UVI Falcon - v4 = 2026 released - rumors, ads, praise, kindergarden, auto-sampling and off-topic inside!

[c_voltage]

Thanks for update.
All ok, but unfortunately many cpu glitches an overloads in new IRCAM Stretch, especially in zero speed mode (I did not even dream about polyphony, even with just one note). Although no any crashes yet, well at least this is good. But would want to hoped to increase ircam stretch performance nonetheless.

[otristan]

If you want to do near zero speed, I advise you to use IRCAM Scrub instead.

The chance of getting IRCAM stretch more optimized is close to zero as it is already very optimized.
Usually that kind of quality is only available offline

[ErikH]

@ c-voltage: I remember you posted in the Zynaptiq Adaptiverb thread (Effects) that you seem to have performance problems with it also.
I also seem to remember your PC's specs are close to mine. And up to now I have not had any performance problems with the new Ircam Stretch. And I tried rather heavy settings. So your setup may be involved.

In my opinion, the Ircams are more meant for studio work than for live performance. Knowing my CPU is, at best, average, I use the heavier stuff like the Ircams or some effects separately, that is: without other things to be calculated so as to limit the strain on my CPU. Even if unfinished, I first do a render-in-place so I can listen to what I have in audio, and then add, say, the Ircam Stretch.

If desired, one can even bring a dual octocore 4GHz to its knees. If my car does not have the power to drive in fourth gear up a mountainous slope, I switch to third, or even second if needed. Same with a computer.

[c_voltage]

@ c-voltage: I remember you posted in the Zynaptiq Adaptiverb thread (Effects) that you seem to have performance problems with it also.
I also seem to remember your PC's specs are close to mine. And up to now I have not had any performance problems with the new Ircam Stretch. And I tried rather heavy settings. So your setup may be involved.

Erik but i'm not the only one who complained about the large cpu usage in Adaptiverb (even the Zynaptiq warns about it). Well, not the essence.
Secondly, i tried also use other IRCAMS (granular\multigranular\scrub) in v1.2 - and with them I do not get these large cpu problems, i.e. they are quite a usable now. (Though of course also have some problematic modes for realtime use, but this can be circumvented).

Well, In principle, the problem is not critical, because as otristan noted, actually there is other good tools for zero speed, of course this is variant. But just i must had to mention about this Stretch behavior (at least on my pc).

(Btw, in the last period of using slightly reopened for myself the Pluck, damn, interesting thing though).

[ErikH]

Of course you are not the only one who is having problems.

In my opinion, people always want more and more. Which is natural. And the companies deliver. But although that 'more' can be designed and coded, it also demands a more powerful 'engine', aka CPU.

I still remember being limited to 1.5GB RAM when using 32 bit. What a nuisance that was!

On the other hand: even the best orchestras or bands are limited by the hall they are playing in. Remember for example how Queen, when performing Bohemian Rhapsody live had that vocal intermezzo ( I see a little silhouetto in the dark...) play backed? Some things are as good as impossible to do live...

[Cinebient]

I "only" want to have proper multi-threading support to make use of Falcon....i know i said that often here now but i thought it´s time to say it again once more......
So waiting for Version 2.
But Falcon is still nice for sample manipulating etc. The synth engine is o.k. but i miss a lot there.
I still like my Falcon and hope one day he will learn to fly

[trusampler]

Great well to answer my own issue with drag n drop , it's happening only in standalone for example drag n drop works in my daw, so not sure who wants to double check, f**k it if not,but definitely not working here in standalone..

[aMUSEd]

Great well to answer my own issue with drag n drop , it's happening only in standalone for example drag n drop works in my daw, so not sure who wants to double check, f**k it if not,but definitely not working here in standalone..

I tested it on Mac dragging an audio file from Finder to the standalone loads it into sampler fine for me.

[c_voltage]

Of course you are not the only one who is having problems.

In my opinion, people always want more and more. Which is natural. And the companies deliver. But although that 'more' can be designed and coded, it also demands a more powerful 'engine', aka CPU.

