Logic Pro 8 Vs. Cubase 4.0.3 Performance Testing

[daveporter]

At $499 what Mac user could resist purchasing a copy of Logic Studio 8 if for nothing more than to just compare it to Cubase 4.0.3? I couldn't so I purchased it last night. I loaded it up this afternoon and started doing some comparison testing.

I want to preface this post by saying that I am reporting my results and impressions only. I have not tried to conduct a scientifically and statistically validated comparison and do not claim that my results are going to be typical for you or that they are representative of relative quality of either product. I urge those reading this post that have the same equipment and software to conduct the same tests to determine if my results are typical or just an anomaly.

My test system consisted of the following:

Mac Pro, 2.66 GHz quad core computer with standard video card, four 7,200 RPM 0.75 SATA hard disc drives, 8 GB RAM, 30" Apple Cinema Display operated in native resolution, OSX 10.4.10
MOTU UltraLite firewire audio interface, most recent firmware and drivers (core audio)
M-Audio MidiSport 2X2 USB MIDI interface
UAD-1e DSP PCI Express Card
Behringer BCF2000 controller operated in Logic Control Mode for Logic test and Mackie Mode for Cubase test connected to MOTU UltraLite via MIDI ports
Kurzweil SP88 keyboard connected via M-Audio MidiSport 2X2 USB MIDI interface (used only as controller keyboard and not sound module)

The software used for these test consisted of:

Cubase 4.0.3
Logic Pro 8.0
Wave Arts MasterVerb (most recent version)

For each test described below, both Cubase and Logic projects were set up as 24 bit 44.1 KHz, audio latency was set at 64 samples and low latency mode was enabled.

Test 1

When Cubase 4 was first released and I loaded it up for the first time, I noticed that the VST Performance Meter showed substantial CPU utilization when the latency was set to 64 samples or less, even with an empty project. This concerned me at the time and, if I remember correctly, someone stated that this issue was "normal" when multiprocessors were used with low latency audio interfaces.

I loaded up a new empty project in Cubase and read the VST Performance Meter and also checked CPU demand in the Mac Activity Monitor. The results are as follows:

VST Performance Meter at STOP: 30% of 4 cores (as it did previously)
Mac Activity Monitor: 111% (as it did before)

I then loaded up a new empty project in Logic and read the Logic CPU meter and the Mac Activity Monitor. The results are as follows:

Logic CPU Meter at STOP: 0% (Each Core)
Mac Activity Monitor: 6.1%

Test 2

I then reopened the empty Cubase project from Test 1. I made 24 new stereo tracks. In then imported 24 stereo 16 bit, 44.1 KHz audio tracks from various music CDs, one per track.

At STOP the VST and Mac Activity Monitors read as follows:

VST Performance Meter: 38% (with the CPU overload light flashing at STOP)
Mac Activity Monitor: 100%

At PLAY the VST and Mac Activity Monitors read as follows:

VST Performance: 42% (CPU overload flashing intermittently and noticeable audio dropouts present)
Mac Activity Monitor: 130%

Then I closed Cubase and started Logic. I reopened the empty Logic project from Test 1. I made 24 stereo tracks. In then imported the same 24 audio tracks that I used in the Cubase test.

At STOP the Logic CPU Meter and the Mac Activity Monitors read as follows:

Mac CPU Monitor: 0%
Mac Activity Monitor: 6.1%

At PLAY the Logic CPU Meter and the Mac Activity Monitors read as follows:

Mac CPU Monitor: 6% (Each Core)
Mac Activity Monitor: 68%

Test 3

I then started adding WaveArts Masterverbs as inserts on each of the 24 audio tracks in the Logic Project. When I had reached 120 reverb inserts (5 per track in series) I got tired of adding them so I stopped.

The Logic CPU Meter and the Mac Activity Monitor reading at STOP were:

Logic CPU Meter: 0%
Mac Activity Monitor: 6.1%

The Logic CPU Meter and the Mac Activity Monitor reading at PLAY were:

Logic CPU Meter: 60% (Each Core)
Mac Activity Monitor: 206%

No audio dropouts or artifacts were evident and no excessive UI sluggishness was detected during PLAY.

