that was my wider point, the modules appear to be 'free running', not driven by connection, not driven by input. this is some ways makes sense. midi input and sequencing is not obligatory for making sound in a modular system - you might generates drones using lfos, s&h , or even interference patterns from oscillators... look at something like the 'krell' patch, no midi, sequencing to be seenImNotDedYet wrote: True, I agree with you. But in the CPU use for when not in use - this is a patch where all the modules are actually used. I just wasn't playing or sequencing it yet.
I certainly hope they're able to find and make CPU improvements.
whilst perhaps initially seems odd, there is an advantage with this approach in that cpu load is constant.
anyway, Im no expert on this, someone like Urs perhaps could comment on why this approach is good/bad.
optimisation, from what Ive seen so far, I think softube modular is single threaded, so making it multi-core, and careful placement of modules across cores, could bring us quite a bit more power.
(I say this, as when I do multi voice patches, I always run them on separate DAW tracks to place across cores, doing this, I usually find 4 instances of the same patch, often doesn't take much more than one instance)
