# Poll: How many pro* orchestral tracks can you reliably run on your M1 Studio, Max or Pro during record?



## Vik

Hi, M1 Mac-owners. 

How many simultaneous, professional* orchestral tracks can you run on your M1 Mac during record? 

I'm thinking of libraries like SCS, SSS, MSS, CSS, Berlin Strings etc .– not simple freebies/basic orchestral sampler based tracks that come with your DAW (not all freebies or factory sounds are simple or basic, of course).

Note that this is about how many tracks you can reliably play _while recording a new track_. Also – remember that this is only about M1 Macs. 

If you vote, please add info in the thread about where you run your samples from (internal drive, external NVME etc) and and how much RAM your M1 Mac has.

* with round robins, multiple dynamic layers and similar functions.

Thanks!


----------



## ashX

Tbh I think you can run only around 15 tracks of orchestral libraries knowing every patch is around 500mb-1gb of RAM. But if you purge them, probably around 30-40 or something.
Edit: my mistake, you probably need people to tell you how many of them you can play without lags and spikes


----------



## Vik

ashX said:


> you probably need people to tell you how many of them you can play without lags and spikes


I believe I did, when I used the word reliably.


----------



## Vik

ashX said:


> Tbh I think you can run only around 15 tracks of orchestral libraries knowing every patch is around 500mb-1gb of RAM. But if you purge them, probably around 30-40 or something.


In a post in this thread, there's someone who has reported 45 tracks.

In another post in the same thread, there's a guy who stopped at around 20 instruments playing 20 note blocks, but that seems to be due to having an SATA-drive which makes out at 750mb/s.


----------



## colony nofi

I think this already shows some of the problems of benchmarking.
It needs to be more specific to be truly meaningful.

There are things that can potentially cause very big differences in performance when applied to the original question.

Number of voices playing back on each instrument
number of mics playing back from each instrument
Running purged vs unpurged
Routing within the project (it doesn't effect ram MUCH but does greatly effect CPU performance. I think that testing should use a standardised template of sorts that points to real world usage.
Setup of the audio drivers. Ie : Cubase's use of audio priority, as well as asio guard settings greatly effect the numbers
Drive setup / where the samples are stored. Type of drive, type of connection of drive
Etc Etc.

So while I'm completely behind the sentiment for the original poll, I'm not sure there'll be any meaningful results gleaned from it. Since the machines are the same, what exactly *are* we learning? Potentially just differences between different samplers, and the way people work.

We have just given back our loaner from Apple, but we *have* purchased an M1 (with 10GbE) mini after being impressed with the results of our own tests. This is for post production, but it means it will be permanently at our studios and I'll be able to run more composition based tests in the near future, as well as being able to potentially help in providing some sort of standardised test.

Without wanting to push any particular company, I think doing something with Spitfire Symphony Orchestra will be interesting, as LOADS of people have the free/$50 version - probably more than any other single library. They also have a template made by them for logic (and then copied by community members to other DAWS) which is pretty well standardised - meaning a tonne of work is already done!

I also wonder if we cannot get dummy library made for kontakt that can provide some sort of similar results that can be distributed freely.

Or potentially make up further tests based on a single template for testing using kontakt libs that people most likely have. There could be a baseline score made using one library, and the compared to another fairly simply as well.

So, on a machine with access to a tonne of these libs, run tests with
spitfire orchestra
East west orchestra
Vienna orchestra
Sine Orchestra Tools orchestra
Cinesamples (kontakt) orchestra

and work out the performance delta between them. Since we are dealing with just M1 machines, these results should indeed be very close between computers.

This could be done on one DAW first (cubase or logic) and then tried on others later - although that will only show the performance delta between the different platforms...

It could end up being a VERY good test for folks going the M1 route - as it will show differences between the different new M based systems (8 vs 16GB ram) as well as later the differences with new M2 (or M1X) systems


----------



## Vik

All valid points, Colony. If there are enough people using M1 Macs, its a good idea to add more specifications, like eg. only monophonic legato tracks, only one stereo mic (eg tree) and so on. But so far, I’m not sure if there are enough M1 users on VIC to make a poll like this useful.


----------



## colony nofi

Vik said:


> All valid points, Colony. If there are enough people using M1 Macs, its a good idea to add more specifications, like eg. only monophonic legato tracks, only one stereo mic (eg tree) and so on. But so far, I’m not sure if there are enough M1 users on VIC to make a poll like this useful.


I'm not sure what exactly you are testing though... what info are we going to learn if we don't standardise? We'll just learn that people work differently... and that there are variables in the system.

If we want to learn what the different variables do, we need to design a test for that right?

I'm expecting our new M1 mini early May (adding 10GbE meant waiting) - but maybe its worth prepping something this week anyway. I'll use Spitfire's orchestra and its template just because it is a good starting point.


----------



## Vik

colony nofi said:


> I'm not sure what exactly you are testing though... what info are we going to learn if we don't standardise?


Hi, of course the best way to test this is that everybody uses the same project. The reason I kept the question quite open, similar to the questions in the other M1 thread, was only that I didn't have any test project to offer, and even if I had, I couldn't be sure that the few which already have bought an M1 Mac and written about it here, may not have the same libraries as I would have used.
My first idea was to suggest a project use Cinematic Studio Strings, because that seems to be a library that a lot of users have, but whoever that would be involved in such tests should figure out how to do it – personally, I don't have an M1 Mac yet, so I'm asking only because I consider getting one.
Maybe the $50 (or free) version of BBC Symphony Orchestra is a better idea than CSS – but I actually doubt it, since the download size is only 1.2 gb for 33 instruments. (Disclaimer: this looks very low – if this is incorrect, please let me know!)
Btw, CSS = 75 gb on my drive, Afflatus is 82gb, Spitfire Chamber Strings core is 81 gb, Spitfire Symphonic Strings core is 102 gb, so CSS isn't among the most memory consuming string libraries out there.

"Tbh I think you can run only around 15 tracks of orchestral libraries knowing every patch is around 500mb-1gb of RAM. But if you purge them, probably around 30-40 or something."
@ashX – If these libraries would load all the samples used by each instrument into RAM, that would make sense, but they often load only a little snippet into RAM and stream the rest from the drive.


----------



## colony nofi

Vik said:


> Hi, of course the best way to test this is that everybody uses the same project. The reason I kept the question quite open, similar to the questions in the other M1 thread, was only that I didn't have any test project to offer, and even if I had, I couldn't be sure that the few which already have bought an M1 Mac and written about it here, may not have the same libraries as I would have used.
> My first idea was to suggest a project use Cinematic Studio Strings, because that seems to be a library that a lot of users have, but whoever that would be involved in such tests should figure out how to do it – personally, I don't have an M1 Mac yet, so I'm asking only because I consider getting one.
> Maybe the $50 (or free) version of BBC Symphony Orchestra is a better idea than CSS – but I actually doubt it, since the download size is only 1.2 gb for 33 instruments. (Disclaimer: this looks very low – if this is incorrect, please let me know!)
> Btw, CSS = 75 gb on my drive, Afflatus is 82gb, Spitfire Chamber Strings core is 81 gb, Spitfire Symphonic Strings core is 102 gb, so CSS isn't among the most memory consuming string libraries out there.
> 
> "Tbh I think you can run only around 15 tracks of orchestral libraries knowing every patch is around 500mb-1gb of RAM. But if you purge them, probably around 30-40 or something."
> @ashX – If these libraries would load all the samples used by each instrument into RAM, that would make sense, but they often load only a little snippet into RAM and stream the rest from the drive.


I get where you are coming from. And hear your ideas loud and clear. How to get info thats useful to all is important right? I'll keep thinking. 

There's almost two things needing to be tested that are separate to each other. Ram use and numbers of voices that can be played back. And they need to be tested almost separately, as its possible to decrease ram use in various ways if there is still cpu capacity. 