I understand what you're saying, but I can not fully agree in this case, because talking not about some whim, but strictly speaking the possibility to use specified part of instrument (including all his proposed modes).
Straight information about it is intended only for use offline, it may be quite satisfy.
But do not need to say that the problem is only on the user side (or configuration), when it is not.
Although perhaps I say the obvious things.

[ThomasHelzle]

I understand what you're saying, but I can not fully agree in this case, because talking not about some whim, but strictly speaking the possibility to use specified part of instrument (including all his proposed modes).
Straight information about it is intended only for use offline, it may be quite satisfy.
But do not need to say that the problem is only on the user side (or configuration), when it is not.
Although perhaps I say the obvious things.

How much more spelled out do you need it?
If on your machine it does not work for realtime use, then yes, only use it for offline use.

I had a rather powerful (I thought) dual CPU, 2xquadcore 2.8 GHz Xeon MacPro from 2008 for many years and it could not run Diva with more than 3 voices. When I later got an i7 6core PC which I overclocked to 4.1 GHz, I could play Diva in highest quality settings with both hands and still have plenty of DSP left...

It was said in this thread many times now that IRCAM stretch is extremely CPU hungry and that it only should be used sparely and with a low voice count on very powerful machines.

What is there not to understand?
The only alternative would be to remove it from Falcon - which would be silly.
Otristan said it could not be further optimised, so the only other thing is to get a faster computer if it's important to you.

Or did I miss something here?

Cheers,

Tom

[c_voltage]

I understand what you're saying, but I can not fully agree in this case, because talking not about some whim, but strictly speaking the possibility to use specified part of instrument (including all his proposed modes).
Straight information about it is intended only for use offline, it may be quite satisfy.
But do not need to say that the problem is only on the user side (or configuration), when it is not.
Although perhaps I say the obvious things.

How much more spelled out do you need it?
If on your machine it does not work for realtime use, then yes, only use it for offline use.

I had a rather powerful (I thought) dual CPU, 2xquadcore 2.8 GHz Xeon MacPro from 2008 for many years and it could not run Diva with more than 3 voices. When I later got an i7 6core PC which I overclocked to 4.1 GHz, I could play Diva in highest quality settings with both hands and still have plenty of DSP left...

It was said in this thread many times now that IRCAM stretch is extremely CPU hungry and that it only should be used sparely and with a low voice count on very powerful machines.

What is there not to understand?
The only alternative would be to remove it from Falcon - which would be silly.
Otristan said it could not be further optimised, so the only other thing is to get a faster computer if it's important to you.

Or did I miss something here?

Cheers,

Tom

Excuse me, I feel some uncertainty, when an user says

And up to now I have not had any performance problems with the new Ircam Stretch. And I tried rather heavy settings.

another user

IRCAM stretch is extremely CPU hungry and that it only should be used sparely and with a low voice count on very powerful machines.

Ok nevermind.

The only alternative would be to remove it from Falcon - which would be silly.

No no, I would really not want this. I would not want that manufacturers thought so. Better to let it be a not very convenient option, than none at all.

ThomasHelzle tell me, you have a powerfull machine, you really can use ircam stretch without cpu problems in realtime? (incl. in zero speed mode). No cpu 100% spikes nor cpu overloads in DAW?

And else - what daw you are use ?

[otristan]

FWIW, in order to reduce IRCAM stretch CPU usage, it's best to have 44.1khz sample and samplerate and run at a big buffer size.

@trusampler Probably something to do with your samples. Can you upload one somewhere so I can have a look ?
Thx

[topaz]

Bump for option to color ( distinguish ) modules please

[ThomasHelzle]

ThomasHelzle tell me, you have a powerfull machine, you really can use ircam stretch without cpu problems in realtime? (incl. in zero speed mode). No cpu 100% spikes nor cpu overloads in DAW?
And else - what daw you are use ?

I use Bitwig on Windows 8.1 x64 and it always worked as expected, relatively high CPU load but far from unusable. Can't do detailed tests ATM since I'm (3D-) rendering in the background (all cores at 100%).
But yes, on a good machine it's fully usable.

Cheers,

Tom

[otristan]

Bump for option to color ( distinguish ) modules please

Our UI designer would burn us alive if we ask him something like this