CPU Killer!

In analog gear, oscillators, filters and effects are actually always working. This allows for stuff to be out of phase and give a much fatter sound when several notes are played. If Massive emulates this, then I guess this is why it consumes CPU even on idle.

 

Of course this makes no sense because if an oscillator is switched off then it SHOULD NOT contribute to any part of the sound (consequently it does not make it fatter, etc...)

And NONE of the modulators are assigned to any destinations in the example I presented. So it should be impossible for them to contribute to any sound produced.

The funny thing is that all this could be resolved easily by adding a few lines to the Massive code (e.g. do not run the modulator if there is no destination assigned, it's that easy). But if this is already implemented, then it is very hard to imagine what consumes the extra 4% CPU power when a key is hit? (compared to the 2-3% full FM7 voice, as I mentioned earlier)

 

I am sorry, but you are wrong.

Components of analog synths ALWAYS work, with probably the only exceptions being the envelope generators and step sequencers. You HAVE to recreate these properties if you want to get an analog sound. Please do some reading on analog synths and basic circuitry and you will quickly see yourself.

Massive can sound very analog as to me (I own a couple real analogs and I was very pleased with it). And to my first little research with it I see they recreated many of the behaviors of analog oscillators, like being out of phase and pitch/phase drifting.

 

"they recreated many of the behaviors of analog oscillators, like being out of phase and pitch/phase drifting" <- this has nothing to do with what I say!

You suggest me to read, I suggest you to think! I can only repeat myself: If we switch off an oscillator that means that we DO NOT WANT IT TO CONTRIBUTE IN ANY FORM to the sound, it's that easy. We could cut it out from the source code of Massive and the sound would be the same. This has nothing to do with analog modeling of course. And the same applies to all of the eight modulators: if there is no destination for a modulator, then it does not make any sense to run that modulator.

 

Okay now I got what you mean - my apologies, I was uber-defensive, maybe I am a little too biased!

Of course if you switch everything off you should get zero CPU load - but maybe they modeled an analog synth to faithfully ;-) I just tried and switched everything off and Massive eats 3% CPU when idle and 10% with 1 to 4 notes pressed... Hmmm...

 

Exactly, that's my point.

By the way, what is your system? (Because the CPU load you mentioned is even more than I have on my Athlon64 3200+, that is 1% -> 5% (all modules off))

 

Okay good we have come to a consensus ;-)

My system is 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo, OS X on iMac.

 

There are reasons to keep running an oscillator that has no destination; It keeps it in proper phase sync and allows the oscillator to be in a ready state if a destination is ever assigned to it. Also, it's useful to keep the oscillator always on in case the snap is morphed into a different snap, which would mean that the average of the values produced by the oscillator would need to be considered... even if one oscillator is not being sent to a destination.

 

To Lowkus:

Ok, let's start again.
you wrote: "There are reasons to keep running an oscillator that has no destination; It keeps it in proper phase sync and allows the oscillator to be in a ready state if a destination is ever assigned to it." <- this is not valid for Massive because a destination cannot be assigned dynamically. You have to pull it onto the desired data field with your mouse (at sound design time)!

To Artemiy:

an Intel Core Duo 1.83GHz on an OS X iMac is approx. two times slower than an Athlon64 3200+ 2.2GHz on Win XP? That's also shocking because I thought I would upgrade to your CPU...

 

If you click the little blue (cyan) lights next to the oscillators, so that they turn off, it will cut off the oscillators from their destinations. Click the blue light on again and the oscillator will be assigned to a destination (the same one it had before the oscillator was disconnected). As far as I know there is no design-time versus run-time aspect to Massive, so you'll have to explain to me what you're talking about with that whole thing.

 

Ok, I am too tired to repeat myself again and again. Please read my previous posts. I think I was clear enough.

 

If you turn everything off and switch between Ultra and Eco mode, the CPU usage goes up and down (slightly, from 2 to 1 percent on my machine in standalone).

So I am going to guess that it is due to Massive being oversampled and this being brought down to the output samplerate (even if there happens to be nothing playing at the moment).

That is, none of the stuff that you have turned off is running, but it is still doing some processing on all the zeroes it is outputting.

It would be doing this because it cannot know from the number of voices if a sound is still playing (add reverb effect and turn size all the way up).

An obvious solution would be to turn it off entirely if all the modules are off but of course this is completely useless in the real world, since you surely will not be using massive just to sit there and soak up a couple percent of your CPU.

BTW I notice no difference in idle CPU use even after turning everything on until I play a note.

 

I read your earlier posts and they were not relevant to my question. However, I did see in your posts that you have a streak of belligerence, condescension, and ignorance. So in reflection of that critique, as well as my understanding that it is pointless to complain about software performance to people who have no control over improving it, I'm going to jump off this thread now.

Have fun.

 

It's interesting to see that everybody knows an explanation for the unexplainable.

Conclusion: the users deserve the high CPU load.

---
and Lowkus, I am sorry, I did not have the intention to hurt anybody here but you are wrong again. You said: "it is pointless to complain about software performance to people who have no control over improving it" <- this is not true. If there are enough users who think the same, they have the power to influence a product. NI wants to sell more. The more users are satisfied, the more profit they get. That's good for them and good for us.

 

I've heard that a good idea in releaving CPU usage is Muse Receptor which retails at about 2000. So the decison in this day in age is to update your system do be more compliant to this days and later dates software technology or pick up one of these?? Unless anyone else has another option in the MASSIVE cpu usage used in the coming instruments?