ReasonTalk.com

SA Studio wrote: ↑

14 Apr 2018

The software is bottlenecked out of the box with the CPU Limit set at 80%.

I just spoke with Mattias the other day on FB pointing out its an antiquated option that the last OS that would have benefited from it was Windows XP.

Reason's problem has nothing to do with hardware but programming. The "CPU Limit" option is a legacy option from old versions of Reason that was never, ever removed. It's to benefit weak computers, again, from over a decade ago. The fact that Reason is now 64bit, that "CPU Limit" option is not only a dinosaur and not needed at all, it completely ties people hands out of the box. But the fact there's a CPU Limit option in a 64bit only app is....well, it means they're not updating the right things for the last few versions. That's the biggest amount of programming irony you're likely to ever witness = A CPU Limit option in a 64bit app that can address over 4gb RAM.

Set your CPU Limit to None. Don't listen to anyone try and tell you otherwise either. I mix very large projects for a record label on a "No CPU Limit" Reason and literally have done it for 1000's of hours like that = there is no detrimental "anything" to setting your limit to none. It's absolutely a stupid feature that needed removed years ago.

Stop chasing down embarrassingly overkill specs. We need to expect better programming at this point.

Jose wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2018

i bought an i3 7100 and i cant run reason at all what kind of pc do i need to use 6 europas in a track i was thinking about amd fx 8350 since it has 8 cores but it is kinda old any recommendations ? Thanks

SA Studio wrote: ↑

14 Apr 2018

The software is bottlenecked out of the box with the CPU Limit set at 80%.

I just spoke with Mattias the other day on FB pointing out its an antiquated option that the last OS that would have benefited from it was Windows XP.

Reason's problem has nothing to do with hardware but programming. The "CPU Limit" option is a legacy option from old versions of Reason that was never, ever removed. It's to benefit weak computers, again, from over a decade ago. The fact that Reason is now 64bit, that "CPU Limit" option is not only a dinosaur and not needed at all, it completely ties people hands out of the box. But the fact there's a CPU Limit option in a 64bit only app is....well, it means they're not updating the right things for the last few versions. That's the biggest amount of programming irony you're likely to ever witness = A CPU Limit option in a 64bit app that can address over 4gb RAM.

Set your CPU Limit to None. Don't listen to anyone try and tell you otherwise either. I mix very large projects for a record label on a "No CPU Limit" Reason and literally have done it for 1000's of hours like that = there is no detrimental "anything" to setting your limit to none. It's absolutely a stupid feature that needed removed years ago.

Stop chasing down embarrassingly overkill specs. We need to expect better programming at this point.

well, it means they're not updating the right things for the last few versions

A CPU Limit option in a 64bit app that can address over 4gb RAM.

SA Studio wrote: ↑

14 Apr 2018

That's the biggest amount of programming irony you're likely to ever witness = A CPU Limit option in a 64bit app that can address over 4gb RAM.

SA Studio wrote: ↑

14 Apr 2018

The software is bottlenecked out of the box with the CPU Limit set at 80%.

I just spoke with Mattias the other day on FB pointing out its an antiquated option that the last OS that would have benefited from it was Windows XP.

Reason's problem has nothing to do with hardware but programming. The "CPU Limit" option is a legacy option from old versions of Reason that was never, ever removed. It's to benefit weak computers, again, from over a decade ago. The fact that Reason is now 64bit, that "CPU Limit" option is not only a dinosaur and not needed at all, it completely ties people hands out of the box. But the fact there's a CPU Limit option in a 64bit only app is....well, it means they're not updating the right things for the last few versions. That's the biggest amount of programming irony you're likely to ever witness = A CPU Limit option in a 64bit app that can address over 4gb RAM.

Set your CPU Limit to None. Don't listen to anyone try and tell you otherwise either. I mix very large projects for a record label on a "No CPU Limit" Reason and literally have done it for 1000's of hours like that = there is no detrimental "anything" to setting your limit to none. It's absolutely a stupid feature that needed removed years ago.

Stop chasing down embarrassingly overkill specs. We need to expect better programming at this point.

jjpscott01 wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2018

For what its worth, I build/repair, and modify computers for a living so I figure I'd throw my two cents in here.

First off, AMD Ryzen processors are great for certain things. I've built machines with the 3, 5, and 7 series processors and I can tell you that audio seems to be the one area where they need attention. You can run a very nice Video Production or gaming rig off of these guys and they scream. There are currently latency issues that need to be resolved before they are used in a serious audio rig. I'm sure the second Generation of these will have some of these kinks worked out but for the time being I'd stick with Intel.

