Mixcraft and OpenGL = Not good?

[Brother Charles]

Howdy Gang,

I’ve noticed that Mixcraft Pro 8.x and Pro 9.x on my systems generally don’t get along very well with OpenGl enabled VIs and VST plugins. This includes, but is not limited to, some Waves plugins, Softube, XLN Audio, FabFilter, and others. My findings are not based on a single computer - it happens on my laptop (i7-7700HQ, 16GB DDR4 @2400mhz, Intel 630HD & G-Force 1080 embedded) and on my fairly high end desktop too. And by the way, this is not a new issue for me; I’ve always found Mixcraft to be flaky with OpenGL enabled plugins. Neither does Mixcraft seem to get along with newer IKM VIs and plugins such as T-RackS 5 plugins, Hammond b3X, Modo Bass, Modo Drums, Amplitube 5.x, and so forth. Mixcraft gets along just fine with the older IKM plugins IE. T-RackS 4.x, Amplitube 4.x, and et cetera.

In any given modest project, If I open the GUIs of Addictive Keys, or Addictive Drums, or an instance of UVI Workstation/Falcon, Mixcraft starts to choke pretty bad. The meters will get very erratic and slow. The audio starts to stutter. The entire Mixcraft UI becomes laggy and CPU will spike a bit. If I minimize the window to the Windows taskbar, and then bring it forward again, it re-stabilizes itself quite well - not completely, but it does improve considerably. This applies to FabFilter plugins and pretty much any OpenGL enabled plugin.

Let’s keep this confined to my desktop for brevity’s sake. The overall specs are:
Gigabyte AORUS z490 AX Pro Motherboard, Corsair RM-650x (gold rated) pwr supply,
i7-10700, 32 GB of low latency G.SkillZ (15-15-16-17) DDR4 @3200mhz, Samsung SSDs, AMD RX 5500XT (w/ 8GB of GDDR6), PreSonus Quantum 2 Thunderbolt audio interface (and/or an ESI U168-XT USB 2.0 audio interface). Everything is well housed in a large Fractal Design case with plenty of air flow. My CPU is cooled with a good quality Noctua heatsink/fan which means it idles @ 29 to 31, and it NEVER exceeds 70 to 72, even under sustained, 100% full load @high performance power profile. Typically, high loads don’t raise my CPU temp above 67.

I’d also like to make it abundantly clear that I don’t experience any hiccups whatsoever using the aforementioned OpenGL enabled virtual instruments or DSP plugins within my other DAWs. These being:
Studio One (3.x, 4.x, 5.x)
Reaper 6.x
Tracktion Waveform Pro (11.x, 12.x)
Cakewalk
Samplitude Pro X (4.x, 5.x, 6.x)

My GPU drivers are up-to-date, not that it matters since the video card is newer than the DAW and ATI/AMD drivers tend to be rock solid in the desktop/2D realm.

I use my audio interfaces’ ASIO drivers.

I built my system with a stringent focus on DAW performance - even after 8 to 10 minutes of testing, LatencyMon shows that my system has nominal DPC levels that generally hover between 17 to 54. The only time I get occasional spikes above 100 is if I enable my onboard gigabit LAN adapter. Surprisingly, the onboard Intel AX WiFi doesn’t pose a problem. Mind you, I tend to keep it in “AirPlane” mode while I’m using my PC for any type of music production work.

Greg, and fellow Acoustica fans, do any of you care to weigh in and share your findings about this? Surely I’m not the only one to have these troubles. . .

[Acoustica Greg]

Hi,

As far as I know it's not a general thing across the board. I think your mileage will vary depending on your graphics card and its driver, and the way the plugin is implemented. If the plugin has an OpenGL option and its giving you problems in Mixcraft go ahead and turn it off.

If you're using the VST3 version, try the VST2 version.

Mixcraft 10 will have improved VST3 support and other changes that might affect some of these issues. We'll look at individual cases as they arise then. (Hopefully later this year).

