Cherry Audio...

[zzz00m]

CPU performance is always tied to latency, number of voices used, and envelope release time. Some synths are optimized better than others.

And some folks have optimized their DAW computers for serious audio, while others are using stock setups or gaming rigs. YMMV.

[sacer]

Some Cherry synths are damanding. I have an overclocked Ryzen 5950x and the GX-80 hits it pretty darn hard even at 128 samples with an RME raydat card which is one of the most if not most efficient audio cards / drivers in the game.

That should run Cherry Audio synths just fine. Are you using an audio interface with the manufacturer's ASIO driver?
[/quote]
I'm using an ancient Win7 machine with 8 gigs of ram, and I don't have any problems running any of Cherry Audio's synths. I will get a new computer one of these days, but for now, it's okay. On the other hand, demos I've tried of some other softsynths either don't work well, or not at all, so sooner or later I'll have to bite the bullet.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I have also the ryzen 5950x overclocked. In overall it is faster than my old i7 5960x overclocked to 4,5 ghz with only 8cores - but on single instruments like repro5 without activating multicore it was much faster.

[MrJubbly]

CPU performance is always tied to latency, number of voices used, and envelope release time. Some synths are optimized better than others.

And some folks have optimized their DAW computers for serious audio, while others are using stock setups or gaming rigs. YMMV.

Yeah, well that argument doesn't really hold up, when people are comparing Cherry Audio plugins' performance against dozens of other professional audio plugins' performance ... on the same system (whether optimised or not).

As in, on a system that runs the likes of Diva, Oberheim OBE, or Oddity 3 well. One would perhaps expect Cherry Audio's synths to perform somewhat similarly...

It also doesn't answer why Cherry Audio apparently, decided to omit all of the typical CPU-management settings (Maximum Polyphony control, Quality modes, multicore management, ability to disable Oversampling, etc.) from their synths.

Perhaps then, it is Cherry Audio's plugins that lack "optimisation" you imply, more so than the devices and setups, that you seemingly believe are to blame.

I believe all that has been suggested is that Cherry Audio's plugins are more demanding than most of their competition's plugins. This was my experience in comparing the performance on the same device and nobody has yet offered any evidence to suggest otherwise.

[zzz00m]

CPU performance is always tied to latency, number of voices used, and envelope release time. Some synths are optimized better than others.

And some folks have optimized their DAW computers for serious audio, while others are using stock setups or gaming rigs. YMMV.

Yeah, well that argument doesn't really hold up, when people are comparing Cherry Audio plugins' performance against dozens of other professional audio plugins' performance ... on the same system (whether optimised or not).

As in, on a system that runs the likes of Diva, Oberheim OBE, or Oddity 3 well. One would perhaps expect Cherry Audio's synths to perform somewhat similarly...

"People are comparing". Right, totally scientific. Blame the lazy devs for not ensuring that their state of the art, mathematically intensive modeling won't run on everybody's computers. If you want to run the latest software, you should get an up to date computer! Until then, stick to Diva. Diva was originally released way back in 2011, so that's now 12-year old tech and should scream on any reasonably modern system.

I was just saying that the diverse systems being used now by today's users are not really comparable, as they are apples to oranges, all makes and models and vintages. I could run Diva on my 10-year old dual core PC. Not very well, but because I made adjustments to accommodate the CPU demands, it would run. My current 9th gen Intel desktop runs all of Cherry's synths without issue, the exception being if I crank up GX-80 multi-sampling beyond 2X. But considering the complex math computations involved, I'm not all that surprised...

[zzz00m]

[Deleted, duplicate]

[martinjuenke]

CPU performance is always tied to latency, number of voices used, and envelope release time. Some synths are optimized better than others.

And some folks have optimized their DAW computers for serious audio, while others are using stock setups or gaming rigs. YMMV.

Over and over some guys write in posts that (for example) they still use Windows 7 on an age-old system. I do not wonder that these smart spenders are having performance problems.

[anttimaatteri]

I like some cherry sounds, but I dislike pretty high cpu usage

yeah its insane. 40% on my pc


and regarding that discussion:
btw
the only difference between an optimized "game rig" and an optimized "audio rig" is the audiointerfaces and maybe the graphics card, and maybe some running services needed for online games.
anything else is basically the same and a shitty configured pc is a shitty configured pc. theres no magic or myth. you can be picky about the hardware used, but even that hardware isnt especially made for audio.
and then
there are apple comps

[BBFG#]

CPU performance is always tied to latency, number of voices used, and envelope release time. Some synths are optimized better than others.

And some folks have optimized their DAW computers for serious audio, while others are using stock setups or gaming rigs. YMMV.

Over and over some guys write in posts that (for example) they still use Windows 7 on an age-old system. I do not wonder that these smart spenders are having performance problems.

That would be relative to the machine it's on though. My Win7 machine, while being version 1 Xeons, runs superior to my Win10 version 3 Xeon. The difference seemingly being in the number of cores and amount of RAM.

More importantly, the Win 7 machine runs with less MS demands of bloating our system to reduce their anxiety with the unnecessary store, news, people, etc. And it was the last OS for certain drivers to communicate to my hardware. (Which is like having one computer mastering seven more.)

Win10 is a great all around for home doings, but Win7 is the last and best for having a centralized specific use.

[inception8a]

Is it me or do they not sound all that impressive? Nice GUI's but their clones compared to Arturia, Roland, GForce etc. don't sound as good...

What does it mean to say that it doesn't sound all that impressive? How do you (or should you) actually describe something as not being all that impressive beyond declaring it as that?

[MrJubbly]

Yeah, well that argument doesn't really hold up, when people are comparing Cherry Audio plugins' performance against dozens of other professional audio plugins' performance ... on the same system (whether optimised or not).

As in, on a system that runs the likes of Diva, Oberheim OBE, or Oddity 3 well. One would perhaps expect Cherry Audio's synths to perform somewhat similarly...

"People are comparing". Right, totally scientific.

What has "science" got to do with this? Whatever device somebody has, it's a basic task to compare how one audio plugin performs against another on the exact same device and setup.

The fact that newer, more powerful devices may be able to "cope" better with the extra demands of Cherry Audio's plugins, is neither here nor there, in terms of making a direct comparisons with plugins from their competition and assessments thereof.

Blame the lazy devs for not ensuring that their state of the art, mathematically intensive modeling won't run on everybody's computers.

Well, let's not get too carried away here. I will go so far as to compliment Cherry Audio on making some nice-sounding plugins (especially, at such budget value asking prices). But it's not like they are standing head and shoulders above those from the likes of GForce, u-he and others, now are they?

And yet, those developers managed to make arguably superior-sounding plugins than Cherry Audio, while also being far less demanding on system resources and hardware specs. Which is actually the real issue that was being discussed here.

If you want to run the latest software, you should get an up to date computer! Until then, stick to Diva. Diva was originally released way back in 2011, so that's now 12-year old tech and should scream on any reasonably modern system.

Okay then, which Cherry Audio plugin are you willing to put up against that ancient, decrepit Diva and state that it has a superior sound or justifies the extra hardware spec demands, if you are to take that stance?

I could run Diva on my 10-year old dual core PC. Not very well, but because I made adjustments to accommodate the CPU demands, it would run.

Helped no doubt, by the fact that u-he actually included several of the 'efficiency' features (as have already been stated previously here) that were being suggested for inclusion in Cherry Audio's plugins. So what exactly is your issue then, with anyone suggesting Cherry Audio doing similar today?