Native Instruments Massive X Synth - Sequel to Massive (Out Now!)

[Functional]

Here's what I don't understand, and maybe it's just my PC, though as new as it is I can't understand why. When I turn on multi core, especially for something like Diva, performance is worse. I mean dreadfully worse to the point where I can't use it.

So I don't get it. Why do people want multi core? It doesn't do me any good at all.

It's Cubase's fault, it's very finnicky when plugins try to do their own core handling.

No issues here on Reaper - toggling MC in Diva reduces CPU load as it should.

I'm not entirely sure if this is true. I mean, it might be, so feel free to correct me in any part I'm wrong (and I'm truly curious about this stuff).

In Cubase, the way u-he plugins distribute the load under "multicore" mode is that they try to distribute the whole load equally into every core. I believe that no matter what, at least in Windows, this will always be less efficient than distributing it into one core. I don't know the technical details as to why, it's just what I've seen often - again, I might be wrong with this.

The issue that might arise from turning the multicore on is that effectively, each core will have a lower ceiling until it gets capped (since the floor gets higher). So while something like Diva will indeed run in multicore, you might have a chain elsewhere which will now cap one of the cores, giving the illusion that running Diva in multicore doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

I use the multicore feature in particular with Diva every now and then but I've noticed that sometimes I might have a chain elsewhere with some demanding plugins that wouldn't cap otherwise CPU but it will after I turn on the multicore with Diva.

The only potential issue I see here in which Cubase might falter is that you can very clearly see that multicore mode is far more inefficient and it's clearly something you should not use unless there's a real need for it. So, perhaps Reaper (and others) help with distributing it far more efficiently?

[EvilDragon]

Multicore in u-he plugins works exactly the same in all DAWs (spreads the processing across the specified number of cores - you can set the number in Diva/Repro preferences). It's just that some DAWs handle that better than others, due to their own particularities of how they handle audio processing. Reaper's anticipative processing seems to play well with this, since performance does improve when MC is enabled (realtime audio thread CPU load is reduced).

[Functional]

Multicore in u-he plugins works exactly the same in all DAWs. It's just that some DAWs handle that better than others. Again, no issues in Reaper.

Yeah but I also don't have any issues in Cubase, that's my point. If I make a heavy patch and play it with all voices, I will see that load being distributed to each individual core after I turn multicore. That's how multicore support is supposed to work. With some degree of inefficiency, which I find is expected from anything that works in multicore.

Which is why I'm not sure why Cubase gets singled out here

[v1o]

Which other synth triggered nearly 100 pages of comments BEFORE its release?

If you combined the pages of all the Dune 3 speculation threads that were started prior to release. They would exceed 100 pages.

[pdxindy]

Which other synth triggered nearly 100 pages of comments BEFORE its release?

If you combined the pages of all the Dune 3 speculation threads that were started prior to release. They would exceed 100 pages.

Then there is Zebra 3

[jancivil]

Here's what I don't understand, and maybe it's just my PC, though as new as it is I can't understand why. When I turn on multi core, especially for something like Diva, performance is worse. I mean dreadfully worse to the point where I can't use it.

So I don't get it. Why do people want multi core? It doesn't do me any good at all.

It's Cubase's fault, it's very finnicky when plugins try to do their own core handling.

No issues here on Reaper - toggling MC in Diva reduces CPU load as it should.

It used to be a total no-go, but later versions of Cubase behave differently (since somewhere in the life of C9). But I load instruments, except in a couple of cases with Reaktor, in VE Pro; so VE Pro is using cores, I have Kontakt set to use 2 (I haven't experimented, I noticed it a little while ago and didn't seem to have a reason to care) on top of Cubase and it works quite well.

[jancivil]

So anyway, what is Massive to Massive X gonna cost?

[vurt]

im pretty sure it 199 to buy outright, so id imagine halfish? dont quote me on that though.

[whyterabbyt]

im pretty sure it 199 to buy outright, so id imagine halfish? dont quote me on that though.

Could be less, but more regularly updated stuff definitely seems in that ballpark. Updates for Absynth and FM8 are normally about £60, but Battery Kontakt and Reaktor are about £90

[vurt]

im pretty sure it 199 to buy outright, so id imagine halfish? dont quote me on that though.

Could be less, but more regularly updated stuff definitely seems in that ballpark. Updates for Absynth and FM8 are normally about £60, but Battery Kontakt and Reaktor are about £90

did you not read my specific instructions

[perfumer]

im pretty sure it 199 to buy outright, so id imagine halfish? dont quote me on that though.

Could be less, but more regularly updated stuff definitely seems in that ballpark. Updates for Absynth and FM8 are normally about £60, but Battery Kontakt and Reaktor are about £90

It's a whole new synth, so I'm not shure why the upgrade should be cheap? Because it has 'Massive' in the title?

[jancivil]

Well, for 99.50 I can haz Komplete. And believe it or not this is not compelling enough to buy (I have something far more attractive to talk myself out of buying) at the moment. 49.50, harder to talk myself out of.

'why the upgrade should be cheap', well there's a kind of sale happening and Massive to Massive X is an upgrade in terms of cost, so. Probably not 69 bucks but who knows. Komplete Ultimate Collectors price for me is insane, but still out of reach for my broke ass.

[Functional]

It's a whole new synth, so I'm not shure why the upgrade should be cheap? Because it has 'Massive' in the title?

NI has also given Massive away quite liberally in the past which makes me suspect even further that they would have any... massive discount for the owners of... Massive. I think like every owner of Maschine, for example, has got Massive for free if they didn't own it already. Or maybe a free copy even if they did own it already (to give away to others).

Well, for 99.50 I can haz Komplete. And believe it or not this is not compelling enough to buy (I have something far more attractive to talk myself out of buying) at the moment. 49.50, harder to talk myself out of.

Honestly we know so far so little about how Massive X actually performs so probably not wisest to judge just quite yet as to whenever it's really worth it or not. It's clear though that the competition is rough: original Massive was really something because of how easily you could modulate things (and the amount of modulators) but now we have stuff like Pigments which does that and then some. Or, that new upcoming synth by KiloHearts which, on top of everything, will have nearly unlimited FM capabilities. So that "Gorilla" thing better be worth something or else Massive X will have to rely on heavy marketing to get sales

[jancivil]

I'd have to demo it. I think it's a worthy synth on paper but as to me using what it does, different problem.

[chk071]

I prolly wouldn't have bought it full price, but, i'll happily take it in Komplete 12. All i'm hoping is that performance isn't too bad. For a "EDM synth" like Massive, CPU consumption always is a thing. That's also partly while Sylenth1 is still so popular, IMO. Because you can have a lot of instances in your track.

Whether or not it will be my thing, sonically, i'll see. Super-8 was nice, for example, but, not quite my cup of tea either. So was Massive 1.