50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

The Sonic Core XITE hardware platform for Scope

Moderators: valis, garyb

nebelfuerst
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:55 am

50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by nebelfuerst »

I'm running a setup with lots of reverbs, compressors mixers and some synths on my Xite.
I already had to decrease samplerate to 32, to keep it running.
While DSP load seems to show enough spare power, switching to 44 is impossible, as no placement is found.

The screenshots show no bottleneck to me...so what is the problem ?
Attachments
Clipboard02.jpg
Clipboard02.jpg (17.13 KiB) Viewed 3972 times
Clipboard01.jpg
Clipboard01.jpg (16.62 KiB) Viewed 3972 times
\\\ *** l 0 v e | X I T E *** ///
Berny Shoes
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:22 am

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by Berny Shoes »

nebelfuerst wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:58 am I'm running a setup with lots of reverbs, compressors mixers and some synths on my Xite.
Reverbs make use of external processing. Maybe it is the amount of SAT connections which are reaching their limit?

An fx rack may help

But better answers are to be had
User avatar
at0m
Posts: 4743
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Bubble Metropolis
Contact:

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by at0m »

nebelfuerst, looks like "100% async" on one DSP *is* a bottleneck. try moving some effects out of the mixer, when they're used as inserts. When inside a mixer, effects are locked to the same chips that the respective part of the mixer is locked.

And aside from that.. async.. you got a lot of midi processing going? Maybe it's one device eating up all that? Try finding the culprit by removing fx then their parent devices one by one, while keeping an eye on the DSP monitor. Of course, no need to save that project where you've removed so many devices, just reload the original then fix the one thing responsible for that 100% async.

Also, 2 60% devices do not fit on one single chip. Either sync or async.

I hope this helps further your project.
more has been done with less
https://soundcloud.com/at0m-studio
nebelfuerst
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:55 am

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by nebelfuerst »

I put a mass of inserts into the 2448 mixer.
Stay tuned, as I will try to seperate this chunk of DSPload. :wink:
\\\ *** l 0 v e | X I T E *** ///
nebelfuerst
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:55 am

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by nebelfuerst »

I removed all inserts from 2448 and now I can reach 48khz.
If switching to 96, I get something like "big modules don't fit", although DSPload is at 40%.

Is there a way to use inserts inside 2448 anyway ? It doesn't look attractive to me, due to this observation.
\\\ *** l 0 v e | X I T E *** ///
User avatar
valis
Posts: 7306
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: West Coast USA
Contact:

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by valis »

It's rare that you 'need' to use inserts, and when you do there's a multi-insert module that will be much less dsp intensive than a mixer. If you restrict your workflow to the simplest of modules (turning off unused bands on the PEQ, using high cut and low cut instead of a full eq, using the lowest dsp usage compressors etc) then inserts are less costly, but it still adds up.

One way of looking at a mixer, is based on the individual components in a channel strip. Airwindows (a plugin maker) for instance offers 'modules' that go pretty close to the component level so that you can 'design' your channel strip. A typical user would do this in their DAW as 'inserts', but others might prefer a semi-modular (cable-based signal flow) environment like Plogue Bidule or Audulus etc. Were one to do this in those latter apps, the workflow would be very similar to Scope's routing environment. When you do this, the only 'mixing' that occurs on the mixer is the actual summing.

So what i personally do (and I'm not on an Xite but it still applies) is 'mix' aka SUM in micro-mixers.

Then anything that is done via 'insert' is simply 'inserted' into the signal flow before the audio stream (1 or 2 channels) enters the mixer, each in turn. Directly in the routing window. "Sends" are a bit more complex here, and not as easy to manage, so there might be some sense to using STM2448 mixers if you must replicate a workflow for doing monitoring and control room duties (like recording a band). However even in that case it makes sense to 'move' as much of the processing as possible outside of the mixer, and so 'sends' can be done right in the routing window again, as well as the return signal.
User avatar
Spielraum
Posts: 696
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:11 pm
Location: Raumschiff Erde

Post by Spielraum »

.
Last edited by Spielraum on Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅] Lange Welle ~ Mittelwelle ~ Kurze Welle ~ Ultra Kurze Welle
Scope Sandbox soundcloud ~ youtube ~ bc modular-guide° ~ modules-SR
nebelfuerst
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:55 am

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by nebelfuerst »

I think at this point there is room for improvement in Scope.
I had the expectation, that balancing on DSPs happens at the level of atom of which a device is built.

As I subscribed for beta testing, maybe I can address such issues one future day.
(On linux I'd try to change things on my own.)
\\\ *** l 0 v e | X I T E *** ///
fra77x2
Posts: 411
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 3:23 pm

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by fra77x2 »

Scope with manual dsp assignment is a very good platform. It is actually perfect. Someone can use 100% of the dsp resources, recall anything with absolute reliability. Someone can have fun -if you know the feeling- I doubt you have ever felt such a nice and simple emotion like fun.

