# I machine vs more



## Ashermusic (Mar 15, 2010)

I spend a fair amount of time being paid to help other composers use multi-computer setups with VE Pro, Plogue Bidule, etc. so that they can run huge orchestral simulations.

Ironically, as a composer I have never been hired for a score that I could not accomplish both to my satisfaction and my client's with 1 computer and even with many of the people I help, it does not seem to me that it is not also true of them, but they want this anyway. While if I got a gig that required this I would certainly do so, nonetheless it is 2 computers to maintain, keep the OS/apps in top form, etc. so there is that downside, not to mention simple electrical consumption.

So my question is, is this a matter here of people simply wanting to do this for doing huge orchestral mockups for learning/auditioning for job purposes or are many of you actually being paid to do scores that you could not do well on a single powerful contemporary computer?


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 15, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Mar 15 said:


> I spend a fair amount of time being paid to help other composers use multi-computer setups with VE Pro, Plogue Bidule, etc. so that they can run huge orchestral simulations.
> 
> Ironically, as a composer I have never been hired for a score that I could not accomplish both to my satisfaction and my client's with 1 computer and even with many of the people I help, it does not seem to me that it is not also true of them, but they want this anyway. While if I got a gig that required this I would certainly do so, nonetheless it is 2 computers to maintain, keep the OS/apps in top form, etc. so there is that downside, not to mention simple electrical consumption.
> 
> So my question is, is this a matter here of people simply wanting to do this for doing huge orchestral mockups for learning/auditioning for job purposes or are many of you actually being paid to do scores that you could not do well on a single powerful contemporary computer?



Hi Jay,

I have been wondering the same thing since a while. 

I admit that when I started out I was very much fascinated about the 'setup' threads and -videos. It seemed that you absolutely need X computers with these and those libraries on it to be a proper composer. 

This is true to an amount, however I realized that part of this kind of information is feeding a sort of gear lust. To feed the gear lust is important for the supplying industry (whatever they provide, be it software, hardware, samples, plugins, etc.) Tests, reports, magazines, demos and videos ... and dare I say it even internet forums ... contain information to a part, and are feeding the gear lust to another part. That is why suppliers are interested in them, and they are keeping them up with announcements, sales etc.

Today I have cooled down a bit, hehe :mrgreen: I have reduced my setup from four computers to one, and have a second one as a backup. That is more appropriately scaled to my actual output. Loading or bouncing something inbetween is really not so much of a problem.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 15, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Mon Mar 15 said:


> [
> 
> Hi Jay,
> 
> I have reduced my setup from four computers to one, and have a second one as a backup. That is more appropriately scaled to my actual output. Loading or bouncing something inbetween is really not so much of a problem.



Interesting, Hannes. It is my suspicion is true of many, if not most.


----------



## Dan Selby (Mar 15, 2010)

For me it comes down to speed and stability. I only have one slave now (8GB) and 12GB on my DAW. It's just quicker when I'm under deadline to have the stuff I use a lot ready and loaded and a template set up routed to it. Also, because almost all my big sample sets are loaded in VEpro (both on the master and the slave) it means I can switch between projects, or revert to an earlier version, or reload cubase if it crashed (very rare), MUCH quicker. That's big, for me - actually the main reason, I would say.

There's very little maintenance on the slave once it's up and running and the template(s) are sorted. It's headless and I just treat it as an outboard module - switch it on and ignore it. I don't plan on updating it or changing stuff on it unless or until there's a hardware problem.

