Wish Output Comp (amp block) type: optical

Philip34

Philip34

Experienced
Since Cliff just confirmed my suspicion, I formally request this compressor type in the amp block "Output Comp"

You may be asking why, since we already have a compressor block. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this would save on CPU quite a bit.

If there could also be attack and release param's, this would completely eliminate my need for a compressor block in the AX8.

Thank you FAS team for your consideration.
 
lwknives said:
The amp compressor still uses CPU you would save space on the grid but would not save CPU.
Click to expand...

yek said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...

I was going to say the same thing when he posted this but...the amp compressor uses a different CPU right? It uses a processor all to itself. Presumably everything in the AMP block gets scheduled on the one processor used for the amp modeling. So having it in the AMP block actually gets you back CPU for other blocks.

This point is null and void if in fact I'm mistaken about what CPU processes the in-AMP block compressor algorithm.
 
iaresee said:
I was going to say the same thing when he posted this but...the amp compressor uses a different CPU right? It uses a processor all to itself. Presumably everything in the AMP block gets scheduled on the one processor used for the amp modeling. So having it in the AMP block actually gets you back CPU for other blocks.

This point is null and void if in fact I'm mistaken about what CPU processes the in-AMP block compressor algorithm.
Click to expand...

Enabling compression in the AMP block increases total CPU usage.

IIRC CPU usage on both DSPs is summed and displayed at one total. Less CPU usage on one processor (fx) and more on the other (amp) will not decrease the total.
 
yek said:
Enabling compression in the AMP block increases total CPU usage.

IIRC CPU usage on both DSPs is summed and displayed at one total. Less CPU usage on one processor (fx) and more on the other (amp) will not decrease the total.
Click to expand...
That seems somewhat absurd since the AMP block's dedicated DSP makes its DSP use unuseful to report. Removing an AMP block doesn't get you more DSP for anything else. The guidelines for DSP use should really just be a measure of the non-AMP DSP.

In any case, Axe-Edit's decisions for reporting DSP use aside, it doesn't change the fact that it would shift processing responsibilities to another chip. You could potentially squeeze a little more out of a preset.
 
Yeah, "sum" was not the correct term.

Nevertheless, enabling compression in the Amp block does increase overall CPU usage. To calculate whether that increase is less than using a Comp block would require comparison of exactly the same compression types, input as well as output.
 
Yek, that's what I meant with my request. I meant to imply that it seems it would be slightly less CPU usage with the amp block's comp rather than the compressor block, since the amp block is already engaged. It seems very minimal would be added.
 
Philip34 said:
Yek, that's what I meant with my request. I meant to imply that it seems it would be slightly less CPU usage with the amp block's comp rather than the compressor block, since the amp block is already engaged. It seems very minimal would be added.
Click to expand...
It's more about which DSP is used, not that the AMP block is engaged. The algorithm is the algorithm -- it takes what it takes to run it irregardless of which block it's bundled with in the code.
 
I just figured, less blocks, less CPU usage. If that truly is not the case, then this wish is null and void.

iaresee said:
It's more about which DSP is used, not that the AMP block is engaged. The algorithm is the algorithm -- it takes what it takes to run it irregardless of which block it's bundled with in the code.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom