I have a 2008 Mac pro 8 core 3.GHz running El Capiten. With Studio One 3 pro current version.
I have a nice program that shows me cpu performance. There is a big difference between the cpu performance in Studio One & between my Activity monitor on my mac.
In Studio one, I'm running at 75 %, yet in activity monitor I'm running at 24 %.
I have the mac store app CPU LED which shows real time core usage, and each core is sitting green. When using any other app I can see the cores get used, the lights change from green to red briefly using different cores.
It appears that S1 is not utilizing my Mac pro very well, which is disappointing because that's one of the reasons I bought S1, I thought it handled multi CPU performance really good.
There's always a big difference in what S1 reports compared to what my operating system reports (win 10 64bit)
I would like to know what that means... Definitely seems that when S1 decides that it is maxing cpu out that she starts sputtering and refuses to allow more plugins to be dropped into the session...
https://soundcloud.com/brotherbrim/sets ... ernational
Win10... S1 pro latest version... 64 bits... Rme latest drivers... All the ram and i7 monster...
So in my quest to trouble shoot DAW CPU multicore performance, I thought I would try Reaper.
Well let me tell you, that Reaper is drastically MUCH better at multicore performance. Specifically with the use of FX plugins. With reaper you can enable multicore for the FX plugins and let me tell you there is a drastic difference.
I can run the same plugins and more running at 17%. I have T-Racks Stealth limiter which if you put on 16X inter-sample it is a massive CPU hog, with Reaper it handles it with no problem.
So the problem with Studio One is it appears possibly that program itself is using multicore but FX are not, or if they are they are not using it very well or are limited.
So this is disappointing because Studio One is my favourite DAW..& I paid alot of money for it too... but with out a doubt, I love the workflow and design of it.
So hope we can see an update with better FX plugin multicore usage with more options on how to set that too.
So I have figured out that Reaper is auto set to a very device block size which reduces CPU a bunch. Repear still handles FX much more efficiently than S1 3.
So a workaround for S1 3, recording, setting a lower Block size is the way to go, and then for mixing use a higher or the max block size. Obviously freezing tracks is the other way or addition method, which could be used to get FX processing on recorded tracks, while recording additional tracks.
I still don't understand the difference between the S1 CPU meters and my macs.
I found back in S1 with the max block size, and pushing CPU up to 98% it started to use all cores.
Reaper still handles Fx much better.
Try it your self just make sure to enable FX for multi cores.
There's more than that going on there, it also optionally does an anticipative processing thing for fx which has a few minor downsides in some cases. It just is what it is and unfortunately you can never have it all anywhere.
I still don't understand the difference between the S1 CPU meters and my macs.
IIRC, and I may be mistaken about that, what you see on the S1 CPU meter is the core with the current heaviest load... because (I think anyway, again, don't take my word as gospel) if any single core overloads it will cause audible problems, dropouts, no matter what any of the other cores are doing.
Now if that load or measurement is identical (or supposed to be identical) to what you see in the system meter for that same core, no idea. It may be more of a literal ASIO load type thing than what the system is measuring. No clue. I just play until it can't handle any more and then freeze or re-stage some things.
Yeah, I don't think Studio One's current CPU measurement approach helps with its reputation as CPU hungry. S1 is almost certainly showing the core with the max load. Example:
1. Load a CPU heavy synth like Repro-1 (HQ mode on, Sleep mode off - this synth uses constant CPU even at 0 voices)
2. Check the CPU use in Studio One, it might be 24%-26% on some patches
3. Load 4 more instances
Result: your CPU is probably still around 24-26%. Look in Windows Performance Monitor - CPU load is MUCH, MUCH lower.
4. Load another 4 instances...
Result: now we're starting to tax the CPU.
How is it that you can run 8 instances of a synth that runs at about 25% CPU per instance? It's because S1's performance monitor isn't showing you the actual CPU use, it appears to be showing max CPU on that core. On an 8 core system, you may be nowhere near maxing out CPU even though S1 is showing you a very high CPU load. It'll depend on each project though, and what's loaded where. For instance, I think a single effect bin can only run on a single core, so if your vocal chain has a lot of plugins and runs on a core that a CPU intensive synth happens to run on, you may max out the core early. However, if you have a few plugins here and there split out across multiple channels, you'll get a much more even load balance.
...at least, that's how I think it works just based on my anecdotal observations.
Technicalities are nice, but fact is, doing the same thing on both programs leads to Studio One choking way before Reaper (and one other DAW tested) does.
I have no problem because I never track and mix at the same time and so far have done all mixing in Mixbus, but would love to eventually just do everything with Studio One (took a chance on the recently-released CTC1 and it has been good on the Tube setting). But yes, SO3 is a bit of a CPU hog.
