Goodbye Hydlide?

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!
User avatar
Namyo85
Posts: 199
Joined: 11 Mar 2017

Post 31 Oct 2018

I've started work on a new track. At the moment I've lined up about 28 different devices, mostly RE synths, including 1 Kong, 1 Echo, 3 audio tracks with various samples on them. 2 Utility RE's and 2 vst effects. I'll probably remove and change some of the synths as at the moment as I'm testing things. So far only 5 of the tracks have sequence data and one audio track plays various samples.

The point being: In Preferences, if 'Use multi-core audio rendering' and 'Use hyper-threading audio rendering' are unticked I get two DSP bars. If they're both ticked I get one bar. :exclamation:

If I tick 'hyper-threading' only I get two bars, if I tick 'multi-core' only I get one bar. :!:

It jumps up one bar on both settings slightly now and then. There doesn't seem much noticeable difference with having both boxes ticked or only 'multi-core' ticked, therefore I don't know if the hyper-threading setting is doing much in this case. However, this confirms what Mattius said earlier for sure. I'm using an i5 quad core laptop, I think it's about 7 years old now.

It would be really helpful by the way, if the preferences window was always on top or perhaps had it's own taskbar tab.
It was time-consuming to keep minimizing the 3 separated windows all the time when testing.
This would also help when checking / unchecking the boxes to see what works best for individual songs! :ugeek:
Here's a thought: The tool window always stays on top, so could the code that does that be put with the preferences window code? :cool:

User avatar
Boombastix
Posts: 143
Joined: 18 May 2018
Location: Bay Area, CA

Post 01 Nov 2018

Arrant wrote:
31 Oct 2018
I don't watch Hydlide's videos and don't really care what all the fuss is about.
However I did some testing of my own, as mentioned in another CPU thread that died off, and there is no doubt that CPU efficiency in Reason MUST improve. Here are my results again (on a PC):

Using the default patch in the Europa VST («FACT lead») I just put down some notes in a track and then duplicated the track until the CPU melted down. In Reason I managed 70 instances before the computer too slow message showed up.
In Reaper I got a whooping 172 (!).

That means (judging by this limited test) that Reason is 40% as efficient at running VST instuments as Reaper. Or, putting it differently, Reaper is almost 2.5 times more efficient than Reason. Incredible!

Try it yourself if you don't believe me.
Now I don't want to switch from Reason to Reaper, but it's obvious that this situation makes it very hard for Reason to compete in the DAW market.
I have seen other YouTube videos showing very similar numbers. The difference between Cubase/Studio 1/etc was pretty small but Reason managed less than half of the VSTs - so it'll be nice once we get it fixed.

mcatalao
Posts: 785
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 01 Nov 2018

Namyo85 wrote:I've started work on a new track. At the moment I've lined up about 28 different devices, mostly RE synths, including 1 Kong, 1 Echo, 3 audio tracks with various samples on them. 2 Utility RE's and 2 vst effects. I'll probably remove and change some of the synths as at the moment as I'm testing things. So far only 5 of the tracks have sequence data and one audio track plays various samples.

The point being: In Preferences, if 'Use multi-core audio rendering' and 'Use hyper-threading audio rendering' are unticked I get two DSP bars. If they're both ticked I get one bar. :exclamation:

If I tick 'hyper-threading' only I get two bars, if I tick 'multi-core' only I get one bar. :!:

It jumps up one bar on both settings slightly now and then. There doesn't seem much noticeable difference with having both boxes ticked or only 'multi-core' ticked, therefore I don't know if the hyper-threading setting is doing much in this case. However, this confirms what Mattius said earlier for sure. I'm using an i5 quad core laptop, I think it's about 7 years old now.

It would be really helpful by the way, if the preferences window was always on top or perhaps had it's own taskbar tab.
It was time-consuming to keep minimizing the 3 separated windows all the time when testing.
This would also help when checking / unchecking the boxes to see what works best for individual songs! :ugeek:
Here's a thought: The tool window always stays on top, so could the code that does that be put with the preferences window code? :cool:
Hi.

