KVR Audio

fischkopf · Post by **fischkopf** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:10 am

Touch The Universe wrote:Each layer has its own gui page, which accounts for all the RAM.

That makes no sense. It should load the GUI ressources once, and use them for all pages.

incubus wrote:I don't care how much ram it takes, that's why I went x64 back in 2010. 16gb is enough. Also, as for "heavy" please remember what I mentioned about the "mulitcore" for CPU use. Not all synths have this and it's a huge difference.

Still love it. An unexpected surprise and though I'm not sure I've come close to really understanding it's full potential, it's terrific and not over-priced.

I have 16GB too, and I know that's more than enough. I'm just saying RAM usuage should be optimized because it clearly doesn't need that much for the synth engine alone. It would also increase loading time a lot, if you have projects with multiple instances of LuSH.

DJ Warmonger · Post by **DJ Warmonger** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:33 am

exmatproton wrote:
DJ Warmonger wrote:
ou can say that about all stuff; if you use x instances..then, there is a problem. LuSH-101 is an heavy synth, i am not denying that, but the point was those 8 layers. You don't "need" 10 instances with some clever programming per se. 10x8layers=effectively 80 synths...All the layers have their own dedicated output, so...
Even single monophonic layer takes over 200 MB. I don't need all these layers at all. For basslines one layer is absolutely enough. If you aks me to route 4 different bassline patterns through one instance, then I say definitelly NO.

Also, reality is LuSH-101 is quite a simple synth with limited routing and capabilities. It doesn't even have sine osc. Dune 2 is somewhat similiar and has much more possibilities, yet takes fine amount of RAM.
Then, this synth isn't your synth. Use something else indeed.

I do own this synth and it's a great synth. It's just poorly optimized. Devs answered they are aware of that and they are going to fix it in future update. What is your problem exactly?

exmatproton · Post by **exmatproton** » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:45 am

DJ Warmonger wrote:
exmatproton wrote:
DJ Warmonger wrote:
ou can say that about all stuff; if you use x instances..then, there is a problem. LuSH-101 is an heavy synth, i am not denying that, but the point was those 8 layers. You don't "need" 10 instances with some clever programming per se. 10x8layers=effectively 80 synths...All the layers have their own dedicated output, so...
Even single monophonic layer takes over 200 MB. I don't need all these layers at all. For basslines one layer is absolutely enough. If you aks me to route 4 different bassline patterns through one instance, then I say definitelly NO.

Also, reality is LuSH-101 is quite a simple synth with limited routing and capabilities. It doesn't even have sine osc. Dune 2 is somewhat similiar and has much more possibilities, yet takes fine amount of RAM.
Then, this synth isn't your synth. Use something else indeed.
I do own this synth and it's a great synth. It's just poorly optimized. Devs answered they are aware of that and they are going to fix it in future update. What is your problem exactly?

I have 0 problems with the synth, to be honest. I reacted on something i didn't get. 10 instances of this thing will bring many systems on their knees indeed. That doesn't make it poorly optimized per se.

I think the sound quality per voice and per layer is amazing. The max. amount of ram is around 400 MB and this synth is not the only one which uses a bit more ram then others.

incubus · Post by **incubus** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:23 am

I'm all for optimization. Sure, let's be optimization-tolerant

(sorry, I couldn't help myself)

Touch The Universe · Post by **Touch The Universe** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:42 am

fischkopf wrote:
Touch The Universe wrote:Each layer has its own gui page, which accounts for all the RAM.
That makes no sense. It should load the GUI ressources once, and use them for all pages.

How do you account for the multi-layer synths, like Dune 2 and Lush, taking up so much ram then? I figured more layers meant more RAM, guess not? It would indeed be nice for Lush to be optomized here. I too, very often, have had to stream for running out of ram, and not cpu

.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:46 am

Dunno about RAM, but, LuSH-101 is surely a b**** in terms of CPU.

Could definitely use less, maybe they will work on optimization one day.

Touch The Universe · Post by **Touch The Universe** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:53 am

Yeah, that's the funny thing, streaming such a heavy cpu synth because it takes so much ram and NOT cpu

. It's fine as long as you don't have too many on the playlist running at once though

egbert101 · Post by **egbert101** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:08 am

DJ Warmonger · Post by **DJ Warmonger** » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:25 am

I didn't have any issues with CPU usage with 10 instances of LuSH. Maybe that's because I ran out of RAM first

Either way, it doesn't seem to have high CPU usage at all. I can slay my CPU with one Serum patch, though

incubus · Post by **incubus** » Sun Dec 25, 2016 5:32 am

So odd. I'm hitting about 1200mb of ram TOTAL in FL with 4 instances of Lush plus a few drum things. Task manager of course backs that up (well, doze takes nearly 2gb just to run)

Is there something specific or some kinda oddly un-behaved patch that is doing this?

EnGee · Post by **EnGee** » Sun Dec 25, 2016 6:43 am

incubus wrote:So odd. I'm hitting about 1200mb of ram TOTAL in FL with 4 instances of Lush plus a few drum things. Task manager of course backs that up (well, doze takes nearly 2gb just to run)

Is there something specific or some kinda oddly un-behaved patch that is doing this?

It is normal for LuSH. I remember that I did some comparison about the memory usage of various synths that I have, and the most synths did use a lot of memory were CODEX, LuSH and Avenger and from the least usage of memory were ACE, Hive, Massive and VirtualCZ (among those I have).

Lejurai · Post by **Lejurai** » Sun Dec 25, 2016 7:00 am

I was this close l-l <- of selling my copy but then I found some old project that has so sick lead made with lush, that I decided that I'll never sell it

W23 · Post by **W23** » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:22 pm

In all actuality, I was amazed at how little CPU the Lush 101 uses on a single layer mono patch. It hovers around 3-4 percent on my Ableton monitor (2015 MBP, i5, 8GB RAM). Sure, multiple layers and polyphonic patches drive the count up but, for what it is, the Lush is pretty efficient.

Jax Pok · Post by **Jax Pok** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:15 am

Only sampled instruments take up lots of RAM. RAM is not a turbo for your CPU.

mholloway · Post by **mholloway** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:23 pm

FWIW,

I was having CPU spike issues with this synth until I found / turned on the Multi-Core support in the Options menu for it. Ever since, I never get CPU spikes anymore, the usage is much more reasonable, and I'm using it pretty much like I use any other soft synth.

and I LOVE it, too. Definitely one of the best analog emulations, IMHO.

I'm on an iMac quad core.

-Michael