Synapse GQ 7 /CPU /performance question

[Rason]

Hello

I would like to purchase GQ7 EQ for Reason 8 bcs I am missing that level of control in stock eqs, however, I have read some negative comments regarding the CPU load, although Synapse claims it is well optimized. Unfortunately, I am no longer able to try it myself in free trial mode bcs I already used that back on my oold pc. I would really appreciate you sharing your experience with this plugin. Currently I am running R8 on Intel i5 quad 3GHZ, 16GB RAM, Windows 7. I would like to know, if it it is ok to use it on such setup, having say 40-50 channel- big project and using this plugin lets say 20x (I wont use it on every single eq job ofc). I am not using other REs at the moment. I will really appreciate your opinion.

Also, this is my first post here, so HEY GUYS !!

Thanks in advance.

[Electric-Metal]

Hello & welcome

i just jumped into trial mode a few hous ago, and as far as i can tell by now, it really seems to be well optimzed. I used it as an Insert for six different instruments and it increased the CPU usuage bars, but i have not noticed performance issues such as drop outs.
My PC is less on Power compared to yours (Phenom II X4 3,4 GHz, 8GB Ram, Win7) so you might be safe, i think.

[EnochLight]

Hello

I would like to purchase GQ7 EQ for Reason 8 bcs I am missing that level of control in stock eqs, however, I have read some negative comments regarding the CPU load, although Synapse claims it is well optimized. Unfortunately, I am no longer able to try it myself in free trial mode bcs I already used that back on my oold pc. I would really appreciate you sharing your experience with this plugin. Currently I am running R8 on Intel i5 quad 3GHZ, 16GB RAM, Windows 7. I would like to know, if it it is ok to use it on such setup, having say 40-50 channel- big project and using this plugin lets say 20x (I wont use it on every single eq job ofc). I am not using other REs at the moment. I will really appreciate your opinion.

Also, this is my first post here, so HEY GUYS !!

Thanks in advance.

Full disclosure: I did the promo video on their product page.

That out of the way, it's one of the best EQ RE's in Reason and I couldn't imagine working without it. As far as performance, I would disagree that it's any more CPU hungry than most. That said, the spectral display can be deactivated if you're pushing your system too hard - it does use a little CPU. I'm on Reason 8.3.2 and Windows 10 64-bit, 16 gigs of RAM, and an i7 3770k. Here's a dummy audio project utilizing 24 audio tracks. I could get one on each track and still have plenty of room to spare:

* Sorry about the audio - Bandicam wouldn't record my ASIO card.

[Skullture]

Hello

I would like to purchase GQ7 EQ for Reason 8 bcs I am missing that level of control in stock eqs, however, I have read some negative comments regarding the CPU load, although Synapse claims it is well optimized. Unfortunately, I am no longer able to try it myself in free trial mode bcs I already used that back on my oold pc. I would really appreciate you sharing your experience with this plugin. Currently I am running R8 on Intel i5 quad 3GHZ, 16GB RAM, Windows 7. I would like to know, if it it is ok to use it on such setup, having say 40-50 channel- big project and using this plugin lets say 20x (I wont use it on every single eq job ofc). I am not using other REs at the moment. I will really appreciate your opinion.

Also, this is my first post here, so HEY GUYS !!

Thanks in advance.

Full disclosure: I did the promo video on their product page.

That out of the way, it's one of the best EQ RE's in Reason and I couldn't imagine working without it. As far as performance, I would disagree that it's any more CPU hungry than most. That said, the spectral display can be deactivated if you're pushing your system too hard - it does use a little CPU. I'm on Reason 8.3.2 and Windows 10 64-bit, 16 gigs of RAM, and an i7 3770k. Here's a dummy audio project utilizing 24 audio tracks. I could get one on each track and still have plenty of room to spare:

* Sorry about the audio - Bandicam wouldn't record my ASIO card.

I'm not sure if your CPU is a good reference, since it's pretty high-end. We need someone with an older i5 desktop set to test it.

EDIT: I own a i5 based system, and the main problem is I don't think R8 is optimised well. With full DSP, I clock in about 60% of my total CPU usage (total amount incl. background processes) - I wish I could push this to 80%

[EnochLight]

I'm not sure if your CPU is a good reference, since it's pretty high-end. We need someone with an older i5 desktop set to test it.

It's admittedly faster than his i5, but it's nowhere near high-end. It's several years old and pretty mediocre in performance compared to most current machines. That said, I was also recording video at the same time, which generally sucks the life out of my CPU in the background. So, there's that at least..

[Skullture]

I'm not sure if your CPU is a good reference, since it's pretty high-end. We need someone with an older i5 desktop set to test it.

It's admittedly faster than his i5, but it's nowhere near high-end. It's several years old and pretty mediocre in performance compared to most current machines. That said, I was also recording video at the same time, which generally sucks the life out of my CPU in the background. So, there's that at least..

Fair enough I use OPS for my screen recordings which performs OK on my system (varying between 5%-25 CPU usage), depends on the software.

