Large Synth Templates in DP

[Chris T]

I'm currently setting up my new Mac Pro system. I wanted to just brainstorm a little here since I'd like to hear how other folks do it. I will have questions for the forum, but firstly, let me just outline my setup on the Synth side.

MASTER: New Mac Pro (running DP, VEP Server, multiple VIs - see below for spec). Main synth / sound libraries on this machine: Omnisphere, Kontakt, Reaktor, Predator, Puremagnetik, Heavyocity etc).
- This Mac will run ALL my synths, either in VEP Server or as plugins. I like to have a large selection of synth Multis at hand with all my MIDI tracks and audio return bundles setup beforehand. I'm undecided whether I should run synths in a large VEP Metaframe (as I have in the past), or just as Pre-assigned Kontakt, Omnisphere, RMX etc Multis within DP.

Q: I'd like to see what others think of how to run many multi-timbral synth instruments - directly in DP or in a VEP metaframe? NOTE: I do not use chunks since the large template and multiple VIs make it unusable for me. Therefore, I'm not exactly sure why I need to keep using VE Pro server to host my myriad synths (since I have 64 GB RAM, and am running 64 bit). I believe I could just as easily have many Synth Multis (Kontakt, Omni etc) setup within my large general template. I then just "activate" the VIs I want when I need them.

I'm also curious how people organize their inputs and bundles with regards multiple synth-input tracks. One of the problems I've found with Many synth inputs is, because the sounds often change, one is always Renaming the Audio tracks. Does anyone have a good fool-proof way of setting up their template with inputs so that organizing the audio printing side is easy and consistent?

Also, with large synth libraries (e.g. Omnisphere), in your templates, do you guys have several instances open (e.g. separate Omnisphere Bass, Pads, Leads multis), open, or just 1 instance which you just run with all your necessary sounds in each cue. I like the multiple synth 'families' idea, since the audio routing can then be pre-set, and one can audition new sounds quickly, and they're already routed for audio print.

Any thoughts on this, and/or general comments about running and routing large synth templates in DP?

thanks!

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Best advice ever!

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... 26&t=53498

[Shooshie]

Yeah, read MagicDave's advice in the thread that MLC linked you to.

Important!
Read pages 19 - 27 in the "Getting Started" Digital Performer Manual (the little one). That's chapter 4, Configuring Audio Devices. It is all important, but some very pertinent stuff is explained toward the end of that chapter. Things like Max Work Percent, Work Quanta, Prime Seconds, Auto plug-in latency compensation, and much more. It's VERY important that you understand this stuff as well as possible before you get involved in a project with a huge template.

Hard Drives
Also, regarding spinning hard drives (as opposed to SSD's), try to consider what instruments will be playing at the same time and attempt to load instruments that will play simultaneously on separate hard drives. You can put 5 hard drives in the Mac Pro. Four in the little slide-out trays, and a 5th in the 2nd optical drive bay. There are some brackets you can get for mounting that drive in the optical bay. (unless of course you plan on having a 2nd optical drive) You can also still get Firewire versions of Western Digital's "My Passport Studio" drives. I've got four of them in one Firewire port, and they are bus powered, so no wall-warts. Each is about the size of a pair of iPhones stacked together. Slightly larger.

The point: when your instruments are playing, your drives are constantly accessing the disk. For multiple instruments, they have to access that much for each instrument. Your drives will last a lot longer if the load is distributed among several drives. Once the data is in the bus, there's no problem. It's the physical arm reading the spinning platter that is being over-worked. So, try to plan ahead when installing instrument libraries, and distribute those likely to be playing together around different drives.

Solid State Drives
SSDs do not have that problem. Load 'em up! Also, get as much RAM as you can afford. I have 40 GB, and that's enough for what I do, but until you get more than about 20 GB, you're going to feel the crunch when your CPU starts chowing down on those instruments.

