# Anyone ditch a sample slave and moved to one desktop?



## gsilbers (Apr 1, 2014)

im thinking of getting more ram and an SSD drive for samples and ditching an i7/24gb -pc slave. i have an 8 core as my main daw so my train of thought (simple one as of now) is to get 24-48gb of ram and a main SSD drive for big libraries and run everyting on one computer. (id use VEP on the same computer. ) 
8core, each one 2.66 would help processing the samples (?)
has anyone succesfully running big templates on one DAW?


----------



## AR (Apr 2, 2014)

Definitely no slave here anymore.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 2, 2014)

I did this years ago. went from 4 slaves to one machine and would never go back to the old system. There are limits to what you can do on one machines, but I have yet to hit them.

D


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 2, 2014)

I had a mini slave several years ago, long forgotten.

Many Mac owners still need PC slaves it seems. There are still some PC slave owners too, though proportionately not as many it seems to me. Richard Games is the expert here - he does voice count tests that show he's maxing out at 1,500 voices from one machine and its not enough for him. For me, I've never done formal tests (not sure how to do them?) but I've never encountered dropped voices (and I use simultaneous FC, A, B & C config from LASS which involves a lot of steaming you'd think). I suspect it depends on a) exactly what libraries you use and b) how dense your orchestration is.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Apr 2, 2014)

I retired a 4 PC setup a couple of years ago and moved to a single Mac Pro running Cubase. I haven't reached the limits of its capabilities yet and am very happy with it. I don't run a template though, and build each project from scratch.


----------



## dgburns (Apr 2, 2014)

maybe if it's the new mac pro,otherwise,for me running a 2008 mac pro was excruciating.i got to the point where i apple scripted ve pro loading projects so I could flush out and load in portions of the template and then i'd have to render to audio so i could continue.It was not the solution for me.
Just setup my third slave,and while the file management side is a pain,not to mention running all three slave from one monitor(thru remote desktop) i do like the fact that i can load the constant stuff and get on with the rest of it.
i think having three slaves with 32 gig ram each is about the minimum ,i'll be adding another 32 gig of ram to one of them soon.

power on demand is better,even if for the most part,they sit idle while waiting.when the flurry that is clients (and their demands) asks for more,faster better bigger,I'm happy to know i'm the slowest thing in the creative chain.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 2, 2014)

gsilbers @ 2/4/2014 said:


> im thinking of getting more ram and an SSD drive for samples and ditching an i7/24gb -pc slave. i have an 8 core as my main daw so my train of thought (simple one as of now) is to get 24-48gb of ram and a main SSD drive for big libraries and run everyting on one computer. (id use VEP on the same computer. )
> 8core, each one 2.66 would help processing the samples (?)
> has anyone succesfully running big templates on one DAW?



Well, it all depends on what kind of samples you will run/stream. I have found out that I need a slave now because if I want to use Spitfire's samples with at least two or tre mics my main-DAW-PC starts to crank out. I run EVERYTHING from SSD's. I even got some unused SSD's laying around waiting to be used. But anyway... For streaming A LOT of samples you'd be better of with two computers then one. There will be, and always will be a bottleneck on "one PC-system"

I have a i7 with 32gb ram and 5-6 SSD-drives (RME interface) I thought that I'd be best off with only one PC-build. But that changed fast when I wanted two-tree mic positions = double the stream size. Maybe a 8core will handle it better, but you will be killing it with some few synths after a while anyway. 

Yes, I have been running big templates, but not flawless. 
My next thing would be a slave Intel e3, 32gb ram and 3 SSD's for streaming. That will be a killer  you don't need anything "bigger" this day. The amount of streaming-load needs to be spread across systems rather then focused on one.

Best
Ryan


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 2, 2014)

interesting stuff.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 2, 2014)

I love working on two machines, it is dead easy, just using my second machine like a JV-2080


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 2, 2014)

One machine, 1x SSD for system and software, 2x SSD sample drives, 1x "normal" 7,2krpm drive for sessions and another additional 1TB 7,2krpm drive for additional samples, 64GB of RAM and a 6core 4Ghz CPU - no more slaves and also no VEPro or anything else anymore!


