# Master + slave setup for dummies



## Conor (Sep 14, 2011)

When I started working with VIs a few years ago I wanted to keep everything in one box for simplicity. Now I'm working with larger/more complex ensembles, experimenting with multiple reverb instances, looking towards more resource-hungry libraries. My first-gen Mac Pro just can't keep up anymore. :( 

A newer Mac Pro would be an obvious upgrade, but that feels like a band-aid solution. I think it's probably time I did things right, with a multi-computer setup.

Frankly I'm terrified of this. "I'm a musician, not an engineer!" Forget questions like which computer makes an ideal slave... I'm not even sure how to get midi/audio from one to the other. Something about converters and clocks and stuff... :roll:

Can anyone give me some pointers on where to start? Some sort of beginner's guide to setting up a master + slave system for VI composition?


----------



## rgames (Sep 14, 2011)

The simplest/cheapest way to start is with a slave PC and VE Pro over the network. That setup doesn't require any additional hardware (e.g. a sound card or MIDI interfaces) and offers much more flexible routing options.

All MIDI and audio is sent over the network. If the network setup doesn't work for you then you can always add a soundcard and MIDI hardware (or software like MIDI over LAN). But lots of folks need nothing more than the standard gigabit ethernet connection.

I think VSL has some VE Pro videos on their website - have you taken a look at those?

The basic setup is very straightforward. If you want to get into the sophisticated routing then it can get a little confusing. It's easy to do, just not intuitive, but the issue has been covered here several times and there are plenty of folks who can help you out when you get there.

On the slave, you load up VE Pro and add VST instruments just like you would in your sequencer. In the sequencer, you load the VE Pro connection like you would any other VST instrument - that brings up a dialog box where you pick the slave machine to connect to. Then it behaves (mostly) like any other VST instrument except that the instrument is located on the slave, not the host. You can select MIDI channels, route audio outputs, etc.

Best bet is to go to the VSL site and check out some of their tutorials on the topic.

rgames


----------



## Conor (Sep 14, 2011)

Thanks so much! VE Pro looks fantastic... seems my concerns about arcane hardware and routing requirements were unfounded.

Now I just need to spec out a slave PC, and I know there are plentiful threads about that... 

EDIT: You mention "If the network setup doesn't work for you..." Can I ask on what grounds the network setup might not work for someone?


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Sep 15, 2011)

why people still use slave pcs? ONE PC with 48gb RAM it's already possible


----------



## rgames (Sep 15, 2011)

CobraTrumpet @ Wed Sep 14 said:


> EDIT: You mention "If the network setup doesn't work for you..." Can I ask on what grounds the network setup might not work for someone?


There are some posts where folks have indicated that the audio hardware setup works better. That has not been my experience nor the experience of many other people but it might be the case for you. However, like I said, try it first with the network setup. That way, if it works, you've saved yourself a bunch of money. You can always add the hardware later if the network setup doesn't work.



> why people still use slave pcs? ONE PC with 48gb RAM it's already possible


You can do it but if you run big libraries and write complicated orchestrations then the slave setup is still a more efficient setup. It's more a matter of workflow than anything else - in general, you can work faster with slaves and the setup is more stable.

rgames


----------



## JohnG (Sep 15, 2011)

Gabriel Oliveira @ 15th September 2011 said:


> why people still use slave pcs? ONE PC with 48gb RAM it's already possible



Some guys like this, some don't. I'm with Richard on this one; with an extra PC, the Mac can be the "brains" and the PC(s) can supply the brawn. 

With a slave, you boost disk access speed, processors, and RAM that allows you to keep your samples loaded when you switch from one piece to another on the Mac. Which can save time if you are in a hurry.

It's cheaper to build a PC in the short run, especially if you don't rate your time that much or you have a pal who is really good at it. But personally I have spent way, way more money replacing feeble "cheap" PCs than it would have cost to buy one or two made by a company.

Personally, especially for someone who doesn't want to be an engineer, I recommend VisionDAW or something similar so you buy it and start using it, rather than getting out the Phillips' head screwdriver. And Jack Daniels.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 15, 2011)

My dream is a 32GB laptop from ADK Pro using the E Series Quad w/ integrated graphics.
The SCOPE XITE-1 DSP 1U Rack.
And a 1U 6-Core E Series Slave..

Extreme power, extreme DSP quality, and extreme mobility.....


