# Suggestion most powerful machine



## Mishabou (May 4, 2017)

I will be working out from different studios for the next few months and looking to built (or buy pre-built) one machine that can run my template.

Preferably 2 to 3U but will go to 4U if i have to. I've had great results with Xeon in the past, so i will stick them. My main DAW is PT HD 12 but also use DP9, CB9 and Live9 on a regular basis. My template (via VEP pro 6) has roughly 700-800 patches using EWHO diamond, Spitfire, Omnisphere.

This is what i have in mind:
- Chassis (not sure yet)
- Processor E5-2690v4, Dual Xeon 14 cores @ 2.6 Ghz
- 128 GB ram
- Main drive, SSD 480 GB
- 4 x TB SSD for libraries
- Win 7 pro or Win 10

This built will cost roughly $12K

Suggestions ?


----------



## JohnG (May 4, 2017)

Anhtu said:


> - Processor E5-2690v4, Dual Xeon 14 cores @ 2.6 Ghz



Hi Anhtu,

I am choosing 4.0GHz processors or even higher these days. I just bought a 4.2 GHz processor. I am finding that even sample-playback requires a very fast processor recently, for some new libraries I bought. I assume it's for scripting. Having lots of cores does not make up for a clock speed as slow as the one you're considering.

Here is a relevant thread: http://vi-control.net/community/threads/cores-vs-processor.58815/#post-4039709

But even more for what it sounds like you want: an all-in-one DAW and sample monster. I don't think 2.6GHz is going to cut it if you are using synths that incorporate reverb and delay (Omnisphere, for example) or even a lot of reverbs or delays when mixing.

One of our members, Richard Ames, did some work testing performance of "cores vs. processor speed" on this thread: 

_"Cores can help if you're CPU limited, though I seriously doubt that there's much benefit beyond six. I think an overclocked six-core is the sweet spot for a master DAW these days, especially if you're running only one machine.

Clock speed helps if you're latency limited. In other words, if you're running at, say, 10 ms and want to get down to 3 then simply throwing a bunch of cores into the system likely won't have as much effect as clock speed.

Also, keep in mind that you're not comparing ONLY cores in what you've described - you have two completely different systems, so you're comparing cores along with a lot of other stuff on the motherboard/chipset that affects real-time performance, quite often to a larger extent than processing power. So your conclusion that cores matter more than clock speed is not justifiable based on your data.

Regarding ASIO guard, I've tried it. Doesn't play nicely with VE Pro in my setup so I've never used it. It's a good idea, it's just really hard to implement.

games"

http://vi-control.net/community/threads/asio-guard-cpu-cores-vs-clock-speed.59643/#post-4051172_


----------



## Mishabou (May 4, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Hi Anhtu,
> 
> I am choosing 4.0GHz processors or even higher these days. I just bought a 4.2 GHz processor. I am finding that even sample-playback requires a very fast processor recently, for some new libraries I bought. I assume it's for scripting. Having lots of cores does not make up for a clock speed as slow as the one you're considering.
> 
> ...




Hi John,

VEP pro 6 does a great job at spreading the load on multicores. It handles VI way better than any DAW. My current set up is a nMP 12 cores @ 2.7 Ghz with 128 GB ram and 4 x 1 TB SSD for my libraries via thunderbolt chassie. I have no problem loading my 700-800 patch template in VEP pro and do everything in one computer. As mentioned, my main DAW is PT HD 12 but i also use CB9, DP9 and Live 9 when collaborating with other composers/musicians. I have the same template in all the mentioned DAWs connected to 8 instances of VEP pro 6 on the same computer. It works great.

Anyways, i will most likely buy the exact same nMP for my portable rig.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (May 4, 2017)

I agree with John about the processor. Why are you thinking of 2x 14 cores if you're only using 12 now? My 3.33GHz 6 core i7 handles my 1000 track template fine. Mocking up dense writing like "Test Drive" from HTTYD isn't an issue and the performance meter in Cubase doesn't change much. What does drastically change it are some plugins I use and there clock speed is what you really need. Not sure they'd even run on 2.6GHz.