And then we need to somehow take OUT of the equation some of the variables inserted because we all use different libraries. Or something.


----------



## Vik

Don't forget that we also need some M1 users.  So far, we have only one response in the survey, except 1 vote for 'More/please specify', but nobody has specified running more than 90 tracks. Maybe the best way to start is that people report whatever track count they achieve, and post something about their system etc. In a few months from now, maybe there will be more M1 users ... right now, it seems that many of us don't fully trust that one can run a lot more orchestral tracks on an M1 than one normally can do with 16 gb on another Mac.


----------



## colony nofi

Vik said:


> Don't forget that we also need some M1 users.  So far, we have only one response in the survey, except 1 vote for 'More/please specify', but nobody has specified running more than 90 tracks. Maybe the best way to start is that people report whatever track count they achieve, and post something about their system etc. In a few months from now, maybe there will be more M1 users ... right now, it seems that many of us don't fully trust that one can run a lot more orchestral tracks on an M1 than one normally can do with 16 gb on another Mac.


I have some internal results I can add - but they are not testing exactly what you have asked for here. Testing takes time. 
I'll try a few different approaches (that relate directly to your question) when the new machine comes in and report back.

And I'll think some more on a standardised test.


----------



## Vik

Great.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

I get the feeing that, deep down inside, people are really wanting the M1 to be some sort of awesome machine for orchestral work. The reality is, you should really wait for the next round of M1’s and see what the offerings are. 16gm Ram is 16gb Ram, there’s nothing magical going on. There’s definitely some innovative processing going on, but that’s about it.


----------



## jbuhler

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I get the feeing that, deep down inside, people are really wanting the M1 to be some sort of awesome machine for orchestral work. The reality is, you should really wait for the next round of M1’s and see what the offerings are. 16gm Ram is 16gb Ram, there’s nothing magical going on. There’s definitely some innovative processing going on, but that’s about it.


Yes, it seems to punch way above its weight class as an entry-level machine. But it’s still an entry-level machine...


----------



## thereus

M1s look insanely expensive vs PCs of the same performance. ARM is looking exciting, but it is a few years off being worth the money as yet.


----------



## colony nofi

thereus said:


> M1s look insanely expensive vs PCs of the same performance. ARM is looking exciting, but it is a few years off being worth the money as yet.


Really?
That depends on use case. And are you talking just performance (kinda an old metric in the world of pc’s) or performance per watt? (Far more relevant today)

sure - for vi’s there are much better value machines in PC land - but mostly because of limitations on expansion.
However, the performance of the chip for certain things means an M1 punches well above its weight. Especially performance vs power use. As a result, the battery life of the new air and 13” mbp is off the charts - which is awesome for road warriors.

it’s worth reading anandtech’s it - they are by and large balanced in their reporting across the tech world.









The 2020 Mac Mini Unleashed: Putting Apple Silicon M1 To The Test







www.anandtech.com





Even Linus is gushing (in his own way) over the chip.


----------



## emilio_n

Watching the poll, no people are using M1 chips yet for serious projects.
I am a Mac user for more than 10 years, but I am considering moving back to PC because right now I can't find a replacement for my 2015 iMac and looks like I will need to wait at least 6-8 months more and even is not sure that the iMac Pro or whatever will be useful for our needs.


----------



## Vik

emilio_n said:


> Watching the poll, no people are using M1 chips yet for serious projects.
> I am a Mac user for more than 10 years, but I am considering moving back to PC because right now I can't find a replacement for my 2015 iMac and looks like I will need to wait at least 6-8 months more and even is not sure that the iMac Pro or whatever will be useful for our needs.


I guess there aren't many who use M1 Macs for serious work yet, but part of the lack of response here could be because I erratically posted this in the hardware and peripherals section, I believe we would have seen more participation if it was in the Your DAW area. Also, since none of us really know how much truth there is to 'M1 Macs doesn't need as much RAM as other Macs', investing in a M1 Mac for serious work right now is risky business, so it's a chicken/egg-situation. 

Regarding replacement for your 2015 Mac, my feeling is that the best buy right now in terms of price/performance would be a used, but new Intel iMac or top specced Intel Mac mini, also used, if you can find it.


----------



## emilio_n

Vik said:


> I guess there aren't many who use M1 Macs for serious work yet, but part of the lack of response here could be because I erratically posted this in the hardware and peripherals section, I believe we would have seen more participation if it was in the Your DAW area. Also, since none of us really know how much truth there is to 'M1 Macs doesn't need as much RAM as other Macs', investing in a M1 Mac for serious work right now is risky business, so it's a chicken/egg-situation.
> 
> Regarding replacement for your 2015 Mac, my feeling is that the best buy right now in terms of price/performance would be a used, but new Intel iMac or top specced Intel Mac mini, also used, if you can find it.


Yes, I think everybody is on the fence waiting for more powerful machines.

I am very interested to see what apple will do on the near future. I think I will wait a little bit more. I can't manage significant templates but freezing the tracks I can live with my old iMac a few months more. 😉


----------



## Simon Ravn

emilio_n said:


> Yes, I think everybody is on the fence waiting for more powerful machines.
> 
> I am very interested to see what apple will do on the near future. I think I will wait a little bit more. I can't manage significant templates but freezing the tracks I can live with my old iMac a few months more. 😉


I made a Hackintosh. I have yet to actually do a full project on it but so far so good.

Rumor has it Apple are doing a smaller (cheaper) version of the Mac Pro. I simply wasn't willing to shell out the amount of $$ for the current Mac Pro, seeing how little you got for your money CPU-wise because a lot of the high price for the Mac Pro is going towards stuff we don't need as composers (custom GPU/Afterburner modules etc). That machine seemed only aimed at pro video people OR people who don't mind wasting a lot of money.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

emilio_n said:


> Watching the poll, no people are using M1 chips yet for serious projects.
> I am a Mac user for more than 10 years, but I am considering moving back to PC because right now I can't find a replacement for my 2015 iMac and looks like I will need to wait at least 6-8 months more and even is not sure that the iMac Pro or whatever will be useful for our needs.


How about the latest Intel iMac's? They are stellar, and a lot of bang for the buck.


----------



## sourcefor

I only did a simple test with my M1 MacBook Air 8gb ram against my 16” MacBook Pro 64gb ram. Since I don’t have any 3rd party samples on my M1 air, I was only running Logic stuff! I was able to get 60 alchemy tracks with space designer, delay designer and Phat FX on each track to play back on the air and 73 on the 16” MacBook Pro! Not sure if this will help, but it’s very variable the way people run their setups, I am waiting for the new 16” M1 MacBook Pro myself!


----------



## Vik

sourcefor said:


> I only did a simple test with my M1 MacBook Air 8gb ram against my 16” MacBook Pro 64gb ram. Since I don’t have any 3rd party samples on my M1 air, I was only running Logic stuff! I was able to get 60 alchemy tracks with space designer, delay designer and Phat FX on each track to play back on the air and 73 on the 16” MacBook Pro! Not sure if this will help, but it’s very variable the way people run their setups, I am waiting for the new 16” M1 MacBook Pro myself!


Those 16" MBP results were good – what's the price difference between these two Macs?


----------



## sourcefor

Price difference around $2000 more for 16”mbp


----------



## rnb_2

I really wish I could contribute more to this, since I jumped on the M1 train right from the beginning, but I'm a photographer/occasional videographer/consultant, so it wasn't hard to justify less than $1k for a 16GB/512GB M1 mini. I'm still very much feeling my way around my DAWs (Logic/Studio One) and libraries, let alone actually doing much composing.

I do have Opus now, and it looks like I'll subscribe to CCX going forward, so when everybody is satisfied that Opus/Orchestrator is stable (excellent progress has been made in a week), that might be a reasonable base for a benchmark.

