Stereo Tool
https://www.forums.stereotool.com/

Stereo Tool vs. Breakaway Broadcast
https://www.forums.stereotool.com/viewtopic.php?t=4153		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  eurodancetest [ Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Stereo Tool vs. Breakaway Broadcast
Is there even an area to compare theese 2 products for audio processing?

The Breakaway is heavy on the CPU, but it yields overall better sound, and a bit louder too. But it's not that flexible.

The Stereo tool is not that heavy on the CPU (except when the declipper is on), but it's much much more flexible.

What's your opinion ?
Author:  Bojcha [ Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stereo Tool vs. Breakaway Broadcast
Bit wrong conclusions...

Compared current last versions..

- ST use more CPU (even without de-clipper) http://i.imgur.com/CYs4t.png
- ST is louder (but, let's say, more IMD)

And when it comes about processing, both are many different, one big difference is in MB.
Author:  eurodancetest [ Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Stereo Tool vs. Breakaway Broadcast
For me it's the opposite! BBP takes about 30-40% on old AMD (4000+) and ST takes about 75% on the same AMD. On Intel stereo tool takes less CPU than BBP ...
Author:  hvz [ Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stereo Tool vs. Breakaway Broadcast
Hm, I knew that there was a difference in performance between Intel and AMD but this would mean a difference of more than a factor 2!
Author:  Bojcha [ Sat Apr 14, 2012 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stereo Tool vs. Breakaway Broadcast
Testing here on diffrent Dual core AMD's and Intel's gives me very similar results, for both st and bbp! - (?)
Author:  hvz [ Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stereo Tool vs. Breakaway Broadcast
Quote:
Testing here on diffrent Dual core AMD's and Intel's gives me very similar results, for both st and bbp! - (?)
That is not strange since Leif uses the same Intel libraries that I use :)
Author:  Brian [ Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stereo Tool vs. Breakaway Broadcast
Quote:
Hm, I knew that there was a difference in performance between Intel and AMD but this would mean a difference of more than a factor 2!
Well, what's being talked about was an "old AMD", specifically a 4000+. I think that needs to be further clarified as a San Diego (single-core) or an X2 (dual-core), either a Windsor or a Brisbane model. The San Diego and Windsor models have 1MB cache per core, while the Brisbane has 512K per core.
Author:  hvz [ Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stereo Tool vs. Breakaway Broadcast
Hm, actually... I haven't seen any difference on my system but version 6.30 should use considerably less memory for processing than 6.21, due to the code cleanups (I'm using a memory pool now which is shared by all the different processing functions; before they all claimed their own memory).

This is not yet the case for multiband and noise gate though (and they use most of the memory).
Author:  Brian [ Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Stereo Tool vs. Breakaway Broadcast
Quote:
Hm, actually... I haven't seen any difference on my system but version 6.30 should use considerably less memory for processing than 6.21, due to the code cleanups (I'm using a memory pool now which is shared by all the different processing functions; before they all claimed their own memory).
From an overall memory standpoint, yes, I've seen a reduction. With 6.30, I'm hitting at about 100M for the Winamp process, which is a reduction from before.

That said though, what I was referring to was the L2 cache size. I think any processor with < 1M will struggle with any of the more recent releases. Without the cleanups and optimizations, anything with < 2M was struggling.

I have noticed that the CPU usage with the GUI up has increased again though. That happened for quite some time, then it wasn't very noticable, and now it is very noticable again.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC+02:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/