----------



## Mishabou (May 4, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I agree with John about the processor. Why are you thinking of 2x 14 cores if you're only using 12 now? My 3.33GHz 6 core i7 handles my 1000 track template fine. Mocking up dense writing like "Test Drive" from HTTYD isn't an issue and the performance meter in Cubase doesn't change much. What does drastically change it are some plugins I use and there clock speed is what you really need. Not sure they'd even run on 2.6GHz.



Playing back quadrizillion reverbs and/or VIs won't do me much good if i don't get rock solid performance. From past experience, stability wise, Xeon (with higher cores and lower clock) have always outperformed i7 (with lower cores and higher clock). There's a reason why all high end DAW uses Xeon instead of i7. 

I get special deals from HP and/or Dell so i'm paying roughly the same for a 2 x 14 cores vs the 12 cores at Apple. But i think i'll just stick with the Mac as i know it works.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (May 4, 2017)

Anhtu said:


> Playing back quadrizillion reverbs and/or VIs won't do me much good if i don't get rock solid performance. From past experience, stability wise, Xeon (with higher cores and lower clock) have always outperformed i7 (with lower cores and higher clock). There's a reason why all high end DAW uses Xeon instead of i7.
> 
> I get special deals from HP and/or Dell so i'm paying roughly the same for a 2 x 14 cores vs the 12 cores at Apple. But i think i'll just stick with the Mac as i know it works.



What do you mean by stability wise? I've had just as many crashes on my old Xeon from Rain computers as I have with my new i7 I had put together myself.


----------



## Mishabou (May 4, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> What do you mean by stability wise? I've had just as many crashes on my old Xeon from Rain computers as I have with my new i7 I had put together myself.



As i've said, those were my experiences...so i'll stick with what works for me


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (May 4, 2017)

Anhtu said:


> As i've said, those were my experiences...so i'll stick with what works for me


I'm just wondering what you mean by stability. Overall stability like the computer crashing? Or more audio driver stability? Or something else?


----------



## enCiphered (May 5, 2017)

Xeon processors are made for heavily threaded applications including application servers, virtual machines, 3D modeling and video post-production work. 2.6 Ghz is nothing for music production, you´ll have more trouble with peaks and audio performance at all than you can now imagine.


----------



## chimuelo (May 5, 2017)

Now you can get a fast 64GB i7 X270
Later this summer Ryzen 2 looks like a bad ass audio rig.
Their Chipsets determine user needs.
Rumor has it that a certain motherboard vendor will offer over 24 different designs.

It's going to be the first year of the return of competition.
No need to hurry.


----------



## Mishabou (May 6, 2017)

enCiphered said:


> Xeon processors are made for heavily threaded applications including application servers, virtual machines, 3D modeling and video post-production work. 2.6 Ghz is nothing for music production, you´ll have more trouble with peaks and audio performance at all than you can now imagine.



Been using my ''old'' nMP 12 cores @ 2.6 Ghz for the past year mixing feature film and composing with heavy VIs without any problems


----------



## davidgary73 (May 7, 2017)

A 40 Threads Xeon Machine against the latest i7 @ http://www.techspot.com/review/1218-affordable-40-thread-xeon-monster-pc/


----------



## JohnG (May 7, 2017)

Anhtu said:


> Been using my ''old'' nMP 12 cores @ 2.6 Ghz for the past year mixing feature film and composing with heavy VIs without any problems



I don't really understand why you asked us anything, since you seem to be happy with your setup. In my own work, low buffers and latency are important. When mixing, one can tolerate a lot of latency but, when composing, a lot less.

Also, some software distributes tasks a lot better than other, so if you have the magic formula, please share. What software, what buffer and other settings, how much RAM are you soaking up?

Because other experiments contradict what you are saying, you have piqued my curiosity.

Thanks,

John


----------



## dtonthept (May 7, 2017)

Hey Anhtu, let us know how you get on with your new machine and whatever you wind up choosing.

I'd be very interested to hear how you have your template set up in Pro Tools to handle all those tracks, I'm on a 5,1 Mac Pro and am just having the absolute worst time with real time performance, though it's not at all set up like yours. And a similar boat for me, of mainly being in Pro Tools but occasionally jumping to another DAW.