Using Mixes and Buffer to Prioritize for Latency or Performance
When tracking, you are going to want as little latency as possible. Learn to set up mixes in DP. The Mixing Board has a menu in the bottom left corner. If you already have a mix, DUPLICATE it before making any new mixes. Once you have your mix saved, you can make as many mixes as you want. Keep one that's blank: no plugins and few instruments. Even better: use external MIDI gear for tracking if you really want low-latency. But the point is to keep your latency as low as possible for tracking. Set your buffer low, say, to 128 or 64.

Then, when mixing, set your buffer high. 1024 is a good buffer that doesn't over-work your hard drives. (assuming you're still using spinners)

Synths
I realize I've been talking mostly about sampled instruments. Synths can be a different story if they do not use samples, but those that have sample libraries along with the synth will need to heed my advice above for better results. Synths themselves may each need their own thread. Depends on the complexity of your synth. Some can do an entire project template on one fader without overloading that processor. Others can't.

V-Racks
There are many preferences. I prefer to keep my instruments in V-Racks. I've got Plogue Bidule and Vienna Ensemble, but I never really had the need for those. My projects rarely exceed a few dozen instruments. V-Racks does all that I really need. People criticize V-Racks for not being automatable, but that's really a half-truth. Most of the automation we use with instruments comes in the form of controllers that are assigned to things like Velocity, Expression, Pan, or any control that works with MIDI Learn. (Or that is assignable) Synths like Tassman4 are 100% MIDI Learnable. That means you can automate every single control in the synth by assigning it to a Continuous Controller. Other aspects of the sound can be automated through the audio output channel. You can assign your audio outs to an audio track in the sequence, and audio tracks CAN be automated. So... there is very little you can't automate, even for instruments in a V-Rack.

I keep my instruments in V-Racks, and since the advent of 64 bit memory addressing, there has been no need for Plogue Bidule or VE Pro, at least not for me. Again, mine is only one opinion on that subject. Many will say to use those external instrument racks for various reasons. See if your needs are more like theirs or mine before making a decision.

If you use multiple chunks per project, you really ought to be sure you know and understand the advantages of V-Racks. One big advantage is that they do not have to reload for different chunks within the same project. Once your project has loaded, your V-Racks are accessible to all chunks. To me, V-Racks are the most MIDI-like of any virtual instrument experience. It's as if your virtual instruments are sitting in your external MIDI rack, and you treat it that way in every respect... except that you never have to worry about patch lists.

Reminder... read MagicD's post.
There's plenty more, but that will get you started. And be sure to read MagicDave's advice about one instrument per thread. Each fader can utilize a separate thread... just read what he says.

Shooshie

[Shooshie]

...and,

Don't sweat it if you don't get perfect results right off the bat. It takes years to learn this software deeply. You've got help here, and there are probably zero (or at least very few) mistakes you can make that one of us hasn't already made. No shame in that! Take your time. Experiment.

KEEP DAILY BACKUPS of your work files! (even hourly if you're working at a furious pace) Set DP to make automatic backups regularly.

If your work is covered by backups, you have nothing to fear (except corrupted audio files, which thankfully are VERY RARE occurrences). So, Experiment. Think of what you want to do, then reason out a path to make it happen. Study the COMMANDS WINDOW! You very possibly may find more tricks in the Commands Window than you'll find in the manual.

Shooshie

[pencilina]

Hi,

I also think using a vrack is the way to go to hold a large bank of instruments. It's worked amazingly well for me even in 32bit (thanks to Kontakt's memory server). I use chunks to switch between separate pieces, not arranging- which tended to be piss poor for me at best if it ever worked.

One trick I learned was assigning a channel send set at unity to a bus for each instrument in the Vrack's outputs. To clarify- you'll have all the instruments' main channels outs set to your main (monitor) out and then a send (post fader) on each pair to separate buses.

Remember, if you have a more then one pair per instrument you'll have to go into the audio bundles and make more auxes for those additional outputs. In your chunk create stereo tracks with inputs set to the buses you assigned from the vrack channel sends.

