# Slave machine build - advice?



## composerguy78 (Jan 12, 2017)

I'm considering buying/building a slave machine to run Vienna Ensemble Pro in Windows. 

I've been looking at https://pcpartpicker.com and I was wondering if anyone has any advice in this department? 

I am on a bit of a tight budget. I'd like to build it for less than $1000 if possible. I'm thinking 32 GB of RAM should be enough but I may go for 64 GB. 


I'm not sure which processor to buy ie. how many cores? 
Which motherboard? 
Which version of Windows? 
Should I get VE Pro 6? I already have 5. 
I don't need a video card, I plan on running it headless. 

I'd consider buying a used one to be honest. 
Does anyone have any advice in this department? 
Thx
Felix


----------



## iMovieShout (Feb 2, 2017)

Hi Felix,
I'm not sure this will really help, but here is my experience of trying to tune a heavy weight slave server though Mac based...
I have recently upgraded from VEP5 to VEP6 in order to support the simultaneous live performance of about 30 plugins and articulations. To do this I have upgraded the front end workstation running Cubase 8.5 and Nuendo 7 etc, to MacPro 6,1 8-core with 64GB RAM, and the VEP6 server-slave to a MacPro 5,1 12-core (3.46MHz) with 128GB RAM and 4TB SSD, with backend NAS storing around 12TB of sample libraries etc. All connected via Thunderbolt and GB Ethernet.
All runs ok, BUT samples dropout when more than around 6 or 7 are playing at the same time. The main issue here seems to be Kontakt in that it really needs a very fast SSD RAID0 array or large fast memory to store the samples whilst they are loaded in Kontakt. Not sure what the solution here is, except to do a Hans Zimmer and increase the number of high-spec slaves!!!

I've no solution to the above as yet, except to keep on tweaking and hope that someone else has found a solution that is cheaper than creating a 'Hans Zimmer' slave farm  

The other way to do this is probably to record the samples as they are played (i.e.. bounce to audio such as MP3 or .WAV), and mix down, but this is very lengthy and time consuming, especially when bounced audio needs to be tweaked in some way.

Hope that helps in some small way,
Jon


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 2, 2017)

composerguy78 said:


> I'm considering buying/building a slave machine to run Vienna Ensemble Pro in Windows.
> 
> I've been looking at https://pcpartpicker.com and I was wondering if anyone has any advice in this department?
> 
> ...



you can try
http://magicmicro.com/
and see what parts go with what. same as part picker.

$1000 might be low for a slave but getting it used might be the key. you might find a used gamer computer in craiglist that's a few years old but still fast enough. maybe look for builds that are i7 5820k intel or higher.
also some people have i5 intel slaves and those seem to be good though.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 2, 2017)

Hello Felix,

It seems that you can build an ok computer for around $1k these days, though it's tempting to "save" on things that can shorten its life, like the power supply or a good enclosure that will keep it really cool.

That said, I think you'll get better guidance if you describe:

1. What kind of music you want to be able to write, including the style and how involved it's going to be ("full orchestra plus guitars and synths" or "chamber music like Aaron Copland" or "Cold Play-style songs" or "game soundtracks like Halo or Elder Scrolls" or "sacred music");

2. What you already have as a main computer and what software you will be using (Logic, Omnisphere, Waves plugins, and so on);

3. How much of your virtual orchestra you want to put on the slave computer (just strings and brass, or strings-brass-percussion-winds-guitars...)

Kind regards,

John


----------



## bc3po (Feb 2, 2017)

jpb007.uk said:


> Hi Felix,
> I'm not sure this will really help, but here is my experience of trying to tune a heavy weight slave server though Mac based...
> I have recently upgraded from VEP5 to VEP6 in order to support the simultaneous live performance of about 30 plugins and articulations. To do this I have upgraded the front end workstation running Cubase 8.5 and Nuendo 7 etc, to MacPro 6,1 8-core with 64GB RAM, and the VEP6 server-slave to a MacPro 5,1 12-core (3.46MHz) with 128GB RAM and 4TB SSD, with backend NAS storing around 12TB of sample libraries etc. All connected via Thunderbolt and GB Ethernet.
> All runs ok, BUT samples dropout when more than around 6 or 7 are playing at the same time. The main issue here seems to be Kontakt in that it really needs a very fast SSD RAID0 array or large fast memory to store the samples whilst they are loaded in Kontakt. Not sure what the solution here is, except to do a Hans Zimmer and increase the number of high-spec slaves!!!
> ...


You're getting dropouts when you have 6-7 tracks playing back? Something is wrong if that's the case. I've never had that issue, what makes you think the problem is kontakt?


----------



## Mizar (Feb 4, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Hello Felix,
> 
> It seems that you can build an ok computer for around $1k these days, though it's tempting to "save" on things that can shorten its life, like the power supply or a good enclosure that will keep it really cool.
> 
> ...