Since the Cubase project was exhibiting CPU Meter overload and audio dropout with no MasterVerbs inserted (Test 2), I inserted only one MasterVerb on each track and read the meters. The results were as follows:

The VST Performance Meter and the Mac Activity Monitor reading at STOP were:

VST Performance Meter: 55% (CPU overload flashing intermittently and noticeable audio dropouts and artifacts)
Mac Activity Monitor: 176%

The VST Performance Meter and the Mac Activity Monitor reading at PLAY were:

VST Performance Meter: 60% (CPU overload flashing intermittently and severe audio dropouts and artifacts)
Mac Activity Monitor: 191%

Severe audio dropouts/artifacts were evident and excessive UI sluggishness was detected.


This is just my first few tests. I hope some others will undertake similar tests to try to verify my results or be able to show where my testing methods led to erroneous results.

My first impression, assuming my results can be duplicated by others, is that the new Logic audio engine is very efficient and that Apple has appeared to be able to solve the low latency multiprocessor CPU demand problem that has plagued my Cubase setup since I installed Cubase 4.

[headz]

OK given your test, you'll need to consider that logic 7 / logic 8 at least use a plug-in buffer size of 512 (small) or 1024 (medium) so to make a real comparison you'll need to make sure that Cubase4 processes its plug-ins with same values.

if you set cubase to ASIO/core audio buffer 64 samples it puts a strengh of 4 times more on the CPUs while processing plug-ins than logic does at core audio 64 smpl/process buffer small.

the efficiency of Cubase can't be simply compared to the one from Logic, since OS9 they handle plug-in processing very different in therms of plug-in buffers synchron to the choosen core audio or asynchron to core audio value.

so Cubase is able to process audio in->out with a plug in in 64 samples while logic at least will use 512smpl as min. value ....the downsize is cubase eats more CPU while logic has a more balanced performance even with 32 samples set in core audio it still uses 512smpl to process plugins.

[daveporter]

Originally Posted by headz

OK given your test, you'll need to consider that logic 7 / logic 8 at least use a plug-in buffer size of 512 (small) or 1024 (medium) so to make a real comparison you'll need to make sure that Cubase4 processes its plug-ins with same values.

if you set cubase to ASIO/core audio buffer 64 samples it puts a strengh of 4 times more on the CPUs while processing plug-ins than logic does at core audio 64 smpl/process buffer small.

the efficiency of Cubase can't be simply compared to the one from Logic, since OS9 they handle plug-in processing very different in therms of plug-in buffers synchron to the choosen core audio or asynchron to core audio value.

so Cubase is able to process audio in->out with a plug in in 64 samples while logic at least will use 512smpl as min. value ....the downsize is cubase eats more CPU while logic has a more balanced performance even with 32 samples set in core audio it still uses 512smpl to process plugins.

The bottom line to a user is "how much horsepower can I get from my computer system with each program when comparing one against another...I measure efficiency by the number of tracks that I can record or process with a given number of plugins without audio dropouts and glitches. How one program does this better than another under the hood is not material to me.

If I understand your comment (and I'm not sure that I do), your saying that Apple has utilized an alternate method of applying plugins that requires less overhead and processor power then Steinberg. Is that correct? If so, isn't that the purpose of the testing I did, to see which program provided more useable power then the other?

If I am not understanding headz's points here, someone else please try to explain it to me.

Thanks,

Dave

[headz]

it was no critic just wanted to mention you'll need to consider this rather unknown facts when comparing both applications.

so a performance test with both apps set to 512 as process buffer (means ASIO @ 512 for C4) would measure Cubase to Logic with equal background conditions. all other tests with Cubase set smaller buffer will only show how much overhead a faster plug-in processing gives and how much power you have left with your machine when doing so with C4.

use what ever you want....

[daveporter]

Originally Posted by headz

it was no critic just wanted to mention you'll need to consider this rather unknown facts when comparing both applications.

so a performance test with both apps set to 512 as process buffer (means ASIO @ 512 for C4) would measure Cubase to Logic with equal background conditions. all other tests with Cubase set smaller buffer will only show how much overhead a faster plug-in processing gives and how much power you have left with your machine when doing so with C4.

use what ever you want....

I'm not trying to be critical of your comments. I do not understand what your point is. The buffer setting of both programs was the same (64 samples) when I did my tests. If anyone else can provide any more insight on what headz is trying to tell me here I would like to hear it.

Headz, thanks for your comments.

Dave

[headz]

Originally Posted by daveporter

I'm not trying to be critical of your comments. I do not understand what your point is. The buffer setting of both programs was the same (64 samples) when I did my tests. If anyone else can provide any more insight on what headz is trying to tell me here I would like to hear it.

Headz, thanks for your comments.

