Native Instruments Massive X Synth - Sequel to Massive (Out Now!)

[ghettosynth]

Ahh... thanks mate.

Too bad.

Well, to be clear, I don't know. They might succumb to the pressure of that very vocal segment. Like I said, it depends on how they are relying on AVX. If it's just a matter of setting compiler flags, then it's down to testing.. Still expensive, still a lot of work, still distracting.

My god, the non-AVX users are whining up a storm over on the NI forums.

But, you should understand that the only reason that there are a bunch of mac users that have those Xeons is because of the evolution of the Mac Pro systems. Few PC users went that path because there isn't a reason to commit to any particular hardware path with PCs. So few PC users feel the need to buy a huge 6-core system when that was a behemoth because more incremental upgrades, even completely replacing a system, would actually cost less.

[Monkey Man]

Thanks again, man.

[perfumer]

+1 to all of that. Maybe we should ask him, was he lying to us when he made that statement, yes or no.

Um... yeah, i'm sure he was "lying" to all of us, that godless bastard of the industry.

I don't think that he was "lying," and even if he was not expressing the full details of what he knew, that's the deal with non-disclosure, so whatever. I don't think that we should ask him anything, but, I do think that it's possible that it was expected to consume more CPU than it does and that the reason it doesn't is because "decisions" were made.

ED said they started tuning/optimizing MX for performance towards the release version which sounds completely plausible. If they can get even more juice out of it, all the better.

Well they can't have optimized it 2 or 3 times or more.... he said several times that it's quite CPU intensive - of what I've read, obviously not everything but still I got the idea. If what he said is true, this would mean that yes, some features have been turned off. I wouldn't equate this with oversampling or quality levels. Got to be real features, otherwise

[McLilith]

Are all the Xeon PC workstations missing out on AVX?

[perpetual3]

Going into my evaluation with he highest amount of scepticism, being extremely critical, looking for something to really dislike, and being one of those that do believe that the aliasing could be a problem when leveraging modulations, I can only say that I produced some of the most amazing, unexpected sounds using MX that I wouldn’t even have thought of being able to do with my other synths (perhaps I should re-examine them more closely).

Lush, expansive, deep, powerful, dimensional. These are words I would use to describe the kinda of sounds possible barely scratching the surface of the synth. I couldn’t believe the depth to sounds I could easily come up with, often times shocked that I wasn’t using any delay, reverb or other effect. The comb filter is truly amazing. The routing engine is well thought out. As I was programming, I was struck by the stereo imaging. I was so immersed the sound.

So good.



Yes, I think the GUI is terrible. Yes, it feels absolutely unfinished to me.

[McLilith]

+1 to all of that. Maybe we should ask him, was he lying to us when he made that statement, yes or no.

Um... yeah, i'm sure he was "lying" to all of us, that godless bastard of the industry.

I don't think that he was "lying," and even if he was not expressing the full details of what he knew, that's the deal with non-disclosure, so whatever. I don't think that we should ask him anything, but, I do think that it's possible that it was expected to consume more CPU than it does and that the reason it doesn't is because "decisions" were made.

ED said they started tuning/optimizing MX for performance towards the release version which sounds completely plausible. If they can get even more juice out of it, all the better.

Well they can't have optimized it 2 or 3 times or more.... he said several times that it's quite CPU intensive - of what I've read, obviously not everything but still I got the idea. If what he said is true, this would mean that yes, some features have been turned off. I wouldn't equate this with oversampling or quality levels. Got to be real features, otherwise

I just want to mention, optimizing software for performance doesn't necessarily mean trimming back features or quality. It often refers to refining the code to perform the very same functions for the end user, but more efficiently.

[vurt]

+1 to all of that. Maybe we should ask him, was he lying to us when he made that statement, yes or no.

Um... yeah, i'm sure he was "lying" to all of us, that godless bastard of the industry.

I don't think that he was "lying," and even if he was not expressing the full details of what he knew, that's the deal with non-disclosure, so whatever. I don't think that we should ask him anything, but, I do think that it's possible that it was expected to consume more CPU than it does and that the reason it doesn't is because "decisions" were made.

ED said they started tuning/optimizing MX for performance towards the release version which sounds completely plausible. If they can get even more juice out of it, all the better.

Well they can't have optimized it 2 or 3 times or more.... he said several times that it's quite CPU intensive - of what I've read, obviously not everything but still I got the idea. If what he said is true, this would mean that yes, some features have been turned off. I wouldn't equate this with oversampling or quality levels. Got to be real features, otherwise

I just want to mention, optimizing software for performance doesn't necessarily mean trimming back features or quality. It often refers to refining the code to perform the very same functions for the end user, but more efficiently.

or removing the cup holders and vr control

[aMUSEd]

+1 to all of that. Maybe we should ask him, was he lying to us when he made that statement, yes or no.

Um... yeah, i'm sure he was "lying" to all of us, that godless bastard of the industry.

I don't think that he was "lying," and even if he was not expressing the full details of what he knew, that's the deal with non-disclosure, so whatever. I don't think that we should ask him anything, but, I do think that it's possible that it was expected to consume more CPU than it does and that the reason it doesn't is because "decisions" were made.

ED said they started tuning/optimizing MX for performance towards the release version which sounds completely plausible. If they can get even more juice out of it, all the better.