That's the theory, anyway :wink:


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 15, 2010)

Dan Selby @ Mon Mar 15 said:


> For me it comes down to speed and stability. I only have one slave now (8GB) and 12GB on my DAW. It's just quicker when I'm under deadline to have the stuff I use a lot ready and loaded and a template set up routed to it. Also, because almost all my big sample sets are loaded in VEpro (both on the master and the slave) it means I can switch between projects, or revert to an earlier version, or reload cubase if it crashed (very rare), MUCH quicker. That's big, for me - actually the main reason, I would say.
> 
> There's very little maintenance on the slave once it's up and running and the template(s) are sorted. It's headless and I just treat it as an outboard module - switch it on and ignore it. I don't plan on updating it or changing stuff on it unless or until there's a hardware problem.
> 
> That's the theory, anyway :wink:



Understood Dan, but if you had the RAM maxxed out, could you not do it on one? The only fly in the ointment on the Mac is that because i.e. Kontakt is not yet 64 bit we run into limitations with VE Pro's 32 bit server.

Further, how big are the software instrument requirements you need to use to get the job done that you are hired for?


----------



## Mahlon (Mar 15, 2010)

Jay,
I've gone from 4 slaves PCs to 2 slaves. I'd like to get it down to one 24 gig i7 slave, but I may have some of the same questions as you. Ok, I know 24 gigs can handle almost the whole template -- certainly enough to accomplish the level of production I'm at now anyway. Actually, though, come to think of it, how much of 24 gigs could one run stably?

May main concern is about polyphony on one machine. Even though people assure me that i7 can handle huge amounts, I won't know until I actually set it up and run _my_ template in it.

But here's hoping to go to one machine within a year or so. And keep the other as backup parts, etc.

Mahlon

EDIT: Oops. I mean one SLAVE machine plus the DAW. I always want to keep the DAW on it's own.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 15, 2010)

For me it's convenience. I find that once you start doing samples, synths sound design with plugins, reverbs ect. while running picture things tend to get a bit shaky on one machine. So I like to have a lot of the basic orchestral setup on another machine that doesn't change much.

But I will agree when I hear of people having 5 computer setups I kind of roll my eyes.


----------



## jeffc (Mar 15, 2010)

Hey Jay - 

I'm with you. I've been on one machine for a little over a year and haven't looked back. Hosting Kontakt in Bidule outside of Logic and Vienna in VE Pro. That stuff stays loaded from cue to cue - same idea as running a slave. And once I got Altiverb out of Logic, I haven't come across anything that choked the machine yet - and I've got quite a ton of virtual instruments etc. loaded. I've done fake orchestra, real orch from mockups, blend of both, live drums, etc and it's all - knock on wood - running flawless on a simple 8-core Mac with the Apogee stuff. 

I was quickly bored of the d*$&# swinging contest of who has more slaves, etc a long time ago. I'd rather make music than play tech, and I don't feel that I'm missing out on anything that I can't do now. I had a few slaves for a while that when I really looked what I was running on them, I never thought of trying to load it on the main machine. And once I did and it ran, I put the PC's outside and begged someone to take them!

For whatever that's worth...


----------



## José Herring (Mar 15, 2010)

[quote:4596c052ca="jeffc @ Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:09 pm"]Hey Jay - 

