Reason's poor cpu performance
I've been doing some simple comparisons of Reason vs Live & Logic for cpu usage. My tests have consisted of looping various stock synths playing an init patch and stacking them up until I start to get audio dropouts on my Macbook Pro.
Unfortunately it seems like Reason is much less efficient than either Live or Logic, even running the built-in synths. Monitoring CPU & Energy usage confirms that Reason is much more resource hungry. Reason used to have a reputation for CPU efficiency. What happened? The new instruments in Reason 10 are appealing but I'm inclined to run VSTs in Live instead since I have so much more headroom and battery life that way.
Unfortunately it seems like Reason is much less efficient than either Live or Logic, even running the built-in synths. Monitoring CPU & Energy usage confirms that Reason is much more resource hungry. Reason used to have a reputation for CPU efficiency. What happened? The new instruments in Reason 10 are appealing but I'm inclined to run VSTs in Live instead since I have so much more headroom and battery life that way.
The macbook pro will throttle the cpu over time due to higher temperatures.
Also, Reason runs better on a PC. Especially with VSTs, my mac can just freeze with a beachball when adding vsts (the latest softube effects for example). I don't trust using vsts at all on my mac! These are the full purchased versions of vsts.
Not a problem with the pc at all, it runs like a dream.
I'm saying that based on owning several macbook pros, high spec 2013,2014 and 2015 15" models.
Don't get me wrong, i love mac osx, but the latest reason just doesn't like it on my macbook pro computers.
Also, Reason runs better on a PC. Especially with VSTs, my mac can just freeze with a beachball when adding vsts (the latest softube effects for example). I don't trust using vsts at all on my mac! These are the full purchased versions of vsts.
Not a problem with the pc at all, it runs like a dream.
I'm saying that based on owning several macbook pros, high spec 2013,2014 and 2015 15" models.
Don't get me wrong, i love mac osx, but the latest reason just doesn't like it on my macbook pro computers.
@ the OP: This might be valid, or you might be a troll. Since you didn't post any real data here, we can only guess.
I don't know about you but my laptop is a 2012 model and I have had zero issues at all in Reason 8.3*. I will be upgrading to v10 soon and we'll see how that goes.
*When my battery is about to die, I get the message "your computer is too slow". So then I plug it in and solve the problem.
I don't know about you but my laptop is a 2012 model and I have had zero issues at all in Reason 8.3*. I will be upgrading to v10 soon and we'll see how that goes.
*When my battery is about to die, I get the message "your computer is too slow". So then I plug it in and solve the problem.
-
- Posts: 728
- Joined: 05 Sep 2017
I don't think OP is a troll, although everyones individual setup is going to be different so these kind of opinions are always hard to judge objectively.
I think anyone who uses a lot of VSTs knows that Reason is much less efficient than FL, Logic and especially Live when using VST plugins. VSTs that could run smoothly in multiple instances on other DAWs on the same PC, suddenly give computer too slow messages on Reason.
I think anyone who uses a lot of VSTs knows that Reason is much less efficient than FL, Logic and especially Live when using VST plugins. VSTs that could run smoothly in multiple instances on other DAWs on the same PC, suddenly give computer too slow messages on Reason.
Much less by how much?
Thor is polymodular, you should expect it to take more CPU because it's a great deal more complicated of a device. Reason stock synths also are just much more modular so they have to be designed a little differently and can't take advantage of all of long batches (which will run faster).
That being said, Thor hasn't suddenly become less efficient than it was 10 years ago. So "what happened"? Nothing.
Also note that Thor by default has 3 envelopes and an LFO with a 3-pole filter per oscillator.
Thor is polymodular, you should expect it to take more CPU because it's a great deal more complicated of a device. Reason stock synths also are just much more modular so they have to be designed a little differently and can't take advantage of all of long batches (which will run faster).
That being said, Thor hasn't suddenly become less efficient than it was 10 years ago. So "what happened"? Nothing.
Also note that Thor by default has 3 envelopes and an LFO with a 3-pole filter per oscillator.
