ORIGINAL: dstrenz

I woke up at 3am and ordered one. 'Logic' kept hounding me about the fact that it has at least 3 compressors I'd love to own and each one of them costs a lot more that LM. These damn internets makes buying things too easy... Hopefully connecting it to the main firewire port and moving the external HD to the 1820m's port will work.

I hope you guys are still happy with yours.

i didn't have any problems connecting it to the emu fw port (fyi, the emu uses a ti chipset). i think worst case you might need to use the external power supply which is included.

ok, i know people hate reaper comparisons, but this is just another which shows that it has a more efficient audio engine.

at 2ms latency each instance of LM uses approx 3% CPU, in reaper approx .8%
at 4ms each uses 1-2.5% in sonar, .57% in reaper.

yes, sonar uses 3.5-4x the CPU for each instance.

ORIGINAL: Duojet

ok, i know people hate reaper comparisons, but this is just another which shows that it has a more efficient audio engine.

at 2ms latency each instance of LM uses approx 3-4% CPU, in reaper approx .45%
at 4ms each uses 1-3% in sonar, .25% in reaper.

yes, sonar uses 10x the CPU for each instance.

Hmm, that's pretty bizarre. The projects used the same wav files, sample rates, emu latency, etc?

Don't know why anyone object to having that info. Otherwise, how can Cake fix things if they don't know problems exist..

ORIGINAL: dstrenz

ORIGINAL: Duojet

ok, i know people hate reaper comparisons, but this is just another which shows that it has a more efficient audio engine.

at 2ms latency each instance of LM uses approx 3-4% CPU, in reaper approx .45%
at 4ms each uses 1-3% in sonar, .25% in reaper.

yes, sonar uses 10x the CPU for each instance.

Hmm, that's pretty bizarre. The projects used the same wav files, sample rates, emu latency, etc?

Don't know why anyone object to having that info. Otherwise, how can Cake fix things if they don't know problems exist..

not quite as much as 10x (retested and edited orig msg). still it adds up. if you use all 32 instances, sonar is using alot of cpu, even at higher latecies. one thing with liq mix that works better in sonar is "hardware follows plug in window" this works perfectly in sonar but not reaper.

ORIGINAL: Duojet
not quite as much as 10x (retested and edited orig msg). still it adds up. if you use all 32 instances, sonar is using alot of cpu, even at higher latecies. one thing with liq mix that works better in sonar is "hardware follows plug in window" this works perfectly in sonar but not reaper.

3.5-4x is much better but I definitely agree that it's still quite a significant difference. I imagine that in a pinch most, if not all, of an instance's used cpu cycles can be regained by freezing tracks. All in all, that process would surely be simpler than dealing with the hassle of routing 32 real hardware devices and a lot less expensive.

Thanks again for all the investigative work and the info you've provided!

ORIGINAL: Duojet
at 2ms latency each instance of LM uses approx 3% CPU, in reaper approx .8%
at 4ms each uses 1-2.5% in sonar, .57% in reaper.

What are you using to measure that? Hopefully the same tool otherwise the comparison isn't too meaningful.

ORIGINAL: tarsier

ORIGINAL: Duojet
at 2ms latency each instance of LM uses approx 3% CPU, in reaper approx .8%
at 4ms each uses 1-2.5% in sonar, .57% in reaper.

What are you using to measure that? Hopefully the same tool otherwise the comparison isn't too meaningful.

the cpu indicator in each app. basically, i did nothing more than open a blank project, add 8 tracks, put an instance of LM in each, and turn on input monitoring on all tracks. used the same latency for each. reaper actually gives the total cpu, the total cpu used by FX, the total CPU for FX on each track. for sonar, i just took the total, deducted the CPU before any FX (minimal), and then divided by 8 to get each track.

ORIGINAL: Duojet

ORIGINAL: tarsier

ORIGINAL: Duojet
at 2ms latency each instance of LM uses approx 3% CPU, in reaper approx .8%
at 4ms each uses 1-2.5% in sonar, .57% in reaper.

What are you using to measure that? Hopefully the same tool otherwise the comparison isn't too meaningful.

the cpu indicator in each app. basically, i did nothing more than open a blank project, add 8 tracks, put an instance of LM in each, and turn on input monitoring on all tracks. used the same latency for each. reaper actually gives the total cpu, the total cpu used by FX, the total CPU for FX on each track. for sonar, i just took the total, deducted the CPU before any FX (minimal), and then divided by 8 to get each track.

Retest using task manager's performance tab.

Retest using task manager's performance tab.

I have to 2nd that suggestion!
Also you have bit depth, dithering, 64 bit etc.

Max Arwood

ORIGINAL: MArwood

Retest using task manager's performance tab.

I have to 2nd that suggestion!
Also you have bit depth, dithering, 64 bit etc.

Max Arwood

same bit depth, dithering was off. will doublecheck the 64 bit setting when i get home.