# VEP5, Logic ProX and cpu



## Soundhound (May 19, 2014)

I got VEP5 to try and lower cpu usage a bit. I'm pushing the envelope on my system (iMac 2.93 ghz i7, 32 gigs ram) a some points of a few things I'm working on. I'm just getting my feet wet, but so far not seeing the results I was hoping for. I've just tried it on one project, replacing about 10 tracks each with it's own VEP instance with one Kontact instrument, pretty much all strings. The CPU still maxes out at a couple of points and there's some crackling and popping. Not every time, but about half the time I'd say. Sometimes it squeaks by. 

I'm wondering if there are some tricks to keeping CPU usage low in Logic with VEP5 perhaps that I might be able to try? I haven't tried putting multiple instruments in one (or two) VEP 5 instances, because the multi routing seems like a bit of a pain, and it's nice to just treat it like any other plugin (with just an extra step) when you want to add an instrument etc) though if it were the answer I'd be all for it. 

Anything else I should be looking at as well? Buffer size, etc? 

Thanks!!


----------



## ThomasL (May 19, 2014)

I don't think VEP5 will help you much in the CPU department. Memory, yes, but not CPU.

What buffer size are you running at?

And, do try with multiple. Otherwise you're just adding to the CPU mountain


----------



## Simplesly (May 19, 2014)

Yes, try setting your DAW's buffer to 256 or even 512 samples if you can live with that much latency. 

I have owned that exact machine (mid 2010) and while it's no dog by any stretch, trying to run logic and a bunch of VEpro together with 7200rpm drives (as I'm assuming you're also doing) used to bring it to its knees, as well as ramp the fans up to rocket booster SPL. I would guess you might get some help from adding a SSD, but it's a rough task opening that sucker up, and you're stuck at sata 2 speeds. I eventually sold mine and went to the 2012 Mac mini quad with SSDs. I'm at 128 samples and 10 instances of VE and the machine barely breaks a sweat. 

Maybe do as ThomasL suggested and load more than one instrument per instance, also play around with the threads setting for each VE frame and see if that helps. If not, it's the machine. Adding a mac mini (even an i5) with SSD drives would maybe be the way to go. Haswell minis will be out soon...


----------



## Soundhound (May 19, 2014)

I've got an internal ssd and most of the insturments are on an external ssd, though some are still on 7200 I think. I'm on the brink of getting a Mac Pro, but thought I'd try vep5 with the iMac first and see if I could get more mileage out of it. I'll try the multis and thread settings as you suggest. What's the process with setting the threads? More threads, less pressure on CPU, or visa versa?

Haswell mini would be cool as well! I'm intent on raising the ceiling, getting a lot more headroom, don't care how it happens really.


----------



## Soundhound (May 19, 2014)

Thomasl, I'm not sure what buffer size I'm running at. I'm looking into this stuff now. Much to learn...


----------



## samphony (May 19, 2014)

And try to turn off multiprocessor support in Kontakt AU. Set VE pro to 2 threads per instance.


----------



## Soundhound (May 19, 2014)

Thanks, will try that as well.

Do you guys think I should have seen so e improvement in CPU headroom with vep5 (before trying any of the things suggested so far in this thread), or is it not surprising that it was about the same as not using vep5?


----------



## milesito (May 19, 2014)

It has been worse do far for me using VE pro 5 and Logic Pro x on a 2013 iMac with 32 fb of ram and an ssd. However I am setting up the multi port template now and seems a tad but more stable. I have 150 instruments to load do it is taking a bit ore time. After that I will tweak the threads and buffers as many have suggested on other forum threads...the multi port set up
Is very easy to set up per the new groove3 tutorial and I am going from 13 VE pro instances to 4.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 19, 2014)

which IMHO is a mistake.


----------



## Soundhound (May 19, 2014)

Side question: How do you delete an instrument from a channel in the mixer in VEP5, without having to delete the channel itself? 

