warp makes both of those astroman? Do they have a website?
Counterparts what was the total for a scope version, curious?
Best Native FX
-
Conqueror's Reign
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:00 pm
Yes to the first question, P100 and C100 are bundled together.
Warp69 sells his plugs through STW.
This thread gives you the full story
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12083
Warp69 sells his plugs through STW.
This thread gives you the full story
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12083
-
Conqueror's Reign
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:00 pm
STW has some really good looking plug ins. The P100/CD100 is exactly the kind of bang for the buck i was looking for and everyone pretty much agree's on its quality. Even if you add the A100/I100 the price for the 4 plug ins would probably equal just 1 plug in pricewise of the natives .
That sharc one is something else that looks pretty hot too.
That sharc one is something else that looks pretty hot too.
-
Counterparts
- Posts: 1963
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Bath, England
-
Conqueror's Reign
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:00 pm
thanks counterparts, yes those are pretty good prices. Even if you bought those blindly without any info about them it wouldnt be that bitter a pill to swallow if they turned out to be crap, not to say its ok to throw away money but you know what i mean .
Wow theres a real mix bag on reverbs, hardware for some, software for others or for some a combination of Hardware/Software reverb. I can see what you guys were saying earlier you can never have enough reverbs. Funny how reverbs just took over this discussion
I dont know if this would be the right place to ask this but for example using reverbs what is the best musical applicatiion or most general use for say a plate or any of the other presets found in most reverbs. Are there certain presets that are specific to whats recorded?
.Wow theres a real mix bag on reverbs, hardware for some, software for others or for some a combination of Hardware/Software reverb. I can see what you guys were saying earlier you can never have enough reverbs. Funny how reverbs just took over this discussion
I dont know if this would be the right place to ask this but for example using reverbs what is the best musical applicatiion or most general use for say a plate or any of the other presets found in most reverbs. Are there certain presets that are specific to whats recorded?
-
irrelevance
CrusherXLive is an amazing product if your into granular processing. Alot of modulation capabilities on different aspects of the grain cloud. This app brings my p4 3.9Ghz to its knees when I start to demand really dense clouds though. I don't know if it supports dual processor but I would consider upgrading my entire setup just to get more from this app!
If you love delay then the only native that can contend with what we have in scope imo is the PSP84. To simply call it a delay would not be doing it justice. The reverb algos are very nice and full of character add in some filter modulation and even your standard ping pong will sound fresh and new.
I just have to mention the korg digital legacy edition also as this has to be one of the greatest software releases in the last few years. Multi fx...cool, M1...hmm nice,,an easily editable, fully loaded wavestation; all for £100!! Thasts just ludicrous!
If you love delay then the only native that can contend with what we have in scope imo is the PSP84. To simply call it a delay would not be doing it justice. The reverb algos are very nice and full of character add in some filter modulation and even your standard ping pong will sound fresh and new.
I just have to mention the korg digital legacy edition also as this has to be one of the greatest software releases in the last few years. Multi fx...cool, M1...hmm nice,,an easily editable, fully loaded wavestation; all for £100!! Thasts just ludicrous!
CrusherXLive will most likely benefit from the hughe cache in the latest Intel CoreDuo CPUs, as Scope4Live reported about the Gigapulse convolution stuff.
Never heard the PSP84, but it may receive it's 'honorable mention', but Mehdi's Echo just rules in this domain - or can the PSP call itself in the feedback loop ?
cheers, Tom
(kidding)
Never heard the PSP84, but it may receive it's 'honorable mention', but Mehdi's Echo just rules in this domain - or can the PSP call itself in the feedback loop ?
cheers, Tom
(kidding)
-
irrelevance
In a recent SOS it was shown that certain programs will use the same amount of processing on the single core and pretty much ignore the other core. This was only a simple test however as it was conducted by viewing the processor usage in the task manager. Correct me if I'm wrong but the terminology of dual processor is misleading as I'm sure I read that dual processoers have more than two of processors on board.astroman wrote:CrusherXLive will most likely benefit from the hughe cache in the latest Intel CoreDuo CPUs, as Scope4Live reported about the Gigapulse convolution stuff.
Never heard the PSP84, but it may receive it's 'honorable mention', but Mehdi's Echo just rules in this domain - or can the PSP call itself in the feedback loop ?
cheers, Tom
(kidding)
Unified L2 cache is much different than preious designs from AMD, IBM, and Intel. This combined w/ 16 Mb cache on 10k rpm HDD's gives me more polyphony in apps. like Gigastudio, and VST FX are capable of running more instances, for they can be stored in cache. So once you call up the effect from there, it is much faster than DDRII, or DDRI SIMM's.
