MuTools

Resonator63 · Post by **Resonator63** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:43 pm

Any idea how long it might be before Mulab gets support for multicores?

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:38 pm

It depends who votes for it during the M4 voting cycle that starts in June.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:55 pm

Indeed no ETA on that yet. It's at earliest for M4, but it will depend on what's decided about M4.

What's next in the MU.LAB development:

MU.LAB 3.0.43 (audio part looping bug fix)
MU.LAB 3.1 featuring multitrack audio recording: Record audio from up to 32 inputs at the same time.
From then on, audio can also be recorded from any point in the modular session area.
MU.LAB 3.1 Test version is to be released on of these days.
Maybe a MU.LAB 3.2 with a couple of extra modules? (depends on how fast MU.LAB 3.1 can be stabelized).
Start of the M4 cycle by researching our main wishes.

liquidsound · Post by **liquidsound** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:00 pm

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:07 pm

mutools wrote:MU.LAB 3.1 featuring multitrack audio recording

Woooooooo! Now I thought that might have to wait to M4, too -- great news! :harp:

(that should use up the 32 inputs

)

suecae_sounds · Post by **suecae_sounds** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:19 pm

I like this user driven development idea. Other devs should take note.

robenestobenz · Post by **robenestobenz** » Sat May 01, 2010 5:34 pm

mutools wrote:[*]MU.LAB 3.1 featuring multitrack audio recording: Record audio from up to 32 inputs at the same time.
From then on, audio can also be recorded from any point in the modular session area.

:love::love::love::love::love::love::love::love::love:8)

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Sat May 01, 2010 5:37 pm

I thought it was coming in v3. I really fail to see why any DAW should not support multiple cores these days.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Sat May 01, 2010 6:00 pm

It's not an easy thing to do right! It's a challenge to really benefit from it as adding multicore support also introduces overhead penalties. Anyway, i agree it's an important topic.

Trancit · Post by **Trancit** » Sat May 01, 2010 9:35 pm

mutools wrote:It's not an easy thing to do right! It's a challenge to really benefit from it as adding multicore support also introduces overhead penalties. Anyway, i agree it's an important topic.

It's good to hear, that you like to do it right...but please understand as well another point of view from a potential customer:
I am sorry, but I've to compare this situation with energyXT 2...

For the release of xt2 was promised a multiprocessor support...that was in June 2007, it didn't happen...from this time on, for every update was multiprocessor support more and more requested from the users and we were told, yep it's on the to do list...now it's 2010 the support was never implemented and it's only updated very frequently with most unrequested cosmetic or completely useless stuff...Jorgen seems to concentrate on other stuff and xt2 is dying...if the forum here is close to a riot, then happens a little bit to fall asleep again till the next riot...

Now it's you, who promises, yes it's important, it's on the to do list, but I need more time...
I don't want to imply anything, but please accept a little bit scepticism and that people like me, who have made bad experiences...

And we are talking about features, which your competitors have founded and implemented about 4 years ago and discussing now about 64bit support or even have this implemented already!!!!!!

I don't want to request, turning your product in an "standard" sequencer like implied in the from me started topic, but sadly, there are very good vstis, which are again sadly very cpu hungry and somtimes introduce latencies as well, so to implement features like Multiprocessor support and PDC (or better APDC) is, imho, really a must to be "compatible"...and should, again imho, have a very, very, very high priority...

But I have to say, your product and it's deeper features is very well done

Trancit

liquidsound · Post by **liquidsound** » Sat May 01, 2010 9:42 pm

A Side Note:
XT2 is driven ONLY by Jorgen vision (a ghost from the great XT1.4) and by his new partner...
Here is people like you and the rest of us that have a lot of influence on the development under Jo's unique vision. It will come true and I am sure it will be a "standard of quality" well worth the wait.

Trancit · Post by **Trancit** » Sat May 01, 2010 9:45 pm

Perhaps, my post is a little bit harsh, but I only want to be carefull and like, in my situation, a really open word

Trancit

Resonator63 · Post by **Resonator63** » Sat May 01, 2010 11:29 pm

I think Mulab is looking good,multicore support would be top of my wish list for it.It would make a potential customer, a customer.

Trancit · Post by **Trancit** » Sun May 02, 2010 7:56 am

Resonator63 wrote:I think Mulab is looking good,multicore support would be top of my wish list for it.It would make a potential customer, a customer.

Exactly

Trancit

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Sun May 02, 2010 8:04 am

Trancit wrote:
Resonator63 wrote:I think Mulab is looking good,multicore support would be top of my wish list for it.It would make a potential customer, a customer.
Exactly

Trancit

Yep. Really we ned a modular host with multicore support - so far there is only Usine and it's over complicated imho. Bidule only has rudimentary support, eXT has none, Kore has none.

Is it the modularity that makes it hard to implement?

MuTools

KVR Audio

Multicore support