Arturia Pigments 3 is out!

VST, AU, AAX, etc. plug-in Virtual Instruments discussion
User avatar
KVRAF
15225 posts since 16 Sep, 2001 from Las Vegas,USA

Post Sun May 02, 2021 11:32 am

tactile_coast wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 10:18 am
The Teksonic patch uses 512 Partials four times the stated safe CPU maximum. Presumably Teksonic created it to test the extremes of different configurations in handling the new engine. It doesn't in any way reflect on the general performance of Pigments as it falls far outside of the designated operational parameters.
No I was just programming a patch that happens to really push Pigments' CPU. I wasn't even paying attention to the CPU at the time. It wasn't intentional but does provide a good test of how far Pigments' performance can be pushed.

Yes that's an extreme example but I stand by my opinion that Pigments could use some optimizations. It's far more CPU hungry than most other plugins I own. Diversion or luSH101 pushed hard may be the exceptions.

I do like Pigments a lot but like I said I won't be using multiple instances of it like I do with Hive 2 or DUNE 3. My studio system will run any patch I've done for Pigments but when it's eating 50% of the Audio Buffer in one patch it's hard to justify opening another instance.

I was watching a video by JunkieXL and he was talking about Arturia's Buchla plugin and said he could only use one instance of it due to the CPU demand and I assume he's using a pretty powerful system. So apparently Pigments is not the only demanding synth in the Arturia lineup. :shrug:
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
KVRAF
1875 posts since 16 May, 2004 from Soviet Union

Post Sun May 02, 2021 11:52 am

Just say, even Autodesk still can't implemented multithreading in 3DS Max (final rendering - yes, is MT'ing though, but all what occurs in viewport - no, what is equally important, and that really pain).
If even they can't did it (for so many years) heh, it seems thing is really tricky.

KVRAF
2411 posts since 17 Sep, 2016

Post Sun May 02, 2021 1:24 pm

Teksonik wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 11:18 am

One note in Pigments nothing else running on this system
That 4th core running at 50% is probably Pigments. I wonder why the rest of your CPU is running at 20% usage per core with nothing else running?
Windows10; plugins from AAS, Ableton, AIR, Ample, Arturia, Cakewalk, Cherry, DiscoDSP, Fathom, IKM, Initial, iZotope, KV331, NI, PluginGuru, PreSonus, Surge, TAL, Tone2, Toontrack, Tracktion, u-he, UJAM, UVI, Vital, Waves, XLN ...

User avatar
KVRian
1122 posts since 11 Apr, 2008

Post Sun May 02, 2021 11:45 pm

Teksonik wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 11:32 am
I was watching a video by JunkieXL and he was talking about Arturia's Buchla plugin and said he could only use one instance of it due to the CPU demand and I assume he's using a pretty powerful system. So apparently Pigments is not the only demanding synth in the Arturia lineup. :shrug:
Wow!
This is part of his computer setup. I have to go now but I think he didn't gave full specs in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geO7Npecmcg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Beware! The software discussed in this topic has unacceptable aliasing at -386dBTP but it can be fixed by changing the sample rate to 12Bit

KVRAF
6934 posts since 7 Oct, 2005 from NZ

Post Mon May 03, 2021 12:15 am

But that was 2018! Now, you can build a more powerful pc than his with maybe $500-$1000 CPU!
Cubase Pro 11, Studio One Pro v5, NI, Arturia, u-he, Synapse Audio, Kilohearts, Korg, Sugar Bytes, PA and others.
PC with Win10, MODX 6, KeyLab MK II, iTwo interface, ATOM, DT 990 Pro and HS7 monitors.

User avatar
KVRAF
5943 posts since 30 Apr, 2019

Post Mon May 03, 2021 3:49 am

How many people insist on working at 96kHz or higher could actually hear the difference over 48kHz? 24 bit over 16 bit yes, but Nyquist theorem suggests you may be burning CPU cycles for hardly any noticeable improvement.

KVRAF
1938 posts since 16 Jan, 2013

Post Mon May 03, 2021 3:59 am

WatchTheGuitar wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 3:49 am
How many people insist on working at 96kHz or higher could actually hear the difference over 48kHz? 24 bit over 16 bit yes, but Nyquist theorem suggests you may be burning CPU cycles for hardly any noticeable improvement.
I'm not sure if it was Ableton Live 9 or the stock plugins I was using but I could absolutely hear the difference between 44/48 and 88/96 in my early projects. If the sample rate was changed to 44 and I played back one of them it sounded dull. It was like going from CD down to cassette tape.

