# Impact of several instances of Kontakt on RAM



## Rory (Jun 1, 2020)

It’s commonly said that one instance of Kontakt, if using several Kontakt instruments, places a significantly smaller demand on RAM that having an instance of Kontakt open for each instrument.

Does the truth of this depend on whether one frequently invokes Kontakt’s global purge function?

If so, is there any downside to opening an instance of Kontakt for each instrument if one purges memory for instruments that aren’t in use?

I’m new to virtual instruments, coming from an acoustic background, and I just prefer using an instance of Kontakt for each instrument.

Thanks for views on this.


----------



## Kent (Jun 3, 2020)

Here's a metaphor, for those of you who are a certain age:

Samples are audio files. Audio files take up space. They can be pretty numerous, so dealing with them "raw" can be difficult.






So, people make virtual instruments out of them, here in the form of Kontakt patches. A Kontakt patch is like a container - even when it's empty (i.e. the samples are purged) it will still have some form—GUI, scripting, etc. This "empty" size is dependent on the complexity of the UI and scripting assets. And when it's reloaded with samples, it knows what to do with the things that go inside it.






But using all of these patches individually can also be a bit of a hassle. So, people often like to load multiple patches within one Kontakt instance (indeed, you need to have a Kontakt instance if you want to load a Kontakt patch at all). Kontakt, too, is like a container. Like a physical container, this takes up some space - I think somewhere around 200 MB, though I don't remember how I got that idea.






So Kontakt holds the patches, the patches hold the samples.

Even if you global-purge, you're only getting rid of the chocolate bars, and still have bags and bag-carrying bags.

However, DAWs deal with how they treat the bag-carrying bags (Kontakt instances) in different ways. Some process the entire bag on one CPU thread, others can distribute more easily. (This is simplified, but basically true).

So the balancing act—depending on the specs of your computer, the DAW you work with, and the virtual instruments you wish to use—is between using more bags (taking up more RAM) and distributing load across the cores of the CPU more evenly, or using fewer bags (that is, consolidating more) to save RAM at the expense of more-heavily-taxed CPU cores. 

All other things being equal, there is also a practical consideration: is diving into a Kontakt multi to find and edit a specific instrument's patch easier or more difficult for you than opening up a "1 Kontakt, 1 patch" instance?






There is no "right" answer, but I hope this helps.


----------



## Rory (Jun 3, 2020)

I raised this question after watching Oliver Weder’s video (link below) showing how he made the trailer for Spitfire’s Frank Ricotti Mallets library.

He uses individual Kontakt instances for each of the four Ricotti instruments - crotales, glockenspiel, marimba and xylophone - rather than one instance of Kontakt.

This runs counter to the widely promoted view that in such a case one instance of Kontakt should be used, covering all four instruments, in order to save RAM. Guy Michelmore argued for this view in one of his recent videos, also linked below.

Onviously, a Kontakt container, in my case Kontakt 6, itself takes up RAM. It would be interesting to know how much. Above, @kmaster says “I think somewhere around 200 MB, though I don't remember how I got that idea.” I’ll try to isolate this info via my Mac’s Activity Monitor. As @kmaster says, there’s also the question of how efficiently one’s computer distributes load. This is not something I’m concerned about with a Mac released 18 months ago and purchased with top specs.

So far, I am attracted to using a separate instance of Kontakt for each instrument. I find it organizationally cleaner, and in my DAW, which is Logic, setting up a project in the way that Michelmore suggests is a pain in the ass. That said, it works well enough if one creates a template specifically for this purpose. Native Instruments has a web page with instructions on the mechanics of doing this in Logic. Spitfire Audio also has a page on this, but using a somewhat different approach. I’m under the impression that doing this also has ramifications for setting up automation, although I haven’t explored that yet.

It would be great if people would comment on this question based on practical experience. I don’t know who @kmaster means by people “of a certain age”, but I don’t need a lesson in computers 101.

Oliver Weder’s video:




Guy Michelmore’s video:


----------



## pmcrockett (Jun 3, 2020)

I just checked, and in Reaper on Windows 10, each new empty instance of Kontakt 6 occupies around 65 MB RAM. (This doesn't include the RAM overhead for a new track -- if you include the track itself, it's around 80 MB).

