Arturia Pigments 3 is out!

[Teksonik]

The Teksonic patch uses 512 Partials four times the stated safe CPU maximum. Presumably Teksonic created it to test the extremes of different configurations in handling the new engine. It doesn't in any way reflect on the general performance of Pigments as it falls far outside of the designated operational parameters.

No I was just programming a patch that happens to really push Pigments' CPU. I wasn't even paying attention to the CPU at the time. It wasn't intentional but does provide a good test of how far Pigments' performance can be pushed.

Yes that's an extreme example but I stand by my opinion that Pigments could use some optimizations. It's far more CPU hungry than most other plugins I own. Diversion or luSH101 pushed hard may be the exceptions.

I do like Pigments a lot but like I said I won't be using multiple instances of it like I do with Hive 2 or DUNE 3. My studio system will run any patch I've done for Pigments but when it's eating 50% of the Audio Buffer in one patch it's hard to justify opening another instance.

I was watching a video by JunkieXL and he was talking about Arturia's Buchla plugin and said he could only use one instance of it due to the CPU demand and I assume he's using a pretty powerful system. So apparently Pigments is not the only demanding synth in the Arturia lineup.

[c_voltage]

Just say, even Autodesk still can't implemented multithreading in 3DS Max (final rendering - yes, is MT'ing though, but all what occurs in viewport - no, what is equally important, and that really pain).
If even they can't did it (for so many years) heh, it seems thing is really tricky.

[zzz00m]

One note in Pigments nothing else running on this system

That 4th core running at 50% is probably Pigments. I wonder why the rest of your CPU is running at 20% usage per core with nothing else running?

[pixel85]

I was watching a video by JunkieXL and he was talking about Arturia's Buchla plugin and said he could only use one instance of it due to the CPU demand and I assume he's using a pretty powerful system. So apparently Pigments is not the only demanding synth in the Arturia lineup.

Wow!
This is part of his computer setup. I have to go now but I think he didn't gave full specs in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geO7Npecmcg

[EnGee]

But that was 2018! Now, you can build a more powerful pc than his with maybe $500-$1000 CPU!

[WatchTheGuitar]

How many people insist on working at 96kHz or higher could actually hear the difference over 48kHz? 24 bit over 16 bit yes, but Nyquist theorem suggests you may be burning CPU cycles for hardly any noticeable improvement.

[sprnva]

How many people insist on working at 96kHz or higher could actually hear the difference over 48kHz? 24 bit over 16 bit yes, but Nyquist theorem suggests you may be burning CPU cycles for hardly any noticeable improvement.

I'm not sure if it was Ableton Live 9 or the stock plugins I was using but I could absolutely hear the difference between 44/48 and 88/96 in my early projects. If the sample rate was changed to 44 and I played back one of them it sounded dull. It was like going from CD down to cassette tape.

That's what pushed me to start working at 96k in the first place.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Old habits of reducing polyphony and render to audiotrack or sample players when CPU stressed prevent me from seing any general CPU problem. Complex patches take up more CPU on other synths too. Meanwhile, I have really enjoyed making some 80s basses and experiment with the various filters. Never expected there would be an Arturia synth for me, but if there ever was one, this would be it.

[chk071]

How many people insist on working at 96kHz or higher could actually hear the difference over 48kHz? 24 bit over 16 bit yes, but Nyquist theorem suggests you may be burning CPU cycles for hardly any noticeable improvement.

I'm not sure if it was Ableton Live 9 or the stock plugins I was using but I could absolutely hear the difference between 44/48 and 88/96 in my early projects. If the sample rate was changed to 44 and I played back one of them it sounded dull. It was like going from CD down to cassette tape.

That's what pushed me to start working at 96k in the first place.

It's interesting, because, factually, you really shouldn't hear the difference.

I'm 43, and I can hardly hear anything above 10 kHz. No shit. Do a hearing test.

[perpetual3]

The Teksonic patch uses 512 Partials four times the stated safe CPU maximum. Presumably Teksonic created it to test the extremes of different configurations in handling the new engine. It doesn't in any way reflect on the general performance of Pigments as it falls far outside of the designated operational parameters.

No I was just programming a patch that happens to really push Pigments' CPU. I wasn't even paying attention to the CPU at the time. It wasn't intentional but does provide a good test of how far Pigments' performance can be pushed.

Yes that's an extreme example but I stand by my opinion that Pigments could use some optimizations. It's far more CPU hungry than most other plugins I own. Diversion or luSH101 pushed hard may be the exceptions.

I do like Pigments a lot but like I said I won't be using multiple instances of it like I do with Hive 2 or DUNE 3. My studio system will run any patch I've done for Pigments but when it's eating 50% of the Audio Buffer in one patch it's hard to justify opening another instance.

