DP11 on M1 — only utilizing using 4 cores?

[yperochiakeraiotita]

Hi there! Just came back to using DP a few weeks ago when I heard about the DP11.1 update.

This is my first project using DP11 which is optimized for Apple Silicon, and is heavily orchestral in nature. Here's a screenshot to summarize what I'm looking at

(https://ibb.co/3y6cGTp)

Some notes:
— I've just noticed that it even though I don't have much MIDI event happening, the pre-gen tends to peak when I record/playback.
— I've also noticed that of the 8 cores available, four cores are maxing out (can be found in this screenshot https://ibb.co/3y6cGTp) even though there's not much MIDI events happening
— I'm running several instances of Kontakt (the heaviest libraries are Cinematic Studio Strings, Woodwinds and Brasses), but they are all purged and the only loaded samples are the ones being used in this sequence. Samples are being streamed from a Samsung T7 SSD.
— I'm running the project in 48kHz, 2048 already and have no other processor-heavy apps running.

Will consider purchasing a Mac Studio later in the year if this is simply a hardware/processor limitation, but I'm worried that I may be missing some optimization settings and that purchasing an even powerful machine won't do much if I'm missing out on optimization.

Thank you!

[mikehalloran]

Alright, I'll bite: Why do you think you're maximizing 4 Cores on an M1?

At least with Intel, there is no way for you to determine this unless Activity Monitor showed over 400%.

[yperochiakeraiotita]

Alright, I'll bite: Why do you think you're maximizing 4 Cores on an M1?

At least with Intel, there is no way for you to determine this unless Activity Monitor showed over 400%.

Hi! I've toggled between Live Performance Mode then back to the regular mode, seems to have helped.

Just honestly quite surprised since the tracks there with MIDI events are 1 soundiron piano, 1 berlin orchestra inspire flautando ensemble strings, and 1 patch from The Orchestra from Sonuscore — none of which are particularly CPU intensive afaik may cause spikes like this.

[greg328]

Revisiting a nearly 2-year old thread--I'm on DP 11.3 and Ventura 13.6.3. I've got a Mac Studio Ultra M1 with 40 cores, 64GB RAM.

The processor meter within Activity Monitor shows 20 meters. ( I assume those are the performance cores, the unseen 20 must be the efficiency cores? Not sure--need to check that--typing this on another computer!)

These 20 core meters are NEVER all fully utilized, which I find frustrating as I peg the processor meter within DP with a modest session assembled. (I"m sure I've mentioned this on Motunation before but I'm still searching for a solution.)

Usually about 4 of the core meters are showing any workload, and the others are barely moving, or show zero activity.

I keep the core meter visible at all times on my desktop.

My sessions usually contain 5-8 virtual instruments, 2 FX AUXes, (only running usually 1 reverb and 1 delay, sending things to these auxes.). I'll address these VIs with between 10-15 MIDI tracks. I may run 5-8 audio tracks MAX. Also, I'm UA UAD-2 Apollo x8 user with 10 cores of off-Mac DSP acceleration. (6 in the x8 and 4 in a hardware TB satellite box.)

My reverbs/delays are UAD-2.

I'm using VIs like: Musio, Opus, Trilian, Omnisphere, Addictive Drums 2, BFD3, etc. Falcon and Kontakt 7 less often.

I get horrible latency when inputting live MIDI through these VIs. Not as bad when triggering my Montage M hardware synth.
(By the way, when I ran MIIDI directly into the Mac Studio via USB from Montage M, I got extremely weird MIDI timing problems-namely, inputted notes were printing EARLY on the timeline. I moved back to my MIDI I/O using my trusty MTP AV USB and input timing is MUCH better!)

My sample buffer is usually at 512. Of course the problem is MUCH worse when I populate the master fader with plug-ins, but even without any inserts on the master, I'm still not getting the performance I expected from the Mac Studio Ultra M1.

My new workflow is the have no inserts on the master fader until I'm ready to mix.

Especially puzzling is the seemingly unbelievable fact that the Mac's performance cores are not being fully-utilized. As I search across the internet, I'm learning that MANY DAWS do not support full implementation of Apple silicon performance cores. Even Logic Pro underperforms.

What gives?? Who is to blame here? Apple, or the third-parry vendors?

The 2 DAWS that seem to be able to access all the available power are Cubase 13 and Reaper. I hope it's OK to mention these, I in no way support these DAWS, just trying to understand more why our beloved DP is not performing as well as it might, with better programming.

I've been a user of MOTU software and hardware since 1989, so I've been with DP since V1! I'm a huge supporter, but I need more performance from it--especially after a rather large investment in the Mac Studio Ultra M1.

