Can Anybody Give Me Renoise 1.25?

[EternalEngine]

Hi,

I’m registered user and very need in this fastest version for the some sound experiments. If anybody can give it to me i’m be happy. ))

Thanks for view this post and sorry if my english not so good…

P.S. If you have registered version 1.25 and can send it to me then mail it to quadr@mail.ru.

Best regards,
Eternal Engine

[sagosen]

[EternalEngine]

sagosen i say something wrong and you can’t understand me?
I need maximum speed and minimum of cpu load in work with renoise.
I join to the community and have registration in summer 2004 and i do not
have registered version 1.25. And can’t find it in other places. But i need in
support of asio driver for work with 24 bit resolution. Directsound support
only 16 bit… In renoise 1.281 cpu load is increased 15-20%, in version 1.5
cpu load increased 30-70% in compare with version 1.25.
I like many features of renoise 1.5 but version 1.25 is the fastest of workable
versions of renoise and i need it for some situations.

[trackit (Weird Energy)]

what you need is faster computer

downgrade is not an option

[Johan]

That sounds strange. 1.5 is the fastest versin for me yet. And I know that’s the case for many others as well. 30-70% CPU increase sounds impossible. Have you tried changing the settings (frame rate, UI effects etc)?

[EternalEngine]

what you need is faster computer

downgrade is not an option

I have Athlon XP 2800 and it work on 2200mghz as 200x11 with chipset nforce. Memory work with 2 cas latency timing. I think this is very fast system for midle end. For normal work with renoise 1.5 i need dual xeon/opteron or overclocked Athlon 64 4000+. In present time i do not have money for this systems. And i do not understand why developers can’t put this version as fastest stable release to registered users section of this site.

[EternalEngine]

“30-70% CPU increase sounds impossible.”

This is true, for work with many and many of vst plugs. You can trust me. I have experience.

[EternalEngine]

“1. Why don’t you use the high priority support form at http://backstage.renoise.com to contact the developers directly, instead of asking the same question over and over again in the forum?”

First time i ask about this in forum talking with taktik. He ignore this question, and i think maybe they do not have this version. Or do not intersted in spreading of this version. I do not know reasons of this…

“2. I doubt the registered 1.25 supports 24 bit. I don’t remember anymore to be sure. But 1.281 renders to 16 bit and 32 bit IEEE float.
If you don’t have a registered version of 1.25 (March 2003), how do you know it works on 24 bit in ASIO mode?”

If it support two or more 16bit asio chanels they can be mixed to 24 bit.
It checked.

“3. For normal work in 1.5 I can use a 1.4 GHz Centrino or a 1.8 GHz P4, no problem. But I will check the difference in performance between 1.5 and 1.281 later this day.”

This is good fact for you, but my stile (hard, melodic and progressive trance) and quality of work needs for more cpu power.

BTW for example you can check this link:

http://www.ctgmusic.com/artist.php?id=1907

This is one of my works of summer 2004. I made it with renoise 1.281 and it load 95% my cpu. (or 80% cpu load in version 1.25 ) All used sounds drumloops, pads, keys, effects is sinthesized be me. With help of some VSTi.

[EternalEngine]

CPU increased in 1.26, but due to compiler settings. Should have been patched later.
1.26 released

Also, I now remember an issue with an older version. It had lower CPU usage because the quality of the engine was lower than it should be.  But I don’t remember which version that was.

May be 1.26 and versions after it have more good quality of internal sampler, but i use it not much. And sampler can be chenged to external vsti if this needed. Quality of VSTi in version 1.25 and higher versions is equal. But cpu load is very very different.

Can anybody solve my problem with registered version of renoise 1.25?
I’m registered user and i promise no one do not be know about that if you send it to my e-mail.

[splajn]

I can send you a registered 1.2 or 1.25 but only if it is okay with Taktik?

[EternalEngine]

EternalEngine still didn’t say how he knows about the performance in a registered 1.25 version that he didn’t register.

Registered and do not registered versions have equaly performance.

splajn: ok, waiting for taktik reply.

[Johan]

“30-70% CPU increase sounds impossible.”

This is true, for work with many and many of vst plugs. You can trust me. I have experience.

So do I, but I haven’t had the problems with CPU increase.

Have you changed anything with your hardware or drivers since 1.25?

[EternalEngine]

“30-70% CPU increase sounds impossible.”

This is true, for work with many and many of vst plugs. You can trust me. I have experience.

So do I, but I haven’t had the problems with CPU increase.

Have you changed anything with your hardware or drivers since 1.25?