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 2, 2014)

Waywyn @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> One machine, 1x SSD for system and software, 2x SSD sample drives, 1x "normal" 7,2krpm drive for sessions and another additional 1TB 7,2krpm drive for additional samples, 64GB of RAM and a 6core 4Ghz CPU - no more slaves and also no VEPro or anything else anymore!



wow. thats a lot of ram on one system. do you fill most of it with your template ? 

not using template? 

also, in general, will 2 SSD drive help out with sample streaming or is it that a 1tb SSD is too expensive?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 2, 2014)

I've also got 64gb of RAM on the single machine - currently, only the 2011 socket set supports this.

I've nearly finished the next version of the template (only pending the Sable Strings update). It's around 24gb, all Kontakt instruments fully purged 18k buffer, VSL VI Pro on low preload buffers. It has the following libraries all loaded in 8 rammed instances of VE Pro and ready to go:

LASS 2.5 (A, B, C, FC) inc a few multis
Sable Strings 1, 2, 3a
CineStrings
Orchestral String Runs
CineBrass Core and Pro
VSL SE vol 4 and woods
HollywoodWinds
CinePerc Core and Pro
HZ01
Symphobia 1 (inc many multis)
Lumina inc many multis
Broadway Big Band
Various Play instruments
Pianos, harps, odds and sods

Blank instances of Kontakt 5, Play, Engine, 2x Omnisphere, 2xStylus RMX, EZ Drummer and a slew of FX. In general I'm using main mixes of multi-mic libraries, but some have custom control. Template loads in approx 3 minutes.

It doesn't seem remotely taxed (though on my system Cubase 7.5.1 doesn't like hosting Play 4, so I do even the blank Play instance in VE Pro). ASIO hovers at around 20-25% on sample-based stuff, hits around 50% if its very synth or fx heavy. This is a non-overclocked 4930 on Win 7 pro, 256 buffer on an RME Babyface.

I think this setup would over-stress a 32gb system, because you need to allow plenty of room for a) the OS, b) the sequencer, and c) for the template to grow as you play in a purged setup (it only tends to grow by a few gb, but that's would be a big deal in this case if I was only running 32gb in total). In general I'm a believer in running stuff well within system limits, I hate the bleeding edge of anything...

Here's the thing. I think most people equate large templates with 15,000 voices all playing at the same time. In fact, I don't think your voice count changes much whether or not you even use a template, never mind its size - you just load / play what you need, right? It's just you have a huge range of choices ready to go with a large template - you're not playing any more at once. I LOVE having all the detail of individual instruments and autodivisi in the case of LASS and yet all those instant hit Project Sam multis all ready to go in collapsible folders. It means regardless of the project and timescale, I've got pretty much everything there ready to go. Love it love it.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 2, 2014)

oh wow . now i feel i dont need that much of a system seeing those libs.


----------



## edhamilton (Apr 2, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> I love working on two machines, it is dead easy, just using my second machine like a JV-2080



Come on Jay. Give your slave pc the respect it deserves and at least compare it to a 5080 with 4 exp boards installed. :D 
(for those not familiar with the terms 2080 and 5080, its basically old guy talk, sort of like my grandfather referring to when "the milk man use to deliver every other day")


----------



## rgames (Apr 2, 2014)

The answer depends on your use of the system. I've found that you can get about 1250 - 1500 voices on a single machine with VSL or LASS, i5 or i7 (processor doesn't really matter). Cinesamples is a little less and PLAY is a lot less.

If your music is sufficiently complex to require more than that number of voices, you need a slave.

If not, you don't.

It all comes down to the complexity of the music you write.

rgames


----------



## Folmann (Apr 2, 2014)

Yes. Long time ago. PCs go up to 24 cores now and really no reason to use multiple rigs anymore with memory and ssd being affordable.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 3, 2014)

rgames @ Thu Apr 03 said:


> The answer depends on your use of the system. I've found that you can get about 1250 - 1500 voices on a single machine with VSL or LASS, i5 or i7 (processor doesn't really matter). Cinesamples is a little less and PLAY is a lot less.
> 
> If your music is sufficiently complex to require more than that number of voices, you need a slave.
> 
> ...



Richard - you've probably said this before on other threads, but how do you test your system for voice count? And do you wait til you notice audible issues or use some other method?

It is interesting that so many of us don't encounter issues on single systems, despite a superficially heavy workload. Complexity I think must be only part of the puzzle. I think a bigger deal (apart from which libraries you use of course) is multiple mic positions. A lot of folks like to have all 4 mic positions running in the Spitfire series, for example, whereas I default to one of the stereo mixes - ditto CineSamples. Spread over the core sections, that will produce a massive difference in voice count.


