multithreaded Drum Rack

[Bunky Freaks]

Currently a big problem in the way I am setting up my projects is that the sound generators of all the 128 pads of a drum rack are allocated to one single cpu core. This often leads to overloads on my quad core although three cores are idling along. The concept to allow any sound generator in drum rack slots is fantastic, but the lack of cpu load distribution is counterproductive and effectively prevents from using it to its full extent.

Sure you can open another drum rack instance in a new midi channel which would be allocated to another core, but for example in the case of complex drum programming setups where you want all the notes in one midi clip for better clearness this is not a viable solution. So, if it is technically possible it would be a great improvement if the drum rack module would distribute the calculations to all available cpu cores.

[dna598]

+1


Spot on!

[hoffman2k]

Currently a big problem in the way I am setting up my projects is that the sound generators of all the 128 pads of a drum rack are allocated to one single cpu core. This often leads to overloads on my quad core although three cores are idling along. The concept to allow any sound generator in drum rack slots is fantastic, but the lack of cpu load distribution is counterproductive and effectively prevents from using it to its full extent.

Sure you can open another drum rack instance in a new midi channel which would be allocated to another core, but for example in the case of complex drum programming setups where you want all the notes in one midi clip for better clearness this is not a viable solution. So, if it is technically possible it would be a great improvement if the drum rack module would distribute the calculations to all available cpu cores.

Probably not technically possible. I'm paraphrasing this, but Ableton has explained it: As long as instruments are linked by being on the same track, send, return and other routing, the stream of sound is processed by one core so that no delays occur by adding up cores, which is something the master track does.

Honestly, if your only gripe with using multiple Drum Racks is that you'd need 2 clips. Then why not use 1 clip linked to 2 tracks? Just set your second track to respond to the MIDI of the first.

[Bunky Freaks]

Probably not technically possible. I'm paraphrasing this, but Ableton has explained it: As long as instruments are linked by being on the same track, send, return and other routing, the stream of sound is processed by one core so that no delays occur by adding up cores, which is something the master track does.

Honestly, if your only gripe with using multiple Drum Racks is that you'd need 2 clips. Then why not use 1 clip linked to 2 tracks? Just set your second track to respond to the MIDI of the first.

I am no programmer and have no clue about the software architectural aspects, but I know about the current restrictions on multithreading vs routing. I brought it up anyways to stir discusson about this topic. Looking at the current development of processors they scale faster in number of cores than in speed. Like I said, the basic idea of drum racks is to be able to fill them with up to 128 instruments. To truly use drum racks that way they need to find a way to multithread them. Also I would love to run my projects at samplerates higher than 44,1 kHz. Then add some high quality, oversampled effects to some instruments nested in racks and the cpu load goes through the roof. This situation would not change much, even with next generations of processors.

But thanks a lot for pointing me to the midi routing fix. How could I have not thought of it Thats a great work around.
cheers!

[etheory]

Probably not technically possible. I'm paraphrasing this, but Ableton has explained it: As long as instruments are linked by being on the same track, send, return and other routing, the stream of sound is processed by one core so that no delays occur by adding up cores, which is something the master track does.

Have you used programs other than Live before?
Well I have. Just try this in Logic and see if things slow down.
They don't, because Logic actually multi-threads properly.

It's not only NOT a technical restriction, but it's pretty much only an Ableton restriction.
They don't support it because it's easier NOT to support true multi-threading throughout their program.

Hence this is totally a valid request, as is improving the generally poor multi-threading performance of Live, with respect to other hosts.
So +1. And people who keep citing the responses from Ableton about this shouldn't take what they are saying as a hard restriction. Put it in context, Live CURRENTLY can't do this. But there is no technically reason why this could not be fixed.

And I'll insert the obligatory Internet qualification and say that I LOVE Live, and love working within it. What I don't like about it is it's decidedly unimpressive performance, which, once fixed, really will make it invincible. But for the moment, it's got the best user interface, but is severely tainted by very bad performance.

[outershpongolia]

Currently a big problem in the way I am setting up my projects is that the sound generators of all the 128 pads of a drum rack are allocated to one single cpu core. This often leads to overloads on my quad core although three cores are idling along. The concept to allow any sound generator in drum rack slots is fantastic, but the lack of cpu load distribution is counterproductive and effectively prevents from using it to its full extent.

Sure you can open another drum rack instance in a new midi channel which would be allocated to another core, but for example in the case of complex drum programming setups where you want all the notes in one midi clip for better clearness this is not a viable solution. So, if it is technically possible it would be a great improvement if the drum rack module would distribute the calculations to all available cpu cores.

Probably not technically possible. I'm paraphrasing this, but Ableton has explained it: As long as instruments are linked by being on the same track, send, return and other routing, the stream of sound is processed by one core so that no delays occur by adding up cores, which is something the master track does.

Honestly, if your only gripe with using multiple Drum Racks is that you'd need 2 clips. Then why not use 1 clip linked to 2 tracks? Just set your second track to respond to the MIDI of the first.

Then you loose the names of each cell in the piano roll mode, right?

OT- using something like Battery, is there a way to get the cell names into the piano roll even tho it's a VST? can I name them myself?

[hoffman2k]

This tip shows you how to name notes: http://www.thecovertoperators.org/Video ... ive-part-3

Probably not technically possible. I'm paraphrasing this, but Ableton has explained it: As long as instruments are linked by being on the same track, send, return and other routing, the stream of sound is processed by one core so that no delays occur by adding up cores, which is something the master track does.

Have you used programs other than Live before?
Well I have. Just try this in Logic and see if things slow down.
They don't, because Logic actually multi-threads properly.

It's not only NOT a technical restriction, but it's pretty much only an Ableton restriction.
They don't support it because it's easier NOT to support true multi-threading throughout their program.

Hence this is totally a valid request, as is improving the generally poor multi-threading performance of Live, with respect to other hosts.
So +1. And people who keep citing the responses from Ableton about this shouldn't take what they are saying as a hard restriction. Put it in context, Live CURRENTLY can't do this. But there is no technically reason why this could not be fixed.

And I'll insert the obligatory Internet qualification and say that I LOVE Live, and love working within it. What I don't like about it is it's decidedly unimpressive performance, which, once fixed, really will make it invincible. But for the moment, it's got the best user interface, but is severely tainted by very bad performance.

Try what in logic? Logic has freaking processing nodes..
But it still isn't suitable for triggering random things on the fly.
Anyway, I just repeated what Ableton said. If you know better, take it up with them.