UVI Falcon 3

[Hanz Meyzer]

I think the better is always a highly optimized single core processing over a multicore processing, since there are performance tradeoffs caused by the multi-process communication, os security and similar. Simply make your plugin blazingly fast. Also most DAWs process a single track on the same core, and if now a plugin does multicore processing, I imagine an additional lag introduced. I think the CLAP's purpose was to limit these kind of drawbacks, so the DAW schedules the core management based on availability and provides that info to the plugin or something. Here is the next problem, a VST2/3 plugin is blind regarding other processors and their CPU usage. Falcon is VST3, not CLAP. So I would prefer an optimized single core Falcon instead.

[Jac459]

I think the better is always a highly optimized single core processing over a multicore processing, since there are performance tradeoffs caused by the multi-process communication, os security and similar. Simply make your plugin blazingly fast. Also most DAWs process a single track on the same core, and if now a plugin does multicore processing, I imagine an additional lag introduced. I think the CLAP's purpose was to limit these kind of drawbacks, so the DAW schedules the core management based on availability and provides that info to the plugin or something. Here is the next problem, a VST2/3 plugin is blind regarding other processors and their CPU usage. Falcon is VST3, not CLAP. So I would prefer an optimized single core Falcon instead.

Didn't know that about CLAP. Nice.

[Lerian]

I hope someone from UVI reads this topic, as both the UI and the multicore processing are manageable to fix. Would be a shame for a product this good to have these artificial limitations.

[swilow11]

The Ui was only problematic to me during my initial stages- as in, I couldn't even figure out how to create an oscillator. As with much of Falcon, turns out there's multiple ways to do this. Which may be a problem but I've worked our a decent workflow now and it's as logical as any other behemoth. The FX are easily the best I've heard in a synth- love dual delay and the granuliser. The sequencers and other note fx are also just wonderful...

[Jac459]

I hope someone from UVI reads this topic, as both the UI and the multicore processing are manageable to fix. Would be a shame for a product this good to have these artificial limitations.

Again, you will have to explain me what is the actual need for multicore in an instrument which is to run among 50 others VST at the same time, carefully distributed by the OS or the DAW among your 6,8 or 12 cores...
Do you really use Falcon standalone and maxout your CPU ? Maybe just buy a computer of this century then (just teasing here).

For the UI, it is I think a far more serious issue as it is the change of a paradigm of ergonomic (and not just a coat of pait) while keeping the compatibility with their hundreds of soundwares... A colossal work IMHO...

[mdx4ever]

Looks it needs ilock….
No thanks

[IvyBirds]

Again, you will have to explain me what is the actual need for multicore in an instrument which is to run among 50 others VST at the same time, carefully distributed by the OS or the DAW among your 6,8 or 12 cores...

Even if you want to dismiss the real world experiences of others, the fact remains that compared to other software Falcon is a real pig when it comes to CPU usage on complex layered patches relative to other software that offers similar results. If you never do that, awesome but Falcon offers that for a reason

The reality many people perceive is that multicore support makes difference and that feature is offered by its competition

As for me I can make a complex layered patch in HALion7 using multiple cores and that will use considerably less CPU than a similar complex layered in Falcon. Why is that? If I go into the settings in HALion7 and limit it to a single core it also makes a difference in weaker performances compared to bumping up cores to 8. Why is that?

It happens in the real world using Cubase and Studio One. Maybe it's the way those DAWs handle multi core versus single core? All I know is it makes a difference

That won't make a difference on a modern CPU when only using a few plugins but will make a difference when using 50

It's awesome in this thread that we have been offered opinions from bank software programmers on why it won't matter if they add it, but it does very obviously make a difference in Cubase and Studio One which are two very popular DAWs. Maybe they can chime in and explain why that is happening?

We can debate all day long on why it shouldn't happen but it does happen and that's is really all that matters

[pekbro]

If anything, the UVI guys are not stupid, if multi-core support is absent, no doubt there is a reason for that. I suspect it's due to it's long history, some code is no doubt carried over from Mach 5, likely adding something like multi-core support is not a light undertaking.

[Jac459]

Again, you will have to explain me what is the actual need for multicore in an instrument which is to run among 50 others VST at the same time, carefully distributed by the OS or the DAW among your 6,8 or 12 cores...

Even if you want to dismiss the real world experiences of others, the fact remains that compared to other software Falcon is a real pig when it comes to CPU usage on complex layered patches relative to other software that offers similar results. If you never do that, awesome but Falcon offers that for a reason

The reality many people perceive is that multicore support makes difference and that feature is offered by its competition

As for me I can make a complex layered patch in HALion7 using multiple cores and that will use considerably less CPU than a similar complex layered in Falcon. Why is that? If I go into the settings in HALion7 and limit it to a single core it also makes a difference in weaker performances compared to bumping up cores to 8. Why is that?