I was watching a video by JunkieXL and he was talking about Arturia's Buchla plugin and said he could only use one instance of it due to the CPU demand and I assume he's using a pretty powerful system. So apparently Pigments is not the only demanding synth in the Arturia lineup.

Yeah, Arturia Buchla loves CPU especially in poly mode, but to be fair, Arturia do give notice that the plugin is very demanding. I suspect this is due to the nature of west coast synthesis, generating harmonics (I.e. distortion).

[Teksonik]

One note in Pigments nothing else running on this system

That 4th core running at 50% is probably Pigments. I wonder why the rest of your CPU is running at 20% usage per core with nothing else running?

It looks to me like the CPU demand is being spread out across the cores. Nothing else was running at the time. It's not spread out perfectly though.

You can see it in Cakewalk's Meter as well where there is some distribution of the workload beyond a single core. But Pigments would definitely benefit from it's own multi-core support such as found in DIVA and DUNE 3 etc.

CW 050321.png

[zzz00m]

It looks to me like the CPU demand is being spread out across the cores. Nothing else was running at the time. It's not spread out perfectly though.

You can see it in Cakewalk's Meter as well where there is some distribution of the workload beyond a single core. But Pigments would definitely benefit from it's own multi-core support such as found in DIVA and DUNE 3 etc.

Cakewalk does not multi-thread virtual instrument plugins per Noel Borthwick, CTO at Cakewalk. He commented that plugin load balancing only applies to FX plugin processing.

My thoughts: There are other processes besides the audio signal that the DAW is running that could end up on other cores. When I run Process Explorer from Windows Sysinternals, it shows 36 active threads for Cakewalk, before I even open a new project. A couple of threads appear to relate to ASIO audio and graphics processes.

With just a default new project containing one instance of Pigments and no effects plugins, there are 65 active threads in Cakewalk. So clearly a lot going on under the hood to make the magic happen! I don't think that CPU meters really tell the whole story, but are generally useful to avoid CPU overloads.

[Teksonik]

Cakewalk does not multi-thread virtual instrument plugins per Noel Borthwick, CTO at Cakewalk. He commented that plugin load balancing only applies to FX plugin processing.

Well then call up Noel and tell him his meter is broken. There is no Meter activity when nothing is playing regardless of what processes are running. The meter does show some spreading of the CPU when one instance of Pigments is running with no other plugins, FX etc loaded. The Task Manger results are the same whether using Cakewalk or FL Studio or Orion. There is never an idle core as you reported.

CW 050321.png

Anyway you win I don't want to debate about it any longer.
--------
So out of curiosity I programed patches in Vital and Pigments and made them as close as possible taking into consideration the differences in architecture. A simple one Osc patch with some Unison, both with 8 voices and 1.2 seconds Amp Release.

I chose Vital because I've seen people complain about its CPU demand. The test result here was Pigments uses almost 50% more or we'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say 40% more than Vital when playing the same sequence of notes. It's a matter of personal taste and totally subjective but I do like Vital's core sound better at least for those kinds of patches.

I do like Pigments and don't regret purchasing it at all but I think it will at least for the time being end up being one of those synths that's a whole lot of fun to patch and play but will rarely gets called up when composing a project. That not necessarily a bad thing since as long as I'm having fun with it one way or the other then it's been worth the purchase.

[telecode]

How many people insist on working at 96kHz or higher could actually hear the difference over 48kHz? 24 bit over 16 bit yes, but Nyquist theorem suggests you may be burning CPU cycles for hardly any noticeable improvement.

I can hear the difference. More harmonics in high ends, depending on which VST you are using. Now .. how well will that translate when you export your project to 44/16 I am not sure. I am not really an expert audio engineer.

FWIW.. I used to just do all my projects in 48/24. Then followed some threads on GS where more experienced guys discussed it and tried 96 and noticed the difference.

I think if I was going for a indie lo-fi feel, I would just stick to 48/24 but if I were making commercially oriented EDM it might good to try the projects.

[telecode]

How many people insist on working at 96kHz or higher could actually hear the difference over 48kHz? 24 bit over 16 bit yes, but Nyquist theorem suggests you may be burning CPU cycles for hardly any noticeable improvement.

I'm not sure if it was Ableton Live 9 or the stock plugins I was using but I could absolutely hear the difference between 44/48 and 88/96 in my early projects. If the sample rate was changed to 44 and I played back one of them it sounded dull. It was like going from CD down to cassette tape.

That's what pushed me to start working at 96k in the first place.

It's interesting, because, factually, you really shouldn't hear the difference.

I'm 43, and I can hardly hear anything above 10 kHz. No shit. Do a hearing test.

Yeah.. you would think that is the case. I too have been told my ears are shot from my days of playing live. But I can hear the difference. I have also been told some interfaces, plugins and VSTs actually work better at 96 than at 44. 96 might have been the SR they were designed to work in. using anything lower makes them less optimized. Only thing you can do is try it and see if its true in your case.