That's what pushed me to start working at 96k in the first place.
Image Image Image

User avatar
KVRist
202 posts since 4 Feb, 2021

Post Mon May 03, 2021 4:00 am

Old habits of reducing polyphony and render to audiotrack or sample players when CPU stressed prevent me from seing any general CPU problem. Complex patches take up more CPU on other synths too. Meanwhile, I have really enjoyed making some 80s basses and experiment with the various filters. Never expected there would be an Arturia synth for me, but if there ever was one, this would be it.
Last edited by TribeOfHǫfuð on Mon May 03, 2021 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tribe Of Hǫfuð https://soundcloud.com/user-228690154 Karma, MC909, Microkorg, MU100R/VL70 w. BC1, Nord Lead 2, Polivoks, Prophecy, WSA-1, Mac Pro w. Reason 11 Suite + Nektar P4 + Nektar Impact LX25+.

KVRAF
28116 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany

Post Mon May 03, 2021 4:15 am

sprnva wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 3:59 am
WatchTheGuitar wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 3:49 am
How many people insist on working at 96kHz or higher could actually hear the difference over 48kHz? 24 bit over 16 bit yes, but Nyquist theorem suggests you may be burning CPU cycles for hardly any noticeable improvement.
I'm not sure if it was Ableton Live 9 or the stock plugins I was using but I could absolutely hear the difference between 44/48 and 88/96 in my early projects. If the sample rate was changed to 44 and I played back one of them it sounded dull. It was like going from CD down to cassette tape.

That's what pushed me to start working at 96k in the first place.
It's interesting, because, factually, you really shouldn't hear the difference.

I'm 43, and I can hardly hear anything above 10 kHz. No shit. Do a hearing test.
Plugins and a DAW. On an operating system. Which runs on a computer.

KVRAF
1706 posts since 28 Sep, 2012

Post Mon May 03, 2021 4:30 am

Teksonik wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 11:32 am
tactile_coast wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 10:18 am
The Teksonic patch uses 512 Partials four times the stated safe CPU maximum. Presumably Teksonic created it to test the extremes of different configurations in handling the new engine. It doesn't in any way reflect on the general performance of Pigments as it falls far outside of the designated operational parameters.
No I was just programming a patch that happens to really push Pigments' CPU. I wasn't even paying attention to the CPU at the time. It wasn't intentional but does provide a good test of how far Pigments' performance can be pushed.

Yes that's an extreme example but I stand by my opinion that Pigments could use some optimizations. It's far more CPU hungry than most other plugins I own. Diversion or luSH101 pushed hard may be the exceptions.

I do like Pigments a lot but like I said I won't be using multiple instances of it like I do with Hive 2 or DUNE 3. My studio system will run any patch I've done for Pigments but when it's eating 50% of the Audio Buffer in one patch it's hard to justify opening another instance.

I was watching a video by JunkieXL and he was talking about Arturia's Buchla plugin and said he could only use one instance of it due to the CPU demand and I assume he's using a pretty powerful system. So apparently Pigments is not the only demanding synth in the Arturia lineup. :shrug:
Yeah, Arturia Buchla loves CPU especially in poly mode, but to be fair, Arturia do give notice that the plugin is very demanding. I suspect this is due to the nature of west coast synthesis, generating harmonics (I.e. distortion).

User avatar
KVRAF
15225 posts since 16 Sep, 2001 from Las Vegas,USA

Post Mon May 03, 2021 5:41 am

zzz00m wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 1:24 pm
Teksonik wrote:
Sun May 02, 2021 11:18 am

One note in Pigments nothing else running on this system
That 4th core running at 50% is probably Pigments. I wonder why the rest of your CPU is running at 20% usage per core with nothing else running?
It looks to me like the CPU demand is being spread out across the cores. Nothing else was running at the time. It's not spread out perfectly though.

You can see it in Cakewalk's Meter as well where there is some distribution of the workload beyond a single core. But Pigments would definitely benefit from it's own multi-core support such as found in DIVA and DUNE 3 etc.

CW 050321.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

KVRAF
2411 posts since 17 Sep, 2016

Post Mon May 03, 2021 7:40 am

Teksonik wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 5:41 am

It looks to me like the CPU demand is being spread out across the cores. Nothing else was running at the time. It's not spread out perfectly though.

You can see it in Cakewalk's Meter as well where there is some distribution of the workload beyond a single core. But Pigments would definitely benefit from it's own multi-core support such as found in DIVA and DUNE 3 etc.
Cakewalk does not multi-thread virtual instrument plugins per Noel Borthwick, CTO at Cakewalk. He commented that plugin load balancing only applies to FX plugin processing.

My thoughts: There are other processes besides the audio signal that the DAW is running that could end up on other cores. When I run Process Explorer from Windows Sysinternals, it shows 36 active threads for Cakewalk, before I even open a new project. A couple of threads appear to relate to ASIO audio and graphics processes.

