Hardware DSP vs pure software plugins?

[jupiter8]

If you remember, what had me started in this thread was the statement about how DSP cards are specialized audio processing units and thus can do a better job than a "CPU that tries to be a word processor and a porn viewer".

But aren't there certain shortcuts developers use not to make plugins too cpu-heavy?

Not allowing too long delay loops, and not that many - as you could do with a hardwarebased DSP - distributing the load to other cpu. Thinking of reverbs could be made much higher quality with hardware DSP.

What makes you think DSP developers doesn't have to worry about efficiency ?

Case in point: The Lexicon PCM96 does 4 channels of reverb,the plugin with the same algorithm does several hundred on a modern CPU.

[Mr Arkadin]

But sure, you can do everything with Omnisphere too.

This is my favourite modern phrase. If I say I have a Fizmo, someone will say, "You can do all that in with Omnisphere". JD-800? "You can do all that in with Omnisphere" etc.

The obvious disadvantage with hardware DSP is maybe that it might be obsolete unless drivers are upgrades for each new OS-version and new technology for buses in computers etc.

PCI-based slots are not so common anymore, to mention one thing.

Well that goes for any new technology hardware or software - even native software. Someone still has to update all that software code to work with new OSs - look at the complaints for 64-bit updates of plug-ins. I suppose with Scope I have been lucky. I had my system around 1999/2000 and it's been updated ever since to the point where it can be used on 64-bit systems. I only stopped using it when I got my XITE-1 (same software, much more power, plus nice I/O options for hardware interfacing). The XITE-1 uses PCIe but could be adapted to use whatever developers come along with if PCIe became extinct.

My point is I was using the same PCI cards for nearly 12 years - they've lived through Mac OS9 on G4, and at least three Pentium computers with numerous Windows OSes, so really those fears are unfounded as they've lasted longer than any computer or OS I have had.

PCI slots are not that difficult to find: I recently got an ASUS board with two in (the other ASUS board died) just for my Scope cards. Again the cards outlived the ASUS board and the hard drives. Hardware built to last (I believe the Sharc chips were design to be military grade for example).

[aMUSEd]

6. I only know about UAD.

Other good ones?

Creamware/Scope has been mentioned - that focusses on synths and effects but the synths are imho what is best about it (though there are some good fx too and its really en entire music production system)

Apart from that TC Powercore - mainly fx and now defunct

SSL Duende - all fx, dsp powered versions of SSL's hardware - not sure is that is still going

also you might have heard of a relatively unknown product by the name of Pro Tools? (ProTools HD systems to be precise - in the process of being replaced by HD-X)

[lfm]

If you remember, what had me started in this thread was the statement about how DSP cards are specialized audio processing units and thus can do a better job than a "CPU that tries to be a word processor and a porn viewer".

But aren't there certain shortcuts developers use not to make plugins too cpu-heavy?

Not allowing too long delay loops, and not that many - as you could do with a hardwarebased DSP - distributing the load to other cpu. Thinking of reverbs could be made much higher quality with hardware DSP.

What makes you think DSP developers doesn't have to worry about efficiency ?

Case in point: The Lexicon PCM96 does 4 channels of reverb,the plugin with the same algorithm does several hundred on a modern CPU.

I didn't know I implied that - it's definately not what I meant.

But developers using hardware DSP can allow using the absolutely best algorithms(and often most time/cpu-consuming) since some calculations are distributed to hardware.

But it might be overruled now that main CPU are multicores and stuff, I don't know - that is part reason I started this thread.

Do hardware DSP based plugins excel in most implementations?

[JimmiG]

CPUs are many times more powerful than DSP chips these days.

Something like the Diva filter algorithms would probably be impossible to do on a simple DSP chip. Same with other more demanding synthesis engines that use a lot of CPU. Even a basic filter emulation with a few saturation stages, like the "analog mode" in the Virus eats a lot of polyphony.

[aMUSEd]

CPUs are many times more powerful than DSP chips these days.

Something like the Diva filter algorithms would probably be impossible to do on a simple DSP chip.

I don't think this is true - DIVA is great but synths like the Minimax and Proph@t on the Scope platform have just as good filters. Same is true of the UAD Moog. I would say DIVA is one of the first synths to equal the dsp powered synths I have had for many years.

That being said the main downside for me of dsp is its cost - my main Scope card broke a few months back and I can't afford to replace it.

[rod_zero]

People that state DSP card have more processing power that modern CPU just don't know a shit about computers.

DSP card made sense ten years ago, now they are obsolete technology. GPU probably will face the same fate in 3-5 years, modern CPU bring integrated GPU that can compete with low end GPU cards. That's why Nvidia is going to new markets using their chips as CPU's for other plataforms.

Do you think those DSP developers can compete with Intel upgrade schedule? And all the plug in developers in win/mac platform?