Hi John,

I thought I would post this here rather than making a new thread, since I am also wanting to build a slave PC. 

I run a windows based PC, using Studio One as my current DAW. 

1. I plan to write full orchestral and orchestral hybrid music. (Choir, Strings, Winds, Brass, Percussion, Synths, Guitars, Sound Design, Effects, etc) 

2. I run Windows 10 Pro, with Intel Core i7-3770k @ 3.50Ghz, with 16 gigs of ram. 64 bit operating system. I built this PC originally for gaming. The power supply can handle whatever I throw at it and the case is nice and spacious. 

3. I would like to put mostly my orchestral instruments on the slave running through VEP. Choirs, Strings, Brass, Winds, Percussion. Possibly also guitars. 

My goal is to be able to have my synths, guitars, sound design, drumkits, world instruments, etc in my DAW but using disabled tracks and the Orchestral stuff always "live" on the slave PC ready to go. Is a slave absolutely necessary for that, or would throwing 64/128 gigs into my current PC be enough?


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Feb 4, 2017)

Mizar said:


> Is a slave absolutely necessary for that, or would throwing 64/128 gigs into my current PC be enough?



Your CPU (and I'm pretty sure your motherboard too) will not support that much memory. As far as I know, it's 32GB max, but you should double check that figure to be sure.


----------



## Mizar (Feb 4, 2017)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> Your CPU (and I'm pretty sure your motherboard too) will not support that much memory. As far as I know, it's 32GB max, but you should double check that figure to be sure.



I just double checked, and you're right. 32gb max. :( 

So, it actually looks like my only option is a slave PC or new motherboard/cpu combo.


----------



## ZeroZero (Feb 4, 2017)

Agree with the above, although there is much that you can do to work in your current mobo/cpu upgrading would bring in the breeze. You can meanwhile use disable tracks, freeze tracks, import and export tracks (from a template collection of tracks on yourPC. You can be scrupulous with purge and ensure you VST multi's are not loading unecessary tracks.


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Feb 4, 2017)

I believe multiple computers are always superior, but the real question is whether the music you want to write would be using all of the resources that one powerful machine offers.

If all of these apply to you, then you're almost guaranteed to need more than 1 computer:

*A)* full orchestra with very dense orchestration and detailed part-writing (i.e. separate horn 1, 2, 3 & 4 vs horns a4)
*B)* TONS of plugins and/or a bunch of demanding synths
*C)* using multiple microphone positions for your samples

Unfortunately there are too many variables (CPU, hard drive type and speed, OS optimization, DAW, audio interface, sampler & synth makes etc etc etc.) to really be able to give you an indication of what a single machine can do... But there are plenty of videos around where you can see people who run a single machine setup and get away with it just fine (Blakus, Alex Pfeffer, Daniel James).

Perhaps have a look at their videos and see if that broadly matches what you'll be trying to do. I know Daniel uses a Mac, but the others are on PC I believe.


----------



## Mizar (Feb 4, 2017)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> I believe multiple computers are always superior, but the real question is whether the music you want to write would be using all of the resources that one powerful machine offers.
> 
> If all of these apply to you, then you're almost guaranteed to need more than 1 computer:
> 
> ...




Seems as though I'll have to build a slave.  

I have plenty of experience building my own PCs, so when it comes to a case, power supplies, ram, and other peripherals, I think I have those things covered. 

Is there anything else I need to be considerate about when building for a slave? I plan to use the same OS (Windows 10 Pro, in my case) and VEP and some sort of remote desktop program. 

Does this motherboard/cpu combo seem adequate? 

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157543
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117402


----------



## ZeroZero (Feb 4, 2017)

Agree with the above, we are not all writing Wagner's Ring in 7.1. "Less is more" many a pro repeats this - though we are all gear hogs if the truth was out. One decent CPU (intel 8820 or better) with a good motherboard, perhaps a couple of samsung M.2 drives - will feel like floating on clouds. But that might not be viable. I am just looking at the Nutracker Suite it's beautifully sparse and so well balanced.


----------



## ZeroZero (Feb 4, 2017)

Are you sure you need a slave? Would not the slave your building be faster that your main machine?


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Feb 4, 2017)

Mizar said:


> Does this motherboard/cpu combo seem adequate?
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157543
> https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117402



The general consensus seems to be that the ideal slave CPU has the highest possible clock speed, but more than 4 physical cores are usually wasted, because you'll reach a bottleneck elsewhere before you use that CPU power up.

So infact with those components I'd make that your new DAW machine and use the older one as a slave.


----------



## Mizar (Feb 4, 2017)

ZeroZero said:


> Are you sure you need a slave? Would not the slave your building be faster that your main machine?



Yes, it would be. I can live with that, though. Considering the slave would be doing all of the heavy lifting with main Orchestra. 

My PC doesn't really have issues when it comes to processing power, the main limitation I have is RAM. I can upgrade my main PC to 32gbs, and If my main PC is only handling the DAW and some synths/guitars/etc - I think that would be enough.