With just a default new project containing one instance of Pigments and no effects plugins, there are 65 active threads in Cakewalk. So clearly a lot going on under the hood to make the magic happen! I don't think that CPU meters really tell the whole story, but are generally useful to avoid CPU overloads.
Windows10; plugins from AAS, Ableton, AIR, Ample, Arturia, Cakewalk, Cherry, DiscoDSP, Fathom, IKM, Initial, iZotope, KV331, NI, PluginGuru, PreSonus, Surge, TAL, Tone2, Toontrack, Tracktion, u-he, UJAM, UVI, Vital, Waves, XLN ...

User avatar
KVRAF
15225 posts since 16 Sep, 2001 from Las Vegas,USA

Post Mon May 03, 2021 11:41 am

zzz00m wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 7:40 am
Cakewalk does not multi-thread virtual instrument plugins per Noel Borthwick, CTO at Cakewalk. He commented that plugin load balancing only applies to FX plugin processing.
Well then call up Noel and tell him his meter is broken. There is no Meter activity when nothing is playing regardless of what processes are running. The meter does show some spreading of the CPU when one instance of Pigments is running with no other plugins, FX etc loaded. The Task Manger results are the same whether using Cakewalk or FL Studio or Orion. There is never an idle core as you reported.

CW 050321.png
Anyway you win I don't want to debate about it any longer.
--------
So out of curiosity I programed patches in Vital and Pigments and made them as close as possible taking into consideration the differences in architecture. A simple one Osc patch with some Unison, both with 8 voices and 1.2 seconds Amp Release.

I chose Vital because I've seen people complain about its CPU demand. The test result here was Pigments uses almost 50% more or we'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say 40% more than Vital when playing the same sequence of notes. It's a matter of personal taste and totally subjective but I do like Vital's core sound better at least for those kinds of patches.

I do like Pigments and don't regret purchasing it at all but I think it will at least for the time being end up being one of those synths that's a whole lot of fun to patch and play but will rarely gets called up when composing a project. That not necessarily a bad thing since as long as I'm having fun with it one way or the other then it's been worth the purchase. :shrug:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
KVRAF
2285 posts since 24 Mar, 2015 from Toronto, Canada

Post Mon May 03, 2021 4:20 pm

WatchTheGuitar wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 3:49 am
How many people insist on working at 96kHz or higher could actually hear the difference over 48kHz? 24 bit over 16 bit yes, but Nyquist theorem suggests you may be burning CPU cycles for hardly any noticeable improvement.
I can hear the difference. More harmonics in high ends, depending on which VST you are using. Now .. how well will that translate when you export your project to 44/16 I am not sure. I am not really an expert audio engineer.

FWIW.. I used to just do all my projects in 48/24. Then followed some threads on GS where more experienced guys discussed it and tried 96 and noticed the difference.

I think if I was going for a indie lo-fi feel, I would just stick to 48/24 but if I were making commercially oriented EDM it might good to try the projects.
🌐 Spotify 🔵 Soundcloud 🌀 Soundclick

Gear & Setup: Windows 10, Dual Xeon, 32GB RAM, Cubase 10.5/9.5, NI Komplete Audio 6, NI Maschine, NI Jam, NI Kontakt

User avatar
KVRAF
2285 posts since 24 Mar, 2015 from Toronto, Canada

Post Mon May 03, 2021 4:23 pm

chk071 wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 4:15 am
sprnva wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 3:59 am
WatchTheGuitar wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 3:49 am
How many people insist on working at 96kHz or higher could actually hear the difference over 48kHz? 24 bit over 16 bit yes, but Nyquist theorem suggests you may be burning CPU cycles for hardly any noticeable improvement.
I'm not sure if it was Ableton Live 9 or the stock plugins I was using but I could absolutely hear the difference between 44/48 and 88/96 in my early projects. If the sample rate was changed to 44 and I played back one of them it sounded dull. It was like going from CD down to cassette tape.

That's what pushed me to start working at 96k in the first place.
It's interesting, because, factually, you really shouldn't hear the difference.

I'm 43, and I can hardly hear anything above 10 kHz. No shit. Do a hearing test.
Yeah.. you would think that is the case. I too have been told my ears are shot from my days of playing live. But I can hear the difference. I have also been told some interfaces, plugins and VSTs actually work better at 96 than at 44. 96 might have been the SR they were designed to work in. using anything lower makes them less optimized. Only thing you can do is try it and see if its true in your case.
🌐 Spotify 🔵 Soundcloud 🌀 Soundclick

Gear & Setup: Windows 10, Dual Xeon, 32GB RAM, Cubase 10.5/9.5, NI Komplete Audio 6, NI Maschine, NI Jam, NI Kontakt

Return to “Instruments”