Digital Performer and CPU performance

[comp15]

Hi all,

I'm an orchestral composer, and I have an upcoming film composition project. I've narrowed my new DAW options down to Digital Performer and Cubase.

Here are my hardware specs:
MAC HOST: OS X 10.7.1; 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon; Memory 32 GB OSX Ver 10.7.5
PC SLAVE: ASUS Sabertooth X79 ATX Intel Motherboard; Intel Core i7-3930K 3.2GHz Six-Core Desktop Processor; CORSAIR Vengeance 64GB Ram (8 x 8GB); Corsair Obsidian Series 900D CC-9011022--WW Black Computer Case
All 6 hard drives are SSD
Audio Interface: Steinberg UR22
Routing: Vienna Ensemble Pro 5

Basically, from I can tell I really like both interfaces, DP and Cubase. So, my decision comes down to the efficiency at which the DAW will manage MIDI, specifically East West Quantum Leap's Diamond Series (String, Brass, Woodwinds, etc.)

My question is in regards to CPU performance. I've read that DP's CPU efficiency for software instruments is widely regarded as inferior to Cubase. How accurate is that?

I've also recently discovered that, as a new Vienna Ensemble Pro user as well, Motu at some point released an update which included improved performance with Vienna Ensemble Pro. I also read that perhaps VEPro was going to release a MAS plug-in to drastically improve communication between DP and VEPro. Has this become available for DP?

So, what has your experience been? If it's been good, how large are your projects? Have you noticed a struggle with your CPU? Given I have a slave PC machine that (I think) is fairly decked out and will serve as a dedicated sample library, how do you think I will manage with those East West monster sample libraries, even with multiple close mic positions, when necessary?

Partly why I'm asking is because due to time constraints I don't have to time to adequately give it a trial. I figured I'd check on this forum for user insight.

thanks

[Shooshie]

Well, here you'll find a lot of people who like Digital Performer. I suspect that on a Steinberg forum, you'll find people who like Cubase.

I've been learning about Cubase's Expression Maps, but I don't really understand them yet. Not being a Cubase user makes it a little hard to understand why they are better than just applying keyswitches and editing controllers. That might be something you'd want to explore.

Meanwhile, MOTU has announced that DP9 will have significant improvements (lanes) for handling controllers in the Sequence Editor, and VSL has announced the aforementioned return to MAS format, or maybe it's MAS for the first time. MAS (MOTU Audio System) has always been one of the best in the industry, but like Sony's BETA format for videotape, it was marginalized about 10 or 12 years ago in a popularity contest that has little to do with tech specs.

Both DP and Cubase are old. DP is older, but we're talking about a few years difference. MOTU was one of the first developers to offer MIDI sync with audio, back with Pro Tools was still just "Audiomedia" by Digidesign, little more than a sound card with co-processors, and DP acted as the front end for that system. When Macs became powerful enough to handle native audio, DP was one of the leaders of that revolution. Of course, Steinberg was there, too, but I wasn't familiar with it, because most of their ventures were for PC.

If I were in your shoes, I'd make my first priority to use the Macintosh, as opposed to the PC. I still believe that OS X offers advantages that give it the edge over the PC, even though Windows is supposedly a great OS these days. I know too many people who are programmers and computer engineers (my son is in the middle of that industry) who program for PC, but who use Macs privately. They all say the same thing: at the end of the day, they don't want to be messing with the computer; just using it. Plus, it offers a great deal of connectivity through iOS devices.

Assuming you go with Mac, based on reports from people who have used both, it's my understanding that DP is the more stable of the two apps. You may get better info from someone who has used Cubase first-hand.

I have heard less-than flattering reports about East West's offerings, especially their audio engine. You might consider Vienna, instead. I find it to be absolutely flawless in performance. Things are always subject to change; tomorrow the roles may be reversed. But so far, I have not heard many redeeming stories about EW. There is also Spitfire Audio's Albion; and Cinesamples, a highly regarded young library, one of whose principle creators is a regular poster here.

