Jim Roseberry

Aside from the CPU Core parking issue in later versions of Win10, there's no significant performance difference between Win10/Win11. For those running 12th/13th Gen Intel CPUs, it's that "compelling" reason we've been waiting for.

I didn't like some of the default GUI changes in Win11. With some tweaks and a little time, I don't find it much different than Win10.

If you're running 12th or 13th Gen Intel CPUs, you're currently (essentially) forced to move to Win11. Microsoft has broken the ability to disable CPU Core Parking in Win10. Have a look at your cores in Resource Monitor. If you've applied necessary tweaks to disable CPU Core Parking, you will see that it's (now) not disabled. If you're running heavy loads at low latency, this kills performance. The couple ms it takes to unpark the cores can cause glitches.

My guess is that the existing (old???) user-base will need backward compatibility (for old/existing) projects.

I think it's a good thing that Bandlab is finding a way to monetize Cakewalk/Sonar. To be taken seriously by the industry as a whole, Cakewalk/Sonar needs perceived value. To effectively re-enter the market and compete head-to-head with other top DAW applications, it can't be free. That doesn't mean it needs to be overly expensive... or an inflexible subscription. Seeing long-time Cakewalk staff returning under Bandlab's tenure is heartening. For Cakewalk/Sonar to have a future, there needs to be a vision/plan. It's good to see Bandlab showing the initiative. For those cautious about the future, I totally get that. Keep in mind that most of the major DAW applications have been sold to more broad-based companies. Cubase (Yamaha) Logic (Apple) Samplitude (Magix) Cakewalk (Roland/Gibson/Bandlab) Presonus Studio One is owned by a more broad-based company. IMO, Roland squandered an opportunity with Cakewalk/Sonar. Hardware synths, effects, etc are a natural extension of a DAW. Many brands/products have "gone away" under the umbrella of Gibson. IMO, Gibson needs to focus on being a Heritage guitar maker. Getting into fields where you have no expertise is risky. Putting robotic tuners (which don't work well - inaccurate tuning) on a coveted heritage US made $3000+ guitar is perhaps not the best decision. To ultimately get rid of those Les Pauls, they had to offer Grover Locking Tuners (so those who purchased could return the Les Paul to "normal"). With the right direction/funding/etc, Cakewalk/Sonar could compete with the best-of-the-best. That's what I'd like to see. Back to innovative features/developments. FWIW, I think Cakewalk should focus on what they know best. Virtual Instruments and Effects are a separate realm of knowledge/skill.

Not here to bash on RME, they've been great over many years. Myself and numerous professional clients are running Antelope audio interfaces 24/7. No glitches, no disconnects, nothing but 100% reliability... 100% of the time. I have zero regrets migrating from the UFX+. For the same cost (when I purchased): Better converters Better preamps Better DIs Significantly lower round-trip latency (sub 1ms) At 96k, the UFX+ won't let you use a 32-sample ASIO buffer size (let alone 24, 16, etc)

RME is absolutely rock-solid. Their interfaces have been since the Prodif days (this was prior to the original Hammerfall). Orion Studio Synergy Core's round-trip latency is significantly lower than the Fireface UFX+ (also connected via Thunderbolt). The UFX+ can achieve sub 5ms RTL. That's a large factor in why I moved from the UFX+ to the Orion Studio Synergy Core. At 96k using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size, round-trip latency is 1ms (measured via RTL Utility). One critique of Antelope is that they have a way of over-complicating things. Look at the name Orion Studio Synergy Core. 🤪 If you can get past the learning curve, their current generation audio interfaces are some of the best available.

FWIW, I run an Orion Studio Synergy Core. Runs 24/7 connected via Thunderbolt. Absolutely rock-solid... Though I have many of their plugins, I'm not particularly crazy about them.

Uhh... I don't recall saying the video was talking about DAW specific performance. I'm saying I don't have to watch someone else's video to extrapolate/gauge DAW performance. I've done extensive testing with both. I'm quite aware of his and other YouTube videos. If you actually spent time/resources directly comparing the two CPUs (vs reading and watching YouTube), you'd be directly aware of the differences. AMD has slightly better IPC. Intel manages to achieve higher turbo frequency across multiple cores. The 7950x is a great performer. The 13900k (for most purposes - including DAW) slightly outperforms the 7950x... and costs slightly less.

FWIW, I don't need to watch a YouTube video to tell me about DAW performance. I've been doing this professionally for 30 years. ie: I was professionally building DAWs when the guy in the above video was born. Cinebench R23 is a quick/easy way to gauge multi-core performance. It's based on Cinema 4D (3D modeling and animation). That's not a synthetic benchmark in the realm of Passmark/etc. Both the 7950x and 13900k can run IK's ToneX at 96k using a 16-sample ASIO buffer size. If the audio interface can go that low, that translates to ~0.5ms total round-trip latency. I'm in no way saying 7950x performance is bad/poor. What I am saying is that the 7950x is slightly more expensive... for slightly lower performance (vs 13900k).

I've tested the 7950x and 13900k side by side (extensively). The 7950x can't get more than one simultaneous core at Max Turbo. That's why the 13900k bests it in nearly all scenarios. All you have to do is look at Cinebench R23 multi-core test results: 13900k is over 40k 7950x is 38k

I should also add that 12th and 13th Gen CPUs run fine under Win10. The problem (now) with Win10 is that Microsoft has broken the ability to disable CPU core parking. There's currently no way to disable it (if running 12th/13th Gen CPUs). Otherwise, there's little difference in performance. The new thread-scheduler in Win11 doesn't make a massive difference.

