Massive X - the thread

[Stefken]

Any way we can use the MX wavetables in other WT synths?
What format is used in the MX wavetables?

[EvilDragon]

Their own format.

[drdriller]

the format used are .mxvt, didn't find any way to extract them, a man on reddit resampled and recreated them with serum.

i don't think those wt are worth so much efforts..

but the noise samples are really interesting, and... in wav format, all samples are perfect cycle so you can use them anywhere without having to edit them.

[PatchAdamz]

An Ambient Pad for Massive X:

https://soundcloud.com/vintage-synth-pa ... -massive-x

[chk071]

Any way we can use the MX wavetables in other WT synths?
What format is used in the MX wavetables?

Some guy posted a video with Massive X wavetables converted to Serum format here, dunno what happened to that. I had a feeling he's doing this merely to make people rather use Serum though. At least judging by his other posts about this synth...

Not sure if that is legal anyway.

[perpetual3]

So, according to some anon on the YouTube, earlier versions of MX had three oscillator types, including a dual additive and included all animations.

Anybody can confirm or deny?

Assuming true, the at least we can reasonably expect animations. I would also love a dual additive osc too.

[BDeep]

So, according to some anon on the YouTube, earlier versions of MX had three oscillator types, including a dual additive and included all animations.

Anybody can confirm or deny?

Assuming true, the at least we can reasonably expect animations. I would also love a dual additive osc too.

I’ve seen NI say that animations are coming (for envelopes and the waveform). Don’t know about extra modes.

[pdxindy]

In my test, I did 64 voices with very long amp env release times, with OG Massive set to Ultra quality, and MX doing all sorts of audio rate stuff and feedback etc... They were about the same, maybe the old Massive actually used a little bit more CPU, in fact.

What's your CPU?

I don't have original massive installed to compare, but MX is roughly equal to Icarus which is one of the lightest cpu synths I have.

[drzhnn]

In my test, I did 64 voices with very long amp env release times, with OG Massive set to Ultra quality, and MX doing all sorts of audio rate stuff and feedback etc... They were about the same, maybe the old Massive actually used a little bit more CPU, in fact.

What's your CPU?

I don't have original massive installed to compare, but MX is roughly equal to Icarus which is one of the lightest cpu synths I have.

I have a rather old i7 3770K and MX's impact on the CPU is very low here, similar to Zebra and Hive, if now lower. But a friend of mine has a new 9th gen Intel and he claims that single instance of MX takes up to 40% of CPU. I guess there's some kind of optimization issue in the current build.

[ghettosynth]

In my test, I did 64 voices with very long amp env release times, with OG Massive set to Ultra quality, and MX doing all sorts of audio rate stuff and feedback etc... They were about the same, maybe the old Massive actually used a little bit more CPU, in fact.

What's your CPU?

I don't have original massive installed to compare, but MX is roughly equal to Icarus which is one of the lightest cpu synths I have.

I have a rather old i7 3770K and MX's impact on the CPU is very low here, similar to Zebra and Hive, if now lower. But a friend of mine has a new 9th gen Intel and he claims that single instance of MX takes up to 40% of CPU. I guess there's some kind of optimization issue in the current build.

Or he's doing something wrong, which is WAAAAAAY more likely.

[Smapti]

CPU usage on my computer (i7 8650U) is minimal. It's actually shockingly low; I expected a bigger CPU hit. Perhaps this is because of AVX?

[pixel85]

4770.
Thanks Evil.
Reason I ask is I like to work live from Midi so don't have much use for render.

I have 4790k (4.5GHz) and 1 instance of Massive X takes around 20% but with 10 instances it goes to 80% and still no issues here (in Cubase 10).
For you it shouldn't be that much different.

[fisherKing]

In my test, I did 64 voices with very long amp env release times, with OG Massive set to Ultra quality, and MX doing all sorts of audio rate stuff and feedback etc... They were about the same, maybe the old Massive actually used a little bit more CPU, in fact.

What's your CPU?

I don't have original massive installed to compare, but MX is roughly equal to Icarus which is one of the lightest cpu synths I have.

I have a rather old i7 3770K and MX's impact on the CPU is very low here, similar to Zebra and Hive, if now lower. But a friend of mine has a new 9th gen Intel and he claims that single instance of MX takes up to 40% of CPU. I guess there's some kind of optimization issue in the current build.

just as a quick (non-scientific) test, i opened logic X, created 6 MX tracks, and played. my i7 imac (2019) hit about 25% on the cpu; not bad, at all...

[perpetual3]

Well, I’ve never been so inspired yet frustrated by a synth.

The core sound can be, quite frankly, stunning, and has an incredible range from deep and clear, to lush and expansive, centered and focused, or distant and hazy (I do find bright and clear sounds to tend towards some harsheness, but the Monark filter does an exceptional job of taming these; I like the Monark filter here more than I ever did in Monark or Blocks). The interaction with the effects is exceptional, seamlessly blending in with the source, and really leverages the quality of the core sound. Usually, I’ll use a dedicated reverb and delay plugin, but with MX I absolutely feel like I don’t need to and usually don’t (although I’ve had some epic jaw dropping sounds running MX through Zynaptiq Adaptiverb and Subspace and Valhalla Delay). Sometimes I think I get carried away with the effects, and shut the off am I’m struck by how much dimension, depth and movement was in the source sound to begin with. Yet, since there is always room for improvement, I would like the different delays modes to be a modulation destination, with a knob to cycle through the modes.

I’m absolutely feeling the limitations of the effects slots and single filter. I can’t for the life of me understand why.

As far as the GUI is concerned, it seems very Blocks/Eurorack inspired, which I feel does serve working on the computer. For me, the only way to make it work is to maximize its scale on large external monitor. Then it kind of makes more sense.

[EvilDragon]

So, according to some anon on the YouTube, earlier versions of MX had three oscillator types, including a dual additive and included all animations.

Anybody can confirm or deny?

Somebody smoked something.