U-He Hive and Dune 2 or Tone2 Gladiator Expanded and Nemesis?

[xamido]

If Dune 2 and Hive is too much cpu for an i7 processor, then the problem is with that computer.

[dwozzle]

Report about Hive was incorrect, fixed above already. Dune 2 in fact was heavy here, at least in comparison to some other things.

[dentnile]

Report about Hive was incorrect, fixed above already. Dune 2 in fact was heavy here, at least in comparison to some other things.

Dune 2 does not use more CPU than Sylenth1 for a similar patch.

If you browse and play the Dune 2 factory patches of course you will find many that use a lot of CPU. Not at all strange if you listen and look what's in the patch, some uses 8 layers and uses features/fx you don't have in simpler synths.

I made simple test playing a 4 note chord with a similar patch in Dune 2, Sylenth1 and Hive and looked at the performance meter in Reaper. The patch was 8 stacked saw waves, 100% stereo width, A: 0, D: 0, S: 100%: R: 50%. Detuned to sound as similar as possible between the three.

The result was that Dune 2 and Sylenth1 used the same CPU and Hive 4 times more. Screendump attached. The numbers went up and down a little bit, but on average I could not tell D2 and S1 apart.

dune2_sylenth1_hive_benchmark.PNG

[dwozzle]

Nice comparison. I don't have Sylenth, and didn't have Hive when I looked at Dune. I also didn't compare the synths I was looking at as directly, just played each of them, keeping a general eye on CPU.

I wasn't going for a technical analysis, just a vibe of what it'd be like to use them -- not just performance, but sound, real-time playability, ease and power of programming, everything. It appears that for your patch, the synths you tested use pretty close to the same horsepower, but that's not the same question. It seemed like it wouldn't be any fun tiptoeing around 80% of the features of a synth, many of which are what make it unique and great, because otherwise there wouldn't be any horsepower left for anything else.

Anyway, I didn't mean to specifically criticize any of these synths. I just thought that CPU usage was a dimension that should at least be looked at.

[pdxindy]

It seemed like it wouldn't be any fun tiptoeing around 80% of the features of a synth, many of which are what make it unique and great, because otherwise there wouldn't be any horsepower left for anything else.

Dune 2 is like 4 instances of Sylenth...

[ATS]

Uhm, didn't Tone2 pull their products from Best Service?

If you have Dune 2 and if you learn it thoroughly, you won't need any of the other synths. If you don't want to goo too deep with a synth and if you prefer quick results, Hive and Nemesis might be a cool couple. If you don't want to tweak but you need a gazilion of presets, Gladiator might be your first choice.

Actually Gladiator is one of the few synths I actually enjoyed tweaking.

[Urs]

The result was that Dune 2 and Sylenth1 used the same CPU and Hive 4 times more. Screendump attached. The numbers went up and down a little bit, but on average I could not tell D2 and S1 apart.

That's interesting because I'd expect a fairly different outcome. I also don't understand those PDC numbers for Hive. What host has this kind of performance view?

- Urs

[kmonkey]

Report about Hive was incorrect, fixed above already. Dune 2 in fact was heavy here, at least in comparison to some other things.

Dune 2 does not use more CPU than Sylenth1 for a similar patch.

If you browse and play the Dune 2 factory patches of course you will find many that use a lot of CPU. Not at all strange if you listen and look what's in the patch, some uses 8 layers and uses features/fx you don't have in simpler synths.

I made simple test playing a 4 note chord with a similar patch in Dune 2, Sylenth1 and Hive and looked at the performance meter in Reaper. The patch was 8 stacked saw waves, 100% stereo width, A: 0, D: 0, S: 100%: R: 50%. Detuned to sound as similar as possible between the three.

The result was that Dune 2 and Sylenth1 used the same CPU and Hive 4 times more. Screendump attached. The numbers went up and down a little bit, but on average I could not tell D2 and S1 apart.

dune2_sylenth1_hive_benchmark.PNG

I would call these DAW built in "performance meters" pretty "personalized" when it comes to objectivity concept..