So, i have four answers for this one.

1. You work with dual Xeon or Dual Opteron. And CPU performance is not
   critical criterion for you.
2. You do not work with VST.
3. You work with some very specific VST which i don’t know or don’t use.
   But i have very many different plugins and all of it work slowly in new
   versions of renoise.
4. You never work with renoise 1.25 and mislead us.

[Johan]

So, i have four answers for this one.

1. You work with dual Xeon or Dual Opteron. And CPU performance is not
   critical criterion for you.
2. You do not work with VST.
3. You work with some very specific VST which i don’t know or don’t use.
   But i have very many different plugins and all of it work slowly in new
   versions of renoise.
4. You never work with renoise 1.25 and mislead us.

No, no, no & no

How can you be so sure this is the same for everyone? Look, I’m trying to help out here. I can’t give you a regged version, only the devs can do that. But we can find out if it is a special hardware or software problem on your computer. I can try a VST heavy song on the different versions and post my results… when I get the time.

[EternalEngine]

So, i have four answers for this one.

1. You work with dual Xeon or Dual Opteron. And CPU performance is not
   critical criterion for you.
2. You do not work with VST.
3. You work with some very specific VST which i don’t know or don’t use.
   But i have very many different plugins and all of it work slowly in new
   versions of renoise.
4. You never work with renoise 1.25 and mislead us.

No, no, no & no

How can you be so sure this is the same for everyone? Look, I’m trying to help out here. I can’t give you a regged version, only the devs can do that. But we can find out if it is a special hardware or software problem on your computer. I can try a VST heavy song on the different versions and post my results… when I get the time.

This is testet with many different computers. If you do not have this problem then unicue is your system, but not my…

[EternalEngine]

You said that 1.281 has an increased CPU load of 15-20% and 1.5 30-70% compared to 1.25.

Well, I have compared the performance of 1.5RC1 and 1.281 on two Intel pc’s and in some cases 1.281 is about 3% lighter on the CPU than 1.5RC1. But in a song with a lot of VSTs and with a sampler 1.5RC1 was not getting a higher CPU load than 30% while 1.281 averaged at 35% and had peaks up to 50%. This was confirmed with Windows Taskmanager, although values were much higher (up to 95%). Renoise’s built-in CPU meter doesn’t show gfx load etc.

ok, RC1 little faster then beta 3 and in some situations have near to equal cpu load with renoise 1.281. But this is true not for the all situations and in any event it very heavy load memory. I don’t like often swaps with hd. It make work uncomfortable. What you think about this fact - 512mb (i have it) it is not enough for stable and fast work without swaps with 20-30 average vst plugins? It’s imposible, nightmare for work with tracker… And renoise 1.25 in any event play equal projects with 30-70% advantage of cpu load and do not make swaps and make equal quality results. Better word about 1.281 it is absence of swaps under work with interface.

[Johan]

ok, RC1 little faster then beta 3 and in some situations have near to equal cpu load with renoise 1.281.

That wasn’t what Bantai wrote. He said 1.5RC1 was 3% slower at worst, but up to 20% faster than 1.281 with much VSTs.

[DDspeed]

I started using Renoise on version 1.01 or around that. I used it on Celeron 500 at that time. I use every next version ever since then and I didn’t notice any loss in performance. And you can be sure that I use VSTs and VSTis a lot.

A difference of 70% should be noticeable, especially for a dedicated user like me, but it was not. I only noticed a bit loss on the newest version, when switching to 1.5 alpha 1, but even those problems are past for me.

I really think that something has changed in your system, like Johan suggested. Or not?

But I won’t argue with you, I don’t keep old stuff anyway. And I do my job using A1800+ with 256 MB of RAM .

[EternalEngine]

ok, RC1 little faster then beta 3 and in some situations have near to equal cpu load with renoise 1.281.

That wasn’t what Bantai wrote. He said 1.5RC1 was 3% slower at worst, but up to 20% faster than 1.281 with much VSTs.

Sorry i don’t know this vst’s and in all the situations i have opposite results… What vst’s u use guys? I work with FM7, Pro-53, z3ta+, superwavep8 and near to it softsynthezisers. As dsp use voxengo, wave arts, prosoniq and near to it dsp plugins. And have absolute opposite results on the many computers… May be this is strange but this is fact…

[Johan]

Well, we had a testsong to compare CPU usage on different systems. But that was samples only. We could create a new testsong with only VST’s so we can test the same song. From there, maybe we can find out what is causing this to be different on different computers.