I'm with you. I've been on one machine for a little over a year and haven't looked back. Hosting Kontakt in Bidule outside of Logic and Vienna in VE Pro. That sò£Á   É‚£Á   Éƒ£Á   É„£Á   É…£Á   É†£Á   É‡£Á   Éˆ£Á   É‰£Á   ÉŠ£Á   É‹£Á   ÉŒ£Á   É£Á   ÉŽ£Á   É£Á   É£Á   É‘£Á   É’£Á   É“£Á   É”£Á   É•£Á   É–£Á   É—£Á   É˜£Á   É™£Á   Éš£Á   É›£Á   Éœ£Á   É£Á   Éž£Á   ÉŸ£Á   É £Á   É¡£Á   É¢£Á   É££Á   É¤£Á   É¥£Á   É¦£Á   É§£Á   É¨£Á   É©£Á   Éª£Á   É«£Á   É¬£Á   É­£Á   É®£Á   É¯£Á   É°£Á   É±£Á   É²£Á   É³£Á   É´£Á   Éµ£Á   É¶£Á   É·£Á   É¸£Á   É¹£Á   Éº£Á   É»£Á   É¼£Á   É½£Á   É¾£Á   É¿£Á   ÉÀ£Á   ÉÁ£Á   ÉÂ£Á   ÉÃ£Á   ÉÄ£Á   ÉÅ£Á   ÉÆ£Á   ÉÇ£Á   ÉÈ£Á   ÉÉ£Á   ÉÊ£Á   ÉË£Á   ÉÌ£Á   ÉÍ£Á   ÉÎ£Á   ÉÏ£Á   ÉÐ£Á   ÉÑ£Á   ÉÒ£Á   ÉÓ£Á   ÉÔ£Á   ÉÕ£Á   ÉÖ£Á   É×£Á   ÉØ£Á   ÉÙ£Á   ÉÚ£Á   ÉÛ£Á   ÉÜ£Á   ÉÝ£Á   ÉÞ£Á   Éß£Á   Éà£Á   Éá£Á   Éâ£Á   Éã£Á   Éä£Á   Éå£Á   Éæ£Á   Éç£Á   Éè£Á   Éé£Á   Éê£Á   Éë£Á   Éì£Á   Éí£Á   Éî£Á   Éï£Á   Éð£Á   Éñ              ò£Á   Éó£Á   Éô£Á   É


----------



## synthetic (Mar 15, 2010)

I tried loading up VE Pro Server (32-bit) on my Mac with 5 instances of Kontakt. When I started to fill up the fifth instance I was getting a lot of pinwheels and crashes. So I'm keeping to 4 for now. I'll try again once VE Pro and Kontakt get better, bit until then I'm sticking with a 2-computer system. GigaStudio for brass, winds and percussion and Kontakt/VE for LASS and more percussion.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 15, 2010)

josejherring @ Mon Mar 15 said:


> Been thinking of trying this. But doesn't running Altiverb on the same machine really increase the latency, or have you found a way to get around that?



I am using Redline Reverb as long as I am tracking. Super-easy on the CPU. Sometimes I bounce and switch on Altiverb then, sometimes I stay with the Redline which can sound better depending on the case.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 15, 2010)

I had Scope / Giga DAW's from '99 because I just started replacing hardware onstage and having a redundant spare w/ a 32 channel Analog switcher was advised.
It never crashed for a year so I started using 2.54 w/ GS3 on the other for more samples and the Scope DSP cards were so far ahead in terms of power I had a large template for those days.
Now I use a 1U XITE-1 which is a synthesists' MacPro since it is the power of 10 Scope Pro DP cards, and my 4U PC just runs VSTi's and Reaper for the automations.
It's plenty powerful and soon I will use the 64bit drivers live in a 1U once I get the new build tweaked perfectly.
Below is my new skin for Reaper which is totally integrated with Scope like ProTools and Logic is.
I use Reapers GUI to run all of my DSP effects and Mixer.
KS88 templates with Doepfer Fader banks and & switches make this rig is a live players dream.
I will be adding LASS lite someday to replace the MVitous/SISS antiques, but they were excellent for years, and still work well.


----------



## Freds (Mar 15, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Mar 15 said:


> I spend a fair amount of time being paid to help other composers use multi-computer setups with VE Pro, Plogue Bidule, etc. so that they can run huge orchestral simulations.
> 
> Ironically, as a composer I have never been hired for a score that I could not accomplish both to my satisfaction and my client's with 1 computer and even with many of the people I help, it does not seem to me that it is not also true of them, but they want this anyway. While if I got a gig that required this I would certainly do so, nonetheless it is 2 computers to maintain, keep the OS/apps in top form, etc. so there is that downside, not to mention simple electrical consumption.
> 
> So my question is, is this a matter here of people simply wanting to do this for doing huge orchestral mockups for learning/auditioning for job purposes or are many of you actually being paid to do scores that you could not do well on a single powerful contemporary computer?



For me is all about *latency*.