----------



## Stiltzkin (Apr 3, 2014)

Been writing some quite complex music in my spitfire template recently with 2 mic positions on most instrument - starting to feel like at times it's struggling, but im on a quad core i7, so I really doubt a slave is needed with 6, 8 and 12 core processors on the market (and dual CPU mobos on top of that!)


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 3, 2014)

Stiltzkin @ Thu Apr 03 said:


> Been writing some quite complex music in my spitfire template recently with 2 mic positions on most instrument - starting to feel like at times it's struggling, but im on a quad core i7, so I really doubt a slave is needed with 6, 8 and 12 core processors on the market (and dual CPU mobos on top of that!)



I'm pretty sure Richard will tell you that more cores won't make any difference, that the bottleneck is likely to lie elsewhere. As he says above, there's no difference between an i5 and an i7 when it comes to streaming.


----------



## wonshu (Apr 3, 2014)

I run most of the things internally but I'm glad I have about 150 instruments loaded up and ready to go on 2 external machines. It makes loading much faster and those are the sounds I don't want to go looking for all the time.

I'm looking forward to adding more slaves in the future to have some of those bread and butter sounds loaded up and ready to go without waiting for my song files to load.


----------



## Stiltzkin (Apr 3, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 03 said:


> Stiltzkin @ Thu Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Been writing some quite complex music in my spitfire template recently with 2 mic positions on most instrument - starting to feel like at times it's struggling, but im on a quad core i7, so I really doubt a slave is needed with 6, 8 and 12 core processors on the market (and dual CPU mobos on top of that!)
> ...



Unless the VE Pro and win8 task manager CPU meters are lying or are basing it on something else then I'm not sure how that's possible :/

Everything is streamed from different SSDs, I think it's mostly all the time stretching and constant tempo changes that upset it (I also notice that VE Pro really does not like sending a whole lot of tempo changes to multiple kontakt instances)


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 3, 2014)

Time stretch patches - yes, you're right they are CPU intensive. Tempo changes - there's a long standing Kontakt / Cubase bug with some libraries there (I've had to ditch my Straight Ahead drum library because of it, though haven't checked to see if latest versions have fixed it).


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 3, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 03 said:


> Stiltzkin @ Thu Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Been writing some quite complex music in my spitfire template recently with 2 mic positions on most instrument - starting to feel like at times it's struggling, but im on a quad core i7, so I really doubt a slave is needed with 6, 8 and 12 core processors on the market (and dual CPU mobos on top of that!)
> ...



i think the i7 and i5 is related to core speed. and i7/i5 only come in 4 core if i am not mistaken. so 6 or 8 or 12 cores might mean there is more wiggle room for standalone VEP to process the workload on different cores than the DAW. more cores, more different proceses? 
right? no?


----------



## Mahlon (Apr 3, 2014)

The reason I've not gone yet to a single setup is just to keep things simple and clean. Probably an illusion, but it feels better to me. I like the divided duties. The sample machine always remains much cleaner over time than my main computer.

Mahlon


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 3, 2014)

gsilbers @ Thu Apr 03 said:


> i think the i7 and i5 is related to core speed. and i7/i5 only come in 4 core if i am not mistaken. so 6 or 8 or 12 cores might mean there is more wiggle room for standalone VEP to process the workload on different cores than the DAW. more cores, more different proceses?
> right? no?



(again, apologies for speaking for Richard based on what he's said many times in many threads - he seems to be the person at VI-C who has spent most time testing all of this).

As far as pure sample streaming goes, Richard consistently says its the architecture that's the bottleneck of between 1,200 and 1.500 voices per machine. Cores don't really matter either. However, my view is that there are some important caveats as Stilzkin's example shows - if you're using Kontakt's Time Machine Pro or, say, a lot of Sample Modelling instruments then those patches are going to be much more demanding and CPU speed and number of cores might very well become much more important. (In general, VE Pro is much more efficient that Cubase anyway of course)

IMO, all the links in the chain are important if you are using a lot of FX / hungry VST instruments and running a large template. LASS 2 taxed my previous system with many instances of their stage and color for example. Cubase couldn't cope at all, and even the mighty VE Pro struggled with all the convolution reverbs. However, removing those reverbs and adding sends to my own low latency ones meant VE Pro took it all in its stride. So it was the same voice count and stress on the SSDs, but in that case it was definitely CPU that was the limiting factor. My guess is that Richard doesn't use anything paarticularly CPU intensive while does perhaps use multi-mic instruments and Play stuff, which explains why he's only really concerned about the sample streaming. I appear not to have such extreme demands on voice limit, but I do tax the CPU a little more.


