Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

VST, AU, AAX, etc. plug-in Virtual Instruments discussion
User avatar
telecode
KVRian
1274 posts since 24 Mar, 2015 from Toronto, Canada

Post Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:51 pm

I notice it depends on the preset. Especially the effects enabled in the preset. Which sort of makes sense when you think about it.
Image

Gear: Mac Mini 2008 model, i7, OS X 10.13.x (High Sierra), 16gb RAM, Cubase 10.5, Cubase 9.5, Maschine MK3, Maschine Jam, Arturia, Komplete 6, Komplete Ultimate, lots of guitars and lapsteels

User avatar
telecode
KVRian
1274 posts since 24 Mar, 2015 from Toronto, Canada

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:53 pm

HTT wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:46 pm
telecode wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:59 pm
SLiC wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:20 pm
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.
MX is NI's flagship synth. That's what they are peddling. I think it's too soon to tell where it will go and will in become the legend that Massive became. Wavetable synths are a crowded market as of 2019/2020. Almost every major music software maker has a horse in that race.
Image

Gear: Mac Mini 2008 model, i7, OS X 10.13.x (High Sierra), 16gb RAM, Cubase 10.5, Cubase 9.5, Maschine MK3, Maschine Jam, Arturia, Komplete 6, Komplete Ultimate, lots of guitars and lapsteels

v1o
KVRAF
1953 posts since 2 Oct, 2004

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Sun Nov 03, 2019 11:36 pm

ehdyn wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:18 am
Pretty happy about that and the synth is really starting to open up now that we can actually see what we're doing with envelopes. Was a bit tricky without the visual to go with it-when you get into some of the more complex behaviors.
Tricky without visual envelopes? If you're not deaf your ears will tell you what the envelopes are doing. I would trust my ears over any graphical display as those are only useful as a rough guide.
Orion Platinum, Muzys 2

v1o
KVRAF
1953 posts since 2 Oct, 2004

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Sun Nov 03, 2019 11:47 pm

SLiC wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:20 pm
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.
Except when you turn off the effects section.
Orion Platinum, Muzys 2

User avatar
DJ Warmonger
KVRAF
3378 posts since 7 Jun, 2012 from Warsaw

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Sun Nov 03, 2019 11:52 pm

I found it fairly easily to get around, even though it didn’t have a manual. There were enough tutorial videos to show the basic lay in the land, and I’ve been using NI plugins since... well since Absynth 1, so I guess I sort of have a handle on how they think.
Same thoughts. Massive X can be easily used as a replacement for any other subtractive / virtual analog synth, with a plenty of accessible controls. It has, however, some extra tricks up its sleeve. For instance I was not able to tell how "exciter" envelope works and how it's different than regular. This where manual (and animation) can come in handy.

I'm definitely going to study full manual in-depth, though lack of it didn't stop me from finishing a successful project already.
Last edited by DJ Warmonger on Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://djwarmonger.wordpress.com/
Tricky-Loops wrote: (...)someone like Armin van Buuren who claims to make a track in half an hour and all his songs sound somewhat boring(...)

acid alex
KVRist
251 posts since 23 Feb, 2017

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Sun Nov 03, 2019 11:56 pm

EnGee wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:20 pm
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.
I made my own patch on both from init, simple 6-voice unison, two detuned saw waves, one low pass filter, delay and reverb. CPU was Dune 4%, MX 25%.
Check out my YouTube channel for dose of Acid: https://www.youtube.com/acidalex

v1o
KVRAF
1953 posts since 2 Oct, 2004

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:01 am

acid alex wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:04 pm
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.
Are you running an AMD chip by any chance? On my rig MX is barely even making a dent on the CPU. I get higher CPU usage with certain Spire patches. And Spire is an older synth.
Orion Platinum, Muzys 2

v1o
KVRAF
1953 posts since 2 Oct, 2004

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:01 am

HTT wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:46 pm
telecode wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:59 pm
SLiC wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:20 pm
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.
The original Massive is still good and uses far less CPU, if that's what you're after. The reason MX uses more CPU cycles is because it using NI's latest DSP tech and thats designed for modern AVX equipped processors.

Diva was much heavier on usage when it released, until CPUs caught up and now no one complains about it being a hog anymore. That is the price of progress.
Last edited by v1o on Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Orion Platinum, Muzys 2

SLiC
KVRAF
4120 posts since 2 Dec, 2004 from North Wales

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:01 am

acid alex wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:04 pm
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.
This was my point (although you obviously put it better!), when Diva came out for example I think everyone could hear where the CPU was going. I also agreed MX sounds great (I own it) my point was that other WT synths also sound great and are more feature rich (although if you don’t need or want those features I agree this would be moot).

