1. IMPORTANT:
    We launched a new online community and this space is now closed. This community will be available as a read-only resources until further notice.
    JOIN US HERE

Massive X: Status/Future?

Discussion in 'MASSIVE + MASSIVE X' started by Lucas Howden, Mar 23, 2021.

  1. EvilDragon

    EvilDragon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,938
    Hell no. MX has filters that are so much better and have so much character. Serum filters all sound way too flat to me (no wonder, majority of them are like 20 years old Velocet filters - sure they were coded by Andy Simper, but that was way before he went into component modeling bonanza in Cytomic). Quality over quantity. Comb filters in MX are untouchable.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2021
  2. QUALTHEBEAN

    QUALTHEBEAN New Member

    Messages:
    5
    Well I'm sure you know way more about this than me (I say that sincerely not sarcastically) but the general online consensus seems to be that MX isnt up to the capability standard that most modern synths have. Idk, I was just hoping to not have to be so much of an MX apologist to Serum fans lol
     
  3. EvilDragon

    EvilDragon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,938
    People just haven't explored MX properly...
     
  4. sijarvis

    sijarvis NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    289
    I downloaded Phaseplant last year and was really enjoying making wavetables for it. I can't remember the exact software I used to do this but it was very straight forward and I was able to turn short vocal samples into wavetables with ease.

    I should have used the demo time to do a basic head to head with MX, so am unable to give a more detailed comparison to the two synths but whilst I think MX has some MASSIVE gaps in its architecture, I cannot fault it for what it does do. Sonically, MX is superb and a huge jump in quality from the original Massive.

    My biggest complaint with MX is its slow progress. It's somewhere between stultifying and comatose.
     
  5. Kubrak

    Kubrak NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    1,056
    You know, COVID, Apple OS, Apple Silicon, new owner, .... it makes things go slooow. Massive X had pretty delayed release and probably some parts, that were planned for, did not make it to initial release. Then summer holidays, then few months, then COVID.

    I am SW developer and I havent seen any of my customers in flash for almost two years. And it is hard to negotiate things using videoconference, telephone, email.... Everybody is tired of it. Most people are tired of working home.... Everything takes long time. People do not have good mood and creative spirit.... Not the best time for development of new features.....

    Give it some more time, half year, year or so and things might unwind faster.
     
  6. chk071

    chk071 NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    180
    Yes. I'm a bit worried about that as well. The synth has such a potential, and it's kind of wasted by how slow progress it. I get that NI is pretty busy doing VST3's, and native M1 versions of their plugins, but, seriously. MX really deserves an update with some of the features people have been proposing for a while now (MIDI learn/parameter automation, better preset browser, wavetable import).I really hope that we see some of those soon.
     
  7. chk071

    chk071 NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    180
    That's 20x in 20 years, and 30x in 30 years, according to my math, by the way. ;)
     
  8. Kubrak

    Kubrak NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    1,056
    No, 10 times in 10 years, is 100 times in 20 years and 1000 times in 30 years.

    It is not n times 10, it is 10 to power of n. In ten years you have 10, in another 10 years 10*10 and in another 10 years 10*10*10.

    Actualy, "precisely" it is double in two years (Moore's Law). In 20 years 2^10 which is 1024 times... Well, it is not strict rule, more sort of predictive observation which holds over decades, so far...

    So, it is not 10x in 10 years, but 32x in 10 years. (I thought until today that rule is double in three years, which would be roughhly 10x in 10 years.) "Correct" values are 32x in ten years, 1024x in 20 years and aprox. 32800x in 30 years.

    Subnote.....
    I guess that success of M1 CPU is mostly result of rather slow advance of CPU power in past 10 years due to Intel's idea that 4 cores will do forever.... AMD has changed that by introducing ZEN CPUs few years ago, but it was not noticed by most of Apple users......
     
  9. chk071

    chk071 NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    180
    No...
     