Greg

[Brother Charles]

Dear Greg- you know that I’m very far removed from being a novice who doesn’t check these sorts of things out first. *smile. We’ve had quite a few e-discussions over past decade or so.

Disabling OpenGL within the plugins themselves is not a viable option - like I said, I mostly use professional DAWS (Studio One & Samplitude) that don’t exhibit any of these weird, flaky issues. I tend to only infrequently use Mixcraft in order to help out a few elderly pals due to its simple-to-use, easy-to-understand workflow. I primarily use Studio One and Samplitude for personal projects or when producing/recording for clients. I am continuously impressed with Reaper’s exemplary stability, power and feature-set, but it’s menu-driven workflow is quite convoluted.

I never try to use VST3s within Mixcraft because Mixcraft still can’t deal with them properly. As an aside, I really appreciate that Mixcraft usually makes it possible to choose either VST 2.x or VST3 when both formats of the same plugin are installed.

There’s lots to admire about Mixcraft and that’s why I recommend it to novices, seniors, teenagers, or those who can’t afford the big DAWs. One of my favourite features is the ability to use the piano roll editor as a midi note “compressor”, as it were. Simply searching for all midi notes that exceed a certain velocity level, and reducing them by a specific degree is absolutely game changing. The same holds true if one needs to increase the velocity of notes below a certain threshold. Mixcraft is the only DAW that I’m aware of that makes this process so easy to accomplish. I also really like Mixcraft’s implementation of midi “lanes” on a single midi track.

Mixcraft doesn’t host well-programmed, native, built-in FX. Instead, it bundles a whole lot of subpar stuff from hopeful developers like G-Sonique and Acme Bar Gig - many of which are antiquated, 32-bit-bridged fodder. Reaper is generally better, even more RAM/CPU efficient, contains much higher grade stock plugins, and is more affordable, but it’s also a rather technically demanding piece of software — not at all a suitable recommendation for seniors, beginners, and the less technically-minded folks.

The only DAW on my systems that exhibits misbehaviour with OpenGL, VST3s, and newer IKM plugins is Mixcraft. To casually suggest that my system or graphics drivers are responsible is just plain silly. I hope that version 10 will be built with a good graphics engine and a much better GUI framework. A proper scaleable, HDPI UI, user-customizable GUI colours, and font sizing would be much appreciated. I recommend that Acoustica strongly considers eliminating the wannabe plugins that you guys market as being worth $$$, and instead build some genuine, high quality native FX. If you need to outsource those things, then at least bundle good plugins - not Shred and G-Sonique junk, or anything else that gets wrapped up in synthedit/flowstone.

Do I need to duck and run for cover now? I honestly meant no offense to you, Acoustica, or fellow customers.

Hi,

As far as I know it's not a general thing across the board. I think your mileage will vary depending on your graphics card and its driver, and the way the plugin is implemented. If the plugin has an OpenGL option and its giving you problems in Mixcraft go ahead and turn it off.

If you're using the VST3 version, try the VST2 version.

Mixcraft 10 will have improved VST3 support and other changes that might affect some of these issues. We'll look at individual cases as they arise then. (Hopefully later this year).

Greg

[hpharley90]

i'm following this thread...interesting to say the least...i'm a senior and i really like it....i don't use all that stuff though...a couple guitars bass drums some keys and vocals...that's al i got...

[Brother Charles]

Hi ya, HP,

Yessir, you bet! Mixcraft is a wonderful recording platform for someone with your kind of requirements. Mixcraft is easy (easier?) to learn and use than some other DAWs. Generally speaking, Mixcraft is fairly easy on CPU and RAM too.

The Mixcraft team are a super nice group of people, and they seem to really appreciate and support their customers. The main support rep you’ll see on the forum here is, Greg. He is always very pleasant and polite, and Greg does a dandy job of helping folks. When I give the Mixcraft guys “the gears”, it’s usually for deeper technical reasons. I’ve been one of their faithful customers since 12 years or so. Back in the day, I bought a few of their other handy little programs besides just Mixcraft. I’ve had each version of Mixcraft since version 4, which I inherited on a used computer. I then bought version 5, and so on. The upgrade prices and sales are fairly priced for regular, return customers.

