UVI Relayer: Precision Creative Delay

[c_voltage]

Tried trial just now, unfortunately there a really huge cpu load in some settings.

Simple CPU overload test:

- load init preset
- enable FX1 section, select "Redux" algorithm, and the same here increase Depth of LFO modulation level (more than zero)
- set general Repeats count to max (32)

Then (If the CPU is still alive) the same thing can be done with FX2 section.

But i hope UVI guys to do something with it. By itself, a very powerful delay.

[EvilDragon]

Tried trial just now, unfortunately there a really huge cpu load in some settings.

Simple CPU overload test:

- load init preset
- enable FX1 section, select "Redux" algorithm, and the same here increase Depth of LFO modulation level (more than zero)
- set general Repeats count to max (32)

Then (If the CPU is still alive) the same thing can be done with FX2 section.

Olivier DID mention that Redux is "not your typical bitcrusher", and that it does gulp some CPU. As well as the fact that the more taps there is, the more CPU gets used (which is perfectly logical). So...

[DJ Warmonger]

Just watched first video and I'm impressed, everything is right here and easily accessible. Certainly it's a solid tool.

[Krakatau]

Might have helped if you had not implied that anyone who hates ilok is a thief. A bit harsh!

Anyone who cries like a baby about using ilok IS a thief, and a scumbag.

.

[c_voltage]

Tried trial just now, unfortunately there a really huge cpu load in some settings.

Simple CPU overload test:

- load init preset
- enable FX1 section, select "Redux" algorithm, and the same here increase Depth of LFO modulation level (more than zero)
- set general Repeats count to max (32)

Then (If the CPU is still alive) the same thing can be done with FX2 section.

Olivier DID mention that Redux is "not your typical bitcrusher", and that it does gulp some CPU. As well as the fact that the more taps there is, the more CPU gets used (which is perfectly logical). So...

Ok, i can understand. But just, such fact by itself, when in plugin available condition when load 100% cpu, frankly this is not typical (especially for FX, not synth), I would say I did never seen in any vst effekt yet.

In general, in last times increasingly come to mind thoughts about non-realtime FX design, which is also an interesting approach (can say, everything returns).

[IIRs]

Tried trial just now, unfortunately there a really huge cpu load in some settings.

Simple CPU overload test:

- load init preset
- enable FX1 section, select "Redux" algorithm, and the same here increase Depth of LFO modulation level (more than zero)
- set general Repeats count to max (32)

Then (If the CPU is still alive) the same thing can be done with FX2 section.

Olivier DID mention that Redux is "not your typical bitcrusher", and that it does gulp some CPU. As well as the fact that the more taps there is, the more CPU gets used (which is perfectly logical). So...

Ok, i can understand. But just, such fact by itself, when in plugin available condition when load 100% cpu, frankly this is not typical (especially for FX, not synth), I would say I did never seen in any vst effekt yet.

In general, in last times increasingly come to mind thoughts about non-realtime FX design, which is also an interesting approach (can say, everything returns).

Might help if you provide some info about your system, OS, processor, DAW etc.

[c_voltage]

Tried trial just now, unfortunately there a really huge cpu load in some settings.

Simple CPU overload test:

- load init preset
- enable FX1 section, select "Redux" algorithm, and the same here increase Depth of LFO modulation level (more than zero)
- set general Repeats count to max (32)

Then (If the CPU is still alive) the same thing can be done with FX2 section.

Olivier DID mention that Redux is "not your typical bitcrusher", and that it does gulp some CPU. As well as the fact that the more taps there is, the more CPU gets used (which is perfectly logical). So...

Ok, i can understand. But just, such fact by itself, when in plugin available condition when load 100% cpu, frankly this is not typical (especially for FX, not synth), I would say I did never seen in any vst effekt yet.

In general, in last times increasingly come to mind thoughts about non-realtime FX design, which is also an interesting approach (can say, everything returns).

Might help if you provide some info about your system, OS, processor, DAW etc.

I.e. you admit that the reason in a particular system?
Sorry, have you tried to do the steps above? I think that it's be 100% load for any processor (or more accurately, for one of core's of any processor).

[IIRs]

I don't have the issues you describe on my system (core i7, win7 Reaper 64 bit) so my guess is its system specific.

You can't really expect the developers to find the problem unless you provide a bit more information...

[c_voltage]

IIRs How many percent of cpu load you have as a result this "test" (with enabled FX1, and then with both FX sections) ?

[IIRs]

No idea. Cpu use on my system never ran high enough to warrant I check: I ran every instance you see in the intro video simultaneously, plus the rest of the mix including multiple software instruments, plus video capture software, without breaking a sweat.

[zvenx]

IIRs How many percent of cpu load you have as a result this "test" (with enabled FX1, and then with both FX sections) ?

I am seeing similar results......
Cubase 8, running at 64 samples. on a 2.8 Quad Core Retina MBP.......and 10.10.4 Yosemite.
Although I would never use the plugin this way in a real case scenario.
rsp

[c_voltage]

No idea. Cpu use on my system never ran high enough to warrant I check: I ran every instance you see in the intro video simultaneously, plus the rest of the mix including multiple software instruments, plus video capture software, without breaking a sweat.

Sorry I do not understand.
I'm just asking to repeat the steps above on one instance.
How can you say that you have no problem if you have not tried to reproduce these actions?
However, I do not insist.

[zvenx]

No idea. Cpu use on my system never ran high enough to warrant I check: I ran every instance you see in the intro video simultaneously, plus the rest of the mix including multiple software instruments, plus video capture software, without breaking a sweat.

Sorry I do not understand.
I'm just asking to repeat the steps above on one instance.
How can you say that you have no problem if you have not tried to reproduce these actions?
However, I do not insist.

Because you have used what for many of us, is an unlikely real world scenario as your test.
I am pretty sure I can bring any DAW to its knees by using 3,000 versions of the same plugin, any plugin, but I would not ever need to do that in the real world, very much as I would never need to do your test I replicated above in my real world projects.
Dan is simply saying that in his daily use there was no cpu problem.
rsp

[c_voltage]

IIRs How many percent of cpu load you have as a result this "test" (with enabled FX1, and then with both FX sections) ?

I am seeing similar results......
Cubase 8, running at 64 samples. on a 2.8 Quad Core Retina MBP.......and 10.10.4 Yosemite.
Although I would never use the plugin this way in a real case scenario.
rsp

zvenx, thanks for reply, ok. But again, also need note that you did not quite what need (as i see in picture) - increase Depth of LFO modulation level (which have a zero state in your case) - i.e. i meant not general Modulation knob.

The fact that exactly LFO modulation also consumes a significant portion of the CPU. (again, at 32 steps condition, of course)

[IIRs]

I'll go further: I'm 100% certain that I used redux with 32 taps plus modulation in the course of my testing and preparation for the video, and didn't see major cpu issues as a result.

I'll run your test for you when I get a chance, but I'm a bit busy right now. And seeing as you can't be bothered to post your system specs, why should I hurry?