And yes after many years on high core count machines it does seems counter-intuitive to hear the advice about the i7 with (WAY) higher clock speed but lower core counts, I would love to hear of someone in Pro Tools and how they fare with this.


----------



## Mishabou (May 7, 2017)

JohnG said:


> I don't really understand why you asked us anything, since you seem to be happy with your setup. In my own work, low buffers and latency are important. When mixing, one can tolerate a lot of latency but, when composing, a lot less.
> 
> Also, some software distributes tasks a lot better than other, so if you have the magic formula, please share. What software, what buffer and other settings, how much RAM are you soaking up?
> 
> ...



I appreciate all the suggestions but i thought my post was clear when i said i will stick with Xeon as i've had great experience with them. Maybe i should have written ''looking for feedback from people with real world experience with the above set up (Processor E5-2690v4, Dual Xeon 14 cores @ 2.6 Ghz)''.

Anyways, i play 95% of the parts live so latency is absolutely priority. On my system, the buffer lives on 128, if i have to overdub at the end of a very dense surround mix with lots of VIs, i might have to bump to 256, anything above that is really not cutting it for live tracking. For album/band project, the buffer stays on 64 at all times (from tracking to mixing).

I use Avid's video engine with a Kona 3 card for full HD playback. The codec of choice is Prores. When using CB9 or DP9, video is played via another machine with Video Slave as i found CB9 and DP9 video engine is not at solid as PT.

No magic formula on my end, i basically bought the nMP 6.1/12 cores 2 years ago, installed the extra ram and got to work.


----------



## chillbot (May 7, 2017)

JohnG said:


> I don't really understand why you asked us anything, since you seem to be happy with your setup. In my own work, low buffers and latency are important. When mixing, one can tolerate a lot of latency but, when composing, a lot less.
> 
> Also, some software distributes tasks a lot better than other, so if you have the magic formula, please share. What software, what buffer and other settings, how much RAM are you soaking up?
> 
> Because other experiments contradict what you are saying, you have piqued my curiosity.


Hi John, I don't really understand the original question either. But I'm not (much) of a computer guy.

I will say that I recently got a very similar setup from VisionDAW to run Sonar on. Dual Xeon E5-2680 v4 @ 2.40GHz, 128GB RAM, a ton of SSD drives. I had two priorities, mainly I absolutely hate migrating to a new computer or upgrading so I was looking for a computer that would last me the next five years. Secondly I wanted as low latency as I could possibly get from my three 2408mk3s. They absolutely insisted that the only way I was going to get a computer to last five years was to go server class. We went back-and-forth a ton, the pricetag was a huge issue for me. (Don't even ask what I ended up paying, it's unfathomable.)

Bottom line, there is a chance I got taken for a ride but I tend to think otherwise... I have gotten roughly a dozen computers from VisionDAW and I love them and they've always been completely fair to me. Given the huge discrepancy in prices between the Xeon and the i7 I have to assume that they had good reason to push for it. Now if you compare the two, there is clearly an advantage to one and it's price. But if price is at the bottom of your priority list...

I'm running Sonar with 54 outputs, 12 inputs enabled, 64 samples per buffer @ 3.0ms roundtrip, no hiccups no glitches it runs smooth. So from another perspective, maybe there's something to it. Anyway I'm happy with it.


----------



## Mishabou (May 7, 2017)

dtonthept said:


> Hey Anhtu, let us know how you get on with your new machine and whatever you wind up choosing.
> 
> I'd be very interested to hear how you have your template set up in Pro Tools to handle all those tracks, I'm on a 5,1 Mac Pro and am just having the absolute worst time with real time performance, though it's not at all set up like yours. And a similar boat for me, of mainly being in Pro Tools but occasionally jumping to another DAW.
> 
> And yes after many years on high core count machines it does seems counter-intuitive to hear the advice about the i7 with (WAY) higher clock speed but lower core counts, I would love to hear of someone in Pro Tools and how they fare with this.