With "automatic assignment", magic "optimization" tools, imagined miracles that help pseudo musicians/nobodies guys without "dsp-fetish"
scope is a piece of crap that cries to be dropped from the window accompanied by the user of it.

I feel shame that nobody in this pathetic forum has learned to use manual assignment.

It is very easy. Learning to count up to 10 is more difficult. It is logical, straightforward and as it should be.

I tried to teach people the sdk or scope so to be able to use it right. The "clever" guys thought that for me to offer such a service it would mean that I would need the money or something like that. I did it because I liked the scope platform and felt that it is abused horridly on the hands of idiots.

Sorry for my wording, this is the polite-me.
fra77x2
Posts: 411
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 3:23 pm

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by fra77x2 »

Code: Select all

I think at this point there is room for improvement in Scope.
No my friend you are the idiots...
nebelfuerst
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:55 am

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by nebelfuerst »

You probably have a higher level of scope skils, than many of us (and me :) )
I'm on scope since version 1.2, and I don't have a strategy for dsp assignment yet.
For a new scope user, which is probably focused on audio quality, it might be a hard job to care about relocating dsp software fragments.
In other DAWs, I never came accross the task of relocating software items to cores.
Nevertheless it should be possible to implement your dsp relocating strategy into a scope automatism.
\\\ *** l 0 v e | X I T E *** ///
fra77x2
Posts: 411
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 3:23 pm

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by fra77x2 »

You probably have a higher level of scope skils, than many of us (and me :) )
That's a given
I'm on scope since version 1.2, and I don't have a strategy for dsp assignment yet.
Take your time.

Code: Select all

For a new scope user, which is probably focused on audio quality, it might be a hard job to care about relocating dsp software fragments.
A common scope user always with their mind interested in marketing of scope for new users. This is a "i wanna be an audio products enterpreneer" simulation game. They always point out the "hard job" of doing things right. Well doings things wrong is harder my friend, you will eventually understand it someday

It s not a daw....

the last wishful thinking proposition. No it is not possible otherwise it would have been made...

i can't write more and have more fun because i use the tablet now as i am in the bed playing chess and i can't write with ease...

solve your problems people! we are bored!
User avatar
at0m
Posts: 4743
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Bubble Metropolis
Contact:

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by at0m »

nebelfuerst wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 1:46 pm In other DAWs, I never came accross the task of relocating software items to cores.
You mean DAW as in "runs on CPU" ? In CPU world, clock cycles are allocated dynamically. Basic example, if you play one note, CPU time for one note is made available when possible. If you play 10, 10 notes CPU time is made available.
Not so on DSP, as all Scope users know all too well: if we want to play 10 voices of a Scope synth, those voices have to be allocated beforehand, manually. Every note on DSP uses up clockcycles all the time, it doesn't matter if fingers are on the keyboard or scratching your private parts.
On the upside: if we can allocate the DSP's for 10 notes, the DSP promise they are making time for these notes, and they will play them in realtime, without hesitation. In CPU world, if usage is near 100% and you then put your hands on the keys, stutters and hickups may be unavoidable.

That said, some DAW do use all cores minus one for audio, and use the other one for GFX stuff, MIDI, .., so even there you could allocate. Under the hood, or via some Preferences option.
more has been done with less
https://soundcloud.com/at0m-studio
User avatar
dante
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by dante »

fra77x2 wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:29 pm Scope with manual dsp assignment is a very good platform. It is actually perfect. Someone can use 100% of the dsp resources
Without running out of Sat first ? I can get close on the 'D'.
User avatar
valis
Posts: 7306
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: West Coast USA
Contact:

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by valis »

fra77x2 wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:29 pm I tried to teach people the sdk or scope so to be able to use it right. The "clever" guys thought that for me to offer such a service it would mean that I would need the money or something like that. I did it because I liked the scope platform and felt that it is abused horridly on the hands of idiots.

Sorry for my wording, this is the polite-me.
While I don't take this response as directed at anyone in particular, let's be clear that I have personally taken compensation from our userbase for the stewardship of this community *and* was steering our conversations to multiple possible destinations. Ie, I recall asking if you needed compensation (probably based off of other commentary) and if you wanted me to arrange something akin to what I have done for the repair service (putting up an informational page).

1 would have been the potential to offer up a larger resource, and I had suggest recording lessons so that they could be provided for all on the site's frontend as video content. Hosted on youtube, vimeo or etc would help the platform's SEO as well

2 would have been to host a page similar to the one for the repair service for the above lessons you offered, whether or not you and I made it to the point where we were able to accomplish my thoughts on #1

3 trade in doing both of the above would (again) benefit this forum and the platform via both SEO and improving our content, and in return would have helped visibility for your lessons being offered, should that (have) interest(ed) you.

We can't always read minds, but I still have an interest in expanding things like that, as is evident both from my interactions with dynamixii (much of which is in private conversation) and with other developers in the admin forums etc. So in my particular case, it may have been less about 'needing money' and more about what kind of equitable trade might benefit you and the platforms as well, and financial recompense is always an option here for most people.

