Useful implementations for Arturia products

[omissis]

1. Multi-processor usage support

2. 64-bit ready

3. New , more high resolution communication standard support

[FabP]

3. New , more high resolution communication standard support

What do you mean exactly ??

[omissis]

What do you mean exactly ??  
 

Hi Fab
What I mean is to give the Classics the full and smooth control they deserve....by overkilling the deathly sad condition of a pre-digital-early 80s-8bit limited communication standard ( for short: MIDI )...by creating a dedicated hi-res knob array or by trying to agree with other manifacturers for a new com protocol.....MIDI has to be buried :evil:  :evil: !

[omissis]

Sthg to add:

 Support for SSE-3DNow instructions ( means less cpu load !!! ) !

[poropat]

yes! Need less CPU! More TAE is improved, more
CPU is stressed, of course we could buy a quicker one, but
there is a limit, then we need to buy a Cray. :twisted:

I don't know what compiler Arturia use, but seems with
Intel Compiler C++ 8.1, code could be 20% quicker.

[Man-Machine]

What do you mean exactly ??  
 

Hi Fab
What I mean is to give the Classics the full and smooth control they deserve....by overkilling the deathly sad condition of a pre-digital-early 80s-8bit limited communication standard ( for short: MIDI )...by creating a dedicated hi-res knob array or by trying to agree with other manifacturers for a new com protocol.....MIDI has to be buried :evil:  :evil: !

He, he, dream on this one. It takes a LOT more than Arturia to change something like MIDI protocol. An international commitee with representatives from all major manufacturers of software and hardware (a lot more today than back early 80s) need to be created and they ALL need to agree on all kinds of things. That's been tried a while back and it was fiasco. And then you have companies trying to force their own MIDI implementations like Yamaha and Roland extended MIDI incarnations. Of course, others didn't agree so it didn't catch on...

[Man-Machine]

yes! Need less CPU! More TAE is improved, more
CPU is stressed, of course we could buy a quicker one, but
there is a limit, then we need to buy a Cray. :twisted:

I don't know what compiler Arturia use, but seems with
Intel Compiler C++ 8.1, code could be 20% quicker.

Well, that's the price to pay for better sounding software. Code can only be improved to a certain point. I don't know Arturia's developing tools are but just changing compilers is not an easy task and sometimes is impossible and cost innefective.

[poropat]

Well, that's the price to pay for better sounding software. Code can only be improved to a certain point. I don't know Arturia's developing tools are but just changing compilers is not an easy task and sometimes is impossible and cost innefective.

Yes but the problem, now we could buy a pentium 4 3.8Ghz, then
if still not enough, how to do? :roll:

[omissis]

with a multi processor support......buy another 3.8 GHz processor!
     

[poropat]

with a multi processor support......buy another 3.8 GHz processor!
     

I'm not sure it's so efficient.
Adding a secont CPU doesn't give a quicker computer.
It gives a computer more difficult to slow.
At the same time I don't know if Microsoft OS are so
efficient in sharing CPU as is Linux for exemple.

By the way I assume Arturia did their maximum yet, to optimize
their algorithms. At a moment they reach a point where if they
save some resources, they loose sound quality.

[Man-Machine]

Yep, that should be the draw line. Sound quality shouldn't be affected at all by performance enhancements...