----------



## Conor (Sep 15, 2011)

Silly question: how do you guys interact with your slave PCs? One of these? http://www.newegg.com/store/SubCategory ... 43&Tpk=kvm


----------



## Daryl (Sep 15, 2011)

Gabriel Oliveira @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> why people still use slave pcs? ONE PC with 48gb RAM it's already possible


Yep, that' what i use. It means I can work at a buffer of 128, whereas if I was using slaves I would have to work at more than that, and would also have to lose some of the flexibility, unless I spent another £2K on soundcards. For me it is the best solution, but I understand that it may not be for others.

FWIW I used to have 4 PCs networked, but would never go back to this set-up, as my current set-up is so much more streamlined.

D


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 15, 2011)

> ONE PC with 48gb RAM it's already possible Smile



@ Daryl...now that would be the way to go. Can you share a little of the specs of your system?


----------



## JohnG (Sep 15, 2011)

Daryl,

Sounds great! Especially: 



> It means I can work at a buffer of 128, whereas if I was using slaves I would have to work at more than that,



You're right that this is lower than anyone I've been hearing about with slaves -- this is as good as I've heard except maybe Chimuelo...

But...



> and would also have to lose some of the flexibility, unless I spent another £2K on soundcards.



This bit has changed -- VE Pro allows three slaves and a master (I believe) which eliminates midi and audio hardware.

128 buffer!! Are you using a RAM-disk or something? Holy Mackerel!


----------



## rgames (Sep 15, 2011)

I know several folks who run VE Pro over network at 128 samples - Whincellar (on this baord) and I both do. My setup is all PC and his is all Mac. So it's very do-able on either platform. Not sure why it works on some systems and not others...

You can see the details on my setup here: http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055


----------



## Daryl (Sep 15, 2011)

JohnG @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> Daryl,
> 
> Sounds great! Especially:
> 
> ...




Yes, but I doubt that I could get 100+ audio returns over the network, without pops and click galore. Only way would be multiple soundcards, and each slave running as low a buffer as possible.




JohnG @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> 128 buffer!! Are you using a RAM-disk or something? Holy Mackerel!


My system is nothing special. It doesn't need to be, because I refuse to use products that cause problems. For mixing I have to raise the buffer, but then again I don't need low latency for mixing. There are few things that I use that don't really like 128, but a quick freeze sorts that out, with no hassle.

FWIW I'm just about to do a CPU upgrade, so let's see how things work when it's done.

D


----------



## Daryl (Sep 15, 2011)

ajkeys @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> > ONE PC with 48gb RAM it's already possible Smile
> 
> 
> 
> @ Daryl...now that would be the way to go. Can you share a little of the specs of your system?


Sure:

2 x Intel Xeon x5560 2.8GHz Quad Core
48GB RAM
Windows 7 (x64)Pro
RME Multiface II
Intensity
ATI HD3450 graphics card

D


----------



## Daryl (Sep 15, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> I know several folks who run VE Pro over network at 128 samples - Whincellar (on this baord) and I both do. My setup is all PC and his is all Mac. So it's very do-able on either platform. Not sure why it works on some systems and not others...
> 
> You can see the details on my setup here: http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055


Richard, unless you are running VE Pro with a buffer multiplier of 0, you aren't running at 128.

D


----------



## rgames (Sep 15, 2011)

Daryl @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> Yes, but I doubt that I could get 100+ audio returns over the network, without pops and click galore. Only way would be multiple soundcards, and each slave running as low a buffer as possible.


Sure you can - my setup has about 170 channels coming back into the master with the DAW at 128 samples and one buffer to the slaves.

Theoretical max on Gigabit ethernet is about 700 channels. When VE Pro first came out, I recall that VSL tested it up to about 500 channels without any problems.

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Sep 15, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Sep 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but I doubt that I could get 100+ audio returns over the network, without pops and click galore. Only way would be multiple soundcards, and each slave running as low a buffer as possible.
> ...


1 buffer. Right. So you're actually running at 256. Case closed.

D


----------



## rgames (Sep 15, 2011)

Daryl @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> rgames @ Thu Sep 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I know several folks who run VE Pro over network at 128 samples - Whincellar (on this baord) and I both do. My setup is all PC and his is all Mac. So it's very do-able on either platform. Not sure why it works on some systems and not others...
> ...



Correct - I run one buffer to the slaves, so that's basically equivalent to a buffer of 256 on the DAW.

Honestly, the difference between 128 and 256 (and even 512) is really small - in musical terms, the difference between 256 and 128 samples is basically the difference between a 1/1024 note and a 1/512 note at 120 BPM. So if you can feel hesitation down at that level, that's pretty good! I don't think I can.

If you're tracking audio and adding live FX, of course that's another story. But in terms of VSTi response, I think it's hard to feel the difference between 256 and anything lower.

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Sep 15, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Sep 15 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Thu Sep 15 said:
> ...