Was I disappointed with MX after all the delays and hype, obviously yes! Do I thing this was a good update after 6 months, No, it’s a GUI tweak. Should my opinion or my comparisons with other WT synths bother anyone who loves MX as it is? Obviously not...my opinions are based on my expectations for a ‘next Gen flagship synth” and my preferences for synths in general.
i7 Win 10 PC+ Surface, BWS V3, StudioOne 4, Cubase 10, Live 9 suite, X32 Desk. , DM12, Odyssey, P8, Virus TI, 500hp Eurorack, Elektron A4, RYTM, Heat, Digitone, Deluge, OP-Z, Mother+DFAM, Drums, Guitars, Basses and Amps

User avatar
DJ Warmonger
KVRAF
3378 posts since 7 Jun, 2012 from Warsaw

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:03 am

IMHO Massive X is pretty efficient when it comes to CPU usage. At least I never ran into situation where its performance was limiting factor.
Are you running an AMD chip by any chance? On my rig MX is barely even making a dent on the CPU
The above was with Ryzen 1700 @ 3,6 GHz. Now I installed 3800X and it should swallow whatever you throw at it. :borg:
I made my own patch on both from init, simple 6-voice unison, two detuned saw waves, one low pass filter, delay and reverb. CPU was Dune 4%, MX 25%.
Might be just due to audio-rate modulation, which is always enabled even if not really needed :?:
http://djwarmonger.wordpress.com/
Tricky-Loops wrote: (...)someone like Armin van Buuren who claims to make a track in half an hour and all his songs sound somewhat boring(...)

acid alex
KVRist
251 posts since 23 Feb, 2017

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:44 am

DJ Warmonger wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:03 am
IMHO Massive X is pretty efficient when it comes to CPU usage. At least I never ran into situation where its performance was limiting factor.
Are you running an AMD chip by any chance? On my rig MX is barely even making a dent on the CPU
The above was with Ryzen 1700 @ 3,6 GHz. Now I installed 3800X and it should swallow whatever you throw at it. :borg:
I made my own patch on both from init, simple 6-voice unison, two detuned saw waves, one low pass filter, delay and reverb. CPU was Dune 4%, MX 25%.
Might be just due to audio-rate modulation, which is always enabled even if not really needed :?:
I’ll check tonight if that is enabled.
Check out my YouTube channel for dose of Acid: https://www.youtube.com/acidalex

parricide
KVRist
109 posts since 21 Nov, 2010

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:16 am

does this update mean we dont need an AVX compatible GPU now?


EDIT:
i re-read the OP and i see it clearly says it is still needed.
i will wait :(

User avatar
EnGee
KVRAF
5684 posts since 7 Oct, 2005 from NZ

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:08 am

acid alex wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:44 am
DJ Warmonger wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:03 am
IMHO Massive X is pretty efficient when it comes to CPU usage. At least I never ran into situation where its performance was limiting factor.
Are you running an AMD chip by any chance? On my rig MX is barely even making a dent on the CPU
The above was with Ryzen 1700 @ 3,6 GHz. Now I installed 3800X and it should swallow whatever you throw at it. :borg:
I made my own patch on both from init, simple 6-voice unison, two detuned saw waves, one low pass filter, delay and reverb. CPU was Dune 4%, MX 25%.
Might be just due to audio-rate modulation, which is always enabled even if not really needed :?:
I’ll check tonight if that is enabled.
It is actually the opposite! Mostly it is disabled and the default has the lowest cpu while audio-rate is the highest.

Anyway, I have Massive X using low cpu. I also have AMD Ryzen 1600X and ok graphic card (GTX 1060) so maybe because of that GPU I see very little usage from Massive X. But Dune 3 is also very efficient especially it comes with top notch effects. I like both now and I don't have to choose between them! I can use them both because they are different from each other in sound and character and can compliment each other perfectly :D
Let's donate to help the kids and save our planet.

User avatar
EvilDragon
KVRAF
18840 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:33 am

Using long envelope release times will use more CPU, also using more audio rate modulations will do the same. Some FX take more CPU than others, some filters are the same. It all depends. OG Massive at Ultra and with everything going on can still use more CPU than some of the heaviest MX patches. AVX optimizations help MX use LESS CPU, not more.

v1o
KVRAF
1953 posts since 2 Oct, 2004

Re: Massive X v1.1.0 has been released

Post Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:56 am

Newer CPUs are much faster at AVX operations.
Orion Platinum, Muzys 2

Return to “Instruments”