I would advise you to distribute the load to the cores better than stacking 16 sections in one kontakt multi. Think of VE Pro as that multi, it's better suited for the job. I use the convolutions in kontakt, and fx in there, all the time, btw.

Your assumptions about polyphony with a drum library or a piano aren't really right I think. Polyphony builds up with either, sus pedaling, cymbals ringing... polyphony a definite issue for BFD2 users that don't have enough muscle... I've had to max the polyphony in VI Pro using a piano owing to the frequent sus pedal down in the part... I don't know if assuming the people getting good performance as lighter users is going to help you conceptualize here. I use some real monsters.

I kinda doubt polyphony is per se the culprit anyway, but how you are managing it is something you might look at (IE: using one instance of Kontakt, vs distributing the load) You present the kontakt usage as "modest", but 16 sections in one multi isn't particularly what I'd guess from that term. In any case, I bet if you made 8 separate kontakt instantiations per VE Pro instance, using 2 instances - in VE Pro preferences assign 4 or 8 'threads' (8 assuming hyperthreading = 16 logical cores) per instance - you'll find more joy.

 Three big advantages in using VEP in local mode, rather than just loading in PT:

1. PT is 32bit, so you have a very low memory limit for loading samples.
2. RTAS is the most inefficient format on the planet when it comes to using samples. VEP will allow you to use a much bigger template.
3. When you start using big templates, you can keep them loaded when changing projects. If you have to re-load each time, it is very frustrating.

DG

@stereotype said:

I realized that 2 of the string and brass sounds I had been using had convolution reverb settings enabled in Kontakt. Turning those reverbs off gave me a HUGE gain in power. This also seems to relieve some of the CPU spiking problems when using Kontakt directly in PT.

Glad to hear that things are at least going in the right direction! Let us know how things go as you test further.

M

@stereotype said:

I've tried every configuration of settings I can come up with including a slave computer (dual core Mac w/ 6GB RAM/where am I wrong? I thought VEPro on a slave was supposed to do the work.

Hi all,

I had to get away from this for awhile and do other things. But now it's time to try and sort this mess out again. To the best of my noob ability, I've tried to follow the suggestions already given. I now have a Quad core PC running Windows XP that can be put into use. However, as someone previously suggested, I should try and get better performance using VEP locally on the 8 core Mac and therefore rule out networking issues.

For clarity sake, bare with me as I go back over where I currently am. I'm desperatly confused here. So have patience with me. And yes, I've studied the manual and have the most current versions downloaded and installed.

Mac 8 Core - 8GB RAM - Kontakt 4.2.2  - Pro Tools 9.03 (native) - 002r I/O - Yamaha S90 (used as a usb midi comtroller to the Mac)

Basically, my big problem is I can not stop the CPU glitches using Kontakt at anything under a 512 buffer setting, which is completely unplayable, especially for drum sounds. I realize I'm having trouble grasping the usage of VEP. As suggested, I tried installing multiple instances of Kontakt on multiple channels of 1 instance of VEP......rather than my previous method of 1 Kontakt with all the various sounds running within that. I really see no difference. Also, I'm sure I'm confused about the preference settings in the server as they apply to "threads". But in the manual, it suggests that a setting of 1 would be nice for an 8 Core setup. But I've tried it all. No matter what I do, the CPU runs at over 50% at under a 512 buffer for just 3 channels with Kontakt installed; 1 sound in each Kontakt.This is with the mutlicore settings in Kontakt off. Although there isn't any difference with it on. I also get this terrible performance using the Vienna Epic Strings. And I also get the same terrible performance using the same things respectively in the quad core PC.

So could someone be so kind as to suggest, based on my setup, how they would use this? I've just never had this level of confusion and frustration before. Being the same on both computers, I feel I'm doing something wrong and not having hardware issues. But at this point I'm desperate and open to all suggestions.

I had the same issue. Buffer at 512, it plays ok but at 256 it's unplayable.

What I did, go to 'Playback Engine' put the buffer below 512 and set the 'Host Processors' to anything but 8. 

That should solve it. It worked for me but I haven't done a heavy loaded session to test what number is best. At least not 8 processors.

Hope this helps.

You should set the Pro Tools processors setting to at most one less than the actual cores available.

Yes. PT always runs best when set to 1 less processor than the number of CPU. I've tried all settings though just for the heck of it. Everything from 1-8. No difference.

As for drives, they're streaming from an internal SATA. 7200RPM dedicated to only the samples. System on it's own internal drive and any other audio on it's own dedicated drive. There's a fourth drive internally setup as a BootCamp drive (runs Windows on the Mac). I tried taking that out just out of curiosity. No difference.

ok. you say that using regular plugins works much better. You are preferring to distribute nearly all the cores to PT, correct? So the plugins are part of PT's workload, they would be using the cores I suppose...

as opposed to: You aren't giving VE Pro any muscle to do the work. If it is true that PT requires all but one core, you're SOL with VEP on the same machine, I think.

here's why I get such good performance I think: I have VEP on an octocore slave and I distribute all the cores available to it. 4 instances, 4 'threads', which means cores, per each. I am distributing the cores as evenly as possible and I'm quite deliberate about it.

You are giving VEP 1 core and the rest to PT? 

 I don't know as I have never tried allowing VEP just 1 core with all the others in use, but it seems like a bad idea to me. When I did run as local host, I gave VEP more cores than Cubase, quad core machine, 8 logical threads, I might give Cubase 2 of them. I would never have thought to give more cores to a sequencer, that isn't the idea of VEP I think.