Back to the discussion at hand. Jay what's the mistake you're referring to?


----------



## milesito (May 19, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon May 19 said:


> which IMHO is a mistake.




HI Jay - which part is a mistake? setting up a multiport environment, loading 150 instruments into a template, or setting it to 4 threads per instance only (based on the fact that I have a 4 core processor?) And why is it a mistake? Is it just stability? THanks in advance for the feedback and clarification.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 19, 2014)

milesito @ Mon May 19 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon May 19 said:
> 
> 
> > which IMHO is a mistake.
> ...



Using the multiport environment is strike one.
\using 4 threads instead of 2 per instance is strike two.

WITH LOGIC PRO and not necessarily any other DAW, more patches in a v-frame (VE Pro project) with fewer v-frames rather than more v-frames with less in them is strike three.

And you're out


----------



## Soundhound (May 19, 2014)

So jay do you think I'm doing it the best way so far? One instrument per vep instance, using about 8 instances. 

It hasn't changed the load on the CPU to any degree that I can tell. Should it be having a greater effect? If so, anything you'd suggest to adjust?

Thanks!



EastWest Lurker @ Mon May 19 said:


> milesito @ Mon May 19 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Mon May 19 said:
> ...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 19, 2014)

Soundhound @ Mon May 19 said:


> So jay do you think I'm doing it the best way so far? One instrument per vep instance, using about 8 instances.
> 
> It hasn't changed the load on the CPU to any degree that I can tell. Should it be having a greater effect? If so, anything you'd suggest to adjust?
> 
> ...



Yep. 1 instrument e.g HS Vln 1 with all necessary articulations, per v-frame. In my largest PC VE Pro m-frame I have 27 of them, about 12 in my Mac m-frame. In the ones I use most commonly, more like 20 of them on the PC.


----------



## milesito (May 19, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon May 19 said:


> Soundhound @ Mon May 19 said:
> 
> 
> > So jay do you think I'm doing it the best way so far? One instrument per vep instance, using about 8 instances.
> ...



HI Jay - so does this also mean to only input ONE audio plug in (1 instance of play) per instance of VEPro? (meaning having no more than 16 midi channels per instance of VEPro) Or could I put an instance of Play and an instance of Additictive Keys in the same instance of VEPro? Also, is it ok to load up 16 patches or instruments into each instance of Play or is it more efficient to only load in 10 over more instances of VEPro?

THanks again!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 19, 2014)

This is the point: 1 VE Pro plug-in = 1 instrument in 1 VE Pro project so no audio inputs, just the master bus out in each VE Pro v-frame and no auxes = best core distribution and best voice count.

i find that 5-8 patches per instrument easily gets my work done.

And no, do not mix Play with other sample engines in the same instance. If you are using both Play and Kontakt also, have the Play VE Pro v-frames load first.

Personally, I keep my rhythm section and synths stuff in Logic and use VE Pro for orchestral instruments.


----------



## Simon Ravn (May 20, 2014)

Simplesly @ Tue May 20 said:


> Yes, try setting your DAW's buffer to 256 or even 512 samples if you can live with that much latency.



In Logic you might as well set sample buffer to 512 or even 1024 - it has no influence on realtime MIDI recording of software instruments - they will always be armed at a set "live buffer" (which I think is 128 or thereabout - maybe Jay knows the exact size). Bottom line, no reason to have a low buffer setting in Logic unless you do live audio recording or such.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 20, 2014)

That is incorrect Simon. If you have a higher audio buffer setting you WILL notice more latency playing a software instrument.

The non-live tracks do indeed always go to a higher buffer so that Logic can playback more but the I/O bugger relates directly to Live mode for both audio monitoring and software insruments.


----------



## Soundhound (May 20, 2014)

So it's sounding to me like vep5 doesn't really gain you much cpu headroom, if any at all in fact, with Logic on a single machine. Would anyone disagree with that?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 20, 2014)

Soundhound @ Tue May 20 said:


> So it's sounding to me like vep5 doesn't really gain you much cpu headroom, if any at all in fact, with Logic on a single machine. Would anyone disagree with that?