That said, I've felt from the beginning that, in the VI space, this is very much a chicken and egg situation - very few people who depend on their computer to make music for a living are going to jump on the M1 because of the RAM limitation and the few little compatibility issues with Intel software, so purchasers are more likely to be people like me who can justify them for other uses and also mess around with VIs. Calling myself a composer would be a HUGE stretch (at best), and I don't have many of the common libraries in use here, so my experience just isn't going to be that helpful.


----------



## colony nofi

I think you're right @rnb_2 ! 

These machines have their use cases, but heavy VI use isn't one of them. There is not much secret sauce going on with RAM either. Especially for something like Kontakt. 
The only hard evidence I have in regards to all this is that I ran a benchmark on our mac pro here - and repeated that test on the loaner M1 mini. We removed ram on the pro to match the M1. There was no significant difference between the machines when it came to how much we could load. We were using HIGH pre-load amounts (which is very much not necessary, but we wanted to run the test as quickly as possible... it was just us throwing ideas around!)

The M1 was able to run some other DAW sessions (with lots of anymix-pro, and true surround verbs, routing and the like) very well - and did so without any glitching. So could the mac pro. We didn't try running it to "max" - we were just interested in being able to see if these machines were good enough to run sound-edit / premix sessions for sound post. And they appear to be.

The new machine with 10GbE should be here next week, when we can test how well it behaves alongside our server (used for projects/video etc) - and will then make the decision as to weather this is a new "base" for machines that we deploy in the future. We are very much aware that better machines are on their way - but its awesome to know that we've got a solid option right now. (One caveat is our video output from nuendo - which in the past has used a blackmagic mini-monitor, but this is not supported on the M1 and will never be. But there's other options we can explore - they've got a new model utilising tb3. https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/au/products/ultrastudio/techspecs/W-DLUS-13)


----------



## InLight-Tone

I have a quad core Hackintosh and am thinking of bumping it up to 8 cores to tide me over till the new chips and machines show up which looks like late fall or even next year...


----------



## Soundhound

Isn’t the ram limitation going to be reached way before cpu hits the ceiling? M1 macs can run 16gigs of ram tops. Supposedly the upcoming generation (M2, M1X whatever they wind up calling it) will go to 64, but I thought M1 macs weren’t an option for orchestral work because of the low ram limit...


----------



## zimm83

Look at this :



Look at this :


----------



## Vik

Soundhound said:


> Isn’t the ram limitation going to be reached way before cpu hits the ceiling? M1 macs can run 16gigs of ram tops. Supposedly the upcoming generation (M2, M1X whatever they wind up calling it) will go to 64, but I thought M1 macs weren’t an option for orchestral work because of the low ram limit...


There are various theories about the internal structure and speed of the M1s allowing for being able tu run sample libraries that are much larger than one can with equivalent Intel Macs with 16 gb RAM. Bur: circa a half year after the M1 release, there are very few who have posted much about it.



As you can see above, the response here is neither overwhelming or convincing. Two votes only, one for '10-20 tracks', and another one for 'More'.


----------



## mat1

Is there anything that can be tested using the Symphony series in Kontakt? 

Install size is about 50gb.


----------



## Vik

mat1 said:


> the Symphony series in Kontakt?


Confused.  Which product is that?


----------



## Soundhound

Vik said:


> There are various theories about the internal structure and speed of the M1s allowing for being able tu run sample libraries that are much larger than one can with equivalent Intel Macs with 16 gb RAM. Bur: circa a half year after the M1 release, there are very few who have posted much about it.
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see above, the response here is neither overwhelming or convincing. Two votes only, one for '10-20 tracks', and another one for 'More'.


Right, I remember hearing that when the M1 first came out but haven’t heard anymore about it. I don’t quite get how any amount of speed could get around needing a particular amount of ram to load an instrument?


----------



## jcrosby

Memory compression. (What Apple refers to as "memory pressure").

Given that Apple designed the m1 it's quite possible that its capable of compressing unneeded memory more efficiently than it could under intel. And, given how efficient ios is at running many many applications at once it's a pretty reasonable assumption that Apple can compress memory with greater efficiency on their own native chips... (And have been able to for years now).

It also explains how memory can be optimized without having to regularly page big chunks of data to disk. According to the article pages don't actually happen until memory pressure shows red. (Actual pages can be checked in the bottom of AM's memory tab where it says _swap used_...)









Memory Compression on the Mac Can Improve Performance


Compressed memory is part of the Mac. Your Mac can make better use of available RAM improving performance while preventing paging memory to disk.




www.lifewire.com


----------



## octave music

I'd be interested in making an M1 mac mini the center of my studio, and relegating my Late 2013 mac pro to be my exclusive VEPro server. I currently function as a sinlge-computer studio witn 128GB ram in my mac pro. My typical RAM utilization in VEPro7 at the end of a composition is around 100GB. If all of my sounds are loaded on my external computer [late 2013 mac pro slave], what kind of overhead/RAM usage does that cause the M1 Mac Mini to utilize? There must be some RAM needed to handle the data load of processing 16-20 instances coming into the Mac Mini. I'd be thrilled to have the speed improvements many are noting with the M1 Mac, and not at all needing the sounds/VI's loaded natively on the M1 Mac mini. Has anybody done any heavy testing in this type of work flow?


----------



## synthetic

Number of voices is the typical benchmark. That removes all variables of multiple mics, layers, etc. Just make a bunch of Cinesamples tracks play scales or something and look at the Kontakt voice count until it starts dropping out. Then duplicate those tracks and keep doing that. The first video above is only showing 200-300 voices which isn't impressive at all but he's not pushing the machine.


----------



## RixMusik

Professional needs (tv/film composer) the M1, even with 16GB RAM is hugely disappointing. Running VE Pro (within the same system rather than a master-slave set up) with MIR Pro on each track, the RAM pressure hits warning/overload at around 10-12 tracks. That's without VE Pro EQ or Compressors.

With the same projects, MacBook Pro 16, 64GB handles about 30-35, using about 25GB.

I regret selling my 16" and opting for the M1 MBP in terms of creating orchestral music. It's perfectly fine for pop, or electronic music production however.


----------



## RixMusik

synthetic said:


> Number of voices is the typical benchmark. That removes all variables of multiple mics, layers, etc. Just make a bunch of Cinesamples tracks play scales or something and look at the Kontakt voice count until it starts dropping out. Then duplicate those tracks and keep doing that. The first video above is only showing 200-300 voices which isn't impressive at all but he's not pushing the machine.


EDITED to clarify:

Not exactly, when it comes to orchestral music for tv/film productions. You don't need 100+ instruments. You need less instruments but each uses a lot of RAM due to the quality of the sampled notes and the large volume of variant recordings of each note (dynamics, articulations etc, played and recorded, adds to the instruments' memory requirements). Heavy high-end effects, such as using MIR Pro to replicate the sound of being recorded in a real purpose built recording environment, also take some weight, but that affects CPU a little more than RAM. You'd also need to add individual instrument EQ and optional (usually) Compressors on each.

You just need all sections: woodwinds, brass, percussion, strings with some 'hybrid' plugins to make epic flavours. About 20-50 is just fine for a substantial template.

Number of voices seems to just be an indication of the processor capability, not the RAM. And we all know that the M1 processor beats the i9 MacBook Pros. That's not relevant. The M1 falls down when trying to compare it to the i9 in terms of 16GB Unified Memory vs 64GB RAM. The 64GB RAM wins hands down for professional orchestral templates.

So less instruments but each using more RAM than these standard benchmarks using the number of tracks as a measurement (such as Logic Bench). People say look "200 tracks with [Logic plugins]! That just means the processor is very good. 200 tracks in those benchmark tests means nothing much, when it comes to using the latest VSL libraries, 8DIO etc. The same 200 track playing system might only manage 20 VSL+MIR Pro playback due to heavy memory pressure even if it is only using 20-30% CPU.

