SoundCloud handle/link?
Just uploading, when loaded I’ll put it on here sire!
The Palette as sound source version
(Stream Organ diver by Adrian Bottomley | Listen online for free on SoundCloud)
1 Like
The Linear Beats module is now available for beta testing and feedback.
2 Likes
It’s not even a complicated one:
1 Like
The EMM has 6 SHARC DSP chips running hand-crafted parallel DSP code. There are likely very few PCs, if any, that could handle the CPU and are not built with the memory architecture or parallelism used in these devices. If that GPU DSP compute project works out, then it might be theoretically possible to do something similar, but a software version of the Eagan Matrix is unlikely to ever happen.
But if you have an EMM, Osmose, or Continuum (or considering one) you can integrate it with Rack using my upcoming HC one plugin. See pachde (#d) HC-One - Plugins & Modules - VCV Community (vcvrack.com). I have a new release coming in the next few days.
Do you really think a PC is less powerful than 6 sharc?
I don’t think anyone has tried writing the same algorithms for a CPU put together in a complete synth to make a realistic comparison. With the higher end of today’s CPUs, maybe you can get somewhere comparable. Next time I talk to Lippold Haken, I’ll ask about it.
It’s similar to comparing GPU with CPU, except the EM has a parallelized audio computing unit instead of a parallelized image computing unit.
There’s a reason why your computers have GPUs.
Even if the CPU could handle it, it would be a rather large effort to port 20 years of EM development on the SHARC DSPs to software for a PC.
Sure, I know all that stuff. But still, big synths run just find on a PC. 20 cores is in fact “highly parallel”.
Your main point - “don’t hold your breath” I totally agree with. Your other point that it would be difficult to do that much DSP on a PC I disagree with.
Fair enough!
It would be cool to have the Eagan Matrix in software.
A PC version would likely be quite a different design. The EMM is Harvard-architecture versus PC CPUs are von-Neumann architecture. The parallelism has quite different characteristics on the two.
sure, but pc’s are so fast compared to an old sharc. sure they are “different”, but PC is just so much faster. I just isn’t hard to do this stuff in software any more.
1 Like
I’ve thought about this a lot before, as I’m a big fan of the idea of DSP compute cards going mainstream again (given an open standard, unlike UA’s offerings)
I think the 6x Sharc’s probably have significantly less horsepower. The most powerful Sharc from a quick google does 3.600 GFlops sustained. So, 21.6GFlop. A Ryzen 9 5900x (the CPU I’m running) does about 6GFlops per core, so ~140GFlop.
On the surface, that’s a 6x improvement, so no contest. I don’t think that’s correct though. The 5900x is going to be running a full OS and doing lots of background work causing pipeline flushes, load balancing, etc. etc. etc. For a given buffer size we have to stay well below 100% know for sure we’re not going to miss the deadline for the next block. On the Sharc’s theres some over head to be sure (I’d assume some for the interconnects and orchestration to use 6 separate dies) but it isn’t a full OS by any means either. For this reason, I suspect the Sharcs are a bit more capable. They can push right against that limit, so long as they hit the deadline, they’ll always hit the deadline.
There’s a lot of uhm, acktuallys to be had here:
- I’m not sure they are using 6 and not 3 or what exact Sharc is being used (https://gearspace.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-and-electronic-music-production/1288351-osmose-expressive-e-6.html )
- The Full desktop has some resource the sharks will never have, like oodles of ram, storage, etc.
- I’m not sure that flop for flop those numbers are even correct, or that for both architectures and for DSP flops are even the best unit
- The performance of both will depend on the workload because a FLOP is not a FLOP if the operation is given an intinsic instruction or there’s something like SSE in the equation.
- This assumes the math in both is even floating point - In rack it is, obviously, but fixed point math on DSP chips was historically common. I have no experience with anything newer than a C55x other than the Daisy Seed for DSP though
1 Like
yep, I think everyone is correct here. It’s really difficult to compare two totally different architectures. At least until you try to make a big synthesizer out of both of them and have some real data.
anything of erica synths
I assume you mean in addition to the ones that are already in the library? It’s strange, I don’t think there has been a new one in VCV in years. I could easily be wrong, of course.
I assume you mean in addition to those already in the library? It’s strange, I don’t think there’s been a new one at VCV in years. Of course, I could easily be wrong.
Yes, of course, in addition to the 4 classics that are in the library and which are great, other Erica modules would be very valuable. There are so many modules from the brand that sound vintage and with good saturation, filters, percussion, sequencers, etc., sets of modules that have a very specific direction towards techno and ambient. Thanks for your Comp module; I always use it in my mix bus. Greetings
1 Like
Traffic by Jasmine & Olive Trees is now available in the library!
I can finally delete my embarassing macro controller patch haha. This paired with Kompas and Plaits should be a beast of a tiny system!
5 Likes
The Water firmware is not available for testing in this VCV Rack clone, is it?
1 Like
I don’t see it in the contextual menu, so I guess not… But if they ever decide to bring it to VCV later down the line, it would make sense to release it as a new module, with a different layout.
1 Like