Latency Performance Survey

Post general topics related to Cubase Pro 9, Cubase Artist 9 and Cubase Elements 9 here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Matthias Quellmann
Moderator
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:44 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Contact:

Latency Performance Survey

Post by Matthias Quellmann » Wed May 16, 2018 3:27 pm

Hi all,

We have created a new survey that asks questions about the latency performance of your personal recording setup, your recording use cases and requests. You would help us a lot if you would take 5 minutes of your time to complete the survey.

Link to survey

Thanks a lot,
Matthias
Matthias Quellmann - Senior Marketing Manager
Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH
Hamburg, Germany
Checkout Steinberg on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook!

cubace
Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:41 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by cubace » Thu May 17, 2018 5:57 am

RME interfaces can handle non 2-power buffers like 192 samples, not included in the list.

folkfreak
Member
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by folkfreak » Thu May 17, 2018 7:47 am

I wrote something stupid in the survey..
I wrote that My Steinberg Interface at 256 has a higher roundtrip latency than my RME Fireface at 128. Of course its the other way round: The Steinberg has a HIGHER latency at 128 than the RME at 256....

zipb
Junior Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by zipb » Fri May 18, 2018 9:06 am

I hope this survey will lead to improvements, IMO latency is the final frontier in recording through a DAW. My Skylake system is plenty fast enough for anything I throw at it when mixing with a 128 buffer, but recording/jamming with a couple of VI's and virtual guitar amps is a problem.

I really need to be careful if I want to jam with 1 Pianoteq 6 instance, 1 Superior Drummer 3, 2 channels with guitar amps and a vocal channel strip with a low buffer(64/88.2 kHz gives the best results latency wise). I tried several audio interfaces, some have lower latency because they have faster AD and/or DA converters, but the stress on the computer is more or less the same.

Cubase can just about cope with such a session. Logic Pro X is a little bit better for this, but not much.
Desktop:
Gigabyte Z170X-UD5-TH/i7 6700k/OSX10.13.1/Cubase Pro 9.5.30/32 GB RAM/MSI AMD R480x/SSD's/Metric Halo ULN-8/UAD2 Quad
Laptop:
MacBook Pro 8,2/OSX10.12.6/8GB RAM/SSD/Metric Halo ULN-2

User avatar
Carlos Mariño
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 9:42 am
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by Carlos Mariño » Fri May 18, 2018 10:19 am

Done and shared in networks!!
-------------------------------------------------------
Composer, Producer Music & Sound Designer.
Steinberg Certified Trainer
-------------------------------------------------------
web: http://www.carlosmarino.es/
-------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Antonio Escobar
Member
Posts: 555
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by Antonio Escobar » Sat May 19, 2018 12:04 pm

I think that Presonus’ Studio One philosophy is the way to go, a dual buffer with two different latencies.
Antonio Escobar
http://www.antipop.es

---
Nuendo 8.0.x / Cubase 9.0.x
MacBook Pro 2017 16GB RAM, OS X10.12.5
UR824
Native Komplete Kontrol/Maschine
Avid Artist Mix
Waves
Softube

User avatar
shanabit
Member
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by shanabit » Sat May 19, 2018 1:06 pm

Just do a dual buffer setup already like StudioOnePro, Protools. No need for a survey, you guys are way behind in this area
Cubase Pro 9.5.30, StudioOnePro 3.5.6
OSX 10.13.5 High Sierra
MacPro 2010, 14GB Ram, 2x 2.4Ghz Quad Core
Steinberg MR816X Tools ( Current)

Romantique Tp
External Moderator
Posts: 3014
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 3:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by Romantique Tp » Sat May 19, 2018 7:56 pm

That's... what ASIO Guard is. It's been around since 2012. Steinberg isn't behind in this area, Cubase was in fact one of the very first DAWs to implement the idea, while SO didn't have anything like it at all until a few months ago. This is very, very far from being a "Studio One philosophy".

The point of the survey is to get info on which configurations and workflows are working and which are causing Cubase to underperform. This info allows the development team to better assess what should be done to improve Cubase's performance, and is extremely valuable.
Every time someone says "it must be easy to add/fix", a programmer dies.

Cubase Pro and Wavelab Pro (latest), Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit, MSI Z87-G45 GAMING, i5 4690k, GeForce GTX 760, almost every Steinberg plugin and expansion, Trilian, Komplete 10, etc etc etc etc

User avatar
Antonio Escobar
Member
Posts: 555
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by Antonio Escobar » Sat May 19, 2018 8:50 pm

Romantique Tp wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 7:56 pm
That's... what ASIO Guard is. It's been around since 2012. Steinberg isn't behind in this area, Cubase was in fact one of the very first DAWs to implement the idea, while SO didn't have anything like it at all until a few months ago. This is very, very far from being a "Studio One philosophy".

