Login / Register
 
DIVA WTF. So i bought diva because the demo was smooth and amazing... BUT....
New Reply
Subscribe
Naugo
Thread Starter
#1
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Naugo's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,612

Thread Starter
Naugo is online now
DIVA WTF. So i bought diva because the demo was smooth and amazing... BUT....

Since getting the license key and registering it, it has suddenly become a rediculous CPU / Memory hog. I mean like, can't even use it in polyphony mode at all... and I'm on a hyperthreading quad core i7 2.3 ghz macbook pro with 16gb of ram (although im running ableton so the ram is a bit meaningless atm)...

has anyone else expereinced this?

The thing I'm really confused by is the fact that I wasn't having any problems using Diva in polyphony mode before registering it. Also, the problems (drop outs, skips, noise) occur when trying to play notes in quick succession. QUITE FRUSTRATING WTF
#2
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #2
Lives for gear
 
jbuonacc's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,147

jbuonacc is offline
did you have to re-install, or were you able to register the demo version that you already had? (not sure how it works.) and it's the latest optimized version?

i don't know why everyone has such a problem with Diva being a pig. i only have a 2.83gHz Core2 Quad and don't have much of any problems using polyphony even with the older un-optimized demo version (haven't even bothered to try the new one yet). on some patches i need to drop down the number of voices, but that's rare. granted, i don't think i've tried running more than one or two instances at a time.

oh, i just noticed that you have a Mac. they suck.
__________________
your gear list does not impress me.
#3
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Analog Prophet's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,104
My Studio

Analog Prophet is offline
No, it's just to register the demo and you'll ready to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.

One can save process power by:
1. Upgrade to the new 1.1 version that sucks less CPU power.
2. Set the quality of the sound reproduction in DIVA lower.
__________________
The best beat of any music is
the beat from your own heart
- Analog Prophet -


Gear: www.soundofmusic.se
Music: www.analogprophet.com


https://soundcloud.com/analog-prophet
Naugo
Thread Starter
#4
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Naugo's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,612

Thread Starter
Naugo is online now
Didn't have to reinstall. i did upgrade before purchasing. I know it seems weird but i swear i was getting better performance before entering my license. I don't know why.

It does sound glorious, and of course i can always freeze / bounce my away around the limitations of 32-bit, but dayumn, diva is a hog.

Where can I check what version I'm running to make sure it's 1.1? I know I ran the installer so i don't know why it wouldn't be 1.1 but it's posisble...

Edit: Found it. displays upon being uponed at the top panel.
Deleted User
#5
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #5
Deleted User
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberlurker View Post
I sense sloppy programming.... *puts on asbestos suit*
It's possible...

It's quite common to launch a software with bugs or unoptimized code, because developers need ROI to keep on developing... and that is not sloppy programming, it's simply business.

But who knows...
#6
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #6
Gear maniac
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 212

mwvm is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberlurker View Post
What is it about Diva that makes it eat so much CPU? And how come they were able to reduce it so much in the 1.1 version? Surely it can't be "because it's so advanced" since they were able to improve the performance with the patch. I sense sloppy programming.... *puts on asbestos suit*

i do believe it's because they are emulating actual analogue circuits - like you would if you were an engineer designing any electronic circiut these days - using something like SPICE. emulating the amount of current through a resistor, specific transistors etc...

i'd assume this type of programming makes it cpu heavy

i'd can not run it on the set up i have
Naugo
Thread Starter
#7
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Naugo's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,612

Thread Starter
Naugo is online now
the thing i really don't understand is how Zebra is sooooo much more effecient than Diva. Sure, diva does great emulation, but Zebra is quite an immense synth... how is it possible that Zebra could be 5-10x as effecient as Diva?
Deleted User
#8
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #8
Deleted User
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrok Rolles View Post
the thing i really don't understand is how Zebra is sooooo much more effecient than Diva. Sure, diva does great emulation, but Zebra is quite an immense synth... how is it possible that Zebra could be 5-10x as effecient as Diva?
Because Diva uses modeling of electronic components, and very high frequency rate when rendering the sound, and the downsampling it to 44.1/88/46 etc. The quality setting (divine, etc) what actually does is changing that frequency.

Zebra was designed with low cpu consumption from the beginning.

I can't find the link, but Urs talked about it in the KVR forums.
#9
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Spectral Climax's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,123

Spectral Climax is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrok Rolles View Post
the thing i really don't understand is how Zebra is sooooo much more effecient than Diva. Sure, diva does great emulation, but Zebra is quite an immense synth... how is it possible that Zebra could be 5-10x as effecient as Diva?
Zebra doesn't do specific component emulation AFAIK...it's a more generic emulation. It's also based on a different technology/code. There is a difference between sounding good and sounding exactly like a x/y/z analog synth.

It's very usual to see cutting edge emulation technology, using every resource available for even basic functions. Something similar had happened with DCAM before some years. I can remember that it was quite "heavy" when it first came out.