Dave

dave its pretty simple:

when Logic operates at core audio driver set to 64 it processes its plug-ins either at small(512) or medium (1024) or large (2048) samples which turns out
all plug in processing is 512 samples so the min in-out time for processing a guitar thru logic and software monitoring thru a plug in in logic is always 512 as min. value (or 1024 or 2048)

when C4 operates at core audio driver set to 64 it processes its plug-ins exactly with this buffer size which turns out
all plug in processing is 64 samples so the min in-out time is 64 samples and this puts a much larger drain on a CPU / multi CPU system.

any plug in (i.e. using look ahead functions) using larger process time will break the sheme in Logic / C4 of course and causes a even larger process time for in-out via software monitoring

is that clear enough?

[Simone Coen]

Originally Posted by headz

dave its pretty simple:

when Logic operates at core audio driver set to 64 it processes its plug-ins either at small(512) or medium (1024) or large (2048) samples which turns out
all plug in processing is 512 samples so the min in-out time for processing a guitar thru logic and software monitoring thru a plug in in logic is always 512 as min. value (or 1024 or 2048)

when C4 operates at core audio driver set to 64 it processes its plug-ins exactly with this buffer size which turns out
all plug in processing is 64 samples so the min in-out time is 64 samples and this puts a much larger drain on a CPU / multi CPU system.

any plug in (i.e. using look ahead functions) using larger process time will break the sheme in Logic / C4 of course and causes a even larger process time for in-out via software monitoring

is that clear enough?

Are you damn sure about this?

I tested a Symphony System with Guitar Plugs and my guitar connected and I couldn't feel 512 samples at all (more than 12 ms at 44.1).

know the plugin buffer you mention is the for UAD, Powercore and similar uses... we I use those of course the latency will get much noticeable... but without them Logic feels responsive like PT does.

Regards,

Simone

[nikki-k]

Hmmm...I have used Logic and other apps at 256, and I can tell that from 64 easily. I do recordings with Logic at a 32 buffer, and if it were doing 512, I would be able to tell. For live tracking, audio or MIDI, once I hit 256, it gets quite annoying to record without employing some workaround (hardware driver/utility that allows direct monitoring, or using an outboard mixer, etc).

After years of TDM/HD use, I am a bit spoiled guess...so if Logic were doing 512 no matter what the actual hardware buffer, I would know. I am pretty sure there are quite a few others that would agree that 512 is very noticable...

[Simone Coen]

Yes,

that buffer is the one being used when DSP cards are in use.

I tracked a million times with plugins in insert and never had the feeling of 512 samples latency ( + audio interface buffer and converters intrinsic latency). If it's this way then I can live with 512 buffer (but it is not this way!) and a Symphony...

Simone Coen

[stag]

In C4 at 128 samples i can´t notice any latency, even with 4 UAD plugs in the master bus.

Other plugs than DSP introduce latency in the chain. Waves and most convolution plugs do it.

Dave, there are ways on C4 to measure the real latency, i don´t know if works for software monitoring, by using the pinging function or by running the Centrance.com test. Is this possible on Macs.

[daveporter]

My purpose in doing these tests were to compare the two DAWs, Logic Pro 8 and Cubase 4.0.3, operating on a Mac, at low latency (64 samples) to determine if Logic Pro 8's new audio engine and software architecture were able to overcome the severe CPU demands that I experienced in Cubase 4.0.3 under these operating conditions on my system.

Once it was apparent that Apple had indeed overcome that problem, I then decided to see just what advantage this new audio engine and software architecture would provide me in the way of numbers of tracks and numbers of reverb plugins that I could utilize with each program without experiencing audio artifacts.

I am a guitarist first and foremost. I am also very sensitive to latency when recording to DAWs. I can feel as little as 8 ms latency when I play so that is way I would prefer to track at 64 samples. I have also moved to software based amp and effect simulators (GuitarRig) so buffer size (latency) is very important to me in tracking.

I understand headz's statement. One can change the process buffer independent from the core audio buffer size in Logic. I am not sure what Cubase does in this way, however, I do not care. You see, I don't detect any latency when Logic is set to 64 samples where I do when I run Cubase at 256 samples since it won't run well for me below that buffer setting.

The bottom line here is, that for the way I work, Logic stomps all over Cubase in raw processing power.

If Steinberg has chosen an audio engine architecture that requires Cubase to be operated at the same buffer setting for both VST/Core audio and process buffers and that causes Cubase to be a power hog, then that was a poor choice unless there is some very measurable and valuable benefit from doing so. I am not aware of what that might be, however, if someone else does I would like to know what it is and what I will loose if I move to Logic for good.

