Mulab's CPU efficiency ...

[solipsvs]

all i can see here is deliberate ambiguity and a guy who likes to do things his own way rather than do something a majority of people understand

[pljones]

The useful think to know in a DAW is how close to running out of time to process a buffer you are. Any other measure is pretty irrelevant if you're worried about real-time performance. If you're not interested in real-time, then CPU usage isn't an issue. So given that Mulab's meter tells you exactly what's useful, I continue not to understand the problem.

[syntonica]

MenuMeters El Capitan Port by some Japanese guy..

http://member.ipmu.jp/yuji.tachikawa/Me ... ElCapitan/

[fluffy_little_something]

The useful think to know in a DAW is how close to running out of time to process a buffer you are. Any other measure is pretty irrelevant if you're worried about real-time performance. If you're not interested in real-time, then CPU usage isn't an issue. So given that Mulab's meter tells you exactly what's useful, I continue not to understand the problem.

Well, one reason is that I only have one computer, which I use for everything. Mulab only measures what is going on within Mulab, so Task Manager is more important to me as it measures everything that is going on on my computer, not just the music stuff. That is why I would like to see meaningful values in TM.

[pljones]

The same thing still applies. The numbers in Task Manager are made up by Windows in a similar way: "how much time was there left over?" (System Idle Process time). Either there's enough CPU left for your needs or there isn't. If real time performance in MuLab isn't an issue, then you can tell it so by reducing the number of threads and it will seem busier (i.e. struggle more) but Windows System Idle Process will have more time (so your system will seem more idle).

[fluffy_little_something]

I just don't think it makes sense to manually set the number of Mulab threads to be used (some of which even idle sometimes). That should be done dynamically and behind the scenes by Mulab itself, which is how it works with other DAW's afaik.
In Mixcraft I can only choose between using all cores and forcing everything into one core. Naturally I use the former option and MC seems to set the ideal number of threads required at any time, without my intervention. As many threads as necessary, but not more. And the difference shows in the TM.

[pljones]

It's difficult to compare applications like that, though. You don't know the internal architecture. Mixcraft may be unable to perform some of what MuLab does because of the way it works (I don't know it, so I'm not saying that's the case) and the setup you have for the two may not be comparable (again, due to the application architecture). Different tools work different ways because they have different purposes. If you're trying to use them to the same end then the fault may not be in the tool.

[fluffy_little_something]

OT: I just had to giggle about your signature. I don't think Mulab makes things easy at all, even something as seemingly simple as layering two synths is more complicated than in MC and other DAW's, where one simply adds them in slots one above the other. Why does that not work in Mulab? Why not a little arrow on the left side of slots as well, which one could set to divide synths from effects? The more synths, the fewer available effects slots.
Synth layering is one of those things that many people use all the time...

[solipsvs]

yeah that was OT for sure. why? because mulab does it the way mulab does it. if you were to peek in the modular area you might find an easy way to do that. im beginning to think you are trolling here although i do agree with the CPU thing and i think things might need a little more clarity. but its not a deal breaker.

[fluffy_little_something]

Nobody says that it's not possible, but it is a whole lot simpler in other DAW's.

And if anyone is trolling here it is you and your weird posts...

[solipsvs]

haha wierd is wrong then? why dont you keep your gripes separate because those 2 concerns dont have anything to do with each other. youre just belly aching

[fluffy_little_something]

haha wierd is wrong then? why dont you keep your gripes separate because those 2 concerns dont have anything to do with each other. youre just belly aching

Indeed, when you accuse people of 'deliberate ambiguity' and what not in this thread, you are wrong. I have hardly responded to your posts in this thread because I don't really know what your point is...

[solipsvs]

and now im confused what you want too. but you started it. youre being deliberately annoying with your ambiguous complaints that have arisen from your unwillingness/inability to comprehend the modular features that would ironically allow you to bypass said complaints. you whine that its not like your favorite software. how silly of you

[fluffy_little_something]

and now im confused what you want too. but you started it. youre being deliberately annoying with your ambiguous complaints that have arisen from your unwillingness/inability to comprehend the modular features that would ironically allow you to bypass said complaints. you whine that its not like your favorite software. how silly of you

What's deliberately annoying about stating what I don't like about Mulab? Indeed, I am not willing to mess with modular just in order to do the simplest things. I think a DAW is the wrong place for modular, that's what Mux is there for.
I assume Jo wants to make a living on his products and thus has to appeal to potential customers. So it might make sense to wonder why after many years Mulab is still a fringe product whose market share is dwarfed by Reaper, FL, and even newcomers such as Bitwig.
Mulab can't be "like my favorite software" because so far I have not found any DAW that I really like. They all have their deficits. I am still using Mulab because it happened to be the first DAW I used (and back then I got it because it seemed basic, which is what I wanted) and because I want to support small developers.

[solipsvs]

well ok you just told us your true motivation for bellyaching. thanks for that. some of your gripes are not unfounded. but either accept it the way it is or vamoose. it doesnt appear to be about to change into your favorite DAW