A 7 year i5 might not have hyperthreadin. The amount of cpus between laptops and desktops is absurd and configurations are very disparate. For example a lot of desktop i5s do not have ht. But low energy i5s for example the ones in Microsoft surface and other híbrids are dual core ht. So to get better conclusions you should check your cpu model and check on Intel or cpu benchmark if it has ht.

Cheers.

Sent from my WAS-LX1A using Tapatalk


User avatar
Namyo85
Posts: 199
Joined: 11 Mar 2017

Post 01 Nov 2018

Yeah, I was gonna get round to checking the CPU online. I've done it now. From website: It is based on the Sandy Bridge architecture and offers Hyperthreading to handle 4 threads at once'. It's also a dual core not quad core as I said in the original post.

User avatar
Cultor
Posts: 17
Joined: 20 May 2017

Post 01 Nov 2018

Blamsoft wrote:
31 Oct 2018
Cultor wrote:
29 Oct 2018

Do you by any chance own the Polymodular System ?
If you do curious what happends when you try the "Epic Plucker" Preset.
Factory bank can be downloaded here: http://blamsoft.com/rack-extensions/polymodular-system/

That preset alone absolutely destroys my CPU i7- 6700k
It turns out that Epic Plucker has the F-16 filter quality on setting 2. This setting is more useful for getting a warm tone on a stereo pair. It generally shouldn't be used in a polyphonic patch.
Thank you for the reply and clearing it up, I later posted that I also found out that it indeed is the filter switch ! It's night and day using the 1 or 2 mode performance-wise.

User avatar
Cultor
Posts: 17
Joined: 20 May 2017

Post 01 Nov 2018

MattiasHG wrote:
31 Oct 2018
fullforce wrote:
31 Oct 2018


Wait states. Welcome back to 1991.

Shitty programming.
Thanks! Did you hear this new CD “Nevermind” by Nirvana? It’s radical!

Seriously though, not saying this is good or won’t be changed—I’m no programmer— just trying to explain what you’re seeing when viewing the CPU monitor to avoid confusion. :)
Great to see someone from PH involved in discussions like this one.

As you mentioned the CPU load information we get from the taskmanager doesn't actually tell us much about the actual load of a project inside of Reason.
Maybe something like a Performance Meter (this one is from Reaper ) could be useful tool to have.
Image
For die hard nerds and RE developers in order to monitor different loads between devices.
I'm no Reaper user myself but from what I understand it shows the load on a track by track basis.

We have seen from different example that heavy load can come from devices we least expect it. (for example using a wrong setting in the F-16 filter)
A tool like this could improve the way we talk about performance and narrow down the origin of possible issues.

mcatalao
Posts: 785
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 01 Nov 2018

Cultor wrote:
01 Nov 2018

Great to see someone from PH involved in discussions like this one.

As you mentioned the CPU load information we get from the taskmanager doesn't actually tell us much about the actual load of a project inside of Reason.
Maybe something like a Performance Meter (this one is from Reaper ) could be useful tool to have.
Image
For die hard nerds and RE developers in order to monitor different loads between devices.
I'm no Reaper user myself but from what I understand it shows the load on a track by track basis.

We have seen from different example that heavy load can come from devices we least expect it. (for example using a wrong setting in the F-16 filter)
A tool like this could improve the way we talk about performance and narrow down the origin of possible issues.
Yep, this would be interesting thought reason free routing could be hard to interpret but maybe we could have it just with device info?
It could help a lot (specially if it came along with VST performance and a complete freeze process).

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 476
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 01 Nov 2018

Arrant wrote:
31 Oct 2018
Using the default patch in the Europa VST («FACT lead») I just put down some notes in a track and then duplicated the track until the CPU melted down. In Reason I managed 70 instances before the computer too slow message showed up.
In Reaper I got a whooping 172 (!).

That means (judging by this limited test) that Reason is 40% as efficient at running VST instuments as Reaper. Or, putting it differently, Reaper is almost 2.5 times more efficient than Reason. Incredible!
That huge difference comes as it's a somewhat unfair comparison. Reason is running all those VST in "real time" with a very small buffer (iirc batches of 64 samples) while Reaper is "cheating" by prerendering each VST in the background with much larger buffers. So a fair comparison would be to check if Reason can do 172 audiotracks.

