44 postsPage 3 of 3
1, 2, 3
Ok I won't bother then.

Basically the best way to take advantage of multicore CPUs in Studio One at that moment, is to avoid buses as much as possible and if you have to, load them the least possible (as franYo said). Which is absolutely a shame. Studio One feel a bit "handicapped" (not said in rude way, sorry for my lack of English vocabulary) But anyway that's how it is.

It's been years that it is designed this way, I don't know if/when something will change. I do hope so though!

Now let's get back to work, with all this information exchanged here in mind.

Jpettit you were very helpful.


፨ Studio One Professional 3.5.6
፨ Windows 10 x64 (1703)
፨ Dual Intel Xeon E5-2680v2
፨ 32 GB RAM
፨ Asus Z9PE-D8 WS (5802)
User avatar
by soupiraille on Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:16 pm
jpettit wrotebut keep in mind the developers are 6-12 months ahead of what we are using.

Yep, that's how software development works. ;)


፨ Studio One Professional 3.5.6
፨ Windows 10 x64 (1703)
፨ Dual Intel Xeon E5-2680v2
፨ 32 GB RAM
፨ Asus Z9PE-D8 WS (5802)
User avatar
by soupiraille on Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:43 pm
jpettit wroteSomeday it might be nice to see an analysis of the best way to disperse plugins and instruments for the current design

PreSonus should definitely communicate widely on that.

I just cannot count the frustration that exists amongst users, there's not a single day without a user complaining about CPU in Studio One; I see that all the time. If the users were informed on how it works in Studio One, it would bring more peace as we, the users, would make judicious choices regarding plugin/instrument utilization and bus routing.

Yes I know we should decorrelate CPU and dropouts (which are actually the real problem), but when the dropouts are due to a CPU bottleneck -- basically a limitation in Studio One -- users have the right to complain. And I feel really sorry every time the community blames the user or its system, while it's a limitation of the program that generate their pop and clicks. Especially when you know what is know from everybody and that you hear everywhere: "using buses will save you some CPU". Well, not in Studio One in some regards...

More education brings less problematic situations and less complaints. PreSonus, if you hear that...
I say this with all the love I have for your company.

:reading:


፨ Studio One Professional 3.5.6
፨ Windows 10 x64 (1703)
፨ Dual Intel Xeon E5-2680v2
፨ 32 GB RAM
፨ Asus Z9PE-D8 WS (5802)
User avatar
by jpettit on Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:38 pm
First, yes I agree with you, go make music and if you hit a limit just Transform/Bounce and go on, but don't assume your conclusion is correct.

My test with:
128 track X 2 heavy plug-ins vs
32 heavy plugins stacks on one track vs
32 heavy plugins stacks on bus
Don't agree with your findings.

They do match Funkeybots statement
- Channels are divided amongst cores
- Inserts stacked on a single channel add to a single core
- Buses behave identically to a channels

I thank you for your effort to diagnose a bottleneck.
But as we have said from the beginning they know their bottlenecks and they are conscious decisions in the design.
So at this point, the conversation is done and again we thank you for your efforts.

My Website, Free Studio One Advance Training
SPECS:Win 10 64-bit, 12 Core i7: 32Gb DDR4 ram, 40" 4K monitor, StudioLive 24, Quantum, Faderport16, Central Station Plus, Sceptre 6,Temblor T10, Eris 4.5, HP60, Studio One Pro 4.0, Reaper 5.9, Sonar Platinum

44 postsPage 3 of 3
1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sirmonkey and 46 guests