KVR Audio

jochicago · Post by **jochicago** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:33 pm

Discounts at outlets.

So, time for an update, who's using this?

And any thoughts on the Lite version? The release notes say the Lite version improves performance up to 30%. What's Lite doing, is there a sacrifice in the sound?

Bouroki · Post by **Bouroki** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:37 pm

I think they said the difference was in the EQ having a shorter FIR. Sound-wise they sound pretty identical in most typical settings. So I guess the Lite version is good enough unless you do some hardcore low end sculpting...

jochicago · Post by **jochicago** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:37 pm

Just got it. First attempt to drop it on an existing mix maxed out the CPU and crashed S1. That's quite an accomplishment, I don't get to see that on my PC very often.

Tried a separate test with the Lite version. It uses 3x the CPU of the Scheps Omni. A bit frustrating, as the Omni is already around reverb heavy. So CLA Mixhub Lite is a channel strip that needs the CPU of 3 reverbs.

I really wonder what needed this much processing to operate run-of-the-mill dynamics. My best guess is that what's eating the CPU is the underlying framework to run the mix panel. Or maybe there are IRs to try to reproduce the "analog" part. I hope Waves will keep working on optimizing the CPU usage or provide more options to turn things off (maybe a Lite v2, without the mixer or whatever)

I do like it as a channel strip. It has the modular approach with the ST/DUO/MS popup like the Omni. It's a nice change of pace when the SSL layout makes more sense. But the first thing I missed when trying this out on vocals was the Opto option. However the Mixhub has an impressive compressor section with the sidechain featuring a full eq and routing paths.

Off to experiment more.

escalona · Post by **escalona** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:11 am

In case it can help someone decide on this, here's a CPU usage comparison between Acustica Navy 2 (full strip, all modules on) and CLA Mix Hub (all modules on). We all know how demanding Acustica plugins are... but, hey, this was a surprise for me.

reggie1979 · Post by **reggie1979** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:22 am

It's important to point out that it's not a plug you'd likely use in the recording sequence. Therefor, upping the buffer kills the problem of CPU when mixing (which I always do anyways, I don't have a threadripper! )

As far as the plug is concerned, it's really quite good for me and I paid more. Someone accurately predicted this low price but I was impatient

The eq is terrific, the "blue" comp is very good and it's more handy than you'd think to use buckets.

My biggest gripe is they didn't test the "naming" stuff on enough hosts and PT is still really the only one it works consistently with

.

jochicago · Post by **jochicago** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:34 am

The CPU thing is really getting to me (Win10 Ryzen 7). I did a 4-track mix to test the Mixhub. I like what it's doing for the most part (I got a kick out of how it behaves like an actual console), but I couldn't even finish a 4 track mix using the Mixhub Lite because I started crackling again (1024 buffer). Had to turn off all the EQs and use something else. At least the modules can be turned off.

Sadly, at this rate I don't see myself gravitating towards Mixhub for actual mixes. It goes under the same bracket as Nebula: who cares what it sounds like if I can't use it.

Also separately, am I really the only one bothered by the lack of an option to toggle off auto-gain for the comp?

At the same time, oddly enough I didn't mind that it lacks an attack knob. For VCA and FET it almost makes most sense to only have 2 settings.

Reefius · Post by **Reefius** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:31 am

What CPU do you have? My old Intel i5 from 2012 could easily handle over 20 instances of MixHub (and not the Lite version).

jochicago · Post by **jochicago** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:20 am

I find that some plugins are not optimized (or sorely bugged) for AMD Ryzen or something else on my machine. Some of my Hornet plugins are completely broken, 100% CPU.

On the other hand, I can run dozens of instances of McDSP 6050 and I don't think I can get the CPU to 2%. Same for S1 DAW effects, they don't even register.

Reefius · Post by **Reefius** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:36 am

Is your Windows optimized for audio?
https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/ ... Windows-10

AdvancedFollower · Post by **AdvancedFollower** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:54 am

Haven't had any such problems with my Ryzen 7 1800X (8-core) and Studio One 4.5. Make sure to use "high performance" power saving mode when running the DAW. Make sure to enable Message Signaled-Based Interrupts for all supported devices (GeForce cards default to off, but it can be safely enabled): https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/windo ... ts.378044/ (this might have to be repeated any time you update a driver). Run LatencyMon to find and eliminate any offending drivers (Wi-Fi drivers are notorious for increasing DPC latency).

reggie1979 · Post by **reggie1979** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:00 pm

jochicago wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:20 am I find that some plugins are not optimized (or sorely bugged) for AMD Ryzen or something else on my machine. Some of my Hornet plugins are completely broken, 100% CPU.

On the other hand, I can run dozens of instances of McDSP 6050 and I don't think I can get the CPU to 2%. Same for S1 DAW effects, they don't even register.

This is very interesting to me. Your CPU should be able to handle a LOT of mixhub. Your CPU blows my old Intel out of the water.

Again, for me personally it's not a thing because I always mix with stems and drop my buffer up from 64 to 512 if/when I mix

Mixing for me involves all tracks with an instance of tape, VCC and mixhub.

jochicago · Post by **jochicago** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:43 pm

Thank you for your feedback. I'm going to explore PC optimization options and will report when I make headway. One thing to note is that this is a video editing rig, so I have a powerful GPU. I wonder if that has something to do with it, like the processing routing is weird or drivers are clashing or something.

lwj · Post by **lwj** » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:52 am

Wow that's terrible performance.. especially for a channel strip. I have the bx_consoles which are pretty comparable for all intents and purpose but they barely register on my CPU. So I have no idea what Waves is using all that processing power... with the Nebula stuff it's part of the expectation.. a sound over performance thing I don't care for, but if you do it's there. But hey, I head Chris Lord Alge uses this plug-in all the time.. true story.

exmatproton · Post by **exmatproton** » Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:46 pm

8 (non-lite) CLA plugins with all modules active, cost me 24% in the FL Studio meter. Which is quite a lot, but not undoable. The Acustica vst's use way more on my system

reggie1979 · Post by **reggie1979** » Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:26 pm

lwj wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:52 am Wow that's terrible performance.. especially for a channel strip. I have the bx_consoles which are pretty comparable for all intents and purpose but they barely register on my CPU. So I have no idea what Waves is using all that processing power... with the Nebula stuff it's part of the expectation.. a sound over performance thing I don't care for, but if you do it's there. But hey, I head Chris Lord Alge uses this plug-in all the time.. true story.

The reason it's more CPU intensive is because each instance is 8 channel strips. If it was just one that would be comparable more.

CLA Mixhub 1-day deal