ReQ-131 v2 Video

[Arsenic]

how?
 

Because it was originally €29. They then reduced it to €15 - That's how.

 that i didn't know, appologies ....

My apologies. My comment wasn't meant to come across like that.

[Theo.M]

Not much to say until it appears in the shop and we can try it out, I guess.

Looks great from the vid, but I'm another one who only uses version 1 sparingly because it's such a drain on CPU. Hope that's been addressed

Im wondering for such a large update is it going to be a free update or just a different version

Exactly!  I purchased this because, as a hip-hop music lover, I like to use lots of samples of other songs.  I was trying to use the 'BV512 Vocoder' equalizer mode to eliminate frequencies I didn't want/need, but I HATED the way it colored the sound in the 4/8/16 and 32 band modes and the way it introduced a delay in FFT mode.  So I purchased the REQ-131, remembering that it performed this task just fine when I trialed it a long time ago (when it first came to the shop).  I didn't remember it taking up as much DSP as it does now (or I wouldn't have bought it).

*SIDENOTE: THIS is a GREAT example of why there needs to be a way to re-trial REs.

I assume the updates caused the surge in DSP usage.  Don't get me wrong, it does a GREAT job at making every sample my batch, BUT I could run almost 20 instances of the BV512 without so much as ONE BAR of DSP lighting up.  If I run 3 REQs (even if they are bypassed and the corresponding track muted in the sequencer, I get THREE BARS of DSP lit (and a FOURTH BAR blinking most of the time).  And the BV512 is a VOCODER!  It does MORE than the REQ!

Now, looking at all that it does functionally and graphically, I can only assume that DSP will be an issue of concern even more so than before.  And if it's not a free update, I can't justify paying for it again.  Because I have really 'paid' for purchasing the one I have now, in blood, sweat and MANY, MANY tears.

Thanks for the heads up..

I own V1, and am unable to trial V2, i only have the option of paying $15 for the update.

Now I am not blaming LabsOne on this by a long shot, I believe it is just another flaw in the RE system from props themselves. The dev should be able to automatically dictate update retrials for any user.

Anyway, I long complained about the cpu usage in version 1, for being a graphic equaliser and a couple cut filters, using around 100x the cpu of other Graphic EQ's in vst, and around 5x or more the cpu of the red rock one (which albeit loses the filters). Fresha assured me they were working on dsp optimisations, this was a year ago.. I am very disappointed to read the dsp problems in the update, and especially shocked that it uses even more than V1. There is no universe where it's ok for a graphic EQ to use this much CPU, sorry LabOne, but I am being frank about this. 

I think there is a serious problem with your EQ code.. Remember how we talked about RQ and BK being very heavy too? I think before releasing more features you need to go back and work out how to make the devices efficient. Perhaps even enlist the help of a guru such as pitchblende or Richard @ Synapse. There is nothing wrong with getting some tips!

Anyway thanks for the heads up heartbreakone, i don't even have version 1 in my rack installed at all at present.

Now just in case it's not a widespread issue, lab one please work on getting owners of v1 a demo for v2 so we can test on our own machines. Push props.. it's the right thing to do in this case, as I can't see any scenario, even for something low cost, where its ok for someone to pay for an update they literally can not at all test!

[Theo.M]

I assume the updates caused the surge in DSP usage. ...... I can only assume that DSP will be an issue of concern even more so than before.  And if it's not a free update, I can't justify paying for it again.  Because I have really 'paid' for purchasing the one I have now, in blood, sweat and MANY, MANY tears.

Someone please post your DSP hit results when you get it.  One will do.  I just want to know if they streamlined it or not. 

 
I run about 52 ACTIVE Req131 v2's on my 2 year old i7 3770 before it says computer too slow (at 95% cpu limit)
That's on multiple chains and it's not a typo, that is more than FIFTY modules. It's very cpu efficient for what it does, even more than req v1.
Single chain for my computer is max cpu hit at at least 22 modules, but who wants more than 3 in one chain ?
Trails will be reset so you can leave the capslock off.
 
First you assume a high cpu hit, then say it is not you, it is labone's fault for not wanting to pay for the upgrade. Meanwhile you have no idea how much work went into this. Sorry, it is you from where I'm sitting. No harm done, go test v2 out and be amazed

thanks for showing the dsp has not improved. It seems you don't realise this but 50 EQ's to max out a 3770K is very poor optimisation. On my imac 3.4 2600K, previous gen to yours, I get 700 waves graphic EQ. With full spectrum display and extra bands. On my laptop, which is WAY weaker than your desktop (a 4.5 year old 2.2ghz i7 macbook), i get 70 Synapse EQ's with analyser going.

[HeartbreakOne]

Thanks for the heads up..

I own V1, and am unable to trial V2, i only have the option of paying $15 for the update.

