Zynewave.
adlaiusLooking at the Future Development thread/post makes me twitch.
Podium’s UI is already great. Stellar, even.
Really. Please don’t tweak it any more. I would pay in my own blood to see a new version update list that read something like this:
Podium is by far the nicest DAW I’ve ever interacted with. But I’m stuck with older hardware, and Podium is too slow (I’m speaking primarily of the audio engine, not the UI). And it just doesn’t have even basic MIDI or audio manipulation features that are pretty much standard these days. I’ve been trying really hard to convert to Podium, and I still feel that it’s been worth the purchase price as is. But really, it’d be worth five times as much to me if the functional end matched the appearance.
Honestly. Implement dither, multiple file format support, timestretching, and comprehensive MIDI editing. Optimize the audio engine. And I’ll gladly fork over another $400. I’m sure I’d be one of many. Even if through all that development you ignored UI development, Podium would still look and feel better than all the competition.
Pigini@adlaius wrote:
Looking at the Future Development thread/post makes me twitch.
Podium’s UI is already great. Stellar, even.
Really. Please don’t tweak it any more. I would pay in my own blood to see a new version update list that read something like this:
functional enhancements
audio engine improvements
more functional enhancements
I’m all for functionality too.
But to be fair, quite a few things listed under UI improvements in the Future Development thread are about functionality/usability and not just about looks.
Zynewave@adlaius wrote:
But I’m stuck with older hardware, and Podium is too slow (I’m speaking primarily of the audio engine, not the UI).
I’ve spent a lot of time optimizing the audio engine over the years, to the extent that I feel any further attempts on optimization will yield only minor improvements. Do you find the performance inferior compared to other DAW apps? If so, then how did you make the comparison?
Conquistador@Zynewave wrote:
Do you find the performance inferior compared to other DAW apps? If so, then how did you make the comparison?
Hi adlaius, 🙂
Like Frits I too am wondering what sort of audio engine improvement you want to see. 😐 I think Podiums CPU usage is comparable to other hosts but I have not recently tested that out so the goal posts might have moved a bit. I don’t really stress my CPU anyway (quad). Not that there might not be some way to improve Podiums engine performance (nothing is perfect) 8) but how exactly do you want it improved? Also compared to…? ❓ ❓
adlaius@Zynewave wrote:
Do you find the performance inferior compared to other DAW apps? If so, then how did you make the comparison?
@Conquistador wrote:
I think Podiums CPU usage is comparable to other hosts but I have not recently tested that out
Well, let me give you some background, and maybe we can figure it out. I used Sonar for years, but got so frustrated with its bugginess that I went on an Epic Quest for a New DAW. That yielded Reaper, which screams on my machine. Used that for about a year. Picked up Podium recently.
Now, using Podium it seemed like my computer wasn’t fast enough any more. Which is understandable, it’s a P4. But still, I’m in the US and our economy’s falling to pieces, so I’d rather hang on to it for now 😕
Interesting thing though. I played the same bit of music in the same synth under both Podium and Reaper, and sure enough, Windows Task Manager reported slight-to-negligible differences in CPU load. But. Two differences: First, I’m comparing Podium with 32-bit processing to Reaper in 64-bit. Podium with 64-bit is significantly slower than Reaper.
The second bit I’m wondering about is that I can push my CPU almost to a continuous redline (80-90% sustained usage) with Reaper without engine glitches. I get glitches under Podium anywhere from 40-70%, seemingly at random. Very frustrating.
I’ll also point out that under System Properties/Advanced/Performance/Advanced I have Processor Scheduling prioritized for “Background Services”. According to the forums, this is the preferred setting for Sonar and Reaper, and to my understanding, for DAWs in general. Is this not the case for Podium, perhaps?
Anyway, I’ll wrap this up, but from all this thinking aloud I’m wondering if the issue is thread prioritization or something similar. But then I used Process Explorer to check that, and Reaper’s thread scheduling priorities are all equal to or lower than Podium’s! ❓
Or, you could just say, “buy a new computer, dude”.
druidNow, I don’t know about scheduling of threads, so hit me over the head and call me betsy if I’m off kilter here.. But I do know that when I was mucking around in task manager adjusting energyXT’s process priority (I know, not Podium, but still..) I found that, for me, it’s best to leave it at normal. Putting it higher must have taken resources away from other things.
Now, if that’s absolutely nothing to do with and completely unrelated to thread scheduling priorities, then … um .. ignore my message…
UncleAge@adlaius wrote:
I’ll also point out that under System Properties/Advanced/Performance/Advanced I have Processor Scheduling prioritized for “Background Services”. According to the forums, this is the preferred setting for Sonar and Reaper, and to my understanding, for DAWs in general. Is this not the case for Podium, perhaps?