When you like your piece all you need to do is record on those tracks and that's it. You're hearing exactly what's getting printed. There's generally no need to freeze anything, you can turn off the vrack in the chunks window once you print the audio (saving CPU). This way its very fast and easy to switch between pieces since your machine doesn't have to reload VIs. I also like the ability to globally turn orchestral sections up or down a little bit or add a dab of eq as I'm working. I keep the global verbs and FX in the chunks. Also, If you're feeding any verbs/fx from your vrack sends as you compose you'll have to duplicate those send settings on your printed track channels. The good news is you only have to do this once when you set up your template chunk. It's also stupid fast deriving splits from this if need be - just freeze the printed tracks with your mix moves, pull em out of your project's audio files folder and call it a day. If you need additional cue specific VIs put those into whatever chunk and freeze them before mixing.

All that said, if you're not switching (or copying and pasting) between pieces that often- you could have a workflow duplicating a project (with all your VIs in it) and call it a day.

Hope that helps,

Best,

Bradford

[Chris T]

Thanks guys. To reiterate my question about VEP:

Q: I'd like to see what others think of how to run many multi-timbral synth instruments - directly in DP or in a VEP metaframe? NOTE: I do not use chunks since the large template and multiple VIs make it unusable for me. Therefore, I'm not exactly sure why I need to keep using VE Pro server to host my myriad synths (since I have 64 GB RAM, and am running 64 bit).

Any thoughts on this?

[Chris T]

Also, since it seems that the MIDI Event Input Plugins are still causing Dropped / Stuck MIDI notes (and I've had this problem a lot), I've decided to completely reconfigure all my MIDI Event Inputs to SEPARATE VEP Instances. This would mean that, instead of just 4 or 5 instances of VEP in each Mac Mini Metaframe, I'd now probably have at least double that (to accommodate for the extra MIDI channels). Same goes for the Omnisphere etc. hosted in VEP Server on my Master Mac.

Hopefully the processors of my Minis will be able to handle this (we'll see)… Im not worried of course about my new Mac Pro handling anything.

Does anybody know if DP will ever fix the dropped/stuck MIDI note problems inherent it the VEP Event Input plugin?

[Shooshie]

NOTE: I do not use chunks since the large template and multiple VIs make it unusable for me.

I don't understand that quote. Large templates and multiple VIs are reasons to use V-Racks. That's what makes using Chunks easy. VE Pro would also make it easy, after the initial setup, but I don't know about the dropped/stuck note issue. I just use V-Racks, so I don't experience VE and Plogue Bidule anymore.

Seriously, Chris, I'm not sure you know about V-Racks. Do not skip over that, thinking that you don't need it. You do. That's the gateway to using lots of chunks with a large template and lots of instruments.

You can have multiple V-Racks, each containing a different type of instrumentation. Disable the V-Rack and you disable all the instruments in it. Therefore, you can have V-Racks that contain various sections of an orchestral template, or one with analog synths and another with FM synths, and so forth. It makes it faster to set up any given project. V-Racks also can contain Aux tracks, so you can do a certain amount of routing within a V-Rack, shortening the process of setup for even the largest templates or custom track layouts.

V-Racks, when enabled, stay enabled no matter which chunk you're in. Switch chunks and you don't have to load instruments. They're already running in your V-rack. Of course, the same is true for VE Pro and Bidule.

Shoosh

[Chris T]

Thanks Shooshie

What I meant was: I have tried V-racks in the past but because I don't work with Chunks much, I've not felt a need for them with regards Chunks.

My issue with Chunks was that my templates are large, often running multiple Altiverb instances, Video and many plugins. When I try loading chunks of this nature, DP was very slow and often crashed. In fact the only time I use chunks now is when I really need MIDI from another session. If that's the case, I have to save a version of that session and disable everything (plugs, clear video, etc). Only then will the chunk load reliably.

Hence, I haven't used V-Racks.

