Speculation about our computers getting slow for our DAWS

[kingslim]

I have an anecdote re. Bitwig 2... since it dropped it's been generating a lot of heat and fan noise on my MacBook, even with very minimal use.. I reported it as a bug, repeatedly (at each update), eventually they said it was by design and they have a much higher graphical frame rate than other DAW's, intentionally using all GFX resources available. Wasn't until I framed it as a feature request toggle to enable silent operation on 'lower end devices' for tracking and various listening conditions.That they responded logically with a 'thank you for the request blah'. I'm guessing this issue is prevalent as ui's scale up for 4k screens and implement touch support and things. Those with small screens and normal mouse will see nothing but a suddenly struggling computer.

[Jax Pok]

Ableton Live 9 for example got an update replacing it's filter effect with a new one based on Cytomic The Drop so I presume opening up an old project with the Live filters on would require a little more CPU.

[jancivil]

He's saying that your computer isn't getting slower. Newer versions of your software are using more resources to run. Anytime a new feature is added, regardless of the significance to you, it will require more processing power.

Of cource, but the point of my posting was, that sound-quality hasn't improved either.

What exactly has you believing that the 'sound quality' is down to 'how fast or slow' your computer is or may be?

[deep'n'dark]

He's saying that your computer isn't getting slower. Newer versions of your software are using more resources to run. Anytime a new feature is added, regardless of the significance to you, it will require more processing power.

Of cource, but the point of my posting was, that sound-quality hasn't improved either.

What exactly has you believing that the 'sound quality' is down to 'how fast or slow' your computer is or may be?

As example, oversampling.

[jancivil]

Ok, specifically your belief is that computers are less and less capable of oversampling?

Have you done any research into how a computer may be made more optimal by certain best practices? More to the point...

[deep'n'dark]

Ok, specifically your belief is that computers are less and less capable of oversampling?

Have you done any research into how a computer may be made more optimal by certain best practices? More to the point...

It depends really. If all the instruments and effects would be what they were when they were realased, it wouldn't be the case. But that's not always the case. There's a big difference between DAWs, when we compare how much CPU they take from the very same VSTs.

[Guenon]

I did a benchmark test and Reason got slower by half without any reason.

Can you post the benchmark details and the project files you used?

[chk071]

I know this sounds harsh, but... you should get rid of Reason. There's been so many times you complained about its sound quality, or something else about it now. Get a VST host. Get some quality plugins. Never look back. Seriously.

[deep'n'dark]

I did a benchmark test and Reason got slower by half without any reason.

Can you post the benchmark details and the project files you used?

I did the test with Reason's 8 benchmark songfile: https://forum.reasontalk.com/viewtopic. ... u+stress+8

[jancivil]

Ok, specifically your belief is that computers are less and less capable of oversampling?

Have you done any research into how a computer may be made more optimal by certain best practices? More to the point...

It depends really. If all the instruments and effects would be what they were when they were realased, it wouldn't be the case. But that's not always the case. There's a big difference between DAWs, when we compare how much CPU they take from the very same VSTs.

Well, my question was basically 'do you keep a clean machine' which for a windows system may extend to awareness of DPC Latency.

I didn't know DAWS were wildly different. I was running Cubase Pro 9 on a 2011 MacBook Pro kind of nicely. Duo-core or whatever they called it and 8GB. I'd prefer my old system with much more muscle on paper but real-time performance may not agree with how a machine specs out.

It seems more the case to me that developers take advantage of advances of CPU such as multi-core tech and so forth, graphics capability in certain cases but you seem to think that the requirements of software in the audio plugins realm has substantially outstripped what machines can perform. But I tend to think it's particular to your experience and so I asked about 'how optimal' and have you looked into what's slow. I don't know who's made a synth or whatever that oversamples in a way that kills all modern CPUs as a matter of course, you know.

[deep'n'dark]

I know this sounds harsh, but... you should get rid of Reason. There's been so many times you complained about its sound quality, or something else about it now. Get a VST host. Get some quality plugins. Never look back. Seriously.

This has nothing to do with Reason's sound. My complains are usually feature suggestions, not complains. That's why rest of you Reasoners have Sound/Patch search, sound favourite and reduce cable clutter features now, to mention few.

[deep'n'dark]

Ok, specifically your belief is that computers are less and less capable of oversampling?

Have you done any research into how a computer may be made more optimal by certain best practices? More to the point...

It depends really. If all the instruments and effects would be what they were when they were realased, it wouldn't be the case. But that's not always the case. There's a big difference between DAWs, when we compare how much CPU they take from the very same VSTs.

Well, my question was basically 'do you keep a clean machine' which for a windows system may extend to awareness of DPC Latency.

I didn't know DAWS were wildly different. I was running Cubase Pro 9 on a 2011 MacBook Pro kind of nicely. Duo-core or whatever they called it and 8GB. I'd prefer my old system with much more muscle on paper but real-time performance may not agree with how a machine specs out.

It seems more the case to me that developers take advantage of advances of CPU such as multi-core tech and so forth, graphics capability in certain cases but you seem to think that the requirements of software in the audio plugins realm has substantially outstripped what machines can perform. But I tend to think it's particular to your experience and so I asked about 'how optimal' and have you looked into what's slow. I don't know who's made a synth or whatever that oversamples in a way that kills all modern CPUs as a matter of course, you know.

All I'd like to say, is that some very old technologies can sound better than some new, because CPU isn't always an answer when making a synth sounding good.

[chk071]

I know this sounds harsh, but... you should get rid of Reason. There's been so many times you complained about its sound quality, or something else about it now. Get a VST host. Get some quality plugins. Never look back. Seriously.

This has nothing to do with Reason's sound.

I know. It is about performance this time. Still.

[deep'n'dark]

I know this sounds harsh, but... you should get rid of Reason. There's been so many times you complained about its sound quality, or something else about it now. Get a VST host. Get some quality plugins. Never look back. Seriously.

This has nothing to do with Reason's sound.

I know. It is about performance this time. Still.

Can I ask you though: Have you ever been using another DAWs than Reason, which actually did sound better in YOUR opinion?

[Guenon]

I did a benchmark test and Reason got slower by half without any reason.

Can you post the benchmark details and the project files you used?

I did the test with Reason's 8 benchmark songfile: https://forum.reasontalk.com/viewtopic. ... u+stress+8

What were your results and other test details that lead to the "slower by half" outcome? The actual result of the benchmark, the machine and OS specs, the versions of Reason used, etc.