I end up buying the same nMP 12 cores as my studio machine. Dell also sent me a beast of a machine for testing, dual 14 cores Xeon with 256 GB ram and 4 Tb of internal SSD, i'll let you know how those tests went once i have some downtime.

Again i'm sure i7s are great for some people but it just did not work out for me. When i switched from TDM to native, priority number one was to find a rig that can do low buffer, solid as rock (no cpu spikes, no random beach ball/crashes, get along well with my external controllers...), can handle high VI counts and works flawlessly within a Dante environment.

I had 2 different i7 rig built by professional DAW vendors and had intermittent CPU spikes, intermittent communication failure with my Avid controller, video output from my AJA cards crashed 3 - 4 times a week, etc... I sold the rig to a friend and he's very happy BUT his buffer is set at 1024 or higher, has no ethernet controller, does not use Dante, uses the in built graphics for video playback, his template is about 150 patches...so it really depends what your needs are.


----------



## JohnG (May 7, 2017)

I can't quite picture clearly what you are doing or why it would work better, but thanks for the answer nonetheless. I don't use the same software but congratulations on having a good setup. 

You are using Pro Tools for midi and sound, presumably, which is interesting. And Chilbot's answer certainly supports your approach.

Good luck and good talking.


----------



## dtonthept (May 8, 2017)

chillbot said:


> Hi John, I don't really understand the original question either. But I'm not (much) of a computer guy.
> 
> I will say that I recently got a very similar setup from VisionDAW to run Sonar on. Dual Xeon E5-2680 v4 @ 2.40GHz, 128GB RAM, a ton of SSD drives. I had two priorities, mainly I absolutely hate migrating to a new computer or upgrading so I was looking for a computer that would last me the next five years. Secondly I wanted as low latency as I could possibly get from my three 2408mk3s. They absolutely insisted that the only way I was going to get a computer to last five years was to go server class. We went back-and-forth a ton, the pricetag was a huge issue for me. (Don't even ask what I ended up paying, it's unfathomable.)
> 
> ...



Hiya Chillbot, very interesting to hear of your VisionDAW experience and that you're not much of a computer guy. I'm contemplating a PC shift and was looking at them as for the first time in my career I'm thinking of outsourcing my computer maintenance, so am wondering about their offsite service via internet. Have you used this much? So interested to know more about this rig, but you've summed it up beautifully - it works!


----------



## dtonthept (May 8, 2017)

Anhtu said:


> I end up buying the same nMP 12 cores as my studio machine. Dell also sent me a beast of a machine for testing, dual 14 cores Xeon with 256 GB ram and 4 Tb of internal SSD, i'll let you know how those tests went once i have some downtime.
> 
> Again i'm sure i7s are great for some people but it just did not work out for me. When i switched from TDM to native, priority number one was to find a rig that can do low buffer, solid as rock (no cpu spikes, no random beach ball/crashes, get along well with my external controllers...), can handle high VI counts and works flawlessly within a Dante environment.
> 
> I had 2 different i7 rig built by professional DAW vendors and had intermittent CPU spikes, intermittent communication failure with my Avid controller, video output from my AJA cards crashed 3 - 4 times a week, etc... I sold the rig to a friend and he's very happy BUT his buffer is set at 1024 or higher, has no ethernet controller, does not use Dante, uses the in built graphics for video playback, his template is about 150 patches...so it really depends what your needs are.



Hi Anhtu,

Okay this is really interesting - so are you using the onboard mac ethernet to connect to a Dante setup?

I'm currently going through my HDX card to a Red 8Pre which links up with another 32 channels of analogue IO on Rednet 5s, but just got in the Focusrite Rednet PCIe card to try getting off the HDX card.

I'm trying to do the same thing as you - be able to overdub or program at late stages of a mix, and have a system that goes smoothly from initial tracking right through to mixing, but my config really becomes unhappy as mixing gets serious.

You mentioned all native - so I'm guessing no UAD or anything like that? And how many IO are you running? Or are you finding with the portable system that you can plug into anything via Dante and configure accordingly and be good to go?

Are you running PT via Core Audio if the above is the case?