Be that as it may, Mixcraft is not so good with regard to VST3s and OpenGL . . .

I love my wife, but she’s not very good at rolling out pie dough. Just ‘coz ya love someone doesn’t mean that you don’t recognize their ‘bugaboos’.. . LOL.

i'm following this thread...interesting to say the least...i'm a senior and i really like it....i don't use all that stuff though...a couple guitars bass drums some keys and vocals...that's al i got...

[Rolling Estonian]

I've had a glitch or two over the years with GUI or something not too important and usually had a working soulution pretty quick. I have EZDrummer 2 with a few kits, no issues, Amplitube 5 Fender pack is my go to right off the bat, never had any issues, had it since v3. All different plugins from Waves to easy freebies, no issues. I think more folks would probably report similar than have issues like you're experiencing. Just my $.02 and FWIW as an older guy.

M

[Acoustica Greg]

Hi,

As I mentioned, VST3 support will be improved in Mixcraft 10, but that said, most VST3 plugins work just fine in Mixcraft 9 right now.

In regard to OpenGL, the point I was trying to make is that lots of OpenGL plugins work just fine in Mixcraft. In fact, in the case of one plugin (Movement), the VST3 version came up blank, but the OpenGL version of the same plugin fixed the problem.

If you want something fixed, we need specific details. The software developers are getting pulled in all directions, and general statements like "OpenGL plugins don't work in Mixcraft" aren't much help, especially when many or most do. If there's a particular OpenGL you're having problems with in Mixcraft, and you'd like us to investigate, please submit a support request and let us know the version, plugin type, etc.

Thanks!
Greg

[Brother Charles]

Pretty much all OpenGL plugins, across all three of my computers. It also happens on my buddy’s computer.

I guess it’s just me. Like I said, I don’t rely on Mixcraft for anything too serious so I won’t bug you about the issue. Let’s see what version 10 brings.

Hi,

As I mentioned, VST3 support will be improved in Mixcraft 10, but that said, most VST3 plugins work just fine in Mixcraft 9 right now.

In regard to OpenGL, the point I was trying to make is that lots of OpenGL plugins work just fine in Mixcraft. In fact, in the case of one plugin (Movement), the VST3 version came up blank, but the OpenGL version of the same plugin fixed the problem.

If you want something fixed, we need specific details. The software developers are getting pulled in all directions, and general statements like "OpenGL plugins don't work in Mixcraft" aren't much help, especially when many or most do. If there's a particular OpenGL you're having problems with in Mixcraft, and you'd like us to investigate, please submit a support request and let us know the version, plugin type, etc.

Thanks!
Greg

[cactus-head]

Do I need to duck and run for cover now? I honestly meant no offense to you, Acoustica, or fellow customers.

I don't respond with negativity but in this case I think you should indeed duck for cover because your entire diatribe was a passive agressive offense. Elderly, senior, less-technically minded, teenagers, beginners... unfortunately all phrased in a condescending manner to emphasize your own perceived superiority.

Because of the tone, absolute hubris, I wouldn't give the solution to the opengl challenges you face. And perhaps it's my misperception; but my gut is saying otherwise. That's as much as I'll respond or comment on this thread.

[Brother Charles]

“Awww shucks. I’m awful sorry you feel that way, mister.”

I started out with Mixcraft many years ago because it was all that I could afford at the time. Like many of my peers, I knew I needed Cubase Pro or ProTools. Unfortunately, my needs were a whole lot bigger than my bank account. . .LOL.

Acquiring each major release of Mixcraft since then has been doable thanks to Acoustica’s affable upgrade pricing. Which is as it should be, seeing that Mixcraft is a dandy, inexpensive, easy-to-use DAW for basic hobbyists, seniors, teens, novices, and those who don’t want (or can’t) work with something higher end and more technically demanding (read: expensive). I keep up with Mixcraft because I have a sentimental soft spot for it - not because I think it’s indispensable or need to rely on it.

