Kostrowitzky.
4micaHi – I ran my own little test w/a sample and Kuassa Creme (looks nice, great price), got about 10-12%. Unfortunately I have no other studio to compare to…
For the most part I’ve had no problems with cpu in Podium with regards to uis. I’ve had spikes in the past though, but not very often, just certain plugs. Shortcircuit is a monster, though, I tells ya. The main screen will boost cpu up between 20 and 30%, whereas the other screen is around 2-5. I’ve read that many people have a prob with this in various daws, so oh well. Don’t know what solution to offer there…
BUT, if denormalisation remains a big issue, then give this a go:
http://www.digitalfishphones.com/main.php?item=2&subItem=6
Just found out accidentally about it in a KVR forum about Uhbik, as I’ve been debating with myself about money I shouldn’t spend – But the normaliser above is free, so hey! Good luck.
ps I’ll try the Uhbik plugs in Podium tonight, as Urs said 1.2 might be having denormalisation issues. Also, will get a demo or two of other daws, run my own tests no?
rinxai@kingtubby wrote:
I don’t know what the system specs are on the machine michi_mak is running, but on my 4 year old quad-core, the couple of extra percentage points of cpu use to support the super smooth and lovely Podium UI is fine by me. 🙂
Me too, no problem running Podium on a 2 year old dual core. A few percentage points extra to drive the smart UI should make very little difference on overall usability.
michi_mak@rinxai wrote:
@kingtubby wrote:
I don’t know what the system specs are on the machine michi_mak is running, but on my 4 year old quad-core, the couple of extra percentage points of cpu use to support the super smooth and lovely Podium UI is fine by me. 🙂
Me too, no problem running Podium on a 2 year old dual core. A few percentage points extra to drive the smart UI should make very little difference on overall usability.
please read my first post : Podium did not even start playback due to cpu overload but REAPER did play just fine ( and other hosts did so too ) – so the issue is not about some cpu cycles for a nice GUI or not – the point is about resource hogging …
KostrowitzkySame here. Podium is hungry.
I can’t use it.
The TelenatorSure would like to know the real facts/hard specs on what you guys are running, because as one said above, a few extra percentage points of CPU is more than welcomed to have such a well-conceived and inviting interface. After a few hours of staring at my former Cubase layout and its weird pastels, unnatural colorations, and uncustomizable screen, 8+ hours of looking at Podium is now a real blessing.
I’m routinely seeing only about 3-4% extra CPU for the UI on Podium, and I’m using a very average Core2Duo. If you are assessing usuage via the standard Task Manager, that will be vague and largely a waste of time. Get the Microsoft-endorsed FREE Process Explorer from SysInternals at technet.microsoft and it even offers the spiffy option of replacing your Task Manager if you wish. It can easily be configured to show all trees and handles in any live process. THEN you will know what’s really going on and what the real culpret is. I find that Podium uses slightly less resources than my last edition of Cubase, also, and just a tad more than REAPER, although it must be said that REAPER uses CPU resources quite differently (more upfront, less down the line usually).
Spikes can be caused by denormal issues with a few pesky VSTs. Do you have digitalfishphones’ normalizer.dll? That’s free, too, and will take care of that separate issue.
Podium runs like a charm in my case, but I point out that I set my Preferences and optimize my laptop very, very carefully to achieve great performance. Daws are not plug’n’play. It’s all in the sample rates, buffer settings and those little check boxes that often get ignored. I spent an entire two days right after the install getting things perfect. It was worth every second.
Finally, it’s easy to search this one out on the Net: Almost all of the DAWs out there these days have been tested and compared and rated for resource usuage — charts, graphs, comments, etc. There are a good dozen blogs/forums that discuss this stuff ad nauseum. There are several worse offenders than Podium, a few are far worse. This is all public info — no deep secret at all.
To make a blanket statement declaring Podium a “resource hog” without posting stats, specs, and maybe a screen shot or two is a real “stretch” to say the very least. My mileage, as I noted, is far different. I realize particular PCs have their own quirks and issues, but an internet search of this doesn’t support the claim either. Instead, several other big-name programs come up regularly. Good luck.
