Moved from dual core to hexacore, opened project in Sonar X1 -- WOW!!!!!

The common argument I hear when debating the necessity of going beyond a quad-core processor is that "Most software is just starting to grasp quad core, let alone hexacore or beyond"...

But what about the software that is supposed to take full advantage of any and all cores, here and now, like X1?

Well, basically I upgraded to a 6-core machine for Sonar X1 alone.

All I have to say is .... Wow. Projects that would bring my old dual core system to a screeching halt are now running fully exposed (meaning nothing frozen), with all of the 6 cores fluttering away fairly evenly, and so far I've never seen them get moderately close to 50% load. Tons of Guitar Rig instances, Drumagog, autotune, Izotope Ozone, all of these heavy plugins .... and Sonar uses all of my cores to ensure that nobody even breaks a sweat.

So, I've had my issues with X1, but as per this subject, I must say, well done Cakewalk. Seriously. X1 uses newer multicores beautifully!

wayofmind


The common argument I hear when debating the necessity of going beyond a quad-core processor is that "Most software is just starting to grasp quad core, let alone hexacore or beyond"...

The people that make those kind of remarks clearly don't use audio applications (or 3D rendering or anything that actually taxes a computer). ;-)

All I have to say is .... Wow. Projects that would bring my old dual core system to a screeching halt are now running fully exposed (meaning nothing frozen), with all of the 6 cores fluttering away fairly evenly, and so far I've never seen them get moderately close to 50% load. Tons of Guitar Rig instances, Drumagog, autotune, Izotope Ozone, all of these heavy plugins .... and Sonar uses all of my cores to ensure that nobody even breaks a sweat.

Don't forget that each core is also quite a bit more powerful and efficient than in your previous CPU. Double win. :-)

Btw, if the bakers are reading, here is something I have always wondered about: Is there a limit to the number of cores/CPUs Sonar will utilise? What would happen if Sonar runs on a quad processor system with Opteron 6180 processors? (12 cores each for a total of 48 cores). I understand that you probably haven't had the opportunity to test this in practise but would Sonar theoretically utilise all 48 cores?

UnderTow

Sounds like a system Super Composer would love!!!

That is, once a number of bugs are addressed in X1. :)

Don't get me wrong, X1 is running fine for me. There are only two bugs I need to work around (Audio Snap and the Snap to bug that shows when the PRV is opnened).

But it appears it takes some work to have Super Composer content. I can understand why from his description of his typical project. That joker runs some very heavy loaded projects. :)

I'm sure he would love to have a system like this, if he doesn't, already.

On heavy project i rarely use more than 4 cores (8 cores here) i wonder if you guyz are hitting the mixing stage with still midi and vsti's running ?

It's great to hear that X1 is flying on a 6 core machine. However, I am now finally convinced that the whole Sonar VST playback engine is extremely bad, no matter what PC you have or how many cores you have. Let me quickly illustrate.

Just now, I created a new project in Sonar 8.5.3 (since X1 has the same engine it would apply to X1 as well) with an instance of GURU and an instance of Nusofting's Modelonia (a physical modelling synth). I was just beginning to start a composition and so I was going through a few sounds at 512 samples. Any higher than that and playing  is awkard with the latency being too noticable. What happened in Sonar? A drop out after drop out. I got fed up and loaded Live 8 and then loaded the same plugins, GURU and Modelonia running at 512 samples as well. What happened in Live8 ? Not a single drop out. OK, but the CPU meter isn't ticking high, there's much more room and power to load a few more plugins (without resolving to freeze, something I'd need to do in Sonar very quickly). To cut a long story short, I'm now at 8 Modelonia instances (one GURU) and there hasn't been ONE SINGLE DROP OUT. Nothing. Nada. Live just keeps on playing !

So,
- Sonar 512 sample buffer latency 2x instruments = drop outs
- Live 512 sample buffer latency, 9 x instruments (and 3 VST effects) = NO drop outs or any other pops or clicks.

This is on a Core 2 Duo lapop 1.8Ghz 3GB RAM, Eacho Indigo PCMCIA sound card with a perfect PDC latency report.

Now, if I didn't have Live, my conclusion would be that my laptop is underpowered and that I need to get a better one. (But then that would be illogical, as when I run those two instruments in Sonar I have lots of CPU to spare). Anyway, but since I can test the same project in Live, I can clearly see how much better Live performs on the same machine, which means, there is nothing wrong with my laptop or having not enough juice to run these VSTs.

Why, am I writing all this? It's because, I bet you would never have to get that 6 core PC if Sonar was as well optimised to run VSTs/plugins as Live is.  I am convinced of this.

And at the moment, I'm a bit depressed as it seems that I will need to quit using Sonar for good. I know Sonar well, I love its feature set, I'm fast using it, but it just does not perform as other hosts do.

I'm desperately waiting for that X1 demo. Then, I will load exactly the same plugins as shown here, if X1 chokes with just the two, GURU and Modelonia, it will be good bye Sonar for good. Hello Live and several weeks of learning new host, something I'm not looking forward to, but if the reward is a solid host then it will be worth it.

adrian I think himalaya has got a pretty good point and I read a lot, if not most posts on this forum, and I never heard anyone state the things you just posted. Sonar certainly has its limitations and I won't defend them but you really ought to post more accurate quotes - if only for the sake of accuracy.

Or should I start a post about this one user that says that "...Cakewalk people don't think?" But I've read a lot of your thoughtful and helpful posts so that would just, again, be simply inaccurate of who you are and who you've been on this forum. I think you should extend that same courtesy to the rest of the forum members.

Humblenoise - sorry, my English isn't my first language - "Cakewalk people" - I mean developers. But few persons here have problems with logical thinking too.
I don't wanna start t argue once again or make anybody feel abused.

Live hasn't perfect code, Live has its limitations and Live is not as sophisticated as Sonar.
But:
Live has very, very smart-desiged and user-oriented "tools"
- CPU meter REALLY shows CPU load
- External Instrument tracks WITH Input Trim on track (impossible even to think for some users of this forum!), and with way of working as with VST tracks
- IT WORKS - not looks. Sonar and other DAWS are more-less pretty, they REQUIRE GPU accelerators to work (!!!). Ableton - somply WORKS.

HumbleNoise - it's not that I hate Sonar, and I try to tell it to everyoe that Sonar is a piece of crap. It isn't. But Cheaper and other DAWS look like they are USER ORIENTED, not developer-oriented.

Sonar engine is one of the best i tested ....(tested cubase 5 , abelton 8 suite , presonus studio one , nundo , logic 9 ..)

What i do in sonar make others crash in a minute.....dropout reflets a problem where sonar doen't have ressources to do its job ...this goes from a fragmented drive to bad audio drivers implentation...

So himalaya i suggest posting your whole set up and we will help you with pleasure to not hijack this thread ...

And i say it again when i compare sequencers i have 3 factors of comparison ....and for summation and audio engine as well as stability , sonar 8.5 rules against most (to not say all)

cake2010

himalaya


I am now finally convinced that the whole Sonar VST playback engine is extremely bad, no matter what PC you have or how many cores you have.

The problem could be something simple with your setup or preferencies. For instance I had a terrible dropouts continously untill I turned off the X-ray. No problemos after that. 

When Sonar was still included in the DAWbench  benchmarks, it performed significantly worse than the other DAWs. Have a look: http://www.dawbench.com/dawbenchdsp-x-scaling.htm

It also performs worse than other DAWs installed on my system. (Demo of Live, Demo of Presonus and Cubase) but like himalaya, there are many in Sonar I do like so I really wish the bakers could improve things.

UnderTow

Wayofmind...Intel or AMD?

I have been a loyal user of Sonar since 1.0.  I think think that their customer service is THE BEST, HANDS DOWN.  When I bought my vs-700 system, it arrived with some small dings that I did not notice for over a month.  When I finally saw them, I ****tered, because most companies would say " You have had the unit for a month, those dents were probably made by you".  Not cakewalk.  They sent me a NEW vs700 controller simply on my word that I would send them the old one back.  I swore that I would never use another DAW.

Fast forward 1.5 years, and I am struggling with X1.  I just installed Studio One for my dad....WOW.  Just wow.  You guys owe it to yourself to spend a couple of days with Studio One.  If X1b doesnt get it right...I have to say that I may be "outtie".  And that sux.

UnderTow


Have a look: http://www.dawbench.com/dawbenchdsp-x-scaling.htm

Okey, but that was 3 years ago. I have recently tested Studio One and Reaper and they perform about the same as Sonar on my PC. I´m happy with Sonar.

 

cake2010

 I have recently tested Studio One and Reaper and they perform about the same as Sonar on my PC.

How did you test? Unless it is a comprehensive test following some strict technical guidelines, it is meaningless.

UnderTow

I have tested SONAR against other DAWS and the audio engine perfomance (not quality) is the worst i have found, but why do i use it? because despite of this it is still the best DAW i have found for music production. i still prefer cubase, nuendo or live for tasks where you need an audio engine that wont fail on you namely live recording or live performance.

LANEY - that's true.

If I would work on liveact with Sonar, I will kill myself before liveact.
Moreover - after a 30 minutes with Live you can do more than in Sonar. It doesn't mean that Live is simple or toyish. It means that Live is MUCH FASTER, more intuitive, much beter organised and ergonomic, more user-friendly and IT HAS those tools in standard, we have begging for they should be in Sonar.