Mulab 8 has allergy to VPS Avenger

[e-crooner]

e-crooner as has been said multiple times already reaper uses pre-rendering. You cannot compare test results of pre-rendered processing with pure realtime processing.

I am not so sure it is the pre-rendering at all.
When I play live, i.e. keep a fat chord pressed without recording and playing back anything, the load is also clearly higher in Mulab.

Here the same Repro-5 pad, 5 continuous notes in HQ mode, with MC support on (without Repro-5's MC support, Mulab is in serious trouble, so there is no point), on the left Mulab, on the right Reaper:

https://app.box.com/s/t2pdp21kyqmfl2mtvg58xern9g1rp7sr

I have no idea where that huge difference comes from...

[MuTools]

The Windows cpu meter is not relevant for measuring MuLab's actual plugin processing.

[e-crooner]

I don't know what makes you think that way. Those meters do for Mulab what they do for any other application / program. Those load curves are a good indication of how much a computer is being taxed by a running program. After all, the audio hiccups, dropouts etc. confirm when those curves reach a critical level.

[skarabee]

Well, again, you're talking about VST synths that are well-known for CPU taxing, and cost more than the DAW you're using...
Can't see the point here. Should a DAW be made for running non optimised third-party plugs?
Sounds like taking a sport car and attach a big mobil-home behind

[e-crooner]

Those plugins are optimized, but they are demanding because of the way they work, i.e. detailed modeling, audio rate modulation etc.

I suppose that is what someone meant by niche earlier on. You seem to think Mulab is not meant to run professional plugins and compete with Cubase etc.
I don't know, maybe you are right, only the developer can tell what Mulab is supposed to be. Maybe it is meant to be used with the built-in modular stuff most of all. But that's not to my liking, unfortunately.

[skarabee]

Mulab is capable of handling VSTis. But some of them are very demanding, not only with Mulab, and the power consumption of a plug is not on the DAW side, that's what I think.
U-He stuff sound very good, but I also noticed a huge CPU rise with most of them in Cubase, Live, Studio One, and I'm not the only one, forums and reviews can confirm this. I just could'nt use it in not so big projects, apart from frezzing the tracks, because they don't leave enough power for the other stuff. For live play, I just forget U-He big monsters, and my music and inspiration does'nt suffer from that.

I could also build a monster multitimbral synth with dozens of VCOs and a bunch of effects for each track in MUX, and then complain about the CPU usage...
Anyway, maybe the thing is to have different tools/DAW for differents case of use. Starting from the Pro-24 on Atari till now, I still haven't found the ultimate all-purpose perfect DAW: None of them can make the coffee and clean the studio

[dakkra]

e-crooner, to best explain what we mean by cpu% usage not bring directly proportionate to the amount of VTS's able to be hosted has to deal with how CPU time is calculated. In digital audio, it's measured by the ability of the DAW to complete all the audio processing by a deadline (deadline is measured in samples determined by audio driver, hence the question about block size). Task manager uses things such as core-distribution and power draw. Of course, if a DAW wants to be able to complete signal processing by a deadline, it's going to need power.

Hope this helps to clear up that point.
Dakkra

[Michael L]

e-crooner made 20 posts about wanting to run more instances of a demo plugin in a demo DAW in a computer he is not planning to upgrade for five years. I cannot take him seriously.

[heks]

e-crooner made 20 posts about wanting to run more instances of a demo plugin in a demo DAW in a computer he is not planning to upgrade for five years. I cannot take him seriously.

I take your point. But isn't it better to civilly discuss user's views, then explain where they my be misunderstanding certain "things", not comparing "like for Like" ect. I used Lush as a "test" subject just because it is a cpu hog. If other DAWs have found ways to squeeze the most out of their product I personally would like Jo to see if he can introduce them when he can. I know the sound engine is not as immediately "sexy" so won't attract the attention of possible fresh users like the new stuff has. But it is still important.

[MuTools]

Now that was weird, I turned multi core off in lush and Mixcraft could only handle two instances. I then did the same in Mulab, but just after it started in the first bar the cpu meter at the top went red and turned off the sound. I was expecting Mulab to do three instances again.

It depends on how many cores you have assigned to MuLab. If it was still MuLab's default setting then it's not using all cores for audio, so then Lush MC could use some of the free cores not used by MuLab, so when Lush MC is off then it indeed makes a difference.

Maybe Lush is not the best instrument to test DAW's with ( I chose it because it such a cpu taxing plugin).

Indeed not the best plug as the MC aspect makes testing even more complex.