SOSPUBS is a good source of info. Just make sure your search engine adds the " S " to SOSPUB, or you will be directed to the gay bars of England. I found that quite amusing, it made me want to sing YMCA, by the Village People.
I always liked the cop in black leather personally.
BTW Mehdi's ( www.spacef-devices.com ) delays caused me to use my Line 6 Echo Pro 4 reverse solos, as it's delays are so awesome, and customizable.
Now I pre-record them in Cubase 4, then reverse the audio there, then send it to Gigastudio 3 orchestra to be triggered live by several keys on the low end of an 88 noter. I got 400 USD @ ebay 4 that unit. Hell that would buy SpaceF's bundle, and more SFP devices. Good deal. The Line 6 was good 4 Lo-Fi half speed licks though.
SOSPUBS is a good source of info. Just make sure your search engine adds the " S " to SOSPUB, or you will be directed to the gay bars of England. I found that quite amusing, it made me want to sing YMCA, by the Village People.
I always liked the cop in black leather personally.
BTW Mehdi's ( www.spacef-devices.com ) delays caused me to use my Line 6 Echo Pro 4 reverse solos, as it's delays are so awesome, and customizable.
Now I pre-record them in Cubase 4, then reverse the audio there, then send it to Gigastudio 3 orchestra to be triggered live by several keys on the low end of an 88 noter. I got 400 USD @ ebay 4 that unit. Hell that would buy SpaceF's bundle, and more SFP devices. Good deal. The Line 6 was good 4 Lo-Fi half speed licks though.
the number of CPU cores doesn't matter in this context - it's the cache that makes it so effective - at least that was my impression.
As mentioned a couple of times I develope on a P4 2.6, but the target machine is a MacMini with the 'small' 1.66 CoreDuo. The developement system ignores multi-cores (it's a high level thing) and the target OS for sure, as the Windows application is run under the WINE environment in MacOSX, so I'm pretty sure there is no hidden load distribution.
Still my benchmark app runs 30% faster on the CoreDuo though it has a 1GHZ lower clockrate - I found this fairly impressive.
cheers, Tom
As mentioned a couple of times I develope on a P4 2.6, but the target machine is a MacMini with the 'small' 1.66 CoreDuo. The developement system ignores multi-cores (it's a high level thing) and the target OS for sure, as the Windows application is run under the WINE environment in MacOSX, so I'm pretty sure there is no hidden load distribution.
Still my benchmark app runs 30% faster on the CoreDuo though it has a 1GHZ lower clockrate - I found this fairly impressive.
cheers, Tom
"Dual Processors" have only recently gotten more than one core per cpu, so the term isn't necessarily misleading.
Also, I don't know if CrusherX is multithreaded, but for an app to get more performance with more than a single cpu it's required. Also cpu power doesn't scale linearly as you add additional cpu's, the degree to which it scales is architecture dependant. Some VST hosts (Cubase, Sonar, Live6) implement multithreading properly for additional gains in multi-cpu/core setups, but you won't see 200%. More likely 120-140% of the performance you would see with the same cpu architecture and only 1 core, under ideal conditions.
Also, the type of task being multithreaded makes a difference. 3d rendering (non-realtime) done in tile rendering mode or interleaved scanlines, and certain scientific calculations (Seti@home & folding@home as an example) scale VERY well with multiple cpu's as long as the dataset can be kept in the cache (no main ram access to slow things down). Since audio is a STREAMING datatype larger cache helps but ultimately you're going to be limited by the system bus. AMD's integrated ram controller helps in this case, but the Duo2 architecture seems superior enough atm (and has enough cache) that this offsets intel's current lack of an on-die memory controller. Look out when intel does finally integrate this though!
Anyway the main thing I've always liked about systems with more than a single cpu (and with scsi or a decent SATA ncq implementation & multiple drives) is the lack of stalling in the UI and overall 'system feel'. The only things that seem to lag a multi-core/cpu machine are either an IDE bus being locked when you in turn request data, or any other busmastering device not being ready when you request data. And even then any other process remains active. Even applications that eat 100% cpu in a (non-SMP aware apps) can't hurt the user experience, as there's still plenty of additional system resources to go around.