NOW, all that said, I would STILL like to try using V-Racks, even though I just save a new file for each cue in a project. Asssuming i DON'T work with Chunks, as a way to organize my large templates, would you recommend using V-Racks (i.e. hosting in DP) over VE Pro? In this case is the benefit of them just so that you can quickly enable/disable Instrument groups quickly?

thanks

[Shooshie]

What I meant was: I have tried V-racks in the past but because I don't work with Chunks much, I've not felt a need for them with regards Chunks.

My issue with Chunks was that my templates are large, often running multiple Altiverb instances, Video and many plugins. When I try loading chunks of this nature, DP was very slow and often crashed. In fact the only time I use chunks now is when I really need MIDI from another session. If that's the case, I have to save a version of that session and disable everything (plugs, clear video, etc). Only then will the chunk load reliably.

Hence, I haven't used V-Racks.

NOW, all that said, I would STILL like to try using V-Racks, even though I just save a new file for each cue in a project. Asssuming i DON'T work with Chunks, as a way to organize my large templates, would you recommend using V-Racks (i.e. hosting in DP) over VE Pro? In this case is the benefit of them just so that you can quickly enable/disable Instrument groups quickly?

I can't be sure there are any advantages for you in using V-Racks. I've told you some of the high points, but I'm not here to sell you on V-Racks. Use what feels good to you. If you change your mind and want to know all about V-Racks, there are plenty of informative posts about them which you can find quickly in this forum.

Shooshie

[frankf]

+1 on what Shooshie wrote. When DP went 64 bit, I abandoned VEP and haven't needed it since. I have a Mac Pro 3,1 and 32gb RAM. If your VIs and Verbs are in v-racks switching chunks should be fast.

[Shooshie]

+1 on what Shooshie wrote. When DP went 64 bit, I abandoned VEP and haven't needed it since. I have a Mac Pro 3,1 and 32gb RAM. If your VIs and Verbs are in v-racks switching chunks should be fast.

Yeah, I may have neglected to add that going 64 bits was the key to the whole V-Racks thing. After that, Bidule and VEP were optional, not necessities. V-Racks could at last hold the whole template. I've got 40GB RAM, so it doesn't really push any limits for me. If only I'd had this 10 to 20 years ago, when I was using large templates.

Shooshie

[Chris T]

Thanks guys

YEs I totally understand that it's no RAM benefit in using VEP. What I wonder is just the Procesor benefit of have a separate app vs taxing DP? Of course it might be opposite (i.e. running VEP is MORE processor-heavy since it's a whole other app to run in tandem)…

Also, my question is a workflow/template thing. I know it's totally dependent on the user's needs. I like to save not only VEP Metaframes for each project (after modifying my 'template VEP metaframes' accordingly), but also save VI Instances within the metaframes, (e.g. an Omnisphere synths VI), which I can then bring into other, new projects.

I assume though, that since V-Racks can be 'loaded' just like a chunk, and that one could save a V-Rack as say "Omnisphere", that one could do just the same thing that way.

If that's the case, is it possible to:
1. Rename V-Racks accoding to type, and
2. incorporate Mulitple Instruments (e.g. 5 Kontakt players) into ONE V-Rack (making it my "Kontakt V-rack) ?..

thanks

[bayswater]

Yeah, I may have neglected to add that going 64 bits was the key to the whole V-Racks thing. After that, Bidule and VEP were optional, not necessities. V-Racks could at last hold the whole template. I've got 40GB RAM, so it doesn't really push any limits for me. If only I'd had this 10 to 20 years ago, when I was using large templates.

Shooshie

In older enthusiastic discussions on VEP, there was an opinion that it is a much more efficient way to host VIs than DP, if not other DAWs, regardless of the 32/64 bit differences. Is that no longer the case?