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Apr 3, 2014)

Yes and I also ditched VEP and the Mac Pro - happy with only one PC!


----------



## Ryan (Apr 4, 2014)

From my experience and with Spitfire Audio Libraries (that I mainly use this days & with more then one mic positions) my CPU starts to struggle. Everything streams from SSD's, I7 CPU, 32gb ram.

I also like to add a bit of tail-reverb, comp (waves stuff) also. Could be a reason too.


----------



## IFM (Apr 4, 2014)

If I avoid having a fully preloaded HS and HB setup then I can do everything on my Mac. Play, in fact, is the only reason I use a slave because it sucks so much memory on OSX. If I am running full Kontakt setups then one machine is all I need and most of the time prefer it that way.

Chris


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 7, 2014)

I have never really needed 2 x slaves but always kept old rackmounted DAWs for spares, etc.
Recently went to a large 32GB Orchestral set up using Reaper and Bidule as a host, but the new ASRock Extreme 11a with built in LSI Controller is so far beyond these Marvell and ASMedia consumer chips it's amazing.

For me to load up 128 instruments on 32 MIDI channels I needed 3 x i7s and it worked great, but now I can load up to 28GBs on 1866 RAM @ 4.4Ghz using 2 x RAID 0 SAS arrays at 1.4GBps and this machine is a DAW mans dream come true.

Most won't need this much power but I have performed nightly now for 3 weeks using it and it's as fast as a giant ROMPLER.

Anyone wanting to get a single machine and only needs 32GB templates should really check it out.
If you don't need fast ass SAS, or NGFF M.2 SSDs. the THunderbolt II port can use LaCie enclosures for insane transfer rates at half the price.

Also, I know everyone here is a Logic/Cubase user and they are great apps for sure, but for realtime hosting nothing is as fast and stable as Bildule hosting Kontakt Instrument banks as a VSTi in Reaper, then having PianoTeq 4 Pro, PLAY and VSL.

Anyone wanting a new DAW build should look at the ASRock storage beast with the LSI controller built in. It's a gift from God.


----------



## Steve Steele (Apr 13, 2014)

Ryan @ Wed Apr 02 said:


> gsilbers @ 2/4/2014 said:
> 
> 
> > im thinking of getting more ram and an SSD drive for samples and ditching an i7/24gb -pc slave. i have an 8 core as my main daw so my train of thought (simple one as of now) is to get 24-48gb of ram and a main SSD drive for big libraries and run everyting on one computer. (id use VEP on the same computer. )
> ...



Ryan - What's your DAW? We have a similar situation but I have an 8 core 2008 MacPro 32GBs ram and I'm using Digital Performer 8. I have SSDs for everything too. I just replied to you to ask you that.

But to add to the topic... I've been working on ways to lower CPU loads and memory footprint, while still having the same template (mostly).

Sometimes I get better performance just using my DAW for my entire template and then other times I have to use VEPro. But then communication between DP and VEPro gets weird and some libraries won't play, or notes get stuck notes (like rgames said, the ones with more voices or mics tend to have trouble first - Cinebrass will start acting up before LASS). 

I've been spending a lot of time with MIR lately and am getting great results now that I've spent time really learning how to use the microphones, the microphone setups and edits, and some of the other tricks that bring MIR alive. Despite some people not liking MIR, I think after banging my head for awhile I'm finally getting MIR to do some very nice things that I could not do any other way. It took me awhile but I'm a MIR believer.

So, if you watch the memory that your DAW is taking, you'll notice that no matter what, there is a ceiling that you can't cross. In general, mine is around 13GBs or so (depending of what instruments are loaded), and then my DAW or VEPro will start losing it. Concerning VEPro, I don't trust using the VE Event Input plugin quite yet. That could easily be a Core Audio thing though.

But my point is, and this was for everybody, if you're running one system, and you use VEPro, try to balance the load between the DAW and VEPro, because if either one has to use too much memory things will go wrong. So instead of loading everything in VEPro, I load about 2/3rds into VEPro and the rest in my DAW. VEPro will use about 10GBs of real memory and with DP I try to keep at 8GB or under. That way DP is still quite responsive, and VEPro hasn't choked yet.