The point of the survey is to get info on which configurations and workflows are working and which are causing Cubase to underperform. This info allows the development team to better assess what should be done to improve Cubase's performance, and is extremely valuable.
As long as I know, the first DAW was Logic, but in any case, Studio One’s implementation and performance is way better, so I’m happy to see that Steinberg is going to improve it.
Antonio Escobar
http://www.antipop.es

---
Nuendo 8.0.x / Cubase 9.0.x
MacBook Pro 2017 16GB RAM, OS X10.12.5
UR824
Native Komplete Kontrol/Maschine
Avid Artist Mix
Waves
Softube

User avatar
shanabit
Member
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by shanabit » Sat May 19, 2018 10:05 pm

Romantique Tp wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 7:56 pm
That's... what ASIO Guard is. It's been around since 2012. Steinberg isn't behind in this area, Cubase was in fact one of the very first DAWs to implement the idea, while SO didn't have anything like it at all until a few months ago. This is very, very far from being a "Studio One philosophy".

The point of the survey is to get info on which configurations and workflows are working and which are causing Cubase to underperform. This info allows the development team to better assess what should be done to improve Cubase's performance, and is extremely valuable.
Yes we all know what ASIO Guard is and what it does. However, S1 does it better at this point.
This survey would not show up if Steinberg felt everything was at an optimum level dont ya think? All of us would like to be able to run a couple plugins whilst tracking without delay. A 'separate buffer for input and output is all Im sayin. I did the survey, you're welcome, haha.

I have given up on trying to track WITH plugins anyway. I use the MR Console software or Direct Monitoring and just deal with it. Playback is easily fixed with cranking the buffer.

Carry on
Cubase Pro 9.5.30, StudioOnePro 3.5.6
OSX 10.13.5 High Sierra
MacPro 2010, 14GB Ram, 2x 2.4Ghz Quad Core
Steinberg MR816X Tools ( Current)

compositor
Junior Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by compositor » Mon May 21, 2018 11:25 pm

I did the survey, so how do you know what the round trip latency figure is?

I actually use Adobe Premiere for voice overs and it seems to work differently to Cubase when recording.

I want to test recording with Cubase soon but I mainly just use it (cubase) for creating stems of VST instruments that I export into Premiere where I have captions etc., (pity cubase or Nuendo can't do captions or I'd just use that).

keyofz
New Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue May 29, 2018 7:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by keyofz » Tue May 29, 2018 7:42 pm

I have a Win 8.1, RME babyface pro
Now. With a Round trip of under 7ms at 4800 24 bit and 128 Samples.
I do not have Audible Latency In. Sonar or Ableton Live. No matter what I am doing.(Lucky?)

Am I going to have a problem with Cubase 9.5?

I am still on the fence. Whether to Crossgrade to 9.5 pro. Learning curve and Time is the Biggest problem I am facing.

TNM
Junior Member
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by TNM » Thu May 31, 2018 6:04 am

Antonio Escobar wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 8:50 pm
Romantique Tp wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 7:56 pm
That's... what ASIO Guard is. It's been around since 2012. Steinberg isn't behind in this area, Cubase was in fact one of the very first DAWs to implement the idea, while SO didn't have anything like it at all until a few months ago. This is very, very far from being a "Studio One philosophy".

The point of the survey is to get info on which configurations and workflows are working and which are causing Cubase to underperform. This info allows the development team to better assess what should be done to improve Cubase's performance, and is extremely valuable.
As long as I know, the first DAW was Logic, but in any case, Studio One’s implementation and performance is way better, so I’m happy to see that Steinberg is going to improve it.
No, it's not. S1's implementation on mac at least is terrible.

The low latency tracks work ok but when it shuffles it to the internal higher buffer, Cubase thrashes it for polyphony count.

I can prove this on 3 macs with 3 different interfaces.. I am talking about Cubase getting DOUBLE the amount of fx and VI's, not a small difference.

Not sure if it;s different on windows though.

Asio guard works very, very well.. It just goes to show how some people don't even understand what it is.. saying, "cubase needs a dual buffer system" LOL!
Pro tools has it, Logic has it, Cubase has it, S1 was one of THE very last to have it.

Cubase's issue is monitoring tracks under 128 buffer. That's the issue, as others seem to be confirming all the time.

For some reason, S1 can play live tracks even at 16 or 32 buffer. I will admit that.
1) iMac Pro 3.2ghz 8 Core, 64GB Ram, 2TB SSD, OS 10.13.6, Caldigit TS3+ Dock, Startech USB-C Raid with Crucial MX500 1TB x2, Startech USB-C with 512Gb 860 Pro, Tbolt3 1TB SSD-R G Tech x 2, USB3 8TB Seagate MyBackup+, Tbolt Apollo 8 x 2, TBolt UA Satellite x 2, Tbolt Apollo Twin Duo, TI2 Desktop, MoxF6, tons of midi synths, CB Pro 9.5.3.
2) Macbook Pro 2015, 2.8ghz i7 quad, 16GB ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.12.6, CBPro9.5.3/Logic10.4.1/PT2018.7, Internal Sound, Lacie Rugged SSD TBolt 512GB, G-tech 1TB 7200RPM TBolt, USB3 WD 2TB MyPassport.

folkfreak
Member
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by folkfreak » Thu May 31, 2018 6:17 am

TNM wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 6:04 am

Cubase's issue is monitoring tracks under 128 buffer. That's the issue, as others seem to be confirming all the time.

