Studio One Doesn't Use Efficiency Cores.... Or does it ?

[ProgRockr]

I read through a few posts here about SO non-use of efficiency cores, and saw it as the devs choice in design.
Then I caught this video, where SO Revealed shows that with certain plugins (Amplitube in particular) it does.
If you're interested here's the video.... ( 19:20 mins )

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Interestingly it seems it may have been the plugins he used.
Does anyone have any ideas as to why certain plugins might use efficiency cores and others do not ?

 

[Lukas]

I read through a few posts here about SO non-use of efficiency cores, and saw it as the devs choice in design.

It's not really accurate to call it a "design choice". It’s more a case of it simply not being implemented yet. Audio software doesn't automatically take advantage of efficiency cores; developers have to explicitly implement support for that.

Does anyone have any ideas as to why certain plugins might use efficiency cores and others do not ?

If they've implemented to utilize efficiency cores (threading and prioritization - etc.), you'll see it happen - if not, then you won’t.

That said, this is an extremely complex topic with many variables (OS schedulers, thread priorities, plugin architectures, etc.). It’s something best left to the developers to figure out rather than something end users should stress over.

 

[MisterE]

There's another choice besides design choice: choosing to say more with less tracks. There is zero evidence that higher track counts and higher plugin counts have enabled mankind to create better music than it managed to crank out between 1985 or so when computers and music got together and say 2020 when utilization of efficiency cores became a thing.

 

[sintil8]

I find it interesting that C.L.A.P. has been adopted by SO 1 ... vis a vis Multicore
Quote from a Sweetwater article "CLAP is optimized for modern, multicore CPUs."

The article:

CLAP: The New CLever Audio Plug-in Format - InSync | Sweetwater

CLAP is a new open-source plug-in standard that’s been gaining steam over the past couple of years. Sweetwater explores this format and how it will benefit you.

www.sweetwater.com

Perhaps Vst the standard needs a competitor and with one foul blow Steinberge demolished Vst2., if you follow my drift.

Anyway best regards.

 

[ProgRockr]

Audio software doesn't automatically take advantage of efficiency cores; developers have to explicitly implement support for that.

Though it seems as per the video that SO does have some sort of EC implementation since he showed his ECs were active when running A5 in SO. Interesting...

 

[Vocalpoint]

There's another choice besides design choice: choosing to say more with less tracks. There is zero evidence that higher track counts and higher plugin counts have enabled mankind to create better music than it managed to crank out between 1985 or so when computers and music got together and say 2020 when utilization of efficiency cores became a thing.

Led Zep 4 still sounds great to me - recorded on 16 track. Exile on Main Street - mostly on 8 track. Revolver - 4 track with a smattering of bounces.

Never understood any song, cue or anything really - that needs more than 24.

VP

 

[Lukas]

I would like to recommend this article to anyone interested in CPU and computer performance in DAWs. It's written by an absolute expert in the field of audio computing, answers many common questions and dispels some myths.

It also explains, for example, why the CPU display in Windows Task Manager is not helpful for DAWs.

https://support.presonus.com/hc/en-us/articles/22234009300877-How-to-Improve-Computer-Performance-for-Digital-Audio

 

[MisterE]

Led Zep 4 still sounds great to me - recorded on 16 track. Exile on Main Street - mostly on 8 track. Revolver - 4 track with a smattering of bounces.

Never understood any song, cue or anything really - that needs more than 24.

VP

Agree completely. However, to be fair to some folks obsessing about efficiency cores, they're not just concerned with track counts, they're concerned about being able to utilize resource-hogging mixing plugs from the likes of Acustica Audio which may in fact be worth the effort of building a "supercomputer" to accommodate. That said, I would venture that the vast majority of people convinced they need such tools haven't developed the advanced mixing skills to really take advantage of them, but that's another discussion.

 

[Vocalpoint]

Agree completely. However, to be fair to some folks obsessing about efficiency cores, they're not just concerned with track counts, they're concerned about being able to utilize resource-hogging mixing plugs from the likes of Acustica Audio which may in fact be worth the effort of building a "supercomputer" to accommodate.

If more users would think like an actual "studio" thinks - where tracking, mixing and mastering are three distinct and VERY specific (and separate) processes - this obsession with cores would simply not be a thing.

When I track - I track. No plugins whatsover except base EQ and maybe a comp here and there. No CPU contention. No watching the resource meter. When finished - I render everything to audio.

When I mix - I mix. In a new session with nothing but the audio from Tracking. Can pile on the plugs here since nothing else big (like 5 instances of Omnisphere) is hogging the CPU. MIx to taste, render my final stereo file and done

When I master - I master. Nothing but the stereo mix file - either in an S1 Project or sometimes in Wavelab 12. Again - no resource contention, no overheating CPU and especially no core obsessions.

