please note: answering via email to topic-reply-notifications will not appear as a post in the forum!

Hi Chuck

I use Logic with IAC to send to VE pro standalone 

In VE pro 64 I loaded 80 instruments with all there articulations ( I have SE Plus + Appassionata )

I route back the audio from VE using ADAT out --> Adat in of my Motu

Today I apply effects in Logic.

You can do the same to compare with Cubase

Why do you have 90 instruments ?

Best

Cyril

Hi Cyril,

I used Jay Bascal's tutorial of The Rite of Spring - Part 1.  I didn't change the tracks from the way Jay had them and thought it would be a great sequence to check out thru-put and memory performance.

I'm ok using Cubase and VE-PRO combination.  Works Great!!!  I did try the ADAT approach you are speaking of but using the in/out of my Apogee Ensemble sound interface.  Unfortunately, there were clocking issues that cause cracking with just one instrument count.

The truth is that I was shocked after setting up VE-PRO and Cubase with Jay's tutorial to find out that trying the same setup in Logic 9.1 and the new VI-64, that the Logic config wouldn't even begin to play (with just empty instrument interfaces loaded - no sounds, blank tracks and no effects).  We are talking just tracks with VI loaded in them.  My thoughts are that the VI interface's performance would be the same whether in VE-PRO or Logic and the only difference being the host.  Maybe someone from VSL could confirm.  I remember noticing a performance improvement when I was comparing Logic to the original Vienna Ensemble using the same sequence and instrument count.  There was a very noticeable difference in CPU usage back then.

Without doing major research on the subject, it just seems in my limited testing, that from a thru-put perspective, using VE-PRO to host VI Instruments is the way to go.  I guess a real good check would be to set up a medium sequence in Logic using VSL and maybe some other libraries and then take the same configuration and use VE-PRO as the host and Logic as a sequencer only leaving Cubase out of the picture.  Maybe time permitting.  

Hi DG,

Your right in the combinations.  At the beginning, I was interested in seeing if I could load Jay's entire configuration for Part 1 into a single instance of VE-PRO using the Mac Pro and my current memory capacity.  Jay, having a smaller machine had to bust up the sequence into instrument groups rendering them individually.  I thought this would be a great test of my machine in understanding it full potential.  I was impressed with the Cubase/VE-PRO combination. 

When VI-64 came out, I thought I'd give it a try in Logic and didn't expect it not to perform the same way.  I would have thought that VI is VI whether hosted in VE-PRO or Logic.  It seems that the difference in host is why I'm seeing a performance hit.  Does that make sense to you?

@Chuck Green said:

 

When VI-64 came out, I thought I'd give it a try in Logic and didn't expect it not to perform the same way.  I would have thought that VI is VI whether hosted in VE-PRO or Logic.  It seems that the difference in host is why I'm seeing a performance hit.  Does that make sense to you?

I'm not sure what dictates the efficiency or otherwise of VE Pro. If it is dictated by the host, then Logic will perform quite poorly, compared with multiple VI, especially using Live mode. However, if it can be set independently, then it could perform the same or even better.

With Cubase I would imagine that there would be less difference between multiple VI and VE Pro, although I always found VE to be more efficient than multiple VI.

As to which is more efficient between Cubase and Logic, I think it is so circumstance specific that there is no useful answer.

DG

@DG said:

although I always found VE to be more efficient than multiple VI.

Yes DG, that's my conclusion as well.....  What I'm not totally sure of is whether it's host related (VE-PRO and some other sequencer regardless of company) or if it is related to multiple VIs.  Can't see under the hood on this one can only determine the outcome based on testing various configurations......

Hello

VSL has always said that it is better to use VE instead of VI

With VE when you load a multiple instance of an instrument it is taking a long time to load the 1st one.

The other are loading very quickly, this do show that they share the memory

Does the VI instruments are doing the same ? I doubt !

I had the same behavior using QLSO platinum

What is strange with VSL is that it is taking processor load event if you dont play (the Kontakt and the EX24 engine only uses CPU when they are playing )

I have been trying to load the projects of The Rite of spring, I suppose that Jay is using the BIG lib, because it is not loading my SE plus lib !

Best 

Cyril

@Another User said:

I have been trying to load the projects of The Rite of spring, I suppose that Jay is using the BIG lib, because it is not loading my SE plus lib !

Jay is using the flow-blown library.  Ninety-eight tracks in all.  Was able to load the entire library in a single VE-PRO instance.  Had to still optimize though due to memory limitations.  I have 16 GB but it looks like Jay has is own custom matrixes set up and he load all samples in his matrix.  Not totally sure if he uses them all for the Rite of Spring.

That seems like an odd result, can someone from Vienna explain why using an extra layer of software would be more efficient?  And is it something that could potentially be improved in the VI?

@mike connelly said:

That seems like an odd result, can someone from Vienna explain why using an extra layer of software would be more efficient?  And is it something that could potentially be improved in the VI?

Hi Mike,

I could be mistaken here, but I thought I read somewhere here on this forum that VE only hits the CPU when an instrument was actually playing.  One of the Apple techs told me that is how Logic responds but what wasn't clear, if that functionality only works with Logic's instruments or if it works will all being used within Logic.  One would of thought all instruments but who knows?  Some insight from the Vienna Team would be appreciated.

@mike connelly said:

That seems like an odd result, can someone from Vienna explain why using an extra layer of software would be more efficient?  And is it something that could potentially be improved in the VI?

HI Mike,

Speaking to some Apple techs, they confirmed that the Logic instruments only use CPU when an instruments is actually playing, not eating CPU when it just loaded.  I've also done some testing with another company's 64-bit implementation of three of their instruments.  I've exceeded 100 installs with them just sitting idle and do not task the CPU when the play button is pressed.

One major difference that I'm seeing when I view the Activity Monitor is that when the other company's instruments are loaded, a single Server instance appears and there is no Server Interface Window to deal with.  When I load the 64-bit VI, I see not only  the VSL-Server but also the vsldaemon2.  My guess is that VI is still using the old architecture design (which is why we are still seeing the extra step - Server Interface Window) and causing Logic not to recognize or utilize, the DO NOT HIT the CPU if not playing routine.  My guess is also that when using VE-PRO, the logic of not hitting the CPU is built in as part of the VE-PRO host which is why I seeing better performance out of VE-PRO versus performance in Logic.

I believe it's appropriate to as the VSL team if my thoughts are correct and if so, will there be an updated VI in the near future that improves performance and eliminates the extra Server Window step so that VI interface, when launched, responds like the internal Logic instruments.

Fair question???