I don't mind about the use of cpu. Having a proper multi-emulator like DIVA, running 1-2 voices is still an advantage IMO. If someone wants hundreds of voices, there are other products for that.
#10
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Croatia
Posts: 3,433

EvilDragon is offline
What Pier says is correct. Zebra does not model electronic components (but there's a prospect that there will be some flavors of Diva's filters added to Zebra at a later point), hence it does not consume that much CPU. It also doesn't have zero-delay feedback filters like Diva has, which is the grunt of Diva's CPU load. XMF filters in Zebra are probably the most CPU intensive part of Zebra. They're close to ACE.
#11
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #11
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Hellbourne, OZ
Posts: 1,153

cuckoo.old is offline
I'm running Diva demo on I7 and new 1.1 is much friendlier for my CPU than 1.01.

It still ran ok when compared to the Core Duo I was running before. I haven't purchased yet, so getting nice crackles but they are not offensive (better that than timeouts, or hobbled versions). I'd be highly surprised if when I register there is any difference in CPU consumption.
#12
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 665

Synthpark is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrok Rolles View Post
Since getting the license key and registering it, it has suddenly become a rediculous CPU / Memory hog. I mean like, can't even use it in polyphony mode at all... and I'm on a hyperthreading quad core i7 2.3 ghz macbook pro with 16gb of ram (although im running ableton so the ram is a bit meaningless atm)...

has anyone else expereinced this?

The thing I'm really confused by is the fact that I wasn't having any problems using Diva in polyphony mode before registering it. Also, the problems (drop outs, skips, noise) occur when trying to play notes in quick succession. QUITE FRUSTRATING WTF
Hm, I am running DIVA 1.1 under Logic with a 2 GHz I7 macbook pro and it works good, especially when enabling the multicore-threading in DIVA.
#13
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #13
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: yurp
Posts: 11,942
My Studio

Yoozer is offline
4 decades of computing teach us: " Premature optimization is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming."

It is better to have a slow and provably correct version first, and optimization can be done later.

Multicore is not easy. If you assign each voice to a core, you still have to mix them.
__________________
For all the intelligence and knowledge that technology empowers us with, the lazy and stupid is amplified along with it (Staticstarter)
Threads to check out: Chord Generators & Tips | Pop Sound Sources - synthesis tutorials
#14
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #14
Lives for gear
 
djanthonyw's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,449

djanthonyw is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrok Rolles View Post
the thing i really don't understand is how Zebra is sooooo much more effecient than Diva. Sure, diva does great emulation, but Zebra is quite an immense synth... how is it possible that Zebra could be 5-10x as effecient as Diva?
Zebra also sounds bad in comparison to Diva. I think Zebra sounds thin / flat / hollow. I've tried the demo many times and I just don't like it, but I do love Diva and Tyrell.
__________________
You are currently reading my signature.
#15
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Breaks Dude's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Location: Underneath Your Mom
Posts: 567

Breaks Dude is offline
I have an overclocked i7 2600k (Win 7/64)...how will it run on my machine assuming I am using Ableton?
#16
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #16
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Brighton UK
Posts: 4,721

offki is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breaks Dude View Post
I have an overclocked i7 2600k (Win 7/64)...how will it run on my machine assuming I am using Ableton?
It will run pretty nice on that cpu.

Poor ACE seems a bit neglected these days, it's my favorite of the the three, down to personal taste though I guess.
#17
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #17
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Croatia
Posts: 3,433

EvilDragon is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by djanthonyw View Post
Zebra also sounds bad in comparison to Diva. I think Zebra sounds thin / flat / hollow. I've tried the demo many times and I just don't like it, but I do love Diva and Tyrell.
That's just, like, your opinion, dude. It certainly doesn't sound thing, flat, nor hollow.
#18
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 665

Synthpark is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by offki View Post
It will run pretty nice on that cpu.

Poor ACE seems a bit neglected these days, it's my favorite of the the three, down to personal taste though I guess.
i asked the programmer if they would do the same for ACE, and he said yes, sooner or later
#19
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #19
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Brighton UK
Posts: 4,721

offki is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthpark View Post
i asked the programmer if they would do the same for ACE, and he said yes, sooner or later
He's been working on this for ages..



