Mulab's CPU efficiency ...

[MuTools]

Sorry for dumb&OT post, but how do one even change buffer size for on-board card on OS X in MuLab?

In the audio device's preference panel.

One in OS X and one in MuLab...

Oh if there is no buffer size control in the OSX panel, then no way i'm afraid.

[fluffy_little_something]

Sorry for dumb&OT post, but how do one even change buffer size for on-board card on OS X in MuLab?

I have the same problem with that explanation given before.

Youcan change buffer size in the ASIO control panel.

I don't know what buffer size Mulab determines based on my ASIO settings.

MuLab uses the ASIO buffer size set in the ASIO control panel. Simple, straight.

Either way, no matter what the reasons for the differences are

We're still discussing how to measure, so we can't conclude about differences yet.

somehow Mixcraft and maybe Reaper etc. as well seem to do things differently, more efficiently than Mulab.

"Seems" is the right word indeed, imho.

Hey i'm not saying MuLab will be the topmost efficient of all DAWs, may be not. I do care about efficiency but it's not the topmost priority for me. Sound quality, stability and creative flow are top prios. Efficiency is important too and i invest important r&d time in cpu optimizations. What i don't believe is the figures some of you guys are posting here which tell that MuLab would use double even triple the cpu Reaper or Mixcraft are using. That's absurd, that can't be possible. There must be some reasons that explain those differences. I already replied several things that could explain differences.

Does Mulab use higher accuracy inside?

Speaking about MUX Modular: Yes i always choose for no compromise wrt sound quality!! I'd rather spent more cpu cycles, but sound quality is top prio.
But that's not relevant here as we're talking about plugin in a VSTi. And that's a black box for the DAW.

Not in my case, on my ASIO panel I can only select the bit depth and the latency. And from those and my Mixcraft audio settings, the buffer size is set automatically, I can't change that value directly, only indirectly by picking a different latency.

Be that as it may, maybe Mixcraft, Reaper etc. simply set a more appropriate buffer size if that is what you think causes the differences...

[MuTools]

Can you pls only quote the relevant part, thx.

[MuTools]

You can change buffer size in the ASIO control panel.
MuLab uses the ASIO buffer size set in the ASIO control panel.

Not in my case, on my ASIO panel I can only select the bit depth and the latency.

Oh, ok, so that has been the choice of that audio device manufacturer. Just for my curiosity: Which audio device is that?

[fluffy_little_something]

What I wrote was clear, no matter what I quoted. And no, I will not waste my time editing quotes which already contain quotes, I hate that...

[fluffy_little_something]

You can change buffer size in the ASIO control panel.
MuLab uses the ASIO buffer size set in the ASIO control panel.

Not in my case, on my ASIO panel I can only select the bit depth and the latency.

Oh, ok, so that has been the choice of that audio device manufacturer. Just for my curiosity: Which audio device is that?

It is the Asus Xonar DX card.

[fluffy_little_something]

Here I took yesterday's pad, switched on the doubling feature in Hybrid and played the same two overlapping chords. The difference becomes immense. In Mixcraft the DAW and Hybrid only occupy core 1 it seems, while in Mulab all 6 cores get occupied. You can see how the the curve falls back to low values as soon as the chords subside...
https://app.box.com/s/xn00sat8gsxh7f7tobsbzrz0bnf5qqqd

[samardac]

fluffy_little_something, do not spent time for all that discussions here, it is waste of time.
There is more friendly forums and apps. Sorry but this conclusion I made being here for a week I never see that developers talked this way with newcomers that come to try its app. The only thing I get from this forum is that I am noob that telling absurd See you guys ma be after another year

[Zexila]

Sorry for dumb&OT post, but how do one even change buffer size for on-board card on OS X in MuLab?

In the audio device's preference panel.

One in OS X and one in MuLab...

Oh if there is no buffer size control in the OSX panel, then no way i'm afraid.

Bummer.

[Zexila]

fluffy_little_something, do not spent time for all that discussions here, it is waste of time.
There is more friendly forums and apps. Sorry but this conclusion I made being here for a week I never see that developers talked this way with newcomers that come to try its app. The only thing I get from this forum is that I am noob that telling absurd See you guys ma be after another year

Can't seem to see where things went downhill here, Jo is awesome and this place is really friendly, community too, you get response quite fast and from the man himself, others are super friendly which is rare on KVR, but hey, if that's what you feel, than that's how it is.

[chk071]

fluffy_little_something, do not spent time for all that discussions here, it is waste of time.
There is more friendly forums and apps. Sorry but this conclusion I made being here for a week I never see that developers talked this way with newcomers that come to try its app. The only thing I get from this forum is that I am noob that telling absurd See you guys ma be after another year

I don't think the dev is being unreasonable here though, in fact he's being pretty receptive to the question, and gave some interesting and unbiased informations on the topic. It's a really interesting discussion, i hope it's not turning into a personal offense thing. But, frankly, i don't really see that here (yet).

Edit: Zexila beat me to it.

[fluffy_little_something]

Hehe, I don't mind wasting my time

Another thought, does Mulab require the latest SSE and such instruction sets? My processor only supports those:
SSE
SSE2
SSE3
SSE4a (i.e. not SSE4.1 and SSE4.2)

[Taifunk]

Sound quality, stability and creative flow are top prios.

Does Mulab use higher accuracy inside?

Speaking about MUX Modular: Yes i always choose for no compromise wrt sound quality!! I'd rather spent more cpu cycles, but sound quality is top prio.
But that's not relevant here as we're talking about plugin in a VSTi. And that's a black box for the DAW.

Please continue to develop Mulab/Mux in this way Jo.
The CPU efficiency is important is true but the quality is more important and my choice is always addressed on quality.
Keeping in theme,I did a test using mux vsti and two high quality synth in reaper and mulab,reaper is a bit more efficient but nothing absurd,the peaks on the CPU are almost equal and Mulab has a much more linear consumption,with the other daw the processor is on a roller coaster.
I made the comparison with a complex audio rate patch,the settings of the other synths are in the highest quality,nothing scientific,an extreme test and not see big differences between the daw.

[MuTools]

There is more friendly forums and apps. Sorry but this conclusion I made being here for a week I never see that developers talked this way

Which way?

with newcomers that come to try its app. The only thing I get from this forum is that I am noob that telling absurd

Please be concrete and quote where someone (maybe i) told you something like this.

Also be fair and respectful and also quote all things i positively replied on and even implemented!!

[MuTools]

Another thought, does Mulab require the latest SSE and such instruction sets?

No.