DAW's With Lowest CPU Drain When Using VSTs

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- DAW's With Lowest CPU Drain When Using VSTs

Posted by Fledz on Jun-02-2007 03:09:

DAW's With Lowest CPU Drain When Using VSTs

I just thought it was an interesting question after seeing echosystm remark in another thread that Ableton uses up alot of CPU for VSTs.

So what are your experiences with different sequencers. I use Ableton (Live 6) and it does tend to drain a bit. Luckily it's remedied by the really good freeze function which is very fast so it's not too big of a deal.

I also use Cubase (SX 3) and I have to say it's much better. I can load up alot more VSTs and it handles them much better.

What are your experiences and how do other sequencers fare?

Of course it all depends on your computer but if you're using more than one sequencer, share your thoughts

Posted by Zombie0729 on Jun-02-2007 03:18:

i remember sonar being horrible on my p4 so i switched to ableton... maybe you guys are using a ton of polyphony but i don't run into any issues on ableton...

then again 2200x2 AMD 64 x2's 2gigs of RAM and a hot girlfriend...

Posted by 3F05Q on Jun-02-2007 03:48:

quote:
Originally posted by Zombie0729
...and a hot girlfriend...

...so that you no longer have to visit porn sites that load your computer up with CPU draining spyware?

...

BRILLIANT!!

Posted by Centra Spike on Jun-02-2007 05:17:

I have read that Reaper is the best.

Posted by Ray_Chappell on Jun-02-2007 05:28:

I use Ableton on a P4, 2.2 ghz... sux. Maybe I don't have enough RAM, just 1 gig of the old kind, but it really sux. I even wiped Windows out, only installed bare minimum components, and still have trouble. Just bought a new computer that will be here on the 20th. I used other DAW's, but never got far enough into tracks for it to drain resources. So, Ableton's the first one I've done entire tracks on and it's painful to work with on a P4. That said, love the program.

Posted by SPAWNmaster on Jun-02-2007 05:45:

not really related to the thread prompt but sort of going off what others have been saying...

i have to say that intel macs are truly beasts. I got the lowest end intel macbook (regular macbook not even the pro, and its 1.8ghtz and 1gb of ram). Simply amazing...running around 20 channels, with nothing frozen, half of which are loaded with resource heavy vst's, can playback audio at 85% cpu load without even a stutter (on Ableton that is). I highly recommend Mac's for this sort of thing.

I have Cubase on a PC however so can't really compare how both DAW's run on the macbook unfortunately, but if anyone has any input feel free to comment.

cheers

Posted by Lolo on Jun-02-2007 06:04:

Re: DAW's With Lowest CPU Drain When Using VSTs

quote:
Originally posted by Fledz
I just thought it was an interesting question after seeing echosystm remark in another thread that Ableton uses up alot of CPU for VSTs.

So what are your experiences with different sequencers. I use Ableton (Live 6) and it does tend to drain a bit. Luckily it's remedied by the really good freeze function which is very fast so it's not too big of a deal.

I also use Cubase (SX 3) and I have to say it's much better. I can load up alot more VSTs and it handles them much better.

What are your experiences and how do other sequencers fare?

Of course it all depends on your computer but if you're using more than one sequencer, share your thoughts

Disabling the warp markers when you don't need them (consolidated in-sync audio clips for ex) should help a little bit. This is what causes the cpu usage most of the time. And also, DISABLE the inputs of each audio channel when you don't need them (set from Ext. In to No Input), on a 20 track file it should spare you like 10% cpu usage.

Honestly, it's not a drain at all, just that it tends not to be that 3rd party VST-friendly at all at times. It really depends on which plug-ins. Korg M1/WS, Zebra, for example, are light. Massive, Reaktor, and all NI instruments in general (except for fm8) are a real pain.

I strongly suggest the operator and the sampler options for Live 6. Actually, you can do anything you want with that without having to rely on 3rd party plugins. Sampler imports EXS or even Halion multisamples, which makes it a no-brainer IMHO.

L.

Posted by echosystm on Jun-02-2007 06:06:

In order of drain:

Ableton
Pro Tools / Sonar (wrapped)
FL
Cubase
Reaper

Posted by Lolo on Jun-02-2007 06:09:

ah on windows, ok IC. Different indeed. Live Mac runs better apparently?!?

L.

Posted by SPAWNmaster on Jun-02-2007 08:21:

well I guess there's a standard perception that Macs are more stable in general, and while this has been my experience, it may not always be the case. it's my understanding however, that Live runs better on my intel mac than on the PC i had it on before. However cubase sx3 runs fine on the other computer so who knows?

Posted by DJ RANN on Jun-02-2007 15:06:

I had been running in to resource problems with sx2 a while ago and switched to Nuendo 2 - instantly got 20% less proceesor usage for the same tracks/projects. it seems they engineered the audio engine to be more efficient and I think it is the same with versions 3.

Live is a hog, logic is a lot better (in relation to macs).

Mac do seem to cope with high processor usage better than PC but macs are overall no more stable than PC's.

one last thing and I know 3zve posted it before but check out this for squeezing the most out of you DAW - it the main reason I'm still able to use a seriously old PC.....

www.musicxp.net

Posted by T-Soma on Jun-02-2007 16:04:

I use Ableton Live on a 2ghz Centrino with 1gig ram.
The ram is shared (128mb on-board video carp) but no real problems in terms of resource hogging.
Although I haven't used other sequencers on this computer so it is a bit hard to judge.

Posted by Ray_Chappell on Jun-03-2007 02:16:

There are ways to help with Ableton - using RAM mode for clips, turning off warp when not necessary (as someone else mentioned), and I found that freezing tracks was very helpful.

One of the reasons Ableton is so hard on my computer (from my experience) is effects... I tend to load clips/files and rely on Ableton to use the effects. This bogs my computer down. An alternative is putting effects on files before I put them in Ableton(in Sound Forge) so that Ableton isn't running 2 or 3 effects for every track. That obviously is a huge drain.. there are effecient ways to use Ableton, I just don't use them. So, I bought a new PC this week.

Posted by Fledz on Jun-05-2007 03:11:

Very nice responses. Cheers

I was more after comparisons between different sequencers when using the same VSTs, rather than how they work on specific PCs.

I run a 2.16 Ghz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB Ram so I have no problems.

What I mean is that it must be in the way that certain DAWs handle the processing of VSTs. Like I said, Cubase seems to handle it much better.

Posted by DJ RANN on Jun-05-2007 11:22:

I think you're getting confused.

A DAW is a digital audio workstation (i.e a computer configured for audio use).

Cubase is a software sequencer. What I think you meant to ask is which Sequencer handles VST's most efficiently or use the lowest CPU draw.

As I mentioned earlier, Nuendo seems to handle VST's and realted CPU draw even more efficiently than Cubase.

Posted by Fledz on Jun-06-2007 03:19:

Yea sorry I meant Sequencers not DAWs.