----------



## Mizar (Feb 4, 2017)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> The general consensus seems to be that the ideal slave CPU has the highest possible clock speed, but more than 4 physical cores are usually wasted, because you'll reach a bottleneck elsewhere before you use that CPU power up.
> 
> So infact with those components I'd make that your new DAW machine and use the older one as a slave.
> 
> Edit: ASRock mobos rock solid, definitely recommended.



Even with the 32gb limit? I thought the idea was to have as much ram as possible for the slave.


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Feb 4, 2017)

Mizar said:


> Even with the 32gb limit? I thought the idea was to have as much ram as possible for the slave.



Sorry the 32GB limit had already slipped my mind.. Yeah, if you're wanting to have all of that orchestral stuff loaded and ready to go then 64GB minimum..


----------



## Mizar (Feb 4, 2017)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> Sorry the 32GB limit had already slipped my mind.. Yeah, if you're wanting to have all of that orchestral stuff loaded and ready to go then 64GB minimum..



Understood. I suppose there's no other way of getting around the "wasted" cpu with that bottleneck issue, while still grabbing a cpu that can handle 64gbs? 

Also, what are the typical bottlenecks people commonly run into?

I'm alright with that if there's no other alternatives.


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Feb 4, 2017)

I'm unsure what the cause of the bottleneck is, but once you hit a certain voice count, you'll get audio dropouts.
The exact number of voices you can reach is also different per library (scripting efficiency? someone more qualified than me should specify on that)

Again, most beneficial is to have the highest possible clock speed. Number of cores seems to matter far less.
But you'll most likely reach that maximum voice count while still having spare CPU power with any current i7 CPU.

@rgames has done a lot of testing, here's one of his quotes:
Here's what I know: I did compare the 6700k (four-core) to a 4930k (six-core) using the same benchmark and they performed basically the same.

Here's what else I know: I under-clocked the 6700k and 4930k down to 3.0 GHz and the voice counts dropped by more than 50%.

So, based on my limited data, a 50% increase in number of cores produced no effect but a 25% drop in clock speed produced a reduction of 50% in streaming voices. That, to me, says clock speed matters a lot more than number of cores.​And check out this thread of his with some actual measurement data of what he can get out of his most recent 6700k slaves: http://vi-control.net/community/threads/i7-6700k-slave-machine-sample-streaming-benchmarks.54126/


----------



## Mizar (Feb 4, 2017)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> I'm unsure what the cause of the bottleneck is, but once you hit a certain voice count, you'll get audio dropouts.
> The exact number of voices you can reach is also different per library (scripting efficiency? someone more qualified than me should specify on that)
> 
> Again, most beneficial is to have the highest possible clock speed. Number of cores seems to matter far less.
> ...




I see. I will read more from that thread. Thank you for help with your responses and the resources. Much appreciated!


----------



## Blakus (Feb 5, 2017)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> @rgames has done a lot of testing, here's one of his quotes:
> Here's what I know: I did compare the 6700k (four-core) to a 4930k (six-core) using the same benchmark and they performed basically the same.​



So, I just upgraded from an i7 3770k, 4 cores @ 3.5GHz, to a 6800k, 6 cores @ 3.4GHz base. I am using the exact same hard drives (except a new m.2 drive for my operating system), and went to 128gb of RAM.

I would have expected that my ASIO/CPU performance in cubase would have been not much different at all, based on the "clock speed is king" theory that seems to be prominent. My experience with Cubase Pro 9 has been the *exact opposite*. Projects that used to bring my old 3770k to its knees, now open with only 60% cpu/asio usage - and I'm not exaggerating here. Unless there's some other voodoo going on, I am fairly sure that more cores are worth more than many think (at least in Cubase). I'm running hundreds of plugins, hungry synths etc, 300 kontakt instances, all with no problems now.

My "hunch" is that Cubase and ASIO guard have a lot to do with maximising core efficiency. ASIO guard effectively means that my entire template doesn't HAVE to run at intensely low latency, only the tracks that are currently being selected/recorded. So, most of my template is running with buffers that give 98ms latency, but I never feel this, because my actual live latency is 6ms (with 256 buffer). *That 98ms provided by ASIO Guard is crucial*, as the majority of my template no longer becomes so dependent on the clock speed required to deliver instantaneous, realtime performance. There is now time for cores to kick in with even distribution, much more effectively.

I think that for live performance, or other DAWs that still are required to run all tracks at live latency without features like "ASIO Guard", clock speed is king. But I am not convinced this is the case for Cubase with ASIO guard.

Confirmed: I just ran a test in Cubase with a large project that is running at around 60% ASIO meter - plenty of room for many more plugins/polyphony etc, it runs flawlessly. I just disabled ASIO Guard. Woah. The project will not even play at all and the core distribution is poor!


----------