Trancit@The Telenator wrote:
Sure would like to know the real facts/hard specs on what you guys are running, because as one said above, a few extra percentage points of CPU is more than welcomed to have such a well-conceived and inviting interface. After a few hours of staring at my former Cubase layout and its weird pastels, unnatural colorations, and uncustomizable screen, 8+ hours of looking at Podium is now a real blessing.
I’m routinely seeing only about 3-4% extra CPU for the UI on Podium, and I’m using a very average Core2Duo. If you are assessing usuage via the standard Task Manager, that will be vague and largely a waste of time. Get the Microsoft-endorsed FREE Process Explorer from SysInternals at technet.microsoft and it even offers the spiffy option of replacing your Task Manager if you wish. It can easily be configured to show all trees and handles in any live process. THEN you will know what’s really going on and what the real culpret is. I find that Podium uses slightly less resources than my last edition of Cubase, also, and just a tad more than REAPER, although it must be said that REAPER uses CPU resources quite differently (more upfront, less down the line usually).
Spikes can be caused by denormal issues with a few pesky VSTs. Do you have digitalfishphones’ normalizer.dll? That’s free, too, and will take care of that separate issue.
Podium runs like a charm in my case, but I point out that I set my Preferences and optimize my laptop very, very carefully to achieve great performance. Daws are not plug’n’play. It’s all in the sample rates, buffer settings and those little check boxes that often get ignored. I spent an entire two days right after the install getting things perfect. It was worth every second.
Finally, it’s easy to search this one out on the Net: Almost all of the DAWs out there these days have been tested and compared and rated for resource usuage — charts, graphs, comments, etc. There are a good dozen blogs/forums that discuss this stuff ad nauseum. There are several worse offenders than Podium, a few are far worse. This is all public info — no deep secret at all.
To make a blanket statement declaring Podium a “resource hog” without posting stats, specs, and maybe a screen shot or two is a real “stretch” to say the very least. My mileage, as I noted, is far different. I realize particular PCs have their own quirks and issues, but an internet search of this doesn’t support the claim either. Instead, several other big-name programs come up regularly. Good luck.
Sorry, but at least for me, it´s not true…
I am an optimize junkie and I think, I got really the best out of my system and have to admit, that Podium uses really a lot more CPU power compared to Reaper…
I did a little test project containing:
MDrummer for Drums with for tracks (Kick, OHH, CHH, Claps)
IL Sytrus and Nexus for Bass (one track each)
Sylenth1 for an arpeggio
Nexus for Pad 1
JPK6 for Pad 2
FX Fabfilter Pro Q (5 Instances)
FX Fabfilter Pro-C (2 Instances)
FX Fabfilter Timeless 2 (Send effect)
FX Valhalla Room (Send effect)
All playing together and measured with the normal Win7 Taskmanager (it may be, that this thing is not very accurate, but for comparing, should be suitable)
Podium uses average 46% (some spikes up to 51%) of my Intel Quad Core Q6600 @2,4GHz (all 4 Cores in use)
Reaper uses average 17% (some spikes up to 24%) with anticipative on and average 23% (some spikes up to 26%) with anticipative off…
Even with anticipative magic from Reapper turned off Podium uses here the double CPU as Reaper…that´s a real life situation and normal plugins used…no denormilization issues
If needed, I can make some more tests with other hosts…but Podiums performance is more than worse compared to others what I´ve seen so far
KostrowitzkyI use an “old” Intel-based Laptop Dual-Core 1,6 GHz with 2 GB of RAM
Not too much, but enough for what I do with it
It’s runnin XP and Korg Legacy Collection
I only need ONE TRACK in Podium and a single plugin
Too much
OS is optimized for audio, of course
More than 100 GB free space on harddrive, for example
Point is: I had no problems with Reaper, Mulab or Renoise
Never, could play these synths and a lot more for hours
Podium: Not even a minute
So what?
The TelenatorWow, there’s certainly a lot to respond to here, now that we’re getting some details, and in some ways I’d have to say the plot thickens a little.
First off, even running one track without overloading a whole bunch of plugins on a machine that is 1.6 gig CPU and 2 gig RAM is going to be up toward the edge of maxing out. If not mistaken, I think all modern DAWs state a minimum of 2 gig CPUs. I want to point out also, since a few folks don’t realize it, that 2 cores does not double the power and four cores do not quadruple. This is a common misconception. Extra cores mainly improve the processing speed, and I just wanted to mention that.