Beyond this, I detect a tone of what some might interpret as elitist, and others as a sign of neuro-divergence. I'll just ask why it's necessary?
fra77x2 wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:30 pm

Code: Select all

I think at this point there is room for improvement in Scope.
No my friend you are the idiots...
Again, much like stated above. Why is this necessary?
dante wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:37 pm Without running out of Sat first ? I can get close on the 'D'.
Clearly this will be dependant on the type of devices used, and since the person speaking has access to the SDK and prefers that workflow, it's probably even easier to allocate resources based if nothing else on his understanding of what each given device/module uses.
User avatar
dante
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by dante »

Not just devices - see this submixing example - coz to maximize DSP you need to reduce Sat (comms channels) at the same time to allow DSP utilisation not to be capped by sat.

https://www.scopeusers.com/ScopeRise/is ... p_mast.htm (Example DSP Setups tab)

Its so instantly clear from this example how everything is submixed from DSP17 (courtesy of manual assignment) before going to DSP16 - A pic is worth 1000 words. Well done John on this one.
User avatar
Spielraum
Posts: 696
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:11 pm
Location: Raumschiff Erde

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by Spielraum »

yep,
+ manual mono dsp assignment is perfect for module-devices and little toys...
- but suboptimal for complex "larger" devices or modular tanks, or for higher polyphony

example: only minimax
+ auto poly dsp assignment = 16 full voices
here my basis of grief when I have no other problems:
- manual mono dsp (eg 10 ... 17) assignment = 6 voices max (profit5 +1 voice more approx.)
- with some devices the mono dsp assignment leads to collapse, e.g. sp. with cool modular tanks (here mono dsp not a option)

basically:
- manual poly dsp assignment is not possible.
- manual poly dsp exclusion is also not possible.
- there is also no real remaining display for DSP + SAT until the collapse.

finaly:
+/- a project with auto poly dsp assignment should always be saved and reloaded before use to ensure stability.
i've often had great projects that i couldn't load without complaints after they had been saved. :wink:

but nice,
now i immediately think back to my idea of a voice distributor that distributes midi poly notes to several minimax instances,
eg. 2x 6 voices per dsp... 8)
|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅] Lange Welle ~ Mittelwelle ~ Kurze Welle ~ Ultra Kurze Welle
Scope Sandbox soundcloud ~ youtube ~ bc modular-guide° ~ modules-SR
User avatar
Spielraum
Posts: 696
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:11 pm
Location: Raumschiff Erde

CW SQ-LOGIC need manual dsp assignment

Post by Spielraum »

indispensable:
+/- manual mono dsp assignment is essential for dev/mdl with CW seq-logic eg. SB404, ProTone, ProOne, Grenzfrequenz Synchrotron, Sequencer Module like Gate SEQ1 / SEQ2, Ctrl SEQ1 / SEQ2, Ctrl SEQ B1 / SEQ B2, Pitch SEQ, Pattern SEQ!!
+ CW seq-logic is supported by dsp`s 1~6 (Shark ADSP-21065L)
- CW seq-logic is not supported by dsp`s 7~18 (Shark ADSP-21369)
Last edited by Spielraum on Sun Dec 19, 2021 1:35 am, edited 5 times in total.
|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅] Lange Welle ~ Mittelwelle ~ Kurze Welle ~ Ultra Kurze Welle
Scope Sandbox soundcloud ~ youtube ~ bc modular-guide° ~ modules-SR
fra77x2
Posts: 411
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 3:23 pm

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by fra77x2 »

You are not completely wrong about devices with big poly. Automatic assignment will assign more voices but the project will suffer from
unexpected DSP or SAT overflow if you try to add more devices which is unacceptable.

For me because I have a production system with scope that should work all the time without any type of interruptions, and never ever "collapse" or DSP overflow or SAT overflow I need to have anything under control.

So I create custom patches that fit inside a dsp.

You can try to create a modular patch or sdk poly synth with the modules that allow to fit inside a dsp. I have a number of patches with all the common synthesis methods that allow 16 voices in 44100.

At the same time the project is completely stable, reliable (no need to reload to check if it works... it always works)

Someone can also try to duplicate this patch, assign it to a different dsp and the same midi channel and get some really fat timbres. (16+16+...)
Because I am also a programmer I have made a VST poly-router that does MIDI Voice routing. (sends midi notes to different channels according to voice number) I have played with a 172 voices poly synth this way in scope... Everything manually allocated...

In my case I have to see a dsp overflow or SAT error for years. I mean over 15 years.
User avatar
valis
Posts: 7306
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: West Coast USA
Contact:

Re: 50% DSP, but no placement possible ?

Post by valis »

It's unfortunate you've expressed having no interest in teaching this. I was interested in your offer before but lacked the means to participate with that machine. Now that I have a machine, it would be nice to share workflows like this with the user-base so that people can elevate their skill level. Otherwise, what use was achieving that level of proficiency if you're not even using Scope now?
Post Reply