reality check: monark versus...

Discussion in 'REAKTOR' started by Mike, Apr 2, 2013.

  1. Mike

    Mike NI Team

    Messages:
    28
    Hello,

    the developers of Monark would like to give you a comparison between Monark and the specific
    "famous device from the 70s it was modelled after". For that we've prepared an audiofile.

    The audiofile contains various phrases covering a wide range of sounds (basically a final checklist for us).
    You first hear the modeled device and then the same phrase remade with Monark.(Excuse the rather sloppy playing)Remember, this is no beauty/music contest, it just shows you the raw and real quality of both devices in normal and also rather extreme settings(One goal of this project was to have our clone work in ALL settings)

    The knobs in Monark were scaled to match our hardware very closely
    and in most cases you immediately get a very good match.

    Still setting up a single sound for A/B comparisons is a time consuming
    and annoying process so for the sake of sanity during this A/B
    comparison we allowed for "some" deviation
    This not an excuse but a fact! (We lost most of our sanity during
    cloning, anyway...

    the links:

    (original recordings made directly into a RME Fireface UC at 88.2 Khz.
    No other gear used)

    http://www.native-instruments.com/fileadmin/ni_media/downloads/AB_Monark_88_khz.wav

    Or the converted mp3 file at soundcloud:

    https://soundcloud.com/nativeinstruments/monark-a-b-comparison


    best,

    the developers of Monark
    ---
    Just a personal remark.For those who are looking for more "jazzy", classic type demos, i recommend looking at the very nice audio examples i found here...

    http://en.audiofanzine.com/virtual-...k/editorial/reviews/NI-monark-pro-review.html

    ...respect!

    mike daliot
  2. colB

    colB NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    913
  3. KevWestBeats

    KevWestBeats Forum Member

    Messages:
    280
    They sound close enough for me. The differences are minor. I just wish that Monark wasn't such a cpu eating beast. It sounds very good and is very easy on the eyes but it kicks my Maschine's butt everytime I load a few.
  4. EvilDragon

    EvilDragon NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    6,984
    Blame Maschine for not using up all the cores you have in your computer. And Reaktor, too. :)
  5. salamanderanagram

    salamanderanagram NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    2,121
    !
    sounds nice.
  6. suthnear

    suthnear New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Are these patches in the monark library?
  7. KevWestBeats

    KevWestBeats Forum Member

    Messages:
    280
    I do lol.
  8. OhulahanBass

    OhulahanBass New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Is the famous device from the 70s engineered by a famous man named Bob?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 3, 2013
  9. Kymeia

    Kymeia NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    3,125
    As long as you have a modern computer cpu isn't that bad. It uses around 9-11% of one core on my i7 Mac Mini - and that is running at the 88,200 khz, which is twice the sample rate of most plugins and ensembles (and can be adjusted to 44,100 to save cpu if needs be). I consider that to be acceptable for such a detailed and rich sound. Multicore support for Reaktor would be helpful mind.
  10. sowari

    sowari Moderator

    Messages:
    25,521
    Monark is Moogtastic.

    sowari
  11. ~Pd~

    ~Pd~ Forum Member

    Messages:
    538
    Those A/B tests are insane. It sounds closer than any two hardware minis would resemble each other. A lot of VAs err on the side of sounding overly polite and refined, whereas this captures the brutal skronk and farting rudeness of the hardware in all its detail. Madness.
  12. Ruari

    Ruari NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    257
    Good work :D
  13. nox

    nox Forum Member

    Messages:
    123
    @ Mike: I quote this in other forum, hispasonic, i hope you dont mind ;)
  14. KevWestBeats

    KevWestBeats Forum Member

    Messages:
    280
    my computer is a year old. windows 8 i7 2nd gen personally dislike how much cpu this eats after using several but then again I was running this inside of maschine too
  15. Kymeia

    Kymeia NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    3,125
    Well it shouldn't eat that much then, an i7 should manage to run maybe 8-9 instances before really maxing out, maybe even better in a multicore capable DAW like Reaper or something. Maschine is probably more the problem there.
  16. arachnaut

    arachnaut NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    3,331
    In Live 8.4 (64-bit) using Core i7 @ 4.4 GHz (16 GB RAM) running at 48kHz (Monark at 96kHz) I can easily get 30 tracks of Monark to load and I see 57% CPU. No crackles. All tracks playing simultaneously triggered. Resource Monitor shows Live is using about 1.3 GB so it may also work in 32-bit Live. Windows 8 Pro.

    EDIT:

    32 tracks in Live 8.4 32-bit at 55% CPU. No problems.
    42 tracks uses 76%. Can't tell if there are crackles, it's too noisey, but seems to work OK.


    I don't think anyone should be complaining about CPU usage - or maybe it's time to upgrade. Don't you think things things will just get more power-hungry?

    Attached Files:

  17. arachnaut

    arachnaut NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    3,331
    That's because Maschine is single-threaded. It's not really a DAW in this respect.
    Try running 8 Maschines in a DAW, one per core.

    EDIT:

    Just for laughs, I tried 32 channels of Maschine, each running 1 instance of Monark in Live 8.4. It uses 83% CPU and 6Gb of RAM, but seems stable.

    Don't know how I could use that or trigger it, though.

    Attached Files:

  18. EvilDragon

    EvilDragon NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    6,984
    One thing to have in mind is that Live is actually not showing the actual CPU usage... Always turn to Task Manager for these things.
  19. arachnaut

    arachnaut NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    3,331
    Task manager agreed with Live in my case.

    This was just for fun, not practical.

    How many instances of Monark will you actually use?

    Naturally that depends, but typically subtractive synths don't add up sonically with many tracks because of the midrange mess it usually makes.

    I imagine most will use only one or two presets at a time.

    Even if you wanted to try to emulate a classic ELP track or something from that era, there are very few parallel tracks of synths.

    Notalgia on - I was at a live ELP concert in the 70's and Keith played a Moog and a Hammond organ of some type simultaneously. With Lake on guitar/vocals and Palmer on the drums that was it. It was a 4-channel speaker concert in the Pittsburgh Civic Arena (a closed dome structure). I was near the top row (in height) and the 'herbal' fog bank was enough to get me high.
  20. KevWestBeats

    KevWestBeats Forum Member

    Messages:
    280
    Or Ableton which is the DAW I do my work in when not using Maschine. I see the same issue there. kinda sad though because I love Maschine and would prefer to do every thing until the mix there. I also wish maschine had rewire so I could bring Reason into the mix as well.

Share This Page