Another item I want to repeat is about that SysInternal Process Explorer. It was designed by a guy independently but is offered with Microsoft’s blessings. I really think anyone as geeky about specs and PC workings as I am and some of you are will really like this. It’s 10 times the Task Manager in helpfulness and free to boot. I highly recommend it. I’ve used it a lot, it has many extra useful functions and I find it totally safe.
I’m unfortunately not familiar with some of the plugins listed above, so I can’t say much about them at the moment. I’m also a VST addict, so I want to check out a couple of them. Meanwhile, it’s clear that you guys are well-informed about matters such as optimization. You see, this was another issue that was not clear before. I’m constantly running into users of various DAWs who really have no clue. It is more common than you might imagine. It also looks like everyone is also hip to the potential normalization issue as well, and we can rule that out.
This then rules out a number of possibilities; however, it does not explain your problems with CPU consumption. REAPER is my second favorite DAW. I’ll be the first to admit that they have come a long way in their own development of optimizing — lots of options currently in the Preferences and, overall, I just think REAPER is a very smart setup. Each Daw has its series of strengths and weakenesses, and as much as I like REAPER, it currently has a stack of ongoing issues needing resolution. I’m holding off on upgrading to 4.15 right now because this latest edition has been discovered to contain a new small batch of bugs I just don’t want to face right now. I give them a lot of credit, though, for being innovative and usually daring!
My current laptop isn’t a heck of a lot more powerful than the one I brought up at the top of this post, so the question remains, Why am I having no issues yet others not far different are? I really do believe that some of this comes down to the particular PC, the machine being used. I have an ASUS that works better than it should IMHO. Still, to me this difference in machines can’t be the full answer.
Maybe since a couple of you have offered several significant details just now, Frits and others can chime in with some suggestions. This is an area of great interest to me. I’d like to know the answer. Granted, Podium is not the lightest in consumption of the lot, but at the same time it’s certainly not the worse. In other words, I don’t believe Podium should be maxing out your PCs based on what items I see mentioned so far.
TrancitJust did the same test on FL Studio because Reaper is playing in another league compared to all DAWs on the market…
FLS uses an average of 29% with some spikes of 32-33% and should be a little more a reference to Podium as it uses a later implemented Multicore support and is much much “older” than Reaper…
But on my machine it means, Podium uses about 50% more CPU than a comparable other host and this should be reason enough to investigate this further… It means as well, this CPU hunger isn´t caused by the UI…to me it seems more a problem of the VST implementation or audio engine of Podium, because the more VST are being used the higher is the difference in CPU useage…
michi_maksupposed other hosts don’t suffer from freezing using the same midi file played through the same vsti with the same preset using the same optimized daw and the same buffer settings now what could i improve in my computer set up ???
Trancit@michi_mak wrote:
supposed other hosts don’t suffer from freezing using the same midi file played through the same vsti with the same preset using the same optimized daw and the same buffer settings now what could i improve in my computer set up ???
As long as your system don´t have any problems with many backround tasks (Antivirus software …) or IRQ conflicts, there is really nothing you can really change…many tests have shown, that nearly all tweaking tips for windows systems are quite useless and don´t gain any additional performance
It is 99% how a host handles the different tasks…afaik it´s mostly a matter of how VST/i´s are hosted and how efficient the audio engine works especially on multicore systems…
This is where Reaper really excels it is completely unreached by any other host and this is as well where Podium seems to have some problems… sad but true
Of course there are many differences too, how good single plugins perform… the last days I did a little test of the performance of EQ´s
between Fabfilter Pro Q, Meldaproduction MEqualizer and DMG Audio Equick…
I played an audiofile and adjusted all the EQ´s to the same settings…
The host for the tests was MuTools Mulab, because it runs only on a single core and has a quite good average measurement included…
The result:
Audiofile only: 1% CPU
with EQuick: 1,8% CPU
MEqualizer: 1,3% and
Fabfilter Pro Q: 2,4% CPU…
It is all not much, but it sums up… how many EQ´s do you use normally in a project… for me, there are about 20 EQ´s with ease, which means for me, using Pro Q instead of MEqualizer ends up in a CPU load of 24% instead of 6% with the same settings… thats 4 times more only for the EQ´s…
The TelenatorAgain, not a complete answer yet by any measure, but I went back and checked CPU usage again on Podium and compared with some notes I made last year before I quit Cubase, using the same plugs. I’m getting about a 3 to 3.5% momentary jump in CPU from the Podium UI (refreshing, I believe), and this occurs primarily upon changing Podium’s various window setups or opening the different editors.