Well they can't have optimized it 2 or 3 times or more.... he said several times that it's quite CPU intensive - of what I've read, obviously not everything but still I got the idea. If what he said is true, this would mean that yes, some features have been turned off. I wouldn't equate this with oversampling or quality levels. Got to be real features, otherwise

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=510962&p=7443568#p7443568

Yes, there has clearly been some recent optimisation but like I said it was manageable on my old MacMini several weeks ago, the differences are there but not as huge as is being stated here.

[Stefken]

+1 to all of that. Maybe we should ask him, was he lying to us when he made that statement, yes or no.

Um... yeah, i'm sure he was "lying" to all of us, that godless bastard of the industry.

I don't think that he was "lying," and even if he was not expressing the full details of what he knew, that's the deal with non-disclosure, so whatever. I don't think that we should ask him anything, but, I do think that it's possible that it was expected to consume more CPU than it does and that the reason it doesn't is because "decisions" were made.

ED said they started tuning/optimizing MX for performance towards the release version which sounds completely plausible. If they can get even more juice out of it, all the better.

Well they can't have optimized it 2 or 3 times or more.... he said several times that it's quite CPU intensive - of what I've read, obviously not everything but still I got the idea. If what he said is true, this would mean that yes, some features have been turned off. I wouldn't equate this with oversampling or quality levels. Got to be real features, otherwise

If ED had a version that wasn't optimized at all, than the optimized version could be any number times faster. It all depends on the coding.

[McLilith]

Um... yeah, i'm sure he was "lying" to all of us, that godless bastard of the industry.

I don't think that he was "lying," and even if he was not expressing the full details of what he knew, that's the deal with non-disclosure, so whatever. I don't think that we should ask him anything, but, I do think that it's possible that it was expected to consume more CPU than it does and that the reason it doesn't is because "decisions" were made.

ED said they started tuning/optimizing MX for performance towards the release version which sounds completely plausible. If they can get even more juice out of it, all the better.

Well they can't have optimized it 2 or 3 times or more.... he said several times that it's quite CPU intensive - of what I've read, obviously not everything but still I got the idea. If what he said is true, this would mean that yes, some features have been turned off. I wouldn't equate this with oversampling or quality levels. Got to be real features, otherwise

I just want to mention, optimizing software for performance doesn't necessarily mean trimming back features or quality. It often refers to refining the code to perform the very same functions for the end user, but more efficiently.

or removing the cup holders and vr control

I hear you! For me, it's the cup holders and the power sunroof. I hope we get those in a future update.

[ghettosynth]

Are all the Xeon PC workstations missing out on AVX?

No. It's just that old mac pros get used past their sell by date because mac.

[Stefken]

I don't think that he was "lying," and even if he was not expressing the full details of what he knew, that's the deal with non-disclosure, so whatever. I don't think that we should ask him anything, but, I do think that it's possible that it was expected to consume more CPU than it does and that the reason it doesn't is because "decisions" were made.

ED said they started tuning/optimizing MX for performance towards the release version which sounds completely plausible. If they can get even more juice out of it, all the better.

Well they can't have optimized it 2 or 3 times or more.... he said several times that it's quite CPU intensive - of what I've read, obviously not everything but still I got the idea. If what he said is true, this would mean that yes, some features have been turned off. I wouldn't equate this with oversampling or quality levels. Got to be real features, otherwise

I just want to mention, optimizing software for performance doesn't necessarily mean trimming back features or quality. It often refers to refining the code to perform the very same functions for the end user, but more efficiently.

or removing the cup holders and vr control

I hear you! For me, it's the cup holders and the power sunroof. I hope we get those in a future update.

ED would say: lose the cupholders; bring on the helicopter!

[perfumer]

+1 to all of that. Maybe we should ask him, was he lying to us when he made that statement, yes or no.

Um... yeah, i'm sure he was "lying" to all of us, that godless bastard of the industry.

I don't think that he was "lying," and even if he was not expressing the full details of what he knew, that's the deal with non-disclosure, so whatever. I don't think that we should ask him anything, but, I do think that it's possible that it was expected to consume more CPU than it does and that the reason it doesn't is because "decisions" were made.

ED said they started tuning/optimizing MX for performance towards the release version which sounds completely plausible. If they can get even more juice out of it, all the better.

Well they can't have optimized it 2 or 3 times or more.... he said several times that it's quite CPU intensive - of what I've read, obviously not everything but still I got the idea. If what he said is true, this would mean that yes, some features have been turned off. I wouldn't equate this with oversampling or quality levels. Got to be real features, otherwise

If ED had a version that wasn't optimized at all, than the optimized version could be any number times faster. It all depends on the coding.

I seriously doubt that.

[ghettosynth]

Yes, there has clearly been some recent optimisation but like I said it was manageable on my old MacMini several weeks ago, the differences are there but not as huge as is being stated here.

Ok, so then it never really was a CPU eater and ED was just exaggerating a bit?

[KBSoundSmith]

Sometimes I get the impression that forum mods deliberately allow one arbitrary thread to become a cesspool. People are going to take a metaphorical dump on the board anyway, may as well contain it to one thread and let the others remain mostly clean (while metaphorically extending that a lot of members apparently don't wash their hands after pressing "submit" in the cesspool thread). Apparently ED is the bidet in this instance.