I was wrong in my previous assumption (based on YouTuber videos by tech people) that the Unified Memory would be soooo much more effective than RAM, and one also suggested that the 16GB is more or less around 32GB of RAM...it's not. Yes, it might operate more effectively, but capacity is capacity. You can fill a bucket with water and empty it quicker with Unified Memory, but the bucket is still a lot smaller than the RAM bucket.


----------



## MarcusD

Ordered an M1 Air 16GB 1TB to use for videos and sample editing - once it arrives, I’ll load a few different templates just to test it out.

If anything the internal SSD speed should let you steam more from disk with samplers. Highly doubt it’ll let me load more than 16GB into RAM though 

Wish they would hurry up with the Mac Mini M1x 64Gb


----------



## Vik

Most likely, all this will change when Kontakt, Sine and other players have gone Apple Silicon native.


----------



## Soundbed

Since there are multiple threads discussing the same thing I'll put this here as well. I am only 4 days into suddenly installing everything on an M1 Mac (from scratch, not Time Machine or Carbon Copy or anything) so I am still learning the tests but here's my "day 4" testing....

I guess it's pretty easy to get audio crackling on an M1 when your project is taking more than 16GB and you're playing more than about 20 "modern" orchestral sample instruments monophonically. The tune I wrote for this (clicked in with a mouse late at night) sort of became my M1 "sad theme".


----------



## synthetic

RixMusik said:


> Number of voices seems to just be an indication of the processor capability, not the RAM. orchestral templates.


I disagree, it all works together. Whether the processor, disk, or RAM buffer is the limiting factor, it will be found when you max out the voices. Annoyingly, you can’t always tell what the bottleneck is. It might say 100% CPU, but because it’s working too hard because of a RAM shortage. That’s why the high-end composers max out everything they can.


----------



## Soundbed

Because a keyword in the Poll is "reliably" I will keep my answer at 10-20 for now, but I was able to get 96 orchestral instruments to play back using a 30GB swap file on the M1 16GB by lowering the preload size in Kontakt to 18kB. The Studio One memory in Activity Monitor was around 74GB and the segment played back flawlessly. Granted, after I made an edit I was having some stability issues but that doesn't mean they couldn't get resolved. So, interesting development.


----------



## Vik

Hi Soundbed, are these tracks set up as regular music tracks or for benchmark purposes? If the purpose is to compare various Macs, DAWs OS versions etc, the best solution is IMO to have all tracks play the same MIDI notes on all tracks, pretty much all the time. Also, it's most interesting (when testing Apple Silicon) to have each track use unique samples, since a test project with a high number of tracks are using the same samples doesn't tell us that much about handling many tracks.


----------



## Soundbed

Vik said:


> Hi Sounded, are these tracks set up as regular music tracks or for benchmark purposes? If the purpose is to compare various Macs, DAWs OS versions etc, the best solution is IMO to have all tracks play the same MIDI notes on all tracks, pretty much all the time. Also, it's most interesting (when testing Apple Silicon) to have each track use unique samples, since a test project with a high number of tracks are using the same samples doesn't tell us that much about handling many tracks.


So you want the same MIDI notes on all tracks, but each track needs to be playing unique samples? Can I do it in octaves?


----------



## Vik

Ocatves – not sure if that matters.  Whatever floats you boat, and it doesn't even have to be the same notes (they could eg. be transposed), but songs that are made for musical reasons contain so many variables, both within a track (some busy passages, some silent areas), and between tracks. So – two different persons say that they can get eg. 35 tracks using a certain configuration, that doesn't really tell us much. 

And of course, if you benchmark with a very busy project and that works fine with 40 tracks, maybe you could run a project with 80 tracks of real life music on the same rig. Benchmark-y projects can still be useful. For comparisons, maybe the best solution is to, say, play a major scale up/down with legato enabled and some dynamic movement, in two different tempi, and see how things will behave. But of course, all tests are useful – except if (when testing RAM handling is the main goal) all the tracks are playing back the same preset and the same notes, because they would all use the same RAM.


----------



## MarcusD

Just my first "test" on the M1 using;

* MacBook Air 16GB 1TB
* Studio One
* Kontakt 6 (Preload set to default)
* Orchestral Tools Inspire 1 (low memory library)
* Entire library loaded
* NO audio interface (just using Mac)
* 44.1k at 512 buffer
* Individual Instrument Tracks with one articulation loaded
* Each track has 3 notes scored in on the piano roll

EDIT: * 62 Instances of Kontakt in Total

------------

Playback = no drop outs, worked perfectly with the entire library loaded. Wasn't until each track was playing at least 5 - 6 notes simultaneously that drop outs started to happen frequently. At 4 notes playing simultaneously on each track, there was the occasional drop out, providing you're not doing 16ths at 120bpm

So if you're looking at using this lib, should work fine


----------



## Vik

MarcusD said:


> Each track has 3 notes scored in on the piano roll


Thanks for sharing... how many tracks?


----------



## MarcusD

Vik said:


> Thanks for sharing... how many tracks?


62 instances of Kontakt in total


----------



## Soundbed

Vik said:


> Ocatves – not sure if that matters.  Whatever floats you boat, and it doesn't even have to be the same notes (they could eg. be transposed), but songs that are made for musical reasons contain so many variables, both within a track (some busy passages, some silent areas), and between tracks. So – two different persons say that they can get eg. 35 tracks using a certain configuration, that doesn't really tell us much.
> 
> And of course, if you benchmark with a very busy project and that works fine with 40 tracks, maybe you could run a project with 80 tracks of real life music on the same rig. Benchmark-y projects can still be useful. For comparisons, maybe the best solution is to, say, play a major scale up/down with legato enabled and some dynamic movement, in two different tempi, and see how things will behave. But of course, all tests are useful – except if (when testing RAM handling is the main goal) all the tracks are playing back the same preset and the same notes, because they would all use the same RAM.


Okay I’ve got a video recorded. Need to do some editing. 64 tracks of Kontakt and SINE playing monophonic melodies with every channel / track triggering a different sample library patch was about where things were capping out with no issues navigating, recording, etc. 

The project did not require a page file and both Kontakt and Play had reduced preload buffer sizes and Kontakt had unnecessary RAM purged. The project and S1 needed about 11GB of RAM total.

I also tried Play with EWHO but the RAM cannot be optimized. I also tried Vienna Synchron player but would need more time than I have to learn how to optimize it fully.


----------



## Vik

64 tracks sounds promising, Soundbed! Did you get an impression about how many unique tracks you could run without/before purging unnecessary samples?


----------



## Soundbed

Vik said:


> 64 tracks sounds promising, Soundbed! Did you get an impression about how many unique tracks you could run without/before purging unnecessary samples?


Well that question has a couple answers.

First, in a previous video, I showed 96 tracks with a 30GB swap file. But I was still purging unnecessary samples. 

Second, there would need to be a reason to NOT purge on a 16GB machine. I don’t have a reason NOT to purge. If you’re working with 16GB of RAM, then use the tools to make the most of it. imho

Third, we’d need to agree on an average size library. Is it MSS at a couple gigs per patch? Or Fluid Shorts? 

My purpose was to see what work I could get done. To do that with a 16GB machine the only answer, to me, is to purge unnecessary RAM.

Unfortunately this made the older Play difficult to test. I only found a way to purge all samples or load them all. I don’t have Opus yet. I also was confused with Synchron player vis-a-vis purging, but I might need to learn how to do it.


----------



## mscp

M1 is a decent machine for sketching libraries like Berlin Inspire / Red Audio Palette / ...


----------



## Vik

Soundbed said:


> there would need to be a reason to NOT purge on a 16GB machine. I don’t have a reason NOT to purge. If you’re working with 16GB of RAM, then use the tools to make the most of it. imho


Sure. The reason I asked is that some of us consider either going for a M1 now or to invest in a meanwhile-Mac (Intel), and therefore wonder how they compare under the same conditions.
if I can run 40 tracks on a old Mac Pro (without purging), and I can run 10 of these tracks on a M1 (also without purging), that would give me an impression about how each of them deal with the same material.