The only time I’m seeing CPU use go to 50% or more is when I’m using few tracks with certain hog VSTs such as shortcircuit, Ambience and some Bootsy stuff, or running lots of tracks with somewhat fewer gadgets.
On my PC in general, it uses a good 7-10% CPU on idle if I leave Aero Glass and the other fancy pop-up menu effects running and not revert to the primitive “safe-mode” look I use for heavier recording projects. Someone was saying in the Linux thread how Windows 7 OS itself is a CPU hog, and it sure is the case.
Otherwise, I had a lot of issues running Cubase on the same laptop previously — some like you’ve described above. Yet I now have no issues running Podium. To some degree, it is often a fickle fit between one’s PC and the DAW in question; however, I still say that can’t fully explain the issues you’re having.
The audio engine of Podium was brought up, too. I don’t know for certain, but I recently read an article with a study that revealed surprisingly (to me) that the audio engines of today’s DAWs are almost virtually identical, and it went on to explain that any perceived inherent “sound” of a DAW comes from other features, such as parameter controls and the like.
The TelenatorTo Trancit, who posted just as I wrote last, I shut down various programs and save a fair amount. I use IObit’s Turbo Boost, which I configured to quickly shut down my SRS Sound, Realtek HD Audio, Avira Desktop, my ATK Hotkeys, my Bluetooth, LAN, Windows Auto-Update, and a few other things I’m forgetting. The SRS itself uses up to 4% when it is online, so these things really do add up. On Windows 7, as I said, I use Personalize to go to the Safe Mode look when running 20+ tracks, etc. You can save almost 10% by turning off the pretty stuff such as that Aero Glass.
The other reason I use optimization is to shut down services that may result in clicks, pops and dropouts while recording. Nothing more frustrating than to capture that perfect guitar solo, only to discover a nasty glitch on playback.
Your other point: Those 2 and 4% CPU-each VSTs sure do add up — 20 times 2% EQ VST instances will equal 40% of CPU!
kim_otcjPodium is no worse a CPU hog than any other DAW I’ve used.
Whatever DAW you use, it’s just a fact of life that you have to organize big projects properly. You have to use group tracks to create sub-mixes. You have to bounce groups. You have to use aux busses for stuff like reverb. You have to record sound sources properly in the first place, so you can keep the processing you’ll need to a minimum.
It’s pretty basic stuff that most DAWs can handle. And Podium does a particularly good job of it.
The TelenatorI haven’t had a lot of time for this issue, but I did look up one item:
DO NOT expect any kind of usable results on any modern full-program DAW host with any PC having CPU chip that is under 2 GHz. And if considering running the big guns such as Alchemy or Absynth VSTi, you are really asking for a total freeze or crash.
In other words, a processor rated at 1.6 GHz is actually asking for trouble. That’s what all the search links are saying, almost word for word. Also, as kim pointed out, Podium is rated pretty average in consumption, right about middle of the list.
Now, I think this begins to answer the question. A processor of 2GHz is the very minimum safe setup. RAM, to me, is the next issue. Some PCs may state 2 gigs of RAM but don’t employ it efficiently, something I didn’t realize until recently. All 2-gig RAM machines are not created equal. Have any of you checked your BIOS to see what’s set? Some come from the factory with settings limited. Another factor that keeps turning up as I research is the quality of the Motherboard. ASUS is the maker of the one in my otherwise rather average ASUS laptop. They make them for some 75% of other PC manufacturers nowadays, and I discovered that they are using rather good versions on their own laptops, I guess in order to establish some cred for their own PCs.
Anyhow, all this goes a long way to explaining why two seemingly similar PCs get drastically different results.