IMO, it's not worth combining instruments into fewer Kontakt instances unless it's either more convenient (e.g. you want multiple copies of the same instrument with different articulations, or you like to purge as many instruments as possible with as few button presses as possible) or you just don't have much RAM.


----------



## rudi (Jun 3, 2020)

@pmcrockett beat me to it  I've done the same with REAPER on Windows 10 too, using 10 instances of Kontakt 6 full, and I get similar figures.


----------



## Rory (Jun 3, 2020)

Coincidentally, this new thread addresses the automation issue that using one instance of Kontakt apparently creates, at least for Logic users: https://vi-control.net/community/th...idi-tracks-in-logic-pro-x.94194/#post-4572264

I said three posts up that I understood that Logic users would face an automation issue, but hadn’t explored it. Now I understand the problem and the “solutions”.

For Logic users, at least, using one instance of Kontakt for more than one instrument is starting to sound quite unattractive. That said, maybe I’m missing something. I’d love to hear an argument for it.


----------



## CGR (Jun 5, 2020)

kmaster said:


> Here's a metaphor, for those of you who are a certain age:


Oooh. Careful there young fella . . .


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jun 28, 2020)

I've always used multiple unless I'm doing something like a first chair where the midi line is close to identical, or if I want to have the midi on the same track for visual ease.

I think the difference in ram is negligible.


----------



## NorLT (Jun 28, 2020)

Hello, Newbie here! I'm wondering if anyone could please enlighten me as to why you use MIDI tracks instead of instrument tracks. I learned to use instrument tracks, but everyone seems to use MIDI tracks. Am I totally wrong? I'm using Kontakt and Cubase. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## Wunderhorn (Jun 28, 2020)

In my experience concerns about workflow is of first importance, RAM concerns are secondary.
In other words, set things up the way you like it, what works for you.
I end up stuffing my Kontakt instances full with multis, but that follows suit on how I group the instruments, then each Kontakt instance gets its own VEP7 instance.

Automation is a whole different are. I use one MIDI channel for each instrument. I group those into summing stacks. This way you can automate everything independently. I would stick to region based automation to keep things clean. When you route audio from different instruments to different auxes you will not be able to just solo or mute a track, but I remedied this by assigning the instrument channels strips as well as the auxes to Logic Groups. Then I can solo/mute.

If you want to reduce the number of Kontakt instances you can do so by using the AU3 VEP7 plugin. @Dewdman42 has described this scenario in this forum in detail. It works well (I have tried it) but I haven't found the need quite yet, but I am seeing myself using this in future.


----------



## Kent (Jun 28, 2020)

NorLT said:


> Hello, Newbie here! I'm wondering if anyone could please enlighten me as to why you use MIDI tracks instead of instrument tracks. I learned to use instrument tracks, but everyone seems to use MIDI tracks. Am I totally wrong? I'm using Kontakt and Cubase. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


Short, incomplete answer: back in the day before DAWs were a thing, the softwares were MIDI sequencers. You could write music in the program (Notator [Logic], Performer [Digital Performer], Cubase, etc.) and the program would control your external synths, samplers, and romplers via MIDI. Once these instruments were virtualized, the structures and workflows remained, and many composers who have been at it a while came up in one of these two eras.
In the last decade or so, DAWs have been adding more “instrument track” capabilities, and sometimes this presents certain ease-of-use benefits, but as it is not the legacy solution nor necessarily the most resource-efficient, people may still prefer the “old-school” style.


----------



## GNP (Jun 28, 2020)

Well, the advantage to running one instance of Kontakt for each instrument, is that you have the freedom to apply mixing plugins, EQ, reverb, etc etc to each instrument directly as your DAW allows. You can't do such if you load multiple instruments within one Kontakt instance.


----------



## Kent (Jun 28, 2020)

GNP said:


> Well, the advantage to running one instance of Kontakt for each instrument, is that you have the freedom to apply mixing plugins, EQ, reverb, etc etc to each instrument directly as your DAW allows. You can't do such if you load multiple instruments within one Kontakt instance.


