Tired of Poor performance?

Gigatron · Post by **Gigatron** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 am

hambone1 wrote:Never thought I'd consider going back!

I just did exactly that. Cubase SX3 is running the same project I was getting crappy performance with using only 10% cpu.... 17 tracks + 10 plugins. I'm done with Live... now I just need to upgrade to a dual core and use my old box with fx teleport and I'm all set. Have fun with Live.

bytheriver · Post by **bytheriver** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:48 am

I really dont understand why companies bother with copy protection that effects performance. Its life, the program will be cracked, and it will be easy to get hold of on message forums, web sites and p2p as well.

People buy the software to support the company and because if you use it, thats the right thing to do, not because the prirated copys are hard to get. So with that in mind, the copy protection only serves to iritate and inconvenience the people that do the right thing in buying it, by costing them valueble CPU%'s.

So are microsoft building some anti-piracy thing into vista/longhorn then?

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:48 am

Honestly, the only advantage Live has for me over Cubase is the ability to have the entire set loaded at one time. When I used Cubase live in the past, I had to load songs one at a time.

I've got 8 audio tracks, 32 lighting tracks, and 4 video tracks running in each song.

The MIDI editing ability in Live is primitive at best.

Cubase is starting to look good again...

rikhyray · Post by **rikhyray** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:11 am

Sorry but it is not true that dongle would free some 30-40% of CPU, these statments of crakers were about Cubase not Live, I think the SX3 wasnt cracked till now.
I rarely use it HATE THE DONGLES, the best security is having good software, good upgrades, good support like Ableton and Propellerheads. Nothing like customers wh WANT to support the company, no better security then that.I live with shortcamings . specially midi, of Live because of the support and innovative attitude which results in my higher efficiency.Maybe it is just me but I am much slower in Cubase ( though I have 10 years more experience wworking with it).
Cubase does not even have shit support- simply no support at all.

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:19 am

Kush'd wrote:
beachnote wrote:another thing,

live uses challenge response authentication, and it's scripting protection code that's wrapped around just about every other piece of code in live. that means every time you move a fader, play back music, anything...it is constantly checking your hardware and other protective schemes. the price we pay for this in performance is HUGE.

some of the cracking teams like H2O have mentioned this before on forums and nfo files, actually saying how unbelievable it is that these companies sacrifice so much performance for a protection scheme that will be cracked regardless. they estimate 30%-50% increase in performance if the protection scripting code was not there.

anyway, it is a shame us paying customers suffer because of this...
If this is true then all I have to say is "what the @#$%!!!!!!!!!" Why not just make a freakin dongle?!?

I think there is a case of mis-reporting going on here

THe claims made by H2O about the 30-50% performance increase were directly about their recent success cracking the Cubase SX dongle... not challenge/response copy protection

Challenge/Response copy protection simply unlocks the software for full use. It dfoes not involve repeated reference within the software itself during use... it is DONGLES that do that.

In other words, the Cubase software makes reference to it's dongle before actioning any commands internally.

H2O stated that they had done repeated tests prooving that the Cubase SX dongle has seriously detrimental consequences for the performance of the software. They used the 30-50% quote in that context.

In response to these claims, Steinberg pulled down every thread started on their forum which referenced H2O's claims. They banned some forum members. They closed their forum to all unregistered users specifially to prevent H2O users/representatives from posting their claims.

FInally, Steinberg issued a statement denying the claims H2O had made, and threatening that H2O cracks could destroy your computer

Like one or two others who have posted above, I would almost certainly NOT have bought Live if it used a dongle copy-protection scheme.

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:26 am

Regarding the performance of Live 5, I find it generally good, and noticeably better than Live 4 was. The freeze function also enables you to run loads of VST instruments and effects without danger of audio dropouts or crackle.

I have Cubase SX1 and Tracktion 2 for comparisson. In my experience, Live and Cubase offer comparable performance. I simply cannot replicate the issues others are reporting here

And although my version of Cubase is an older one, as I understand it, SX3 is far more CPU intensive than SX1, which makes the claims made in this thread even harder for me to understand

While Cubase and Live are comparable in my experience, I might add that the performance of Tracktion 2 is very bad indeed compared to either of these programs. For some reason the GUI in Tracktion 2 seems to sap power from the system (for some users only), and many users - including me - have experienced difficulty in even recording a single audio track without audio problems...

majestic · Post by **majestic** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:36 am

I think challenge/response just checks your hardware to find something that semi-uniquely identifies your computer, and then uses that identifier to create the response string and thereby authorise the application for that machine only; i.e. once it's authorised, there's no more processing required.

Whereas with dongles like iLok and Syncrosoft, the protection code can be embedded throughout the application, which can slow it down significantly while it keeps checking if the dongle is plugged in. In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that SX3 took 1500 hours (instead of just a few) to crack because there was so much dongle-checking code to remove. Can't really say I blame Steinberg at all, software companies have to make a buck somehow to develop all this stuff.

Re dongles, I have an iLok for Autotune and in my experience it's actually been really unobtrusive, I've never had any authorisation problems at all with any software.

StompyJ · Post by **StompyJ** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:14 pm

If Cubase / Sonar / Logic was as 1/2 as fluid as Live is in REALTIME performance, then those apps would be just-as-slow.

Now, if you don't truly use Live realtime, or need it for realtime, then YOU'VE made a mistake in the host you've chosen.