I'll be dead interested to hear your thoughts on the Dell too - you're the closest use case I've found to my own situation thus far on here.

Thanks!


----------



## Mishabou (May 8, 2017)

dtonthept said:


> Hi Anhtu,
> 
> Okay this is really interesting - so are you using the onboard mac ethernet to connect to a Dante setup?
> 
> ...



I use PT Native Thunderbolt with an Avid's MTRX interface (which is basically a DAD) with 24 pres/inputs and 8 outputs (i always work in surround). PT connects directly to the on board Digilink (64 channels). I use a Rednet PCIe for the other DAWs (CB9, DP9 or Live9). This set up allows me to transfer up to 64 channels to/from PT. 

I really love the MTRX (DAD), tremendous power and flexibility in a small 2U with mastering quality converters and great mic pre. I have not used my Dakings, Millenia and API since acquiring the MTXR. 

So for my portable rig, i'm basically just replicating the above system. Everything fits in a 6U rack space...crazy! 

Here's my take on the HDX vs Native as i used to own both. If you are doing huge film mix and need more than 256 voices and/or you need to record low latency with plug-ins, then HDX is the only ticket. Otherwise, native is a great system. 

If you go the PC route, i recommend choosing a reputable DAW vendor (not Dell). I chose Dell because we have a special deal with them but be aware, their support/engineering team have zero experience in pro audio/video.


----------



## dtonthept (May 8, 2017)

Verrrry interesting indeed, thank you!

Do you have a very dense plugins folder, or have you been very selective about what you're running to keep it low latency? I'm guessing no UAD in your system?

And your rednet pcie card - is that in a chassis?

And is your rig happy running a second DAW at the same time as pro tools? Is that with VEP running at the same time as well? Or does it tend to be either PT and VEP or PT and DAW 2? Do you have Presets with the avid interface to jump between analogue ins vs Dante ins, or do you keep 24 for analogue then the remainder for Dante? 

So many questions - I'd love to know what you do for storage too! 

Keep us in the loop with all this, thanks!


----------



## Mishabou (May 9, 2017)

dtonthept said:


> Verrrry interesting indeed, thank you!
> 
> Do you have a very dense plugins folder, or have you been very selective about what you're running to keep it low latency? I'm guessing no UAD in your system?
> 
> ...



I sold my UAD last year. I have the Waves Mercury, Slate everything bundle, Exponential, Massenburg, Soundtoys...

My Rednet PCIe is in a Sonnet Chassie

When i use CB, DP or Live, i print in PT so yes all the apps are open along with my VEPpro template, no problem whatsoever.

That's the beauty of Dante, all analog I/Os are seen by all apps (PT, CB, DP, Live) and you can route to/from anyway you choose...so for example when tracking my drums, the mic pres signal can be sent to PT and any of the other app simultaneously.

For storage i use 2 Black Magic Dock filled with 8 x 2TB SSD, one for all my DAW's session and the remaining for libraries.

I use LTO-6 to back up everything once a week.


----------



## dtonthept (May 9, 2017)

Very cool, thanks Anhtu. 

I love my UAD stuff so much but it seems a necessary step to acknowledge the impact is has on a smooth running system.

Very good point about Dante and having two DAW + VEP open, verrrrry interesting! 

This is all giving me a lot to think about - but your main point is that your 12 core Mac Pro is running all this no problems.... Hmmmmmm......


----------



## Ultra (May 9, 2017)

Anhtu said:


> Hi John,
> 
> VEP pro 6 does a great job at spreading the load on multicores. It handles VI way better than any DAW. My current set up is a nMP 12 cores @ 2.7 Ghz with 128 GB ram and 4 x 1 TB SSD for my libraries via thunderbolt chassie. I have no problem loading my 700-800 patch template in VEP pro and do everything in one computer. As mentioned, my main DAW is PT HD 12 but i also use CB9, DP9 and Live 9 when collaborating with other composers/musicians. I have the same template in all the mentioned DAWs connected to 8 instances of VEP pro 6 on the same computer. It works great.
> 
> Anyways, i will most likely buy the exact same nMP for my portable rig.


