Can we expect gig performer in multi core processing application like mainstage

When we expect the update of gig performer it should work in multi threads processing like mainstage and other daws. Working with single thread is really stress taking process

This is on our list. Understand that while multi-core is rather simple to implement for a channel strip model (because you can essentially just assign each channel strip’s instrument + effects to individual cores, in a graph system where plugins can be interconnected in arbitrary configurations, it’s a much more complicated challenge.

That said, in the short term, I would point out two options

  1. Many seriously CPU intensive plugins are already internally multi-core so you can often take advantage of that and in such cases, having multi-core capability in the host doesn’t really add anything
  2. Gig Performer supports multiple instances and in that scenario, each instance can get a separate core so you can explicitly manage CPU-intensive plugins by putting them in different instances and then you can use GP Relayer (if needed) to communicate with them and/or share MIDI/audio
4 Likes

So, this is a next big update from Deskew right?
We are glad to here it from you. As a windows user running application in single thread is typically heavy for it. Okay I will try to run on multiple instances and come back with feed back hope you are there for us to provide support.

I only said it is on our list!

We prefer not to make promises that we might not be able to keep (I’m not referring to any particular feature here). Customers should purchase GP based on what it can do for them now, not what it might do for them in the future.

Consequently, as a matter of policy, we do not comment on when a specific feature will (or will not) be implemented.

Our support (mostly through these community forums) is highly regarded.

3 Likes

Hm, interesting

I always thought of the global rack as the master bus, and individual racks as tracks/channels. How is it different from DAWs?

You can route signals from local rackspaces to the global rackspace.
But you can reroute signals back from the global rackspace to the local rackspace.
That is one of the differences.

You can route signals between tracks in DAWs, there are sidechains etc. Maybe master bus is special in this regard but there are multiple paths signals can take between regular tracks for sure

In a DAW, each track generally is tied to a channel strip. A channel strip holds one instrument. If you have ten tracks in your DAW, you essentially have a total of 10 instruments.

In Gig Performer, a single rackspace might hold ten instruments.

So a single rackspace would be equivalent to all the tracks in a DAW and so when you switch from one rackspace to another, you are switching to a completely different set of “tracks”.

Hardly the same as a DAW.

And that’s completely orthogonal to the way the instruments are connected, i.e, each one is not a separate independent channel strip - they can be interconnected in arbitrary ways. Also, completely different from a DAW.

2 Likes

I see, thanks

I keep forgetting that this product was probably done by keyboard players and they have instruments indeed :slight_smile:

You could also have 10 Amp-Simulations and 20 additional effect plugins in one single rackspace, everything wired at will (serial, parallel, combined in a mix of both, side-chains in between) additionally branched into the global rackspace and back at any point in your wiring… it’s not keyboard specific, and it’s quite diffrent to a regular DAW.

1 Like

Actually, the design was driven by a keyboard player and a guitarist so the focus was on the needs of both.

And guitarists using tools like MidiGuitar might very well have multiple instruments

1 Like