That’s not exactly true—you can have 16 MIDI channels pointing to one Kontakt instance with 16 patches and each patch can return audio on its own stereo output. Those output channels can accept audio plugins, volume, pan, etc.


----------



## NorLT (Jun 28, 2020)

kmaster said:


> Short, incomplete answer: back in the day before DAWs were a thing, the softwares were MIDI sequencers. You could write music in the program (Notator [Logic], Performer [Digital Performer], Cubase, etc.) and the program would control your external synths, samplers, and romplers via MIDI. Once these instruments were virtualized, the structures and workflows remained, and many composers who have been at it a while came up in one of these two eras.
> In the last decade or so, DAWs have been adding more “instrument track” capabilities, and sometimes this presents certain ease-of-use benefits, but as it is not the legacy solution nor necessarily the most resource-efficient, people may still prefer the “old-school” style.



Thank you so much for your response. That totally makes sense. Since I'm fairly new at all of this stuff, I was going for ease of use. I understand that my method uses more resources. Could you recommend the best tutorials or youtube vids, etc that explains how to use Cubase, Kontakt, VST libraries, using multi's, MIDI, etc. I'm limping along, figured out enough to compose and edit music, but still at an intermediate level in terms of using the software. I'm using one instance of Kontakt per instrument as well. Any info appreciated. Thanks!!


----------



## Kent (Jun 28, 2020)

NorLT said:


> Thank you so much for your response. That totally makes sense. Since I'm fairly new at all of this stuff, I was going for ease of use. I understand that my method uses more resources. Could you recommend the best tutorials or youtube vids, etc that explains how to use Cubase, Kontakt, VST libraries, using multi's, MIDI, etc. I'm limping along, figured out enough to compose and edit music, but still at an intermediate level in terms of using the software. I'm using one instance of Kontakt per instrument as well. Any info appreciated. Thanks!!


Honestly the most valuable thing in learning music tech is messing about and making mistakes yourself. Having the manual on-hand is not a bad idea either.
If you really need a crash course in basic audio workflows, then I’d recommend something like Groove3. They’ve got great lessons on all the basics.

edit: and once you “know what you don’t know,” this forum has years of great, very specific conversations about many topics you’d probably be interested in. The search feature is quite useful


----------



## NorLT (Jun 28, 2020)

kmaster said:


> Honestly the most valuable thing in learning music tech is messing about and making mistakes yourself. Having the manual on-hand is not a bad idea either.
> If you really need a crash course in basic audio workflows, then I’d recommend something like Groove3. They’ve got great lessons on all the basics.
> 
> edit: and once you “know what you don’t know,” this forum has years of great, very specific conversations about many topics you’d probably be interested in. The search feature is quite useful



Thanks for your input!


----------



## GNP (Jun 29, 2020)

kmaster said:


> That’s not exactly true—you can have 16 MIDI channels pointing to one Kontakt instance with 16 patches and each patch can return audio on its own stereo output. Those output channels can accept audio plugins, volume, pan, etc.



Yes, true that. But it's just abit too troublesome for me.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jun 29, 2020)

NorLT said:


> Thanks for your input!



A good tutorial on how to setup on Ableton. Using External Instrument tool:


----------



## ScoringFilm (Feb 24, 2022)

Kent said:


> That’s not exactly true—you can have 16 MIDI channels pointing to one Kontakt instance with 16 patches


You can actually have 64 patches/instruments loaded using the A-D (1-16) internal channels; only really much use for doubling/layering as the midi input is restricted to 16 channels.


----------



## davidnaroth (Feb 24, 2022)

Outside of just samples, Kontakts internal reverbs and delays can account for most of the RAM usage in a Kontakt instance (depending). In my upcoming library I had to give a lot of thought to how I was going to optimize usage of all the effects. Some libraries like Outputs Analog series only use maybe 30-200mb in sample RAM but then add about another 500mb using Kontakts reverbs and special delay (Replika Delay). Kontakt wont show this in the RAM display but when you take a look at the task manager (or utility monitor) you can see what its really using.


----------

