# Could someone clarify and fully explain cpu / kontakt voice count limit before I upgrade my system?



## thevisi0nary (Feb 3, 2022)

I’m imminently replacing my aging 4790k system with a 12th gen one. When I got it I didn’t know much about computers and ended up needing to change and add components as time went on and my needs grew. I’m trying to avoid going down that road and I don’t want to replace the motherboard at any point until it’s time to start again.

12th gen receives a huge max voice count bump from DDR5, so my intent has been to get a DDR5 Z690 and 2x16gb DDR5 ram for now and upgrade to 2x32gb in the future (I don’t mind replacing ram).

I’m realizing though that I don’t have a meaningful understanding of how cpu/kontakt voice limits manifest themselves in regards to work flow. I have a really messy work flow and I tend to like working with lots of tracks with separate kontakt instances, I also use track templates as opposed to large project templates. 

Does max voice count only really matter in regards to having many kontakt patches in a single instance? For simple example, are you mainly only concerned about voice count when you have something like your whole string section loaded into one or two kontakt instances vs spread across 6-8 instances?

I am more than likely still going to just get the DDR5 motherboard but figured it’s always worth it to learn more. If my projects get bigger and I decide I want to slot in a 13th gen cpu I don’t want to also be inclined to replace the motherboard because I decided to leave performance on the table to save a few hundred $.


----------



## d.healey (Feb 3, 2022)

thevisi0nary said:


> 12th gen receives a huge max voice count bump from DDR5,


Explain


----------



## thevisi0nary (Feb 3, 2022)

d.healey said:


> Explain








DAWbench 2021 Suite - Intel 12th Gen Results.


DAWbench Suite - AMD 7000 and 13th Gen Intel results https://gearspace.com/board/showpost.php?p=16229111&postcount=934 The new CPUs are factory overclocked, by tweaking we can reduce the max wattage and use air cooler. Intel Core i9-13900K vs. AMD Ryzen 9 7950X at 125W and 65W...




vi-control.net





The DDR5 memory controller adds a whopping 3rd more headroom for max voice count over DDR4. 

I just don’t know exactly what implications this has on my workflow, as I don’t use large project templates and I use many individual kontakt instances as opposed to lots of patches per instance.


----------



## colony nofi (Feb 5, 2022)

thevisi0nary said:


> DAWbench 2021 Suite - Intel 12th Gen Results.
> 
> 
> DAWbench Suite - AMD 7000 and 13th Gen Intel results https://gearspace.com/board/showpost.php?p=16229111&postcount=934 The new CPUs are factory overclocked, by tweaking we can reduce the max wattage and use air cooler. Intel Core i9-13900K vs. AMD Ryzen 9 7950X at 125W and 65W...
> ...


Where have you read this / seen numbers that support this? It kinda doesn't make that much sense. Voice count is hardly restricted by ram speed... mostly its CPU limitations, and on that, can be very much caused by problems associated with first/single/zero core limitations that are imposed upon real-time audio...


----------



## thevisi0nary (Feb 5, 2022)

colony nofi said:


> Where have you read this / seen numbers that support this? It kinda doesn't make that much sense. Voice count is hardly restricted by ram speed... mostly its CPU limitations, and on that, can be very much caused by problems associated with first/single/zero core limitations that are imposed upon real-time audio...





https://www.scan.co.uk/info/proaudio/presszone/intel-12th-gen-roundup



Its not from the ram speed it’s from the additional bandwidth on the memory controller, it’s the same reason why you see a small/moderate lead in the vi test for HEDT cascade lake over comet lake core for core.

I just don’t know enough about max polyphony to know if I should actually care or not in my specific use case.


----------



## colony nofi (Feb 6, 2022)

thevisi0nary said:


> https://www.scan.co.uk/info/proaudio/presszone/intel-12th-gen-roundup
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh many thanks for this. I havn't got round to looking at DAWBench testing since mid last year. 
Its incredibly interesting. 

Our internal benchmarks are more of a hybrid of the kinds of tests that DAWBench separates. That kontakt voice counts go up significantly with DDR5 is great - and might just justify the costs for some composers (although what percentage of composers need those kinds of voice counts is another question entirely)

Thanks for the follow up. Its appreciated.

I've clipped a relevant secion below :



:


----------



## thevisi0nary (Feb 6, 2022)

colony nofi said:


> Oh many thanks for this. I havn't got round to looking at DAWBench testing since mid last year.
> Its incredibly interesting.
> 
> Our internal benchmarks are more of a hybrid of the kinds of tests that DAWBench separates. That kontakt voice counts go up significantly with DDR5 is great - and might just justify the costs for some composers (although what percentage of composers need those kinds of voice counts is another question entirely)
> ...



Thank you, I’m mainly just looking to get an amateur understanding of how max voice count / polyphony works in this context. 

Is it max voice count per instance of kontakt or the sum total of all voices across all instances in a project? 

Who would a higher max voice count benefit more? A composer who loads up fewer kontakt instances with tons of patches, or a composer that uses many kontakt instances across tracks with just one or two patches?


----------



## colony nofi (Feb 6, 2022)

thevisi0nary said:


> Thank you, I’m mainly just looking to get an amateur understanding of how max voice count / polyphony works in this context.
> 
> Is it max voice count per instance of kontakt or the sum total of all voices across all instances in a project?
> 
> Who would a higher max voice count benefit more? A composer who loads up fewer kontakt instances with tons of patches, or a composer that uses many kontakt instances across tracks with just one or two patches?


