KVR Audio

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:03 pm

That too.

Stefken · Post by **Stefken** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:30 pm

v1o wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:56 am Newer CPUs are much faster at AVX operations.

How so?
You mean AVX-512? Your code has to be written to support it.
From what I can tell from a google search, Massive X does not support AVX-512.
I don't see it mentioned anywhere.

DJ Warmonger · Post by **DJ Warmonger** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:35 pm

I don't see it mentioned anywhere.

Because nobody else mentioned it. Massive X runs with regular AVX instructions.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:46 pm

Stefken wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:30 pm
v1o wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:56 am Newer CPUs are much faster at AVX operations.
How so?

Newer CPUs can do certain AVX instructions in less CPU cycles than old ones.

hellomyfriend · Post by **hellomyfriend** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:07 pm

Nice!

telecode · Post by **telecode** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:10 pm

This is where I am dumb because I am not a programmer but just a scripter.

So does the AVX components just make the GUI of the VST product "prettier" or does it actually contribute in any way to the resolution or "quality" of the sound of the actual VST when used within the DAW or standalone mode?

DJ Warmonger · Post by **DJ Warmonger** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:27 pm

telecode wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:10 pm This is where I am dumb because I am not a programmer but just a scripter.

So does the AVX components just make the GUI of the VST product "prettier" or does it actually contribute in any way to the resolution or "quality" of the sound of the actual VST when used within the DAW or standalone mode?

AVX instructions allows processor to do more work in a single operation. That is, to work faster.

Newer CPUs can do certain AVX instructions in less CPU cycles than old ones.

More precisely, old processors cannot execute AVX instructions at all, which is why Massive X won''t work with them.

telecode · Post by **telecode** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:42 pm

DJ Warmonger wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:27 pm
telecode wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:10 pm This is where I am dumb because I am not a programmer but just a scripter.

So does the AVX components just make the GUI of the VST product "prettier" or does it actually contribute in any way to the resolution or "quality" of the sound of the actual VST when used within the DAW or standalone mode?
AVX instructions allows processor to do more work in a single operation. That is, to work faster.

That still doesn't really answer the question. The question is, is AVX mostly noticeable in graphics operations such as gaming, video editing, photo editing, and/or pretty GUIs for VSTs, or is it going to be noticeable in the way sound is captured in a DAW?

The GUI for Massive X is obviously very different and more intricate than Massive. Is that the only reason it uses/requires AVX in CPU?

DJ Warmonger · Post by **DJ Warmonger** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:47 pm

That still doesn't really answer the question. The question is, is AVX mostly noticeable in graphics operations such as gaming, video editing, photo editing, and/or pretty GUIs for VSTs, or is it going to be noticeable in the way sound is captured in a DAW?

The GUI for Massive X is obviously very different and more intricate than Massive. Is that the only reason it uses/requires AVX in CPU?

You don't get the point. It's all up to devs how they implemement it. From what was told it is clear that Massive X efficiency comes from the fact that synth DSP was implemented using AVX.

All graphics should be rendered with GPU using OpenGL, their impact on CPU has been neglible for years (if implemented correctly). Massive X GUI shouldn't consume any more CPU that any other window at your desktop, which is unnoticeable.

Stefken · Post by **Stefken** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:59 pm

telecode wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:10 pm This is where I am dumb because I am not a programmer but just a scripter.

So does the AVX components just make the GUI of the VST product "prettier"...?

Looking at the GUI, and knowing that they use AVX, you knew that statement could not be true, right.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:43 pm

AVX operations are not GUI related at all (GUI of MX just requires OpenGL 2.1 and above capable graphics chip), they are number-crunching (read: DSP) related because it allows processing multiple pieces of data simultaneously (within the same CPU clock). It's an extension of SSE operations.

acid alex · Post by **acid alex** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:00 pm

DJ Warmonger wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:03 am Might be just due to audio-rate modulation, which is always enabled even if not really needed

How do I check if audio rate modulation is turned on/off? I can't find a setting for it.

Even the MassiveX init patch runs at 12% CPU for me with just one note playing, with Unison turned on (6 voices) it goes up to 28%.

In contrast the Dune 3 init patch runs at 1% and then creeps up to 4% with 6 voice unison. If I then set Dune 3 to audio rate modulation it runs at 5% CPU.

One thing I have noticed is that the MassiveX init patch is set at poly 8 voices, and the CPU will remain at 28% whether I play one note or eight notes. If I decrease the Poly voices the CPU decreases down to 14% at one voice. So I think, while generally MX uses a lot of CPU, part of the issue is that if its set at Poly 8 then it will use the maximum CPU even if I'm playing only one note. Not sure if this makes sense.

EnGee · Post by **EnGee** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:56 pm

I don't know man! Either I have "super computer" or either I'm in heaven!
I have just tried to insert two tracks, one for MX and one for Dune3, and record one chord (3 notes) of both. MX has the preset "Ancient Future" while Dune 3 has the preset "Arctic Breath ST". Dune 3 has settings to Audio Rate.

The CPU of both is ridiculously low in Reaper (both have 12% RT CPU)! :

telecode · Post by **telecode** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:13 pm

acid alex wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:00 pm
DJ Warmonger wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:03 am Might be just due to audio-rate modulation, which is always enabled even if not really needed
How do I check if audio rate modulation is turned on/off? I can't find a setting for it.

Even the MassiveX init patch runs at 12% CPU for me with just one note playing, with Unison turned on (6 voices) it goes up to 28%.

In contrast the Dune 3 init patch runs at 1% and then creeps up to 4% with 6 voice unison. If I then set Dune 3 to audio rate modulation it runs at 5% CPU.

One thing I have noticed is that the MassiveX init patch is set at poly 8 voices, and the CPU will remain at 28% whether I play one note or eight notes. If I decrease the Poly voices the CPU decreases down to 14% at one voice. So I think, while generally MX uses a lot of CPU, part of the issue is that if its set at Poly 8 then it will use the maximum CPU even if I'm playing only one note. Not sure if this makes sense.

Isn't that the exact same issue as with Diva? When first installed it sounds amazing and uses lots of CPU because of the "divine mode" and you reduce poly settings to get it under control.

DJ Warmonger · Post by **DJ Warmonger** » Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:50 am

acid alex wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:00 pm
DJ Warmonger wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:03 am Might be just due to audio-rate modulation, which is always enabled even if not really needed
How do I check if audio rate modulation is turned on/off? I can't find a setting for it.

There is no setting, Massive X offers audio-rate modulation as a key feature. It implies it's always active, unlike in Dune for example which has different settings.

I don't know man! Either I have "super computer" or either I'm in heaven!

Maybe you're smart with computers and they just work for you, unlike others

Massive X v1.1.0 has been released