Glass-half-full perspective: sometimes limitations force us to become more efficient and better problem-solvers!
irvingomez wroteTechnicalities are nice, but fact is, doing the same thing on both programs leads to Studio One choking way before Reaper (and one other DAW tested) does.
Right. And that's exactly how you should compare the two DAW's: ignore the CPU meters entirely and run the same project in both until they start to choke. I don't think there's any doubt that Reaper gets a higher track count. In fact, it's probably one of the most efficient DAWs out there, if not THE most. I definitely agree S1 could use some improvement in the CPU area, I was just pointing out that the CPU meter is not to be trusted.
It is what it is. There are two... potential challenges? ... involved with it all... as relates to how some users may feel about it, imo, mmv, (insert all of the other "make up your own mind" shortcuts here)...
1. Convincing the company that there's *maybe* a reasonably legitimate problem there (I suppose that's the impetus for the regular threads) ... and also....
2. If (a really key word there ..."if") they personally see it as affecting enough users or the business to rise to a high level of immediacy. At the end of the day it's still just a business.
I personally believe (with no actual evidence to back that up) that #1 above *possibly* (caveat that please) may have happened already, that there's been enough random threads about it over the years to at least get their general attention as relates to it all, whether they agree with those perceptions or not. #2? No idea if it's viewed that way internally (how could any user ever know that?) and/or if any random public clamor about it to date has given them cause to have it rise to that level.
Things like this kinda almost always fall into that old proverb that we all know well...
"... the courage to change the things I can ... (snip, snip, yada, yada) ... and the wisdom to know the difference."
It's not exactly been torches and pitchforks or anything. I mean, if you look on Answers that's not what most people apparently want. They want fader undo.
It's so crazy right now...My own personal struggle is that I have went deep into the research of getting the CPU spikes to stop. Finally with the proper Bios optimization c states off, eist off, turbo boost off and a couple other things that hold back multi core functions, I actually FIXED the issue. I was able to run my project with 4 omnisphere 2 nexus an Electra 2 5 sample one bus routing and a mastering chain....aaaaaaaaaand screen cap with camtasia and not have any performance issue...until a week ago that is and now the CPU spike are back and worse than ever, I tried to screen cap today and I could run 5 sample ones and two audio tracks without 100 percent CPU spikes causing audio drop outs every 12 seconds. I have a support ticket submitted as of Tuesday, no response yet, and I got kicked out of a presonus Facebook group for talking about CPU spikes being an issue lol. Pure madness. I LOVE this daw and don't want to producing music in anything else but right now it's not a functional choice for me. Let's not even get into the income I'm looking at losing because I can't screen cap studio beat sessions at the moment.
Lawrence wroteIt's not exactly been torches and pitchforks or anything. I mean, if you look on Answers that's not what most people apparently want. They want fader undo.
There is no generic "Improve CPU Usage" request.
There's "CPU multicore support is needed. Especially for Multi Instruments," which we already have multicore support, and it's up to developers to code instruments to support multiple cores so I don't get the request. Then there's "Better CPU optimization with Event FX," which, I barely use Event FX so CPU usage there isn't a priority. Then there's a bunch of smaller, specific type of requests.
So believe it or not, a generic, "Improve Studio One's Overall CPU Efficiency" doesn't even exist in the FR forum for anyone to vote on. If I'm wrong, post a link. If I'm right, Lawrence, please feel free to add it and post here. I'll vote it up! I'm pretty sure every S1 user would. It'd be like voting against "give me more money;" who could be against that?
thunderdan wroteIt's hard to see them taking the issue seriously because the people affected most are people using vsts. I may be wrong but it seems like their target market is audio guys who get into the daw because they are either A tired of pro tools bs or B fans of their hardware.
I think you have a very interesting point of view. I got the same exact feeling when doing my homework before buying a Studio 192 interface. There were countless threads dealing with latency problems affecting VSTi users almost exclusively. 'Audio guys' loved it, the way I do - but then again, I deal mostly with acoustic recordings and midi is not a big thing to me.
Maybe Presonus is, indeed, more interested in hardware and live/studio recording, where the money is. I would not blame them if that's the case - it's a business and we would do the same if in their shoes. I know I would.
irvingomez wrotethunderdan wroteIt's hard to see them taking the issue seriously because the people affected most are people using vsts. I may be wrong but it seems like their target market is audio guys who get into the daw because they are either A tired of pro tools bs or B fans of their hardware.