Last edited by avasopht on 17 Oct 2017, edited 2 times in total.
- AttenuationHz
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: 20 Mar 2015
- Location: Back of the Rack-1
Well I have definitely noticed a difference in 9.5 compared to 8 and we'll just have to see about 10. But the inclusion of VST's alone has made Reason run somewhat differently all right. Otherwise hyper threading support would not have been needed!
It is not too much of an ask for people or things to be the best version of itself!
I think a few people have notice performance differences overall. Mostly on Mac though.AttenuationHz wrote: ↑17 Oct 2017Well I have definitely noticed a difference in 9.5 compared to 8 and we'll just have to see about 10. But the inclusion of VST's alone has made Reason run somewhat differently all right. Otherwise hyper threading support would not have been needed!
I haven't tried Reason on an old machine to compare.
- AttenuationHz
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: 20 Mar 2015
- Location: Back of the Rack-1
More subtle on windows but there is a difference. For instance the amount of songs being able to be opened at once between versions!avasopht wrote: ↑17 Oct 2017I think a few people have notice performance differences overall. Mostly on Mac though.AttenuationHz wrote: ↑17 Oct 2017Well I have definitely noticed a difference in 9.5 compared to 8 and we'll just have to see about 10. But the inclusion of VST's alone has made Reason run somewhat differently all right. Otherwise hyper threading support would not have been needed!
I haven't tried Reason on an old machine to compare.
It is not too much of an ask for people or things to be the best version of itself!
- Reasonable man
- Posts: 589
- Joined: 14 Jul 2016
I was contempating etching out a fortune upgrading to 16g Ram and a solid state drive and i'm only on Reason 8 . I have to set the buffer to maximum pretty much all the time and i minimise everything. But just running off combinators of 10+ and i have to start bouncing to audio alot which i dont want.
I'm not sure if spending this money is gonna solve much especially when i move to R10.
It's dissapointing.
The sheer number of audio and cv wires in the rack i put it down to.
I'm not sure if spending this money is gonna solve much especially when i move to R10.
It's dissapointing.
The sheer number of audio and cv wires in the rack i put it down to.
These "tests" are problematic. Since you don't know what the DAW does (and why) you can't really say if they are "more efficient" than the other.
First of all, the code that a VST executes has ZERO to do with the DAW. Its normal code for that specific platform, compiled by the plugin developer, it runs on the computer like any other software. There IS NO WAY that the DAW makes the computations "more efficient" or "less efficient".
That said, how the plugin is run differs from DAW to DAW. For example Logic always runs tracks that are not played live with a larger buffer ("processing buffer" setting in Logic) and simply plays them a bit in advance to compensate for the additional latency. This way you can run lots of instruments in Logic for simple playback. Reason on the other hand always runs all plugins at 64 samples buffer size, even if you have a larger buffer size set for your audio interface. This is because the buffer size basically also defines the maximum frequency that parameters/CV can be modulated and since Reason is "modulation city" that is the paramount thing.
So yes, always remember that in most cases when users look at CPU meters, performance meters, do comparisons etc.. you have to realize that most of the time you're this guy
First of all, the code that a VST executes has ZERO to do with the DAW. Its normal code for that specific platform, compiled by the plugin developer, it runs on the computer like any other software. There IS NO WAY that the DAW makes the computations "more efficient" or "less efficient".
That said, how the plugin is run differs from DAW to DAW. For example Logic always runs tracks that are not played live with a larger buffer ("processing buffer" setting in Logic) and simply plays them a bit in advance to compensate for the additional latency. This way you can run lots of instruments in Logic for simple playback. Reason on the other hand always runs all plugins at 64 samples buffer size, even if you have a larger buffer size set for your audio interface. This is because the buffer size basically also defines the maximum frequency that parameters/CV can be modulated and since Reason is "modulation city" that is the paramount thing.
So yes, always remember that in most cases when users look at CPU meters, performance meters, do comparisons etc.. you have to realize that most of the time you're this guy
Last edited by normen on 17 Oct 2017, edited 1 time in total.
