John T

Masscore is actually kind of interesting, but ultimately fails the same test. Moore's law tends to outpace bespoke solutions.

It does indeed fail at the moment because it is bespoke. (You need a Merging Mykerinos DSP card to take card of I/O). But what if someone would develop something similar to MassCore that doesn't use any hardware at all. Let's say an open source DSP platform that uses one or more cores of your system to run plugins. The DAW would interface with this platform in a similar way to ASIO or Rewire or even VST or DX technology but on the other side of the software interface is DSP code running on this platform that runs directly on one or more of your CPU cores with no influence from the OS. It wouldn't be bespoke. It would follow Moore's law but it would harness much more processing power than possible through the OS layers.

I don't think anyone is developing anything like that. It would be great though. Insane amounts of processing power with a new open source plugin format. Ah well, one can dream...

Perhaps not in raw power terms, but widespread adoption is where the processing power gains are in practical terms.

Agreed.... but no one told Fairlight. ;-)

UnderTow

You're making unsound assumptions about where the efficiency in multi-core processors comes from. I'll grant that they're intuitive assumptions, but they don't really hold up in practice. "Plugs on this core, DAW on that core" is not an especially useful or efficient rule. The gains here are absolutely programs being better at using multiple cores, and OSes being better at managing the resource allocation between those programs.

gtgarner

John T


The flaw is obvious, I think. If I'm going to spend money on processing power, I can either spend it on processing power that I can use for anything, or I can spend it on processing power I can use for one specific set of things. Unless the price to performance ratio of the latter is absolutely mind-boggling, the former will always be a sounder choice.

I like the "processing power I can use for one specific set of things".  Performance seems to be much better when the objective is focused.  IMO
 
I've had my share of sessions encountering the BSOD in the middle of recording because of my multi-tasking PC.  I've resorted to turning  EVERYTHING off of my SONAR PC. No Virus Scan, no Internet, No screensaver...nothing.  
 
I don't mind paying for performance even if it's more expensive.   

You're inferring things that aren't true here. Crashes are not caused by multi-tasking per se. "Seems" is also not all that useful a concept here.

John T


You're making unsound assumptions about where the efficiency in multi-core processors comes from. I'll grant that they're intuitive assumptions, but they don't really hold up in practice. "Plugs on this core, DAW on that core" is not an especially useful or efficient rule. The gains here are absolutely programs being better at using multiple cores, and OSes being better at managing the resource allocation between those programs.

I think you misunderstand what I am talking about. "Plugs on this core, DAW on that core" isn't what I mean. I am talking of entirely disabling the core(s) from the point of view of the OS in a similar way to how MassCore functions. Windows doesn't even see those cores any more. Running the DSP code directly on the core, removing any OS interrupts entirely and fine-tuning the processor instructions pipe-line for DSP operations can and will increase performance greatly.

For instance, MassCore could already achieve 384 channels + 100 busses with full EQ and Dynamics on all tracks and busses on a single core of a Core Duo processor all at low latency. That is 484 channels of audio + 484 EQs + 484 dynamic sections all at low-latency on one core. That was/is certainly impossible on a single Core Duo core if you go through the OS. It is/was even impossible to do on all 4 cores of a Core Duo Quad processor if you let the OS get in the way!

UnderTow

Yeah, it is an appealing idea, but you end up back in the same place; stuff has to be specially coded to take advantage of it. And the only way that will become a significant market sector is if it solves a real problem that lots of people have. "I could do with 384 tracks and 100 busses" is firmly not in that category. So there's no real percentage for any developer in doing that special coding.

Undertow. 
I am appalled at your personal attack on gtgarner.  That is a blatant case of cyber bullying.  This is a forum of civil discussion, not attacking the integrity of another poster.  If you disagree with the poster that is great, but to treat him as if he is a fraud is way out of line.  I believe you owe him an apology at the very least. 

As far as I am concerned the only thing that is of real importance to anyone is personal integrity.   Respect for your opinions have been lost with the approach you used in this thread.  

John T


Yeah, it is an appealing idea, but you end up back in the same place; stuff has to be specially coded to take advantage of it. And the only way that will become a significant market sector is if it solves a real problem that lots of people have. "I could do with 384 tracks and 100 busses" is firmly not in that category. So there's no real percentage for any developer in doing that special coding.

No I agree that most people don't need or want 384 tracks and 100 busses but that isn't the point. The point is the available processing power this kind of approach gives. If it is used for plugins like EQs, dynamics, or virtual instruments or convolution or whatever, it could be interesting. Especially if it allows heavy processing at very low latency. After all people are willing to pay for technology that allows a single instance of a stereo emulation of a Massive Passive (UAD-2 Solo) so I am sure they would be interested in free DSP that gives real power!

I think what I am proposing would only work and be interesting if it was entirely open source so that anyone could download the SDK and make their own plugins with it. Just like VST, DX or AU plugins currently.

Anyway, I am just musing. :-)

UnderTow

lorneyb2

Respect for your opinions have been lost with the approach you used in this thread.

You should never respect my or anyone's opinions because they come from a certain person. Always evaluate each and every opinion for it's own merit based on the arguments presented. I am not here to make friends or impress people. Just look at what I write. If the arguments are good then good, you might have learned something new. If you don't like my arguments then maybe I am wrong, that is also fine.

Anyway, you don't find all those inconsistencies and inaccuracies I mention in my posts to gtgarner just a tiny little bit suspicious? Maybe not. Maybe I am wrong. If he has a successful job as a programmer at AT&T and owns a four suite studio that does commercials for the super bowl, what does he care what some anonymous schmuck has to say about him on an internet forum?

UnderTow

Aloha all,

I thought getting involved in heated discussions had been assigned to me!!

Glad to see others can get uhhhm aggravated.

I only have one thing to say...about this stuff about the staff.

If they remove the staff view based on you and a few others requesting them to..............
know that I will come to your house and beat you up.

USER ERROR AND/OR LACK OF ABILITY IS NOT THE PROGRAM'S FAULT

100% of the time that I use cakewalk for midi
STAFF VIEW and EVENT LIST VIEW are up and running. 
How else you know what the hell you are doing????

Staff view was a part of cakewalk from the beginning, long before audio was added.  It is the way musicians have dealt with music notation for a very long time.  To say Cakewalk's implementation of midi via its use of the staff view is crude, only says you don't know what YOU are doing.  

Notation and its accompaning library of articulation based midi events is what it is.  Pre-progammed midi bits intended for the use of less sophisticated folks who want to also have some capability of making music.  We would call these folks "artists", (not musicians), if they manage to assemble the pieces into a finished recording.  Composers frequently have no idea of how to play the instruments they write for.  One must assume that the composer is hearing the sound of the instrument in his mind and not considering or knowing that what he wants may not be attainable.  At least not from a human player.           

midi not audio

you audio guys crack me up


gato

An official Cakewalk iPhone or iPad APP with it would be dope, with stop/play controls.