Even if you use a very powerful computer (for today's standards) you will have to deal with latency once you load a whole orchestral palette and other stuff (Synths, plugins, loop players, etc). That's because you would end up with a 512 buffer setting (256 or less will make any Mac with this large palette choke).
That's for me is just plain annoying. Particularly when working with fast passages or grove oriented sequences. 

Running this setup from other computers you can get a MUCH better latency, assuming you use a direct monitoring system (like MOTU 2408, Digital mixers, etc).

This is also great if you use programs like Guitar rig, etc. and run them from other computes. I record guitars this way (with a 128 buffer setting) and it feels like playing from a real amp. With a 512 buffer everything feels out of tempo, the groves don't sound right, and the overall feeling when playing is weird.

In other words, until we can't get computers so powerful that they can load all this crap and still run smoothly with low buffer settings I still prefer having a PC farm.


----------



## mjc (Mar 16, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> I spend a fair amount of time being paid to help other composers use multi-computer setups with VE Pro, Plogue Bidule, etc. so that they can run huge orchestral simulations.
> 
> Ironically, as a composer I have never been hired for a score that I could not accomplish both to my satisfaction and my client's with 1 computer and even with many of the people I help, it does not seem to me that it is not also true of them, but they want this anyway. While if I got a gig that required this I would certainly do so, nonetheless it is 2 computers to maintain, keep the OS/apps in top form, etc. so there is that downside, not to mention simple electrical consumption.
> 
> So my question is, is this a matter here of people simply wanting to do this for doing huge orchestral mockups for learning/auditioning for job purposes or are many of you actually being paid to do scores that you could not do well on a single powerful contemporary computer?



This is a very interesting topic.

In comparison to a lot of you guys here, I'm a newbie in the industry. I received my Bachelor in Music majoring Film Composition about a year ago with a keen interest in the orchestral side of things. I bought my first setup during 2nd year of studies (mid '07) which was a second hand G5 Quad and haven't upgraded since then and have never added any slaves. This of course is makes things arduous when I want to do orchestral sequencing (sequence brass, freeze, work on the violins, freeze...ahh shit i forgot to do blah, unfreeze etc...). The fact of the matter is, the work I'm doing doesn't require _massive_ power. When I do (or try to do) the big orchestral stuff, it's leisure composing in my spare time. So while I'd love to have X slaves stuffed with X amount of RAM with every library and synth under the sun, I'm not being asked to do the next Lord of the Rings. As my career hopefully builds, so will my set-up. My point is, it's very easy to get caught up in gear lust!

I posted a topic a while ago asking advice on adding slaves and upgrading my system...I was overwhelmed by the different ways to go about it...then soon realised I didn't _really_ need to do it.

That said though, what about Mike Patti's setup? He's got a great template and runs it all in the one box doesn't he??


----------



## Dan Selby (Mar 16, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Mar 15 said:


> Dan Selby @ Mon Mar 15 said:
> 
> 
> > For me it comes down to speed and stability. I only have one slave now (8GB) and 12GB on my DAW. It's just quicker when I'm under deadline to have the stuff I use a lot ready and loaded and a template set up routed to it. Also, because almost all my big sample sets are loaded in VEpro (both on the master and the slave) it means I can switch between projects, or revert to an earlier version, or reload cubase if it crashed (very rare), MUCH quicker. That's big, for me - actually the main reason, I would say.
> ...



Well maybe. Maybe not... but it would cost more and there is no workflow or other incentive to do it. My situation is that I had a Q9550 quad core PC with 8GB as my main rig and an aging P4 with 4GB (~2.7 GB usable under XP32) and I was running out of juice - I had used up all the RAM on both machines and the Q9550 was struggling for cpu and disk streaming as well. To upgrade the RAM on the Q9550 would have meant junking the 8GB I had and buying 16GB of the still extremely expensive 4GB memory sticks. Or buy a top end Mac pro or 8core xeon PC? It was much cheaper to gut my P4 machine, put in an i7 930 with 12GB RAM, make that my main rig and repurpose the Q9550 box as an 8GB slave. Now that the Q9550 isn't running the sequencer and effects hosted within it is much happier chugging away just streaming samples and I have the extra RAM and horsepower I needed on the i7 930 box.