- AttenuationHz
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: 20 Mar 2015
- Location: Back of the Rack-1
Ouch, I would probably invest the money on a newer Computer. That said an SSD and new ram might make some difference provided you clean install to the SSD. What sort of specs are we talking about here though with 10 combinators?Reasonable man wrote: ↑17 Oct 2017I was contempating etching out a fortune upgrading to 16g Ram and a solid state drive and i'm only on Reason 8 . I have to set the buffer to maximum pretty much all the time and i minimise everything. But just running off combinators of 10+ and i have to start bouncing to audio alot which i dont want.
I'm not sure if spending this money is gonna solve much especially when i move to R10.
It's dissapointing.
The sheer number of audio and cv wires in the rack i put it down to.
It is not too much of an ask for people or things to be the best version of itself!
Oh, I meant songs to test if your system is up to snuff with just vanilla yet complex reason projects, not something to compare with other DAWs.
12, Win10
- stratatonic
- Posts: 1512
- Joined: 15 Jan 2015
- Location: CANADA
I know, right?Reasonable man wrote: ↑17 Oct 2017The sheer number of audio and cv wires in the rack i put it down to.
And add in the fact that Propellerhead started using low grade copper and thin insulation from China to bring down costs! Hit Tab and put your hand up to the cables - feel the heat coming off of them! F**k! Totally inefficient. Get with the program Propellerhead!
AND OF COURSE, I think we have all come to expect that there are SOME workflow enhancements in every upgrade.
.
.
AND OF COURSE, I think we have all come to expect that there are SOME workflow enhancements in every upgrade.
-
- Posts: 728
- Joined: 05 Sep 2017
All I'm saying is I can run more instances of the same VSTs on other DAWs than on Reason without encountering problems.
Sorry, I was responding to OP more than to you, should have made that more obvious. Yeah, a Reason song test makes sense to test Reason versions against each other. There is such a Reason file in circulation, adding more and more synths or whatnot to see at which bar the computer stops.
So who cares about your laboratory bullshit anyway?chaosroyale wrote: ↑17 Oct 2017All I'm saying is I can run more instances of the same VSTs on other DAWs than on Reason without encountering problems.
Last edited by Gorgon on 18 Oct 2017, edited 3 times in total.
"This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit."
Incorrectnormen wrote: ↑17 Oct 2017These "tests" are problematic. Since you don't know what the DAW does (and why) you can't really say if they are "more efficient" than the other.
First of all, the code that a VST executes has ZERO to do with the DAW. Its normal code for that specific platform, compiled by the plugin developer, it runs on the computer like any other software. There IS NO WAY that the DAW makes the computations "more efficient" or "less efficient".
That said, how the plugin is run differs from DAW to DAW. For example Logic always runs tracks that are not played live with a larger buffer ("processing buffer" setting in Logic) and simply plays them a bit in advance to compensate for the additional latency. This way you can run lots of instruments in Logic for simple playback. Reason on the other hand always runs all plugins at 64 samples buffer size, even if you have a larger buffer size set for your audio interface. This is because the buffer size basically also defines the maximum frequency that parameters/CV can be modulated and since Reason is "modulation city" that is the paramount thing.
So yes, always remember that in most cases when users look at CPU meters, performance meters, do comparisons etc.. you have to realize that most of the time you're this guy
I mix for a record label and I can assure you Norman that on the same exact hardware the number of track counts and the number of VST instances you can have an reason compared to any other daw currently is about 1/5 the performance and 1/5 the track count and that is on a healthy estimate
I definitely know what I'm talking about and not all tests are problematic because if you're a guy who is the mixing a 60 track song you can take your 60 track song and dunk it into any daw that you want and when you do put it in a daw you can definitely tell performance
I know performance intimately on four different daws right now on PC
Very intimately - because at my leisure I take 60 track projects all the time and dunk them in different daws to test performance and I've done this for years so your claim about some tests are problematic really just depends who you're talking to. From a very experienced point of view with thousands of hours on multiple different daws I can assure you that on the same exact hardware reason currently sees about 1/5 of the performance that other daws are experiencing.