No, CPU gains is not what it is about. Even distribution throughout the cores is and with Logic Pro, since it is the most CPU efficient DAW but does not spread multi-timbral instances throughout the cores, is a big deal.


----------



## Soundhound (May 20, 2014)

Whoops, then I bought it for the wrong reason. Oh well, I got the Epic Orchestra and if I ever want to use a sample slave I'll be set. 

Mac Pro, (or new mini for a slave) here I come.


----------



## Simplesly (May 20, 2014)

Soundhound @ Tue May 20 said:


> Whoops, then I bought it for the wrong reason. Oh well, I got the Epic Orchestra and if I ever want to use a sample slave I'll be set.
> 
> Mac Pro, (or new mini for a slave) here I come.



The new Mac Pro, IMO, overkill. No offense meant to anyone who ponied up for one. I'm sure it's awesome. But a couple mac minis, or an iMac and a mini, and you are set if you want to stay all mac with vepro. 

Also, SH, don't forget that you can set up a decoupled template that always stays loaded when switching projects, which will save you time, if not CPU power.


----------



## samphony (May 20, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue May 20 said:


> which IMHO is a mistake.



I have to agree with jay. Regarding logic it's the best thing I did so far. Reliable, stable fast and what not.


----------



## samphony (May 20, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue May 20 said:


> This is the point: 1 VE Pro plug-in = 1 instrument in 1 VE Pro project so no audio inputs, just the master bus out in each VE Pro v-frame and no auxes = best core distribution and best voice count.
> 
> i find that 5-8 patches per instrument easily gets my work done.
> 
> ...



Funny, exact same workflow without knowing yours.


----------



## Soundhound (May 20, 2014)

I'm not married to vepro. In fact we've only had one date and sparks have yet to fly. 

I only got it to try and get more headroom, A LOT more headroom, than what I've got now. I'm up for going with iMac/mac mini if it'll get the job done, cost less etc. I'm just wondering since I'm trying to have the best possible workflow, if a MacPro without vepro might be a simpler setup than an iMac with a Mini slave (or two and vepro). 




Simplesly @ Tue May 20 said:


> Soundhound @ Tue May 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Whoops, then I bought it for the wrong reason. Oh well, I got the Epic Orchestra and if I ever want to use a sample slave I'll be set.
> ...


----------



## Soundhound (May 20, 2014)

An 8 Core Mac Pro with 512 internal flash drive, 64 gigs of ram (from OWC) and a monitor ($500 or so) comes to about $7k all in. If I went 6 cores it would be about $5500.

A new thunderbolt iMac, 512k ssd internal w/32 gigs of owc ram and a (current) mac mini w/16 gigs owc ram (hopefully the new mini will support 32...) comes to about $5k all in. 

Then I’m wondering about just getting a mini as a slave,staying with my current imac, and waiting for Apple to come out with an audio-optimized Mac Pro. I’m also waiting for the Knicks to win the championship. That’s a lot of waiting….


----------



## milesito (May 20, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon May 19 said:


> This is the point: 1 VE Pro plug-in = 1 instrument in 1 VE Pro project so no audio inputs, just the master bus out in each VE Pro v-frame and no auxes = best core distribution and best voice count.
> 
> i find that 5-8 patches per instrument easily gets my work done.
> 
> ...




Jay could not be more right about this. My system with the 3 strikes mentioned above had no chance and could barely play more than 6 instruments at a time. lots of time wasted on setting up the multiport environment. The groove3 tutorial on multiport set up in Logic, in my experience, is truly misguiding...unless I am missing something. It totally does not consider how logic utilizes cores and it breaks down really quickly...so - THANK YOU JAY!