I can also tell you there is sooo much bad information online about "speed" and "power" when it comes to processors . Even the popular benchmark sites out there can mislead you into buying the wrong processor. For instance, I've installed several new (6th and 7th gen) Intel core I5 and I7's that perform on par with with a mid-2000'S Core 2 Duo when it comes to audio! The benchmark scores for some of these would have you believe they can smoke any early generation processor but its just not the case. One of the best performing Audio machines I have myself has a Intel Core I5 4440 processor and 16GB of DDR3 Ram. Reason 10 with tons of VST's run like a dream on this thing and its a 4th Gen processor. CPUBoss scores it at a 6.0 on performance but it'll destroy many of the new generation I7's that they consistently award 8.0 and 9.0s.

My point is, there are a ton of factors that come in to play when it comes to audio work and processor speed. Optimization (especially in Windows 10) is huge and can make a big difference in performance. There are some great Windows 10 performance tweaking sites out there that can help with this. Some great processors that I can recommend for audio based on real world results are....

Intel I7 2600K
Intel I5 4440
intel I7 3770
Intel I5 7600k
Intel I7 4790 and 4790k

Anyway, hope something in here helps and If I can think of any others that impressed me I'll try to drop in and share those as well. Cheers

superpop wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2018

jjpscott01 wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2018

For what its worth, I build/repair, and modify computers for a living so I figure I'd throw my two cents in here.

First off, AMD Ryzen processors are great for certain things. I've built machines with the 3, 5, and 7 series processors and I can tell you that audio seems to be the one area where they need attention. You can run a very nice Video Production or gaming rig off of these guys and they scream. There are currently latency issues that need to be resolved before they are used in a serious audio rig. I'm sure the second Generation of these will have some of these kinks worked out but for the time being I'd stick with Intel.

I can also tell you there is sooo much bad information online about "speed" and "power" when it comes to processors . Even the popular benchmark sites out there can mislead you into buying the wrong processor. For instance, I've installed several new (6th and 7th gen) Intel core I5 and I7's that perform on par with with a mid-2000'S Core 2 Duo when it comes to audio! The benchmark scores for some of these would have you believe they can smoke any early generation processor but its just not the case. One of the best performing Audio machines I have myself has a Intel Core I5 4440 processor and 16GB of DDR3 Ram. Reason 10 with tons of VST's run like a dream on this thing and its a 4th Gen processor. CPUBoss scores it at a 6.0 on performance but it'll destroy many of the new generation I7's that they consistently award 8.0 and 9.0s.

My point is, there are a ton of factors that come in to play when it comes to audio work and processor speed. Optimization (especially in Windows 10) is huge and can make a big difference in performance. There are some great Windows 10 performance tweaking sites out there that can help with this. Some great processors that I can recommend for audio based on real world results are....

Intel I7 2600K
Intel I5 4440
intel I7 3770
Intel I5 7600k
Intel I7 4790 and 4790k

Anyway, hope something in here helps and If I can think of any others that impressed me I'll try to drop in and share those as well. Cheers

Just curious why not I7 4770k?

jjpscott01 wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2018

For what its worth, I build/repair, and modify computers for a living so I figure I'd throw my two cents in here.

First off, AMD Ryzen processors are great for certain things. I've built machines with the 3, 5, and 7 series processors and I can tell you that audio seems to be the one area where they need attention. You can run a very nice Video Production or gaming rig off of these guys and they scream. There are currently latency issues that need to be resolved before they are used in a serious audio rig. I'm sure the second Generation of these will have some of these kinks worked out but for the time being I'd stick with Intel.

I can also tell you there is sooo much bad information online about "speed" and "power" when it comes to processors . Even the popular benchmark sites out there can mislead you into buying the wrong processor. For instance, I've installed several new (6th and 7th gen) Intel core I5 and I7's that perform on par with with a mid-2000'S Core 2 Duo when it comes to audio! The benchmark scores for some of these would have you believe they can smoke any early generation processor but its just not the case. One of the best performing Audio machines I have myself has a Intel Core I5 4440 processor and 16GB of DDR3 Ram. Reason 10 with tons of VST's run like a dream on this thing and its a 4th Gen processor. CPUBoss scores it at a 6.0 on performance but it'll destroy many of the new generation I7's that they consistently award 8.0 and 9.0s.

My point is, there are a ton of factors that come in to play when it comes to audio work and processor speed. Optimization (especially in Windows 10) is huge and can make a big difference in performance. There are some great Windows 10 performance tweaking sites out there that can help with this. Some great processors that I can recommend for audio based on real world results are....

