MuTools

wibem · Post by **wibem** » Mon Apr 04, 2022 12:36 pm

At the moment I can't use Mulab standalone due to the
really poor CPU efficiency. On my computer (Mac i5) I can't run more than 2 synth vsts without getting troubles. If I use M9 as a plugin in Reaper, it is much better, because Reaper is lighter with the CPU. But of course I would like to use the M9 standalone too. Beside this it's a big problem for me that you can't change the audio buffer in M9. Is there any hope for the nearest future, that there will be some improvements regarding these issues?

Scrubbing Monkeys · Post by **Scrubbing Monkeys** » Mon Apr 04, 2022 4:41 pm

I ran into this as well. I created a pretty intense Mux In Mux 7 that ran fine in Reaper but maxed out Mulab 8. I really would like to keep it in Mulab if possible.

Scrubbing Monkeys · Post by **Scrubbing Monkeys** » Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:06 am

I experimented with this using M9. One instance of Mudrum with some 3rd party vst fx. Sitting idle M9 app uses 30%. The same using M9 plugin in Reaper is 7%. On an Intel I5. That is not a small difference. There are Reverbs and saturation plugins used and I realize that sometimes those use cpu cycles even when idle. Does anyone know the logic behind this? Core management maybe?

Seems to me that even if I wanted to use Mulab only.....it's better to use the plugin inside of Reaper if using vsts

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Wed Apr 13, 2022 11:25 am

Please read the last section on this page:
https://www.mutools.com/info/M9/docs/mu ... setup.html

In short: Certainly do not compare MuLab's CPU meter value of MuLab App with the MacOS system values. Those are apples and pears.

Based on the checks i did there is almost no difference between M8 and M9.
(M9 may be using a tiny little bit more, but will try to fine new optimization opportunities during M9's lifecycle)

wibem1 · Post by **wibem1** » Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:40 pm

Here is a direct comparison between M9 standalone and Reaper (M9 as plugin) with the system CPU meter and the same project. The audiobuffersize is 512 in both DAWs.
Beside this M9 has a critical behavior , because the CPU usage doesn't decrease, if the playback stops. In Reaper it does.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Wed Apr 13, 2022 2:04 pm

First of all: I have the impression you did not yet read/understand the last section on this doc page:
https://www.mutools.com/info/M9/docs/mu ... setup.html

On top of that:
Reaper uses a kind of pre-render processing which has the advantage of being more cpu friendly but the disadvantage of inserting latency on actions. It's more or less like increasing the buffer size. Said with respect for Reaper as it indeed seems to be the best of all DAWs regarding cpu efficiency.

Scrubbing Monkeys · Post by **Scrubbing Monkeys** » Wed Apr 13, 2022 2:38 pm

mutools wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 2:04 pm Reaper uses a kind of pre-render processing which has the advantage of being more cpu friendly but the disadvantage of inserting latency on actions. It's more or less like increasing the buffer size. Said with respect for Reaper as it indeed seems to be the best of all DAWs regarding cpu efficiency.

Yeah that makes sense I guess.

I believe Reaper divides cores by tracks. But this is only one track so not sure that comes into play.

I can say that overall I really enjoy making music in Mulab. Fast n fun.

mgiambro · Post by **mgiambro** » Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:25 pm

Deleted.