Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

[Teksonik]

Save your embaresement by saying you have no idea what integrated gpu you have, because you just posted totaly useless printscreen

I'm not embarrassed by anything (at least I can spell embarrassment....haven't you learned how to use spell check yet?) Just because something is useless to you doesn't mean it's.....

But try to focus on the salient point. Every plugin I have thrown at this system has loaded and run just fine except MassiveX.

Why is that ? MassiveX is just a simple Wavetable synth yet Dune 3 and Hive 2 and Go 2 and Blue II and Predator 2 and VPS Avenger and Hybrid 3 and Synthmaster and Ana 2 and on and on and on have loaded and run just fine.

Does MassiveX need the GPU specs that other plugins don't to make it sound any better ? Or is NI just pushing the requirements for no benefit at all ?

I test demos on this system and if I like the products and decide to buy then I move them to the studio system. It has worked well doing it that way for quite some time. If a developer needs more resources to do the same thing other plugins do already....such is life.

Like I said I have no problem with a developer pushing the envelope of requirements as long as there is an equal push of sound or capabilities otherwise it's pointless.

There isn't a plugin on the planet that my studio system won't run and in multiple instances. I simply don't run demos on it....no need to.

I even said how much of a fan of Native Instruments I am but no that's not good enough you've got to make some smart ass/dumb ass comment. GFY.......

[EvilDragon]

All the plugins you've listed don't use OpenGL for their GUI rendering AFAIK, so yeah... there will be differences there. It seems that some older Intel iGPUs, even though on paper support OpenGL 2.1 or above, they don't really perform all that well (again, depending on what is being drawn on the screen).

Or is NI just pushing the requirements for no benefit at all ?

It's more about the frameworks NI uses internally. In this case, it is Qt that's being used for UI, and specifically Qt's OpenGL module.

Like I said I have no problem with a developer pushing the envelope of requirements as long as there is an equal push of sound or capabilities otherwise it's pointless.

I'd venture saying that MX does push the sound envelope in certain ways for sure.


By the way, and at least as far as I can tell, MX demo is exactly the same executable as the full version. The only difference is the license. It's how NI's demos have been for a long time now.

[Teksonik]

You're right that knowing the minimal about computers still means you can use them, and that some people are more tech savvy than others.

For the record I have been using computers since the 80's and have seven working systems running everything from WinXP, Win7, and Win 10 Pro to Kubuntu. I use them all for various testing or they are mission built systems, designed to do a single job like be a DAW. Do I know everything there is to know about computers ? No of course not and anyone who says they do is dead wrong.

I posted a screenshot that shows useful information....if the viewer knows what to look for.

Anyway like I said before I'm a fan of NI so maybe one day they'll motivate me to install their demo on another system, perhaps during a Holiday sale.

I may one day end up owning MassiveX to add it to my collection but as you saw by the list above....I don't really need another Wavetable synth.

Anyway to the person here who is a beta tester for NI you can pass the report along that version 1.1 still does not run on some Intel Graphics chips.

[Teksonik]

It's more about the frameworks NI uses internally. In this case, it is Qt that's being used for UI, and specifically Qt's OpenGL module.

Odd that not all developers need that framework to make awesome sounding synths.

Ok so be it. I have other systems besides this one and my studio system that I could install the MassiveX demo on but probably won't unless it goes on sale. Refer to the list of synths I already own for the reason why.

The reason I don't do demos on my studio computer is obvious. It's not about whether the demo is the same .dll as the paid version. If I decide not to buy it then I have to uninstall then look for the bits it left behind and manually clean them up etc. I just like keeping my studio system as clean as possible. You'd think everyone else would as well.

Anyway you can relay to them that some Intel chips still don't like MassiveX even after the recent update which in part did attempt to address the issue with older graphics hardware..

[telecode]

Save your embaresement by saying you have no idea what integrated gpu you have, because you just posted totaly useless printscreen

I'm not embarrassed by anything (at least I can spell embarrassment....haven't you learned how to use spell check yet?) Just because something is useless to you doesn't mean it's.....

