interesting Sonar vs Reaper test

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/887142-dawbench-sonar-x3c-vs-reaper-4-57-a.html

Kind of pointless to my mind. Who cares how many instances of a single VST will can run in a project? That might be a reasonable way to benchmark machine performance as you upgrade or make tweaks, but it's a lousy way to compare different DAW apps.
 
And a discrepancy that big is probably due to a config issue or something peculiar to that VST.

Very interesting, though I agree with Dave none the less I was a little surprised.  

bitflipper
 One would reasonably expect Reaper to perform well, just because it's not been around as long as SONAR and is not burdened by legacy code (can Reaper load a 10-year-old project? Nobody knows...there aren't any 10-year-old Reaper projects.) But I'd be very surprised if the performance gap was a) large and b) across the board for all activities.

burdened ? I doubt.. it's a type of structure.. so the like a Header/Lib in C your more interested than the function over all , opposed to the content within ... that gets from A-B . Even if the code itself does have varients of the same code within, no doubt the header of the file gives revision / version no. anyway.
 
all the DAW makers run benchmarks against their rivals.. and no doubt part of the dev cycle is streamlining certain existing code.
 
it's all abstract.. or a degree of separation, much like anyone using the SDK for say asio etc.

That guy seemed like he wants Reaper, or at least expects Reaper to work better, which is not even close to his findings thus far.
 
Interesting indeed.
 
Lance

11.

There's a reaper thread in the sonar forum!!! THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG!!! Is it my browser settings??? Has my machine been hijacked? I'm dumbfounded!!!!  

Don't fear the reaper.

bitflipper
I've always been a little leery of benchmarks that load up one plugin over and over until dropouts occur. It seems like a clunky and imprecise method that might not even produce repeatable results, much less translate into real-world benefits.

 
Hmm, seems like it actually does translate into real-world benefits:
 

Noel Borthwick
Use cases
With projects containing many plug-ins in effects bins the penalty of interleave conversions on buffers can add up. For example in the DawBench project there are many plug-ins in each effects bin. While running such projects at low latency minimizing interleave conversions can be beneficial. For example, this optimization alone buys us about 3-4% in CPU consumption back with an effect laden project like DawBench. To a normal end user this means that more complex projects with lots of VST plug-ins in bins will run more efficiently at low latency.

http://forum.cakewalk.com/SONAR-85-The-Fine-Print-m1841847.aspx
 

Wookiee
 
WARNING Chrome reports MALWARE in the link below
 

Goddard

bitflipper
I've always been a little leery of benchmarks that load up one plugin over and over until dropouts occur. It seems like a clunky and imprecise method that might not even produce repeatable results, much less translate into real-world benefits.

 
Hmm, seems like it actually does translate into real-world benefits:
 

Noel Borthwick
Use cases
With projects containing many plug-ins in effects bins the penalty of interleave conversions on buffers can add up. For example in the DawBench project there are many plug-ins in each effects bin. While running such projects at low latency minimizing interleave conversions can be beneficial. For example, this optimization alone buys us about 3-4% in CPU consumption back with an effect laden project like DawBench. To a normal end user this means that more complex projects with lots of VST plug-ins in bins will run more efficiently at low latency.

forum.cakewalk.com/SONAR-85-The-Fine-Print-m1841847.aspx
 

Thanks for reporting Wookiee. I pulled the image that was being referenced from a meme generator site that apparently is a known Malware distributor according to Google. The embedded image was hosted on their server so I can't imagine any danger here, but nevertheless it was getting in the way.

Goddard

Anderton
Yes, it's nice Sonar came out "on top"...but on top of what? A flawed test that has little, if anything, to do with the intended function of either piece of software?

 
Flawed in what way, may I ask?
(btw, in a later test run reported in that thread Sonar didn't come out "on top" anymore)  

 
I think your comment in the parenthesis ("btw,...") answered the question you posed ("flawed..?")
 
A lot of other factors contribute to the test that might cause different results in different tests.  The system may be doing something differently that affects the outcome.  Apart from that, the test itself might need to be varied to take into account other uses.  Not sure how much it matters though if your software does what you want it to (features and performance).

djwayne
Get that reaper bs out of here. This is a SONAR forum. I don't want any software from a company named "Cockos" on my computer.

For some reason i just imagined that read in a Beavis and Buttehad voice, complete with laughter lol.  You said cockos hehehehe eheheh

Anderton
But beyond that, I don't think the way to measure the usefulness or performance of a DAW relates solely to how many plug-ins you can stack up. Think of it this way: You might like the way a car with a 1650 cc internal combustion engine handles better than a car with a 2000 cc internal combustion engine. Even though the latter is more "powerful," the one with the 1650 cc engine might have a lower center of gravity, tighter steering, and a transaxle that you can wind up to 65 MPH in third gear. Or it just might look cooler...or have a better sound system

isn't that like "options" in software, though?  because you can change what's under the hood quite a bit.  even in sonar, some of the various options like changing i/o buffer sizes for recording and playing back projects with a *large* number of audio tracks which is like taking the 2000cc engine machine and dropping it and putting on better wheels. 
 
i think if the poster of the comparison knew there were ways of tuning his performance, and was looking for those, it is a useful place to start.  he just seemed like most folks on this forum - wanting the best perf from his daw that he could get.  

Anderton
But beyond that, I don't think the way to measure the usefulness or performance of a DAW relates solely to how many plug-ins you can stack up. Think of it this way: You might like the way a car with a 1650 cc internal combustion engine handles better than a car with a 2000 cc internal combustion engine. Even though the latter is more "powerful," the one with the 1650 cc engine might have a lower center of gravity, tighter steering, and a transaxle that you can wind up to 65 MPH in third gear. Or it just might look cooler...or have a better sound system

Usability has always been my chief complaint about Reaper. I love its varispeed, which is still why I keep it around, but holy schmoley it's workflow is absolutely terrible! The menu bloat, the text-heavy commands,  absolutely no consistent shortcuts or visual UI elements that simplify processes. And the response has always been from the hardcore users that Reaper is so customizable and powerful and that usability enhancements are "dumbing it down". Well...they also make the program easier to use and increase the user base...which is why it's still a niche product that hasn't taken over the world. It doesn't matter how dang powerful it is if you need a PhD in Comp Sci to use it.
 
But again, that said, their varispeed engine and having the ability to adjust that kind of thing PER CLIP is pretty amazing. 

"My setup is as follows.

Windows 7 x64 with 0 windows updates installed
Intel Core I7 920 (2600k) OC'd to 3 ghz C1,overspeed, & EIST Disabled, Hyperthreading Enabled. 
24 gigs ddr3 1600, msi x58 platinum motherboard. SSD drives.

RME UCX via Firewire into PCI-X TI Chipset. 
RME Driver 3.081"
 
What I don't understand is why is he running windows 7 for this test without any updates? Shouldn't windows at least have a service pack or two? Wouldn't certain updates make windows more stable and reliable? If different results come from the same tests how reliable is this test? How well is his computer optimized for recording? These questions comes to me due to the lack of updates.