VE Pro / DP Performance / Live Tracking

[JSmith1234567]

I'm using DP with VE Pro Server on the same Mac (a new Mac Pro running the latest DP and Sierra).

I have a huge orchestral library template that VE Pro hosts.

When I do live tracking, I can't lower my buffer too low without DP crapping-out.

512 is about as low as I can go.

For live-tracking, I thought I would just print everything as a sub-mix, mute everything except the live tracks and this submix, and then I'd save a ton of CPU and be able to use really low buffers when tracking.

Then I could just un-mute everything and start mixing at a higher buffer-setting.

I did an experiment where I muted everything, but there was no change in CPU performance and DP was still unusable.

Whatever the idea of the preference "mute tracks frees up resources" or whatever it is don't seem to work.

I did a bunch of (admittedly unscientific) experiments, and seemed to find that I had to completely remove the VE Pro MAS plug-in from DP to see a change in CPU usage, which was huge.

My performance meter went from pinned to like 2%.

When I re-load the plugin after live-tracking, my VE Pro output assignments in the Tracks window come back with their original assignment, which is really terrific.

Having to Re-assign that many tracks would be unworkable.

The problem now is that the name of the output assignment, which in my template is just named (for instance) "VE Pro 24-11", changes to "Vienna Ensemble Pro MAS-1: 24-11", which uses a whole-lotta screen real-estate.

Also the audio-inputs from the plugin now have these really long names too, which basically takes over a good portion of my tracks-window real-estate.

I don't get why this is happening?

Can you actually rename a plugin in the finder or terminal or something like that to alleviate this?

Thanks!

[FMiguelez]

Absolutely YES to your very last question. Simply Option-click on the VI-Rack or instrument and you can rename it and its bundles right there, i.e., in the mixer.

Either way, you shouldn't be seeing these changes in the names... Are you simply turning off the relevant VI-Rack? I do this all the time, and have never seen DP change any names EXCEPT when the MAS engine is restarted. Then, and only then, I get a bunch of bundles named incoherently after Waves Something... And this is a PITA.


As for the rest of your post, these days, what I find best, if live-inputing is critical (a piano performance), is to do all that using my old and trusty Roland JV-2080 hardware synth. No monitoring latency, no need to lower buffer sizes, no CPU hit at all... I enter the notes in my mini-hardware-synth-template, and once I finish I simply copy/paste the tracks to my VI tracks. You can copy/paste a bunch of tracks in one go (copy 10 tracks, and select the 10 VI tracks to paste them there). In the long run, this may be the fastest if your template is huuuuuge.

Sometimes I can deal with the VI latency by playing ahead. The advantage is that I can also play and record the keyswitches, so it's faster. Which method I use depends on the style, complexity and tempo of the music.
Oh, sometimes I also record key switches as I play my haradware synths. They won't do anything, of course, but they will be already there for the VI after pasting.

[FMiguelez]

Uh-oh... I hope I didn't confuse you...
Actually, after thinking about this a bit more, the MAS engine gets restarted EVERYTIME you change buffer sizes, thus causing the unwanted name changes you're seeing. You probably don't see the Waves stuff I mentioned because you probably don't use Waves' stuff, but you still get your names changed after the resizing to whatever DP finds next.

And that is the main reason I needed to find the alternative hardware-synth workflow I mentioned above, so buffer changes were not necessary. So far, it's either, dealing with the CPU and latncy given by the VIs, or get a bundles mess after every buffer size change... I prefer the latter.

BUT THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN ANYWAY!

MOTU???

[JSmith1234567]

Hey thank you for those thorough and well-thought-out responses!

I really appreciate it and your time.

On reflection, I think I'm just going to print a sub-mix, open it and the conductor track in a new chunk with the relevant live-tracks set up and nothing else, lower the latency way down, and record that way.

Then paste the live stuff back into the project.