But try to focus on the salient point. Every plugin I have thrown at this system has loaded and run just fine except MassiveX.

Why is that ? MassiveX is just a simple Wavetable synth yet Dune 3 and Hive 2 and Go 2 and Blue II and Predator 2 and VPS Avenger and Hybrid 3 and Synthmaster and Ana 2 and on and on and on have loaded and run just fine.

Does MassiveX need the GPU specs that other plugins don't to make it sound any better ? Or is NI just pushing the requirements for no benefit at all ?

I test demos on this system and if I like the products and decide to buy then I move them to the studio system. It has worked well doing it that way for quite some time. If a developer needs more resources to do the same thing other plugins do already....such is life.

Like I said I have no problem with a developer pushing the envelope of requirements as long as there is an equal push of sound or capabilities otherwise it's pointless.

There isn't a plugin on the planet that my studio system won't run and in multiple instances. I simply don't run demos on it....no need to.

I even said how much of a fan of Native Instruments I am but no that's not good enough you've got to make some smart ass/dumb ass comment. GFY.......

Are you able to run Omnisphere on that system? Are you comparing apple to apples when you compare Hive et la to Massive X?

[SLiC]

Well, he can run Dune 3....I would say that’s a better sounding synth than Massive X...possibly the best sounding soft synth of them all.

[EvilDragon]

...and it also doesn't do a number of things MX can do.

[exmatproton]

...and it also doesn't do a number of things MX can do.

And vice versa

[fisherKing]

Well, he can run Dune 3....I would say that’s a better sounding synth than Massive X...

good thing you told us (and keep telling us)...

[SLiC]

Well, he can run Dune 3....I would say that’s a better sounding synth than Massive X...

good thing you told us (and keep telling us)...

Your welcome.

[fisherKing]

Well, he can run Dune 3....I would say that’s a better sounding synth than Massive X...

good thing you told us (and keep telling us)...

Your welcome.

meanwhile, back on topic... good to see the improvements here, and new options (and envelope images that are not static). still like the original GUI best, and just beginning to explore the update. it's a great synth plugin, and getting better...

[telecode]

Well, he can run Dune 3....I would say that’s a better sounding synth than Massive X...possibly the best sounding soft synth of them all.

I think the use of the term "best" is highly subjective and kind of pointless to use. If you like Dune, thats great for you. I will check out the demo if it ever goes on sale. But in the meantime, this thread is a discussion about Massive X and the new update that go released for it. So not really interested in opinions, thoughts or views on Dune, Hive, Serum Omnispphere or anything else, just interested in thoughts and experienced on Massive X .

[acid alex]

I own MassiveX and Dune 3 and I like both. They both offer different features that make them worth having, but honestly, I can’t get over the CPU difference on my system. The same patch created on both and Dune 3 is at 4% and MassiveX is at 25%. So while I like tinkering with MassiveX I would never use it in any productions or live as my MacBook wouldn’t cope. I really don’t get why they are both so different in terms of CPU when they both sound equally great.

[EnGee]

Which presets are CPU heavy? I couldn't notice with the new presets.
I think both Massive X and Dune 3 can be light or heavy on CPU. It depends on the presets/layers and also in D3, If you use also audio modulation rate quality.

[HTT]

Well, he can run Dune 3....I would say that’s a better sounding synth than Massive X...possibly the best sounding soft synth of them all.

I think the use of the term "best" is highly subjective and kind of pointless to use. If you like Dune, thats great for you. I will check out the demo if it ever goes on sale. But in the meantime, this thread is a discussion about Massive X and the new update that go released for it. So not really interested in opinions, thoughts or views on Dune, Hive, Serum Omnispphere or anything else, just interested in thoughts and experienced on Massive X .

I see your point as the thread can get derailed quickly. I think CPU usage comparisons, especially compared to other wavetable synths are on-topic and appropriate. Comparing MX to “everything” synths is probably not on-topic. That said, NI claims MX is a “flagship” synth. If we take NI at their word, then comparisons with “everything” synths are fair game.

It sounds like NI is slowly improving MX. The original MX inspired me to look elsewhere for a wavetable plug-in.