Anyone have any insight on lack of multi-core support/performance with DP 11? Does Sonoma OS 14 solve any of these issues? I'm still waiting on OS 14 as I'm in the middle of a large album project and can't afford a train wreck caused by an update!

Many thanks,
Greg

[mikehalloran]

Except for certain multi-core Instruments (Players), each instance uses one core. This is true for Mac and Windows and all DAWs.

The UVI Player, for example, does not support multicore. If you want to balance the VIs among the cores each one must be called up in a separate instance of the UVI Player. The OS balances the instances among the cores. Depending on your plug-ins, it is possible to have a thousand tracks, each with a separate instance and plug-ins in DP, Logic, ProTools etc.

Kontakt can be single core or multi-core Instrument Player, depending on how it is set up.

[greg328]

Thanks Mike, always good to hear your responses.

I’m painfully aware that each VI will use one core-even when populated with 3-5 parts.

I’m just confused why most DAWs don’t have a better usage plan in place.

When orchestrating, I’ll I usually load one Musio instance with 4 string families, then I’ll use another Musio for 4 brass instruments , another 4 for woodwinds. So 3 Musio instances for the orchestra.

It would be amazingly inefficient and not mix-friendly to have to load 10-15 Musio VIs just to have my orchestra ready to go. Further, these instruments are multi-timbral- the host DAWs should be implementing their use much more efficiently. Surely they know most users are not going to load a multitude of instances when they are presented with a multi-timbral option.

I watched a video yesterday showing 7 different DAWs and how they utilize multi-core Apple Silicon Macs differently. Indeed, the 2 I mentioned above fully utilize all the available performance cores. DP was not included in the video. But- my observations show my suspicions to be true- when pegging the DP performance meter, the Activity Monitor core meters are barely being utilized.

This sucks.

So why are some better that DP at this task?

Mike, you state that only one core is assigned per VI. Is this simply a limitation of the third-party plug-ins’ design? I believe you mentioned Kontakt can be ran multicore.

I’d like to understand more about what’s truly causing the limitation. Is it the host DAW, or the third-party plug-ins that are not designed with maximum efficiency, regarding multicore performance?

Inquiring minds want to know!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikehalloran]

.

Mike, you state that only one core is assigned per VI. Is this simply a limitation of the third-party plug-ins’ design? I believe you mentioned Kontakt can be ran multicore.

One instance per core. An instance can host one or many VIs. UVI, ARIA, SampleTank, EXS24 and most others do not support multi-core.

Those that do support multiple cores must be set up per the instructions for the player. Besides Kontakt, some of the piano players support multiple cores.

So why are some better that DP at this task?

I’m not sure that any are better. Logic may be the least intuitive despite Apple’s many tech bulletins on this. ESX24 is the default Player but it seems that only experienced film composers know to call up a new instance for each VI — and Apple has a ton of them

We’ve been discussing this around here since the quad core G4.

[greg328]

Mike, I’m confused by your terminology.

You’re saying one instance can host many virtual instruments. That confuses me, I always considered an instance to be a single virtual instrument (plug-in) loaded into the session.

In other words, say, one instance of Omnisphere would consist of one plug-in. Yes, it’s eight part multi-timbral- but still one plug-in.

You’re saying one instance can consist of more than one virtual instrument? How does that work exactly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikehalloran]

You’re saying one instance can consist of more than one virtual instrument?

Over and over.

Good thing to bring up Omnisphere which supports single-core only. Per Spectrasonics:

Multi-Instance vs Multi-timbral

On single and dual-core systems, it's best to load multiple Parts (on different MIDI channels) within a single instance of Omnisphere, before opening any additional instances of the intrument. This is the best way to utilize the available CPU power for Omnisphere.

However, if a multi-core system is used, it can be beneficial to open multiple instances of Omnisphere to distribute the processor load between the cores. The resource handling is done by the host, so in this case it's useful to open more than one instance of Omnisphere. So the most efficient use on a multicore machine is to use a couple of instances multitimbrally - if assigning all Parts to a single instance is using up all the resources of a single core. Consult your host's documentation to make sure that it has support for multi-core/multi-processor systems.

Apple hasn't shipped a single core since the G3 and a dual core in over a decade. So, while this info is very old, it is not outdated.

I do suggest that you read the entire document: CONCEPTS - CPU Optimization & Conservation

https://support.spectrasonics.net/manua ... age02.html

Like any technology, digital music has a language and it must be learned to communicate with others. Part or most of the confusion is that the word, Instrument, is often used to mean Instrument Player. Some use to to mean Virtual Instrument but the two are not the same. Using Instrument or Player to mean Instrument Player is common but get in the habit of using VI to mean Virtual Instrument — it's what we all do.