Now I am not blaming LabsOne on this by a long shot, I believe it is just another flaw in the RE system from props themselves. The dev should be able to automatically dictate update retrials for any user.

Anyway, I long complained about the cpu usage in version 1, for being a graphic equaliser and a couple cut filters, using around 100x the cpu of other Graphic EQ's in vst, and around 5x or more the cpu of the red rock one (which albeit loses the filters). Fresha assured me they were working on dsp optimisations, this was a year ago.. I am very disappointed to read the dsp problems in the update, and especially shocked that it uses even more than V1. There is no universe where it's ok for a graphic EQ to use this much CPU, sorry LabOne, but I am being frank about this. 

I think there is a serious problem with your EQ code.. Remember how we talked about RQ and BK being very heavy too? I think before releasing more features you need to go back and work out how to make the devices efficient. Perhaps even enlist the help of a guru such as pitchblende or Richard @ Synapse. There is nothing wrong with getting some tips!

Anyway thanks for the heads up heartbreakone, i don't even have version 1 in my rack installed at all at present.

Now just in case it's not a widespread issue, lab one please work on getting owners of v1 a demo for v2 so we can test on our own machines. Push props.. it's the right thing to do in this case, as I can't see any scenario, even for something low cost, where its ok for someone to pay for an update they literally can not at all test!

Hell yeah, dude!  I was very excited to see that more work was done to improve the original, but I was TOTALLY bummed out when I discovered that I could only evaluate it AFTER I purchased it.  So much for customer perks, right?

Like you, I don't fault the LabOne staff for the lack of evaluation, nor do I fault them for the DSP concerns.  I know what's what regarding the RE universe, and they are just trying to get in where they fit in.  But I just hate that these types of issues seem to NEVER get resolved, and the die-hard Props fans are always defending them (maybe it's because THEIR issues and concerns haven't come up...yet...).  Yeah, you know who I'm talking about, you read the thread. 

Hey, I liked the REQ enough to buy it, even though the DSP pull greatly limited its use, which I discovered AFTER PURCHASING IT.  As I've stated before, I trialed it the day it was first introduced and remember it not being as heavy as it was when I bought it (October 10, 2014).  Nothing in my setup had changed between that time (except maybe the version of Reason I was running, I am not sure), and NONE of the other rack devices showed any changes within songs, so I have to assume that the version of Reason that I was running during the trial somehow managed the DSP load better than the current version (which is 7.1). 

Also, I still maintain that it's very interesting that I can run MANY instances of the BV512 vocoder in equalizer mode (32-512) without so much as one bar being raised on the DSP meter, even during playback, but if I just load 2 or more instances of the REQ I get at least two bars of DSP, without the track even playing, and with NO OTHER effect devices loaded along with it.  Once I press play that third bar blinks like I'm the next victim of the Final Destination franchise, daring me to load another instance.  I've just had to resign myself to using the BV512 for my needs and fixing the "coloring" with another eq.  It sucks, but at least I get to keep my DSP headroom.  And it's a VOCODER, just by definition it does more than the REQ, so what is the deal?

I get it, Propellerhead is still "practically new" at this and blah, blah, blah.  But please keep in mind, Google is making DRIVERLESS CARS, Apple is making watches that are basically wrist phones, and 3D printing is a real thing now, so why do certain people keep defending the Props lack of movement on so many essential things.  Do you owe them money?  Do they have some unflattering photos of you from the Christmas party?  If anything, they have it pretty easy as far as "making things" go. 

But, whatever, right?  I can hear the snark being typed as you're reading this.  Go ahead, it's okay.  If it helps you to be a better music maker, fire away!  I still love Reason (7 NOT 8), but I haven't even downloaded another trial of anything since the Ochen K. Chip64 Synth, because I'm tired of entering my entire login EVERY TIME I want to use Reason just to race the 30-day clock to trial something that could potentially become limited because of an update AFTER I purchase it, and until Props fixes that issue, along with the myriad of other broken pieces, I'll keep putting my money to use elsewhere. 

The truth is, Reason 7 was really good.  Almost too good.  And it's good enough for me to be content with for years to come.  Along with a little McGyver-style practicality courtesy of places like The Recording Revolution, there's nothing I can't accomplish with R7, so now the burden is on Propellerhead to truly convince me to upgrade again EVER.  Good luck with that.  I'm not a fan boy, or an obsessive collector of things.  I'm a thinking musician with a clear mind.

[Theo.M]

Like you, I don't fault the LabOne staff for the lack of evaluation, nor do I fault them for the DSP concerns.  I know what's what regarding the RE universe, and they are just trying to get in where they fit in.  But I just hate that these types of issues seem to NEVER get resolved, and the die-hard Props fans are always defending them (maybe it's because THEIR issues and concerns haven't come up...yet...).  Yeah, you know who I'm talking about, you read the thread. 

just to clarify where you say "like you", i agree it's props fault to make re trials so difficult, but just to be clear I *definitely* blame LabOne for the high dsp usage. Reason  itself and the way it handles threading is another matter entirely but there are many devs, who have proven that RE's themselves can be incredibly efficient. Sorry Heartbreak but you're a bit off the mark here, the dsp can't be anyone's fault but the dev's.

