VEP on Host vs hosting VIs in sequencer?

[terrybritton]

Well, you can automate MIDI instruments themselves in V-Racks, just not the channel - so no automating channel vol, panning, inserts etc. This can easily be remedied by bringing an instrument into the sequence via an Aux, which can be automated

Ah - thanks! That is how I normally have things set up, so no wonder I had not encountered it as a limitation. (Plus, I'm fairly new to using Chunks and V-Racks.)

Terry

[frankf]

I've already posted that I like working in one box rather than use VEP on a slave and I understand others prefer the second workflow. Still I'd like to elaborate on how I got to preferring my current approach.

I started with a sequencer and a room full of synth keyboards, EFX boxes and modules both, and stacks of samplers with hard drives to load samples and patches and I can't tell you how many feet of MIDI, power, audio, video, SCSI and other cables with physical switchers and patch bays of many types. Always problems popped up with all of these physical connections and cables, often the synths themselves. And this was in a pro studio. With the advent of VI's most of this out of the box hardware slowly disappeared and I found myself spending more time composing and less maintaining. As computers grew more powerful, as we know, the VI and FX developers started to make better and bigger software which demanded more RAM and computer power. Even if you maxed out your Mac's RAM or upgraded to a faster processor, 32bit mode host software like DP couldn't address all of it. Hence host apps like VEP were developed so when running as a DP plug on the same computer we COULD address unused RAM and make good use of it. Running on a second computer, VEP operates as a linked networked host, still as a DP plug, which uses that computer's RAM and processor to relieve DP and the Mac it's running on of some of the heavy lifting.

I used VEP on my DP Mac and it worked well even though I didn't like setting up a second host. The second Mac workflow was too complicated and brought back some of the problems I didn't like about the room full of hardware days. I was working on one computer but had to set up 2 hosts and manage an additional layer of bussing and loading, sometimes on a cue by cue basis. Again, that's just me.

Then MOTU released DP as 64 bit app which could utilize all installed free memory and there was no need for me to run VEP as second host on the same Mac, especially with DP's V-racks. I've been running DP like this for a while now with great success.

For a film composer like me, who needs to stream samples for mock ups, stream video and record audio, the introduction of 64 bit and v-racks were a huge plus for my workflow. The big hang up was access time to/from my disks, even with separate disks for audio, many VIs, and video. Probably the most immediate improvement in speed in loading DP projects, access and streaming, not to mention the smoothness of DP's operation came from the replacement of all my streaming HDs with SSDs. Even without the latest Mac Pro trash can or updated tower, I'm running smoothly with one host DAW in the box.

This said, whatever works to keep your tools as transparent as possible and to aid your creativity.



Frank Ferrucci

Frank...sorry for my obtuseness (is that even a word?) but can you clarify how you are doing thins?

I re-read your posts but am still a little confused.

a) you run everything on one Mac Pro?

b) you don't use VE Pro anymore, or do you run it directly in DP instead of as a separate application running concurrently? or something else?

The only thing I run in VE Pro (as a separate application running concurrently) are like 25 instances of Kontakt, so I guess I could just run 25 instances of Kontakt right in DP?

I'm just trying too find the most CPU-efficient and time-saving way to work.

Thanks!



And also being able to run things at a low enough latency that the VI's really play without lag when I play a note.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.
a) you run everything on one Mac Pro?
Yes

b) you don't use VE Pro anymore, or do you run it directly in DP instead of as a separate application running concurrently? or something else?
No, I don't use VEP at all. I use nothing else. All Kontact instances, for example, are in v-racks with each Kontact instance output channel routed via a bus and aux "back" to DP's internal mixer.
-MIDI track assigned to Kontact instance 1-channel 1
-Kontact channel 1 audio output via Kontact mixer to auto published Bundle
-Bundle assigned to a named bus which feeds a named Aux which feeds the DP mixer.


One thing about v-racks: because they are Chunks they can be enabled and disabled in the Chunks window. So if you arrange your v-racks according to your musical needs, and you use large templates, you can easily enable only the v-instruments you need for a project by disabling unused sections. For example, with an orchestral template containing strings, brass, winds each in their own v-rack and you have a strings only piece or cue, you can disable the brass and winds groups entirely by disabling their v-racks in the Chunks window, conserving resources.






Frank Ferrucci

[JSmith1234567]

Hey Frank.

Thanks a bunch!

I am going to try it that way and see how it works out.

I never thought of doing that, having gone from Bidule to VE-Pro, and now possibly this.

I love the idea of keeping everything together in a project.

Thanks again!

[supersonic]

As far as I can tell, the v-rack doesn’t benefit for from pregen right? I find it extremely helpful to have that within DP and not worry about the more complex VEP setup. Every Cue is a chunk and using v-rack makes things a breeze to switch between.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JSmith1234567]

How do you all feel about the performance (CPU) you are getting???

If you have everything on ONE computer, do you feel performance is better with;

A) DP, with VE Pro Server (on the same computer) hosting multiple instances of Kontakt.

B) DP with the VE Pro plugin (in DP) hosting multiple instances of Kontakt.

