RE vs VST Performance. Is there a difference?

[Heater]

Anyone notice any difference between the two? I'm curious to see if there is any performance difference between the same plugin in RE and VST versions.

Anyone done any tests?

[aeox]

i can do some testing but it really just depends on which plugin is in question.

i really gained some appreciation for the low CPU usage of some of the stock Reason devices.

[etyrnal]

i can do some testing but it really just depends on which plugin is in question.

i really gained some appreciation for the low CPU usage of some of the stock Reason devices.

Yes... this is why vst sucks. Propellerhead is the last company standing that actually makes stable efficient, great sounding code... the rest have nothing but total disregard for resources

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[TheWeathermonger]

i can do some testing but it really just depends on which plugin is in question.

i really gained some appreciation for the low CPU usage of some of the stock Reason devices.

Yes... this is why vst sucks. Propellerhead is the last company standing that actually makes stable efficient, great sounding code... the rest have nothing but total disregard for resources.

While I agree that Propellerhead write good efficient code, there are plenty of plug-in authors that write equally well optimised VSTs. It's just that the quality of VSTs overall is variable. The very best ones get my money and the others don't.

[avasopht]

i can do some testing but it really just depends on which plugin is in question.

i really gained some appreciation for the low CPU usage of some of the stock Reason devices.

Yes... this is why vst sucks. Propellerhead is the last company standing that actually makes stable efficient, great sounding code... the rest have nothing but total disregard for resources

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

It's not all just about Propellerhead being efficient and other not. It all comes down to choices and tradeoffs.

There are more DSP intensive approaches to synthesis (as you can see from some of the Rack Extensions). You've got oversampling, modelling and just some more intensive calculations required to get specific behaviors.

Overall VSTs can make use of some performance boosts not available to Rack Extensions because those performance boosts breaks CPU independence, which is a key Rack Extension feature.

[Re8et]

I have C1-L1 and Molot. They graphically looks the same, except with molot You do not have sidechain the easy way.
On the back of Molot there two highlighted input jacks. I tried to sidechain, but no. C1-L1 works, Molot don't.

I'm very curious instead to know if Spire VST accepts CV in or not. Or any other VST that has a RE version.
Because beside Reaktor, which is modular, puredata by nature (and that's not always positive...)
all VSTs I tried who has some kind of modulation Matrix****
do not see any external MOD input by default.

EDIT
***Most accept cv through the VST host interface, so I guess Spire also will

[ShawnG]

well... I followed up on another test I ran a few weeks ago on the only thing I have that I can compare versions. Predator by Rob Papen.

and. the VST performs in Reason at almost exactly as the RE version performs! (~15.8% cpu usage in process explorer)

the bad news being that it performs less well than it performs in my other DAWs (~6-9% cpu usage in process explorer)

I might, if I feel like it, compare usage on some of my hungrier VST's. but... yeah


I like working in Reason, have no problem bouncing tracks (hell, I used to record to 4 track tape) and have no intention of trying to burst anyone's bubble, I have a new i7 processor and mobo i'm gonna be installing in a few days. not a big deal to me. but some of you guys with less firepower may have some difficulties.

[avasopht]

well... I followed up on another test I ran a few weeks ago on the only thing I have that I can compare versions. Predator by Rob Papen.

and. the VST performs in Reason at almost exactly as the RE version performs! (~15.8% cpu usage in process explorer)

the bad news being that it performs less well than it performs in my other DAWs (~6-9% cpu usage in process explorer)

I might, if I feel like it, compare usage on some of my hungrier VST's. but... yeah


I like working in Reason, have no problem bouncing tracks (hell, I used to record to 4 track tape) and have no intention of trying to burst anyone's bubble, I have a new i7 processor and mobo i'm gonna be installing in a few days. not a big deal to me. but some of you guys with less firepower may have some difficulties.

How do the other DAWs perform in live mode? Reason being that Reason processes in batches of 64 frames (which keeps CV aligned and gives consistent behavior on feedback loops) while most DAWs, unless in live mode, will process audio in larger batches. Processing larger batches tends to increase performance due to caching effects.