Now on the other hand hardware synth/romplers's makes sense because they are used to perform live and are more convenient for that task. There is also some people to prefer the workflow of doing music with hardware, it's just a preference and many manufacturers target those musicians since they make more profit from them. It's bad? No, it's just preference and a bussiness model. If you dont like that you could just but a daw and use freebies or komplete 8 and be done.

[whyterabbyt]

But developers using hardware DSP can allow using the absolutely best algorithms(and often most time/cpu-consuming) since some calculations are distributed to hardware.

Its not a causal relationship. Developers using general purpose processors can also utilise the 'absolutely best algorithms'. The 'quality' of the algorithnm is not related to where they're done, or what platform they're implemented on.
The only actual difference would be if an implementation of an algorithm was affected by architectural constraints that prevented the implentation from producing the same results on a different platform. If that's the case, though, the implementation is broken.

[mkdr]

DSP card made sense ten years ago, now they are obsolete technology. GPU probably will face the same fate in 3-5 years, modern CPU bring integrated GPU that can compete with low end GPU cards.

That has been said about GPU's for at least ten years now.


If you integrate a GPU to the CPU, isn't it called a GPU anymore?

[whyterabbyt]

If you integrate a GPU to the CPU, isn't it called a GPU anymore?

GPU probably will face the same fate in 3-5 years, modern CPU bring integrated GPU that can compete with low end GPU cards.

Integration at the low end isnt necessarily a predictor of what's going to occur in future.

10-Core Xeon Westmere CPU : 2,600,000,000 transistors
NVidia 400 series GPU : 3,000,000,000 transistors
Radeon 7000 series GPU : 4,300,000,000 transistors

[BertKoor]

CPU - GPU - ARM... Use them what they are designed for, horses for courses. For instance GPUs can do parallel computing at relatively low clock rates. CPUs with much higher clock rates and core counts are struggling to compete with that efficiency.

This is totally unrelated to the algorithms. Given enough power, you can do anything with everything. Even emulate a 32-bit CPU using an 8-bit CPU. It will just take half a day to get booted
And computing power is usually not the problem. That Lexicon hardware processor could run more effects engines simultaneously, it's just that adding the extra 32-channel AD/DA chip with periferals makes it too expensive to be interesting.

Was it the Cream card, which is effectively a GPU chip without the VGA connector?

[whyterabbyt]

Was it the Cream card, which is effectively a GPU chip without the VGA connector?

Think you're probably thinking of the original UAD, which used the MPACT-2 MPU.

[Syncretia]

There will always be a place for outboard digital synths. However, the need for this will diminish over time.

My message to KVR users: use a digital outboard synth/effect if:

a) It makes some sound that software can't
b) You want to perform with it, but don't want to take your laptop
c) You don't have a fast enough computer
d) If you absolutely need more grunt, go for a PCI card before an outboard synth. This allows you to add to your existing system rather than buying a completely redundant system.

Of course, if the answer is a), please write the manufacturer and request a VST version. If the answer is c), you're probably better off buying a fast computer than an outboard synth because you'll be able to do more with it anyway.

My message to manufacturers:

a) Stop disingenuous marketting campaigns. You don't need to manufacture hardware anymore. CPUs are fast enough.
b) Stop bamboozling people with GPU talk. Yes, GPUs are better at specialised tasks, but again, it's not necessary anyway - as evidenced by the myriad of quality software synths out there
c) Software is far more convenient for people. You're only confusing them by telling that they need stuff that they don't

If a manufacturer tells you to buy an outboard synth because of the "build quality", or "sturdiness", just say "OK, build a simple midi controller and a separate VSTI, and I'll buy them both!".

[Mr Arkadin]

Which bit of "not everyone wants to run everything on a computer" are you not getting? Plenty of live players do not trust computers live - plus they like something tactile to tweak.

If you're going to have a big keyboard on stage it might as well make a sound in its own right rather than just be a controller attached to a computer.

There are many other reasons but you obviously think your way is the only way.

[lfm]

But developers using hardware DSP can allow using the absolutely best algorithms(and often most time/cpu-consuming) since some calculations are distributed to hardware.

Its not a causal relationship. Developers using general purpose processors can also utilise the 'absolutely best algorithms'. The 'quality' of the algorithnm is not related to where they're done, or what platform they're implemented on.
The only actual difference would be if an implementation of an algorithm was affected by architectural constraints that prevented the implentation from producing the same results on a different platform. If that's the case, though, the implementation is broken.

I guess you are right- technically you can.

But is the cost to high on cpu and reported latency for the plugin to really be useful?

Isn't that where you start simplifying(making shortcuts) as a developer?

Yes, you freeze tracks to save cpu, but still need to at least run one instance of the plug.

That's part of the main reason I started this thread, to understand that better.

Is hardware allowing stuff to be implemented that is hard to accomplish otherwise?

Or a said elsewhere - it's obsolete with todays multicores
cpu's?