[Shooshie]

Yes I totally understand that it's no RAM benefit in using VEP. What I wonder is just the Processor benefit of have a separate app vs taxing DP? Of course it might be opposite (i.e. running VEP is MORE processor-heavy since it's a whole other app to run in tandem)…

I don't have an opinion on that, since I don't use VEP. All I can tell you is that V-Racks does not tax DP too much. It was made for what it does. It's not some add-on that demands a lot of overhead.

Instruments tax DP or any other host. Some instruments are notoriously CPU heavy: Omnisphere, for example. There's a set of orchestral instruments by Wallander that use sample-modeling. You can run the entire brass and woodwind sections of a large orchestra in one instance of Wallander Instruments with very little CPU overhead. Some instruments are written efficiently and others are not. That's not a criticism; it's just a fact. Omnisphere, with its layering and complex sounds, simply uses a lot more CPU. Wallander produces fantastic sounds, infinitely adjustable, tweakable to sound just like some of the best instruments, but in a fraction of the overhead.

Some people prefer to keep their orchestral template loaded in VEPro. If it crashes, DP remains running. But the same template in DP is not likely to crash DP, and probably not VEPro, either. You have to assume that this stuff works most of the time. The big problem was always 32 bit addressing, and that's gone. We have access to all our RAM now.

I assume though, that since V-Racks can be 'loaded' just like a chunk, and that one could save a V-Rack as say "Omnisphere", that one could do just the same thing that way.

Yes, you could name it Omnisphere, and even save the chunk (V-Rack) in the Clippings Window so that it would be available to any project, any time.

If that's the case, is it possible to:
1. Rename V-Racks accoding to type, and
2. incorporate Mulitple Instruments (e.g. 5 Kontakt players) into ONE V-Rack (making it my "Kontakt V-rack) ?

Yes.
Yes.
I do it all the time. I've got 5 or 6 instances of Vienna Instruments Pro in the Vienna V-Rack, three instances of Wallander Instruments (totaling about 15 instruments) loaded in the Wallander V-Rack, an Ivory V-Rack, and so forth and so on. Even a MOTU Synths V-Rack. I only load the ones I want to use in a project.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In older enthusiastic discussions on VEP, there was an opinion that it is a much more efficient way to host VIs than DP, if not other DAWs, regardless of the 32/64 bit differences. Is that no longer the case?

As I told Chris, above, I can't speak for VEPro, since I no longer use it. Since 64 bits, I've only used V-Racks. All I can say is that V-Racks is sufficient for my needs. I'm no longer doing templates of hundreds of tracks. I max out at about 30, with the average being more like 12 or 15 stereo tracks. A lot of audio-only stuff is only about 5 microphones, though I may go up to 12 or 15 of those, too. So, I'm not one to ask about heavy loads in DP.

When I used to do extremely heavy loading in DP, I basically did sections — stems — and recorded each to audio as I finished with it. But that was long ago, before we were even using Virtual Instruments in a big way.

People have reported using V-Racks for huge templates without problems. I think one of the keys to getting that right is to read Magic Dave's post which was linked back at the beginning of this topic. It's about getting the most of an instrument by spreading the load of multi-timbral instruments across one instance of Kontakt per channel strip. Each channel strip will get you one process thread for the CPU. So, you could put 5 instances of Kontact in 5 channel strips, and load each with 5 or 10 instruments. Call that your Kontact V-Rack, and then load another with Vienna, or whatever.

If you read those pages I mentioned in the "Getting Started" manual, it will become clear that there are ways of making larger templates run more efficiently. It's mostly trial-&-error, but at least you know where to experiment with settings. I think it was something like pages 19 through 27 or so. Don't be put off by the fact that it's the "Getting Started" manual. It covers some of the most advanced stuff in DP. It's just stuff you need to know before starting out in DP; stuff you'll set and forget, most likely, but which will diminish your results if you don't set it intelligently.

I just think that DP has made all this stuff so simple and easy; why go trying to make it more complicated? If you have specific needs that are only addressed by another host, then by all means use it. But if you have not tried your template entirely in DP, you owe it to yourself to see if it works for you.

Shooshie