IPC is important... but you can't ignore the importance of high clock-speed. ie: 7950x slightly bests the 13900k in IPC However, 13900k bests the 7950x in both single-core and multi-core performance (due to achieving higher clock-speed)

The demo sounds (to my ears) are fantastic. Gonna have to get this.

What you ideally want is highest clock-speed *and* highest core count. What you don't want is more cores... at the expense of significant clock-speed. Xeon CPUs have many cores... but significantly slower clock-speed that standard CPUs. They're terrible for DAW purposes (by comparison).

Speaking of "Rage Against The Machine", Quad Cortex owners are still waiting on the editor, better file management, etc. 🤪

Roger Linn himself demo'd the Linnstrument for me at Gearfest. It was great meeting and talking with him. That was ~3 years ago. I was impressed... so I ordered the larger Linnstrument. MPE was just getting started. Unfortunately, I didn't have time/patience to learn to play it (well). Also had a Roli Seaboard Rise. It was easier to grasp... but I never did get super comfortable playing it. Osmose feels more like playing a traditional keyboard (played one at Sweetwater). Unfortunately, it wasn't (isn't) in-stock to purchase.

I looked... and couldn't find it anywhere else. Sweetwater says Ableton (as a brand) is no longer available. I assume they've gone to direct only sales.

MPE functions are great. An i3 NUC powering the standalone features is going to be a bit under-powered (compared to most DAWs). Push-2 was ~$800... so a couple hundred more for MPE function doesn't seem out of line. $2000 for the stand-alone model seems about right... but I agree that it's primarily going to appeal to the Live power-user. IMO, $2000 MIDI controller keyboard (with similar features- that could be used with Live and other DAWs), would have more broad appeal. MPE is still early in development. There's a lot of room left for someone to create the perfect balance between tradition/evolution.

For ToneX Captures to be accurate, you need proper re-amp configuration. ToneX Capture is a re-amp device (proper impedance and level for this purpose). If you have something like the Radial Reamp box, that's basically the same thing. If your audio interface has re-amp output/s, you don't need ToneX Capture. Most audio interfaces don't have proper re-amp output. In that case, you'd need ToneX Capture (or similar). Captures are created with a computer. Captures can then be loaded into ToneX Pedal... or used in your DAW (within the ToneX plugin or loaded into Amplitube 5). If you just want to use the Captures in your DAW, ToneX Pedal isn't necessary. If you want to take your Captures to gigs/rehearsals, ToneX Pedal makes a great "virtual-amp" on a pedal-board.

These libraries are expensive... especially if music is more a hobby/interest vs. career. Orchestral Tools and Spitfire are both popular with professional TV/Film composers. Probably the two most popular with our professional composer clients. To my ears, both Ark series and BBC SO sound amazing (I own both). Also have the EW CC subscription. EW Hollywood Opus series is pretty decent for the price of admission. That said, Opus multi-core CPU performance is significantly worse than Sine/Kontakt. For this reason, Opus is not popular with professional composers running large scoring templates. ie: A layer of string parts in Opus can take ~30-35% of a 13900k CPU. In Sine/Kontakt, the same type thing is ~2-3% CPU. If you're not working with large scoring templates, it's relatively easy to work around. Nashville Scoring Strings, Cinematic Studio Strings, Albion One, LA Scoring Strings, and Modern Scoring Strings are also widely used. First time I fired up BBC SO and played a few notes, I smiled/laughed... as the sound is immediately impressive.

Hi Gordon, Some companies have Thunderbolt-2 interfaces that have problems with Thunderbolt-4. The ironic part is that there wasn't a dramatic change with Thunderbolt-4. Focusrite makes some nice hardware... but I've never been a big fan of their drivers.

Don't expect miracles from under-volting. Too much... and it's completely unstable... or you're significantly under-clocking the CPU. At that point, you'd have been better off getting a lower-end CPU that naturally runs cooler (less expensive and less hassle). The 7950x needs top-tier 420mm water-cooling (same with Intel's 13900k). Anything less is neutering the CPU. While I get the point that heat dissipation could be more efficient, butchering a high cost CPU isn't an elegant solution. You're much better off spending time/resources on proper cooling. It's a guaranteed solution. Choose the right one and configure it well... and it'll run quiet.

I've mentioned this before... Configuring latest generation AMD (Ryzen 7950x) and Intel (13900k) CPUs is more involved than previous generations. If you put the machine under any kind of load, you don't want to, "Set everything to automatic and forget it". The motherboard needs to be properly configured... and the hardware (as a whole) needs to be tested under load. You don't want to skimp on cooling. You need to be aware of current limits of DDR5. Asus motherboards work just fine (including the Asus Crosshair X670E Hero in this video). I've used that exact motherboard with the 7950x... and it runs perfectly stable, doesn't thermal-throttle under heaviest loads, etc.

I think the cool part about Profiles/Captures/Clones is that you can "virtualize" your real amps/pedals. You can then load any of these Captures into Amplitube 5... which offers a lot of flexibility.