No. I can run PT at any core setting. In fact, at the point I'm doing VEP, many times I'm only using a stereo 2 mix as the only audio to do midi programming to. So I have no trouble setting PT to say, only 1 core; leaving 7 open. Someone else added the comment that PT runs best set at 1 core less than the number of processors. In actuallity, PT runs fine on any number of cores (respective to the what's needed for track/plugin usage). So my comment about PT and cores were in response to that. My point is, that ANY PT core setting and ANY VEP setting made accordingly gives me no different performance. I still hit the same wall at CPU spikes, clicks and garbles dropping the PT buffer below 512 and using 1 instance of VEP withonly a few channels and Kontakt on each. I get vitually the same results using Reaper or Logic, instead of PT. I get the same results if using VEP locally or networked, with either the 8 core Mac or the quad core PC as slave or master. So I feel I've got some computer issue somewhere, but honestly, I'm just dumbfounded and don't know what else to try.

I have seen it said more than once that PT is notoriously inefficient for a samples-based M.O., BUT -

I would think logically that nothing you do changes anything at all indicates a problem that isn't software-related.

I had horrible issues, spiking at any latency with Kontakt as a plugin in Cubase when I moved to my intel mac, which I blamed on my MOTU 828mkii... drivers were reported to be problematic and I saw similar issues reported; and so I bought an RME card, for instance. I think I was right.

@stereotype said:

 in the manual, it suggests that a setting of 1 would be nice for an 8 Core setup. But I've tried it all. No matter what I do, the CPU runs at over 50% at under a 512 buffer for just 3 channels with Kontakt installed; 1 sound in each Kontakt.

 I know that on Macs with hyper threading, you may see the option to set PT to use virtual cores (i.e. 8 physical cores with hyper threading will show an option for 16 in the PT preferences). However, PT doesn't really run stable using hyperthreaded cores. And my Mac never has the option to set anything accept 1-8 cores in PT anyhow. So yes, I didn't know it. But maybe my Mac being a first generation 8 core doesn't hyperthread or some other issue. But I get the same results using the quad core PC. So while sometimes I feel like it's hardware related, it also seems to not be at times.

I appreciate everyone's patience with me. Maybe I should back up and try something different. Even though I've tried about every configuration there is possible, maybe the problem is really me and my confusion on the terms cores, instances, etc. Lets take just a local setup with no networking. With my 8 core Mac (8GB of RAM, all streaming samples like Kontakt library on a dedicated internal 7200 RPM drive), PT 9 ( native; not HD), VEP and Kontakt, how would you guys set cores, instances, midi channels and instruments in VEP to multiple sounds using Kontakt, etc?

With an early enough MacPro, there isn't hyperthreading.

as far as cores distribution, again, I believe in even as possible and using as many cores as possible. EG: 12 Kontakt instances same machine as PT, I am going to predicate distro on 2 cores for PT, even number seems ok. So, 3 instances of VEP, 4 Kontakt each. Set your VEP prefs to 2 threads per instance as you have four things to distro 8 cores to. if 24 kontakts, 8 ktkt by 3 VEP, 2 threads per instance. If you can get a maths where 1 thread per instance works, assuming you can starve PT to this extent... I think you follow my reasoning. Predicate the distro by what PT needs according to the load there.

But, I don't think that networking is your issue, because it works for people. As per slave usage, just follow that, even distro and use up those cores.

I can leave my buffers at 128 until the cows come home, so long as I don't start relying on Cubase for a lot of FX. A whole lot of audio might get me there to sloweer performance as well, and I'll freeze that audio. Cubase is SLOW under OSX, it isn't really built right for it. This is why I rely on VEP on a network. I don't know PT, but tbh I don't envy you guys.

I THINK that in the case where problems have occurred in a setup, that corruption occurs. I do believe that when you're running on an overheated CPU and overheated RAM, this happens. In your case I would uninstall VE Pro, including preferences. The uninstaller provided in your VE Pro applications folder isn't going to trash prefs, so do that manually.

Thank you for all the help Civilization. While I'm sure I traveled across these settings before, I'm going to try them a bit more intentionally. One more question for the moment......and I apologize for my lack of knowledge. But I think the terminology is effecting my understanding. Thread......what does that mean? I'm trying to grasp the concept here of spreading things around on cores but I'm confusd by what I'm doing when, say, I set it to 2 threads. Is that saying it's using 2 cores? I know this is really a silly question. But hey, I've go to start somewhere learning this stuff.

'thread' is the same thing as 'core'.

It's actually not the same. I suggest reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computer_science) if you really want to know ;). With regards to VE Pro, threads and cores can be considered more or less equal though.

I only meant for practical purposes to help this user. I am aware of the difference.  Actually It isn't that fascinating to me. o_*

Just thought I'd let you know, I'm doing pretty well now. A 128 buffer is possible for a limited time. Several midi tracks into programming I'll need to go to 256, but I can deal with it for orchestral sounds. I still get this same result with either a local setup or adding a networked slave.

However, reducing PT to 3 cores, and 2 instances locally set to 2 cores each, with 1 left for the computer seems to work the best. I can also do instances set to 1 core each with little or no noticable change. Adding the slave is working fine. Pretty much the same settings apply other than no PT to adjust there. While I know I'd been through these settings previously, it's easy to get confused in such invoived troubleshooting. Also, I appreciate the explanations of things (especially to "Civilization 3"). I've had to wrap my head around the terminology and a new way of working.

I think as I progress I'll have to think about a newer computer with more cores, hyperthreading and capable of running a 64 bit OS. But in the meantime, I'm getting work done so I'm thrilled. Thanks.