Using VST's and reason has shown that there needs to be a very big update I can take the same 6 plug-ins and export time will be over double in reason then exporting a file through those same six VST's in another daw
The op is not trolling - Reason definitely needs a performance optimization update - I used voice to chat on my phone so I apologize for all the funny typos
You do realize your post doesn't really disagree with what normen said right? I don't think anyone's refuting that Reason runs less instances of plugins than any other daw. We've known this since REs came out. The 64bit buffer he mentions actually makes sense and would explain why it runs less instances. The UAD thread where he showed the UAD processing running at 64 despite Apollo's buffer being at 2048 (I believe) would probably be proof of this. Obviously no other DAW has this problem, but also no other daw has the same level of modularity Reason does.SA Studio wrote: ↑17 Oct 2017Incorrectnormen wrote: ↑17 Oct 2017These "tests" are problematic. Since you don't know what the DAW does (and why) you can't really say if they are "more efficient" than the other.
First of all, the code that a VST executes has ZERO to do with the DAW. Its normal code for that specific platform, compiled by the plugin developer, it runs on the computer like any other software. There IS NO WAY that the DAW makes the computations "more efficient" or "less efficient".
That said, how the plugin is run differs from DAW to DAW. For example Logic always runs tracks that are not played live with a larger buffer ("processing buffer" setting in Logic) and simply plays them a bit in advance to compensate for the additional latency. This way you can run lots of instruments in Logic for simple playback. Reason on the other hand always runs all plugins at 64 samples buffer size, even if you have a larger buffer size set for your audio interface. This is because the buffer size basically also defines the maximum frequency that parameters/CV can be modulated and since Reason is "modulation city" that is the paramount thing.
So yes, always remember that in most cases when users look at CPU meters, performance meters, do comparisons etc.. you have to realize that most of the time you're this guy
I mix for a record label and I can assure you Norman that on the same exact hardware the number of track counts and the number of VST instances you can have an reason compared to any other daw currently is about 1/5 the performance and 1/5 the track count and that is on a healthy estimate
I definitely know what I'm talking about and not all tests are problematic because if you're a guy who is the mixing a 60 track song you can take your 60 track song and dunk it into any daw that you want and when you do put it in a daw you can definitely tell performance
I know performance intimately on four different daws right now on PC
Very intimately - because at my leisure I take 60 track projects all the time and dunk them in different daws to test performance and I've done this for years so your claim about some tests are problematic really just depends who you're talking to. From a very experienced point of view with thousands of hours on multiple different daws I can assure you that on the same exact hardware reason currently sees about 1/5 of the performance that other daws are experiencing.
Using VST's and reason has shown that there needs to be a very big update I can take the same 6 plug-ins and export time will be over double in reason then exporting a file through those same six VST's in another daw
The op is not trolling - Reason definitely needs a performance optimization update - I used voice to chat on my phone so I apologize for all the funny typos
I also have to agree with the point that some DAWs like Logic and Studio One do have the option of running playback tracks at a higher buffer than live tracks which also has an effect of performance. With that in mind of course comparing DAWs with that feature to DAWs without that feature isn't a fair test from a scientific standpoint. From a workflow stand point of course a feature like that would make a DAW more attractive and desirable to work in.
Is that a Mac thing? I'm running a 2016 MacBook Pro and get the spinning beachball sometimes with Soundtoys FX in Reason, have learned to save my work before trying to load one. Seems be worse if loading while the sequencer is running
Sounds to me like getting a pc is the solution.
I got an AMD 8120 cpu running 16G of RAM on a 500G ssd....AND...a creative labs sound card ....I can run 60 tracks in reason just fine...I've run 90 tracks on a song or two. Those other DAW's can suck it.
I got an AMD 8120 cpu running 16G of RAM on a 500G ssd....AND...a creative labs sound card ....I can run 60 tracks in reason just fine...I've run 90 tracks on a song or two. Those other DAW's can suck it.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: jappe, Liimusic, luckygreen and 16 guests