----------



## Simon Ravn (May 21, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue May 20 said:


> That is incorrect Simpn. If you have a higher audio buffer setting you WILL notice more latency playing a software instrument.
> 
> The non-live tracks do indeed always go to a higher buffer so that Logic can playback more but the I/O bugger relates directly to Live mode for both audio monitoring and software insruments.



Ah ok, I stand corrected


----------



## Simplesly (May 21, 2014)

Soundhound @ Tue May 20 said:


> An 8 Core Mac Pro with 512 internal flash drive, 64 gigs of ram (from OWC) and a monitor ($500 or so) comes to about $7k all in. If I went 6 cores it would be about $5500.
> 
> A new thunderbolt iMac, 512k ssd internal w/32 gigs of owc ram and a (current) mac mini w/16 gigs owc ram (hopefully the new mini will support 32...) comes to about $5k all in.
> 
> Then I’m wondering about just getting a mini as a slave,staying with my current imac, and waiting for Apple to come out with an audio-optimized Mac Pro. I’m also waiting for the Knicks to win the championship. That’s a lot of waiting….



If you buy everything through apple, yes.. But if you go aftermarket, you'll save a ton. Plus the combined horsepower of an i7 iMac and a quad Mac mini is much more than what you'll get from a single Mac pro. The benefit of the pro is that you can get inside it more easily. That is a small benefit in my mind though. Of course if you use PCIe cards, the Mac pro is probably going to be more cost effective in the long run.


----------



## milesito (May 21, 2014)

In the Mac mini as a slave example, is the thought to host vepro samples on each computer systems or just on the slave?


----------



## Soundhound (May 21, 2014)

If you can go by cpu speed x number of cores, a 2013 Mac mini and imac give you a number of about 24 and a 2013 Mac Pro 6 core about a 21, an 8 core about 28.

Is there more horsepower provided by a multi computer setup than just cpu speed x cores?





Simplesly @ Wed May 21 said:


> If you buy everything through apple, yes.. But if you go aftermarket, you'll save a ton. Plus the combined horsepower of an i7 iMac and a quad Mac mini is much more than what you'll get from a single Mac pro. The benefit of the pro is that you can get inside it more easily. That is a small benefit in my mind though. Of course if you use PCIe cards, the Mac pro is probably going to be more cost effective in the long run.


----------



## Simplesly (May 21, 2014)

Soundhound @ Wed May 21 said:


> If you can go by cpu speed x number of cores, a 2013 Mac mini and imac give you a number of about 24 and a 2013 Mac Pro 6 core about a 21, an 8 core about 28.
> 
> Is there more horsepower provided by a multi computer setup than just cpu speed x cores?
> 
> ...



Multiplying clock speed by number of cores is not the way to determine whether one computer is more powerful than another, unless of course all machines in question are from the same processor family, and have the same ram/hd/graphics etc.

Try going to geekbench.com and looking these up. You'll find that 64 bit scores of the individual Mac Pro machines are higher than the individual mini or iMac, but remember you're gonna be using the iMac and mini in tandem with ve pro to host more stuff. Not to say that the Mac Pro is not capable of handling your template, it's just you can get more power for less if you split the workload between two machines. Though, one machine is a simpler way to go, one can't argue against that...


----------



## Soundhound (May 21, 2014)

I see what you're saying. My 2010 imac and a 2012 mac mini beat out a new mac pro 6 core, while a 2013 iMac and a new mini (assuming there is one) will probably beat the 8 core... I'd love to run everything on one machine and not deal with vepro but there's definitely a price to be paid for that...