Thanks,

Dave

[daveporter]

Originally Posted by stag

Dave, there are ways on C4 to measure the real latency, i don´t know if works for software monitoring, by using the pinging function or by running the Centrance.com test. Is this possible on Macs.

I'm sorry Stag, I don't know. As I said in my opening remarks in my first post, I did not design this test to be a technology comparison, but a real-world usability test for the way that I work with a DAW; an empirical test per se.

Perhaps some others can answer your question.

Thanks for commenting,

Dave

[F5D]

Thank you for doing the test daveporter. At least it shows that if you want to use core audio buffer 64, logic works alot better. IMO it doesn't matter how the programs handle the play buffers, the result is a result. You would maybe get better results for the cubase if you used a bigger buffer but I guess it could never be as efficient as logic.

[shanabit]

Bottom line is POWER, max tracks, max plugins etc. for the user. I understand what your saying about the processing but as a Cubase user, I dont care. Processors pegging out while Im trying to work, THAT I care about.
Who gives a crap about how the stuff is processed under the hood?
dfegad

[daveporter]

Originally Posted by shanabit

Bottom line is POWER, max tracks, max plugins etc. for the user. I understand what your saying about the processing but as a Cubase user, I dont care. Processors pegging out while Im trying to work, THAT I care about.
Who gives a crap about how the stuff is processed under the hood?
dfegad

That was my point exactly! I'm willing to bet that 99% of us users feel the same way.

Dave

[daveporter]

Originally Posted by F5D

Thank you for doing the test daveporter. At least it shows that if you want to use core audio buffer 64, logic works alot better. IMO it doesn't matter how the programs handle the play buffers, the result is a result. You would maybe get better results for the cubase if you used a bigger buffer but I guess it could never be as efficient as logic.

That is what I thought too.

Dave

[seclusion]

That's what I like to hear as well.
Right on.
I don't care how, when and what is going on with the computer, software I just want to get some work done. I think we can all agree that we'd like to set the buffers as low as we can and continue with that setting right through to the end of the mix without noise, pops and clicks and the app slowing down.
The Mac Pro certainly gives this option with it's Raw power to start with and as I wait for my update of L8, I've been able to run L7 pretty much this way.
For once I'm not thinking about my computer's limitations, I'm thinking about music.
Thats all I care about.

[clonewar]

Thanks for doing the test Dave. I don't think there's any way that you would not notice if Logic was adding an extra 512 samples of latency. And if Logic is adding that much latency then how would Symphony systems be getting down to 1.6 ms round trip??

[steff3]

On cubaseforum I read that Logic is only setting the selected (record enabled) track to low latency whereas Cubase computes all tracks at low latency. I do not know if that makes sense to me but it is a matter of fact that after switching the record-enabled track Logic definitely changes something on the buffers ...... clearly noticable.

I do not understand the purpose of this test as the result was obvious without any test .... it is just a matter of fact .....

best

[bigbaby987]

Originally Posted by headz

OK given your test, you'll need to consider that logic 7 / logic 8 at least use a plug-in buffer size of 512 (small) or 1024 (medium) so to make a real comparison you'll need to make sure that Cubase4 processes its plug-ins with same values.

if you set cubase to ASIO/core audio buffer 64 samples it puts a strengh of 4 times more on the CPUs while processing plug-ins than logic does at core audio 64 smpl/process buffer small.

the efficiency of Cubase can't be simply compared to the one from Logic, since OS9 they handle plug-in processing very different in therms of plug-in buffers synchron to the choosen core audio or asynchron to core audio value.

so Cubase is able to process audio in->out with a plug in in 64 samples while logic at least will use 512smpl as min. value ....the downsize is cubase eats more CPU while logic has a more balanced performance even with 32 samples set in core audio it still uses 512smpl to process plugins.

this is absolutely and unequivically untrue... i'm down to 64 samples in logic.. and my cpu usage never... and i mean never goes over25-30 percent.... and i use massive (in ultra mode) with atleast 20-25 tracks of pretty heavy plugs...

[bigbaby987]

in fact.. i'm running at 32 samples......