They will load a big template much faster than a single monster machine with, say, 24GB ram because they load concurrently. Disk streaming and voice count is going to be better because I've got 2 drives in each box dedicated to streaming. They are virtually silent too so, apart from the additional power consumption, it's a better solution overall... for *me*.

You asked if I need all that horsepower to get the job done. No, I don't claim to use all of my template on every or even most jobs. But, as I said, it's about speed - I like to have everything important, all my favourite stuff, loaded, set up, labelled and sensibly routed in Cubase, with processing already in place so that I can try stuff out quickly and get going. I'm probably not the fastest composer in the world so when I've got x minutes per day to get done I don't want to be wasting my time loading samples, setting up the tracks, routing, panning, fx processing... and then doing it again because it didn't work or I want to try something else. It kills my creativity and wastes my time. I know you get all that, I'm just explaining why for *me*, particularly with the hardware and software I already had, running a powerful main rig with one or two powerful slaves is the best solution.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 16, 2010)

The responses are interesting. I am glad I started this.

In general, is it fair to say that most here are saying, and I paraphrase: "No I do not need to, but I choose to for convenience and as a workflow choice."

BTW, it is interesting to me that no one has (yet) responded along the lines of: "I have to as I am getting paid decent money and the client expects massive orchestral sounds."


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 16, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> client expects massive orchestral sounds."



Well what is massive? An orchestra hit is massive = 1 stereo track. Big strings are massive = 5 stereo tracks. A synth is massive = 1 stereo track (you understand what I mean).

I found that if I want to do very subtle woodwinds work I need lots of libraries and tracks for the nuances. No way I could include that all into one orchestral template anyways, so I don't even start. I load all my bassoons that are in one template, work out the line, bounce it and call it a session.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 16, 2010)

I guess we all wish to be free of having to struggle with the technology because the music is enough of a struggle. So I guess it's a balance for me between too many computers and complexity from that, or too few and facing interruptions from juggling tight resources.

Given how much editing (of the picture) is carrying on while one is working these days, it's certainly difficult for me to picture having to freeze tracks. So that's one reason I think it would be hard to work in one machine, even the latest and best.

But also, the mindset of analysis that comes over me while loading and fiddling samples sounds is totally different for me from the mindset of composing, and takes me out of that mentality. So therefore I like to have a lot, lot of stuff at the fingertips, which I think probably, today, is asking too much of one machine.

This is especially true when you need to print stems. All of a sudden your DAW is handling maybe 20, maybe 50 stereo pairs, and if that's not outsourced to ProTools, it's a demand that I assume would be hard if the same computer also is serving all the sounds and effects.

I'm using a heterogeneous mash of technology, some computers up to date, one from 2004 or 2005. Next round may be smaller, but that depends on how demanding the new libraries are, I suppose.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 16, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> Ashermusic @ Tue Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > client expects massive orchestral sounds."
> ...



Good points and not to be argumentative but only to better understand, when you write: "if I want to do very subtle woodwinds work I need lots of libraries and tracks for the nuances" is this really not doable on one (or two) powerful computers? I think it is.

Here is part of what has prompted this for me. I recently became friendly with a guy who does high quality orchestral mockups for a few successful composers here in LA. He uses 1 and sometimes 2 computers. He basically uses mostly 2 libraries, which he knows thoroughly and keyswitches through articulations from a little keyboard while playing the parts from another controller effortlessly. He is a fine keyboard player and he has mad real time skills with an expression pedal, the best I have ever seen outside of Chris Stone who taught him how to do so.

Bottom line is that he turns out a mockup in 4 hours that most of us would be pleased to do in 3 times that time, no matter how many computers and libraries we have. His clients love what he does and think that it sounds amazing.