If the Props would implement an intelligent Autofreeze function into Reason the performance would be much better. But as there is CV implementing it is not as simple as in other DAWs.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

User avatar
Oquasec
Posts: 2018
Joined: 05 Mar 2017

Post 01 Nov 2018

If anything, Reason is performing very well given every vst is using 64 samples with a custom Wrapper...
Last edited by Oquasec on 01 Nov 2018, edited 1 time in total.
Producer/Sound Designer.
Anything works.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 4953
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 01 Nov 2018

jam-s wrote:
01 Nov 2018
That huge difference comes as it's a somewhat unfair comparison. Reason is running all those VST in "real time" with a very small buffer (iirc batches of 64 samples) while Reaper is "cheating" by prerendering each VST in the background with much larger buffers.
This is something that most people aren't aware of. That said, it's little consolation for those who use Reason. It would be cool if Props could implement a similar approach, though.
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10 |  Studio One 3.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 4.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | M-Audio Trigger Finger Pro

User avatar
Heigen5
Posts: 229
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Location: Lõvi-isa

Post 01 Nov 2018

jam-s wrote:
01 Nov 2018
But as there is CV implementing it is not as simple as in other DAWs.
They need to rewrite the CV-thingy, which may be the only way. CV did not need to be different from the frontside from in the beginning...

fullforce
Posts: 51
Joined: 18 Aug 2018

Post 01 Nov 2018

jam-s wrote:
01 Nov 2018
That huge difference comes as it's a somewhat unfair comparison. Reason is running all those VST in "real time" with a very small buffer (iirc batches of 64 samples) while Reaper is "cheating" by prerendering each VST in the background with much larger buffers. So a fair comparison would be to check if Reason can do 172 audiotracks.
That's not cheating. That's smart programming.

User avatar
Arrant
Posts: 285
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 01 Nov 2018

fullforce wrote:
01 Nov 2018
jam-s wrote:
01 Nov 2018
That huge difference comes as it's a somewhat unfair comparison. Reason is running all those VST in "real time" with a very small buffer (iirc batches of 64 samples) while Reaper is "cheating" by prerendering each VST in the background with much larger buffers. So a fair comparison would be to check if Reason can do 172 audiotracks.
That's not cheating. That's smart programming.
Agreed. But thanks for pointing this out, I wasn’t aware. However turning that option(«anticipative FX processing») off in Reaper makes no difference to my test.
The impressive amount of buffering and thread usage options available makes me suspect the Reaper devs have a really solid knowledge about how to squeeze performance out of a multicore cpu though.

fullforce
Posts: 51
Joined: 18 Aug 2018

Post 01 Nov 2018

Arrant wrote:
01 Nov 2018
fullforce wrote:
01 Nov 2018


That's not cheating. That's smart programming.
Agreed. But thanks for pointing this out, I wasn’t aware. However turning that option(«anticipative FX processing») off in Reaper makes no difference to my test.
The impressive amount of buffering and thread usage options available makes me suspect the Reaper devs have a really solid knowledge about how to squeeze performance out of a multicore cpu though.
This is exactly a "trick" that I've already hinted at when I referenced the book from ID software in a previous post. It's what John Carmack did to make a smooth scrolling game on an ancient PC. By smart programming and optimize the shit out of it. That's the only proper way.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 476
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 01 Nov 2018

fullforce wrote:
01 Nov 2018
jam-s wrote:
01 Nov 2018
That huge difference comes as it's a somewhat unfair comparison. Reason is running all those VST in "real time" with a very small buffer (iirc batches of 64 samples) while Reaper is "cheating" by prerendering each VST in the background with much larger buffers. So a fair comparison would be to check if Reason can do 172 audiotracks.
That's not cheating. That's smart programming.
This depends highly on what your goal is: If you want to build a virtual Rack with very flexible and highly dynamic routing then the smart programming done in Reaper could be seen as "cheating". If you goal is to be just a DAW, then Reason has chosen a poor implementation of its modulation (=CV) aspect.
I hope, you can see why things are the way they are right now.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

