VST running external DSP's. Reason Dsp interface?

Discuss VST stuff here!
Post Reply
User avatar
Re8et
Competition Winner
Posts: 1512
Joined: 14 Nov 2016

27 Jun 2018

There is still some mad developer creating (amazing) stuff for DSP monster cards (Scope-Pulsar up to 21 Dsp's)
I have read there is some problem running VST's that uses DSP from dsp based audio-card, like Focusrite, in Reason.

http://www.oceanswift.net/

I know it's a hard talk, especially for devs, but wouldn't be of any interested to buy a 40 DSP Pci/usb3/Thunderbolt interface
which is integrated with Reason (and could run 40 Vk2's in poly mode) that could run on a single core 1998 laptop* (with Win 10 lite or Iot)?
I do not quite understand the point, there are too many audio interfaces to develop Reason dll's for everyone...
I just would need one, be it RME, Focuslite, or custom Reason designed...
A well designed interface can run for ages to come.

Ocen Swift is the living proof that the DSP approach is quite a-live and kicking. The Pulsar scope is on the market from around 2000's, basically the same age as Reason. :oops:


*with a PCI-e slot, to which connect your Pci-e adapter and multi DSP card, of course (and whitelisted modded bios) :mrgreen:

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

27 Jun 2018

Nah, DSPs for ITB mixing doesn‘t make much sense. You either stay in the DSPs or you do stuff in the computers CPU. Routing stuff back- and forth during mixing doesn‘t make sense except as a copy protection for the plugins that run on the DSP hardware.

ProTools and the Uaudio Apollo use DSPs to compute effects for the musicians live, during the recording BEFORE it gets into the computer so the musicians can hear them. If you run on ProTools with a recent computer you know that you can run much more plugins when you go to the CPU instead of the DSPs.

User avatar
Re8et
Competition Winner
Posts: 1512
Joined: 14 Nov 2016

27 Jun 2018

But it must be a monster interface, otherwise, concentrating efforts on a puny Focuslite with tiny nanowavers in it, would be a total failure to begin with.. I would never invest in a system not ''Ragnarok'' proof, I do not know if I'm alone in this, but I do not like plastic so much also..
Last edited by Re8et on 27 Jun 2018, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Re8et
Competition Winner
Posts: 1512
Joined: 14 Nov 2016

27 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
27 Jun 2018
the Uaudio Apollo...
The Apollo is not ''Ragnarok'' proof. It has awesome reverbs plugins. I like the smaller siblings, a lot, it fits in my bag. Better than the new MOTU anyway. It is a good system for Pro Tools users, but I also understand there is also some difference in which plug'in with pre-post audio computing differs from virtual synths like Europa that focuses on cpu processing the audio at algorithm level, and then the Vk2, which is a completely different beast, much stuff under the hood I barely comprehend...

Is ITB Mixing not fit your way of saying "Reason core could work with a dedicate Dsp interface but it's unpractical"?
External plug'ins which run as Reason host would use Reason sound Engine, thus the Dsp interface, or could there be problems?
Let's say a dedicated Dsp card :?: gets a bundled Reason version completely rewritten to work with. That sounds practical from a marketing perspective a least.

-edit, I missed what you were trying to say also, I had to go to see some older post of yours about time-dsp load. :thumbs_up:

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

27 Jun 2018

Re8et wrote:
27 Jun 2018
The Apollo is not ''Ragnarok'' proof. It has awesome reverbs plugins. I like the smaller siblings, a lot, it fits in my bag. Better than the new MOTU anyway. It is a good system for Pro Tools users, but I also understand there is also some difference in which plug'in with pre-post audio computing differs from virtual synths like Europa that focuses on cpu processing the audio at algorithm level, and then the Vk2, which is a completely different beast, much stuff under the hood I barely comprehend...

Is ITB Mixing not fit your way of saying "Reason core could work with a dedicate Dsp interface but it's unpractical"?
External plug'ins which run as Reason host would use Reason sound Engine, thus the Dsp interface, or could there be problems?
Let's say a dedicated Dsp card :?: gets a bundled Reason version completely rewritten to work with. That sounds practical from a marketing perspective a least.

-edit, I missed what you were trying to say also, I had to go to see some older post of yours about time-dsp load. :thumbs_up:
No what I mean is that it's simply nonsense to send audio back and forth over the PCI (or any other) bus instead of simply having it in memory and processing it there.

You don't seem to be aware that if you process a plugin with for example an UAD PCI card then in the background the SAME THING happens as if you were routing your audio out through an audio interface, then send that audio through an analog device (THATS the DSP) and then route it back in through the audio interface into your DAW. If you did that with 30 channels you probably wouldn't wonder why it's sluggish.

