Stereo Tool

BTW, in lieu of a new computer, I'd be happy to accept this, which is a "grenade" of sorts:

.... and now (back) for something completely different:

The Stereo Tool.
A single core CPU eating monster machine.

Hans, any new beta ready with more CPU appetite ?

will this end?

Little digression from the on going subject of discussion (and the heated exchange of words) that I gathered reading previous posts...
Hans, as and when you could avail little time to spare for refinements, please rectify the behaviour of couple of parameters wrt usability through sts files prior rolling out the final release for version 6.20(assuming these filters are here to stay)

1. Minimum attack speed near top [in AGC Section]: Values > 1 are not loaded from sts file. Get altered only when the slider is moved in the GUI or if the sts file is loaded multiple times using 'Load' button. The slider movement itself is very jerky and selecting precise values in the scale is a challenge.
Selecting a preset listed in the 'Preset Drop Down List' does not load the correct value either.

2. Extra loudness - Advanced Highs Protection enabled[Loudness Section]: No matter what the value is, in sts file, the filter stays activated unless manually toggled from GUI.

These, anomalies are true of VST plugin(independent of VST host).
Not certain of the other versions though.

Thanks.

_________________
visit website

No no, the end was last Saturday, wasn't it?


Edit: Ow, they moved it to October 21th.
http://www.nu.nl/opmerkelijk/2522467/ei ... tober.html
(Translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... tober.html )

Well, the pertinent question is:

What about December 21, 2012?

aha, this is the real reason for an old PC.

I'm trying to avoid the Y2.012K bug...

Intel® Performance Counter Monitor - A better way to measure CPU utilization

http://software.intel.com/en-us/article ... r-monitor/

Requires relatively new processors:

Intel Xeon 5500, 5600, 7500, and Core i7 processor series [2-4], and Atom.

So, on an i7 box, one could test my theory about the bulk of the program code running in the cache. What I'm thinking is that single-core vs. multi-core doesn't give the advantage to multi-core based on the extra cores, but just the extra cache. Support of this is Hans saying that ST uses a single core, and that someone with an early generation Core Duo series laptop (T2500, 2x1MB cache), is also seeing high CPU utilization. What that processor and mine have in common is only 1MB of L2 cache per core.

If my theory is correct, then if future changes are not sufficiently optimized, they will then be unable to fit within even larger caches and then you all with your hotrods will also notice performance degradation. So, you can choose to be antagonistic and/or poke fun, but what I'm mentioning really does help EVERYONE, not just me.