X1D Question ....... any specific improvements to the Audio Engine ?

You know as much as we do.......

...... bump ..... anyone from CW ........ Noel ..... Alex ..... Brandon ..... Ryan ......

Hi all !

Thanks for the supporting comments.

Whilst I genuinely do welcome and value the  $10 Expaned offer and the impending X1D update ...... to me, if the " foundation / engine "  isnt continually improving the rest is quite secondary.   All the features in the world are of little use or value if engine stability is not " rock solid ".

FWIW .... I run a 12 core Intel i7 4.2gig DAW with 12 gig ram ..... fully optimized for audio .... with and RME FireFace UC at  88.2 / 24 Bit / 96 Samples  [ 3.97 ms real-world latency ] ........the system is rock solid .... and as I use large numbers of Multi-output VST and efx all live inpt monitored, most of my projects run on a CPU load of ~%50 <-> %70.
 
I push my DAW and Sonar  very hard ..... probably much harder than the majority of users around here.

In my DAW, the same projects loaded in X1C  are nowhere near  as stable  / smooth / glitch free as 8.5.3.

Anyway ..... the above is just a long way of explaining why for me  any   global audio engine improvments in X1D will be much anticipated and very much welcomed [ if there are any ]. 

All the best to all.

Ben

Why don't you wait patiently like most people for the official announcement instead asking for speculation ?

(Sigh) only 3 more weeks to go, in theory.......

Cheers,
Jerry

joakes


Why don't you wait patiently like most people for the official announcement instead asking for speculation ?

(Sigh) only 3 more weeks to go, in theory.......

Cheers,
Jerry

 
I understand your point ......... but I look at it this way ......... everything  [ so far ]  CW has said about the upcoming X1D has inlcuded  nothing about making the audio engine better ...... given X1D was  NAMM announced, surely engine improvements would be in the press releases if they were there ....... so I am kind of  " hoping against expectation "  that  maybe  X1D  will still have  [ global ]  audio engine improvements and for some  [ strategic marketing ]  reason  CW didnt mention it in the NAMM announcments ........

'FWIW .... I run a 12 core Intel i7 4.2gig DAW with 12 gig ram ..... fully optimized for audio .... with and RME FireFace UC at 88.2 / 24 Bit / 96 Samples [ 3.97 ms real-world latency ] ........the system is rock solid .... and as I use large numbers of Multi-output VST and efx all live inpt monitored, most of my projects run on a CPU load of ~%50 %70' - WOW - are you making music or planning to take over a small country?

George Martin called and said all you need is love...  Oh and he said he could do more with less.

:)

Timboe - I am curious if you noticed a significant improvement in engine performance with the Expanded upgrade. Many users did - some of it just in the form of less "quirkiness" - a better, more solid "feel". In my own case, I noticed real improvements in CPU usage. Real and tangible. My own theory is that in changing their business model, Cake is striving to deliver just what you are suggesting they focus on. I think with each fix/quick fix the overall performance will (and should) improve - sometimes more, sometimes less noticeably. In the meanwhile, I am hoping that Cake will continue to generate revenue through the availability of add-ins which are optionally available at a cost (and which inevitably, somebody will whine about thinking it should have been free). (They'll need an X2 eventually, obviously). (Edited for Readability - damn Foxpro)

Sorry to hear that. I'd be looking for an install issue personally. Something that Cake seems to have issues with are the installers themselves - my own experience has been very good, but many users have had "wonky" installs. I don't use the change synth option much - used to use it a ton in project 5 then never had it in SONAR and just got used to working that way. But I am curious and will give it a try to see how it works (or doesn't) here.

timboe


Hi Brando

Thanks for your comments

In a word ....... no ........ in a few words ........ noticably less solid than X1C on my DAW  [ as always, other mileage may vary ]

Apart from the overall  non-improvement over X1c from an audio engine perspective, the  " replace synth feature "  is in no way ready for prime time.

Despite the sheer grunt of my DAW, even  a simple  " replace a Raprure synth patch with a Dim Pro synth patch "  either crashes Sonar  or  just results in no sound for that track ..... seriously,  on my DAW,  its terrible / utterly unuseable.

As a bye-the-bye, the exact same feature function in S1V2 works perfectly transparently / no glitchs / pops / cracks  of any kind ...... I am not saying this in any way to say S1V2 is better or worse than X1C Expanded ..... I just trying to highlight how far behind the X1c Expanded Audio Engine has fallen behind .... again, as always, YMMV.

All the best,
Tim

This is something I've tested a few times (dragging/dropping) replacing synths and it works fine here. I do stop Sonar prior to the switch ing. Your machine is a monster compared to the specs of mine. It was setup by Jim @ Studiocat but wow, I think NASA could operate with yours. I hope you find an end to this problem...


I'm out of the loop - did not realize 12 cores were on the market yet. 

I would but I cannot imagine the size of project required to get my system CPU usage to 60%, certainly nothing I'm going to be creating.

+1 FBB & Daryl.

I don't even see those kind of percentages on my ageing XP32 box!

it's easy to get a system using that many resources when you use a lot of VSTs - check out some of the newer synths, diva by u-he springs to mind... @timboe: what video card are you using? x1 is way heavier gpu-wise than any previous release....

furry muff

I can get my system up pretty high on ONE core if I use Diva for example but it is a known CPU slayer. If you are using convolution reverbs also you are going to get whacked.

As far as 12 cores this is just not what it is. You have 12 execution threads on 6 cores. I have the i7 990 EX processor which is the fastest desktop class Intel makes. It has 12 threads and 6 cores. My system specs are probably similar to yours. Even the highest end server CPU has 10 cores and 20 threads not 12 cores. 

As far as pinning your CPU why not just look at the latency numbers you are getting. Why do you need to go sub 4 Ms round trip latency? You are beating the hell out of your CPU and for what ultimate benefit? You have a 96 sample buffer and are doing 88.2 Khz sample rates. If you bump your buffers up you are going to see a pretty noticeable decrease in CPU useage most likely and are not going to lose any functionality.

I can't get "glitch free" replacement of patches on my synths mainly because the patches have to load off of disk a lot of the times. For me, also, the replace synth option does not have to be gapless. I don't see THAT as an issue for gapless because you are literally replacing the instrument itself. I personally just don't do that much and if I do I am not doing it in real time. Once again this is just for me. Others work differently.

Ken