I was wondering if the new multicore support in Mulab 5 will apply to the MUX VST ?
Is it the host and only the host that must deal with multicore support ?
If a plugin have multicore support, will it be in conflict with the multicore support of the host application ?
muticore support and MUX
-
- KVRian
- 620 posts since 27 Jul, 2001 from france
PQ
free software at : http://pquenin.free.fr/pqnaudio
free music at : http://www.soundclick.com/thepqueninproject
free software at : http://pquenin.free.fr/pqnaudio
free music at : http://www.soundclick.com/thepqueninproject
-
- KVRAF
- 13863 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
The next MUX Vst will not have multi-core support. The multi-core engine is applied on MuLab level.
By the way the next MUX Vst is getting close. It will be named MUX 5 because it's more comfortable for everyone that MuLab and the MUX use version numbers with the same base.
By the way the next MUX Vst is getting close. It will be named MUX 5 because it's more comfortable for everyone that MuLab and the MUX use version numbers with the same base.
-
- KVRAF
- 1601 posts since 24 Jun, 2004 from Australia
This is a shame! I'm seriously considering purchasing MUX VST, and while multi-core is not a deal breaker, I'm also quite reluctant at the moment to purchase new tools. Having multi-core support in MUX VST would be a great boon to me, as when I use chains inside another plugins, they often end up being the entire effect chain, and thus, negates any multi-core support inside the host.
I'm not sure how it would look, because I'm not sure if processing on different cores with differing delay values would cause issues, but nevertheless, given the quantity of cores on desktops these days, I imagine it would still be useful in MUX VST, when using large numbers of VSTs (which I do, typically in energyXT VST currently).
Are you looking into including it for the next MUX VST version?
I'm not sure how it would look, because I'm not sure if processing on different cores with differing delay values would cause issues, but nevertheless, given the quantity of cores on desktops these days, I imagine it would still be useful in MUX VST, when using large numbers of VSTs (which I do, typically in energyXT VST currently).
Are you looking into including it for the next MUX VST version?
-
- KVRAF
- 5068 posts since 27 Jul, 2004
Other question:druid wrote:This is a shame! I'm seriously considering purchasing MUX VST, and while multi-core is not a deal breaker, I'm also quite reluctant at the moment to purchase new tools. Having multi-core support in MUX VST would be a great boon to me, as when I use chains inside another plugins, they often end up being the entire effect chain, and thus, negates any multi-core support inside the host.
I'm not sure how it would look, because I'm not sure if processing on different cores with differing delay values would cause issues, but nevertheless, given the quantity of cores on desktops these days, I imagine it would still be useful in MUX VST, when using large numbers of VSTs (which I do, typically in energyXT VST currently).
Are you looking into including it for the next MUX VST version?
Is there any Plugin Chainer out there, which supports Multicores natively???
Kore 2: No
Maschine: No
EnergyXT2: No
Meta-Plugin: ???
Bidule: ???
Usine: ???
-
- KVRAF
- 1601 posts since 24 Jun, 2004 from Australia
Not that I'm aware of! This could be a good opportunity to provide something that competitors do not!Trancit wrote:Other question:
Is there any Plugin Chainer out there, which supports Multicores natively???
Kore 2: No
Maschine: No
EnergyXT2: No
Meta-Plugin: ???
Bidule: ???
Usine: ???
-
- KVRAF
- 13863 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
I've taken note about the request. I can't say more atm as it first needs some further research.
-
- KVRAF
- 5068 posts since 27 Jul, 2004
Multiple instances yes, if they are hosted on different tracks (most hosts use track based multicore support)...but the request/claiming is about spreading the CPU load inside a single instance and this can only done by MUX itself and not by the host as it sees the MUX as a single thread...> DiGiT < wrote:assuming your host is MC compliant, wont it split several instances of mux among available cores?
-
- KVRAF
- 1601 posts since 24 Jun, 2004 from Australia
Correct, not the end of the world! But who said it was? I always wonder at such responses. For me, I only expressed my interest in such a feature.
If the host splits between cores per track, then you'd have to route different instances between different tracks, IF (and only if) you had a complex MUX chain. Quite unintuitive. Perhaps this is a rare case and not worth spending time on. I haven't really looked at MuTools products until recently, but even so, I'm perfectly fine to let Jo make that decision. If it never makes it in, like you say, it will not be the end of the world. I agree. :)
(An addendum that I can't resist making: Advance in anything could always be (and sometimes is) stalled if the many who are used to the status quo disparage any ideas to change things potentially for the better. Varying opinions always welcome! No need to add superfluous subjective interjections, rather constructive feedback is much more useful, such as why it's not worth doing, based on anything from size of dev team, to money to implement, and so on.)
If the host splits between cores per track, then you'd have to route different instances between different tracks, IF (and only if) you had a complex MUX chain. Quite unintuitive. Perhaps this is a rare case and not worth spending time on. I haven't really looked at MuTools products until recently, but even so, I'm perfectly fine to let Jo make that decision. If it never makes it in, like you say, it will not be the end of the world. I agree. :)
(An addendum that I can't resist making: Advance in anything could always be (and sometimes is) stalled if the many who are used to the status quo disparage any ideas to change things potentially for the better. Varying opinions always welcome! No need to add superfluous subjective interjections, rather constructive feedback is much more useful, such as why it's not worth doing, based on anything from size of dev team, to money to implement, and so on.)
-
- Banned
- 897 posts since 8 Jan, 2005 from Detroit
hey id like MC to be a reality in mux but i think i already know the answer. i agree it would be nifty. i dont know what you are reading into my response... just trying to look at things in a realistic way. feel free to get technical and express yourself.
-
- KVRAF
- 1601 posts since 24 Jun, 2004 from Australia
Oh you do? Ok then.
It was purely your "not the end of the world" comment. I wasn't sure how it came in to it, it's rarely said in any context other than in response to someone who is pushing something like it's the only way to do it, and being stubborn about it, which I wasn't doing. It may just be the way you express yourself? If so, no problem. :P
It was purely your "not the end of the world" comment. I wasn't sure how it came in to it, it's rarely said in any context other than in response to someone who is pushing something like it's the only way to do it, and being stubborn about it, which I wasn't doing. It may just be the way you express yourself? If so, no problem. :P
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35449 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Bidule: Yes (core assignment has to be done manually, though)Trancit wrote:Is there any Plugin Chainer out there, which supports Multicores natively???
Bidule: ???
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- Banned
- 897 posts since 8 Jan, 2005 from Detroit
its not the end of the world, then you agree? does that phrase seem insensitive to you? please refrain from being oversensitive. its a logical conclusion to your dilemma for the time being. not the end of the world. that was last december, remember? the world has already ended. carry on.
-
- KVRAF
- 1601 posts since 24 Jun, 2004 from Australia
Ah, you know, I was going to joke about the end of the world in December, but refrained from it... Good to know someone else out there is happy to joke about it too. :P
Whyterabbyt: Thanks for adding that, I wasn't aware of that and it's useful to know.
Whyterabbyt: Thanks for adding that, I wasn't aware of that and it's useful to know.