It happens in the real world using Cubase and Studio One. Maybe it's the way those DAWs handle multi core versus single core? All I know is it makes a difference

That won't make a difference on a modern CPU when only using a few plugins but will make a difference when using 50

It's awesome in this thread that we have been offered opinions from bank software programmers on why it won't matter if they add it, but it does very obviously make a difference in Cubase and Studio One which are two very popular DAWs. Maybe they can chime in and explain why that is happening?

We can debate all day long on why it shouldn't happen but it does happen and that's is really all that matters

You seems very upset.
But you are talking about Falcon not being efficient which is different that saying it needs multi-core support. I never commented on this point.
Second, I am just trying to understand how it works behind and I always take precautions to say I am not an expert on the particular case of DAW vs VST. But your conclusion that UVI sucks and they should have multi-core supports is either because you are an excellent expert and could explain why, either a gross shortcut.

Third. I never denied the fact that Falcon could run faster alone with multi-core. But my whole point (and some other people) is to say that in a DAW season with multiple other synths it won't give you any benefice (and I do believe that it is what matters for many).

[PAK]

As for me I can make a complex layered patch in HALion7 using multiple cores and that will use considerably less CPU than a similar complex layered in Falcon. Why is that?

The question has so many variables it can’t reasonably be answered. You would have to start with a real-world example, both could use, then break things down step by step. Not that this would achieve much since, beyond different features, you’d quickly get into subjective territory anyway (Many would say Falcon has better sounding FX etc.)

You’re really arguing about the convenience of being able to do things within a single instance Vs having to use more than one instance to achieve the same in Falcon. But, as has been explained many times at this point, this does not come without costs. Stepping outside of regular host management, to place significantly more CPU load on an individual track, can easily have negative implications, in terms of load balancing for the host. There’s many variables but, in general, hosts will get more from a CPU by being able to distribute smaller loads over more tracks.

It happens in the real world using Cubase and Studio One. Maybe it's the way those DAWs handle multi core versus single core? All I know is it makes a difference

It makes the difference because that single instance is stepping outside of the standard host management to assign more CPU for itself. I won’t break it down here (OT) but in Diva’s case (Cubase 13 / Apple Silicon) it resulted in a ~31.25% performance penalty Vs staying within single core limits and allowing Cubase to distribute load. So, unless a CPU has weak single core performance or needs 16 notes @ Divine real-time, you should avoid using the feature there.

Comparisons between HALion and Falcon would require a lot more definition, and may involve higher CPU costs than simply using more instances to achieve the same thing. HALion does, however, offer an excellent multi-core implementation which allows you more control, meaning any penalty could likely be kept to an absolute minimum Vs simpler approaches which distribute over as many cores as they can grab

Either way, this is a non-trivial feature to implement, and of questionable value if the same can be achieved simply by adding another instance in your host, and which also allows the host to balance things better!

[IvyBirds]

Either way, this is a non-trivial feature to implement, and of questionable value if the same can be achieved simply by adding another instance in your host, and which also allows the host to balance things better!

What's amazing is the answer for you is right there but you can't see the forest for the trees

You say adding more instances would make it run better than a single instance with layers

That's exactly what HALion7 is doing. Each element in a patch is being sent to a different core just like it is a separate instance, the advantage being your patch is self contained, and can share common modulation sources and use common effects

You also keep on bringing up Diva which is silly as that is not a multi timbre instrument designed for layers

[IvyBirds]

Again, you will have to explain me what is the actual need for multicore in an instrument which is to run among 50 others VST at the same time, carefully distributed by the OS or the DAW among your 6,8 or 12 cores...

Even if you want to dismiss the real world experiences of others, the fact remains that compared to other software Falcon is a real pig when it comes to CPU usage on complex layered patches relative to other software that offers similar results. If you never do that, awesome but Falcon offers that for a reason

The reality many people perceive is that multicore support makes difference and that feature is offered by its competition

As for me I can make a complex layered patch in HALion7 using multiple cores and that will use considerably less CPU than a similar complex layered in Falcon. Why is that? If I go into the settings in HALion7 and limit it to a single core it also makes a difference in weaker performances compared to bumping up cores to 8. Why is that?

It happens in the real world using Cubase and Studio One. Maybe it's the way those DAWs handle multi core versus single core? All I know is it makes a difference

That won't make a difference on a modern CPU when only using a few plugins but will make a difference when using 50

It's awesome in this thread that we have been offered opinions from bank software programmers on why it won't matter if they add it, but it does very obviously make a difference in Cubase and Studio One which are two very popular DAWs. Maybe they can chime in and explain why that is happening?