[bigbaby987]

Originally Posted by headz

dave its pretty simple:

when Logic operates at core audio driver set to 64 it processes its plug-ins either at small(512) or medium (1024) or large (2048) samples which turns out
all plug in processing is 512 samples so the min in-out time for processing a guitar thru logic and software monitoring thru a plug in in logic is always 512 as min. value (or 1024 or 2048)

when C4 operates at core audio driver set to 64 it processes its plug-ins exactly with this buffer size which turns out
all plug in processing is 64 samples so the min in-out time is 64 samples and this puts a much larger drain on a CPU / multi CPU system.

any plug in (i.e. using look ahead functions) using larger process time will break the sheme in Logic / C4 of course and causes a even larger process time for in-out via software monitoring

is that clear enough?

so does an hd system, and that's doggone sure better that cubase.. so what are you saying???

you need to run at more processing power to justify cubase?? bull...

so why is it that you can run very similar machines.. one pc and one mac and they different 100% when running cubase....

no don't give me that pc's are better than mac bull.. apple has squashed that.. and don't dare think that any windows os is more efficient that osx..

so why????? please tell me why are all steinberg products udderly and complete hogs when it comes to running on a mac compared to a pc...

seems to me that theirs more wrong with steiny's code than there's something wrong with logic... regardless of the buffer thing or not.... logic is an industry staple.. not dissing cubase, but you see logic in more hi end studios than cubase for sure.. no way.. and please don't miss interpret what i'm saying.. cubase and nuendo are fine applications.. it's just that what your saying just makes no sense..

sheer steiny defense..




what yamaberg needs to do is fix their code in the mac realm and lower their prices.. and start to bundle all of those over-priced plug ins they have.. and give steinberg users a reason not to have to buy underpowered, over bloated uad cards...

[ABGen]

hey man,

why not retake the comparison / test running Cubase at 512 and Logic at 512 - see what you can do there.

[daveporter]

Originally Posted by ABGen

hey man,

why not retake the comparison / test running Cubase at 512 and Logic at 512 - see what you can do there.

I guess I need to repeat myself: My purpose in doing these tests were to compare the two DAWs, Logic Pro 8 and Cubase 4.0.3, operating on a Mac, at low latency (64 samples) to determine if Logic Pro 8's new audio engine and software architecture were able to overcome the severe CPU demands that I experienced in Cubase 4.0.3 under these operating conditions on my system. As I said in my opening remarks in my first post, I did not design this test to be a technology comparison, but a real-world usability test for the way that I work with a DAW; an empirical test per se. What happens under the hood of each program does not matter to me at all; all I care about is how much power does each system give me based on the way I work.

Once it was apparent that Apple had indeed overcome that problem, I then decided to see just what advantage this new audio engine and software architecture would provide me in the way of numbers of tracks and numbers of reverb plugins that I could utilize with each program without experiencing audio artifacts.

I am a guitarist first and foremost. I am also very sensitive to latency when recording to DAWs. I can feel as little as 8 ms latency when I play so that is way I would prefer to track at 64 samples. I have also moved to software based amp and effect simulators (GuitarRig) so buffer size (latency) is very important to me in tracking.

One can change the process buffer independent from the core audio buffer size in Logic. I am not sure what Cubase does in this way, however, I do not care. You see, I don't detect any latency when Logic is set to 64 samples where I do when I run Cubase at 256 samples since it won't run well for me below that buffer setting.

The bottom line here is, that for the way I work, Logic stomps all over Cubase in raw processing power.

If Steinberg has chosen an audio engine architecture that requires Cubase to be operated at the same buffer setting for both VST/Core audio and process buffers and that causes Cubase to be a power hog, then that was a poor choice unless there is some very measurable and valuable benefit from doing so. I am not aware of what that might be, however, if someone else does I would like to know what it is and what I will loose if I move to Logic for good.

I have no interest in operating my DAW at 512 samples so to me it doesn't matter what those test results would show. If others are interested in this I hope that they will give it a try and report back their results.

Dave

[daveporter]

The new Logic Studio 8 bundle is designed to spur the growth (and sale) of Mac Computer based recording studios and video post production companies. Apple does not appear to be trying to make a large margin on the sale of the software (however I'm sure that there still making an acceptable margin never the less). Their business is selling hardware and all the related items that one is normally attracted to once they begin buying Apple computers (Airport Extreme Routers, iPods, Displays, etc.).

Logic Studio 8 is going to be a real problem for other audio related software only companies that sell in the Mac market. Logic Studio 8 is truly a one-box recording studio complete with everything most musicians and producers need. The only other absolute necessities are a Mac, a firewire audio interface and some microphones and your in business (for most folks that is). For most users, this may allow them to forgo the purchase of third party plugins (both instruments and effects), mastering software (like WaveLab), CD burning software (like CD Architect), format conversion software or plugins, and a whole host of other add-ons.