Intel I7 2600K
Intel I5 4440
intel I7 3770
Intel I5 7600k
Intel I7 4790 and 4790k

Anyway, hope something in here helps and If I can think of any others that impressed me I'll try to drop in and share those as well. Cheers

jjpscott01 wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2018

The benchmark scores for some of these would have you believe they can smoke any early generation processor but its just not the case.

avasopht wrote: ↑

17 Apr 2018

jjpscott01 wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2018

The benchmark scores for some of these would have you believe they can smoke any early generation processor but its just not the case.

It would be great if Reason had the Reason CPU stress test run during install (also available in the menu) to crowdsource CPU benchmarks, posting it to some ReasonTalk CPU benchmark database.

SA Studio wrote: ↑

14 Apr 2018

The software is bottlenecked out of the box with the CPU Limit set at 80%.

I just spoke with Mattias the other day on FB pointing out its an antiquated option that the last OS that would have benefited from it was Windows XP.

Reason's problem has nothing to do with hardware but programming. The "CPU Limit" option is a legacy option from old versions of Reason that was never, ever removed. It's to benefit weak computers, again, from over a decade ago. The fact that Reason is now 64bit, that "CPU Limit" option is not only a dinosaur and not needed at all, it completely ties people hands out of the box. But the fact there's a CPU Limit option in a 64bit only app is....well, it means they're not updating the right things for the last few versions. That's the biggest amount of programming irony you're likely to ever witness = A CPU Limit option in a 64bit app that can address over 4gb RAM.

Set your CPU Limit to None. Don't listen to anyone try and tell you otherwise either. I mix very large projects for a record label on a "No CPU Limit" Reason and literally have done it for 1000's of hours like that = there is no detrimental "anything" to setting your limit to none. It's absolutely a stupid feature that needed removed years ago.

Stop chasing down embarrassingly overkill specs. We need to expect better programming at this point.

EnochLight wrote: ↑

14 Apr 2018

Hopefully AMD will have fixed the poor low audio buffer performance of Ryzen in the new chips...

djadalaide wrote: ↑

22 May 2018

EnochLight wrote: ↑

14 Apr 2018

Hopefully AMD will have fixed the poor low audio buffer performance of Ryzen in the new chips...

I'm running a Ryzen 1700 in a laptop at 3.6Ghz on all cores with a very heavy song with lots of softube rack extensions, synths, totally sequenced using players and it makes no difference whether i run at 64, 512 or 2048 samples.

I think its probably the threadripper architecture that has to run at higher latency because its a dual cpu system, but this laptop i'm running is the equivalent to a 5960x overclocked to the same speed, in fact i don't think that intel machine can even run 64 samples using the balance interface at any load, which is a much better device than the reaktek hd audio with asio4all that i'm using here, and that machine has faster memory, and has a much more highly tuned windows installation plus its using water cooling, and it glitches like hell on anything lower than 256.

And.. Just so i'm clear, at 64 samples i hit play and it instantly starts so no additional latency added by the cpu.

Jose wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2018

i bought an i3 7100 and i cant run reason at all what kind of pc do i need to use 6 europas in a track i was thinking about amd fx 8350 since it has 8 cores but it is kinda old any recommendations ? Thanks

Jose wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2018

i bought an i3 7100 and i cant run reason at all what kind of pc do i need to use 6 europas in a track i was thinking about amd fx 8350 since it has 8 cores but it is kinda old any recommendations ? Thanks

Raveshaper wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2018

And the elephant in the room is that technically the code can't be updated.

Each new stock device since version 3 is the property of the dev contracted out to build it. You can't improve Malstrom for example because that belongs to Magnus Lindstrom. There's so much legacy code that native Reason is basically a curated time capsule of other people's work. It can't change internally the way you say it must.

buddard wrote: ↑

23 May 2018

Raveshaper wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2018

And the elephant in the room is that technically the code can't be updated.

Each new stock device since version 3 is the property of the dev contracted out to build it. You can't improve Malstrom for example because that belongs to Magnus Lindstrom. There's so much legacy code that native Reason is basically a curated time capsule of other people's work. It can't change internally the way you say it must.

To me, this sounds like an awful lot of speculation (and I know some of the above statements to be untrue for sure) that is stated as if it were fact. In my humble opinion this is a sure way to start rumors that most probably are inaccurate. I'm not sure if this is really what you want to achieve by posting this?

EnochLight wrote: ↑

23 May 2018

I ignored the post because I thought he was kidding. It's not even speculation - it's more like Trump-era "alternative fact"!

buddard wrote: ↑

23 May 2018

To me, this sounds like an awful lot of speculation (and I know some of the above statements to be untrue for sure) that is stated as if it were fact. In my humble opinion this is a sure way to start rumors that most probably are inaccurate. I'm not sure if this is really what you want to achieve by posting this?