Saying "Us complaining about the slowness of Live will motivate them to fix it" is moronic. As the creators of the app, noone wants it to be cpu efficient more then them. For us its an app, for them its their child, and they want bragging rights

I've seen the complaint about the 'primitive midi editor' a few times.. It might be less complex then non-realtime hosts, but you can use this midi editor in realtime, which is how I use it. Its actually the perfect midi editor for me, as I play 90% of my stuff in realtime anyway. This gives me the added bonus of quantized drum stuff, if I need it.

All I'm saying is that Live's priority is for a realtime/improvisatory experience in a host, it does this better then anyone else. There are going to have to be tradeoffs in other areas.

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:02 pm

Gotto chime in:

1. I agree with Stompy with one clarification...I believe that Live IS a very good DAW, even if you aren't using it for performances. The workflow and way things get done in the application is just excellent user interface design. I find that regardless of the CPU issues, you do have to take into account how easy and inspiring a DAW is to work with. Take Tracktion, for instance...it's hailed to be a great DAW. But I just never got a good feel for it, and as a result, I never got any work done. As much as I like Cubase, when I work with Live, and I literally don't have to deal with 10-15 windows open at a time, I get freaked out with all the screen clutter when I go back to SX.

2. Regarding copy protection, I think companies need to have some hurdles so that it's not a free-for-all. However, once that's in place, the company should focus on performance. Challenge-Response schemes are exactly this - a good hurdle to keep software away from anyone wanting to use it for free, but then doesn't affect performance at all. Cakewalk has the most trusting protection - it's still just a serial number...and they have a very loyal user base. With SX3, the fact that the dongle hurts performance is REALLY outrageous. Everyone knows that all software protection is breakable. Why hurt your user base with your copy protection? Doesn't make sense at all. And on that note, I know several people who bought SX and then used the crack so they wouldn't risk breaking their dongle. How could a company let that happen?...have people buy their software and then rely on a crack to get better performance and use the software without worrying that it will stop working if the dongle fails or breaks???

3. Having said all that, I do with the Abes would just respond to the CPU issue - even acknowledge it. How about a nice, "We know, and we're working on it..." Because even when you're done optimizing, you can always do even more.

roby · Post by **roby** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:47 pm

MarkH wrote:I notice that changing the ASIO or COREAUDIO buffer to a smaller number doesn't really change Live's CPU utilization very much. With Cubase or Logic going from 512 -> 256 -> 128 makes a significant difference. Live's performance meter always equates to using any other sequencer with a 128 buffer, even when using Live with a 256 or 512 buffer the utilization is always reflective of any other program at 128. It's like internally Live has to always operate witha 128 (or smaller) buffer, regardless of what the soundcard is set to. Maybe becuase of the real-time perforamce aspect?

you know, i noticed that last night but i didnt think much of it until u mentioned it.

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:56 pm

I have for a while now wanted to see Live installed in two states: One for Live Performance and one for Studio work. Features like PDC and other DAW-like things are now creaping in slowly as Live goes from a "performance instrument" to a "total music solution". However, these threads complaning of CPU make me feel like Live is turning into a "jack of all trades, master of none".

Of course you can't please everyone all the time. But perhaps you can install the application with two launch icons. Live-Performance could be designed with Realtime priorities such that CPU issues are blown off due to heavy priority on realtime gigs. Live-DAW could launch the application streamlined for audio creation in a multi-track environment, with PDC enabled, optimized for CPU and hard disk usage, etc.

Just a suggestion for discussion.

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:14 pm

As far as I know, all the Mac version needed was Altivec support, which it didn't get.

Not too sure why not...

Pitch Black · Post by **Pitch Black** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:20 pm

nebulae wrote: perhaps you can install the application with two launch icons. Live-Performance could be designed with Realtime priorities such that CPU issues are blown off due to heavy priority on realtime gigs. Live-DAW could launch the application streamlined for audio creation in a multi-track environment, with PDC enabled, optimized for CPU and hard disk usage, etc.

Just a suggestion for discussion.

I'm sorta doing this by using Live 4.0.2 under OS9 for gigs and Live 5 under X in the studio. But then I'm nursing along a sadly ageing powerbook.

Yeah yeah, I know, I'm a Luddite... but 24+ tracks under OS9 and lots of plugins etc etc - I don't need no stinkin' Quartz transperancy

elektrovert · Post by **elektrovert** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:24 pm

[quote="nebulae"]
I know several people who bought SX and then used the crack so they wouldn't risk breaking their dongle. How could a company let that happen?...have people buy their software and then rely on a crack to get better performance and use the software without worrying that it will stop working if the dongle fails or breaks???
[quote]

I know quite a few people who invested in NI packages such as Komplete and then downloaded hacks because it's too much hassle to get them running properly.
NI's copy protection is just rediculous!!

Also I have to say I'd like Live to be kept as a performance tool, that's what it does best.
I'm more than happy to keep using Logic 5 to make my tunes, I don't need another sequencer.
The more Live turns into an all in one solution the less interest I have in it.
Keep Live for Live use I say.
If Ableton want to get into the production side of things they should build another bit of software.

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:36 pm

I must say that I don't agree with that elektrovert.

I find Live a fantastic compositional tool... but very much dislike the concept of using one piece of software as a "scratchpad" and another for putting together a "proper" version. I like it that in Live 5 I can not only compose a track but also fully realise it as a professional-quality production.

But as I said before, I'm really not convinced that the "performance issue" in Live 5 is as bad as some imply - ... especially when you factor in the great Freeze function.

I think that one serious issue IS that some VST instruments are now placing ridiculous demands on system resources, and in any software need to be frozen of bounced straight away

(Reason proves that this need not be the case, and that quality instruments can be efficient if they are well programmed) ... that of course is a seperate issue entirely.