Now I am sure that many where who also do this might point out flaws in his mockups and say that if he used more libraries, more computers, spent more time, etc. it would be even better but of course there can be a line of diminishing returns in a commercial world and we each have to decide for ourselves where that line is.

Anyway, I have no agenda with this and it is really interesting to read the different points of view. I have always gotten my work done on one machine, but as Steve Von Kampen very gently pointed out to me in another discussion, I am not hired to do scores that require that kind of horsepower, as they tend to be more intimate.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 16, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Tue Mar 16 said:


> Good points and not to be argumentative but only to better understand, when you write: "if I want to do very subtle woodwinds work I need lots of libraries and tracks for the nuances" is this really not doable on one (or two) powerful computers? I think it is.



Yes it is for sure, that is what I meant.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 16, 2010)

Yes controllers and realtime skills can make a big difference.
If you ever see an expression pedal used as a MIDI controller it's a sign of experience IMHO. Footswitches are what I use and also 4 x Expression pedals.
I never need to touch my DAW as it's in a rack of hardware 20 feet away.
Also if you ever see a MIDI Solutions F8 in a studio chances are that someone there is very fast at making tracks once a template is loaded.
Using Chris Hein Horns I use pedals and footswitches for all articulations.
It's the only way I can have my left hand comps continue while covering Horn sections.
Bidule can be used really well for this too, but I prefer the hardware since it means less virtual gunk on my DAWs
I can use sysex strings for hardware gear also and even send stuttered string requests for lighting consoles, etc.

http://www.midisolutions.com/prodf8.htm
http://www.midisolutions.com/progtool.htm


----------



## Lex (Apr 9, 2010)

I have to use 4 slaves as I am getting paid decent money and the client expects massive orchestral sounds. 

But this is only cause my set up is 32bit and very old...as soon as I can, I'll upgrade and go back to using 1 or 2 comps for everything...


aLex


----------



## C M Dess (Apr 9, 2010)

I would prefer one machine but am moving towards 2. If Logic developers make a way to prevent plugin crashes from crashing Logic I may reconsider. Something like Apple has done with Safari, that feature really did the trick and it gives Safari a real advantage.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Apr 9, 2010)

I have one mac for my music and a 2nd for the non music stuff. Works great for me.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Apr 10, 2010)

For more than a few projects, its great not having to turn on the other computers and keep things sparse. If you absolutely know the precise articulations you need and not one ounce more, its more than possible to create projects on the fly and build them from scratch each time. Or create a simple template to work from and add sounds where you need them.

I have a Mac Pro 8-core which is fairly powerful for much of what I need. The enemy especially in particularly dense orchestrations is polyphony. Sure, I could print tracks and use them instead as audio to free up resources. The main idea of having more than one computer though is the ability to have all the sounds you'll need for virtually any orchestration you'll require online, right now. An example of why this matters is to be able to send structural edits and revisions to editors quickly and on the fly. 

But I concede that having all your sounds online is one thing; having them play back for you in real time without throttling polyphony past the point of pain is quite another. I've noted that certain styles of music are inherently less demanding on computer resources than others. In severely dense orchestrations its a different story however. In those instances, when you start thinking in terms of multiple mic positions for brass and strings, add in heavily scripted string libraries, rapid percussion concurrent with big hits, choir, woodwinds, etc - I personally found that playback can be a true caveat. 

It IS possible to do really dense orchestrations on a single computer. It just takes longer and requires that some tracks need to be printed. But add in the chameleon-like unpredictability of music editors in wanting changes or multiple revisions - especially structural and did I mention we needed this by tomorrow - and the beauty of having everything online becomes clear. In those cases, its just a matter of simply editing your midi files and sending the new track.

My system consists of 3 slaves and one DAW. If I had another Mac Pro (or an i7 quad optimized for 64 bit) I might be able to lose at least one of the slaves.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 10, 2010)

^ agree



and for me i think the biggest problem is the other side of things.. the audio side >8o 

some template route everything to a few stems which is cool but others like me like printing out tracks to later mix it in detail.. and/or something in between. 

thats why for example, id like to see prices of MADI I/Os come down and be on more diverse interfaces... for example.. the RME FF800 with madi. now that would rock. =o 

also, i still dont see VEP as a solution yet. its cool but very unstable for me. and midi overlan plus audio I/Os still seem more stable.


