Performance drop with Reason 9

[Rene Disco]

I'm running Windows 10 and it fails to play anything at all even with bypassed insert fx. Reason 8 is fine. Maybe I'll wait for 9.2 or something.

[DJDark2010]

It would nice, if PH would also use the power of current GPU´s for DSP related calculations. I have a high power GPU and a fast CPU. So there is enough headroom for calculations.

[SA Studio]

While I think it is reasonable to expect that you shouldn't have to upgrade you're computer every time you upgrade your software, I don't think it's reasonable to not expect a performance hit compared to the previous version. Adding new features sometime require more horsepower. The performance gain through code optimization decreases every year because the tools get better. Aging systems, even when well maintained, slow down. I'm just saying. Just build it into the budget. Get Reason 9; get faster computer. Or build it in to your expectations and plan accordingly: If this doesn't work out as you expected, can you live with that and make it work? Otherwise, your'e just bottling another fine concoction of bitterness and regret to pour over the grave site of your unfulfilled potential and ideas. Instead, focus on telling the story on how much you squeezed out of program many thought had lost a step.

I love Reason just as much, but I can't agree with you here. Quite the opposite is true, in my opinion. Especially these days. Not every new version of Reason should require better hardware...UNLESS...the core code is never touched or optimized, which I don't think it has been.

You need to realize what Pro Tools did a few versions ago when they addressed their aging code = They nearly doubled the track counts and DSP availability for any "aging" cpu set-up. They nearly doubled the expected efficiency of the program on any given CPU setup. Why? Because they optimized the code, and actually spent time really trying to make it more efficient.

If you think adding the Pitch Device, the two Players, and color schemes would increase overall DSP use, I personally do not. Granted, I have not even tried or used 9....yet. So I really can't speak to it being more or less efficient. I can however disagree with the assumption that with every new version, someone needs to "Just build it into the budget" and get a better cpu. That's just thinking there's more going on under the hood than there really is.

What's going on under the hood needs cleaned up. If we're taxing DSP because of scrolling the rack, that's certainly something that needs cleaned up.

In 2016, complacency says "we all need a new CPU for a new version" when in fact, there's room for us to expect better performance from Reason.

It is very interesting to hear how efficiency with Macs and Reason has seemed to quickly tank over the last few versions and the whole El Capitan issue. That would blow me away. Glad I'm on PC.

It's my opinion that we have room to expect better performance is my main point. Especially considering what other DAWs and studios are running on in 2016 for even large projects.

[EdGrip]

I have wondered if it's possible for DAWs to use GPUs via OpenCL etc. I've got a Dell workstation with a good professional GPU, and I'd love it if Reason could make use of it.

[earwig83]

__________________________________________________________________________________

[gak]

Nothing personal, but do people even read anymore?

First, I just want to say that other than some minor niggles getting R9 to see things properly, there was NO MOVING REFILLS around. Sheesh. Something is VERY f...ed up if you have to do that. It's possible that the release was different than the beta (that's happened to me before) but that is REALLY messed up.

Second, though R9 was clearly hungrier, it wasn't unusable.

Third, "checked for same settings" ........ shi-hit (line from pulp fiction) reason already does that for you (puts down phone) In other words, I find it annoying personally because 99.9% of the time they are going to be the same. FACT, it's hungrier. Too many people have mentioned it, even during testing. Game changer......maybe on a slower computer but with the monitoring for beta purposes off it shouldn't be too much.

[KEVMOVE02]

I once had a customer complain bitterly about a pricing issue that didn't go her way. She didn't get what she wanted and still spent $200 that day. I guess the same thing is happening again with Reason 9: this version sucks, but here's my $129 anyway.

[WongoTheSane]

The more it goes, the more I suspect a specific Windows 10 issue. I have Windows 7 and I've already reported several benches I've run recently: there's no significant difference in DSP use between R8 and R9.

So, could you please state what OS/version you're using and whether you see a difference or not? That goes for Macs too. It will go a long way in narrowing down the problem. Also, as it could be linked to a driver problem, please include your audio interface.

Windows 7 / Babyface Pro: no difference here.

[jonheal]

I notice that even with Reason 8, if I drag the scroll thingy quickly back and forth on a long song in the Sequencer, or drag the Navigation box up and down quickly in a Rack with a lot of devices, on my i5 running Win 10, Reason's CPU percentage in the Task Manager jumps from about 18% (idling) to about 40% (wildly scrolling).

[ProfessaKaos]

The more it goes, the more I suspect a specific Windows 10 issue. I have Windows 7 and I've already reported several benches I've run recently: there's no significant difference in DSP use between R8 and R9.

So, could you please state what OS/version you're using and whether you see a difference or not? That goes for Macs too. It will go a long way in narrowing down the problem. Also, as it could be linked to a driver problem, please include your audio interface.

Windows 7 / Babyface Pro: no difference here.

Desktop: Windows 10 / RME Babyface
Laptop: Windows 10 / Realtek standard Soundcard (Asio4All)

[joeyluck]

The performance is the same for me as in R8. My thought is the folks noticing a difference maybe haven't set the CPU limit to be the same?

[BombsandBottles]

Are you on an iMac with a retina display? If so (or some other big monitor) try turning off high rez mode via the Get Info dialog box in the Finder. I know someone who experiences a performance drop that way and the solution is turning that off. When they upgraded to 9 they were first confused by the performance hit and then realized they had to turn it off again (like it was on 8).

This has been an issue for MANY versions now (since 2012) and I don't understand why it has not been addressed. I brought it up to support years ago and was dismissed. You can't run reason on a Macbook with Retina display unless it's running in low-res mode without huge frame drops when using the program. That seems like something that should be fixed.

