Mateusz, thanks for the reply.

I'm using PTHD 7.4 cs2
MacPro quad 2.6 4gigs kingston ram.
OSX 10.4.11
Buffer setting typically set to 512, but raising to 1028 had minimal effect with MC. Sessions are 24 bit 44.1

No problems with ANY of my other plugins...

Have you actually tested MC in PTHD 7.x?

Thanks,

-Zak

This is not just a problem with MacPro. I am running PTLE 7.4cs4 and see unbelievably severe cpu utilization on an AMD Quad Opteron at a 1024 buffer setting. I have trouble running one instance with FAT on at 44.1/48K sample rates. This is a computer that can run about 180 D-Verbs while recording 24 tracks.

Now here is the interesting thing; I do not see this behaviour when I use the VST version in Vegas, Sound Forge, Reaper, etc. I know that both PTHD and PTLE are real time implementations, but there is something amis here.

Greg

Yes indeed, something is amiss...it appears that Mateusz has been unable to properly test MC in Protools. I realize this is a small company and you must be stretched in many directions but Protools shouldn't be ignored this way. It's literally months between postings in this forum. Why bother even having it.

Hello,

I am sorry that you waited so long.
The problem with some hosts looks strange to us. Testing it in various hosts doesn't help to solve this issue. It can be some kind of CPU related problem. For instance on my intel core 2 duo the vst version is using up to 40% of CPU in peaks at 44.1 without FAT.

Some of you wrote that he didn't have such problems on previous system. Would you give us some information on what system was previously running what host and which MC version compared to nowadays system, host and MC version? Maybe this would help us to better understand the problem.

The FAT mode is a double sampling algorithm. It is the best to use it at 44.1kHz. At low sample rates it gives the greatest difference in sound. However some engineers say that they are not using FAT be default in low sample rates. Others say that they hear the difference at 96kHz.

Regards,

Is there anything new on this. MC is using up more of my new BlackBook 2.4 than of my PowerBook 1.5!

- please help...

Hy! i have problem to with Master Comp i like it very much but...i have a 2.8 mac intel with 8g mem.and pt HD2 and i not happy at all with how it's run. zakco have perfect right.and the same problem with neon HR. May be if you try to make a TDM and TEST IT, will work.till then i will used anyway but very desapointed.
all good and no affence.

What is the status of this problem?

We still don't know the reason why there are such performance issues on some machines running Pro Tools. Did you try to readjust audio buffers?

Regards,

Yes... and it's not just PT. Can you publish the performance benchmarks from your testing?

We are working on MC performance. The real problem is that MC is using very exact math which costs a lot of CPU cycles. There is no good optimization for this algorithm without shortcuts.
We can make an alternative "every day use" version of the MasterComp which would have very close sound to the MasterComp, it would still work in double sampled mode but it would not be exactly the same.

Regards,