I could be wrong on this but I think this idea of prioritizing background services was misunderstood by many. If I remember correctly the school of thought on this was that setting your comp up this way would improve latency and the polling of USB and midi ports. Frits, correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t think prioritizing background services under Windows would benefit a DAW. If you do a search on the Sonar forums for info from Scott @ ADK or Jim Rosenberry I think they disspelled this notion some time ago. Once again let me state, I could be wrong but I cruise the Sonar forums quite a bit and I thought I remembered reading this on there. As always, ymmv…
p.s. Its nice to see another Arizonian on here 🙂
ZynewaveAre you using hyperthreading with your P4? If so, try disabling the “plugin multiprocessing” option in preferences, and see if that makes a difference.
It could also be worth a try to switch off the “background services” option and check if this affects performance. I’ve also read conflicting recommendations regarding this option. I believe that if you use plugin multiprocessing in Podium, it is best NOT to put priority on background services.
druidOh! I’ve set it to that. Now I feel a little silly…
Honestly I don’t do enough to really make that “tweak” worthwhile I think. Might change it back and see how I go, though my computer is fine anyway.
adlaius@druid wrote:
…I found that, for me, it’s best to leave it at normal…
Now, if that’s absolutely nothing to do with and completely unrelated to thread scheduling priorities, then … um .. ignore my message…
Heh. Well, thread scheduling is contained within processes so it’s not completely unrelated, but that does raise an interesting point. It may well be a good idea to leave process priorities at default settings, as a well-coded app will (in theory) be able to prioritize its worker threads appropriately. If you look at Podium while it’s running, you’ll see that different threads (e.g. wdmaud.drv, ReWire.dll, etc) have different priorities (including dynamic props), so messing with the actual process priority may well not work as intended.
My hope is for Podium to have a user-selectable option along the lines of a slider:
Prioritization
========
[Smoother GFX] =========||===[Smoother playback]
I swear I’ve seen this somewhere before (in a VSTi maybe), and I think it’s a great idea for a host. People like Conquistador with big fast machines (hey over there 🙂 ) could simply smash it all the way left and forget it. Those of us with older machines or higher utilization requirements could adjust to taste.
adlaius@Zynewave wrote:
Are you using hyperthreading with your P4? If so, try disabling the “plugin multiprocessing” option in preferences, and see if that makes a difference.
It could also be worth a try to switch off the “background services” option and check if this affects performance. I’ve also read conflicting recommendations regarding this option. I believe that if you use plugin multiprocessing in Podium, it is best NOT to put priority on background services.
Hmm. Would you recommend disabling hyperthreading? I seem to remember a plugin vendor (maybe NI?) doing so, although with Nehalem also supporting hyperthreading maybe we should all just move to AMD 😉
I’ll try your suggestions and report back soon. I should also mention for the benefit of anyone reading along who’s unfamiliar with Reaper that it has a massive pile of engine configuration options, and it’s entirely possible that I misconfigured my OS (likely from the Sonar forum advice years ago) and then tweaked Reaper to fit. I’ve been known to have recurring fits of User Error…
@UncleAge wrote:
p.s. Its nice to see another Arizonian on here 🙂
Ha! Yes, we are few but proud 🙂 Although I have to admit, I’m about done with this state — I’m planning to move to a nice, happy, green place (Austin looks pretty nice). I think I’ve been dehydrated since age twelve or so 😡
adlaius@Pigini wrote:
I’m all for functionality too.
But to be fair, quite a few things listed under UI improvements in the Future Development thread are about functionality/usability and not just about looks.
Yes, you’re right. I got a little carried away. The thing is, it makes me crazy to see Podium go down, not up, in price/target audience. There are great inexpensive hosts like Reaper, and there are great high-end hosts like Sequoia. IMO there’s a huge window of opportunity in the middle, where people are stuck mucking around with Cubase and Sonar and Logic (though I heard epic stories of the wonders of Logic before Apple got to it). That is, the high and low end have been completely dominated by a few apps each, while the midrange is full of unsatisfying pseudo-solutions. I can easily envision a more featureful version of Podium just being a shoe-in for that application space.
Conquistador@adlaius wrote:
People like Conquistador with big fast machines (hey over there 🙂 )
If you think a Core 2 Quad is fast wait till you see what the new i7’s can do. Amazingly fast. Beats my Quad Q660 easily. 8)
Anyway >ahem< back on topic 🙂
UncleAge@adlaius wrote:
I’m planning to move to a nice, happy, green place (Austin looks pretty nice). I think I’ve been dehydrated since age twelve or so 😡
Austin is a real nice spot, good choice. I came from Ohio so in my world green = snow 🙂 I’m gonna ride out this dustbowl for a few more years but I hear what you’re sayin. I doubt that I’d want to retire here so I’m always lookin for a different place to land.