KVR Audio

sound_dev · Post by **sound_dev** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:30 pm

fisherKing wrote:does the arp work in spire yet? just curious...i need something to replace sylenth1 (now that logic X is here, and 64bit AU only....)

ARP development in progress

fisherKing · Post by **fisherKing** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:34 pm

sound_dev wrote:
fisherKing wrote:does the arp work in spire yet? just curious...i need something to replace sylenth1 (now that logic X is here, and 64bit AU only....)
ARP development in progress

cool; am phasing out sylenth1 today (so i can move to logic X); spire seems like the 'heir apparent' for S1...!

fisherKing · Post by **fisherKing** » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:55 pm

i DID uninstall sylenth1, and am going to replace it with spire. for now, the new dope arpeggiator in logic X will work with it, so i can arp away (while i wait for spire to update).

bring on the presets! i think spire could be the new sylenth1....

tehlord · Post by **tehlord** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:48 pm

I tried the demo on Moutain Lion/Logic 9 with an i5 Mac Mini and CPU use was enormous.

Is the demo old code or something?

Single pads (3-4 notes) were maxing out my machine and even leads were causing 30-50% CPU use.

Totally unusable for me.

VitaminD · Post by **VitaminD** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:52 pm

tehlord wrote:I tried the demo on Moutain Lion/Logic 9 with an i5 Mac Mini and CPU use was enormous.

Is the demo old code or something?

Single pads (3-4 notes) were maxing out my machine and even leads were causing 30-50% CPU use.

Totally unusable for me.

I believe in previous posts they have mentioned optimizations occuring later..

idfpower · Post by **idfpower** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:27 pm

tehlord wrote:Single pads (3-4 notes) were maxing out my machine and even leads were causing 30-50% CPU use.

Yeah, PADS were killing my machine as well - full spike right from the 1st note. The rest of the presets, although still CPU hogs, were not causing that kind of mayhem. At this point, I see no real effort being put into optimisation, and although I do understand it's a new product and all, still it's a commercial release competing against other synths that are way easier on the CPU and fully functional. Spire has a long way to go until it will be able to top Sylenth (if that will ever happen). FTM I simply don't see me switching to this one when I already have Sylenth with tons and tons of presets already available while Spire still doesn't have an arpp...

Crackbaby · Post by **Crackbaby** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:31 pm

Where do you look when you see no real effort being put into optimization?

Nielzie · Post by **Nielzie** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:34 pm

fisherKing wrote: cool; am phasing out sylenth1 today (so i can move to logic X); spire seems like the 'heir apparent' for S1...!

Not until they drastically decrease the cpu usage. For sound quality against cpu usage Sylenth1 still remains king.. even after all those years

tehlord · Post by **tehlord** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:35 pm

Ok just for comparison I just loaded up 20 channels of Sylenth, Predator and Massive all playing arpeggio patches simultaneously with EQ, compression, reverb and limiting as inserts on each channel before my machine maxed out using onboard sound (2012 Mac Mini 2.5 i5)

Optimisation is pretty critical at this point imo as the demo of Spire is crippling my machine with very little effort.

idfpower · Post by **idfpower** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:36 pm

Crackbaby wrote:Where do you look when you see no real effort being put into optimization?

CPU usage.

Gucky · Post by **Gucky** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:41 pm

I also want to buy Spire. But the cpu usage is to much for my computer.
Hope that one of the developer read this and give us the message that
a massive cpu optimization is in the pipeline.

MFXxx · Post by **MFXxx** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:03 am

What concerns me is the progression and ongoing support for this software.

Still waiting for D16s Lush-101 to reduce CPU and other tweaks mentioned back in January 2013, a well established company that is still waiting to deliver.

Never hear of Spire till now...so not investing in any other heavy burden software jsut yet

ENV1 · Post by **ENV1** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:50 am

Gucky wrote: Hope that one of the developer read this and give us the message that
a massive cpu optimization is in the pipeline.

Not wanting to shatter anyones hopes, but thats not always possible. Take Diversion for example. Amazing sound quality but it comes at a cost. Could be the same in this case, even if its soundquality is not really comparable with that of Diversion. (Well, at least not in my opinion.)

Note to Dev: It still says 'fliter input' on the UI. Thought i mention that since nobody else seems to have done that yet.

bronxsound · Post by **bronxsound** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:06 am

Spire looks tempting...

But this is another synth, which apparently requires hi end PC (or at least better than the one, which can handle dozens of Sylenth1 instances) to run it.

I'm not getting it. Why do the devs follow that way? Sylenth, Dune and a few others proven the point that synths quality does not has to be compromised by CPU requirements.

I fully appreciate the efforts of creating a better,more capable synth. No questions. However, do all these new design really require such a CPU power?
Can't they be coded better? Obviously I'm not technically skilled enough to judge it. Just wondering, taking the existing quality plugins as a reference.

Honestly, as much as all these new shiny VSTIs offer fabulous sound I cannot convince myself to spend even a minimum amount of money on them. Driven simply by practicality I can't see my upgrading desktop and laptop to match the software.

Someone will say: "Don't like it,don't buy it". Fair enough. But it's not the point I'm making: like/dislike. I cannot really understand if current CPU requirements for synths is a necessity or it is a result of the way they are coded.

PascalVB · Post by **PascalVB** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:36 am

To my ears the sound quality of Spire is a lot better than Sylenth1.
Sylenth1 is a good synthesizer with low CPU requirements, but it sounds a bit harsher and less "smooth" than Spire. I think that is part of the reason for the heavier CPU usage.
Nevertheless, as a developer myself, I know that in most cases code optimization is possible. It just depends on the fact whether the developer wants to put effort in it.

If the developer can reduce the CPU requirements I think they have a winner here.

Spire Synthesizer