Not sure that I'm going to stop with this setup, but these two options work great for me.

1) In VEPro -Strings (LASS and other various instruments), VSL Winds, Percussion. In Digital Performer - Brass. 

or without VEPro

2 ) Just Digital Performer with some creative routing and I have MIR Pro (the stand alone)

Strings (LASS and CS2, and others)
Winds VSL and others
Perc (a little bit of this, a little bit of that..)
Brass (This is where it gets cool with MIR. MIR not only helps LASS and some of my other instruments blend very well, but it takes some load off of Digital Performer. 

But the big thing is getting Cinebrass to work in this setup and still use it's mics. I take the mics out of CB, through Kontakt's mixer in MIR and _voila_, CB mixes with LASS and my VSL winds. I'm able to keep just enough of CB's room sound to keep CB sounding ok, but enough of the room is taken out so MIR can create the ERs and mix all of my libraries.

All of that is just a long way of saying that I can use just my DAW on one computer, using three instances of Kontakt (more for solo instruments sometimes), with all of LASS, CS2, Abion, Cinebrass, PS Orch Brass, and everything else, and DP's memory footprint is quite low, which keeps it running smoothly. Yet it's as versatile and it sounds as good as when I had much more going on.

Very happy about that.

My apologizes for that lengthy essay. But it is cool how many ways there are to achieve almost the same result.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 13, 2014)

nightwatch @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> But my point is, and this was for everybody, if you're running one system, and you use VEPro, try to balance the load between the DAW and VEPro, because if either one has to use too much memory things will go wrong.



Just to say I've never encountered any ceiling with VE Pro, but I'm in Windows. Currently template is at 23gb, everything very smooth. If Cubase gets overloaded though, I agree that can get ugly.


----------



## synergy543 (Apr 13, 2014)

nightwatch @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> So, if you watch the memory that your DAW is taking, you'll notice that no matter what, there is a ceiling that you can't cross. In general, mine is around 13GBs or so (depending of what instruments are loaded), and then my DAW or VEPro will start losing it. Concerning VEPro, I don't trust using the VE Event Input plugin quite yet. That could easily be a Core Audio thing though.


What OS are you running? I wonder why there would be such a ceiling?

I was thinking of adding more memory (currently 16G RAM on 2008MacPro 2.8G running OS 8.5 and DP8 and VEP) although your comments are giving me second thoughts. The cost of moving up to 32G (about $600) is about 20% of the cost of a new machine so its a difficult decision.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 13, 2014)

I am amazed at the number of people who can work with a single machine. 

I don't think I could come close to that. I'm straining as it is on my main 8 core Mac, even without using it as a recording device (everything goes to another Mac with ProTools for that). I am pushing the limits just with Omnisphere and some other plugins v.i.s. I don't do much / any processing on the Mac either, beyond what's built into the Omni and other patches (which, admittedly, is quite a bit).

So, given where I am, I blanch at the idea of trying to have one computer do all of what it's doing now plus what a bunch of slaves and the ProTools rig are doing.

Hats off to you guys!


----------



## Steve Steele (Apr 13, 2014)

synergy543 @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> nightwatch @ Sun Apr 13 said:
> 
> 
> > So, if you watch the memory that your DAW is taking, you'll notice that no matter what, there is a ceiling that you can't cross. In general, mine is around 13GBs or so (depending of what instruments are loaded), and then my DAW or VEPro will start losing it. Concerning VEPro, I don't trust using the VE Event Input plugin quite yet. That could easily be a Core Audio thing though.
> ...



I've got 10.9.2 and the latest DP and VE. There's a ceiling for several reasons. The speed limits of my MacPro, the OS managing resources and DP having too many tasks to handle at once. When I load samples into Kontakt (as a plugin in DP), that's loaded in DP's memory space. The highest I've seen DP go on my system is 16GBs. Around that point, depending on what I have loaded, DP begins to react very slowly and DP's CPU meter peaks. On a new MacPro (and I hate to admit it, but a good PC), DP will do much better. This isn't a DP problem. Logic does the same thing on my system.

When using VEPro, for some reason that I haven't solved yet, at some point DP seemed to have trouble communicating with VEPro. It could have been a Core Audio issue, or an Event Input plugin issue. But I would get stuck notes, notes that flat out would not playback. and I'd have to cmnd-1 "stop all midi notes" all the time. Until I can get my VEPro template up to par, I've decided to back off on instances of Kontakt, use Kontakt's internal routing, make better use of MIDI channels (which DP is excellent at), and to keep certain libraries in DP. Things are much better now.

