<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
	<rss version="2.0"
		xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
		xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
		xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
		xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"

			>

	<channel>
		<title>Cycling 74  &#187;  Topic: M4L is a CPU hog?</title>
		<atom:link href="http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/m4l-is-a-cpu-hog/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/m4l-is-a-cpu-hog/feed</link>
		<description></description>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:50:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<generator>http://bbpress.org/?v=2.2.4</generator>
		<language></language>

		
														
					
				<item>
					<guid>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/m4l-is-a-cpu-hog/#post-57132</guid>
					<title><![CDATA[M4L is a CPU hog?]]></title>
					<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/m4l-is-a-cpu-hog/#post-57132</link>
					<pubDate>Sun, 15 May 2011 00:00:43 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>wackazong</dc:creator>

					<description>
						<![CDATA[
						<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I experience serious performance issues with M4L:</p>
<p>Create a new Live Set. Delete the MIDI track. Duplicate the audio track about 10 times. CPU load: 2% or so.</p>
<p>Do the same, but before duplicating, put a new M4L audio effect into the track. Now, with 10 empty M4L effects, the same 10 tracks use about 10% CPU! </p>
<p>How is that possible?? It does not really matter whats in the device, the device itself seems to be very resource-intensive.</p>
<p>Thanks for clearing this up for me&#8230;.</p>
						]]>
					</description>

					
					
				</item>

			
				<item>
					<guid>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/m4l-is-a-cpu-hog/#post-204625</guid>
					<title><![CDATA[Re: M4L is a CPU hog?]]></title>
					<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/m4l-is-a-cpu-hog/#post-204625</link>
					<pubDate>Sun, 15 May 2011 10:15:25 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>pid</dc:creator>

					<description>
						<![CDATA[
						<p>try doing the same experiment twice more, but first with 10 simple small vst plugins (e.g. a small delay or so), then repeat with ten vst hogs, e.g. instruments, like 10 reaktors or 10 kontakts. you&#8217;ll find that cpu varies wildly. therefore, one cannot determine anything from what you have said because we have no idea what is inside your m4l device. a simple m4l midi device will use next to nothing. a m4l 32 voice poly~ device with spectral processing will take up a massive amount of cpu. such is life (and physics). m4l DOES take a little more cpu than other things because it is an entire programme embedded in another, but it is not excessive. also, a badly programmed m4l device will always be shit. what are you using?</p>
						]]>
					</description>

					
					
				</item>

			
				<item>
					<guid>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/m4l-is-a-cpu-hog/#post-204626</guid>
					<title><![CDATA[Re: M4L is a CPU hog?]]></title>
					<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/m4l-is-a-cpu-hog/#post-204626</link>
					<pubDate>Sun, 15 May 2011 10:46:47 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>wackazong</dc:creator>

					<description>
						<![CDATA[
						<p>Hi, what I meant with &#8220;new M4L audio effect&#8221; is a completely empty M4L device (only containing plugin~ and plugout~). Sorry if that was unclear. It is clear to me that the content of the device matters. The problem I am describing here though is that the simple existence of a M4L device with nothing in it is already taking a lot of CPU.</p>
<p>Can you maybe correct me on these assumptions:</p>
<p>- M4L shares memory with Ableton Live, both together cannot exceed 4GB.<br />
- M4L runs inside Ableton and is not multiprocessor-capable, i.e. all M4L devices need to run on one CPU?</p>
<p>Thanks, ALEXander.</p>
						]]>
					</description>

					
					
				</item>

			
				<item>
					<guid>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/m4l-is-a-cpu-hog/#post-204627</guid>
					<title><![CDATA[Re: M4L is a CPU hog?]]></title>
					<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/m4l-is-a-cpu-hog/#post-204627</link>
					<pubDate>Sun, 15 May 2011 11:18:38 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>Home Surgery</dc:creator>

					<description>
						<![CDATA[
						<p>There was a topic about something similar regarding multiprocessor capability. That topic confirmed your assumptions.</p>
<p>See PLD&#8217;s answer.</p>
<p><a href="http://cycling74.com/forums/topic.php?id=33214" rel="nofollow">http://cycling74.com/forums/topic.php?id=33214</a></p>
<p>I personally agree with you. It is acceptable that M4L is heavy, but both M4L and live in it self uses a lot of CPU power. When comparing ableton live to logic I can see that the sequencers are very different in CPU-usage, Logic being stronger.</p>
						]]>
					</description>

					
					
				</item>

			
				<item>
					<guid>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/m4l-is-a-cpu-hog/#post-204628</guid>
					<title><![CDATA[Re: M4L is a CPU hog?]]></title>
					<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/m4l-is-a-cpu-hog/#post-204628</link>
					<pubDate>Sun, 15 May 2011 11:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>wackazong</dc:creator>

					<description>
						<![CDATA[
						<p>This sucks. Big time. Well, I will just have wait until M4L grows up then, I guess.</p>
<p>Ableton and Cycling74, two things on the wishlist for Christmas (see, I give you some time):</p>
<p>- 64 bit Ableton and M4L<br />
- M4L with real multicore capability and leaner plugin architecture</p>
<p>Thank you so much.</p>
						]]>
					</description>

					
					
				</item>

					
		
	</channel>
	</rss>