Should be great, one day..maybe it's been delayed while he adds the bits from Diva.
#20
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #20
Gear nut
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 89

Tech44 is offline
#21
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #21
Lives for gear
 
djanthonyw's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,449

djanthonyw is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
That's just, like, your opinion, dude. It certainly doesn't sound thing, flat, nor hollow.
I know, I was stating my oppinion, just as you're stating yours. Is it that I didn't put the "IMO" in front my statment, is that where the confusion came in?
#22
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #22
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 2,644

seancostello is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberlurker View Post
What is it about Diva that makes it eat so much CPU? And how come they were able to reduce it so much in the 1.1 version? Surely it can't be "because it's so advanced" since they were able to improve the performance with the patch. I sense sloppy programming.... *puts on asbestos suit*
Do you have any programming hints to speed up zero-latency modeled filters?
Naugo
Thread Starter
#23
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Naugo's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,612

Thread Starter
Naugo is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by djanthonyw View Post
Zebra also sounds bad in comparison to Diva. I think Zebra sounds thin / flat / hollow. I've tried the demo many times and I just don't like it, but I do love Diva and Tyrell.
sorry but zebra is everything except for thin / flat / hollow.... go watch "the dark knight", "inception", or "the girl with the dragon tattoo".... certainly the orchestration helps the sounds come to life, but Zebra is an absolute beast... assuming you know what you're doing with it.
#24
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #24
Lives for gear
 
pointsource's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 812

pointsource is offline
Hi!

I have ACE, and I have to say that after listening the demos of DIVA, I don't think it's better or worst than ACE.

That's what held me from buying DIVA. ACE has more possibilities I think, and to my ears the sound is the same, if not better.

Peace!
#25
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #25
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 2,644

seancostello is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberlurker View Post
I was just asking out of curiosity.
Fair enough.

My guess is that the original code had some parts that were programmed in straight C++, and the 1.1 version moved some of those sections into SIMD assembly. I have found that you need to REALLY understand how something works before you dive into optimization. You also need to do lots of tests, to make sure that the optimized code really optimizes things.

Modern compilers are powerful and weird, and there are times where your beautiful hand coded SSE2 assembly will be outperformed by straight C++. I've spent the last week dealing with these sort of issues in my own code.

From Urs' posts in a developer's forum, it looks like he is doing some CRAZY programming, which requires "unrolling the loops" to a massive degree. This is to avoid having latency within the filter feedback loop, which is otherwise the default for digital filters. Since this is a new way of programming filters, the optimization techniques used in previous work might not apply.
__________________
Sean Costello
Valhalla DSP, LLC
Words: http://valhalladsp.wordpress.com
Plugins: http://www.valhalladsp.com
#26
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #26
Lives for gear
 
ChristianRock's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,465

ChristianRock is offline
You can't really say it's poorly coded when it might be the best C++ code every, but doing it in C++ made it slower than assembly would just because it's C++. In other applications C++ could do well.

As far as I know, there aren't that many VSTs (or hardware synths, apart from the Virus) that are programmed in Assembly these days. The reason is obvious, Assembly is a huge nightmare to program.

I think it just shows how big Urs commitment (and technological prowess) is, that he just re-wrote something in a different language just to find out if it would improve performance (and it did).
__________________
Do you know where you will spend eternity?
My music page http://www.reverbnation.com/christianschulze
#27
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #27
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 2,644

seancostello is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberlurker View Post
Like I said then, sloppy programming
#28
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #28
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 2,644

seancostello is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianRock View Post
You can't really say it's poorly coded when it might be the best C++ code every, but doing it in C++ made it slower than assembly would just because it's C++. In other applications C++ could do well.

As far as I know, there aren't that many VSTs (or hardware synths, apart from the Virus) that are programmed in Assembly these days. The reason is obvious, Assembly is a huge nightmare to program.
A lot of VSTs are programmed using SIMD intrinsics, which are essentially a way of calling specific assembly instructions in C++ code. So your main loop might be C++ that is easy to understand, but the individual functions that are called might be inlined SSE2 assembly, or the Accelerate library (on OSX), or something along those lines. This allows for nice object oriented programming, while still being able to optimize the inner loops as needed and as time permits.
#29
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Synthpark's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 665

Synthpark is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianRock View Post
You can't really say it's poorly coded when it might be the best C++ code every, but doing it in C++ made it slower than assembly would just because it's C++. In other applications C++ could do well.

As far as I know, there aren't that many VSTs (or hardware synths, apart from the Virus) that are programmed in Assembly these days. The reason is obvious, Assembly is a huge nightmare to program.

I think it just shows how big Urs commitment (and technological prowess) is, that he just re-wrote something in a different language just to find out if it would improve performance (and it did).
And who tells you that an optimization cannot be found by mathematical tricks or prestorage of results instead of real-time calculation? That are pure speculations, not very enlightening.
#30
17th May 2012
Old 17th May 2012
  #30
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Brighton UK
Posts: 4,721

offki is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello View Post
A lot of VSTs are programmed using SIMD intrinsics, which are essentially a way of calling specific assembly instructions in C++ code. So your main loop might be C++ that is easy to understand, but the individual functions that are called might be inlined SSE2 assembly, or the Accelerate library (on OSX), or something along those lines. This allows for nice object oriented programming, while still being able to optimize the inner loops as needed and as time permits.
You lost me at "A lot of VST's".
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
BLueROom / The Moan Zone
260
seaneldon / So much gear, so little time!
3
miqer / So much gear, so little time!
6
DCtoDaylight / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
22
Dog BBQ / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
68

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.