Exactly !
Asio Guard on the other hand works very well.

User avatar
Antonio Escobar
Member
Posts: 555
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by Antonio Escobar » Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:24 pm

Well, ASIO Guard 2 works, of course, but my tests in Mac with S1 largely outperformed Cubase with low latency.
Antonio Escobar
http://www.antipop.es

---
Nuendo 8.0.x / Cubase 9.0.x
MacBook Pro 2017 16GB RAM, OS X10.12.5
UR824
Native Komplete Kontrol/Maschine
Avid Artist Mix
Waves
Softube

TNM
Junior Member
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by TNM » Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:00 pm

Antonio Escobar wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:24 pm
Well, ASIO Guard 2 works, of course, but my tests in Mac with S1 largely outperformed Cubase with low latency.
i'd be curious to exchange tests with you and see how we fare..

At 128 i can't get S1 anywhere *near* Cubase's performance for effect and VI instance count.

if there are NO tracks armed anywhere, i.e, everything is on the internal higher buffer, pro tools beats them all for me, including cubase.

It's the only DAW where I can literally see the real cpu usage of each core at 90% and everything spread to perfection. It all changes if i arm a track of course at low buffer, but for playback performance for me, it's PT, closely followed by CB, then Logic, then reaper, then S1.. Ableton/Bitwig/DP untested in regards to benchmarks.

For low latency performance, S1 seems to be quite decent with a quantum, Logic thrashes absolutely everything including S1 and reaper.

Interestingly though, Logic can only spread the live load amongst half the total cores.. so if you have 8 cores for example, logic will only use 4 for armed tracks.. so because of this, if you are working at buffers of 128 or higher, cubase and PT beats it for live recording performance as well.
but at 32 and 64 Logic thrashes everything, even many of the DAWs on windows. I understand Apple's "logic" here (pun totally intended lol)..they split the load between live tracks and keep half the processing power for playback tracks.. I guess in real world situations it works, i only broke it because i made unrealistic benchmarks (for example, I armed 64 external channels at 32 buffer and added multiple fab filter pro R reverb plugins on every single live track LOL.. this is how i noticed logic could not go beyond 50% of the cores for the live monitored tracks).

I can play Diva at 32 samples and 96K in Logic, i can't play it at 32 samples and 44k in cubase.. just as a comparison...I need to go to 128 in Cubase..

As far as DAW's go though, besides just a couple of tempo features of Logic, Cubase is so far ahead it's not even funny. To me it thrashes Logic completely and actually has working PDC.
1) iMac Pro 3.2ghz 8 Core, 64GB Ram, 2TB SSD, OS 10.13.6, Caldigit TS3+ Dock, Startech USB-C Raid with Crucial MX500 1TB x2, Startech USB-C with 512Gb 860 Pro, Tbolt3 1TB SSD-R G Tech x 2, USB3 8TB Seagate MyBackup+, Tbolt Apollo 8 x 2, TBolt UA Satellite x 2, Tbolt Apollo Twin Duo, TI2 Desktop, MoxF6, tons of midi synths, CB Pro 9.5.3.
2) Macbook Pro 2015, 2.8ghz i7 quad, 16GB ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.12.6, CBPro9.5.3/Logic10.4.1/PT2018.7, Internal Sound, Lacie Rugged SSD TBolt 512GB, G-tech 1TB 7200RPM TBolt, USB3 WD 2TB MyPassport.

User avatar
babaorum
Member
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by babaorum » Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:45 am

I answered to the survey. I made a mistake for the question 'Have you experiment a better latency and on what system' I should answer yes instead of no because I thought to an interface audio but in Pro Tools I experiment better performance for the latency.
Cubase 9.5.30 64bits- Windows 8.1 pro 64bits - wavelab element 9.5.35 - core i7 920 - 18 Go RAM - 250 Go SSD + 32 Go SSD + 4.750 To HDD. ANTELOPE Discrete 4. Pro Tools 2018.7

User avatar
babaorum
Member
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Latency Performance Survey

Post by babaorum » Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:51 pm

Latency is an essential point for musicians who record their instruments , they need to be in real time to have a good performance !
If Cubase can improve this technical side do it please !
Cubase 9.5.30 64bits- Windows 8.1 pro 64bits - wavelab element 9.5.35 - core i7 920 - 18 Go RAM - 250 Go SSD + 32 Go SSD + 4.750 To HDD. ANTELOPE Discrete 4. Pro Tools 2018.7

Post Reply

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rnodern and 8 guests