Topic by Antonio M

  • Avatar
  • Antonio M
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 23-09-2020
  • Posts: 94

Topic: Disappointed with performance of version 8

I was amazed with the upgrade from 6 to 7
this upgrade from 7 to 8 seems even better!
unfortunately:

Version 8 is unusable for me - I'm getting a new computer next week, but
version 8 is unusable in the same machine I was running version 7



Murphy law no.97: if you are retired and every day is Saturday or Sunday Pianoteq 8 will be released on the day of your dentist appointment 86.2km away.
corollary: you car battery will die in the same day, also 86.2km away from home.
corollary 2: it's snowing coming back home.

what is your minimum specification?

Reply by Key Fumbler

  • Avatar
  • Key Fumbler
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 20-10-2018
  • Posts: 1,518

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

Puzzled by your concern, you already have a better CPU on the way! :

https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php...mp;login=1

You said here you have a new i7 CPU on order. I Googled your CPU and in a comparison it was very similar to my older desktop i7 in performance, even in that T form. Slightly higher in fact.

I run maximum polyphony, nice latency performance- very playable - not noticeable.  Multiple instances simultaneously.
That is multiple instances within a DAW with other things in the projects too, even without freezing tracks.
I do keep to 48 kHz, it's a decade old CPU.

If you find yourself say wanting to run 10-20 Pianoteq instances without freezing tracks and 192khz maybe that i9 does beckon!?

Last edited by Key Fumbler (17-11-2022 18:23)

Reply by Antonio M

  • Avatar
  • Antonio M
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 23-09-2020
  • Posts: 94

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

Key Fumbler wrote:

Puzzled by your concern, you already have a better CPU on the way! :

https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php...mp;login=1

You said here you have a new i7 CPU on order. I Googled your CPU and in a comparison it was very similar to my older desktop i7 in performance, even in that T form. Slightly higher in fact.

I run maximum polyphony, nice latency performance- very playable - not noticeable.  Multiple instances simultaneously.
That is multiple instances within a DAW with other things in the projects too, even without freezing tracks.
I do keep to 48 kHz, it's a decade old CPU.

If you find yourself say wanting to run 10-20 Pianoteq instances without freezing tracks and 192khz maybe that i9 does beckon!?

Thank you, your post makes me make me feel better (well at least a bit more calm) - I'll wait until next week - luckily I still have one license available.
I'm confused why Modartt didn't mentioned the higher processing requirements - giving all the credit to Modartt I'm guessing I'm doing something wrong.
I'll wait until my next computer arrive... back to seven!

(I'm wondering if this is still usable on an Raspberry PI)
(yes, I just found out the color tag)

Reply by BarbaraRB

  • Avatar
  • BarbaraRB
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 06-03-2022
  • Posts: 290

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

Antonio M wrote:
Key Fumbler wrote:

Puzzled by your concern, you already have a better CPU on the way! :

https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php...mp;login=1

You said here you have a new i7 CPU on order. I Googled your CPU and in a comparison it was very similar to my older desktop i7 in performance, even in that T form. Slightly higher in fact.

I run maximum polyphony, nice latency performance- very playable - not noticeable.  Multiple instances simultaneously.
That is multiple instances within a DAW with other things in the projects too, even without freezing tracks.
I do keep to 48 kHz, it's a decade old CPU.

If you find yourself say wanting to run 10-20 Pianoteq instances without freezing tracks and 192khz maybe that i9 does beckon!?

Thank you, your post makes me make me feel better (well at least a bit more calm) - I'll wait until next week - luckily I still have one license available.
I'm confused why Modartt didn't mentioned the higher processing requirements - giving all the credit to Modartt I'm guessing I'm doing something wrong.
I'll wait until my next computer arrive... back to seven!

(I'm wondering if this is still usable on an Raspberry PI)
(yes, I just found out the color tag)

If you have one license available and need another you can always deactivate one you aren't using and know you won't be using again.