Finally, something anecdotal. I still run Logic 5.51 PC and even though it does NOT support both of my cpu's its internal audio engine processes in such a way (only when there's data to process) that I've always found I get a lot more performance than I do from Sx/Nuendo (versions 1-3) even with those applications in SMP mode. In Cubase4 Steinberb has apparently addressed this, since I own an older Nuendo license I can't confirm what sort of gains this has given.
Also, I don't know if CrusherX is multithreaded, but for an app to get more performance with more than a single cpu it's required. Also cpu power doesn't scale linearly as you add additional cpu's, the degree to which it scales is architecture dependant. Some VST hosts (Cubase, Sonar, Live6) implement multithreading properly for additional gains in multi-cpu/core setups, but you won't see 200%. More likely 120-140% of the performance you would see with the same cpu architecture and only 1 core, under ideal conditions.
Also, the type of task being multithreaded makes a difference. 3d rendering (non-realtime) done in tile rendering mode or interleaved scanlines, and certain scientific calculations (Seti@home & folding@home as an example) scale VERY well with multiple cpu's as long as the dataset can be kept in the cache (no main ram access to slow things down). Since audio is a STREAMING datatype larger cache helps but ultimately you're going to be limited by the system bus. AMD's integrated ram controller helps in this case, but the Duo2 architecture seems superior enough atm (and has enough cache) that this offsets intel's current lack of an on-die memory controller. Look out when intel does finally integrate this though!
Anyway the main thing I've always liked about systems with more than a single cpu (and with scsi or a decent SATA ncq implementation & multiple drives) is the lack of stalling in the UI and overall 'system feel'. The only things that seem to lag a multi-core/cpu machine are either an IDE bus being locked when you in turn request data, or any other busmastering device not being ready when you request data. And even then any other process remains active. Even applications that eat 100% cpu in a (non-SMP aware apps) can't hurt the user experience, as there's still plenty of additional system resources to go around.
Finally, something anecdotal. I still run Logic 5.51 PC and even though it does NOT support both of my cpu's its internal audio engine processes in such a way (only when there's data to process) that I've always found I get a lot more performance than I do from Sx/Nuendo (versions 1-3) even with those applications in SMP mode. In Cubase4 Steinberb has apparently addressed this, since I own an older Nuendo license I can't confirm what sort of gains this has given.
-
irrelevance
Interesting reading there valis. It makes sense that an app like CrusherX would benifit from more cache even if it didn't support multi-threading but the overall gains may not be worth writing home about or rather upgrading from a single to a dual. I reckon I've got two more years in my current setup before I really need to upgrade but of course`I'll run this machine till it runs no more.
-
Conqueror's Reign
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:00 pm
gamers don't get as much of an accelleration as you might think. However single cores are probably a thing of the past. With the number of SSE instructions in today's cores, and a high level of abstraction sitting between the machine code level and the inner core 'micro-ops', the pipelining tricks and duplicated register sets (like with HT) the 'singularity' of a core is really rather not as single as you might think anyway. Moving to multiple cores on a chip has only just begin, it's quite likely that eventually GPU & Ram controller will both be on die, or at least very closely linked in the case of GPU (closer than PCIe). Also most predictions show more specialized cores coming to the table as coding techniques become more parallelized.
Bascially the gains from multiple cores should increase as programmers use the necessary techniques more. And the cpu technology will improve as well so you'll eventually start seeing some real gains.
And in any case I would still recommend multiple cores even today. The gains 'today' are more subjective than 'benchmark' style (responsive UI etc) but having used duals myself since 95 (including SGI & other unix vendors) I can heartily say that a stuck process on a single cpu machine bugs the *##$ out of me. I also never have had to do the 'belownormal/abovenormal' tricks that many logic users do, and I really can't tell if using 'background processes' in my system properties as the preferred process set helps or not. It definately shows gains in terms of latency on a single cpu but with 2 here I am not sure.
Bascially the gains from multiple cores should increase as programmers use the necessary techniques more. And the cpu technology will improve as well so you'll eventually start seeing some real gains.
And in any case I would still recommend multiple cores even today. The gains 'today' are more subjective than 'benchmark' style (responsive UI etc) but having used duals myself since 95 (including SGI & other unix vendors) I can heartily say that a stuck process on a single cpu machine bugs the *##$ out of me. I also never have had to do the 'belownormal/abovenormal' tricks that many logic users do, and I really can't tell if using 'background processes' in my system properties as the preferred process set helps or not. It definately shows gains in terms of latency on a single cpu but with 2 here I am not sure.