Efficiency comparison between Reaper 6, Studio One 5 and Cubase 10

[tyronehowe]

Hi Everyone

So, I have read a lot about the efficiency of Reaper compared to other DAWs and thought I would perform my own simple test.

This test is not particularly scientific, and I accept that it is not necessarily representative of real-world use.

But it does show a useful comparison.

Test
Each track is Omnisphere 2 playing two notes for two bars, then another two notes for two bars and cycling the four bars. Path used was “Phoenix Rising”.

Computer – Mac Pro 2010, 12 core Xeon with 24 threads. 48 Gb memory. Running Windows 10 in bootcamp.

To check that a track count was accepted, it had to run for a minute without glitching.

All DAWs using the same audio interface (RME Babyface) with a buffer of 512, 44k sample rate. No tracks had live input. No Asio Guard, no dropout protection.

Results
Cubase 10.0.60 – 30 Tracks
Studio One 5.1.1 – 32 Tracks
Reaper 6.17 – 44 Tracks

That was a bigger difference than I anticipated.

This post is not intended to start a DAW war, but I thought it would be interesting for others to see my results.

All the best

[jancivil]

This test is not particularly scientific, and I accept that it is not necessarily representative of real-world use.

Yeah, it isn't.

But it does show a useful comparison.

If one's setup is exactly yours, I guess it can be.
A lot here relies on the audio interface and the interface of its design with the operating system.
I had an 8-core Mac Pro (4,1) and an RME interface (FW in PCIe with a breakout box). Years ago now, I believe the last OS I used on that system was 10.8.5.
The performance with Cubase was not great, frankly. Some would call it really poor. Cubase appears to have improved under OSX in the meantime. I could not compare any use case of mine with an approach where every instrument is hosted by the DAW. I imagine that back then REAPER totally smoked Cubase under OSX in certain use cases.

Today I have 8 cores on a 16,1 MBP and a Presonus Quantum 2626 and no matter what I add to my projects apparently I can keep the latency round-trip under 5ms. Some of it is easily as greedy as Omnisphere for CPU cycles. Looking at how much weight per instance in my projects this year, the instances* with three synths are about 50% heavier than the instances with whole orchestra sections, 96 channels all told in Synchron Player (lot of mics), 24 instances in MIR Pro...
I guess Omnisphere was chosen for being hard on resources; we don't know what's in these Omnisphere tracks though, I mean I know how I can make my system beg for mercy with one track of Absynth in certain things I make. I did it last night, with a certain amount of buildup the CPU 'runs out of time' to do that much math (IE., I have to let it catch its breath as it were).

In the real world, if one is creating projects which break the bank in the DAW, one ought to be using *VE Pro anyway.
All this stuff said, REAPER is probably more efficient per se than the other two. Perhaps to the extent your test suggests, even. How useful is this information, in itself/to all is another question. REAPER is great for some, but there are other advantages elsewhere which obviate it as a choice for say myself. It doesn't offer any particular advantage for me.
I simply couldn't go back to using every instrument/every FX hosted in a DAW, and REAPER is not the best choice for VE Pro. Nor is Logic, the other thing coded to be more efficient in certain scenarios.

[tyronehowe]

Hi jancivil

Thanks for your reply.

I agree with what you say.

I said that it shows a useful comparison, and I stand by that. But I very much doubt that these results apply only to my setup. The absolute numbers will be different for sure, but the relative differences may not be.

Yes, I chose Omnisphere because it can be very hungry on certain patches. It meant I could test with 10s rather than 100s of tracks. Also, I use Omnisphere a lot, so it is important to me.

I am not in any way suggesting that Reaper is a better DAW than the others – that (I honestly believe) is a completely subjective decision. All the DAWs offer different kinds of workflow and UX and the most important thing is for the composer to find a match.

And that’s the point. To some people efficiency of plugin use is important. To others, not so much (and they may decide to use VEP or some other solution). So, I posted my results – primarily for people who are interested in efficiency.

All the best

[EvilDragon]

and REAPER is not the best choice for VE Pro.

Why do you think? It works just fine with it.

[jancivil]

Well, 'the best choice' and 'works just fine' are not the same goalpost.

It's like any number of things, you have to work harder to get the same results given to us in Cubase or Nuendo.
- Multiple MIDI ports. In Cubendo there is nothing one needs to do. You set it in VE Pro preferences, which involves a restart of it. And we are done.
You connect with Cubendo and you have the ports in Inspector to select from.
You do need to know it's strictly a property of VST3 to get more than the usual one.

versus:

<(- Open the Ensemble Pro Server FX window in REAPER. Make sure you are using the VST3i version of the Ensemble Pro Plugin.)
- Click on the button in the top right part of the window that says something like "2/64" out. It will open a window with a grid.
- On that new window, click the small button that says I/O, again in the top right. You'll get a drop down menu.
- In that menu, you need to change a few settings. They are:
Midi Input -> Map REAPER MIDI Buses to VST3 MIDI Buses
Midi Output -> Map VST3 MIDI Buses to REAPER MIDI Buses
Make sure both those are checked. Once they are, Buses 2 and up will interact correctly with [VE Pro]>

So again, the best choice *for me* looks like 'Work smarter, not harder'.

That may not seem like tons of trouble for y'all who like all that, but...
then:

One question: I'm able to get this to work perfectly for the first port in VE Pro [...].
I tried MIDI bus 2 and bus 1, with no luck. Is there something I might be missing?

Make sure the following settings match, as pictured:
[image]

When using MIDI Bus/Port #1, the following settings should be made:
In REAPER's Send configuration window:
MIDI: [All] and [Channel #]

In Ensemble Pro:
Port: 1 Channel: [Channel #]

Not trying to persuade, but it seems clear enough to me one thing does this seamlessly, the other requires specific information (who knew a MIDI Port was a 'bus'? I realize REAPER fans like the conflation and all tracks are just tracks but it isn't the clearer way to speak) one has to locate. A couple things had to be translated.

[pdxindy]

Well, 'the best choice' and 'works just fine' are not the same goalpost.

It's like any number of things, you have to work harder to get the same results given to us in Cubase or Nuendo.
# Multiple MIDI ports. In Cubendo there is nothing one needs to do. You set it in VE Pro preferences, which involves a restart of it. And we are done.
You connect with Cubendo and you have the ports in Inspector. You do need to know it's strictly a property of VST3 to do it.

versus:

<- Open the Ensemble Pro Server FX window in REAPER. Make sure you are using the VST3i version of the Ensemble Pro Plugin.

- Click on the button in the top right part of the window that says something like "2/64" out. It will open a window with a grid.

- On that new window, click the small button that says I/O, again in the top right. You'll get a drop down menu.

- In that menu, you need to change a few settings. They are:

Midi Input -> Map REAPER MIDI Buses to VST3 MIDI Buses
Midi Output -> Map VST3 MIDI Buses to REAPER MIDI Buses
Make sure both those are checked. Once they are, Buses 2 and up will interact correctly with [VE Pro]>

So again, the best choice for me is Work Smarter, Not Harder.

That's just a one time operation... make a template and you are good to go every time

[jancivil]

I recognize that FFS. The question was put to me why do I think what I think, and this is why I think what I think.
I even already said the goalpost 'the best choice' is not the same as 'It works just fine'.


I didn't have to figure out shit, or look up shit. Why is this so hard? I'm not going to embrace things which make me do work I don't have to do, since I'm not dissatisfied with Cubase. There is no upside for me at all. If there is for you, great, I'm not you.