Like most others, I guess, I prefer to not have to purge a lot.The best solution in Logic (and Cubase) is possibly not to purge, but to simply freeze the tracks I'm not working on – that will automatically free all the used RAM from the frozen tracks, and to freeze/unfreeze during editing is as simple as a click on the freeze icon on the relevant tracks. The most important thing for me is to figure out how an M1 Mac would function with a reduced Kontakt buffer*, since I'm curious about which degree of truth there is to the statements about 16 gb M1 Macs are already able to deal with RAM hungry libraries than Intel Macs.

* purged or unpurged doesn't matter much as long as a comparison between an M1 Mac and an Intel Mac would do the same thing.




Soundbed said:


> Third, we’d need to agree on an average size library. Is it MSS at a couple gigs per patch?


MSS would be interesting, but since CSS seems to be the most used library (or at least owned my most people), it would be interesting to compare M1s with Intel Macs using that library. 


Soundbed said:


> in a previous video, I showed 96 tracks with a 30GB swap file. But I was still purging unnecessary samples.


I have to figure out what a swap file is!


----------



## Soundbed

Vik said:


> The most important thing for me is to figure out how an M1 Mac would function with a reduced Kontakt buffer*, since I'm curious about which degree of truth there is to the statements about 16 gb M1 Macs are already able to deal with RAM hungry libraries than Intel Macs.


It works great. But it's not only M1 Macs that behave differently. Any system with a very fast drive and relatively low RAM could potentially benefit from smaller preload buffers on samplers that support them -- like SINE and Kontakt. Including Windows systems. I don't see this as an M1 vs Intel situation. I think some people might approach the M1 with 16GB of RAM like they would an Intel with 64GB and that's not how I recommend approaching it.

Just like I wouldn't recommend approaching driving a 2 seat racecar like you'd approach driving a minivan.



Vik said:


> CSS seems to be the most used library (or at least owned my most people), it would be interesting to compare M1s with Intel Macs using that library.


CSS has a keystroke to disable articulations, to save RAM, so that's an interesting example. Because the amount of RAM varies quite a lot, based on which articulations you load/unload and which mic positions you un/load (as well as how many notes you use per track) ... well, when you purge.

But if you want to pick an amount of RAM that makes sense "per track" for you (because it might be different for other people) then the math should be simple. Until you get up to about 11-13GB (leave a few GB for the OS and background apps) it will behave like any other machine. If you purge RAM you will have more tracks. Easy. After somewhere in the 11-13GB range for your DAW project / session, you'll likely be using a swap file (aka page file on Windows). A small swap file is not necessarily much of a problem. A large swap file might make some people uneasy. For a variety of legacy reasons. Some of which may have merit today, others have been debunked. Others may be out of date with modern hard drives. IT's a whole thing. But I got up to 96 tracks with a 30GB swap file.




Vik said:


> if I can run 40 tracks on a old Mac Pro (without purging), and I can run 10 of these tracks on a M1 (also without purging), that would give me an impression about how each of them deal with the same material.


I wouldn't approach any machine with 16GB of RAM (or Unified Memory) with the idea of not purging unnecessary samples, period. The make of the CPU / SoC doesn't matter.

Metaphor: I have a ton of equipment in my storage closet. But I don't bring it out into the studio most of the time. Because I don't need it most of the time.

Takes a bit more effort to keep the studio tidy and clear of unnecessary clutter. But I have it in the storage closet, if I need it. Which I usually don't.



Vik said:


> I have to figure out what a swap file is!


It's hard drive space used for temporary files, as I understand. It's slower than RAM (of course). But it can build up during large DAW projects when RAM is full (for instance). Windows and some other systems call it a page file.


----------



## mat1

Soundbed said:


> I wouldn't approach any machine with 16GB of RAM (or Unified Memory) with the idea of not purging unnecessary samples, period. The make of the CPU / SoC doesn't matter.


I think it will be easier to figure out whether ram is the limitation if you run some tests without purging..


----------



## Vik

mat1 said:


> I think it will be easier to figure out whether ram is the limitation if you run some tests without purging..


Agree, a test without purged samples but using the reduced Kontakt-buffer trick would be interesting.

For people who already have a M1 Mac, tests with purged samples makes sense, of course. For us who don't have a M1 Mac yet and consumed getting one, tests with purged samples on a M1 Mac makes most sense if we compare with an Intel setup with purged samples.

Or, to put it in another way: why spend time and money on getting a M1 Mac if one needs to purge samples to get results we already can get on a an Intel Mac? The Geekbench etc tests show that the CPU is more powerful on the M1, of course, so we know that already. But looking at the whole picture (RAM handling, CPU power, waiting for native versions of Kontakt etc, the thing with purged/non-purged scenarios, the 'can M1 Macs behave as if it had 32 or more gb RAM even if it only has 16gb'-topic, the trick with lowering Kontakt's buffer setting), the topic still looks quite confusing for the kind of work we do. And most likely, most potential VI users won't buy an M1 Mac just to sort all this out.


----------



## Soundbed

mat1 said:


> I think it will be easier to figure out whether ram is the limitation if you run some tests without purging..


I’m not sure I fully understand you. What remains for you to figure out, specifically?

I spent a week with the M1 and posted three different videos. (I recorded a fourth and will edit and post at some point but it’s not germane to this reply.)

I posted in some other M1 threads here on VI-C so maybe I feel like I’m repeating myself here…

What I learned, that I am trying to express and share with you all in this forum, is that in a real world experiment/test of “what can I get done?” I was indeed constrained by the amount of RAM / Unified Memory on the M1.

Using a much slower swap file will only get you so far. The stability of the session was ultimately compromised.

Reducing the Kontakt or SINE preload buffer (a feature not available in every sampler) will offload a good share of work to the relatively very fast drive.

But you will reach a limitation where you need to make a decision.

This is the decision:

“do I keep trying to approach this like I approach a rig with more RAM, or do I change tactics?”

I learned / decided between day 3 and day 4 to change tactics. But not because it was an M1. Because it was a computer with 16GB of RAM/Unified memory. Every trick I knew about working with limited RAM started flooding back to me in my search to get things done.

So it was purely hypothetical to me to wonder about the luxury of *how little I might get done* if I didn’t do something like purge RAM.



Vik said:


> Agree, a test without purged samples but using the reduced Kontakt-buffer trick would be interesting.


Why? I feel like I might be missing something or being obstinate. What’s interesting exactly?

… I mean, I may have thought it might be interesting before I got one, but now that I’ve experienced it, I think a similar test could be run on any Intel machine where you simply remove RAM and try something. It’s about that interesting. As in: not terribly interesting.

not to me, not anymore.



Vik said:


> For us who don't have a M1 Mac yet and consumed getting one, tests with purged samples on a M1 Mac makes most sense if we compare with an Intel setup with purged samples.


Totally agree. I should try my M1 sessions on my 2018 MBP i9 with 32GB RAM and see how they perform.



Vik said:


> why spend time and money on getting a M1 Mac if one needs to purge samples to get results we already can get on a an Intel Mac?


Assuming the Intel Mac has more RAM? Exactly. Your question makes my point. It’s not the CPU/SoC. It’s the RAM. There’s no point getting a machine with 1/4 or 1/2 the RAM/Unified Memory and expecting it to compete with a machine with more RAM. The M1 isn’t magic




Vik said:


> most potential VI users won't buy an M1 Mac just to sort all this out.


Nope.

Only those who make the decision to approach a machine with less RAM. And the tactics of approaching a machine with less RAM remain consistent, even if the CPU is Intel or AMD.

I don’t have the M1 to do more tests but I could try opening the same sessions on my Intel.

But I’m saying there’s no point in hoping 16GB of RAM/Unified Memory will do what 64Gb does.