That's about as objective as I can be, and I fear my biases are already showing. Do your homework. You might want to consider our user-base in this forum. You get answers fast, here. We have a number of Grammy winning members here, many of whom do their best to maintain anonymity, while others have too many friends here and couldn't keep it quiet if they tried. Music Directors of major shows, studios, orchestras, film and TV are members. Their status doesn't help you, but their expertise does.

Good luck in your decisions,

Shooshie

[waterstrum]

Wow, Shoosh,
That was a very reasoned and informative reply.
As always, you rock!

My only question for the OP is...
Why Lion?

If you are testing current products, give them the benefit of a more current OS.

[buhardilla]

Great answer Shooshie. (Comp15, if your DAW choice were only based on forum help ... )
As a long time Cubase user and recently DP novice user, what I can say about your questions among them
Global CPU performance: DP is much better in Mac. Cubase is mainly targeted to PC (I read once that Cubase in mac is almost 30% slower than a PC with same processor and RAM specs). Overall, DP is fully optimized for mac.
About virtual instruments: I think it depends of how much VI you will use. In small templates I found the most practical and straightforward the exclusive VI racks DP chunk feature (VST Cubase rack is seemed but isn't the same). If you follow the recommendations of spread instruments in many instances instead of charge an instance you'll get the power of multicore processors. In long orchestral templates the winner isn't a DAW, in this match the winner is VEPro. In the latter case Cubase takes the advantage due to VST3 multiportMIDI support, but if VEPro add MAS compatibility this will change. In spite of this AU limitation many composers use very large orchestral template in DP (have a look to this video by Guy Michelmore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOWglixolyQ )
Cubase and DP are good choices. Sorry, but if you'd want to know what is your DAW you must try both
Pd. Recently Steinberg released Cubase 8 and I can not resist the temptation to upgrade. I tried again (a sensible improvement respect 7.5) but after short time I started to miss DP workflow... it's really a matter of taste

[frankf]

Just to add to Shooshie's post, Opcode's Studio Vision was the first DAW released, at NAMM 1990, and it used the Digidesign audio engine. After the exclusive deal with Opcode expired, Digi licensed to. MOTU and Steinberg as well. Read more about how the first DAW came about in this article by Craig Halaby here: http://www.kvraudio.com/focus/it_was_21 ... bout_15898


Frank Ferrucci

[bayswater]

I used Cubase for many years, and now use DP. I recently worked with the Cubase 7.5 trial. From that I'd say CPU efficiency is a wash. As I recall it Cubase was not that efficient on the Mac version compared to the Windows versions, but that appears to have improved.

If you use Cubase now, you'll find a need to go through a few workflow changes. The most obvious is there are no MIDI Parts in Cubase. There are a lot of alternatives that all work fine.

If you plan to stick with OS X 10.7, at least get to 10.7.5. Better to go to 10.8.5 unless you have important plugins that won't work with it.

Another consideration: I alway found support for the Mac version of Cubase to be wanting, and customer support from Steinberg to be so-so. Much better in this pond.

[Musicmind]

Hi
I have been on the same quest as you. I think the DP8 concept is quite a bit different from the others: Studio One, Cubase, Logic Pro Tools. DP8 is all about MIDI tracks - routed to VI's in the rack or in the seq. This gives a lot of flexibility, but as you might know flexibility always comes at a price, simplicity. I think a good idea would be to watch the videos on Groove3.com by Eli, he's very informative.
Cubase is much more streamlined, and of course it has MIDI tracks but it also has the combined tracks called Instrument tracks which essentially is MIDI in/audio out. And then of course vst-expressions, which works very well, also with VSL products.
I think the MIDI editor in Cubase 8 is the best on the marked and CPU vise I think the possibility to use "Constrain Latency" is important if you need to make live recordings in big CPU heavy sessions. I don't think DP8 has that.
I wanted to try out DP8 after watching a VSL promo video where more than 50% of the very famous composers ( ) used DP8, so I think you're on track; it must be one of those two; DP8 or Cubase 8.
Send me a PM if you want more information.
Ps I would have liked to upload a screen shot from Cubase 8 to show you how you can create a MIDI track, but I don't know how to do that in this forum.

[Michael Canavan]

DP is going to have better CPU performance than Cubase.
In tests I did with older versions, and tests done by people with Cubase, DP comes out neck and neck with Logic, both are very CPU efficient, with maybe DP being easier to actually fix CPU issues in, (at least I've had an easier time with DP and have used both intensly)...