128 to 256 may mean nothing to you, but to me it's night and day. However, I did used to be Principal Pianist for a National Ballet Company, so I'm no slouch at keyboard playing....!

However 64 to 128 feels the same to me, so if I was using slaves, I would need to run the DAW as low as possible (32 or 64) and then use a x2 multiplier with VE Pro. Could be done I guess, but my way is simpler, and the only drawback would be lack of CPU power, but that is not currently a problem.

D


----------



## rgames (Sep 15, 2011)

OK - fair enough. My piano chops are pretty miserable 

EDIT: by the way, those of us who use this setup run perc, piano, harp, guitar, etc. that have percussive response on the local machine at 0 buffer. So those do, in fact, run at 128 samples.

One thing that's interesting is that 128 samples with one buffer should be close to 64 samples at 2 buffers but I can't get 64 samples to run without *major* clicks and pops, even at 2 buffers. So in terms of system performance, there's more to it that I don't completely understand.

rgames


----------



## JohnG (Sep 15, 2011)

Hi Daryl

Thanks for sharing. If you're avoiding troublesome programs and freezing, that does make a bit of a difference. Still, 128 for "regular" playing is fun.

Are you avoiding plug-in FX as well? Mainly straight classical samples?

Don't mean to be overly inquisitive, but it's quite interesting. Personally I think the gear shifts slightly depending on one's needs. I'm able to use a 0 buffer on VE Pro which is dandy, since I'm still at 256 on my DAW. I may try cranking down to 128 as I've moved nearly everything off to slaves.

Richard I know you are careful on calculations but are you sure those note values are correct on the different buffers? 256 feels enormously better to me than 512, and I have my percussion at 128 and it is vastly better than before.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 15, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> OK - fair enough. My piano chops are pretty miserable


Hah, well there are other things that can scupper it. Once you figure in the delay caused by legato transitions. and trying to play though a breath controller, any latency that you feel can ruin the performance. 



rgames @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> EDIT: by the way, those of us who use this setup run perc, piano, harp, guitar, etc. that have percussive response on the local machine at 0 buffer. So those do, in fact, run at 128 samples.


Not if you are running the slaves at the same time. because VE Pro will report a latency of 128, which the DAW will add to the project, and the soundcard will also add the usual buffer, so you're still back at 256. The way round this (in Cubendo) is to constrain delay compensation when tracking.



rgames @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> One thing that's interesting is that 128 samples with one buffer should be close to 64 samples at 2 buffers but I can't get 64 samples to run without *major* clicks and pops, even at 2 buffers. So in terms of system performance, there's more to it that I don't completely understand.
> 
> rgames


Yes, it's a black art, as far as I'm concerned, and the guys at VSL are very clever.

D


----------



## Daryl (Sep 15, 2011)

JohnG @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> Hi Daryl
> 
> Thanks for sharing. If you're avoiding troublesome programs and freezing, that does make a bit of a difference. Still, 128 for "regular" playing is fun.
> 
> ...


I only freeze for my Samplemodeling instruments, because even though I'm only running 6 at a time, they really don't like 128.

I use MIDI plugs, since that causes no extra latency, but anything audio related I use on the mix session, or at least wait until I've finished programming all the notes, becuase then I can crank the buffer up to 256 if I need to.

D


----------



## JohnG (Sep 15, 2011)

> any [plugins that are] audio related I use on the mix session



So I'm guessing you aren't trying to create the next hits for Lady Gaga....

Thank you very much for posting Daryl. Impressive.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 15, 2011)

JohnG @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> > any [plugins that are] audio related I use on the mix session
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope. My only connections with the pop industry are doing the odd string arrangement. That's quite enough for me. :D 

D


----------



## rgames (Sep 15, 2011)

JohnG @ Thu Sep 15 said:


> Richard I know you are careful on calculations but are you sure those note values are correct on the different buffers? 256 feels enormously better to me than 512, and I have my percussion at 128 and it is vastly better than before.



Here's the relevant info:

At 120 BPM, these are the durations for each type of note:

1/4: 500 ms
1/8: 250 ms
1/16: 125 ms
1/32: 62.5 ms
1/64: 31.25 ms
1/128: 15.6 ms
1/256: 7.81 ms
1/512: 3.91 ms
1/1024: 1.95 ms

At 44.1 kHz, these are the output latencies associated with each buffer size:

1024: 23.2 ms
512:  11.6 ms
256: 5.80 ms
128: 2.90 ms
64: 1.45 ms

So, the difference between a 1/512 note and a 1/1024 note at 120 BPM falls somewhere between a buffer size of 256 and 128 samples.

rgames


----------