fullforce
Posts: 51
Joined: 18 Aug 2018

Post 01 Nov 2018

jam-s wrote:
01 Nov 2018
This depends highly on what your goal is: If you want to build a virtual Rack with very flexible and highly dynamic routing then the smart programming done in Reaper could be seen as "cheating". If you goal is to be just a DAW, then Reason has chosen a poor implementation of its modulation (=CV) aspect.
I hope, you can see why things are the way they are right now.
I call bullshit on that because CV has been a feature of Reason since version 1.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 4953
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 01 Nov 2018

fullforce wrote:
01 Nov 2018
jam-s wrote:
01 Nov 2018
This depends highly on what your goal is: If you want to build a virtual Rack with very flexible and highly dynamic routing then the smart programming done in Reaper could be seen as "cheating". If you goal is to be just a DAW, then Reason has chosen a poor implementation of its modulation (=CV) aspect.
I hope, you can see why things are the way they are right now.
I call bullshit on that because CV has been a feature of Reason since version 1.
You can call all the bullshit you want, but is it really shitty programming? Nope. It works.
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10 |  Studio One 3.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 4.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | M-Audio Trigger Finger Pro

User avatar
Loque
Posts: 4232
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

Post 01 Nov 2018

Uh...this thread is going in a weird direction. I gonna leave it.
mrw-i-have-an-excuse-to-leave-class-31684.gif
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
:reason: 10, Win10 64Bit.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 476
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 01 Nov 2018

fullforce wrote:
01 Nov 2018
jam-s wrote:
01 Nov 2018
This depends highly on what your goal is: If you want to build a virtual Rack with very flexible and highly dynamic routing then the smart programming done in Reaper could be seen as "cheating". If you goal is to be just a DAW, then Reason has chosen a poor implementation of its modulation (=CV) aspect.
I hope, you can see why things are the way they are right now.
I call bullshit on that because CV has been a feature of Reason since version 1.
Was Reason 1 a virtual rack or a DAW? Your turn.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

fullforce
Posts: 51
Joined: 18 Aug 2018

Post 02 Nov 2018

jam-s wrote:
01 Nov 2018
fullforce wrote:
01 Nov 2018


I call bullshit on that because CV has been a feature of Reason since version 1.
Was Reason 1 a virtual rack or a DAW? Your turn.
Completely irrelevant question. CV is not a huge factor on performance (or lack thereof). If Reason was a DAW or not depends on what your definition of a DAW is. And it doesn't change anything. So because Reason is a DAW now it's OK to be slapped together like some unefficient Frankenstein monster?

fullforce
Posts: 51
Joined: 18 Aug 2018

Post 02 Nov 2018

EnochLight wrote:
01 Nov 2018
You can call all the bullshit you want, but is it really shitty programming? Nope. It works.
Well, I hope you're not a programmer, if "it works" is your only criterium.

User avatar
O1B
Posts: 1214
Joined: 26 Jan 2015

Post 02 Nov 2018

Cheating would be "copying" code, if I'm not mistaken.

This is a first.

Clever, effective, more efficient, shorter code is NOT "cheating."
My programming Profs would love that one!
Antic604 "Well, he's been doing it - mentioning Eurorack hardware - in majority of his posts, so I'm not surprised anymore :? Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:19 pm

User avatar
jappe
Posts: 2015
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 02 Nov 2018

Discuss in a nice manner please.

User avatar
Faastwalker
Posts: 1357
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 02 Nov 2018

Loque wrote:
01 Nov 2018
Uh...this thread is going in a weird direction. I gonna leave it.
Yes, it’s been directed into ‘The Kitchen’, a place for discussing ‘non Reason related stuff’. How’d that happen?! Anyway the whole world is going in a weird direction. I guess I can say that now we’re in the kitchen. Reason performance issues? First world problems. It doesnt really matter.

User avatar
Jagwah
Posts: 1224
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 03 Nov 2018

comment removed
Last edited by Jagwah on 10 Nov 2018, edited 2 times in total.

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests