Hi, all!
I am testing all my plugins in Mulab 8 and everything works surprisingly well with one exception - VPS Avenger. Hiccups, farts, screeches... Definitely Avenger and Mulab do not like each other.
Does anyone have similar experience? Perhaps there is a magic solution?
Mulab 8 has allergy to VPS Avenger
-
- KVRAF
- 12743 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
Does Avenger use multi-core processing? If yes try switching it off.
If that doesn't solve it you could try to enable the "Zero Buffers" switch in the new M8.2 VST plugin manager.
If that doesn't solve it you could try to enable the "Zero Buffers" switch in the new M8.2 VST plugin manager.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 42 posts since 14 Sep, 2019
I guess Avenger using multiple cores is the problem. The cpu usage indicator in Mulab is glowing full red just when I open Avenger, even without playing. Unfortunately, I can not find any way to turn off multi core in Avenger.
Oh well, no Avenger in Mulab. No biggie.
Oh well, no Avenger in Mulab. No biggie.
-
- Banned
- 3564 posts since 22 Aug, 2019
With U-he plugins the built-in multi-core support helps a lot. With Repro it makes all the difference. With MC support off, Mulab goes into the red with some patches such as pads, and one can hear it, too, it is not a faulty CPU load readout. With MC support on, there are no such problems.
But yes, I have done various DAW comparisons and come to the conclusion that CPU efficiency is not Mulab's strength.
But yes, I have done various DAW comparisons and come to the conclusion that CPU efficiency is not Mulab's strength.
-
- KVRAF
- 12743 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
-
- Banned
- 3564 posts since 22 Aug, 2019
I simply loaded an increasing number of instances of a demanding plugin (e.g. U-he Repro) in different DAW's, recorded exactly the same chords of the same patch, and observed the detailed Windows CPU load monitor, that shows both the overall and the per-core loads, as the playback was looped. Of course everything else was the same, i.e. audio driver settings etc.
In Mulab my computer simply reaches its limits way earlier.
In Mulab my computer simply reaches its limits way earlier.
-
- KVRAF
- 12743 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
You mean the Windows cpu monitor was going higher for MuLab? I can tell you that's not an accurate way of testing things.
-
- Banned
- 3564 posts since 22 Aug, 2019
Not only the overall load, but the load is also distributed differently across the threads.
And my ears confirm what Windows shows, in Mulab the typical overload noises kick in a lot earlier. In Mulab sooner or later it literally says that it is overloaded in the display, while in other DAW's the same number of instances still play back fine.
And my ears confirm what Windows shows, in Mulab the typical overload noises kick in a lot earlier. In Mulab sooner or later it literally says that it is overloaded in the display, while in other DAW's the same number of instances still play back fine.
-
- KVRist
- 381 posts since 28 Oct, 2002
I have found the same problem, I cant use some of my vst effects as they just drag Mulab down and it just turns the sound engine off. While I'm moaning, Avenger is not the only instrument (or effect) that Mulab "does not Like". But Jo is just one man and can only do so much, if you only use the built in instruments and effects its outstanding. I haven't found a DAW as good or as quick to get ideas started, but after a certain point I have to take the project to another DAW to use the cpu hog's.
-
- KVRAF
- 12743 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
I assume the VSTs you are talking about do multi-core inside the VST, right? What if you switch off multi-core within the VST?
-
- Banned
- 3564 posts since 22 Aug, 2019
With U-he plugins it gets even worse when I turn the built-in MC support off.
But I also notice the difference with plugins that don't have MC support as an option, who knows whether or not they support it under the hood.
The difference in CPU efficiency is there with all plugins I have, so it seems to be a general deficit on the part of Mulab, not some bad luck with a particular plugin.
But I also notice the difference with plugins that don't have MC support as an option, who knows whether or not they support it under the hood.
The difference in CPU efficiency is there with all plugins I have, so it seems to be a general deficit on the part of Mulab, not some bad luck with a particular plugin.
-
- KVRAF
- 12743 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
I'd appreciate a concrete example preferably with a good quality freeware VST plugin that comes as zip package (no installer).
So first question is: Which freeware VST comes as a zip package and is a good choice to compare cpu usage between host DAWs.
Oh and it must be a VST that does not do multi-core itself or the multi-core processing in the VST must be disableable.
Once we have a good common test case then lets exchange concrete figures.
Obviously the samplerate, block size and multi-core settings must be exactly equal in all DAWs, otherwise comparison results are not relevant. Some hosts (eg. Reaper) also do pre-rendering of audio with the advantage of lowering cpu weight but with the disadvantage of higher latency. MuLab does not do any pre-rendering. So lets also take that aspect into account when comparing.
So first question is: Which freeware VST comes as a zip package and is a good choice to compare cpu usage between host DAWs.
Oh and it must be a VST that does not do multi-core itself or the multi-core processing in the VST must be disableable.
Once we have a good common test case then lets exchange concrete figures.
Obviously the samplerate, block size and multi-core settings must be exactly equal in all DAWs, otherwise comparison results are not relevant. Some hosts (eg. Reaper) also do pre-rendering of audio with the advantage of lowering cpu weight but with the disadvantage of higher latency. MuLab does not do any pre-rendering. So lets also take that aspect into account when comparing.
-
- KVRAF
- 7137 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
Because then anyone is free to compare. Otherwise you're setting an "unrealistic condition" that everyone has the same licensed VSTs as you have in your collection. Try to see both sides of a problem rather than only your own view. It helps reach a solution. The developer does not have a license to every VST, for a start...