I have not gone deep into the DAWBench methodology in quite a while. 
But like any benchmarking, its not really a real world number that you are getting... it is more a number to allow you to compare one system with another.

So - when you ask "is it max voice count per instance of kontakt or the sum total of all voices across all instances in a project" I would reply and say it doesn't matter *that* much - it is more just a number.

However, my understanding is that in 2019 or 2020 they changed their methodology to run their benchmarks with one instrument per kontakt instance, and the number is a total for the system. Which in some cases (5000+) is a huge number. 5000+ audio voices at the same time ?!?!?! 

Now, while a piano played under some VERY SPECIFIC circumstances can get 100's of voices (perhaps up to 1000), most sample instruments don't go any where near these kinds of numbers.

And its cumulitive over the system / you don't need to think of it as say 50 tracks with 100 voices each... so if one instance is not needing any voices at one time, your system is capable of using those voices elsewhere.

So then - people only need super high voice counts when doing super complex arrangements with tonnes and tonnes of parts running at once, and often when mixing in realtime for surround (ie, using multiple sets of mics)

You can do an aweful lot of cool composition with a system that can only handle 1000 voices. You might need to be careful, but hey, 15 years ago there were tonnes of composers working well on systems that were not nearly as performant as now.

In regards to your final question. its a tiny bit misplaced really / confused - but I get that. The answer is kinda "Yes". How you choose to run your system is up to you. Different system setup will stress the computer in different ways, and show up as very different benchmark results. Higher max voice counts benefit everyone no matter the way they setup their system. The setup just changes how efficiently the system is working / may mean that one gets a lower voice count than someone else with the same system.

My understanding is using many many instances of kontakt with one instrument per kontakt is the best use of resources on modern systems. I am happy to be wrong. We run our systems like this very effectively.

Hope that makes some sense?


----------



## Barza (Feb 7, 2022)

I do hope you are going to buy a VEP Pro license and use your 4790k system as a server for your main system. Personally I have found that using separate servers takes so much load off the main system that the need to always keep it at the cutting edge of what is available disappears. I have three VEP servers feeding my main DAW, and group instruments together by type on them (one does orchestral, another guitars synths, another drums). I put the servers together using bits and pieces of old systems I had. And with multiple monitors I find remoting in to the servers works fine alongside my DAW.

I found the benefits of this approach much more rewarding than the perennial ‘upgrade my main DAW‘ cycle.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Feb 7, 2022)

colony nofi said:


> I have not gone deep into the DAWBench methodology in quite a while.
> But like any benchmarking, its not really a real world number that you are getting... it is more a number to allow you to compare one system with another.
> 
> So - when you ask "is it max voice count per instance of kontakt or the sum total of all voices across all instances in a project" I would reply and say it doesn't matter *that* much - it is more just a number.
> ...


It does make sense and that is a lot of solid info, thank you very much for the help. Yeah I definitely don't need anything remotely in the stratosphere of 5000 voices I just like to have a solid understand of things.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Feb 7, 2022)

Barza said:


> I do hope you are going to buy a VEP Pro license and use your 4790k system as a server for your main system. Personally I have found that using separate servers takes so much load off the main system that the need to always keep it at the cutting edge of what is available disappears. I have three VEP servers feeding my main DAW, and group instruments together by type on them (one does orchestral, another guitars synths, another drums). I put the servers together using bits and pieces of old systems I had. And with multiple monitors I find remoting in to the servers works fine alongside my DAW.
> 
> I found the benefits of this approach much more rewarding than the perennial ‘upgrade my main DAW‘ cycle.


A VEP server far exceeds my needs for the type of stuff that I do, but in those cases it's for sure a good idea.


----------



## colony nofi (Feb 7, 2022)

thevisi0nary said:


> A VEP server far exceeds my needs for the type of stuff that I do, but in those cases it's for sure a good idea.


Using VEP servers is great - but it comes at the cost of needing to setup and maintain the system. If you love tech, then its cool. But it can become complex quickly, and depending on the work you do, maybe a risk that is not worth it. (ie, now you have two (plus) different computers to make sure you can get up and running quick smart if parts fail right near a deadline for you to send your final mixes to the mix stage)

I've just got a max'ed out MBP in for a project - and thats been judged a risk since the lead time for that machine is 8 weeks, and there's no easy way to replace it should it stop working. We've had to go thru and provide a workflow that is proven should it happen. Life of composers these days is getting more and more techy....


----------



## Barza (Feb 8, 2022)

I have to admit I hadn’t considered the point about multiplication of risk if your work is time sensitive. On the one hand, you have the fact that you are running more hardware if you are running VEP servers, so a higher probability that an individual component will fail. On the other, you are maintaining at least two functioning windows systems. With a little planning, you could use that to ensure that in the event one of the machines has a problem, a project could be completed on the other.

As for maintaining two systems, in my experience this has a set up cost but not a significant ongoing cost provided you are using both systems reasonably regularly. Then they get each windows update incrementally and more or less at the same time. It becomes a bit more of a pain if, for example, you don’t use the VEP server for a while. Then it needs to do updates when you come to use it, which can be annoying.


----------