[HeartbreakOne]

Like you, I don't fault the LabOne staff for the lack of evaluation, nor do I fault them for the DSP concerns.  I know what's what regarding the RE universe, and they are just trying to get in where they fit in.  But I just hate that these types of issues seem to NEVER get resolved, and the die-hard Props fans are always defending them (maybe it's because THEIR issues and concerns haven't come up...yet...).  Yeah, you know who I'm talking about, you read the thread. 

just to clarify where you say "like you", i agree it's props fault to make re trials so difficult, but just to be clear I *definitely* blame LabOne for the high dsp usage. Reason  itself and the way it handles threading is another matter entirely but there are many devs, who have proven that RE's themselves can be incredibly efficient. Sorry Heartbreak but you're a bit off the mark here, the dsp can't be anyone's fault but the dev's.

C'mon, guy, please!  I will RE-quote that sentence "just to be clear", as you put it:

"Like you, I don't fault the LabOne staff for the lack of evaluation, NOR do I fault them for the DSP concerns."

Did you notice the comma placed after the statement agreeing with you?  That was to separate "our" shared thoughts from my own personal thought.  So, really, did you have to take it in that direction?  Did you have to remind me that I am "off the mark".  What did you really gain from that?  Are we any closer to our shared goal because of it?  Are you any closer to your personal goal?

"Just to be clear", since clarity is CLEARLY important to you, my saying that I don't blame the devs for the DSP concerns comes after reading mountains of posts pointing to the fact that the Development Kit used to create REs has drawbacks and limitations that sometimes (just to be clear) makes it difficult for the developer to optimize the DSP without sacrificing its intended functionality.  True enough, it may be the developer's fault that the RE is not optimized for whatever reason (lack of knowledge, overlooking said knowledge, not optimizing on purpose just to make you mad), but as I understand it, the Development Kit could be just as much to blame by not allowing the developer to optimize this particular RE no matter what she/he does. 

I was simply giving the LabOne the benefit of the doubt based on what I have come to understand about RE development.  I'm not trying to contaminate your concerns.  I'm with you.  Even with this post, I'm with you!  Maybe it's LabOne's fault through and through.  Maybe it's exclusively the Props fault.  Maybe they're both to blame.  Either way, we both have a paid product with limited use because of a concern that we both believe can and should be fixed AND we have an update to that product that we can't evaluate because of a problem that I (just to be clear) believe can and should be fixed

I don't say much here, mostly because it seems like a lot of people just have to disagree.  About something. About anything.  A lot of times when there is no need for it.  Especially when it appears that it will undermine the original poster in some way.  When I see it, I just shake my head.  It's the new way of things.  Or maybe it's exactly the way it's always been.  But, why?  What does it EVER accomplish? 

Just to be clear, we're still cool, you and I.  But, hey, I was just trying to show some solidarity with you and, at the same time, throw LabOne a bone (you know, in case they are NOT at fault here).  I wouldn't have come at you the way you came at me.  But nobody said the lion won't eat you just because you wouldn't eat him.

[Theo.M]

Like you, I don't fault the LabOne staff for the lack of evaluation, nor do I fault them for the DSP concerns.  I know what's what regarding the RE universe, and they are just trying to get in where they fit in.  But I just hate that these types of issues seem to NEVER get resolved, and the die-hard Props fans are always defending them (maybe it's because THEIR issues and concerns haven't come up...yet...).  Yeah, you know who I'm talking about, you read the thread. 

just to clarify where you say "like you", i agree it's props fault to make re trials so difficult, but just to be clear I *definitely* blame LabOne for the high dsp usage. Reason  itself and the way it handles threading is another matter entirely but there are many devs, who have proven that RE's themselves can be incredibly efficient. Sorry Heartbreak but you're a bit off the mark here, the dsp can't be anyone's fault but the dev's.

C'mon, guy, please!  I will RE-quote that sentence "just to be clear", as you put it:

"Like you, I don't fault the LabOne staff for the lack of evaluation,

NOR

do I fault them for the DSP concerns."

Did you notice the comma placed after the statement agreeing with you?  That was to separate "our" shared thoughts from my own personal thought.  So, really, did you have to take it in that direction?  Did you have to remind me that I am "off the mark".  What did you really gain from that?  Are we any closer to our shared goal because of it?  Are you any closer to your personal goal?