Reply by DonSmith

  • Avatar
  • DonSmith
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 24-09-2008
  • Posts: 414

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

Antonio M wrote:

I was amazed with the upgrade from 6 to 7
this upgrade from 7 to 8 seems even better!
unfortunately:

Version 8 is unusable for me - I'm getting a new computer next week, but
version 8 is unusable in the same machine I was running version 7

In [Options menu] [Perf] What are your [Sample Rate] and [Polyphony] set to?

You might want to reduce them in the meantime.

Reply by Antonio M

  • Avatar
  • Antonio M
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 23-09-2020
  • Posts: 94

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

AH!, my fault!

When trying up the version 8 I just used the Steinways as they now sound good to me.
On version 7 I layered the NY to the left with the HB to the right.

If I use the layered setup on the version 8 the performance problems disappears!

Of course I'll have to redo or adapt the layering to version 8 as now the plain versions to the Steinways are better.
(hopefully just hammer hardness and striking point...??? - we'll see)

back to the future version 8!

I apologise for all the confusion! and thank you for all the help and suggestions!

An interesting question arises: why does layering perform better on my system? I'm I not hearing some shortcuts? doesn't it uses the processor in a different way?
I'm too afraid to test as I can't face more disappointment right now

Reply by Antonio M

  • Avatar
  • Antonio M
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 23-09-2020
  • Posts: 94

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

BarbaraRB wrote:
Antonio M wrote:
Key Fumbler wrote:

Puzzled by your concern, you already have a better CPU on the way! :

https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php...mp;login=1

You said here you have a new i7 CPU on order. I Googled your CPU and in a comparison it was very similar to my older desktop i7 in performance, even in that T form. Slightly higher in fact.

I run maximum polyphony, nice latency performance- very playable - not noticeable.  Multiple instances simultaneously.
That is multiple instances within a DAW with other things in the projects too, even without freezing tracks.
I do keep to 48 kHz, it's a decade old CPU.

If you find yourself say wanting to run 10-20 Pianoteq instances without freezing tracks and 192khz maybe that i9 does beckon!?

Thank you, your post makes me make me feel better (well at least a bit more calm) - I'll wait until next week - luckily I still have one license available.

I'm confused why Modartt didn't mentioned the higher processing requirements - giving all the credit to Modartt I'm guessing I'm doing something wrong.
I'll wait until my next computer arrive... back to seven!

(I'm wondering if this is still usable on an Raspberry PI)
(yes, I just found out the color tag)

If you have one license available and need another you can always deactivate one you aren't using and know you won't be using again.

yes, but I already burn my Celeron and laptop systems - we cannot reactivate computers where we removed licenses...

Reply by Vranq

  • Avatar
  • Vranq
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 27-11-2021
  • Posts: 11

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

Antonio M wrote:
BarbaraRB wrote:
Antonio M wrote:

Thank you, your post makes me make me feel better (well at least a bit more calm) - I'll wait until next week - luckily I still have one license available.

I'm confused why Modartt didn't mentioned the higher processing requirements - giving all the credit to Modartt I'm guessing I'm doing something wrong.
I'll wait until my next computer arrive... back to seven!

(I'm wondering if this is still usable on an Raspberry PI)
(yes, I just found out the color tag)

If you have one license available and need another you can always deactivate one you aren't using and know you won't be using again.

yes, but I already burn my Celeron and laptop systems - we cannot reactivate computers where we removed licenses...

You can ask support for it. They did it for me some time ago.

Reply by 2tunapiano

  • Avatar
  • 2tunapiano
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 18-11-2022
  • Posts: 1

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

I also found that v8 (demo) cannot be installed on my old mac. Can I activate v7 if I purchase v8 standard?

Last edited by 2tunapiano (18-11-2022 22:47)

Reply by Antonio M

  • Avatar
  • Antonio M
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 23-09-2020
  • Posts: 94

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

I wrote:

AH!, my fault!

When trying up the version 8 I just used the Steinways as they now sound good to me.
On version 7 I layered the NY to the left with the HB to the right.

