CPU vs live.remote~
When using live.remote~ with sample-accurate signal like in the help patch, it seems that the CPU-usage goes up. For instance, in a patch using 6% CPU, when I plug the example in the live.remote~ help file, Live CPU usage goes up to 22%. Is that normal?
I own a Mac Pro quad 2.93 if that could be of some help.
----------begin_max5_patcher---------- 493.3ocyUFsTqBCDF9Z3oHStt1g.Bs8b2wWCGmNovJMdfjNjTspi9raxRQqc BcPE6btfkgkkv+9s6l7bX.ckZGnoj+PtlDD7bXP.5x4HX+yAzZ9t7JtFCitZ qwnjzIsuRTfNUqt6hKy5bJ2VKjUfA+.1GNUaMG6s0k4wMPqFnq3xRJ4l8udC 2juVHKW1.4l1HhSSlFMgjMyYii6rjabewKggNyjAlKR3Aqx6jsA1g+CZkhWT CZMw96WSpD2CK0fgXZ34+SSXjZwNnYYAbuHGrwHkVE5AHIocNuUIMRdMliz+ 1H3UeCT4VDs3IbQXt7tGBND5s.swKli2hFY7YA1TG57wjrQgIIeUlLY+0.XC qsoJM8GwFiprrB7MljLFiIBo4j4BikgIwrtjX7KykbC7Jg4KEY8WjIWopJ7R f3g28G0ekVKJk1VoSxlDjGrHrBeIZYyGW3j+XdkkNQSi8vm3Y+eymr1cXWfc Py+MvCtEQCTqrsP91kHd7.TzoAju7OEmcXsGwvR72ffDzlHxiO9DWQm+OiEs ZaSdWUnaJgD8dgn.zFgjaD1CW+HHGINHn0hhBPdXZUKJ1nr6FrWD8TjFrlRF flNR3+1ZxMsLLMwNebJaH0tzyJmbGsd.BNQ+z4iSGgfdzT1OfS1GdI7MavDf XB -----------end_max5_patcher-----------
Sounds about right.
There is a lot of plumbing required to update parameters in a Live set at audio rate and keep things cool in Live. Note that you can send a different value for each sample and the CPU will not increase over that value. Also adding multiple live.remote~s hooked up in this way does not continue to add CPU load at the same rate.
Apart from that, it is a bit of a hit.If you don’t have to update things at sample rate, then don’t. Unhooking the audio patch cord and sending a float is cheap.
i just found this message (and in the process realized that searching for "live.remote~" yields no results, but "live.remote" does; maybe not the best forum to confuse the tilde). had i found this post the other day, i would have replied instead of posting separately as i did here….
the big question is the difference between plug-in parameter modulation and MFL device parameter modulation. if anyone can use the demonstration patch (attached to the other post) and record their own cpu numbers, that would be great and probably help track this down. i doubt my machine is the only one that sees a 75% cpu increase when you target a MFL device instead of a Live plug-in.
if Andrew or anyone similarly knowledgible can comment, it would be appreciated. if this situation seems right and/or likely to stay this way for a while, i will drop some of my development efforts that are underway.
thanks, all, particularly the busy elves.
in my laptop macbook pro Intel Core duo 2.16 the CPU in LIve jump to 33 percent with 1 live.remote and over 50 with 2… is that normal?
Andrew Pask, what do you mean with this phrase?
"Also adding multiple live.remote~s hooked up in this way does not continue to add CPU load at the same rate"
On my laptop adding 1 gets to 25 or so and 2 gets me to 28 or so.