We can debate all day long on why it shouldn't happen but it does happen and that's is really all that matters

You seems very upset.
But you are talking about Falcon not being efficient which is different that saying it needs multi-core support. I never commented on this point.
Second, I am just trying to understand how it works behind and I always take precautions to say I am not an expert on the particular case of DAW vs VST. But your conclusion that UVI sucks and they should have multi-core supports is either because But my whole point (and some other people) is to say that in a DAW season with multiple other synths it won't give you any benefice (and I do believe that it is what matters for many).

you continue to say that but ignore the fact that it does and I have seen and experienced it doing just that in multiple DAWs sessions with multiple DAWs

To make that suggestion you have to make the assumption that a DAW is going to do a perfect job of allocating resources and that will not introduce unwanted artifacts

In a perfect world a DAW would be 100% accurate and efficient at allocating resources but we don't live in a perfect world do we?

So offering multi core support by treating each element in a layered patch as basically a separate instance of the program gives the DAW guidance on how to allocate those resources in a logical way

[Jac459]

Again, you will have to explain me what is the actual need for multicore in an instrument which is to run among 50 others VST at the same time, carefully distributed by the OS or the DAW among your 6,8 or 12 cores...

Even if you want to dismiss the real world experiences of others, the fact remains that compared to other software Falcon is a real pig when it comes to CPU usage on complex layered patches relative to other software that offers similar results. If you never do that, awesome but Falcon offers that for a reason

The reality many people perceive is that multicore support makes difference and that feature is offered by its competition

As for me I can make a complex layered patch in HALion7 using multiple cores and that will use considerably less CPU than a similar complex layered in Falcon. Why is that? If I go into the settings in HALion7 and limit it to a single core it also makes a difference in weaker performances compared to bumping up cores to 8. Why is that?

It happens in the real world using Cubase and Studio One. Maybe it's the way those DAWs handle multi core versus single core? All I know is it makes a difference

That won't make a difference on a modern CPU when only using a few plugins but will make a difference when using 50

It's awesome in this thread that we have been offered opinions from bank software programmers on why it won't matter if they add it, but it does very obviously make a difference in Cubase and Studio One which are two very popular DAWs. Maybe they can chime in and explain why that is happening?

We can debate all day long on why it shouldn't happen but it does happen and that's is really all that matters

You seems very upset.
But you are talking about Falcon not being efficient which is different that saying it needs multi-core support. I never commented on this point.
Second, I am just trying to understand how it works behind and I always take precautions to say I am not an expert on the particular case of DAW vs VST. But your conclusion that UVI sucks and they should have multi-core supports is either because But my whole point (and some other people) is to say that in a DAW season with multiple other synths it won't give you any benefice (and I do believe that it is what matters for many).

you continue to say that but ignore the fact that it does and I have seen and experienced it doing just that in multiple DAWs sessions with multiple DAWs

To make that suggestion you have to make the assumption that a DAW is going to do a perfect job of allocating resources and that will not introduce unwanted artifacts

In a perfect world a DAW would be 100% accurate and efficient at allocating resources but we don't live in a perfect world do we?

So offering multi core support by treating each element in a layered patch as basically a separate instance of the program gives the DAW guidance on how to allocate those resources in a logical way

So you mean that when using HALion in a busy session, enough to generate cracks, and switching the multi-core of it, RESTARTING THE SESSION, you avoid having cracks?

Then you did the exact same test for diva.
Then you did the exact same test for all the other synths you have having the multi-core switch?

If you did only the test with one synth, you can not rule out the chance that it is only a specific issue with this synth.

If you did only the test with looking at CPU usage, you can not be sure that it isn't a problem with the CPU monitor.

As per your idea with host vs VST vs OS, we have been 3 telling you that we have the opposite idea of what you think.

So my question is, as you ask us to disregard theory to focus on your all mighty "real life experience": are your tests will conducted and complete, or are they just confirmation bias of your own theory?

Don't get upset that I am asking you this question, if we were in a professional environment, discussing about software engineering, I would HAVE to ask you this question.

[IvyBirds]

If you did only the test with one synth, you can not rule out the chance that it is only a specific issue with this synth.

And yet you haven't done it with even one synth and still insist that multicore support doesn't matter and makes no difference

Get back to me when you have done all the tests you expect me to do and share your results

In the meantime I will continue to do what I do because unlike you I have first hand knowledge it works

And again I am talking about layered patches with multiple elements something DIVA can't do, you seem to ways ignore that fact

[Jac459]

If you did only the test with one synth, you can not rule out the chance that it is only a specific issue with this synth.

And yet you haven't done it with even one synth and still insist that multicore support doesn't matter and makes no difference

Get back to me when you have done all the tests you expect me to do and share your results

In the meantime I will continue to do what I do because unlike you I have first hand knowledge it works

And again I am talking about layered patches with multiple elements something DIVA can't do, you seem to ways ignore that fact

Yeah, that's what I thought .

I have another proposition which is just stop this senseless discussion.
I will let you continue advise VST companies on how to develop their plug-ins based on your non-existent knowledge and go make music.

Have fun mate.