Even though i pre ordered x2 im still worried about its audio engine stability. The only reason i still support cakewalk is because i basically started out with it (Waaay back, now i use another daw exclusively) and i'm very interested in the progress of its audio engine. If some form of stability is observed i may start using it again as a "studio d" in one of my empty rooms.

There isn't much significantly more expensive with VSTi's rather than VST's in SONAR. 
If its a chain with a single synth track feeding the effects, in SONAR only one thread gets to service that chain, so the max bandwidth you can get is gated by how much one core can handle.

If you can share your project template we can troubleshoot whats going on. 

Thanks for the fast weekend reply, Noel.

Bummer. That's a deal breaker for me it sounds like.

To clarify, so only one core for the entire stereo bus? That is, the mastering chain (stereo bus and parent buses) + the one VST. Is that right?

I bet this is why Reaper does so well in this test, as it does some major multi-threading, load-balancing stuff behind the curtain.

So, it sounds like X2 does not change this behavior?

Super bummed about this. My mastering chain is everything to me. It's essentially my "studio" and and my "sound." I have to mix and produce into it. This has changed my entire process and approach (controversial as it may be) for the better (for my style of music) and I'm not looking back.

I consider this to be a huge deal as it relates to competition with other DAWs and modern multi-processor CPUs, right? To have the entire 2bus limited to one core? I mean, the 2bus (and all it's upstream buses) is like 90% of a modern project's workload, but with Sonar, it only gets 25% of your computer. Yikes.

Btw, this also means, for Sonar, it's better to have less cores at a higher clocked/spec'd CPU than a lower clocked/spec'd CPU with more cores.

This also explains why people were able to work around this by running Reaper in rewire mode into Sonar and have it play the VSTi's. 

Well, I can't buy a faster computer for Sonar. i7 Ivy Bridge 3770K watercooled at 4.7ghz is the best possible configuration at this time (until the "X" Ivys hit the market next year).

I'm at least glad this mystery is solved. Thanks for disclosing that info, Noel -- you didn't have to do that.

I appreciate your kind offer to troubleshoot, but I don't think it would be worthwhile. I think it's pretty clear what's going on -- my 2bus, plus its one VST, is maxing out a core. My CPU util. number match up with that (25% of a 4 core CPU is one core). *sigh*

*goes crawling back to Cubase with hat in hand* (Btw, the 6 insert fx limitation in Cubase is killing me, which is why I looked to Sonar. And Cubase is crash-tastic. Sonar seems super stable.)

Best regards.

That's incorrect - you misunderstood. We don't do one core per bus. We do one core per serial stream or circuit. If you have 20 track streams feeding a bus each track circuit will get load balanced across available cores as well. This can be easily seen by doing a benchmark test - you will see all cores getting loaded. A single circuit of audio that goes through multiple plugins in series has to be synchronously processed since there is nothing to subdivide there - audio buffers have to be passed along the "assembly line" of plugins in series so there is no advantage to multi threading in that circuit. At least not at the DAW streaming level. What you might be confusing when you are making comparisons is pre buffering.

That's why I want to see the project specifically. We can't jump to conclusions without knowing exactly whats going on. The resolution might be something simple, or we might find an optimization inefficiency. Have you sent in the project and the specifics to tech support? If so PM me the case details and I will follow up. What you are seeing is not the norm - most users find better low latency performance in SONAR than other hosts especially on modern hardware since we have a ton of native CPU optimizations. An I7 should be plenty fast for most applications. Brandon routinely does all his live demos with huge projects running at 1 msec latency with no problems.

Thanks again for the reply, Noel.

Yes, with respect, I completely understood what you were saying; about what a "serial stream" is.
And that's what I have going on: One simple track feeding into a stack of insert effects, in series, on the stereo bus. That's it. Super simple. There's our one "circuit" (no multiple tracks).

I get that for multiple tracks (parallel signal paths), or "circuits," they'll be balanced across the cores.

Again, at risk of sounding quarrelsome (not trying to), my observation still stands about how only a single core can be used between, let's call it the, "All Stems" start-point of the circuit -- insert serial mastering effects here -- and the end-point of where it hits the master stereo bus; that's one circuit. I don't think there is anyway of "cheating" that. That is, a "mastering chain" is always going to be limited to single circuit, a single core.

This is not how it works with Cubase or Reaper. The exact same one track + stack of effects (in a serial circuit) is balanced across the cores -- the project plays without hiccups.

Okay, I'll send you a PM with questions on how I should prepare this project (I may have to recreate it using stock Sonar plugins so that we're comparing apples to apples).

Thanks again for the support.

Cheers.

Perfect - send me the details and we'll take it from there. Thanks.

Now that...my friends...is what you call tech support at it's best.. :)

Teds_Studio


Now that...my friends...is what you call tech support at it's best.. :)

Yes it is. Great support!!


But it leaves me wondering what's the deal? They will go off and work on it all by themselves and I'll never know the out come!! 


I mean, I want some closure damn it!! 

Great support, indeed.

Fear not, Grem, I'll be sure to update this thread with any interesting developments. :-)

Jalcide


Great support, indeed.

Fear not, Grem, I'll be sure to update this thread with any interesting developments. :-)

Thank you Jalcide!