[Iggster]

Anybody else having any issues with Reason 9 hanging/not responding?

It does eventually free up and start responding again but this is the first version i've had an issue with this and have been running versions 7 and 8 with no issues whatsoever!

It's pretty frustrating to say the least!

[stratatonic]

I've had hanging issues as well on reason 8 and RC beta - rotating beach balls, play head curser not following the music...The RC beta glitched as well, while scrolling. I thought this would be fixed by now. The video glitching started in the transition from Reason/Record to Reason 6. Threads on the PUF about that back then. But hey, according to Kevmove02, I 'm "just bottling another fine concoction of bitterness and regret to pour over the grave site of my unfulfilled potential and ideas".

[Staarchylld]

I thought the dsp usage has been improved

I did not measure it, but i have a overall faster feeling with R9...

Yeah I got that feeling too. It's like the browser windows pop up a lot faster than they used to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gak]

My babyface actually helped quite a bit. Not sure what is going on there.

Again, let's cut all the greasy gristle fat away.......same computer.......8.2 was ace, 8.3 was issue-ish. 9 (beta/regardless of metering) was worse.

It's too common to dismiss.

[joeyluck]

If you're having issues you should check your settings. If you are still having issues after doing so, you should report it. This was part of the beta; CPU performance being the same coming from R8. Could be a Windows issue?

[earwig83]

__________________________________________________________________________________

[joeyluck]

If you're having issues you should check your settings. If you are still having issues after doing so, you should report it. This was part of the beta; CPU performance being the same coming from R8. Could be a Windows issue?

Settings are the same but the performance is markedly diminished. Could be a windows problem but I wouldn't know how to determine that. All I know is that version 9 glitches out if I interact with the GUI while it is playing.

Definitely report this. If you were a beta tester, I think you can still submit bug reports? Otherwise, contact support and give as much info as you can.

[earwig83]

__________________________________________________________________________________

[joeyluck]

If you're having issues you should check your settings. If you are still having issues after doing so, you should report it. This was part of the beta; CPU performance being the same coming from R8. Could be a Windows issue?

Settings are the same but the performance is markedly diminished. Could be a windows problem but I wouldn't know how to determine that. All I know is that version 9 glitches out if I interact with the GUI while it is playing.

Definitely report this. If you were a beta tester, I think you can still submit bug reports? Otherwise, contact support and give as much info as you can.

Do you happen to have the link handy as to where I can report my issues?

If you were a beta tester, you should have access here:
https://www.propellerheads.se/betatest/ ... n=bug_form
I think they might still be checking this. They announced beta as being closed, but I see bugs open and I can still access the list, etc.

If not, I believe the best place to report it would be through support:
https://www.propellerheads.se/support/contact/

[AJ_3000]

In 2016, complacency says "we all need a new CPU for a new version" when in fact, there's room for us to expect better performance from Reason.
.....
It's my opinion that we have room to expect better performance is my main point. Especially considering what other DAWs and studios are running on in 2016 for even large projects.

Well said . I don't want to be posting negative views as this new version of a DAW I do hold in high regard is an exciting prospect. Some of the new features seem a big step forward from what I gather from what has been published (I never ran the beta). However I am incredibly disappointed seeing this thread. I had been hoping people would be reporting R9 was showing a marked performance improvement.

If I do decide to upgrade I do hope there is a demo existing users can access so I can see for myself if the effect is critical.

Personally to need a new computer is a preposterous proposition for me on my present budget. Best waiting for Propellerheads to issue an update addressing CPU efficiency although I guess this needs commitment to a major rewrite ? Doubtful this is likely perhaps if they could not implement it in R9 from the outset. If this had been done surely it would have been prominent on the list of new features - if it was I missed it? It's an awfully sad thought but perhaps do Propellerheads not have it in them to meet the challenge?

Are my expectations unrealistic - am I being greedy expecting optimized code in 2016?

[tronam]

I haven't noticed any appreciable performance differences between R7, R8 or R9 (non-logging beta). I do use more rack extensions than I used to in the past though, so this can skew the perception. Try running Reason at a 1024 samples buffer. This is what DAWs like Cubase and Logic are doing silently in the background when the project is played. It helps promote the illusion that their audio performance is better and more stable with higher track counts. They'll then use the set buffer for armed "live" channels. It would be nice if the Props implemented something similar, but I can imagine there being some unique challenges with its modular environment.

[dagwood]

I'm on Win10 and Reason 9 seems to perform no different than 8.3 did. Judging from the responses I'm seeing here, this seems to be system specific and not widespread IMHO.

[Rook]

I haven't noticed any appreciable performance differences between R7, R8 or R9 (non-logging beta). I do use more rack extensions than I used to in the past though, so this can skew the perception. Try running Reason at a 1024 samples buffer. This is what DAWs like Cubase and Logic are doing silently in the background when the project is played. It helps promote the illusion that their audio performance is better and more stable with higher track counts. They'll then use the set buffer for armed "live" channels. It would be nice if the Props implemented something similar, but I can imagine there being some unique challenges with its modular environment.

Hey, I've got the same machine you're running (minus the upgraded ram...still need to do that) and I'm getting pops/crackles, stutters, freezes, 2-3 bars on the CPU meter, with only a dozen or so tracks going, about half of them just audio. What is going on?? This iMac should not even be breaking a sweat; it's kinda aggravating.

I was running R7 for a while on this same machine with no issues on MUCH larger projects. Are you having to run Reason in lo-res? I haven't tried that, maybe it'll help.