waves vst with rverb

[gmontano]

Just started using the beta VST ...
Here is what I got with my system.

Athalon 1.2, 512 megs RAM, Cubase 5.0 r7

I loaded all 8 effects sends with RVerbs, took an audio clip and put it ver 12 tracks, and had all 8 reverbs active. I hit about 85% on the CPU performance.

Much better then before!

[sreams]

The new optimizations are allowing this. It really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they are VST. A 1.4GHz TBird can handle 13 simultaneous DirectX RenVerbs in Sound Forge 5.

-S

[gmontano]

i did figure as much. Why these werent 'optimized' in the first place is beyond me. Waves plug ins are not cheap. If you are going to pay the big bucks may as well get something top of line to start with. Better late then never though!

[UConnBBall]

No the VST does have a big differnce on CPU usage. Now optimization for AMD is something I would love to see. AMD is taking over the world.

-UConn

[sreams]

No, actually it doesn't. How is it that I am running 13 DX RVerbs on a 1.4GHz TBird while he is running only 8 VST RVerbs on a 1.2GHz TBird? That points to DX actually being more efficient.

It is actually very important that I know these things as it relates directly to my business:
http://www.liquiddaw.com

I have Sonar, Vegas, CubaseVST32, and Logic Audio Platinum here for testing. If there is an efficiency difference at all it is negligable.

-S

[UConnBBall]

OK you just stated that Direct X is more efficient on CPU, and that it is your business. Sorry but VST is more CPU efficient, and it can be automated. You than state that the difference is not a big deal, but 5% better performance is important to me.

-Marc

[sreams]

What benchmarking have you done to show this 5% difference? Please be specific.

DirectX is automatable now with Sonar.

[UConnBBall]

Well it is all in the latency. VST plug ins use less CPU and more ram in general which allows for lowwer latency. Also there is a differnce between DirectX and VST automation. Heck I have DirectX automation in Nuendo, but I much prefer VST.

-Marc

[blacknile]

Everyone has an opinion. Mine is that VST is crap. I have never been able to get the same performance from VST that i do from Cakewalk and Sonar. I don't use VSTi's but judging by the amount of DX effects i can run i would say that DX plugins are much more efficient. Plus i can't deal with the VST interface. It drives me mad i tells ya.

[sreams]

Again... what definitive tests have you done to show this? It's all in the latency? I am doing tracking sessions at 1.5ms latency in Sonar.

Your opinion is clearly an opinion that is based on zero experience and zero testing. You may know your app, but you don't know the app you are comparing. I have extensive experience with Cubase, Logic, Digital Performer, Vegas, and Sonar. I am telling you, from someone who actually has done the comparisons, that there is no efficiency difference. If you say there is, deliver some verifiable facts.

-S

[sreams]

...also, you do not have DX8 automation in Nuendo. That is a fact.

[blacknile]

So what test have you done? Saying that i have no experience is just stupid because you don't know me or what i do. I have used
Cakewalk for over 3 years and have switched to Sonar recently. I have all those apps that you mentioned too and have used them all a bit here and there. But the simple fact is that when i load up the same amount of tracks with the same plugins and everything i get less cpu usage in Sonar. I don't have time to do all the testing you claim to do but i would be interested in seeing your comparisons if they exist.

[sreams]

blacknile...

That wasn't intended for you. I am arguing that VST is NOT more efficient than DX. I am on your side, believe it or not... http://www.audioforums.com/forums/smile.gif

-S

[subatomic]

It looks to me like when you are loading a "VST version", that you're actually just using the DX version inside a "VST Wrapper" to facilitate automation.
The plugs are exactly the same. The performance (i.e. CPU usage) should be the same.

[anakinskye]

OK, here is the difference. If you know how ASIO works you will understand. DX has to go through your OS and then to the processor. VST uses ASIO when applicable to bypass the OS and comunicate directly with the processor, ram, etc. Yes, VST is more efficient. And I owe sreams and apology. My lame system performance was a chipset issue. 1Ghz PIII on Intel D815EEA2 board with 512 mb ram. 14 RVerbs with a stereo track pair running at 24/48. It plays but if I try to select ANY other option I get a lockup.

[sreams]

Good to hear your system is working better..

Any efficiency difference between DX and VST plugins is pretty much moot now with the advent of WDM drivers and Sonar. Plugins operate near the kernel level now (just like ASIO/VST) because they have to in order to provide super-low latency.

-S

[subatomic]

again, there are no "VST versions" of Waves plugs...

just a VST wrapper.

sub

[duplex]

guys it's the first time i've heard of a DX-VST wrapper. i do have the VST-DX wrapper but not the opposite. is it standalone? where do i get it. should check any news from waves? what is that i'm missing here?

thanks

duplex