Hi Anhtu,

Could you share your approach in stuffing 700-800 patches in just 8 VEPro instances ?

My template currently has 600-700 patches (just MIDI, not counting AUX)... But I spread out VIs across many VEPro projects, and then I only assemble the libs or instruments needed for a given project or scene into a VEPro metaframe. Keeps it very modular and saves resources.

Would love to hear your experiences and why you went that route... Is it possible from within PT to disconnect from certain VEPro instances (to save resources) ? (I have PT but do MIDI work in DP)

Thanks.


----------



## Mishabou (May 9, 2017)

Ultra said:


> Hi Anhtu,
> 
> Could you share your approach in stuffing 700-800 patches in just 8 VEPro instances ?
> 
> ...



I have 4 instances of EWHO diamond (Strings, Brass, Woodwinds, Percussion), 2 instances with all my pop stuff (bass, keys, Synths, Horns...etc), 1 instance for Spitfire and 1 for CSS.

I have my 700-800 patches return to the DAW via audio or aux (i prefer audio but some DAW like CB one must use aux) ready to be recorded. There are roughly 120 audio returns as they are grouped in different types of instruments.

I'm still experimenting, the big template + Vep pro is nice as all my sounds are online, the downside is the huge track counts even though with my S6 i can access any of them by pushing one button on the touch screen, very slick. But i also enjoy taking the minimal approach where i only load the sound i need (there's a cool feature in PT where you can save an Audio, Aux or Instrument Channel with all its inserts, sort of like disable or freeze track in CB/DP).

At the end of the day, the best system/workflow is the one that allows me to get my ideas down FAST.


----------



## Ultra (May 9, 2017)

what I am wondering is this, and maybe some of you can share your experience with other DAWs - I am using DP9 (on Windows) - and here's what I'm experiencing:

when I load the VEPro metaframe for this project, which is about 80GB purged, and it is done loading, the CPU usage of VEPro is ca. 7-8% (so pretty low)... 

I then start DP and and load the project which will connect to some, not all, VEPro instances. And now VEPro's CPU usage goes up to 40-50% and hovers around that. That is with zero samples playing, merely just the DP connection to the enabled VEPro instances (not all instances are enabled, only the ones I need)...

Is that normal ? Or is that rather a DP thing not handling the VEPro connections efficiently ? Why is there any CPU load increase at all if no MIDI/Audio data is being transmitted ?

Is that a general MIDI implementation (that each MIDI channel has to be constantly "awake") or is that rather an inelegant implementation in DP ?

How is the same scenario (template with high track count) for Reaper users ?


----------



## Mishabou (May 10, 2017)

Ultra said:


> what I am wondering is this, and maybe some of you can share your experience with other DAWs - I am using DP9 (on Windows) - and here's what I'm experiencing:
> 
> when I load the VEPro metaframe for this project, which is about 80GB purged, and it is done loading, the CPU usage of VEPro is ca. 7-8% (so pretty low)...
> 
> ...



It is normal that VEP pro's CPU is very low when NOT connected to the host and will increase quite a bit, depending on the number of patches, as you connect them. It's the same for PT, CB, DP and Live on Mac or Win.


----------



## dtonthept (May 18, 2017)

Hey Anhtu,

Hope you don't mind one more question - could you let me know how you synchronize your different DAWs together? Is it set up so you can hit play in any application and they'll all chase via Rewire or similar, or do you control transport from your S6 and have everything always chasing Pro Tools - I'm guessing through IAC or similar? 

I'm thinking I might have to do some tests on my machine running Pro Tools and Live in sync. Historically I've hated running more than one application, but given the capabilties are so different, and the idea of one being able to do everything so far away, I might have to have another shot.

Can I also ask - are you just using Pro Tools as a final mixing destination, fed from your other DAWs, or do you do a lot of your creative production and writing and programming in PT as well?

Just saw your other post about comparing a 12 core nMP to the HP workstation, that one was really interesting! Are you pretty comfortable on both OS (Mac/Windows) for a long time, or are you a mac person who just had a peek at windows? Or vice versa?

Cheers,

D


----------

