[FIXED] - Slow track cloning and template inserting

I too have noticed slow template insertion (and I have a Q6600 like you too): not sure when this started happening as I haven't been using templates recently.

10 instances of Breverb?
 
How quick is it if you remove Breverb altogether?

Doktor Avalanche
a) What happens if you do this with a brand new project, with no template?
b) What happens if you use 10 instances of another plugin?
c) What happens when you don't use any plugins?
d) What version of Sonar? 64 or 32 bit?

a) I use new project with blank template. As I know you can't do new project without template :-)
b) Time vary. I tried 10 Channel Tools now, it is 13 seconds.
c) 2 seconds.
d) Sonar Platinum Ipswich Update 1 64 bit
 
Please, somebody, tell me what do you see?

Thank you very much!
I'm sorry for being unclear, but I mean track templates, not project templates.
It seems that this time interval depends on number of installed plug-ins.
But there is some bug anyway.
If you try to make 10 clones (100 plugins) with "Clone Properties" switched off, it will be done instantly, and not 10 seconds.
 
 

It may just take longer to do. I suspect track templates will need to parse a properties XML file or something to give the cloned tracks it's properties. With properties off then no overhead. Also a new instance of a plugin takes time to initiate. Kontakt users know this only too well when they open a new Sonar project even with just a single instance of the plugin. So I suspect this is by design. I bet opening a project with 100 empty tracks and 100 plugins is gonna take a lot longer than a project with just 100 empty tracks.
 
A better test maybe is to compare similar functionality with another DAW.

Adq
Empty project, 1 audio track with 10 instances of "BREVERB Sonar", default preset.

Just out of curiosity, from a production standpoint why would you want 10 instances of Breverb SONAR?

Adq
Please write, what is your experience with cloning and templates inserting speed?

 
 
 

Ah another thing, there is a performance  issue with the update which can take up CPU cycles.
Disable in Sonar preferences...  Allow Arm Changes During Playback/Record.

You think the video shows that it's slow? Looks pretty fast to me.

Anderton
You think the video shows that it's slow? Looks pretty fast to me.

Yes, it is slow. You see this rotating pointer? It is 2 seconds in your case.
And it could be much more in other cases.
If you disable "Clone Properties" while cloning you will not see it.
2 seconds vs 0 seconds is pretty slow.

Bristol_Jonesey
I agree. My own tests support this view.

I'm sorry, could you tell more please, what your tests have shown up?
 

Adq
Yes, it is slow. You see this rotating pointer? It is 2 seconds in your case.

 
Well you said you were getting 40-45 seconds...2 seconds seems pretty fast compared to that, and fast in absolute terms. I'm still curious why you need to clone 10 Breverbs...
 

If you disable "Clone Properties" while cloning you will not see it.

 
Of course not. If you don't clone properties, SONAR doesn't have to analyze the track you're cloning and load all the parameters that get copied along with the clip data - volume, pan, gain, name, track icon, track height, edit filter, track color, etc. The more tracks you have, the more time it takes for SONAR to wipe the default settings of the new tracks and replace them with the properties of the track you want to clone. 
 
If you don't clone properties, then the tracks are copied with default settings. As nothing needs to be changed, the process goes faster. This seems like a real non-issue to me...if you ask a program to do multiple things, it will take more time than if you don't ask a program to do multiple things.

Adq
Yeah, but you didn't compare it to cloning without "Clone Properties" checkmark.

Read post #22. SONAR has to do many more tasks if you Clone Properties, and doing more tasks takes more time. If you don't Clone Properties, SONAR doesn't have to do those tasks, which takes less time.

Anderton

Adq
Yeah, but you didn't compare it to cloning without "Clone Properties" checkmark.

Read post #22. SONAR has to do many more tasks if you Clone Properties, and doing more tasks takes more time. If you don't Clone Properties, SONAR doesn't have to do those tasks, which takes less time.

Yes, but no one of this tasks have any deal with effects.

Ok, maybe I was not exactly right about instant cloning without effects, but

Anderton
Do this. Name a track without effects some distinctive name, like "Arf." Clone it 10 times without effects but with properties. The tracks appear almost instantly, but have names like Track 2, Track 3. The tracks aren't actually ready until the names like Track 2 etc. are replaced with the name "Arf."

This alone is already bug description. Cloning is slow - that is the bug. It is not because it does some hard work. It because it does some unnecessary work.

Anderton
What I'm seeing is the more elements you ask SONAR to clone, the more time it takes. The longest time to clone is if there are lot of effects and sends, and everything is checked. 

I can understand why you don't clearly see that it is the bug. In your case times are relatively fast. But if you do clone 10 or 20 repetitions without plug-ins, with 10 plug-ins on track but without properties, and finally with 10 plug-ins and with properties, the time in former case would be much more than sum of first two. That is what i see.
Why I do it? I wanted to benchmark Sonar CPU Performance, in it failed on the zero stage (cloning tracks).

Adq
But if you do clone 10 or 20 repetitions without plug-ins, with 10 plug-ins on track but without properties, and finally with 10 plug-ins and with properties, the time in former case would be much more than sum of first two. That is what i see.

Interesting, that's not at all what I see:
 
10 or 20 repetitions without plug-ins but with properties = fastest
10 plug-ins on track but without properties = almost as fast
10 plug-ins and with properties = clearly slower
 
Those are the kind of results I'd expect. I'm using an i7 on a laptop, though.