Yeah sure, that means it helps (it definitely does), but it doesn't say how much.Kaboom75 wrote: Turn Lives multicore option off the same thing lots of crackle.
Sound quality - CPU efficiency equilibrium
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
I wouldn't say that either, synths aren't static like samples. Besides, good resampling has a CPU cost as well (more than for a basic synth).fluffy_little_something wrote: Samples sound better and cause just a fraction of the CPU load compared to synths.
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
- KVRAF
- 1782 posts since 4 Sep, 2011 from England
Who cares what the OS CPU meter says fact is it improves DAW performance a good sound vs a crackly CPU overload sound is a massive difference. More cores and big third party coolers is the way forward until Quantum computers arrive.
- Beware the Quoth
- 33168 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
[quote="tony tony chopper"Those days when your new PC was 5x faster than the previous one 3 years before, are over (since 2008 I'd say).[/quote]
Those days never happened before 2008 either, if there was any kind of pricing parity included in this hypothesis. Maybe if your old PC cost you £20 and the new one cost you £20,000.
Those days never happened before 2008 either, if there was any kind of pricing parity included in this hypothesis. Maybe if your old PC cost you £20 and the new one cost you £20,000.
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
Good samples don't sound static. I am waiting for my general rompler to arrive. So far I have been using the cheap samples included with my DAW, even they sound better than synth emulations. But they do indeed sound static.tony tony chopper wrote:I wouldn't say that either, synths aren't static like samples. Besides, good resampling has a CPU cost as well (more than for a basic synth).fluffy_little_something wrote: Samples sound better and cause just a fraction of the CPU load compared to synths.
What is resampling?
I have modest demands because of the kind of music I want to make. Basically all I need is acoustic drums, various strings and brass sounds, punchy bass guitars, jazzy rhythm guitars, Rhodes and upright piano. Samples are way superior at delivering those sounds in an authentic way.
The few synth sounds I occasionally use, well, my existing SynthEdit stuff should be enough for that, especially the P80, which is by far the most versatile and best sounding of my plugins, and consumes little CPU I can use it for lush synth pads when real strings are inappropriate, but also for Moog synth basses and bells.
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
not at all, they all costed roughly the same, and they were all 3 to 5x faster after 3 years.whyterabbyt wrote: Those days never happened before 2008 either, if there was any kind of pricing parity included in this hypothesis. Maybe if your old PC cost you £20 and the new one cost you £20,000.
Are you saying that desktop CPU's evolution hasn't slown down?
an interesting article as it also talks about multithreading:
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/11 ... ll-stuck/3
Last edited by tony tony chopper on Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
Ok, say you got 4 synths running in parallel (or voices in them, whatever), and you got, I don't know, a 200% speedup out of a quad core. If you don't understand where the speedup comes from, you may think that adding 4 more cores will bring another 200% speedup, but no, because you won't have enough to keep 8 cores busy.Kaboom75 wrote:Who cares what the OS CPU meter says fact is it improves DAW performance a good sound vs a crackly CPU overload sound is a massive difference. More cores and big third party coolers is the way forward until Quantum computers arrive.
Worse, if you had 1000 cores, context-switching for 1000's of threads *alone* would probably kill audio buffering, without processing anything.
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
well obviously, for "real" instruments you want samples, but CPU is irrelevant, a sample of the real thing will always sound better.fluffy_little_something wrote: I have modest demands because of the kind of music I want to make. Basically all I need is acoustic drums, various strings and brass sounds, punchy bass guitars, jazzy rhythm guitars, Rhodes and upright piano. Samples are way superior at delivering those sounds in an authentic way.
(I assume we were talking about "electro" synths here)
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
- Beware the Quoth
- 33168 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Provide some details on that then so we can check historical benchmarks.tony tony chopper wrote:not at all, they all costed roughly the same, and they were all 3 to 5x faster after 3 years.whyterabbyt wrote: Those days never happened before 2008 either, if there was any kind of pricing parity included in this hypothesis. Maybe if your old PC cost you £20 and the new one cost you £20,000.
Straw man. Im saying there was no point in time where PC CPU evolution meant that you got a 5x speed increase in a 3 year span.Are you saying that desktop CPU's evolution hasn't slown down?
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
What's an electro synth? As opposed to?
As far as CPU's, I assume the development will slow down as more and more people switch to tablets, which I take it use different chips, not the standard Intel or AMD ones.
The biggest factor might be servers, but there the focus is more on energy efficiency and reliability, not on CPU performance, if I am not mistaken.
As far as CPU's, I assume the development will slow down as more and more people switch to tablets, which I take it use different chips, not the standard Intel or AMD ones.
The biggest factor might be servers, but there the focus is more on energy efficiency and reliability, not on CPU performance, if I am not mistaken.
-
- KVRAF
- 21348 posts since 26 Jul, 2005 from Gone
A quick Google search shows that it's not anywhere close to that:whyterabbyt wrote:Im saying there was no point in time where PC CPU evolution meant that you got a 5x speed increase in a 3 year span.
Looks more like it could have doubled over that period.
This shows MIPS, which is a good comparison across different numbers of cores.
Last edited by robogone on Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
whyterabbyt wrote: Provide some details on that then so we can check historical benchmarks.
average these 2 before 2003 (see, I was generous as for when the slowdown occured), and add to this the apparition of SSE, you'll get more than 5x.
From 1997 to 2000, that's already 4x, add SSE and you're already over 10x. Unlike multiple cores, SSE was really meaningful for multimedia.
Last edited by tony tony chopper on Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
not close? Do you even know how to read a chart?robojam wrote:A quick Google search shows that it's not anywhere close to that:whyterabbyt wrote:Im saying there was no point in time where PC CPU evolution meant that you got a 5x speed increase in a 3 year span.
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
The silicon-based chip technology has almost reached its physical potential, which probably is why things are gradually slowing down.
That's why they are working on other technologies, like quantum computers.
That's why they are working on other technologies, like quantum computers.
- KVRAF
- 3897 posts since 28 Jan, 2011 from MEXICO
Well I just freeze and bounce early before mixing, it makes workflow faster and forces you to commit and stop tweaking.
dedication to flying