----------



## mat1

Soundbed said:


> I’m not sure I fully understand you. What remains for you to figure out, specifically?
> 
> I spent a week with the M1 and posted three different videos. (I recorded a fourth and will edit and post at some point but it’s not germane to this reply.)
> 
> I posted in some other M1 threads here on VI-C so maybe I feel like I’m repeating myself here…
> 
> What I learned, that I am trying to express and share with you all in this forum, is that in a real world experiment/test of “what can I get done?” I was indeed constrained by the amount of RAM / Unified Memory on the M1.
> 
> Using a much slower swap file will only get you so far. The stability of the session was ultimately compromised.



Is this correct?

No preload changes - 32 tracks, 8gb swap, 1024 buffer
18kb preload - 32 tracks, unknown swap, 16 buffer
18kb preload - 64 tracks, 15gb swap, 128 buffer
18kb preload - 96 tracks, Low latency mode, 30gb swap, 1024 buffer


Watching the video though it's not clear that the swap file size is the issue over just the CPU crapping out from running 96 non native tracks? Would an Intel Mac be able to play back that same project at the same buffer/settings? Out of interest did you try the same test without purging? or at 6kb preload? 

I know you've sent your M1 back now so really it's just about comparing it to an Intel if you're still interested.


----------



## Vik

Soundbed said:


> Why? I feel like I might be missing something or being obstinate. What’s interesting exactly?



The main thought behind my previous post was simply that I still don't know how much only using the 18k-buffer trick _alone_ helps.
A test without purged samples but using the reduced Kontakt-buffer would let users who only see a purge-based workflow as a last-resort-kind-of-solution know how far a M1 Mac is away from working as expected when using the 18-kb trick. I haven't personally seen any documentation of this. I know now that you have returned the M1, and the fact that you wrote "There’s no point getting a machine with 1/4 or 1/2 the RAM/Unified Memory and expecting it to compete with a machine with more RAM" clarifies your view on this. Thats useful, because there are posts elsewhere claiming that one with an M1 Mac can get away with less RAM than with Intel Macs.

"Totally agree. I should try my M1 sessions on my 2018 MBP i9 with 32GB RAM and see how they perform"
Thanks!

"I was indeed constrained by the amount of RAM / Unified Memory on the M1." This is also very clarifying. Thanks again.


----------



## StefVR

Lets not forget that Kontakt is not an universal app yet and even the Rosetta2 mode is not in their supported list. So issues are to be expected.
I got an M1 mac and if you run inky uniersal app vst its awesome but for example action strings 2 has some huge issues in kontakt.


----------



## Soundbed

mat1 said:


> Is this correct?
> 
> No preload changes - 32 tracks, 8gb swap, 1024 buffer
> 18kb preload - 32 tracks, unknown swap, 16 buffer
> 18kb preload - 64 tracks, 15gb swap, 128 buffer
> 18kb preload - 96 tracks, Low latency mode, 30gb swap, 1024 buffer
> 
> 
> Watching the video though it's not clear that the swap file size is the issue over just the CPU crapping out from running 96 non native tracks? Would an Intel Mac be able to play back that same project at the same buffer/settings? Out of interest did you try the same test without purging? or at 6kb preload?
> 
> I know you've sent your M1 back now so really it's just about comparing it to an Intel if you're still interested.



Haven't had time to try the same sessions from the M1 on my Intel yet but your numbers look about right, a good summary of my brief testing. The missing “column” from your list might be the “stability” though with regards to this thread. The 96 tracks session always crashed eventually — not sure what I could have done to “fix” that or get around it. One of the 64-ish track sessions was always crackling (my day four video maybe?) but it might not be on your list because I think I had the default preload buffer sizes. 

@Vik
I think the premise of this thread — how many “pro” tracks can reliably run on an X could benefit from a couple more guard rails in place to be useful to a wide audience. Either the caveats that one cannot modify workflow / approach, or that any approach to reach a high track count is valid. Plus really honing in on which instruments should be considered “pro” for the tests. CSS was mentioned as I recall but we’ve seen from similar threads that some libraries just won’t work well and others will work fine. Some sample players will run more or less efficiently and still be considered “pro”. 

Personally my short experience with with an M1 showed me that it’s a great machine and a dream to use. If I’d had a 128GB VEP slave rig all set up, it probably would have been the best of all worlds.


----------



## Vik

Soundbed said:


> I think the premise of this thread — how many “pro” tracks can reliably run on an X could benefit from a couple more guard rails in place to be useful to a wide audience.



Hi again, the reason I mentioned what I did (libraries like SCS, SSS, MSS, CSS, Berlin Strings etc, not simple freebies/basic orchestral sampler based tracks that come with your DAW, libraries with round robins, multiple dynamic layers and similar functions...) was to narrow it all down to a certain group of libraries, but of course, this is far from being a scientific comparison.



Soundbed said:


> If I’d had a 128GB VEP slave rig all set up, it probably would have been the best of all worlds.


That's an interesting thought as well, all depending on how powerful the slave would be, of course. If the M1 mainly should run MIDI and send those signals over to another PC/Mac and get audio streams in return, using an M1 could possibly be an overkill. I couldn't run my current 12-core Intel Mac as a slave, for instance, even with 128 gb RAM.
Maybe this thread isn't as oriented towards a wide audience as it could have been, but OTOH: I want a simple setup without a slave, which is probably what most VI users out there would prefer anyway, depending on their budgets.

"there’s no point in hoping 16GB of RAM/Unified Memory will do what 64Gb does" 
And that's why I'm not buying one now. I really want to move over to a Apple Silicon based Mac, but based on what I've seen in this and similar threads, it's simply too early for the kind of work and libraries that are interesting for me. I guess my best solution now is to go for an Intel iMac with at least 64 gb for a while, and move on to an Apple Silicon based Mac once they are available with at least 64 gb RAM.


----------



## Soundbed

Vik said:


> I couldn't run my current 12-core Intel Mac as a slave, for instance, even with 128 gb RAM.


Why not?


----------



## Soundbed

Vik said:


> the reason I mentioned what I did (libraries like SCS, SSS, MSS, CSS, Berlin Strings etc, not simple freebies/basic orchestral sampler based tracks that come with your DAW, libraries with round robins, multiple dynamic layers and similar functions...) was to narrow it all down to a certain group of libraries, but of course, this is far from being a scientific comparison



Yes I think my thought process started with the same general idea before I got my hands on a rig to test. Now that I’ve seen it, I feel more or less “convinced” that purging RAM will be critical on any 16GB system and the tests must become more pseudo-scientific / limited in order to be useful because there are so many variables to “track count”. I appreciate your patience with my responses and wish I had more time to actually do the wider variety of testing I wanted to see to “prove” my points.


Vik said:


> I really want to move over to a Apple Silicon based Mac, but based on what I've seen in this and similar threads, it's simply too early for the kind of work and libraries that are interesting for me. I guess my best solution now is to go for an Intel iMac with at least 64 gb for a while, and move on to an Apple Silicon based Mac once they are available with at least 64 gb RAM.


You and me both, but I will likely be content with 32GB because that is all I need/use today.


----------



## Vik

Soundbed said:


> Why not?


It's a 12-core, but the processor speed is only 2.66 GHz, so the single core performance isn't good enough. Besides, since a slave shall do all the hard work, I'd want the fastest computer to be the slave and the other one to do the easy work... so, if I had a good slave and the master mainly should record and trigger MIDI notes and receive some audio from the slave, I don't need a M1 Mac to do that. The slave will take care of crossfading between dynamic and vibrato layers, maybe handle several layers on one track and so on, so for that I need a computer which both can handle all this and also have enough RAM. 


Soundbed said:


> I appreciate your patience with my responses and wish I had more time to actually do the wider variety of testing I wanted to see to “prove” my points.


Oh, you have provided with a lot of helpful info both in the M1 and the MSS threads already... I think I know enough to make a decision about not going for a M1 Mac yet. 


