Euphonix DP Update

[chaim]

REPORT:

Installed 2.1 and NOTHING at all is improved regarding the cpu hit.

[wabbitguy]

REPORT:

Installed 2.1 and NOTHING at all is improved regarding the cpu hit.

I don't find that too surprising considering the network chattiness of their software. So you're saying it still sucks up 10-15% more CPU with it install as opposed to not?

Anything else either good or bad about it?

I'm still formatting and coping here so it's going to be a while before I get round to the update.

Mel

[burn em]

REPORT:

Installed 2.1 and NOTHING at all is improved regarding the cpu hit.

Is there any discernible difference to warrant the download?

[chaim]

I don't know about anything else, besides the cpu hit problem, there is no way I can use this like this, so I don't use it, [so I can't report on other enhancements - if any]

It is so wrong that MOTU promotes this unit....

Only if your work allows you to have DP on a high buffer and not too many tracks going on, then it's ok, other wise forget it.

[KEVORKIAN]

I don't know about anything else, besides the cpu hit problem, there is no way I can use this like this, so I don't use it, [so I can't report on other enhancements - if any]

It is so wrong that MOTU promotes this unit....

Only if your work allows you to have DP on a high buffer and not too many tracks going on, then it's ok, other wise forget it.

About how many tracks are you using in the sessions where you notice the impact of the cpu hit? Also is this more of an issue for you during tracking? Mixing? Both equally?

I'm just curious, because while I have observed a cpu hit from running Euphonix software, it has not come at serious cost when I'm mixing projects with larger track counts.

[chaim]

27 mono audio

7 stereo

12 aux tracks

6 disabled VIs and there MIDI tracks

1 enabled VI and 15 MIDI tracks.

The additional cpu hit is there even by small sessions, it's just not an issue because it's 'smaller'.

The big sessions work fine with my 2 mackie controls, through plain old MIDI, why should this more up-to-date machine pull down the computer to the ground? It was marketed that it connects through Ethernet so it's faster, more resolution. What a joke, it can't do even what the mackie can....

[KEVORKIAN]

27 mono audio

7 stereo

12 aux tracks

6 disabled VIs and there MIDI tracks

1 enabled VI and 15 MIDI tracks.

The additional cpu hit is there even by small sessions, it's just not an issue because it's 'smaller'.

The big sessions work fine with my 2 mackie controls, through plain old MIDI, why should this more up-to-date machine pull down the computer to the ground? It was marketed that it connects through Ethernet so it's faster, more resolution. What a joke, it can't do even what the mackie can....

Ok... we are on similar machines and what you list is a near mirror of many of the projects that I work on, in fact, I often have many more stereo audio tracks than that. I wouldn't say that my machine is on it's knees from this, however, so I find that interesting. The only immediate difference would be the amount of ram between us. I would think that you have enough ram though. More annoying to me are the processor spikes that Eucon causes.

I have never owned a Mackie Control, but I hear what you are saying. I like the Euphonix hardware but if they don't get things sorted, I'm sure many of us will be selling.

[chaim]

More annoying to me are the processor spikes that Eucon causes.

THAT is the problem. Nothing else.

[KEVORKIAN]

More annoying to me are the processor spikes that Eucon causes.

THAT is the problem. Nothing else.

Are they crashing your projects? I have been ignoring them because only DP reflects them, the CPU meter doesn't show the same spikes. I haven't had crashes that I would attribute to them. Have you?

[chaim]

No crashes to dp, but it overloads dp's cpu monitor which results in crippled audio.

I was ready to ignore dp's cpu monitor [as euphonix suggested to me in an email] but I can't. It rips apart the audio.

[superjeezus]

I can still confirm the same behavior here. My templates have lots of MIDI tracks, and many audio tracks for monitoring and recording VI and Bidule output.

When I enable Eucon in my basic template, DP's CPU meter at least doubles, and I get the spikes you guys are talking about.

[KEVORKIAN]

No crashes to dp, but it overloads dp's cpu monitor which results in crippled audio.

I was ready to ignore dp's cpu monitor [as euphonix suggested to me in an email] but I can't. It rips apart the audio.

What happens specifically? Does the audio drop out? Tracks don't play? I haven't noticed this here...

[chaim]

As if you would have enabled a million plug ins, or a million voices trying to play out of your VI, - some thing the computer can not do, the audio breaks up, it hiccups, you get static, all not good sounds.

[KEVORKIAN]

Ok... I'll do some more testing after this week. I've been disabling the Eucon software until in need to do fader rides in part because I'm a bit disgusted with such issues, however this is the sort of product that should be unobtrusive to the computer.

[wabbitguy]

I finally got my iMac back running after doing fresh installs, from SL right on up to DP, Eucon and so on. On my fresh install (10.6.2 according to Activity Monitor), all were tested with the following track setups 8 stereo tracks, 4 mono tracks, 2 MIDI tracks, one VI. No Eucon software installed.

DP idle - 10-11%, Playback - 35% - 41%

Eucon 2.1 installed, updated MCMix firmware from 1.3.7 to 1.3.9
Eucon connected directly by ethernet (10.0.0.x)
Airport is connected to office network (192.168.1.x)

DP idle - 13-17%
Playback - 47-53%
Playback (same track count), recording 1 stereo and 1 mono track 44-53%

Side note, if you send DP to the background, CPU usage drop by about 3-5% here.

Tried all kinds of other songs I have recorded, managed to get the CPU meter in DP to peak a couple of times and I "stalled DP" in the playback once. So I closed the Audio Performance window. Didn't get any stall after that, but I'd need to do a lot longer testing to be sure that was part of the problem.

Tried playing songs from both internal and external (FW) drives. Didn't notice any different in CPU usage at all. Tried DP with all windows (tracks, meterbridge, mixer, etc) showing or hiding. Nothing really changed the CPU usage.

None the less having one "stall" during playback is one stall too many.

Sorry I don't have any magic bullet solutions for any of us. I'm going to keep running it in my current configuration and see if it's reliable enough to use or I unload it. Kind of wish I hadn't sold my Behringer BCF2000, it worked perfectly it was just missing the labels. I guess a decent control surface is just too much to ask for, or more specifically decent software to make one work.

Mel