When I do (free) work and help out a few friends who are seniors, amateurs, novices, or otherwise non-professionals, it’s important that I have the same simple DAW that they’re using. They can open up the project files easily, and learn from the DAW moves, midi events, and mixing techniques that I’ve done. Maybe you think I’m self-superior, but I hope the opposite is actually the case. I try to contribute my expertise and talents as a blessing to others, instead of keeping those skills all to myself or using them strictly for profit. While I require higher end tools for my own purposes, I’m pretty sure that the folks I help out would disagree with your misperception. I suspect that you can relate, because I know that you have offered a great deal of solid, very timely help and advice on these very forums.

Studio One Pro, Cubase Pro, Pro Tools, Samplitude Pro X . . . these are higher tiered daws that professional recordists and engineers use. Reaper sits alone in its own classification - it’s a very professional grade DAW, but its license fees are miniscule. I’m very thankful that I now own licenses for all of them except Pro Tools, but it didn’t happen overnight. Most of the purchases were paid for with monies earned from session work and/or mixing and producing. Otherwise, I never could have afforded them all on my very modest preacher’s income.

Nobody who works at Acoustica (including their marketing personnel) ever tries to present their software as though it were in same league as the big guns. Actually, thank God there is a product that occupies an important niche that the “big guns” really don’t want to focus on. Novices, teens, most retirees, and many beginners swallow pretty hard at price tags that usually span between $400 to $600. During sales Mixcraft can be as cheap as $25 to buy; the normal price is only $75 or so.

Mixcraft is good for what it is; however, I don’t expect that most professional engineers or recordists would comfortably compare Mixcraft to a pro-grade DAW. In all fairness to Dan Goldstein, and the other programmers at Acoustica, Mixcraft had grown up a lot in version 9. Nevertheless, it has issues with OpenGL and VST3. It’s not my imagination nor any ineptitude on my part. It is not the fault of my well-tuned, respectably powered computers. It is not my friend’s fault nor his duo of computers’ faults either - Pastor Ed is 70 years old, by the way. He bought Mixcraft Pro Studio (versions 8.x and 9.x) on my recommendation. Jus’ sayin’.

If that offends you, well, as Maxwell Smart would say, “sorry bout that, Chief.”

I don't respond with negativity but in this case I think you should indeed duck for cover because your entire diatribe was a passive agressive offense. Elderly, senior, less-technically minded, teenagers, beginners... unfortunately all phrased in a condescending manner to emphasize your own perceived superiority.

Because of the tone, absolute hubris, I wouldn't give the solution to the opengl challenges you face. And perhaps it's my misperception; but my gut is saying otherwise. That's as much as I'll respond or comment on this thread.

[TrevsAudio]

So Guys - Please enlighten me...

First, let me categorise myself: I'm definitely old and senior (proud founding member of The Old Farts Club here on the forums) I'm also a 'one man over-dubber', working out of a modest bedroom studio, who tries real hard to get my stuff sounding as good as my 70 plus years of music experience (and ears) tell me.

Now, I have always understood that 'DAW's' are just devices that manipulate one's and zero's and essentially, the difference between them lies in work flow. So is any 'one' better than another with respect to the final product - music; which I might add is mostly listened to on cell phones or ear buds?

If the same Pro Mix Engineer produced a song on Mixcraft, and then on one of the other high end DAWs, would there be a difference in sound quality? Assuming of course, he used the same plugins on both platforms?

[Brother Charles]

Hi Trev,

Well, sir, I’m not a senior, but at 55, I’m not exactly “young” myself.

I mean this with complete sincerity: you, my friend, are a perfect example of the kind of Mixcraft user that I was referring to. You’re a senior. You love making music and you’re doing it primarily on your own. You’re not dumb, but neither do you want a whole lot of technical-schmenical interruptions slowing down your recording projects. Again I emphasize, Mixcraft caters to an important niche that most other DAW makers don’t really focus on. Not everyone who desires, and deserves, to make their own music and recordings, wants or needs a $400 to $600 high end, technically demanding DAW.