"Just to be clear", since clarity is CLEARLY important to you, my saying that I don't blame the devs for the DSP concerns comes after reading mountains of posts pointing to the fact that the Development Kit used to create REs has drawbacks and limitations that sometimes (just to be clear) makes it difficult for the developer to optimize the DSP without sacrificing its intended functionality.  True enough, it may be the developer's fault that the RE is not optimized for whatever reason (lack of knowledge, overlooking said knowledge, not optimizing on purpose just to make you mad), but as I understand it, the Development Kit could be just as much to blame by not allowing the developer to optimize this particular RE no matter what she/he does. 

I was simply giving the LabOne the benefit of the doubt based on what I have come to understand about RE development.  I'm not trying to contaminate your concerns.  I'm with you.  Even with this post, I'm with you!  Maybe it's LabOne's fault through and through.  Maybe it's exclusively the Props fault.  Maybe they're both to blame.  Either way, we both have a paid product with limited use because of a concern that we both believe can and should be fixed AND we have an update to that product that we can't evaluate because of a problem that

I

(just to be clear) believe can and should be fixed

I don't say much here, mostly because it seems like a lot of people just have to disagree.  About something. About anything.  A lot of times when there is no need for it.  Especially when it appears that it will undermine the original poster in some way.  When I see it, I just shake my head.  It's the new way of things.  Or maybe it's exactly the way it's always been.  But, why?  What does it EVER accomplish? 

Just to be clear, we're still cool, you and I.  But, hey, I was just trying to show some solidarity with you and, at the same time, throw LabOne a bone (you know, in case they are NOT at fault here).  I wouldn't have come at you the way you came at me.  But nobody said the lion won't eat you just because you wouldn't eat him.

Mate I didn't "come at you" at all, i misunderstood, but I can't possibly write any gentler than I did. Sorry for seeming to have upset you, that was not even a figment in my mind to do so intentionally, but I will tread a lot more cautiously when replying to you in the future. But I have to stick with what I said in the case of the optimisation being the dev's fault. Lab one build RE exclusives ground up, have been around since early RE days, and have shown they can do fairly efficient plugins (battleaxe for example). They have a problem with their EQ's unfortunately, since day one, with regards to making them use a reasonable amount of cpu. I would have expected massive optimisation for V2, and was really very surprised to read all the dsp heavy reports.

You say "but as I understand it, the Development Kit could be just as much to blame by not allowing the developer to optimize this particular RE no matter what she/he does.  "

No.. not in this case.. I am 100% sure of that. This is what I mean by you are off the mark. By off the mark, i mean incorrect. It is not supposed to be an insult mate.

Edit: I just re read your post and I think it's best we just ignore one another. I did nothing wrong and you are the one jumping down my throat, and saying i am the one doing so LOL! I can never win in these situations, have many memories of the PUF, and will certainly not allow things to go that way, ever. My last bit of advice, have a good look at your post above and the insults and lecturing you gave me, over one comment I made. Take care.

[HeartbreakOne]

Mate I didn't "come at you" at all, i misunderstood, but I can't possibly write any gentler than I did. Sorry for seeming to have upset you, that was not even a figment in my mind to do so intentionally, but I will tread a lot more cautiously when replying to you in the future. But I have to stick with what I said in the case of the optimisation being the dev's fault. Lab one build RE exclusives ground up, have been around since early RE days, and have shown they can do fairly efficient plugins (battleaxe for example). They have a problem with their EQ's unfortunately, since day one, with regards to making them use a reasonable amount of cpu. I would have expected massive optimisation for V2, and was really very surprised to read all the dsp heavy reports.

You say "but as I understand it, the Development Kit could be just as much to blame by not allowing the developer to optimize this particular RE no matter what she/he does.  "

No.. not in this case.. I am 100% sure of that. This is what I mean by you are off the mark. By off the mark, i mean incorrect. It is not supposed to be an insult mate.

Edit: I just re read your post and I think it's best we just ignore one another. I did nothing wrong and you are the one jumping down my throat, and saying i am the one doing so LOL! I can never win in these situations, have many memories of the PUF, and will certainly not allow things to go that way, ever. My last bit of advice, have a good look at your post above and the insults and lecturing you gave me, over one comment I made. Take care.

I read and understood every word you typed, and I still say: we're cool.  You and I are okay.  No harm done.

P.S.  Just to be clear....(I'm kidding)!  But seriously, that is a shame that the company is at fault for the DSP load issues.  That can't be good for business.  I know you know what you're talking about and that is a sad thing because there is NOTHING ELSE that does what this thing does!  LabOne, are you listening?  Do you see how you're tearing forums apart?  Fix this please!  If I knew how, I would make one myself.  I'll give that some thought.

But Bavanity, we are okay, man.  As I said, I am standing in solidarity with you.  I want to love ReQ, and I have $15.00 to spend RIGHT NOW!  I do hope we both get what we're wishing for.  Take care, good sir.