[AttenuationHz]

i can do some testing but it really just depends on which plugin is in question.

i really gained some appreciation for the low CPU usage of some of the stock Reason devices.

Stock devices us little to no cpu it really is amazing, if only all plug-ins and RE did the same.

[jonheal]

I haven't been here in months. I have been remodeling our kitchen, which is going HORRIBLY.

Anyway, I installed 9.5 yesterday, and I see that my lowly Core2Quad's days are over as a music computer. Reason and Reaktor 6 with a fairly complex device equals instant choke time.

[ShawnG]

well... I followed up on another test I ran a few weeks ago on the only thing I have that I can compare versions. Predator by Rob Papen.

and. the VST performs in Reason at almost exactly as the RE version performs! (~15.8% cpu usage in process explorer)

the bad news being that it performs less well than it performs in my other DAWs (~6-9% cpu usage in process explorer)

I might, if I feel like it, compare usage on some of my hungrier VST's. but... yeah


I like working in Reason, have no problem bouncing tracks (hell, I used to record to 4 track tape) and have no intention of trying to burst anyone's bubble, I have a new i7 processor and mobo i'm gonna be installing in a few days. not a big deal to me. but some of you guys with less firepower may have some difficulties.

How do the other DAWs perform in live mode? Reason being that Reason processes in batches of 64 frames (which keeps CV aligned and gives consistent behavior on feedback loops) while most DAWs, unless in live mode, will process audio in larger batches. Processing larger batches tends to increase performance due to caching effects.

Not sure what you mean by live mode, but all my tests were done by holding a chord on my controller live on the same patch. Not playback of a midi part.

[reduk]

I compared the legend vst vs re version and i saw a major difference : the sound is louder in the vst version.

[aeox]

I compared the legend vst vs re version and i saw a major difference : the sound is louder in the vst version.

very very way way more stronger

[ShawnG]

I think props has a design aesthetic for quieter sounds to allow more headroom when mixing. Most vst plugs have presets that get as close as possible to 0 db because louder sells the plugins.

[SynapseAudio]

I compared the legend vst vs re version and i saw a major difference : the sound is louder in the vst version.

That is no surprise. When making the VST version we neither knew that A) VST would come in Reason and B) what levels Propellerhead would choose, relative to the REs. Getting this right would have required crystal-gazing or a working time-machine

Most VSTs including The Legend use 0dB as the default level, which makes sense as a standard (and iirc is mentioned in the VST specs as well).

Richard

[Biolumin3sc3nt]

[reduk]

I compared the legend vst vs re version and i saw a major difference : the sound is louder in the vst version.

That is no surprise. When making the VST version we neither knew that A) VST would come in Reason and B) what levels Propellerhead would choose, relative to the REs. Getting this right would have required crystal-gazing or a working time-machine

Most VSTs including The Legend use 0dB as the default level, which makes sense as a standard (and iirc is mentioned in the VST specs as well).

Richard

Thanks for the explanation. May be that's why all vst sound "bigger" than re. Beside this i don't see any difference in sound quality, CPU utilisation seems to be the same, and for my old eyes the bigger UI of the vst version is an advantage.

[Oquasec]

They turned vsts into analogue modular rackmounted devices.

[SynapseAudio]

Thanks for the explanation. May be that's why all vst sound "bigger" than re. Beside this i don't see any difference in sound quality, CPU utilisation seems to be the same, and for my old eyes the bigger UI of the vst version is an advantage.

Yup, for this reason I still hope PH will make the rack re-sizable at some point

Richard

[SA Studio]

Thanks for the explanation. May be that's why all vst sound "bigger" than re. Beside this i don't see any difference in sound quality, CPU utilisation seems to be the same, and for my old eyes the bigger UI of the vst version is an advantage.

Yup, for this reason I still hope PH will make the rack re-sizable at some point

Richard

Hey, Richard - Just wanna say, thanks for bringing a lot of high quality products to Reason and RE's.

Looking forward to more.