VP

 

[Jemusic]

This video is still a bit more relevant. The OP video he is not using heavy usage plugins so much. However in this video he is using much heavier CPU use plugins. Also it is still obvious that Studio One is not using efficiency cores. This could be better. But I am not seeing any issues as yet even with non efficiency core use yet as I am not taxing the system very much even with large sessions. Other DAW's still use CPU more efficiently than Studio One does. As Pro Tools fixed their coding to use the efficiency cores then does that mean that Studio One can.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Lukas]

This video is still a bit more relevant.

The question is: In terms of what?

In many videos, James draws the wrong conclusions. And even worse: Much of what he says he does not really explain, so that all users who watch it draw the wrong conclusions.

Related thread:

Solved - Studio One and Apple Silicon

Hi everyone, I‘m about to replace my old Mac with a new one, and I stumbled across this Video (released today): Uh, is it really that bad? I mean, I don't see myself reaching the performance limits of my computer in the foreseeable future. But the issues shown in the video are significant...

studiooneforum.com

Other DAW's still use CPU more efficiently than Studio One does.

Where does this statement come from, and how do you justify it?

I mean, I’m not claiming the opposite. But most of the time, when people say this, they say it based on incorrect observations. For example, because they look at the Windows Task Manager. Which is already a fundamental mistake.

Rather than watching the videos, what I'd recommend is to read this article, for example:

https://support.presonus.com/hc/en-us/articles/22234009300877-How-to-Improve-Computer-Performance-for-Digital-Audio

The article actually explains things, clears up common misconceptions, and also provides solutions.

 

[Jemusic]

Interesting article for sure. Some good points in there. I never use a mastering chain while mixing anyway. The mix should basically be raw and have little or no mastering plugins being used. Mastering needs to be done at a different time. Preferably some time after mixing and then you create a new session for mastering and use the stereo mix with no mastering processes to start with then add them in a separate mastering session. I still feel Studio One has some work to do in terms of use of Apple Silicon efficiency cores. Other DAW's are getting on board with this such as Pro Tools now being in the same boat as Reaper and Cubase. Its pretty obvious in the video I posted that other DAW's are getting better overall CPU performance than Studio One at this stage.

 

[Lukas]

Its pretty obvious in the video I posted that other DAW's are getting better overall CPU performance than Studio One at this stage.

That's what most people misunderstand when they watch this video.

The charts in the video make it seem as if this was a direct performance comparison betwee DAWs. However, the DAWs in that video have completely different settings. Reaper, Logic and Cubase are set to huge buffers, while S1 is set to "high" instead of max. Even at max, the other DAWs have larger buffers. So the "comparison" is complete nonsense.

The way the video starts ("I'll test 1024 samples on each DAW" and then enabling settings that effectively use a much higher buffer size in certain DAWs) is very misleading, as is the chart. And as we've seen many viewers interpreted it as a direct comparison of the actual performance of different DAWs.

James even clarifies in follow-up video that is wasn't even meant as a direct comparison between DAWs. But here we are, the video is out there and people don't understand it.

I still feel Studio One has some work to do in terms of use of Apple Silicon efficiency cores.

Efficiency cores are not intended for real-time processing such as audio streams. There is a high risk of dropouts when used in a lower buffering scenario. They're designed for energy efficiency, not maximum performance or low-latency tasks. This is one of the obvious reasons why many DAWs don't use e-cores at all. Using efficiency cores in large buffer scenarios could be an option, but problems could arise if background applications are open and/or system performance system performance approaches its limits.

 

[Dave25]

This video is still a bit more relevant. The OP video he is not using heavy usage plugins so much. However in this video he is using much heavier CPU use plugins. Also it is still obvious that Studio One is not using efficiency cores. This could be better. But I am not seeing any issues as yet even with non efficiency core use yet as I am not taxing the system very much even with large sessions. Other DAW's still use CPU more efficiently than Studio One does. As Pro Tools fixed their coding to use the efficiency cores then does that mean that Studio One can.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This is an absolute BS video. It pretends to compare different DAWs under fair conditions, but the opposite is the case.

You can see from the comments how much he misleads all viewers who have no idea about tech.

It's best to leave CPU topics to the specialists ...

 

[Jemusic]

The most important thing about that video is his last statements. If your current system is handling large sessions with lots of plugins easily then you don't have to do anything. Many of these tests are unrealistic anyway as the typical session might be well within the bounds of the DAW to be able to manage very comfortably. They are testing at the extremes but we rarely operate at those extremes. That is why I am happy. But still if efficiency cores are not good for music production why has Pro Tools gone down that path to get them working. With an extreme session it could be the difference between playing well or not playing at all.

 

[Lukas]

But still if efficiency cores are not good for music production why has Pro Tools gone down that path to get them working.

Of course, I have no idea what the exact reason was. But even if I find the topic of efficiency cores to be vastly overrated compared to other performance matters, having the option is always better than not having it