Official Serum 2 thread!

[Igro]

Are you talking about CPU usage on presets? Many presets are made completely unprofessionally - to many parts are in use to get a result, that can be achieved with 60-70% less modules and LFOs. How much CPU it takes just when you are playing the init preset? This is how you need to evaluate a synth. Make sure your PC (?) uses the "performance mode".

That's useful when you only use the init preset

Yes. But CPU load builds up from there. I can easily create a preset in Pigment, that would kill my CPU too.
Some of newer filters do affect CPU indeed.

[Bartone]

I tried the factory presets coming with the demo. The yare CPU killer many of them.
And seems I am not only one with the same problem. Just wondering what super computers they were using when creating those CPU killers I don't wanna buy a new computer to run this monster (I really like the layout and the sounds the ones I can play without killing my computer). But the CPU load is too much :/

[AlQuzMar]

Yes. But CPU load builds up from there. I can easily create a preset in Pigment, that would kill my CPU too.
Some of newer filters do affect CPU indeed.

My CPU isn't the neewest, but I can run multiple instances of heavy Phase Plant or Vital patches. There are two synths that kill my CPU with ease though - Zebralette 3 and Serum 2. There are some bass patches in Serum 2 that my CPU can barely handle with low latency, even when I play them in a monophonic manner. That seems a bit excessive to me.

[m-ac]

Damn, I came back to this thread to see if there were any cpu optimisation updates since release but it looks like I'm out of luck

[Igro]

Yes. But CPU load builds up from there. I can easily create a preset in Pigment, that would kill my CPU too.
Some of newer filters do affect CPU indeed.

My CPU isn't the neewest, but I can run multiple instances of heavy Phase Plant or Vital patches. There are two synths that kill my CPU with ease though - Zebralette 3 and Serum 2. There are some bass patches in Serum 2 that my CPU can barely handle with low latency, even when I play them in a monophonic manner. That seems a bit excessive to me.

Could you name me that patch? I want to try and report back.

[MrJubbly]

My CPU isn't the neewest, but I can run multiple instances of heavy Phase Plant or Vital patches. There are two synths that kill my CPU with ease though - Zebralette 3 and Serum 2.

With regard to Zebralette3 ... Have you tried the most recent update? - Public Beta 2 Revision 17567 ... u-he made some performance optimizations since the initial beta.

[swilow11]

Not sure if the latest Bitwig update has caused a problem, but I'm getting poor performance with Serum 2 regardless of what I do now. In a busy enough track hitting maybe 50% on the dsp meter, just instantiating Serum 2, not even using it, causes a significant jump in resource use. Also finding it hard to understand why just using the arp or clip launcher takes so much CPU. Not a problem as I've got bitwig and 3rd party arp/sequencer but sort of strange imo.

I actually find the clip launcher almost useless with Bitwig. None of the Serum shortcuts actually work so I'm painting things in manually. Which I basically stop doing when I realise how much harder it is than just using Bitwig.

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

Serum2 is way more powerful and interesting than S1.
But too heavy on cpu,not sure how am i gonna use more that 3-4 heavy presets,playing simultaneously in real time (freezing yeah,but it's annoying and waste of time)...
Wondering why Steve Duda doesn't make a lite version,something with 4 osc and 4 filters without other types of synthesis,just straight wavetable synth,which could be friendly on cpu.
I am saying this from sound designer's point - IT'S 2025,FOUR OSC AND FOUR FILTERS ARE MANDATORY for a solid 3D sound of a preset and yet almost nobody care about it.
Just wonder,did i hear something developers and users don't or what,how difficult could be to start with that idea 4 via 4???
Wavetable subtractive synths are most used and popular,why such a donkey stubbornness to justify a weak architecture,when next synth could be starter with the right idea...coming from another topic and really amazed how many people had absolutely no idea how to make pleasant and usable sound,but insist that 4x4 idea isn't something...
Not criticizing Duda specifically,just wonder why developers doesn't consider 4 osc and 4 filters as minimum for a modern synth???
Talking my 12 years experience,not just theory or chat in free time...
My prediction is that next guy who make something like serum,but 4x4 straight wavetable synth will be very successful developer ...
How many time same problems,same demands,giving free ideas like i do in this post and in the end the developers do something,that will have same issues and weak sides,criticized and discussed same way like before...

[mesamask]

... Duda doesn't make a lite version,something with 4 osc and 4 filters ...

Not sure why you're calling something that has more a "lite" version
And why stopping at 4x4, why not 5 WT OSCs and 5 filters? Or 6x6, 7x7, 8x8, ...

At some point you gotta draw a line, don't you?
But if you really think quote "FOUR OSC AND FOUR FILTERS ARE MANDATORY", then just use something that has it.
There's plenty of options. Even Serum2 isn't that far away, five voices total and with the busses plus routing options you get five filters. So... what's the point even?
Again, if it's not suitable for you, then look for different options. Use a modular system where you can create what you'd want, or rather what your computer can bear.
(on a sidenote, at this time my relatively old CPU really can't be considered anywhere near "high end", but Serum2 honestly is running quite efficiently for what it does)

[chagzuki]

IT'S 2025,FOUR OSC AND FOUR FILTERS ARE MANDATORY for a solid 3D sound of a preset and yet almost nobody care about it.

