Mulab 8 has allergy to VPS Avenger

[Khr128]

Do you think I have bought Repro-5? The demo version is enough for such purposes.

Yes, demo versions are available for most licensed plugins. Also, let's not change the subject. We all agree that Mulab is an excellent DAW with its own addons. If it wants to stay in this niche, it's OK, but then do not ask people what stops them from making it their primary DAW.

For me, the fact that it's difficult to run the plugins that I like is a very serious reason. There's no point in arguing about methodology of testing. It's a fact.

If developers want to get out of this niche, they will have to get demo copies of popular plugins and try to figure out how to make them work. As far as I am concerned I can use Mulab without CPU hogging plugins, but it's not going to be my main DAW.

I mean it in a most constructive way and apologize in advance if it rubs anybody in the wrong way.

[Michael L]

MuLab is stable with every one of my plugins, and supports my creativity.
I do not choose a DAW based on how many instances of a plugin it runs.
Hardware is easy to upgrade and you can slave this computer to a new one.
Don't lose the forest for the trees!

[e-crooner]

Sorry, but I won't buy a new computer just because of a DAW.
I don't have the latest computer, and I won't get a new one in at least 5 years. So efficiency is a critical DAW criterion for me.

Like the other user, I mean this as constructive criticism. I like Mulab and it is a bit of a shame I can't use it as my main and only DAW unless I do without more demanding plugins.

[Michael L]

As you increase the number of plugins, sample libraries, instances, voices in a chord, complexity of your effects, etc you will continue to hit hardware limits regardless of the DAW. Your hardware configuration is inadequate for your desired workflow. At some point you will need to bounce.

[MuTools]

For me, the fact that it's difficult to run the plugins that I like is a very serious reason.

I thought you wrote it's only Avenger due to its inability to switch of MC.

There's no point in arguing about methodology of testing. It's a fact.

That's exactly what i'm asking for: Rational facts ie. concrete numbers.
To create true relevant comparable facts, we need a strictly defined test case so that the numbers are created in the same context. Eg. when using different blocksizes, the numbers are not comparable.

I mean it in a most constructive way and apologize in advance if it rubs anybody in the wrong way.

Your constructive feedback is well appreciated, thx.

[MuTools]

If it wants to stay in this niche, it's OK, but then do not ask people what stops them from making it their primary DAW.

Which niche?

[e-crooner]

As you increase the number of plugins, sample libraries, instances, voices in a chord, complexity of your effects, etc you will continue to hit hardware limits regardless of the DAW. Your hardware configuration is inadequate for your desired workflow. At some point you will need to bounce.

The question is not if I hit the hardware limit, but when.

[e-crooner]

For me, the fact that it's difficult to run the plugins that I like is a very serious reason.

I thought you wrote it's only Avenger due to its inability to switch of MC.

There's no point in arguing about methodology of testing. It's a fact.

That's exactly what i'm asking for: Rational facts ie. concrete numbers.
To create true relevant comparable facts, we need a strictly defined test case so that the numbers are created in the same context. Eg. when using different blocksizes, the numbers are not comparable.

I mean it in a most constructive way and apologize in advance if it rubs anybody in the wrong way.

Your constructive feedback is well appreciated, thx.

Isn't block size an aspect of the audio driver? I use exactly the same audio settings for different DAW's.
How a DAW works internally is irrelevant to me because what matters is the result.

[Michael L]

The question is not if I hit the hardware limit, but when.

And the answer is: over and over again. It's an unrealistic belief that software will solve your hardware problem. The opposite is happening: as manufacturers make CPUs more powerful, developers are making synths more demanding. But artistic creativity thrives within physical limits. You need to change your workflow.

[e-crooner]

Sorry, but that is just not the case. Stop blaming my side for a deficit that is clearly Mulab's.
Why does Reaper handle demanding plugins so much better? If only I didn't dislike Reaper's user interface that much. Ideally it would have a simple one like Mulab's. Mulab's exterior and Reaper's interior in one DAW.

[Michael L]

Sorry, but that is just not the case. Stop blaming my side for a deficit that is clearly Mulab's

You can forever find software uses that are too demanding for your hardware. The deficit is in neither software or hardware, it is in your workflow. Choose the software that lets you best express yourself, and create a workflow that frees you from your hardware limits!! MuLab will give you unique transparency in that artistic endeavour.

[mgiambro]

Why does Reaper handle demanding plugins so much better?

Reaper has some anticipative fx processing magic going on, which I believe has it's downsides - latency etc.. When it comes to CPU usage, I think it's widely known that you can throw more CPU hogging VSTs at Reaper than any other DAW.

I recently did a test with my most CPU-heavy vst, Poly-Ana. I compared MuLab, FL Studio and Zynewave Podium. From memory, playing a 3-note sustained chord, FL Studio crackled and choked at 11 instances with 68% cpu usage. Podium fared better. MuLab better still. I was getting underruns at 13 instances - 52% cpu, but only heard crackles at 14 instances.

I get that there are a lot of variables at play e.g. processor type, audio interface, driver etc.. For me MuLab performs well compared to other daws. I'd be interested to hear of peoples experience in comparing MuLab's cpu performance to DAWs other than Reaper..

[e-crooner]

Sorry, but that is just not the case. Stop blaming my side for a deficit that is clearly Mulab's

You can forever find software uses that are too demanding for your hardware. The deficit is in neither software or hardware, it is in your workflow. Choose the software that lets you best express yourself, and create a workflow that frees you from your hardware limits!! MuLab will give you unique transparency in that artistic endeavour.

I am pretty sure not even Jo thinks that is the right approach.

[e-crooner]

Why does Reaper handle demanding plugins so much better?

Reaper has some anticipative fx processing magic going on, which I believe has it's downsides - latency etc.. When it comes to CPU usage, I think it's widely known that you can throw more CPU hogging VSTs at Reaper than any other DAW.

I recently did a test with my most CPU-heavy vst, Poly-Ana. I compared MuLab, FL Studio and Zynewave Podium. From memory, playing a 3-note sustained chord, FL Studio crackled and choked at 11 instances with 68% cpu usage. Podium fared better. MuLab better still. I was getting underruns at 13 instances - 52% cpu, but only heard crackles at 14 instances.

I get that there are a lot of variables at play e.g. processor type, audio interface, driver etc.. For me MuLab performs well compared to other daws. I'd be interested to hear of peoples experience in comparing MuLab's cpu performance to DAWs other than Reaper..

I can't say anything about Poly-Ana, Podium and FL Studio, I only know those by name.
So far I haven't noticed latency issues in Reaper.
I don't even use any demanding plugins, yet, but I might like to.

[Michael L]

An alternate workflow to play that triad with 13-voice unison is to sample Poly-Ana into the two MuSynth oscillators where each osc can have up to 20 layers with pitch, drift, phase, volume and pan, with next to no CPU (and then layer further using the MultiSampler in MuSynth). So if you can't run a high-CPU synth, you can sample the sounds you like into MuSynth.
Just an example to illustrate alternate workflows....