I doubt the filters are running in parallel.
There's six buttons and you can switch between filters in real time while playing without a glitch. From the horse's mouth:
The research part is, we have implemented the same pretty extreme model of the CEM3320 Curtis filter chip in our vintage Pro-One using 5 different numerical methods, each costing a very different amount of CPU. We wish for you to spot the "most analogue" sounding method. By that we wish to see if it is worth spending a lot of CPU or if we could get away with something cheaper. Furthermore we wish to discuss the following questions:
what differences do you spot between the models?
when do these differences become audible, i.e. which settings promote these differences?
We are sorry if some of you can not run this plug-in due to CPU consumption. This isn't an indicator to the final version being CPU hungry as well, it is just a necessity for the trial - several filter algorithms are always run in parallel so that one can not spot the most accurate one by CPU hunger.
Yes, each filter variation sounds a little different. Cool idea, getting end users to help fine tune the software design.
I listened to Hatfield and the North at Rainbow. They were very wonderful and they made my heart a prisoner.