I doubt you'll find many agree. Imo in most sound design less is more, so unless there's a complex sound that requires e.g. a comb, formant and low pass, there's no sense in running multiple filters. For those more complex sounds a modular or semi-modular environment is better, and so something like Falcon is more appropriate.
There might be be more of a case for three, since having a high pass alongside a low pass for leads or pads might be a preferred workflow over using EQ to remove some lows, in which case with two filters that leaves no scope for extra manipulation. But the oscillators have warp modifiers anyway, and there's FX filter options also.
Beyond that I have no idea what you mean by 3D sound.

[AlQuzMar]

Could you name me that patch? I want to try and report back.

I'm super busy with other stuff rn but I'll hit you up when I have the time to look for it.

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

... Duda doesn't make a lite version,something with 4 osc and 4 filters ...

Not sure why you're calling something that has more a "lite" version
And why stopping at 4x4, why not 5 WT OSCs and 5 filters? Or 6x6, 7x7, 8x8, ...

At some point you gotta draw a line, don't you?
But if you really think quote "FOUR OSC AND FOUR FILTERS ARE MANDATORY", then just use something that has it.
There's plenty of options. Even Serum2 isn't that far away, five voices total and with the busses plus routing options you get five filters. So... what's the point even?
Again, if it's not suitable for you, then look for different options. Use a modular system where you can create what you'd want, or rather what your computer can bear.
(on a sidenote, at this time my relatively old CPU really can't be considered anywhere near "high end", but Serum2 honestly is running quite efficiently for what it does)

First i really like serum2 and despite some concerns i have,will buy and use it the way it is at some point.
Just noting that less that 4 osc and 4 filters sound thin compared to 4x4,test it and prove me i am wrong...!?
4x4 it is lite,because will focus only on wavetable osc and filters and will optimize the stuff for that purpose.
4x4 is really most basic and the only thing i mention,can't imagine if share more advanced ideas ,what will be reaction of crowd here...
If you can't hear the difference,which 4 osc via 4 filters give as palette of harmonics,compared to 2X2 i don't see why to argue about that...
I guess same logic you share could be used everywhere - why car need 4 tires,you probably could drive with 2 or 3 only,but yet all cars have 4 tires...what i am trying to share as experience is reasonable and give better sound,not imaginary something...but anyway who cares...
Cheers

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

IT'S 2025,FOUR OSC AND FOUR FILTERS ARE MANDATORY for a solid 3D sound of a preset and yet almost nobody care about it.

I doubt you'll find many agree. Imo in most sound design less is more, so unless there's a complex sound that requires e.g. a comb, formant and low pass, there's no sense in running multiple filters. For those more complex sounds a modular or semi-modular environment is better, and so something like Falcon is more appropriate.
There might be be more of a case for three, since having a high pass alongside a low pass for leads or pads might be a preferred workflow over using EQ to remove some lows, in which case with two filters that leaves no scope for extra manipulation. But the oscillators have warp modifiers anyway, and there's FX filter options also.
Beyond that I have no idea what you mean by 3D sound.

No way less to be more in anything music related - entire development of synthetic sound is in opposite direction.
Less is more is motto of lazy producers
Cheers

[GeneralQ]

The CPU Usage is fine. People need to learn how to create more efficient presets.

The granular osc with 30 grains and 16 voices of unison puts your cpu at 17% peak. This is fine for 384 voices.
If you put that patch at a high release time you will get a crackle if you play a few chords in quick succession. The CPU still doesn't climb higher than 20%. The problem seems to be rather in the processing of voices and not the cpu load.
The problem can be eliminated by setting the polyphony to 3.
In my tests the limit was somewhere around 500 voices. Then you get crackling noises but still no more than 20% CPU consumption (in reaper).

For the preset surfers out there: Try the pad PD - Pacific rain can crackle if you play a few chords quickly after another.
The preset disigner (a guy named steve duda) set the polyphony to 28. If you simply set it to 10 you should be fine. The performance limit for this preset seems to be a polyphony of 12.

So instead of complaining about cpu usage ask yourself if that pad sound that is barely audible in the track really need to play 800 voices at once.

[chagzuki]

No way less to be more in anything music related - entire development of synthetic sound is in opposite direction.
Less is more is motto of lazy producers
Cheers

It's been in the direction of refinement, which means adding complexity where it's considered musically effective, and maintaining simplicity when it's considered musically effective. So as to the compromise of utility in UI, I see few people wanting more filters, because generally a single filter does the job of removing unwanted frequencies while imparting a character of choice. More filters might be wanted for e.g. a notch sweep, phaser or something. For a balance of streamlined UI long with sonic options it seems that two is a pretty well-received compromise.
In what configuration would you use four? Do you mean you're layering sounds and routing them to separate filters which require individual settings? That sounds like the kind of thing Rapid is useful for, i.e. basically having multiple patches in one instrument.