Is there a recognised standard "test" to see how hosts manage plugins?

viewtopic.php?p=7554955#p7554955

Please also read http://www.mutools.com/info/M8/docs/mul ... setup.html

[e-crooner]

e-crooner made 20 posts about wanting to run more instances of a demo plugin in a demo DAW in a computer he is not planning to upgrade for five years. I cannot take him seriously.

What are you talking about?! I have paid licenses for the DAW's I use. And whether or not a plugin is the demo or full version is irrelevant for the topic.
You, and not only you, sound like a Mulab fanboy in denial.

[e-crooner]

Now that was weird, I turned multi core off in lush and Mixcraft could only handle two instances. I then did the same in Mulab, but just after it started in the first bar the cpu meter at the top went red and turned off the sound. I was expecting Mulab to do three instances again.

It depends on how many cores you have assigned to MuLab. If it was still MuLab's default setting then it's not using all cores for audio, so then Lush MC could use some of the free cores not used by MuLab, so when Lush MC is off then it indeed makes a difference.

Maybe Lush is not the best instrument to test DAW's with ( I chose it because it such a cpu taxing plugin).

Indeed not the best plug as the MC aspect makes testing even more complex.

Is there a recognised standard "test" to see how hosts manage plugins?

viewtopic.php?p=7554955#p7554955

Please also read http://www.mutools.com/info/M8/docs/mul ... setup.html

I have set the right number of cores in Mulab, and it shows in Windows CPU meters, the cores (or threads rather, i.e. 2x the number of cores with most modern processors) are pretty evenly taxed (which you can see on the screenshot I linked), but rather high at that, that is the problem.

Multi-core support is no issue at all. Either a DAW handles plugins' MC support well or it doesn't. MC support is also irrelevant as long as you either turn it off OR on on all DAW's you compare. There is nothing unfair about it at all. It doesn't distort reality at all. Since top plugins usually have MC support these days (because the developers know that their plugins are very demanding), a DAW has to be able to deal with it.

Your criteria are arbitrary. You have not answered before, so again:
Why does it have to be freeware?
Why does it have to be a zip file, no installer?
Sounds like you are trying to exclude all top plugins, which however people use all the time these days.

[e-crooner]

e-crooner, to best explain what we mean by cpu% usage not bring directly proportionate to the amount of VTS's able to be hosted has to deal with how CPU time is calculated. In digital audio, it's measured by the ability of the DAW to complete all the audio processing by a deadline (deadline is measured in samples determined by audio driver, hence the question about block size). Task manager uses things such as core-distribution and power draw. Of course, if a DAW wants to be able to complete signal processing by a deadline, it's going to need power.

Hope this helps to clear up that point.
Dakkra

Still, the core load is a good indication as the processor doesn't work harder for fun, but on demand.
So, why is it forced to work so much harder in the case of Mulab compared to Mixcraft or Reaper? Even when playing live, i.e. without the factor of pre-rendering.

[e-crooner]

Mulab is capable of handling VSTis. But some of them are very demanding, not only with Mulab, and the power consumption of a plug is not on the DAW side, that's what I think.
U-He stuff sound very good, but I also noticed a huge CPU rise with most of them in Cubase, Live, Studio One, and I'm not the only one, forums and reviews can confirm this. I just could'nt use it in not so big projects, apart from frezzing the tracks, because they don't leave enough power for the other stuff. For live play, I just forget U-He big monsters, and my music and inspiration does'nt suffer from that.

I could also build a monster multitimbral synth with dozens of VCOs and a bunch of effects for each track in MUX, and then complain about the CPU usage...
Anyway, maybe the thing is to have different tools/DAW for differents case of use. Starting from the Pro-24 on Atari till now, I still haven't found the ultimate all-purpose perfect DAW: None of them can make the coffee and clean the studio

Sure, U-he stuff, Lush etc. are very demanding, but equally on all DAW's, so the results should be about the same.

Personally, I do not want to use several DAW's in parallel, I want to settle on one. I am not a professional producer or anything.

[dakkra]

Alright I did some testing with MSoundFactory's benchmark tool. I used the same preset across all four DAW's and the same driver settings. Also note that the benchmark is single core as MSF expects the DAW to handle multi-threading different instances, and thus cannot be benchmarked.

My hardware specs are in my signature. The asio driver settings I used were as follows:
128 sample buffer @ 48000hz, Focusrite Driver

Here are the results:

Screenshot_1.png

All within reason of each other. Power draw is not a DAW's capability to process audio.