With DSP cards you fell for the marketing talk of "your CPU doesn't have to process the plugins" - yeah but the CPU has to deal with sending audio back and forth through it's memory and buses all the time, thats even worse when it comes to low latency processing.

User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

27 Jun 2018

Agreed with normen. Buying a dsp based system in this day and age is an expensive way of paying for what your computer can do pretty well on it's own. Also Focusrite doesn't have DSP hosting for plugins. They as well as other manufactures only include that as a feature for recording to minimize latency when recording with effects as previously mentioned. I can say personally from having worked in a studio with a Pro Tools HD system, that aside from tracking, there's very little benefit. Reason could use some DSP optimizations but going external isn't the answer to that.

User avatar
Re8et
Competition Winner
Posts: 1512
Joined: 14 Nov 2016

27 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
27 Jun 2018
No what I mean is that it's simply nonsense to send audio back and forth over the PCI (or any other) bus instead of simply having it in memory and processing it there.

You don't seem to be aware that if you process a plugin with for example an UAD PCI card then in the background the SAME THING happens as if you were routing your audio out through an audio interface, then send that audio through an analog device (THATS the DSP) and then route it back in through the audio interface into your DAW. If you did that with 30 channels you probably wouldn't wonder why it's sluggish.

With DSP cards you fell for the marketing talk of "your CPU doesn't have to process the plugins" - yeah but the CPU has to deal with sending audio back and forth through it's memory and buses all the time, thats even worse when it comes to low latency processing.
Except if you are running reason from a IBM Thinkpad 240X from 1999 (with a pci-express interface) or a newer Hp-Dell-Lenov laptop (with a pci-express interface) which I prefer to a pci-express less Microsoft Surface anyday, to run audio applications. It would still do a ton of difference.

My computer cpu does not have to send datas all the way, not in every scenarios, midi can be used instead. With the exception of Sampler and wavetables Synthesizers, which should be handled another way, pre-loaded on the Hardware dsp interface, and stay there...

Take the Clavia Nord Modular. It has a Software interface, which connects through Midi data to the Hardware Synth.
It's the Clavia Nord thar does all the audio processing, in fact it is possible to save the sysex patches on it and run it standalone.
I am not sure of it, but the Scope Xite-1 could work in a similar way to the Nord Modular (it has a pci-express interface).
One key difference is that the Clavia can run only one modular session at a time; the X-1 also effects, other synths, the mixer, etc.

Audio samples are processed in the DSp only, not the cpu, X-1 tho not 100% sure about it.

One thing I know, is that my dual-core laptop can not run a Single Vk2 instance in poly mode playing it with a midi keyboard.
If I could run ONE instance of Vk2 in poly mode with my lappy the same way I could with OceanSwift OS30 Synth, that would
make my day, at 4000$ it must be something more than plain marketing.

I understand that on a DAW level, this would be a something different, that is why the VST bridge stuff is so interesting, now that Europa
has been ported, I just like to keep my brain in this kind of pulsar state for as long as I can. :PUF_balance:

I don't know how could it work, anyway the new VCV rack uses 20% of my GPU, it can zoom, in and out, it's just amazing to watch on a 4k monitor,
so there is anyway lots of cpu and cpu processing to be done from the pc anyway, I would love Reason if it would adopt the VCV format, it is so amazing..

User avatar
Re8et
Competition Winner
Posts: 1512
Joined: 14 Nov 2016

27 Jun 2018

QVprod wrote:
27 Jun 2018
Agreed with normen. Buying a dsp based system in this day and age is an expensive way of paying for what your computer can do pretty well on it's own. Also Focusrite doesn't have DSP hosting for plugins. They as well as other manufactures only include that as a feature for recording to minimize latency when recording with effects as previously mentioned. I can say personally from having worked in a studio with a Pro Tools HD system, that aside from tracking, there's very little benefit. Reason could use some DSP optimizations but going external isn't the answer to that.
I like to think about the SCOPE XITE-1 interface as a reference card, and Focusrite is producing in china in a saving process that has definitely moved me away from them, everything has shrinked in quality.

I mean, take a look to that total failure approach for Softube Virtual modular, it kills CPU, a whole system, with plugins worth hundreds of dollars, that can not cope with a complex setup.

Mastering and processing is also another pair of sleeves, but you see the point, beyond a certain point, why would I invest money in a more complex, advanced synth, if my cpu, doesn't matter how many cores I have (I have 24 cores) can't keep up with the workflow?

What make those Softube minds think I* would spend one dollar on something unsustainable as that?
If they kept developing with XITE-1 I'd see the point, instead thay are moving on their own, FAILING MISERABLY.
Same goes with Reason, many people see it as a game, not real hardware, thus not worth investing in it.

*or anyone else

Besides, non of these mentioned modular system has the easyness of use of Reason, don't get me wrong, I love what I can do with Reason on a modest computer.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: robussc and 8 guests