How does HH4 handle heavy audio processing?

[Shintylla]

Hi,
I’m about to build a new desktop pc. My concern is about the CPU, I use Usine mainly for real-time audio processing on my guitar, I tend to use a lot of modules within the same patch. I have owned a MBP 15 i9 octa core but the CPU used to run out very quickly and adding to the known thermal throttling issue on that gens I ended selling it.
I have made a lot of research on the web. For my purpose the single core performance and the higher base clock speed seem to be the best for it. I learned also that it depends also on how the DAW manages the CPU. I’m currently pointing at the i9 9900K (8 core, 3.6GHz base clock speed) which is very cheap but with a massive single core performance compared to the i9 9980 clocked at 2.3GHz mounted on the current MBP 15 line. But if I’m wrong on my conclusions (single core performance is what I need), there are other solutions with higher core count such as the i9 9940X which has 14 cores, 3.1GHz and it is insanely expensive. This i9 9940X when compared to i9 9980 despite the huge base clock speed (3.1 vs 2.3 GHz) have the same performance on the benchmark https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/ ... 6vsm797907
Can somebody tell me what is the best for my purpose? Thanks a lot

[x.iso]

About HH4 handling heavy processing, it really depends on what you define as heavy processing. I think it's pretty efficient while maintaining high quality audio.

Regarding CPUs, of course with mobile CPU in most cases you're bound to hit thermal throttling, especially on Macs where cooling solution sucks. There are some exceptions on PC laptops, my for example although 6 years old and not much powerful by today standards, does not thermal throttle at least.

Anyway, on desktop you should see overall better CPU performance, but choose mainboard carefully, for real-time audio processing it's critical that nothing in the system causes DPC latency that can become bottleneck of real-time performance. If I'm not mistaken AMD is now making I/O chip integrated into CPU (basically system on chip approach), which should be better for this task.

Additionally, take note that even on HH3 you can take advantage of hardware acceleration to draw GUI with GPU. That can really speed things up, especially if your workspace have lots of UI elements. On my old laptop it makes huge difference.

[Shintylla]

Thanks for reply. For heavy tasks I mean using multiple vst such (zynaptiq for example) and messing with the modules like I had a modular euro rack system: cables going everywhere and many many plugins effects , all on the same patch.

[Shintylla]

Are you sure about AMD? I read lots of good review on the latest ryzen’s but I did not know what you said. As I’m planning to run OSX on that build I have to make sure it is compatible. No big problems for Linux, but I never heard of a planned Linux HH4 release. I also wrote Brainmodular an email a couple of days ago about Linux porting but got no answer.

[x.iso]

Are you sure about AMD? I read lots of good review on the latest ryzen’s but I did not know what you said. As I’m planning to run OSX on that build I have to make sure it is compatible. No big problems for Linux, but I never heard of a planned Linux HH4 release. I also wrote Brainmodular an email a couple of days ago about Linux porting but got no answer.

found where I've heard about it, but it might be only regarding their EPYC model for now: https://youtu.be/HuLsrr79-Pw?t=175

either way there are still factors like BIOS that can make a difference, so you'll need to search for music production PC build advises. somewhere in this forum there was a topic about it too.

[Shintylla]

Thanks. I hope Nay can give me some more light on this topic: is single core score more important than core numbers for real-time audio processing?

[senso]

hard to answer without having the workspace.
But I can resume:
- if you have few heavy racks, the single core performances are more important than the number of cores,
- if you have many "light" racks, the number of cores becomes important.
....and the truth is often in between...

For info, each rack is calculated in a separated thread (so separated core).

senso+++

[x.iso]

depends on how densely you pack the racks with processing, as cores and threads get assigned to racks. single core speed is important for long chains of processing, and core numbers are important when you have lots of racks in a project. so depends on your workflow and processing style, if you're to compromise by choosing either high clock speed or more cores.

edit: oh, Senso beat me to it. so, to resume, if possible just don't compromise.

[senso]

@x.iso: exactly+++

[drakh]

from what i can say, performance of HH4 is much better. i have one heavy workspace which is unable to run in HH3, so i must manage which modules/racks/vsts(few reaktors, absynths and similar heavy vsts) are enabled to run smoothly keeping hh cpu indicator somwhere around 85%. in hh4 i can have the same workspace fully enabled, and cpu indicator shows something about 50% cpu usage.

[fractalist]

Thanx Drakh, exactly the info I was looking for. I didn't use HH3 at all cause I couldn't run my HH2 patches within it.
and I use Ableton + Usine because the exact same set-up in Usine only (2 or 3) overload my cpu.
As I feel it's time for me to port my gigantic multi-patches to a new, updated, cleaner and if possible Usine-only version, so this is great news !!!

Shintylla : I use usine for the same purpose, and I'm also greedy in terms of live processing and VST's, originally in the same patch.
I found ways to sparse the processing in multiple racks (mostly none audio but heavy processing) which helps a lot. Any way you can do that ?
Also... I manage to let go the idea of using stuffs such as zynaptiq and other CPU-hungry VSTs..

and you're intriguing me now, any link to your live performances available ?

[fractalist]

@drakh : actually, did you try to load a HH2 workspace in HH4 ?
in my case, a part from the fact that some things are broken (even some switches names), in HH4 my workspace consumes between 2 and 3 time more CPU (than HH2 does)

[x.iso]

@drakh : actually, did you try to load a HH2 workspace in HH4 ?
in my case, a part from the fact that some things are broken (even some switches names), in HH4 my workspace consumes between 2 and 3 time more CPU (than HH2 does)

are you on PC or Mac? HH2 used raster graphics if I remember correctly, which often performed better. if you're on PC though, you can try hardware acceleration or other graphics options in main settings.

[fractalist]

are you on PC or Mac? HH2 used raster graphics if I remember correctly, which often performed better. if you're on PC though, you can try hardware acceleration or other graphics options in main settings.

Thanx for the info !
I'm on mac but actually I don't really use graphics elements because
1) no time to make nice GUI (I probably have the ugliest interfaces ever)
2) a part a some simplest switches and faders, I don't care about GUI anyway as I don't look at my screen during concerts, everything is piloted with midi hardware and leap motion. so, shouldn't be that in my case.

[DiannneBulosan]

I wish I had seen this thread earlier. Thank you, guys, for your reasonable thoughts on that. Actually, my friend from the Iron Age Accessories store shared this thread with me. We used to work together at the music store. We’ve been friends since childhood. We had a band where I played drums, and he played guitar. We had 2 more guys. Actually, I don’t remember what name we gave to our band, but I really liked the music we played then. Grunge was popular then, so we tried to be real grungers. Tbh, I’m still a great man of AiC. Rip Layne. Anyway, thanks for your help, guys. I really appreciate that!