Page 1 of 1

Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:44 pm
by fretthefret
Here's my first test...
Cpro9_200_Nexus2_test_hd.png
200 Tracks of Nexus 2.7.4
(899.57 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Cubase Pro 9 playing 200
and yes, you read it correctly that's "TWO HUNDRED" duplicated tracks
of refx's NEXUS 2.7.4 64bit VST2 and the new Frequency on each
without ANY dropouts.
and on a stock not yet tuned for production system!
While testing, I'm also running over 120 background processes (other software) according to the
Windows 10 64bit Pro task manager at the same time as Cubase Pro 9.

Well done Steinberg!

:D

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:46 pm
by jose7822
Yeah, but how does it compare to 8.5?

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:50 pm
by fretthefret
jose7822 wrote:Yeah, but how does it compare to 8.5?
I could NOT do that on Cpro8.5

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:53 pm
by rumlee
fretthefret wrote:
jose7822 wrote:Yeah, but how does it compare to 8.5?
I could NOT do that on Cpro8.5
The 200 tracks, are they audio tracks or VSTi tracks?

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:57 pm
by fretthefret
VSTi and midi (Nexus 2.7.4 VST2 64 bit with each instance using the 65MB ballad piano patch) ,

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:00 pm
by jose7822
fretthefret wrote:
jose7822 wrote:Yeah, but how does it compare to 8.5?
I could NOT do that on Cpro8.5
That's good news :-)

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:27 pm
by fretthefret
jose7822 wrote:
fretthefret wrote:
jose7822 wrote:Yeah, but how does it compare to 8.5?
I could NOT do that on Cpro8.5
That's good news :-)

As for Audio 44.1 kHz - 24bit (3 second disk preload) on Cpro 9....

I've tried 2560 (two thousand five hundred and sixty) tracks and haven't even got above 40 % !!
I could probably run another 3 - 5 thousand more (for over 7500 tracks) without dropouts.
Cpro9_2560_track_test_hd.png
2560 tracks playback on Cpro 9 no dropout
(934.88 KiB) Not downloaded yet

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:28 pm
by dlpmusic
Curious....buffer settings?...ASIO GUARD 2 on/off?

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:38 pm
by fretthefret
dlpmusic wrote:Curious....buffer settings?...ASIO GUARD 2 on/off?
on a UR44 and newest Yamaha USB ASIO driver
buffer at 1024 samples (at 512 samples the system is at 52% load)
ASIO Guard ON (Low).
46 ms post ASIO Guard latency, (26 ms PRE).

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:05 am
by orchetect
While we're on the topic...

I could never get more than 50-60 Instrument Tracks with a Kontakt on each in Cubase 8.5 before the ASIO meter went haywire and project stability went through the basement.

Just loaded 200 empty Kontakt instrument tracks in Cubase 9.0.1 and it's handling it reasonably well. I sure hope this is a good sign.

Was thinking about going back to using VE Pro to balance processing load, but I may not need to now.

Quad-core i7 3.5GHz, 32GB RAM, macOS 10.12.1
Audio interface buffer: 256
ASIO-Guard on High

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:04 am
by fretthefret
Further to the 2560 audio track test
Trying to load 2560 instances of cubase's native "Compressor" (1 insert per track) with a Q-Link (all tracks) in the Mixer crashes Cubase Pro 9 !

lol.
:shock:

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:32 am
by mozizo
fretthefret wrote:Further to the 2560 audio track test
Trying to load 2560 instances of cubase's native "Compressor" (1 insert per track) with a Q-Link (all tracks) in the Mixer crashes Cubase Pro 9 !

lol.
:shock:
Try loading compressor one at a time ;)
Good to know it performs better 8-)

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:12 am
by In_Stereo
This is hopeful. When the Trial is out I will test and hopefully come to same conclusion!

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:50 pm
by Tommy80
What appen if you send all the tracks to a group track before the main out?

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:02 pm
by ZeroZero
I would not think that comparisons across different systems are valid. Yes, Cubase can be efficient or lax, but the environment is key.

I have tested the same project in C9 and C8.5 and get the same reading here. Cubase is generally well behaved here.

Re: Cubase Pro 9 tests

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:38 pm
by J-S-Q
Tommy80 wrote:What appen if you send all the tracks to a group track before the main out?
From everything I've seen, I doubt it would make any real difference if there are no plugins on any of these tracks. If there are lots of plugins involved then yes, complex routing definitely impacts ASIO performance.