Also sorry for going off-topic here hehe, carry on. I might get myself this EQ too.

[XysteR]

Hello

I would like to purchase GQ7 EQ for Reason 8 bcs I am missing that level of control in stock eqs, however, I have read some negative comments regarding the CPU load, although Synapse claims it is well optimized. Unfortunately, I am no longer able to try it myself in free trial mode bcs I already used that back on my oold pc. I would really appreciate you sharing your experience with this plugin. Currently I am running R8 on Intel i5 quad 3GHZ, 16GB RAM, Windows 7. I would like to know, if it it is ok to use it on such setup, having say 40-50 channel- big project and using this plugin lets say 20x (I wont use it on every single eq job ofc). I am not using other REs at the moment. I will really appreciate your opinion.

Also, this is my first post here, so HEY GUYS !!

Thanks in advance.

I just use the spectral eq in the SSL mixer for most tracks, and use the GQ-7 on tracks that need a more surgical approach - That's how I use it. Oh, I always use the GQ-7 in my mastering chain too, but only very tiny subtle changes to find the overall balance. Ideally I try to do anything I can with the tracks instrument patch to get it to sit better in the mix, rather than EQing the shite out of everything.

SNIP*

[Rason]

Thanks a lot, that makes much better idea of the device performance. I will go for it and yea no need to replace the m class with this, use both, being able to be precise at places. I am bout to upgrade the cpu anyway, as soon as wallet allows

[selig]

Thanks a lot, that makes much better idea of the device performance. I will go for it and yea no need to replace the m class with this, use both, being able to be precise at places. I am bout to upgrade the cpu anyway, as soon as wallet allows

Not that you said otherwise, but It should be noted the MClass EQ is equally as "surgical" (narrow) with it's cuts as GQ-7, and can even cut 3 dB more. It's main limitations are in the number of available bands.

[Bonkhead]

i5 4 cores 4 threads...
i7 4 cores 8 threads...

Reason only uses real cores minus one for its audio, not threads. This is due to the realtime audio chains reason creates, with a spare for the os/visuals.

So 4 core cpu is 3 core audio
6 core cpu is 5 core audio.

[miscend]

Thanks a lot, that makes much better idea of the device performance. I will go for it and yea no need to replace the m class with this, use both, being able to be precise at places. I am bout to upgrade the cpu anyway, as soon as wallet allows

Not that you said otherwise, but It should be noted the MClass EQ is equally as "surgical" (narrow) with it's cuts as GQ-7, and can even cut 3 dB more. It's main limitations are in the number of available bands.

Doesn't the GQ-7 being newer have less aliasing at Nyquist?

[XysteR]

i5 4 cores 4 threads...
i7 4 cores 8 threads...

Reason only uses real cores minus one for its audio, not threads. This is due to the realtime audio chains reason creates, with a spare for the os/visuals.

So 4 core cpu is 3 core audio
6 core cpu is 5 core audio.

I never knew that, interesting to know. So it's all about clock frequency.. For that reason, an i5 would actually probably be better than an i7 for Reason. It's odd though because I could throw my i5 MacBook pro out of the window at times, it can't even play the majority of my music I've created on my i7.

I'll be looking to get a 5960X early in the new year. 8 physical cores should do the trick!

[tronam]

i5 4 cores 4 threads...
i7 4 cores 8 threads...

Reason only uses real cores minus one for its audio, not threads. This is due to the realtime audio chains reason creates, with a spare for the os/visuals.

So 4 core cpu is 3 core audio
6 core cpu is 5 core audio.

This is how I've always understood it as well, but when checking recently on Reason 8.3 with my new "skylake" 5k iMac all 4 cores are now utilized for audio processing with the first core generally sitting about 10-15% higher than the rest (it must be the one tasked with more application responsibilities). This runs contrary to how Reason has functioned for me in the past, so I'd be curious to know when this changed.

[gak]

I don't know what it's like these days (there were some things I just couldn't go on with in the past) but reaper used to be so efficient and cpu optimized.

I wonder what it's the only host I ever used that is truly this way?

At least with 8.3.1+ they have tried. But even in the reason arena 8.2 was better with cpu use on this machine

[tronam]

I don't know what it's like these days (there were some things I just couldn't go on with in the past) but reaper used to be so efficient and cpu optimized.

I wonder what it's the only host I ever used that is truly this way?

At least with 8.3.1+ they have tried. But even in the reason arena 8.2 was better with cpu use on this machine

It is rarely the DAWs themselves that drag down most modern computers anymore, especially with the recent proliferation of quad core processors and solid state drives; it's the plug-ins. They tend to be the source of most stability and CPU issues. I still use Cubase from time to time and every time it crashes to desktop I'm baffled as to why this is still allowed to happen. It has been almost 20 years now since VST's inception and Steinberg still haven't led the charge toward sandboxing their own format.

[gak]

If I follow, I don't agree. The reason is that I've used "all" the hosts and using exactly the same plugs, I get varying degrees even on the same computer.