C) DP with no VE Pro, with DP's V-Racks hosting multiple instances of Kontakt.

I can see advantages and disadvantages in all three methods, but in terms of performance, and getting latency lower?

Right now the lowest latency I can go with a large orchestral setup is 512.

[supersonic]

I would have to check but the one thing I can see as advantageous using VEP is the ability to set the buffer of the VIs that are not being recorded high in order to lower the CPU usage. This is done per instance of VEP in DP so it could mean better CPU handing.

[dix]

How do you all feel about the performance (CPU) you are getting???

If you have everything on ONE computer, do you feel performance is better with;

A) DP, with VE Pro Server (on the same computer) hosting multiple instances of Kontakt.

B) DP with the VE Pro plugin (in DP) hosting multiple instances of Kontakt.

C) DP with no VE Pro, with DP's V-Racks hosting multiple instances of Kontakt.

I can see advantages and disadvantages in all three methods, but in terms of performance, and getting latency lower?

Right now the lowest latency I can go with a large orchestral setup is 512.

I choose A. ...I think.

I don't really understand B. The VEP MAS plugin simply accesses the VEP server as I understand it. Is there another VEP plugin that doesn't require a server to be opened?

And whereas running VIs in pregen mode in a sequence was pretty close to as efficient as running them on a VEP server, it's noticeably glitchier and prone to weirdness - in contrast to, once VEP is setup with the MAS plugin everything always runs wonderfully. And as supersonic points out I don't think V-Racked VIs use pregen so that would be the least efficient of the 3 choices.

...I run fairly large VEP templates on one computer and rarely need to go higher than a 512 buffer.

[supersonic]

...I run fairly large VEP templates on one computer and rarely need to go higher than a 512 buffer.

Do you also change the buffer multiplier at times to save more CPU on the instances of VEP in DP that you feel you will not tweak that much any more?

[JSmith1234567]

How do you all feel about the performance (CPU) you are getting???

If you have everything on ONE computer, do you feel performance is better with;

A) DP, with VE Pro Server (on the same computer) hosting multiple instances of Kontakt.

B) DP with the VE Pro plugin (in DP) hosting multiple instances of Kontakt.

C) DP with no VE Pro, with DP's V-Racks hosting multiple instances of Kontakt.

I can see advantages and disadvantages in all three methods, but in terms of performance, and getting latency lower?

Right now the lowest latency I can go with a large orchestral setup is 512.

I choose A. ...I think.

I don't really understand B. The VEP MAS plugin simply accesses the VEP server as I understand it. Is there another VEP plugin that doesn't require a server to be opened?

And whereas running VIs in pregen mode in a sequence was pretty close to as efficient as running them on a VEP server, it's noticeably glitchier and prone to weirdness - in contrast to, once VEP is setup with the MAS plugin everything always runs wonderfully. And as supersonic points out I don't think V-Racked VIs use pregen so that would be the least efficient of the 3 choices.

...I run fairly large VEP templates on one computer and rarely need to go higher than a 512 buffer.

Hey thanks!

That is what is am doing, so I'll continue that.

I also started printing sub-mixes when needed so I can track into a separate chunk at low latencies.

That adds adds another layer of multiple problems and work-arounds (for a two hour film), but at least there is no delay in the phones. Oddly enough, guitar players hate the delay the most, not percussionists or other instruments.

Maybe some day workarounds will be a thing of the past!

[labman]

Do you also change the buffer multiplier at times to save more CPU on the instances of VEP in DP that you feel you will not tweak that much any more?

We keep our buffer at 512, but our work priority is set to medium. I forget why! Getting too old. What works priority do you guys use with VEP along with DP?

[JSmith1234567]

I have to check that out?

I don't know what that setting does, I always just set it to high?

There is also a buffer setting in the preferences of the VE Pro Server plugin-in, but I tried it and it just doubled the latency for everything I had in VE Pro...you hit a key and the note sounds way-way-later.

As far as latency 512 is the lowest I've been able to get with a large orchestral template. This is on a 2013 Mac Pro with tons of memory.

Occasionally even that will glitch and I'll have to up it to 1024, but just for printing mixes, mostly to deal with glitching at tempo & meter changes.

[labman]

As far as latency 512 is the lowest I've been able to get with a large orchestral template. This is on a 2013 Mac Pro with tons of memory.

We run 512 with 48GB ram on host, have slaves, with 700 tracks on DP orch template and 12 instantiations of VEP that house maybe 20 instances of Kontakt off of DP but still on host Mac Pro. And maybe 20 more off on the slaves. Occasionally a glitch, but usually solid.

[dix]

...I run fairly large VEP templates on one computer and rarely need to go higher than a 512 buffer.

Do you also change the buffer multiplier at times to save more CPU on the instances of VEP in DP that you feel you will not tweak that much any more?

I've never messed with this in DP. In fact I don't know how to access this. My hardware setup has never presented the option with any of the I/Os I use. The Work Priority has been set to High ever since the option became available....like a million years ago.

[dix]

Btw, virtually everything I know about setting up VEP I learned for this guy, Steve Steele's videos. Here's one specifically about optimizing VE Pro with Kontakt for your DAW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BJNRhZLZww