  10. Kubrak

    Kubrak NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    1,056
    Let's say. it is year 2000 and we have 1. In 2010 we have ten times more, 1*10=10. In 2020 we have again ten times more than ten years ago (2010), 10*10=100. And in 2030 we have again ten times more than ten years ago (2020), 100*10=1000. And in 2040 we have again ten times more, 1000*10=10 000.
     
  11. EvilDragon

    EvilDragon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,938
    We kinda didn't have 10x gains between 2010 and 2020 in CPU performance, but the reason for that was not Intel thinking 4 cores are enough for everyone, instead they were milking their tech because there was no real competition from AMD or anyone else. It's good that Zen happened, and I guess M1 too, Intel can't sleep anymore.

    That said, GHz ceiling has been reached for silicone I think. This will also slow down how much more performance we can gain in the decade to come (unless we magically transition to graphene CPUs real soon, which is not happening).
     
  12. Kubrak

    Kubrak NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    1,056
    Yes, it was what I meant. My note was sort of irony... I do not know, what Intel thought, but they kept on saying to customers, four cores will do for you....

    Competition is good, so AMD has changed things and four cores became low end instead of hiend... Would be good, if Apple Silicon suceedes on long run, but I doubt it. Maybe it will force x86 producers create efective very low consumption CPUs. But I strongly doubt AS is able to compete on hi-end edge, unless Apple starts using sort of chiplets design.... If they are not working on it right now, the result would come in 3-4 years. That time x86 might have at least 16 (maybe 20-32) full size cores in 16W CPU....
     
  13. EvilDragon

    EvilDragon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,938
    M1X is already an extremely formiddable chip... And even Intel is going with big.LITTLE now...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Kubrak

    Kubrak NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    1,056
    M1Max is 8+2C and 10 threads. That is bottom end of current consumer hi-end. Not speaking about Pro CPUs. For sure it is big step from Intel's 'four core forever' status quo.... And for sure it will do for most people, till they get accustomed and till SW adopts to new possibilities.

    But still, M1Max is only a bit stronger than Zen 7 5700G (8C/16T) which is good CPU, but by far not the AMD top. And In a year there is ZEN 4 with 20-30% IPC rise, and more cores.... And in another yeat or so, ZEN 5, with yet 20% IPC and maybe more cores....

    Intel went big.little just because to be "competetive" with AMD. At least in number of CPU cores... AMD will also go big.little in ZEN 5, but its little will be 20-30% stronger then current big. So, AMD's little will be pretty big, strong CPU.

    The thing is that after long years of swampy stagnation, CPUs develop in devilish pace. I fully understand M1 users, I switched to Zen 7 5700G and I enjoy the power I have in a tiny box. I suddenly have 6x more CPU power comparing to my very old i7 notebook. But at the same time I know, it is not by far top CPU. And in a bit more than year ZEN 4 will bring 16 big cores even for notebooks.
     
  15. EvilDragon

    EvilDragon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,938
    And then you put TDP in the equation...
     
  16. Kubrak

    Kubrak NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    1,056
    Well, Zen 7 5700G is 65W (85W max for a while) APU. One may have miniPC of the size of box of milk using this CPU. But for proper cooling size of two boxes is better and fully sufficient. It is not like Intels.....

    M1 Max:
    Normal website browsing: 10 watts. Final Cut Pro, normal operation: 18 watts (peaks up to 60 watts) Full load (benchmark tests): up to 110 watts.

    And AS has advantage of 5 nm chip technology vs. 7 nm of AMD. Be it produced on the same, it would have similar energy efficiency. AS maybe a bit better.... To be fair M1 Max has considerably better GPU, on chip RAM and so on... It takes power.
     
  17. chk071

    chk071 NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    180
    I wonder if this will affect Massive X: https://news.in-24.com/news/448998.html

     
  18. EvilDragon

    EvilDragon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,938
    MX doesn't use AVX-512 so no biggie. It only uses AVX1, the oldest one.
     
  19. chk071

    chk071 NI Product Owner

    Messages:
    180
    Alright. :thumbsup:

    Just saw now that my ancient CPU can't do AVX-512 as well. Could have known that it's not an issue with Massive X then. :)