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.

+1

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

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)  

If it wasn't flawed, then I would think the results would be consistent and repeatable.
 
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

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.  

swamptooth

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.  

My point was actually more along the lines of performance (in the sense of under the hood horsepower) isn't all that determines how one relates to driving a particular car. But, I tend to do a more minimalist approach to music so I rarely red-line my machine anyway...the only projects that start to stress it out is when someone gives me something with 100+ tracks to remix. Then again, the first thing I do is get rid of most of them

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. 

Not that I care either way....but

Why is it that he loaded IOBIT on BOTH TESTS for Reaper
and didn't on the second test for Sonar?

Maybe, just maybe, the Game Booster is the problem here...as it seems to
be the common denominator in the Reaper test, and may be interfering with
Reapers ability to load VST's....


I'd like to see the test on Reaper without IOBIT running....THAT would
answer the question and be a fair comparison...


just a thought...

"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.

Marcus Curtis
"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.

Yes, that also would be a factor....that's why I don't put weight into these seemingly biased "comparisons"...

The "all things being equal factor" is assumed...when they, in fact, are not...