----------



## milesito (May 21, 2014)

Here is the best place to also look up the processor specs...it even talks about cache per processor. Typically the xeon server class processors have more cache and other features and technologies that the desktop processors don't have. Desktop processors only go up to 4 cores whereas the server class chips have 6 and 8 cores...Haswell generation is the 4th generation architecture chip which is out for desktop right now. However, for the server processors they are only on the 3rd generation architecture (Ivy Bridge). Typically with each generation you get more cores or more clock speed or both in the same thermal TDP envelope. But since Desktop is currently on a later generation of process architecture, the performance gap is less (since the desktop chip gets a bump in specs) than when the haswell 4th generation server chips come out which could have more cores and cache. The desktop and mobile processor chips seem to have stopped at 4 cores so far, whereas the server chips for nehalem-> west mere-> sandy bridge->ivy bridge generation processors have increased in core count by 2 each time.

http://ark.intel.com


----------



## Peter Costa (May 22, 2014)

Soundhound,

Don't feel like VEPro is a complete waste of your time. You can still use it as your main template engine. Only have to load your samples once, and if logic happens to close your samples are still loaded through VEPro. I don't use a slave but have found VEpro to have saved me MUCH more time when working on projects.


----------



## milesito (May 22, 2014)

Peter Costa @ Thu May 22 said:


> Soundhound,
> 
> Don't feel like VEPro is a complete waste of your time. You can still use it as your main template engine. Only have to load your samples once, and if logic happens to close your samples are still loaded through VEPro. I don't use a slave but have found VEpro to have saved me MUCH more time when working on projects.



+1 switching between music projects more quickly is the main benefits from this for sure! It seems more stable than without, but I'm still waiting to get more data points to be sure. But it is not critical if doing everything in 1 box.


----------



## Soundhound (May 22, 2014)

Thanks guys, that does seem like a very good system. Going from project to project is really a bear with these big orchestral pieces. I'm still flailing around learning libraries as I go, so I don't have anything resembling a template yet. Unlike a couple of band templates I have - and come to think of it a vepro template would be great for that. For starting a new song anyway, I almost always change things around. I can see this is going to be a process of figuring out what I like to write with, and I'd imagine any kind of template will be a living, changing thing...

Right now I'm in the throes of figuring out what to do as far as my workstation goes. I'm pushing the envelope with my iMac and want to have lots of headroom so I'm not worrying about that stuff and can just write my butt off. 

I want to either move to a new Macpro or get a new iMac (i want to go thunderbolt) and a mini for a slave. (or a 2012 12 core and a mini, or or or or....) Waiting for a sign from above and /or see if the new mini shows up at WWDC in June.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 26, 2015)

Reviving this old thread in regard to the issue of more than one patch in an instance of VEP5. I usually do 1 instrument per instance (since this thread I guess) but was recently doing several in one, using the mixer in vep5, sending everything to one regular (not multi) channel in logic.

Been getting some weird behavior, both audio and midi, and a crash. If you have multiple,insturments in an instance of vep5, does it need to be in a multi timbral channel in logic maybe? 

Or is it just better to to stick to the one instrument per instance of vep5 rule?

Thanks.


----------



## samphony (Jan 26, 2015)

Soundhound @ Mon Jan 26 said:


> Reviving this old thread in regard to the issue of more than one patch in an instance of VEP5. I usually do 1 instrument per instance (since this thread I guess) but was recently doing several in one, using the mixer in vep5, sending everything to one regular (not multi) channel in logic.
> 
> Been getting some weird behavior, both audio and midi, and a crash. If you have multiple,insturments in an instance of vep5, does it need to be in a multi timbral channel in logic maybe?
> 
> ...



Stick to one instrument per instance. You could create layers of several V1 Libs etc of course but in general stick to one instrument per instance. 

There is still the VSL Logic environment layer thing but I've never used that.


----------



## resonate (Jan 28, 2015)

Simon Ravn @ 20.5.2014 said:


> In Logic you might as well set sample buffer to 512 or even 1024 - it has no influence on realtime MIDI recording of software instruments - they will always be armed at a set "live buffer" (which I think is 128 or thereabout - maybe Jay knows the exact size). Bottom line, no reason to have a low buffer setting in Logic unless you do live audio recording or such.



actually, the "live buffer" IS what you set in audio interface preferences. the playback (process) buffers are set lower in the same window :

http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203930


----------