Kontakt is able to support multi-core processing in a single instance as I have mentioned but the instance must be set up to do so—it defaults to single-core otherwise. There are a few others.

[greg328]

Mike,
I've been involved with MIDI and virtual instruments since their launch. I've very aware of the nomenclature and its various uses.

My confusion centered around your use of the words "instance" and "virtual instruments". I always refer to an "instance" as one plug-in. Multi-timbral or not. Now--many VIs are multi-timbral so one can load several instruments, on different MIDI channels, but I still think of a fully-loaded 8-part Omnisphere as one instance of a virtual instrument-I do not think of a full-loaded multi-timbral VI as several instruments, I think of it as one VI, hosting several "timbres".

I guess we could call each part of a multi-timbral plug-in a "virtual instrument" as well----that's where our disconnect is--I think?

Indeed I use "VI" all the time to describe a plug-in that generates a sound, via MIDI. As opposed to say, FX plug-ins.

I'm aware that in Mac OS, one VI will use a single-core. So, to use more cores, load more VIs. I get it. I still think I ought to be able to put 4 or so parts into a VI and it not kill my Studio Ultra M1.

My issue with my Mac Studio Ultra M1--is exactly that--hardly any of the performance cores are being used, while the DP performance meter is clipping. And my latency is sucky--

That's what I'm aiming to find out--why is DP so inefficient with all the Apple silicon cores on offer--I would think most DP users would be livid over this. I certainly am. I spent close to $4k on my new Mac, and it appears to not be fully-utilized with DP--the only reason I bought it! I have another MacBook Pro for web browsing/email, but the Mac Studio is my recording workhouse--and an income source.

[Michael Canavan]

I'm aware that in Mac OS, one VI will use a single-core. So, to use more cores, load more VIs. I get it. I still think I ought to be able to put 4 or so parts into a VI and it not kill my Studio Ultra M1.

My issue with my Mac Studio Ultra M1--is exactly that--hardly any of the performance cores are being used, while the DP performance meter is clipping. And my latency is sucky--

That's what I'm aiming to find out--why is DP so inefficient with all the Apple silicon cores on offer--I would think most DP users would be livid over this. I certainly am. I spent close to $4k on my new Mac, and it appears to not be fully-utilized with DP--the only reason I bought it! I have another MacBook Pro for web browsing/email, but the Mac Studio is my recording workhouse--and an income source.

Greg, you're completely overlooking multiple reasons your ideas on how things should work are misguided VS reality.

I'm the weirdo whose done multiple stress tests in multiple DAWs to see which is best, long story but someone online who worked for a reputable music magazine claimed that de fragging your hard drive would give better performance in your DAW. Since then I've at least once a year run stress tests on my DAWs to see how they're adding up.

First off, DP is not worse off than the rest. Logic is lagging, it doesn't use Efficiency cores at all. I'm getting 140 tracks with Diva on them in DP11 and Reaper, 106 in Logic, and around 90 in Ableton Live. One thing you should right away notice is that's individual tracks. So if this is true, why are you maxing your CPU with only a few multi sampler plugins?

Let's go over this. You mention Musio, it's a relatively new sampler plugin for Cinesamples, it's not anywhere near as optimized as Kontakt, so that's going to be an issue. Even with Kontakt these days, there are heavily scripted instruments that can easily weigh down a track if you put too many in a multi. I discovered this myself with an older mac Pro and just two instances of Cinestrings in Kontakt, it was literally the only thing that would kill the CPU, in Logic, Reaper, and DP. Again this is not a DP issue, a couple years ago I ended up getting copies of Logic and Reaper for MPE support before Live 11 and there are very few areas where either of those are better than DP. Mostly the only thing you run into on occasion with DP is a spiking plugin, which can happen in the others as well.

A couple things to sort this out, first off open the Effect Performance window in DP, it literally will show you which plugin is spiking your CPU not letting you use all your cores, because that's exactly how it works, if one core is spiking you're SOL, so the goal is to not spike a single core. You very well could have a plugin that's spiking DP, and it's possible that the VST version does not. I would 100% recommend looking at the Effect Performance window and then determine how to 'load balance' DP, you will see if it's too many aux tracks running in Real Time, or if it's a particular plugin. Personally I'm unlucky enough to be heavily dependent on Amplitube and the MPC software, and both are CPU pigs that will probably eventually be optimized for Apple Silicon, but right now I watch them suck up most of a core.

[mikehalloran]

My confusion centered around your use of the words "instance" and "virtual instruments".

No. It is how everyone uses them nowadays including Apple, UVI, MakeMusic, Native Instruments, IK Multimedia...