Soundbed said:


> Now that I’ve seen it, I feel more or less “convinced” that purging RAM will be critical on any 16GB system


Sure, 16 gb isn't enough on a fast Intel Mac either. I don't know much about Studio One, but in Logic freezing/unfreezing tracks is easier than purging samples anyway – and freezing automatically purges _all_ samples. Maybe I'll try to 18kb trick on my Mac Pro, but since the main problem for me is poor single core performance, I'm not sure if that will help much, if anything. At the moment, my main frustration is that Apple doesn't make Intel Mac minis with iMac specs – that would have been helpful until the Apple Silicon reaches next level.


----------



## Soundbed

Vik said:


> the processor speed is only 2.66 GHz


interesting, I run a 6 core 2.9GHz i9 and don't really experience issues ... I would think 12 cores at 2.66GHz would be fine / fast enough for a nice slave ... horses for courses, I guess.


Vik said:


> you have provided with a lot of helpful info both in the M1 and the MSS threads



good, I really like to help when I can! thanks!


----------



## Vik

mat1 said:


> at 6kb preload?


I've had my system set to 6kb since I started storing samples on SSDs many years ago. Did anyone here compare 6kb with the other settings?


----------



## Vik

Vik said:


> Most likely, all this will change when Kontakt, Sine and other players have gone Apple Silicon native.


Has anything been said yet, from Native Instruments, Spitfire, Orchestral Tools or others about when their sample will be available natively for Apple Silicon?


----------



## Pier

Vik said:


> Has anything been said yet, from Native Instruments, Spitfire, Orchestral Tools or others about when their sample will be available natively for Apple Silicon?


I could be wrong, but for a number of reasons I think NI will release a new major version of Kontakt with M1 compatibility rather than making Kontakt 6 M1 compatible:

1) M1 compatibility will probably be expensive to develop for such a massive product like Kontakt.

2) A lot of people are waiting for it so it will be a good reason to upgrade Kontakt or Komplete.

3) NI is probably working on a big update for the new Kontakt version much like what they did for Massive X.

U-He is already M1 compatible, but Spitfire and OT will probably take more time as these are not software companies per se.


----------



## Soundbed

Pages to watch for updates on "Apple Silicon" (note "Big Sur" might have a different answer) ...

NI








Apple Silicon (M1) Compatibility News


On November 10th, 2020, Apple announced the release of the first Mac computers to contain Apple Silicon, their new generation of processors. Apple Silicon Macs require Apple’s latest macOS operatin...




support.native-instruments.com





SF


https://spitfireaudio.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360019055957-Apple-Silicon-M1-Compatibility-Chart-for-Spitfire-Audio-Libraries



OT
https://orchestraltools.helpscoutdocs.com/article/394-m1-powered-apple-silicon-apple-mac-compatiblity-information


----------



## RixMusik

Hi good news! Currently able to load about *70 instruments *comprising VSL Synchron Special Editions and various Kontakt instruments such as Evolve, 8DIO and LASS Lite. My memory used is 13 - 14 GB (*M1 16GB Memory*) MacBook Pro.
Not ideal because it's showing an orange Memory Pressure indicator once over about 13.50GB. I'll see if I can shave off some more. I might not need a Bassoon as well as a Tuba for instance. But when I make the same template in VEPro it uses up 20.

I've loaded it directly into Cubase rather than VEPro. When I load the same template into VEPro, it usually uses up about 25 GB RAM. A clear 10GB more.

I've added MIR Pro to most (currently building the template) I think my *Kontakt* instruments were talking up a lot of memory because, *although I had set it to preload 6KB and made sure it override the default, maybe VEPro was ignoring that and loading way more in?*

Since I last wrote, I sold my previous MBP (13 inch 16GB RAM 2TB) because of RAM frustrations and I wanted to build a PC. So I built that over the Summer (AMD 5900x, 64GB RAM 3600Mhz, 2TB NVMe) and it is a beast. However, I had a really good deal as a PhD student and regretted not having a portable solution, so I re-purchased a MBP again! This time, only 1TB SSD and I've lost a few hundred through my stupid indecision, but I am very glad that I can load so many instruments. I am still deciding over keeping this (within return policy) or keeping a Dell Inspiron laptop that I upgraded the RAM in, from 8GB to 40GB, which handles the RAM issue with ease, and the processor is a good i5-10300H (obviously inferior to the M1 thought).

The downside of keeping the M1 and selling the Dell, is not being able to use VEPro within one system which I became accustomed to with the desktop. I've got that desktop to load up my templates if I need the extra power, if I keep the MBP.


----------



## Soundbed

RixMusik said:


> Hi good news! Currently able to load about *70 instruments *comprising VSL Synchron Special Editions and various Kontakt instruments such as Evolve, 8DIO and LASS Lite. My memory used is 13 - 14 GB (*M1 16GB Memory*) MacBook Pro.
> Not ideal because it's showing an orange Memory Pressure indicator once over about 13.50GB. I'll see if I can shave off some more. I might not need a Bassoon as well as a Tuba for instance. But when I make the same template in VEPro it uses up 20.
> 
> I've loaded it directly into Cubase rather than VEPro. When I load the same template into VEPro, it usually uses up about 25 GB RAM. A clear 10GB more.
> 
> I've added MIR Pro to most (currently building the template) I think my *Kontakt* instruments were talking up a lot of memory because, *although I had set it to preload 6KB and made sure it override the default, maybe VEPro was ignoring that and loading way more in?*
> 
> Since I last wrote, I sold my previous MBP (13 inch 16GB RAM 2TB) because of RAM frustrations and I wanted to build a PC. So I built that over the Summer (AMD 5090x, 64GB RAM 3600Mhz, 2TB NVMe) and it is a beast. However, I had a really good deal as a PhD student and regretted not having a portable solution, so I re-purchased a MBP again! This time, only 1TB SSD and I've lost a few hundred through my stupid indecision, but I am very glad that I can load so many instruments. I am still deciding over keeping this (within return policy) or keeping a Dell Inspiron laptop that I upgraded the RAM in, from 8GB to 40GB, which handles the RAM issue with ease, and the processor is a good i5-10300H (obviously inferior to the M1 thought).
> 
> The downside of keeping the M1 and selling the Dell, is not being able to use VEPro within one system which I became accustomed to with the desktop. I've got that desktop to load up my templates if I need the extra power, if I keep the MBP.


Naive question but isn’t there a “global” RAM purge feature in VEP? I seem to recall that being a feature I remember hearing about.


----------



## RixMusik

Soundbed said:


> Naive question but isn’t there a “global” RAM purge feature in VEP? I seem to recall that being a feature I remember hearing about.


I think I was asked that question here before. I can't remember if someone answered it. I've used VEPro cince 2017. I haven't come across that. 
I don't think it works that way. You can mute instruments but they just mute and the RAM footprint is still there. I also never understood the point of freezing tracks. I need all tracks in a template available immediately, as inspiration flows. In VEPro it is built to house massive templates to be managed by a server computer that has a ton of processing and RAM power, so I don't see how purging or freezing would have been in their mindset, designing it.


----------



## Soundbed

RixMusik said:


> I think I was asked that question here before. I can't remember if someone answered it. I've used VEPro cince 2017. I haven't come across that.
> I don't think it works that way. You can mute instruments but they just mute and the RAM footprint is still there. I also never understood the point of freezing tracks. I need all tracks in a template available immediately, as inspiration flows. In VEPro it is built to house massive templates to be managed by a server computer that has a ton of processing and RAM power, so I don't see how purging or freezing would have been in their mindset, designing it.


Ok. RAM purge is totally different from freezing tracks to audio though.


----------



## RixMusik

synthetic said:


> I disagree, it all works together. Whether the processor, disk, or RAM buffer is the limiting factor, it will be found when you max out the voices. Annoyingly, you can’t always tell what the bottleneck is. It might say 100% CPU, but because it’s working too hard because of a RAM shortage. That’s why the high-end composers max out everything they can.


