MuTools

fluffy_little_something · Mon Apr 25, 2016 12:29 pm

Will Mulab 7 be more CPU efficient? M6 does a very good job at distributing the load evenly across all cores, but it uses so much more CPU power than Mixcraft.
Here is a little comparison:
Mulab:
https://app.box.com/s/ka7rrdcvkpvd6t71hl793emksa0fh2u4
Mixcraft:
https://app.box.com/s/8y44ilee7xtd54hxfpl12srnuwxfw8ax

I played exactly the same sustained chord of the same pad patch on the same synth, no browser or other application was running, of course. The audio settings are also the same.

Even in idle mode, Mulab causes a 5-10% load on three cores, while Mixcraft causes about 0-2% on all six cores.

By the way, can't you sign your program?

https://app.box.com/s/k0p68ys6if6lya87cvg6hr05t1lvkw6e

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:27 pm

I don't know your test setup and what you're posting is too vague to be properly evaluated. If you or anyone else can prove me with clear repeatable facts that MuLab would use too much cpu, i'll have a look at it. At this point i have no reason to think MuLab would use more cpu than necessary, as you're suggesting, at the contrary i do give attention to good optimizations.

fluffy_little_something · Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:05 pm

Strange attitude there. Since it is your product you are trying to sell to people, it is in your own interest to investigate hints of that nature. I can understand that you have v7 on your mind now, but to me as a potential customer all new expert features are worthless when my basic requirements are not met, among them CPU efficiency.

Since I no longer need Mixcraft's built-in instrument samples and have to decide soon which of the two DAW's to finally drop when both are upgraded to new versions, I was checking out Mulab again, doing comparisons etc.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:27 pm

Jo has a point, you should at least state your computer configuration.

fluffy_little_something · Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:37 pm

W7 64-bit, 32-bit version of both DAW's, AMD Phenom II 6-core processor, 16GB RAM.
I don't have to prove anything. I have described my observation, which by the way is 100% repeatable on my computer. If you don't believe it or don't care, so be it. And if you do care, you will do your own objective comparisons...
Basically I don't really care because the current status quo actually simplifies my decision-making

bibz1st · Post by **bibz1st** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:44 pm

As a matter of interest, what synth were you using ?

fluffy_little_something · Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:51 pm

Hybrid 3, but what does it matter? As I said, I played exactly the same patch and the same chord.
But if you think it is that synth's miraculous fault, tell me which synth to use instead... The demo should be enough...

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:53 pm

Here's my spec. First, with no DAW loaded:

Code: Select all

	AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor 

	Maximum speed:	4.10 GHz
	Sockets:	1
	Cores:	4
	Logical processors:	8
	Virtualisation:	Enabled
	L1 cache:	384 KB
	L2 cache:	8.0 MB
	L3 cache:	8.0 MB

	Utilisation	2%
	Speed	2.13 GHz
	Up time	0:00:33:32
	Processes	66
	Threads	1002
	Handles	25995

Then with Reaper loaded, with two tracks (input monitoring, etc, enabled) each with mda ePiano. (Edit: and I went back and checked it made no difference if only one was monitoring input, too.)

Code: Select all

	Utilisation	4%

Next, MuLab 6 with mda ePiano.

Code: Select all

	Utilisation	4%

Finally, MuLab 7.0.28 with mda ePiano.

Code: Select all

	Utilisation	4%

fluffy_little_something · Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:21 pm

I think that is an extremely CPU-friendly plugin to begin with, so that it doesn't matter. Try something modern with good filters, a pad on Diva for instance. Does that mda thingy even have a filter or is it just a mere sine wave?

Just compared one of my Sylenth pad patches (4x8 waves plus built-in effects, the most CPU-taxing I could find) on both DAW's, same results:

https://app.box.com/s/vutlroqtijmxxek3d37s3xpy2f9e5cm2

It seems that the more demanding a plugin is, the greater the difference...

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:30 pm

A DAW has no control at all over a VST plugin's processing. A plugin is like a black box to the DAW. So if you're results are plugin dependent i think you'll have to check your setup.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:36 pm

mutools wrote:A DAW has no control at all over a VST plugin's processing. A plugin is like a black box to the DAW. So if you're results are plugin dependent i think you'll have to check your setup.

That's an interesting statement considering so many take the view that DAW's are very different in terms of plugin processing efficiency... does that mean all the people who claim that Studio One is less efficient than Cubase or Reaper are wrong? Don't get me wrong, i don't know if that's the case or not, just wondering because i also had the idea that DAW's are different in the way they tax the CPU when processing plugins.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:13 pm

chk071 wrote:
mutools wrote:A DAW has no control at all over a VST plugin's processing. A plugin is like a black box to the DAW. So if you're results are plugin dependent i think you'll have to check your setup.
That's an interesting statement considering so many take the view that DAW's are very different in terms of plugin processing efficiency... does that mean all the people who claim that Studio One is less efficient than Cubase or Reaper are wrong? Don't get me wrong, i don't know if that's the case or not, just wondering because i also had the idea that DAW's are different in the way they tax the CPU when processing plugins.

Indeed a DAW has no control over a VST plugin's processing. If, when comparing DAWs, there would seem to be a difference in cpu usage then this could be caused by many aspects: Different system, different samplerate, different blocksize or buffering scheme, different multi-core setup/strategy, ... There may be more. All of these parameters are important and to make a comparison between CPU efficiency of DAWs all parameters must be exactly the same so that the only variable is the DAW itself.

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:18 am

chk071 wrote:
mutools wrote:A DAW has no control at all over a VST plugin's processing. A plugin is like a black box to the DAW. So if you're results are plugin dependent i think you'll have to check your setup.
That's an interesting statement considering so many take the view that DAW's are very different in terms of plugin processing efficiency... does that mean all the people who claim that Studio One is less efficient than Cubase or Reaper are wrong? Don't get me wrong, i don't know if that's the case or not, just wondering because i also had the idea that DAW's are different in the way they tax the CPU when processing plugins.

That's one of the reasons I went for a very simple VST - so the DAW overhead would be all that was really showing. I forgot to put my buffer, sample rate, etc settings in (they may have differed - I'll check later).

Zexila · Post by **Zexila** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:16 am

Sorry for dumb&OT post, but how do one even change buffer size for on-board card on OS X in MuLab?

pekbro · Post by **pekbro** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:48 am

I think the flaw with using windows resource monitoring to gauge the cpu
efficiency of a DAW, lies in assuming that greater overall cpu utilization equates to less efficiency.

At least when it comes to modern multicore processors, where things like: resource sharing between cores,
processor power management and memory/cache access latency all have an impact on the utilization metric.

-Cheers

MuTools

KVR Audio

Mulab's CPU efficiency ...