Now if Logic Studio 8 was difficult to use (as I thought it was when you had to fool around with the Environment), or was buggy, or lacked CPU efficiency or multiprocessor balancing capability, etc., then no matter how many goodies came with it it would still not be much of a threat to the other software companies. The problem is, Logic Studio 8 DOES NOT exhibit ANY of these problems...in my opinion it is actually a superior product in all of these areas.

As a long time user of another competing product (Cubase) I have decided to migrate over to Logic based on my testing and use trials so far.

Therefore, I think that Logic Studio 8 is going to be an "industry changing" product. I actually feel sorry for those on a PC who can't use it, and the other audio software companies that must try to compete with it.

Dave

[clonewar]

Originally Posted by ABGen

hey man,

why not retake the comparison / test running Cubase at 512 and Logic at 512 - see what you can do there.

I agree with Dave.. what's the point of running the test at 512 when the whole point is to compare the performance of the software at low latencies? If you're a guitarist monitoring your signal in real time with Guitar Rig or you're playing VI's then 512 is unusable.

[ABGen]

i get your point - but i dont know anybody that actually produces at 64buffers. The tone of your thread smells of bias IMO. If you are running a Access Virus TI or other hardware / software integrated instrument or effects - whether in Logic or Cubase - you will need to run at 256.

For composing and what I do - Cubase suits me well - if I were a Mac user I would take a harder look. I'm just saying - based on the design of the system - and your interface - why not do an apples to apples comparison - by setting the buffers at the same rate and seeing what each app maxes out at?

If Logic automatically sets its effects at 512 - then run both at that - then those of us who run other apps can take your thread more seriously.

Did Logic finally implement auto latency compensation?

-Andrew

[6strings]

Originally Posted by ABGen

i get your point - but i dont know anybody that actually produces at 64buffers. The tone of your thread smells of bias IMO.

Did you read the whole thread?

Originally Posted by daveporter

I am a guitarist first and foremost. I am also very sensitive to latency when recording to DAWs. I can feel as little as 8 ms latency when I play so that is way I would prefer to track at 64 samples. I have also moved to software based amp and effect simulators (GuitarRig) so buffer size (latency) is very important to me in tracking.

... I AM interested in Dave's findings. Very valid info if you track with any VSTi - ESPECIALLY with the guitar software. I really don't think Apple meant it to be for re-amping only....

[boody]

Originally Posted by ABGen

i get your point - but i dont know anybody that actually produces at 64buffers. The tone of your thread smells of bias IMO. If you are running a Access Virus TI or other hardware / software integrated instrument or effects - whether in Logic or Cubase - you will need to run at 256.

For composing and what I do - Cubase suits me well - if I were a Mac user I would take a harder look. I'm just saying - based on the design of the system - and your interface - why not do an apples to apples comparison - by setting the buffers at the same rate and seeing what each app maxes out at?

If Logic automatically sets its effects at 512 - then run both at that - then those of us who run other apps can take your thread more seriously.

Did Logic finally implement auto latency compensation?

-Andrew

It doesn't look like you got the point. Cubase and Logic handle things differently. But even so; if you select the audiobuffer to be 64 samples, both will give a 64 sample latency, with possibly an added latency caused by plugins in case the used plugin causes any. This is comparing apples to apples.

The fact that logic may use other buffer sizes for plugins of tracks that are played back is irrelevant because input latency is all you will notice. So you want to know if you can record with the lowest possible latency without problems. Dave tested just that.

Logic implemented full auto latency compensation... 2 years ago

cheers
Budy

[daveporter]

I have now installed LP8 on my MacBook Pro 15" (2.33 GHz Cor2Duo Intel Processor, 2 GB RAM, stock hard drive, stock built in audio set at 96 sample core audio buffer).

I loaded up my performance test project (which was described in the thread earlier. Hit play and, as you would expect, it would not play due to CPU overload. So I started to removed MasterVerbs until it would play without any audio glitches. I was amazed to find that it would play fine with 96 Masterverbs inserted 4 in series on each of the 24 audio tracks!!!!

At this point the Logic CPU meter and the Mac activity monitor both showed very even CPU demands on each of the two cores (at about 90% each) for a total of 181% (just short of full CPU capacity.

What was amazing to me was that the UI was totally fluid with no visual problems or slow-down of any kind and the audio was perfect with no audio artifacts or any indication of overload.

Keep in mind that this was with the on-board audio and the on-board hard disk drive.

All I can say is WOW!

Dave