Stereo Tool

Hi everyone,

I’m encountering an issue with ST 10.51 on Windows 11 using a Digigram VX222e. The problem is extremely high CPU usage 100% constant—even under standard conditions.
I have tested exactly the same configuration on two systems that differ only in CPU and motherboard.

Here are the details of my setup and tests:

Tested Configurations:
Both systems use the Digigram VX222e, 16GB RAM, and Windows 11. The only differences are the motherboard and CPU:
- System 1: Intel Core i3-2120 @ 3.30 GHz (older system)
- System 2: Intel N100 @ 3.40 GHz (newer, more efficient)

Performance Observations:
- System 1 (i3-2120) runs the following presets (FM 50us pilot/RDS with stokkemask and Dutch Chocolate Moose Hot) with CPU usage under 60%.
- System 2 (N100), despite being significantly faster (see attached Geekbench 6 scores), pegs at 100% CPU constantly when running the same presets.

Additional Notes:
I’ve tried multiple settings under the "Resource Usage" tab (including limiting CPU and adjusting audio quality), but the CPU usage on System 2 remains at 100%. I have tried selecting the onboard Realtek soundcard without luck.

Here are some relevant screenshots for reference - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IITIxp ... sp=sharing

This discrepancy strongly suggests a possible bug or incompatibility.
Anyone have an idea?

Thanks!
José

N100 is super slow CPU, so nothing strange.
I bet under full load does not cross 1GHz. It's only 6W TDP wich is just super low.

Intel Core i3-2120 is 65W TDP, so quite more, but older technology, 2 cores.. etc.

Those builds are simply waste of time. For cheap you can build system with, for example, i3 12100(f), wich is great cpu for this aplication or rare AMD 8300G wich even have AVX512.

_________________
control point
control point2

Hi,

Thanks for your reply. Granted the N100 is a slow CPU, but it is 4 times faster than the i3 where Stereo Tool works fine ( according toto geek bench multiple test). I believe there’s another issue.

Anyone else had an idea?

You read that CPU is 6W TDP? Probably it pulls more, but you need to check power boost, tdp.. etc.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en ... tions.html

_________________
control point
control point2

Hi @Bojcha,

Thanks for your reply. I think I’m not following your train of thought.

As I mentioned in my first message, ST runs perfectly fine on an old i3 with 2 cores and 4 threads. The N100, despite its lower TDP, is based on a completely different architecture and is, according to Geekbench tests, about three times faster in multi-threaded applications like Stereo Tool. That’s why I would expect the N100 to handle it even better, and with much lower power consumption, which is important for us — we run 4 FM stations 24/7, and power costs in Spain are very high.

Also, ST runs fine on a Raspberry Pi 5, which is less powerful than the N100. So this doesn’t seem to be an issue of raw CPU power, but maybe a bug, configuration problem, or incompatibility.

Any ideas or suggestions are welcome!

Thanks again!
José

Ok try this, Run CPU-z and start stress test on N100 and tell me what is clock on CPU while stress test is running.
Also while test is running you can read what is Power usage on CPU, HWinfo (sensors)
That will tell you are you choked by TDP, or it's something else.

_________________
control point
control point2

Hi @Bojcha,

Thanks for the tip! I ran the CPU-Z stress test alongside HWInfo and here are the results:

• Clock speeds: ~2.9 - 3.0 GHz sustained on all cores

• Power consumption: ~8W-10W under load

• Temps: 60-65°C

• No thermal throttling detected.

So, the N100 is maintaining full clocks under load and not being limited by TDP. This seems to confirm that the problem with Stereo Tool isn’t related to power limits or thermal throttling. Given that, and since Stereo Tool runs fine on older CPUs like the i3-2120 (and even Raspberry Pi 5s), it might be an issue of compatibility or something specific to the setup.

Since I'm no expert at reading these kind of data, I appreciate your input, maybe I have missed something, see screenshot with the results:
https://radiomorones-my.sharepoint.com/ ... Q?e=RHEFc9

Any other ideas are welcome!
Thanks,
José

If I configure Stereo Tool to only use 1 CPU core on this system, and force it to use only that one core, I still see that when Zara is also running, the other 3 cores are on average over 50% occupied. I don't know why that is but the CPU usage is really way too high. If I turn Stereo Tool off, those other cores go down quite a lot. So it does somehow look like the whole CPU is throttling.

Based on the listed performance numbers for this CPU I wouldn't expect so many issues. So I think something is wrong with this system, I just don't know where to look.

Hi all,

Just wanted to follow up with some additional testing results.

I’ve now done a complete clean install of Windows 11 LTSC on the N100 system — no additional software, no tweaks. I’ve also left out the Digigram soundcard entirely, and Zara Studio / VB Audio is not installed at all. The only things installed are the Realtek audio driver and Stereo Tool.

With this minimal setup, I’m still seeing 100% CPU usage on all 4 Cores, even when simply feeding audio into Stereo Tool via the onboard soundcard input. So at this point, I’m confident that Zara, Digigram, or any third-party tools are not related to the issue.

Benchmark tests show that the CPU is not throttling, and its performance scores are actually 3 times higher than the old i3 system I used previously as comparison — which runs Stereo Tool without problems at around 60% CPU, with Zara Studio and VB Audio on it.

Given all that, I’m leaning toward a compatibility issue between Stereo Tool and the Intel N100 architecture. This CPU uses Gracemont cores, which are known to report AVX/AVX2 support in CPUID, but don’t actually implement those instructions in hardware — or do so in a very limited way. That might explain the high CPU load and unexpected behavior, even with a clean and efficient system.

Would it be possible to test a non-AVX build of Stereo Tool, or is there a way to force it to avoid AVX code paths? Anyone else has another idea?

Open to any suggestions or tests — happy to help.

Best regards,
José