I'm a high-end composer. What does it mean anyway?  Do I get a badge for composing music for Warner, Universal Pictures, Sky etc? But I get your point. That's why I've had my fun with messing about on the M1 this morning, fired up my desktop and have to get on with finishing a frustrating score I'm working on


----------



## RixMusik

Soundbed said:


> Ok. RAM purge is totally different from freezing tracks to audio though.


Oh, ok. I half though that after I hit the reply button haha! Sorry.

So, purge isn't a feature I've come across. It's not to say it's not there. I just haven't found it perhaps.

I will follow up with VSL developers as there is a clear hit on the RAM impact when loading VIs into VEPro vs into Cubase directly on the M1, even though VEPro is meant to be more RAM efficient when used with a DAW, even within the same system as the DAW. In both scenarios, using the 6KB.


----------



## Soundbed

RixMusik said:


> *although I had set it to preload 6KB and made sure it override the default, maybe VEPro was ignoring that and loading way more in?*





RixMusik said:


> I will follow up with VSL developers as there is a clear hit on the RAM impact when loading VIs into VEPro vs into Cubase directly on the M1


Yeah it would be interesting to investigate, I’d be interested in hearing if you find a way to get the VEP RAM footprint down.

(I own VEP but haven’t found a desirable way to incorporate it into my workflow yet. I frequently change projects, and dragging in preset groups+effects I’ve saved into Studio One allows me to have a “modular template” workflow.)

Here is a mention I found on the forum fwiw (not much because it’s not specific) that seems to confirm there might be ways to adjust the preload buffer and RAM purge “globally” in VEP … somewhere. 😂





__





Auto "Purge All" in VSL / VEP / VI - Vienna Instruments & Ensemble Software - FORUMS - Vienna Symphonic Library


No description




www.vsl.co.at


----------



## marius_dm

Pier said:


> 1) M1 compatibility will probably be expensive to develop for such a massive product like Kontakt.


Well, it is kind of ridiculous that most major DAWs except Cubase and Pro Tools are Apple Silicon native already, while VST instrument companies are dragging their feet.


----------



## Pier

marius_dm said:


> Well, it is kind of ridiculous that most major DAWs except Cubase and Pro Tools are Apple Silicon native already, while VST instrument companies are dragging their feet.


The issue is that a lot of software projects have third party dependencies, and not all of those can be compiled to ARM.

Stuff like JUCE makes it easy to start developing plugins, but then Apple throws you a curveball and you rely on JUCE to solve that for you.

FabFilter, U-He, and others already are M1 compatible because they chose the hard road of making a lot of stuff themselves so they have more control over their code.


----------



## Soundbed

Pier said:


> The issue is that a lot of software projects have third party dependencies, and not all of those can be compiled to ARM.
> 
> Stuff like JUCE makes it easy to start developing plugins, but then Apple throws you a curveball and you rely on JUCE to solve that for you.
> 
> FabFilter, U-He, and others already are M1 compatible because they chose the hard road of making a lot of stuff themselves so they have more control over their code.


This answer makes a lot of sense thanks for explaining.


----------



## RixMusik

Soundbed said:


> Yeah it would be interesting to investigate, I’d be interested in hearing if you find a way to get the VEP RAM footprint down.
> 
> (I own VEP but haven’t found a desirable way to incorporate it into my workflow yet. I frequently change projects, and dragging in preset groups+effects I’ve saved into Studio One allows me to have a “modular template” workflow.)
> 
> Here is a mention I found on the forum fwiw (not much because it’s not specific) that seems to confirm there might be ways to adjust the preload buffer and RAM purge “globally” in VEP … somewhere. 😂
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Auto "Purge All" in VSL / VEP / VI - Vienna Instruments & Ensemble Software - FORUMS - Vienna Symphonic Library
> 
> 
> No description
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vsl.co.at


Ah thanks! I'll check that out


----------



## RixMusik

Soundbed said:


> (I own VEP but haven’t found a desirable way to incorporate it into my workflow yet. I frequently change projects, and dragging in preset groups+effects I’ve saved into Studio One allows me to have a “modular template” workflow.)


I'm the same and that is a drawback of using VEPro. It is fantastic if you've got a set template with hundreds of instruments, but I like to load in my VIs within the DAW, as my inspiration takes me. It's rather awkward and a bit frustrating to have to load a new VI in VEPro, create a MIDI track in the DAW, select the port and channel and then audition the sound to see if it's what you are looking for. Removing that VI from VEPro if it doesn't suit, re-loading an new VI to try out etc etc. It might not seem a long-winded task, but it feels that way because it is more than just 1 step and happens a lot of times during the composition and recording process.

Even just auditioning tracks from within a preloaded DAW is easier due to less steps and having everything in one screen. I'll try playing around with the lower preload for VSL VIs within the M1 and see if I can get a powerful template up and running, which I'm close on achieving so far thanks to your and others' tips here.


----------



## Tronam

Pier said:


> The issue is that a lot of software projects have third party dependencies, and not all of those can be compiled to ARM.
> 
> Stuff like JUCE makes it easy to start developing plugins, but then Apple throws you a curveball and you rely on JUCE to solve that for you.
> 
> FabFilter, U-He, and others already are M1 compatible because they chose the hard road of making a lot of stuff themselves so they have more control over their code.


One of the biggest impediments right now preventing many plugin developers and even Avid themselves from releasing M1 native updates is iLok. Until their updated protection wrapper tools are released tons of companies are just sitting on their hands waiting and I bet most have working versions already. It's annoying too because probably half of my 300 plugins depend on iLok. Most of the quickest M1 adopters have been the smaller, more nimble devs who don't use protection schemes like that.


----------



## givemenoughrope

Anyone using one of the 1st-gen MBP M1 machines with 16GB RAM as a master along with sample/synth slaves? Seems like it would be fine for large-ish orch/hybrid templates along with some help. Trying to think of a reason not to go for this.


----------



## Soundbed

givemenoughrope said:


> Anyone using one of the 1st-gen MBP M1 machines with 16GB RAM as a master along with sample/synth slaves? Seems like it would be fine for large-ish orch/hybrid templates along with some help. Trying to think of a reason not to go for this.


I’ll be trying a Mac Mini M1 with only 8GB RAM as a VEP master in the next weeks.


----------



## Vik

UPDATE MARCH 2022:

Please ignore the poll in this thread – not only doesn't the results make much sense, but the poll was about the initial M1, and not about M1 Max, Studio or Pro.

It seems that I can't remove the poll and add a new one instead, but I wonder if any of you have something to share about the performance in the three above mentioned Apple Silicon Macs?


----------



## mat1

I 


Tronam said:


> One of the biggest impediments right now preventing many plugin developers and even Avid themselves from releasing M1 native updates is iLok. Until their updated protection wrapper tools are released tons of companies are just sitting on their hands waiting and I bet most have working versions already. It's annoying too because probably half of my 300 plugins depend on iLok. Most of the quickest M1 adopters have been the smaller, more nimble devs who don't use protection schemes like that.


Believe native iLok is rolling out as we speak


----------



## Tronam

mat1 said:


> I
> 
> Believe native iLok is rolling out as we speak


Yeah, it’s finally official. https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/ilok-gets-full-apple-silicon-support

Anyone on an M1 Mac who uses it should launch the iLok license manager and they ought to see the v6.5 GM update.


----------



## Soundbed

Vik said:


> UPDATE MARCH 2022:
> 
> Please ignore the poll in this thread – not only doesn't the results make much sense, but the poll was about the initial M1, and not about M1 Max, Studio or Pro.
> 
> It seems that I can't remove the poll and add a new one instead, but I wonder if any of you have something to share about the performance in the three above mentioned Apple Silicon Macs?


I’ve still got the 8GB Mac Mini for testing, and a Mac Studio with 64GB on the way … I’ll be making more videos after a couple unrelated projects are complete.


----------

