ACE a cpu-killer?

[xx JPRacer xx]

Can vst instruments benefit from CUDA or OpenCL?

[hakey]

NI's Massive, AFAIK, doesn't do any audio rate modulation.

AFAYK is not F enough in this case...

My mistake!

[xh3rv]

Can vst instruments benefit from CUDA or OpenCL?

CUDA and OpenCL both leverage many small computational devices (GPU cores, more or less). Getting performance gains requires parallelization of algorithms. This may be easy ( for example a lot of vector * matrix operations should be pretty straightforward ), or it may be less obvious ( Fibonacci numbers, for example, are a little tricky ). In general, parallelization of algorithms is a non-trivial challenge. I would not expect VSTs to magically parallelize themselves overnight. I would expect VSTs to move in that direction over time if the hardware architecture becomes standard ... like Apple's shift from PPC to Intel, this would occur over several years.

Apple posted a parallelized FFT for OpenCL, it's pretty intense ... A big difference between graphics applications and audio processing applications is that software libraries for graphics applications on GPUs have been around since before GPUs. A good set of library functions for audio processing on either CUDA or OpenCL might be pretty significant.

[kodama]

Maybe Urs could include a control rate setting, so that patches that don't need audio rate control could take less CPU?

Also, people would be able to see what they are getting for the extra CPU cost.

[Echo Voodoo]

Maybe Urs could include a control rate setting, so that patches that don't need audio rate control could take less CPU?

Then it wouldn't be Any Cable Everywhere anymore.

[losan]

The first time I demoed this synth, I knew this discussion will follow on KVR.
It came late, but it was unavoidable...
But unlike as with Zebra, which I have at least tried the demo 3 times, and still have not bought (sorry, Urs - may give the 2.5 version a try next time), I instantly jumped on this little monster.
First I was shocked by the CPU usage, but WTF...
I don't give a damn about it !
What do you care about, the CPU cycles or the sound ?
To me this is one of the best sounding synths at the moment,
with a great GUI, which screams to me: TWEAK ME !

So get it, or stay away,
Urs has a clear statement on his webpage about the CPU usage,
so this discussion is really a waste.

It's a monster, and I love it !

(sorry, no offense to anyone, maybe I have a glass of wine to much,
anyway just my 2 cents)

Cheers

[pdxindy]

Maybe Urs could include a control rate setting, so that patches that don't need audio rate control could take less CPU?

Also, people would be able to see what they are getting for the extra CPU cost.

Then it would not be ACE. No thanks. The current quality control is enough and if not, get Zebra

[kodama]

You could still place any cable, the modulations just would not be as fast.

I have both ACE & Zebra, and my CPU is not smokin'. I just turn the rendering down in ACE.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is that almost everyone has at least 2 cores these days. I know in Live that if ACE is taking 20%, that's only 20% of one core, duplicate the track/synth and you will still have just a little over 20%.

[fas1piano]

a few individuals such as myself that want to build a CPU-fence around ACE @ runtime, so that it can be fully utillized (and trusted) in a live situation.

then you also need a level fence around your instruments and fx - or you risk vastly varying levels and even clipping. so you need to rehearse and check your patches - check their CPU use, too.

ACE in brainspawn forte makes a wonderful preset-saving, polyphonic modular synth.

for simle patches - use simple synths such as zebra with a simple patch.

[mcnoone]

for simle patches - use simple synths such as zebra with a simple patch.

I can't agree with that.
Both ACE and Zebra are capable of making both simple or complex patches.

[PaulSC]

for simle patches - use simple synths such as zebra with a simple patch.

I can't agree with that.
Both ACE and Zebra are capable of making both simple or complex patches.

Probably should be ammended to: "Use more efficient synths such as Zebra for simple patches."

[ariston]

for simle patches - use simple synths such as zebra with a simple patch.

Zebra, a simple synth. Ohhhhhhhkay. Right. What was I thinking?

Kidding aside, I'm sure you meant to say something else.

[Nielzie]

for simle patches - use simple synths such as zebra with a simple patch.

I can't agree with that.
Both ACE and Zebra are capable of making both simple or complex patches.

Probably should be ammended to: "Use more efficient synths such as Zebra for simple patches."

I'm still waiting for the inevitable Zebra vs ACE thread..

[fas1piano]

well, i meant

(zebra with a simple patch with its parameters more or less cleverly mapped to a midi controller)= simple synth.



simple in that you don't use fm routings etc.

BTW, the new "chords" presets by TASMODIA and BIGTONE are certainly very fat sounding and need less than 30 % CPU max on my coreduo 1.8 processor. monophonic, of course.

[tetsuneko]

You need to limit either the rendering quality or the amount of your stacks to get the most out of ACE (that is, if you run out of CPU). Nuff said.