If I use the layered setup on the version 8 the performance problems disappears!

So...
I just made the simplest layered NY Steinway + 50% NY Steinway both full register and got better performance - which matches previous observations.
(I just checked Note Edit have copy/paste function so maintaining it will be easy)
Now the i3-4160T CPU can almost(*) do the final octaves in Chopin ballad no.1 with full pedal!

all is with 96kHz host sample, 48kHz internal sample, 512 samples and maximum polyphony of 96 - polyphony reaches 190(95+95) before (*)

(*) most of the time just 1 (one) thin red line on the performance chart - almost inaudible.

What's up with layering? long live layering!

Reply by Qexl

  • Avatar
  • Qexl
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 04-09-2015
  • Posts: 1,647

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

Interesting observations going on - maybe Layering has some optimizations under the hood.. abs. not sure.

If it gives some performance benefit to an i3 - indeed go for it

I'd like to ask you Antonio, (for someone who might want to do this with their i3, but whom may dislike editing layers and worry it will sound wrong)...

Do you still gain this performance boost, IF you mute one of the layers? -

that would be such a cool simple way for i3 owners to get a little bump, just by clicking "layers", adding an instrument, then clicking 'mute' on it.. done. Same sounds, better perf. ??

Maybe multi-core operations are uniquely more economical when 2 different layers are.. IDK, working on different cores.. slitting/sharing load-bearing computations?

Or threads might just fly well on i3 when using layers in some way specific to that CPU type.. (Not sure if any of that is the case tho).

Benefits of shared processes with some thread-hopping lowering intensity of required CPU overhead?

In my cases, I can't say I see a similar thing though on a high spec CPU. So maybe.. on i3 some optimizations come from something not to do with Pianoteq?

Pianoteq Studio Bundle (Pro plus all instruments)  - Kawai MP11 digital piano - Yamaha HS8 monitors

Reply by Antonio M

  • Avatar
  • Antonio M
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 23-09-2020
  • Posts: 94

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

Qexl wrote:

Interesting observations going on - maybe Layering has some optimizations under the hood.. abs. not sure.

If it gives some performance benefit to an i3 - indeed go for it

I'd like to ask you Antonio, (for someone who might want to do this with their i3, but whom may dislike editing layers and worry it will sound wrong)...

Do you still gain this performance boost, IF you mute one of the layers? -

that would be such a cool simple way for i3 owners to get a little bump, just by clicking "layers", adding an instrument, then clicking 'mute' on it.. done. Same sounds, better perf. ??

Maybe multi-core operations are uniquely more economical when 2 different layers are.. IDK, working on different cores.. slitting/sharing load-bearing computations?

Or threads might just fly well on i3 when using layers in some way specific to that CPU type.. (Not sure if any of that is the case tho).

Benefits of shared processes with some thread-hopping lowering intensity of required CPU overhead?

In my cases, I can't say I see a similar thing though on a high spec CPU. So maybe.. on i3 some optimizations come from something not to do with Pianoteq?

One layer muted seems to be slightly worst than two layers with sound but still much better that just one instrument - only tested muting the second layer.
I was hoping to get help but now I'm the expert on this???
I'll start a thread named "does layering improves polyphony performance?" - that will attract the real experts!

Reply by levinite

  • Avatar
  • levinite
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 07-08-2020
  • Posts: 133

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

Could it be that the new presets are more complex? I noticed that sometimes more microphones are active.

Reply by tmyoung

  • Avatar
  • tmyoung
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: USA
  • Registered: 20-09-2012
  • Posts: 565

Re: Disappointed with performance of version 8

For me, I had terrible performance issues with PTQ8 when I first installed it, but after restarting the application a few times, the problems went away and it behaved identically to PTQ7.  I'm not altogether sure what about the audio settings, application settings, etc. made the difference, but it cleared up within a half-an-hour of tweaking and debugging.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/2xHiPcCsm29R12HX4eXd4J
Pianoteq Studio & Organteq
Casio GP300 & Custom organ console

tmyoung's Website