Is it possible to make MAutoDynamicEQ as efficient as MEqualizer?

[paterpeter]

Hi Vojtech,

I was wondering if I can somehow set up MAutoDynamicEq to be as light on the CPU as MEqualizer if I don't use any of the more advanced features like dynamics. If I set an EQ curve in MEqualizer and copy it to MAutoDynamicEQ (thanks A LOT for making copy/paste work across your different EQs), MAutoDynamicEQ uses roughly 70% more CPU. Disabling the dynamics section on the bands doesn't change much.

Regards,
Andre

[MeldaProduction]

Hi Andre,

quite frankly I don't think so. The eq actually uses different filters, such that often use higher orders => take more CPU. The eq also has additional features... But I'll check it, just in case.

[paterpeter]

Great, thanks. I thought the peak and shelf filters would be the same, at least they null when I filter whitenoise through either plugin with identical settings (using copy&paste). But if they are different it makes sense. I know MADEQ has more features, which is why I like it so much. It would of course be awesome if the extra features didn't add any CPU load when not used. It'd be my killer go-to EQ.

But then again, the CPU usage is quite low for both MEqualizer and MAutoDynamicEQ (for example considerably less than Pro-Q), so in the end it's not that much of a big deal.

[MeldaProduction]

I finally checked and the results aren't very useful - on my i7 with the same settings MEqualizer took 0.1% and MAutoDynamicEq 0.18%, which is a difference of course, but more or less negligible. I eventually found out, that the difference is basically caused by the easy screen, which contains peak meters, so these are to blame. But quite frankly, I don't think it is possible to optimize peak meters' code any more and 0.08% is probably not worth spending time with it anyway.

[paterpeter]

Thanks for looking at it. Out of curiosity: is it necessary to update the peak meter if the easy screen (or the plugin window) isn't shown? 0.08% isn't much as an absolute value, but technically it's still 80% more CPU than MEqualizer alone. On slower machines with many instances the difference might become notable.

As I said, it's not a pressing issue, I'm just curious.

[MeldaProduction]

Well, technically yes, because it needs to check for the maximum. Some plugins also contain loudness meter, which needs it because to fully update it it may take several seconds (for integrated it must not stop at all).
It sounds so horrible when you say 80% . But it's still negligble. I'll check on a few slower computers, but I don't suppose it would be very relevant.

[elassi]

Shocking percentage example...

Imagine you've registered at KVR exactly one year ago. Today, the amount of days you've spent on KVR has grown by 36.500%...

[MeldaProduction]

Shocking percentage example...

Imagine you've registered at KVR exactly one year ago. Today, the amount of days you've spent on KVR has grown by 36.500%...