I don't think that's the case at all I think it boils to: priorities. They're still a relatively new DAW, and need to prioritize features. Right now, they're going after Pro Tools, and firming up the audio and mixing side of things. I think that will continue throughout the 3.x development cycle. Then, I see version 4 as likely to be about MIDI and try to catch up to Cubase in that regard. That's my hope at least.
Funkybot has given a really good and correct description how it works in studio one.
And yes maybe it's different to other daw. But if you know what happens, then sometimes it saves life! Because as already said, 90% and more means not, that you can not drive your show anymore, that just means you and one of your cores is on its limit. That not means that you have to stop now. Depends on your cores and cpus.
As I said funkybot descriped it very good.
And it is of course not the answer of all cpu questions. Not 5 years before, not this year, and not the next 10 years. Because there will always be a Diva and Mai Tai and other HiEnd plugins that will burn down your cpu if you want that.
Just always think on that - Studio One "thinks channel by channel" for multi cpu and multi cores.
So you are save for really large projects.
PreSonus Software Ltd. - Hamburg
Modern electronic Synth Pop........../..........Musicproduction, Support & coaching
Windows 10 64-Bit, i7 6700k 4.0 GHz, 16GB RAM, 4TB SSD, Studio One 5 Professional
Funkybot wroteIf I'm wrong, post a link.
Not at all. I think you're right actually, which was kinda my point, that when given the chance to ask for anything and everything and (I suppose, as some often do) lobby for votes for anything there, apparently that thing didn't really even show up there so much.
I mean, it's all definitely kind of a "feature request", whether it's anticipative fx processing like Reaper or Asio Guard like Cubase or whatever Logic calls whatever they do over there, so, yeah, it's not exactly blowing up the FR database.
Lawrence wroteFunkybot wroteIf I'm wrong, post a link.
Just made one:
http://answers.presonus.com/12667/impro ... efficiency
If people think it's important, it'll slowly work its way up the list, if not it won't.
Funkybot wroteThere's "CPU multicore support is needed. Especially for Multi Instruments," which we already have multicore support, and it's up to developers to code instruments to support multiple cores so I don't get the request.
The distribution to the multiple cores is not working well. Most load is put on CPU Core 0 even when using multiple plug-ins.
That means that even if you can set Studio One to use multiple cores, then in many cases it don't use them very well.
And if just a single core is maxed out, then you have issues, even if you have plenty of cores that Studio One just don't use, even if you have set it to use multiple cores.
It's not just about individual plug-ins. It's about how Studio One handles multiple plug-ins.So the biggest issue regarding CPU optimizing is about distribution to multiple cores. If Studio One distributed better among core - including hyperthreading -, then i guess most of the issues will be gone regarding CPU optimizing. So it's really a overall optimization.
All this is quite easy to understand and in your computers CPU monitor for the individual cores, and in posts in the forums.
The CPU distribution problem for example also occour in Studio Ones own Multiinstruments, so it's Studio Ones design that need to be coded to take advantages of multiple cores. Studio Ones coding are responsible for many of the issues.
That's the background for this request: http://answers.presonus.com/10836/multicore-support-needed-especially-for-multi-instruments
Please vote the request up. It got 70 votes by now. Please make it vivivle if you wan't CPU improovements, and please feel free to make your own comment about how you see the issue. It will benefit all - including Presonus that can gain more users. There are no downsides except for those who don't wan't Studio One to do well for all.
In that light i don't get why Presonus don't take responsibilty, unless they just wan't to try to hide the facts.
I really wan't Studio One to do well.
More requests about the issue i fear will water the request out. But surely i wan't CPU improobements.
CPU: Intel I7 3770, 3,4 GHz, Quad core - Hyperthreading
SSD: 2 X Samsung 840 PRO series
RAM: 16 GB
Graphics: Intel HD 4000
OS: Windows 10 Home - 64 bit
DAW: Studio One 2 and 3 Professionel - 64 bit
Controller: Novation SL-MKII - Automap
Soundcard/ Interface: NI Komplete Audio 6
All is Fully updated including BIOS and firmware.
LBH wroteFunkybot wroteThere's "CPU multicore support is needed. Especially for Multi Instruments," which we already have multicore support, and it's up to developers to code instruments to support multiple cores so I don't get the request.
Honestly, this post describes the issue WAY better than your actual Feature Request. I've seen that thing 30 times and had no idea you were talking about improved load balancing between cores because multi-instruments sounded like multi-timbral instruments to me.
Your entire request just says, "CPU multicore support is needed. Especially for Multi Instruments." I'd really suggest you edit the first post in your request and paste in the relevant parts about how load balancing currently works (instruments tending to end up on Core 0), versus how you'd like it to work (instruments being distributed between cores).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests