exactly?

SuitcaseOfLizards · Post by **SuitcaseOfLizards** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:37 pm

All hosts suck!

I use a HOSTESS for my VST/VSTi!

I run both Reaper and Orion 7.6, both seem pretty efficient given the monsters (alchemy, Rhino) I normally use.

I've had Orion crash twice, Reaper once.

eh.

justin3am · Post by **justin3am** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:34 pm

Mutant wrote:(because no one of us has all these hosts)

I do... I'm a product tech/QA tech for a company that makes computer oriented music equipment. We test with most of the hosts listed in the poll (and some that aren't) on a bunch of different computer configurations. I've got a fairly good overview of how each of these DAWs perform under specific use cases.

As a general rule, I won't participate in a thread like this, unless I'm sure I know what I'm talking about. As always, I'd welcome anyone to prove me wrong, but this is a subject I have a bit of experience with, so I'm pretty confident of my assertion (at least in terms of the tests, I have conducted myself).

That said, I don't think anyone should take my word for it. Do the tests on your own, come to your own conclusion. Being an informed consumer is not a bad thing.

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:01 pm

People (including myself) are pretty attached to their daw's mostly. Pretty sure you can find my ramblings of various hosts (at various times) so not trying to be the fuzz.

Anyways, "I'm sorry Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore"......

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:43 pm

Mutant wrote: Well... can you really trust the hateboys ? Can you trust the fanboys ?

It's pretty easy to differ between fanboys/haters and people who post their objective non-biased opinion. You just gotta remove the hand from your eyes.

There's a lot of posts in this thread from people (including myself) who tried several hosts and can damn well compare to them. What's a poll and this thread worth if you don't trust any1?

KVR Audio

Most CPU efficient host?

What is the most efficient host CPU wise?