In the case of Reaper, it’s even less expensive than the standard version of Mixcraft’s normal price. Reaper’s power, stability, features, sound quality and CPU efficiency are all stellar. Unfortunately, you need to invest a lot of time and study into Reaper, and its steep learning curve (and I do mean, a LOT), to ‘reap’ its benefits.

I’ve recorded, arranged, mixed and (hopefully) mastered quite a few tracks in Mixcraft that turned out quite nicely. I agree with you that Mixcraft provides a dandy workflow. Do I think that Mixcraft sounds just as good as Cubase, Studio One, Samplitude, and et cetera?

. . . Well, no, I don’t personally feel that it does. It’s the fine details of the rendered music especially that show up in good reference monitors - or rather, that don’t show up like they should. I do feel as though Mixcraft sounds great while you’re working within the DAW natively. The smears (or spikes) in transients, the stereo separation, and lots of other little difficult to define anomalies that are resultant in rendered prints and mixdowns are what begin to reveal its less expensive cracks. And just in case you were wondering, I NEVER render anything that is not the same sample rate and bit depth as the project itself. As a matter of fact, I tend to render to 32 bit float, just to ensure that absolutely no dithering or bit depth artifacts of any kind creep in. The sample rate remains the same (typically 44.1 Khz since I don’t need to render for video streams or DVD audio). The decade old debate about working at higher sample rates 88.2, 96, or even 192 Khz is anotuer topic altogether. . . *Grin.

I’ve always had trouble with any OpenGL enabled plugin within Mixcraft (a few different machines over the past 4 or 5 years). As a matter of fact, I’ve always had lots of little GUI related snafus using Mixcraft. Pauses, momentary freezes, glitches, large plugin GUIs being “torn” and/or not rendering correctly (Arturia V Collection for example). These have been consistant annoyances for me since years throughout different versions of the DAW. Version 9 has actually been the best working so far, but it is still a glitchy piece of work. I already listed my main DAW PC’s specs earlier in this thread - it’s not a hardware lack. None of my other DAWs or applications exhibit any of these issues. And it’s not just one PC - it’s 3 or 4, plus a couple of pals that I help out with music “stuff”. So in total, 5 or 6 decent computers all having the same issues. . . Apparently, me and my buddies are the only ones having these problems; nobody else experiences glitches with VST3s or OpenGL-enabled plugins, or IKM T-RackS 5, MODO Bass, Hammond B3-X, and so forth.

Nevertheless, I will always hold both Acoustica and Mixcraft in esteem. It’s a wonderful DAW for all the folks, like yourself, who choose it for the very reasons that I cheerfully recommend:

• Easier-on-the-noggin to learn
  Affordable
  Uncomplicated and lenient licensing system
  Supportive, reliable customer care
  Generally a pleasant, easy workflow
  Typically, Mixcraft just plain “works” without crashes (especially if you steer clear of VST3 and/or OpenGL-enabled plugins)
  Excellent MIDI editing features
  Unrestricted track counts
  Sounds good
  Close knit, family-like community

In a nutshell, if Mixcraft really were capable of doing the job as well as Cubase Pro, Studio One Pro, Samplitude Pro X, and others, don’t ya think that industry professionals would gladly adopt it, even if it were the same price as Cubase? A Chevy Chevette and a Porsche 911 both have 4 wheels, and essentially do the same thing . . . Are they equivalent though?

So Guys - Please enlighten me...

First, let me categorise myself: I'm definitely old and senior (proud founding member of The Old Farts Club here on the forums) I'm also a 'one man over-dubber', working out of a modest bedroom studio, who tries real hard to get my stuff sounding as good as my 70 plus years of music experience (and ears) tell me.

Now, I have always understood that 'DAW's' are just devices that manipulate one's and zero's and essentially, the difference between them lies in work flow. So is any 'one' better than another with respect to the final product - music; which I might add is mostly listened to on cell phones or ear buds?

If the same Pro Mix Engineer produced a song on Mixcraft, and then on one of the other high end DAWs, would there be a difference in sound quality? Assuming of course, he used the same plugins on both platforms?