Cubase apparently has gotten better on a mac, but it's still behind Logic and DP in CPU performance. It's not that efficient on PC either, Sonar users brag about trashing Cubase in performance tests.

[comp15]

Wow, Shoosh,
That was a very reasoned and informative reply.
As always, you rock!

My only question for the OP is...
Why Lion?

If you are testing current products, give them the benefit of a more current OS.

It's a fair question.

As an editor, Final Cut Pro 7 is currently my editing platform of choice. There's no guarantee from Apple that FCP7 will adequately function after an OS upgrade from Lion. I'm currently finishing up another project using an FCP7 timeline, so the upgrade is far too risky at this time. I have other editing work lined up so it has not been feasible to make the switch. I think I read somewhere that roughly 17% of Apple users have not upgraded. Many other editors I know cannot justify it's lacking feature set, so I wouldn't be surprised that the majority of the 17% is comprised of FCP7 users.

I'm sure the updated OS is very nice, so I'm not sure how long I'll hold off due to workload. As long as DP8 works on Lion without issues, I'll be good for now. Again, good question.

[comp15]

Hi
I have been on the same quest as you. I think the DP8 concept is quite a bit different from the others: Studio One, Cubase, Logic Pro Tools. DP8 is all about MIDI tracks - routed to VI's in the rack or in the seq. This gives a lot of flexibility, but as you might know flexibility always comes at a price, simplicity. I think a good idea would be to watch the videos on Groove3.com by Eli, he's very informative.
Cubase is much more streamlined, and of course it has MIDI tracks but it also has the combined tracks called Instrument tracks which essentially is MIDI in/audio out. And then of course vst-expressions, which works very well, also with VSL products.
I think the MIDI editor in Cubase 8 is the best on the marked and CPU vise I think the possibility to use "Constrain Latency" is important if you need to make live recordings in big CPU heavy sessions. I don't think DP8 has that.
I wanted to try out DP8 after watching a VSL promo video where more than 50% of the very famous composers ( ) used DP8, so I think you're on track; it must be one of those two; DP8 or Cubase 8.
Send me a PM if you want more information.
Ps I would have liked to upload a screen shot from Cubase 8 to show you how you can create a MIDI track, but I don't know how to do that in this forum.

I will not hesitate to proclaim that, after more research, I see that Cubase has really gone the distance within the realm of MIDI capabilities, alone.

Thanks for suggesting the Groove3.com tutorials. I ordered the DP beginner tutorial package by Eli. I've watched 13 videos so far. When I noticed that one of the video titles includes the words "conductor track", I was too excited so I skipped to it. My first reaction was "Wow" because I've never seen that as part of a DAW interface before. The fact that I can perform a spotting session with not only tempo changes but also while communicating the time signature is wonderful. In fact, for me it reduces the mystery of why, as you said, more than 50% of successful composers use DP. I've done so much work, sometimes in very remedial ways, composing to hit points within the picture. I reluctantly admit that I'm a bit OCD about it, and it can be time consuming when the tools at my disposal are anything but in the least up to par.

Now, when I look at the tools with which Digital Performer will allow me to not only sync video but also spot a sequence, I think it's pushed me to realize I'm falling in love ... with software.

I admit DP is a bit intimidating. There's definitely a learning curve, but I look upon that notion as how rewarding it will be when I figure it out.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I'm an orchestral composer...

As an editor, Final Cut Pro 7 is currently my editing platform of choice. There's no guarantee from Apple that FCP7 will adequately function after an OS upgrade from Lion.

Which are you? If you are asking as a composer, the Lion issue is absolutely valid. It sucked. If you're stuck on it for FCP then you're stuck on it and nothing we can say is going to ease your pain when you wear your composer hat. Behind one door there is a lady, behind the other is a lion.

Choose wisely!

[mikehalloran]

Since FCP7 was discontinued years ago, there are no guarantees about anything.

In any case, many have it working on Yosemite.

Here's the Apple Support doc on doing a clean re-install, often needed to make FCP7 function on later OS:

http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203212