----------



## germancomponist (Apr 10, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Sat Apr 10 said:


> I have one mac for my music and a 2nd for the non music stuff. Works great for me.



Same here, but, PC`s.


----------



## C M Dess (Apr 10, 2010)

*Polyphony VS. CPU...nail on the head.*

I ran some DFD tests the other day on my iMac, one used more HD, the other used more RAM. Results: CPU load not much different. Overloaded in the same spots.

At a Preload size of 16kb, playback performance was not good. Preload at 240kb was good but samples took longer to load and ate more Ram obviously. Also at 240 I experienced more crashes even though I wasn't near the the 2GB limit in logic or the kxmemservers. In the end I set the Preload to 90.

So that has me wondering if you can put more load on HDs in the future and worry less about RAM. Just maintain enough RAM (8-16GB) to load the DFD for as many instruments as needed. Especially since Ram is more money. In the DFD manual it said you can get around 200 voices per the average hard disk. But mine seemed like it could've gone a bit further if not for the CPU brick wall. It seems in this scenario you'd just need to figure out the peak voice count for your drives then divide the number of voices per instrument you'll need, from this you can get an idea of the number of instruments you can stream from each disk and how many disks you'll need for your template.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Apr 11, 2010)

Yes the new i7 and 64bit is changing things considerably, but I cannot see one machine being viable for a long time yet. 

I currently have an i7 daw and 4 slaves; UAD2, 5 outboard synths, and outboard reverb. My normal template has 173 tracks split across those machines. I just don't see how I could move the VSL cube, LASS, PLAY, Ivory, Omnisphere, Stylus, Symphobia, Morphestra and loads of other Kontakt libraries onto one machine. It just wouldn't work at all - even if you bought 72gb ram, you'd never get the disk streaming throughput, and the CPU would simply not cope. And even *if* it could run stably, if that machine crashed and needed to be restarted, you'd be offline for probably 50 mins at least while everything loaded up. 

Cheers

Stephen


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 11, 2010)

Rousseau @ Sun Apr 11 said:


> Yes the new i7 and 64bit is changing things considerably, but I cannot see one machine being viable for a long time yet.
> 
> I currently have an i7 daw and 4 slaves; UAD2, 5 outboard synths, and outboard reverb. My normal template has 173 tracks split across those machines. I just don't see how I could move the VSL cube, LASS, PLAY, Ivory, Omnisphere, Stylus, Symphobia, Morphestra and loads of other Kontakt libraries onto one machine. It just wouldn't work at all - even if you bought 72gb ram, you'd never get the disk streaming throughput, and the CPU would simply not cope. And even *if* it could run stably, if that machine crashed and needed to be restarted, you'd be offline for probably 50 mins at least while everything loaded up.
> 
> ...



Responses generally seem to fall into 3 categories:

1. I can work on 1 machine because what I am hired to write does not require more than I can load on one machine and my workflow is built around that fact.

2. I have to have more than 1 machine because I am hired to write massive things that require more than I can load on one machine.

3. I have to have more than 1 machine because I choose to have everything loaded up when I sit down to write, whether or not I am hired to write massive things that require more than I can load on one machine.

I suspect there are more who fit into #3 than the other 2, which is what I suspected when I started the thread. Very interesting how differently folks choose to approach this. 

I am a less is more kind of guy but were I to be hired to do a massive score rather than the more intimate work I have been hired to do in recent years (and am doing right now) I could see myself adding a second machine, but no more than that.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Apr 11, 2010)

A second Mac Pro or an i7 it would probably handle much of what you would actually ever need. I believe that multiple computers work when the technology is older and the hassle of moving several libraries outweighs the benefit.


----------