@sandboxing: It's fine in theory, but I did the "bitwig" thing. Mostly a disaster. Great concept, and during the 4th quarter last year they were really active in updates, which gave the false-positive of it "growing". But, what I could get a billion instances of in live, I could only get like 8 in bitwig That means that the host isn't optimized properly.

[Skullture]

Thanks a lot, that makes much better idea of the device performance. I will go for it and yea no need to replace the m class with this, use both, being able to be precise at places. I am bout to upgrade the cpu anyway, as soon as wallet allows

Not that you said otherwise, but It should be noted the MClass EQ is equally as "surgical" (narrow) with it's cuts as GQ-7, and can even cut 3 dB more. It's main limitations are in the number of available bands.

So you say there is no reason to buy the GQ-7 then if I can use two instances of the MClass EQ instead?

[EnochLight]

So it's all about clock frequency.. For that reason, an i5 would actually probably be better than an i7 for Reason.

No actually.

Reason does utilize Hyperthreaded cores for everything else, such as high-quality stretch and re-sample, disc i/o, and GUI. An i7 will generally perform much better in that regard, and your OS will also utilize the Hyperthreaded cores (both Windows and OSX).

But sure, if all you're talking about is audio, then an i5 will save you money. But Reason does a lot more than just render audio...

[submonsterz]

Thanks a lot, that makes much better idea of the device performance. I will go for it and yea no need to replace the m class with this, use both, being able to be precise at places. I am bout to upgrade the cpu anyway, as soon as wallet allows

Not that you said otherwise, but It should be noted the MClass EQ is equally as "surgical" (narrow) with it's cuts as GQ-7, and can even cut 3 dB more. It's main limitations are in the number of available bands.

So you say there is no reason to buy the GQ-7 then if I can use two instances of the MClass EQ instead?

you can use quite a few instances of mclass for less dsp and get many many bands for much less dsp ..................................................

[EnochLight]

Thanks a lot, that makes much better idea of the device performance. I will go for it and yea no need to replace the m class with this, use both, being able to be precise at places. I am bout to upgrade the cpu anyway, as soon as wallet allows

Not that you said otherwise, but It should be noted the MClass EQ is equally as "surgical" (narrow) with it's cuts as GQ-7, and can even cut 3 dB more. It's main limitations are in the number of available bands.

So you say there is no reason to buy the GQ-7 then if I can use two instances of the MClass EQ instead?

With MClass, there's no touch/display interface, so you're back to using knobs. GQ-7 is much faster and user friendly in that regard - not to mention seeing your changes reflect on its built-in spectral display, which has a greater frequency range than Reason's as well as a zoom function. Mclass also misses GQ-7's Automatic Gain Compensation, and does not have GQ-7's various output modes.

[submonsterz]

Thanks a lot, that makes much better idea of the device performance. I will go for it and yea no need to replace the m class with this, use both, being able to be precise at places. I am bout to upgrade the cpu anyway, as soon as wallet allows

Not that you said otherwise, but It should be noted the MClass EQ is equally as "surgical" (narrow) with it's cuts as GQ-7, and can even cut 3 dB more. It's main limitations are in the number of available bands.

So you say there is no reason to buy the GQ-7 then if I can use two instances of the MClass EQ instead?

Full disclosure: I did the product video for GQ-7.

With MClass, there's no touch/display interface, so you're back to using knobs. GQ-7 is much faster and user friendly in that regard - not to mention seeing your changes reflect on its built-in spectral display, which has a greater frequency range than Reason's as well as a zoom function. Mclass also misses GQ-7's Automatic Gain Compensation, and does not have GQ-7's various output modes.

do something with gq-7 and see if no one can match it eq is all about the sound it can produce lets see what it can offer and cant be matched mr light

[EnochLight]

do something with gq-7 and see if no one can match it eq is all about the sound it can produce lets see what it can offer and cant be matched mr light

There are definitive differences in what the two eq's offer. I'm not debating whether or not you can achieve similar results with the two; I'm illustrating that one has more features and an easier workflow, IMHO, mr monsterz.

[submonsterz]

do something with gq-7 and see if no one can match it eq is all about the sound it can produce lets see what it can offer and cant be matched mr light

There are definitive differences in what the two eq's offer. I'm not debating whether or not you can achieve similar results with the two; I'm illustrating that one has more features and an easier workflow, IMHO, mr monsterz.

I don't find it easier to work in either I find mclass and dials as simple and as easy and as quick still not seeing your point to be honest just a little better spectral view for all that extra dsp hmmm not going on that to be honest and for the money they charge for that privaledge

[EnochLight]

I don't find it easier to work in either I find mclass and dials as simple and as easy and as quick still not seeing your point to be honest just a little better spectral view for all that extra dsp hmmm not going on that to be honest and for the money they charge for that privaledge

Horses for courses, no shame in that. For some, having a better spectral view, the AGC, and more output modes is a worthy exchange for the dsp hit and the cash. I find MClass much less eloquent to work with.

[nikolafeve]

I didn't bought it because i think it used too much CPU. But it's a really great eq