There are so much variables depending on another things. Even order of instrument loading can yield different performance numbers...Not a thing to attach to - imho

[dentnile]

The result was that Dune 2 and Sylenth1 used the same CPU and Hive 4 times more. Screendump attached. The numbers went up and down a little bit, but on average I could not tell D2 and S1 apart.

That's interesting because I'd expect a fairly different outcome. I also don't understand those PDC numbers for Hive. What host has this kind of performance view?

- Urs

Reaper

[Urs]

Reaper

Cool, thanks, I'll check it out

[EvilDragon]

Some of your plugins report 16 samples of PDC, Urs. This has to be disabled in default.h2p file. However Reaper reports PDC in audio buffer sizes (meaning even if plugin has 1 sample of PDC, if your audio driver is set to 256 samples, you will have 256 samples of PDC). One of not so nice things about Reaper... See:



16 is what is reported, 256 is what Reaper will actually use.

Putting !BLOCK_LATENCY_OFF=YES to default.h2p file resolves this.

Alternatively, if PDC is not needed for Hive, perhaps don't report it to host?

[dentnile]

I would call these DAW built in "performance meters" pretty "personalized" when it comes to objectivity concept..

What do you mean? That thing indicates CPU usage for each plugin in Reaper. You suggest the numbers are wrong, if so based on what? If you know something about this the developers of Reaper don't, then please share so they can fix it! It's a pointless feature if it is wrong. For now, I assume it is correct and from my experience in Reaper the indication is correct and make sense. Performance in other DAWs may be different, is that what you mean?

What is a better tool for comparing performance?

There are so much variables depending on another things. Even order of instrument loading can yield different performance numbers...Not a thing to attach to - imho

Don't know what to changes besides order of the tracks, so I did that and the result is the same regardless of order.

Sorry if I reply with many questions but to me the performance is important and if there are better tools to measure I want to know. Cheers

[dentnile]

Reaper

Cool, thanks, I'll check it out

Awesome. For that, I just bought Hive today instead of tomorrow

[kmonkey]

I would call these DAW built in "performance meters" pretty "personalized" when it comes to objectivity concept..

What do you mean? That thing indicates CPU usage for each plugin in Reaper. You suggest the numbers are wrong, if so based on what? If you know something about this the developers of Reaper don't, then please share so they can fix it! It's a pointless feature if it is wrong. For now, I assume it is correct and from my experience in Reaper the indication is correct and make sense. Performance in other DAWs may be different, is that what you mean?

What is a better tool for comparing performance?

There are so much variables depending on another things. Even order of instrument loading can yield different performance numbers...Not a thing to attach to - imho

Don't know what to changes besides order of the tracks, so I did that and the result is the same regardless of order.

Sorry if I reply with many questions but to me the performance is important and if there are better tools to measure I want to know. Cheers

I did not wanted to imply Reaper is broken or something similar. From what i can remember different DAW aps usually report different performance scores. And there is a reason for that. And again from my memory when i was into this i remember Reaper has some sort of "pre processing" making him kinda most efficient DAW of all DAW's. It was debated here at KVR and even developers jumped in and i am writing my above opinion on that thread for which i can't remember name of.

But the point is that Reaper is a bit different when it comes to plugin processing..(not having anything with audio quality it's abour efficiency i can recall)

[Caine123]

Uhm, didn't Tone2 pull their products from Best Service?

If you have Dune 2 and if you learn it thoroughly, you won't need any of the other synths. If you don't want to goo too deep with a synth and if you prefer quick results, Hive and Nemesis might be a cool couple. If you don't want to tweak but you need a gazilion of presets, Gladiator might be your first choice.

you make it really hard really , cause i just check dune 2 too but im no sound design whore (nicely put) and i dont like the gui somehow... but WHICH DEV says stuff like that? so direct? thats why i would like to support you too even if i would have a synth i wouldnt need normally !