Actually, I'm impressed what this thing can do when I manage things well. 

You must have all 2GB DIMMs? That means you need to replace all of them to get 32GBs. I had the same grim task. 

I left a reply in another thread that I had bought some 8GB kits for $58 (per 4GB DIMM). Total was $241.00 for 16GBs.

If I were you, (assuming you have all 2GB DIMMs) get 16GBs (4x4GB DIMMS), and keep four of the 2GB DIMMs, and that will give you 24GBs. I discovered that there was a big difference between 16GBs and 24GBs, but less so from 24GBs to 32GBs. That was my experience at least.

Last note, I'm coming to the conclusion that DP/OSX users need two things to happen. DP needs to adopt VST3, and Apple needs to optimize Core Audio. From the beginning of OSX, we new that UNIX wasn't the best solution for an audio workstation (but it's a great OS overall). BeOS would have been great for audio, but BeOS didn't come with Steve Jobs.


----------



## Steve Steele (Apr 13, 2014)

JohnG @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> I am amazed at the number of people who can work with a single machine.
> 
> I don't think I could come close to that. I'm straining as it is on my main 8 core Mac, even without using it as a recording device (everything goes to another Mac with ProTools for that). I am pushing the limits just with Omnisphere and some other plugins v.i.s. I don't do much / any processing on the Mac either, beyond what's built into the Omni and other patches (which, admittedly, is quite a bit).
> 
> ...



No, actually you are right. I haven't played with the new MacPro, but if I wanted to have VEPro load everything I possibly might need, and I used 30 - 40 instances of MIR (which means a lot of Kontakt instances), plus all of the processing I would do in my DAW - if I wanted to keep all of that stuff active and running at all times, I would need multiple computers.

Maybe, Cubase, VST3 and Window's PCs have somehow become so efficient that some users can do everything they want on an i7 PC, but there is no way I could on my 2008 MP. 

Curious to see how the 2013 MacPro and those Xeons holds up, but Core Audio and the AU format are going to slow us Mac users down until it's improved. That's just my opinion.


----------



## synergy543 (Apr 13, 2014)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Steve. Yes, I do have all 2G DIMMs now and you're suggestion of going to 24G would certainly be cheaper than 32G. And that additional 50% RAM would certainly come in handy to help me avoid filling it up so quickly and getting pages outs (requiring a reboot) which is what happens to me quite often.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 14, 2014)

JohnG @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> I am amazed at the number of people who can work with a single machine.
> 
> I don't think I could come close to that. I'm straining as it is on my main 8 core Mac, even without using it as a recording device (everything goes to another Mac with ProTools for that). I am pushing the limits just with Omnisphere and some other plugins v.i.s. I don't do much / any processing on the Mac either, beyond what's built into the Omni and other patches (which, admittedly, is quite a bit).
> 
> ...



Crikey - I'm slightly flabbergasted that Omni and a few other VIs can push the limits of an 8 core mac! I have to say, from an outsiders perspective, Windows does seem the superior platform for music production (and how's that for an inflammatory sentence?)

I think I'm running about 25 instances of Kontakt, themselves containing approx 500 individual nkis (I use LASS which can use all 64 slots in Kontakt). Then there's 20ish VSL VI Pro instances, an Engine and a couple of Play instances. That's all in the 23gb VE Pro template (Kontakt running fully purged, 18k preload buffers). All running silky smooth on a 4930k at stock speed, 64gb RAM. To be fair, one of things I do is to use, say, Spitfire mixes rather than run 4 individual mic positions. I don't use many libraries that are running multiple mic positions, though by contrast I always run LASS as FC, A, B and C sections which requires a lot of streaming.

Then for Cubase itself, I took a look on a recent electronic project which had 3x 8ch of Omni, 15 Nexus 2s, a couple of full loaded Styluses and a boat load of effects. That was hitting around 50% max on the performance meters @256 buffers. The only issues I currently have are a) this bizarre problem with my blu ray drive which needs a disc inside it in order to not stuff up system performance ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeavcII9sho ) and Play 4.1.7 is erratic when hosted in Cubase, often causing huge spiking. It's well behaved in VE Pro though.


----------



## luke_7 (Apr 14, 2014)

Yes. Since 2012 single machine here.


----------

