LoopStationZebra wrote:it's like a hipster commie pinko manifesto. Rambling. Angry. Nearly divorced from all reality; yet strangely compelling with a ring of truth.
I believe you didn't understand what I said. I was creating swoshes (you know those things that raise energy on a track??) on a track of mine, not trying to create any conflicts in here.H20nly wrote:stop blowing smoke and send the damn logs in.
why you gotta bring up old shit?
It could definitely be possible, depending on your system and the polyphony/quality chosen in Massive.jok wrote:Achieving 60% of CPU load with 2 tracks of Massive + one track of Sylenths1 is of course possible, depending on your settings and the presets in use.
LoopStationZebra wrote:it's like a hipster commie pinko manifesto. Rambling. Angry. Nearly divorced from all reality; yet strangely compelling with a ring of truth.
yes, spot on.@ Jorg- is Live only reporting the most active core on the CPU meter? What I've seen in my old version (6.0.11) and the reports I've seen over at the NI forums would suggest this is the case...
But in other conversations about the CPU meter, we were told the CPU meter is an indicator of how much Audio processing power is left. And that it explained why most people can't get past 80% because that other 20% included non audio processes like graphical processing.jok wrote:Hi Ewistrand,
yes, spot on.@ Jorg- is Live only reporting the most active core on the CPU meter? What I've seen in my old version (6.0.11) and the reports I've seen over at the NI forums would suggest this is the case...
Best,
Jörg
In Massive's case, you have to remember that voices are computed in groups of four; parallel processing like that actually decreases the CPU load with higher voice counts. However, with single voices, you're going to see close to the load that you would with four; it's within 3-4%.Scott Righteous wrote:
I have to tell ya that Massive is a CPU hog - and Sylenth only a little better.
What variant OSX? What's your quality setting in Massive? Unison voices?I have a 1.83Ghz macbookpro running Logic, and one note from Massive will overload the CPU.
I can run many instances of other plug-ins, but one note from Massive kills everything.
Definitely not true if you tame the speedstepping in OSX, or, if that doesn't do it, turn down the quality in Massive. On my old 4600x2 Windows box (actually 2.4 GHz), 16 voices of Massive in ultra quality mode would average around 55-60% of one core; using four voices (a note and threee unisons) would run around 15%. Turn the quality down to high, and I'd see maybe a third less.Now, I'm not in any way trying to say that Ableton does not have problems.
But Massive is a bad example to be using on a 2.4G machine - which will have problems in Logic or any other DAW you put on that macbookpro.
That's what I've been doing for some time and Massive, several instances, worked pretty well on 7 and even in Logic in the same machineScott Righteous wrote:Hey diogo_semedo, I had a look at your system specs, a 2.4Ghz macbookpro, and what you are using - Massive and Sylenth.
I have to tell ya that Massive is a CPU hog - and Sylenth only a little better.
I have a 1.83Ghz macbookpro running Logic, and one note from Massive will overload the CPU.
I can run many instances of other plug-ins, but one note from Massive kills everything.
Now, I'm not in any way trying to say that Ableton does not have problems.
But Massive is a bad example to be using on a 2.4G machine - which will have problems in Logic or any other DAW you put on that macbookpro.
If I started running Logic with any sample rate higher than 44.1 - Sylenth would crash that party.
I'm just trying to put some perspective on this.
A better test of Ableton issues would be to use only Ableton plug-ins and see what used to run smoothly in Live 7 that clearly does not run smoothly in Live 8.
S.
