You said that you are using Vienna Instrument PRO and what I was pointing out is that VI PRO uses too much CPU. The regular Vienna Instrument is very easy on the CPU in my 64-bit environment. Did you say that the 32-bit version of VI PRO is lighter than the 64-bit version? I have to try that. Maybe there's a bug in the 64-bit version that causes the difference.

Hi,

did you activate the reverb in the VI PRO instances?

Best,

Paul

No reverb. I have 61 VIs which I converted to VIPs with the VEP convert function, I didn't do anything else. In addition to using several times more CPU the VIP also loads aa looot sloooweeeer than the VI. With VEP crashing on my XP32 slave and VIP too heavy it seems that I have to go back to the previous VEP and postpone switching to VIP. I'm sure the next versions will work fine. [:)]

I tried both VI and VIP with my template viframe. The VI version has 61 instances and I used the VEP converter to make the VIP version. I measured the time it takes for the VI to show the GUI and for the VIP to get through the progress bar and then looked at Task Manager. I booted between the tests.

VI:

Load time: 5 min 10 seconds

Memory usage: 3.88 gigs

Task Manager CPU usage: 2%

VIP:

Load time: 8 mins 45 seconds

Memory usage: 5.42 gigs

CPU: 9%

Is there a change in the buffering settings or why is VIP using 40% more memory? It takes 70% more time to load that 40% more so obviously VIP would also slower in loading the same amount of data. The CPU usage measurement is certainly very unscientific but still it's four times the load VI has. That's not good considering the amount of instances we need.

Could somebody try this out? My setup is Q6600, P5B-VM, 8 gigs, Vista 64.

Hello,

VIPro has a larger base memory size and CPU usage per instance, than VI. For example, VIpro has a default polyphony of 128 voices, compared to 64 voices of VI, and thus will take more memory just for the buffers. Also VIPro contains multiple outputs, all of which need some post-processing.

However the increase in CPU usage with the amount of actually played notes should be approximately the same for VI and VIPro. Thus, the greater idle CPU usage should not really mean a proportional scale in CPU usage when the instruments are actually playing.

As for initial startup loading time, probably there is some room for optimization there. VIPro is different from VI in the fact, that VI will hog the complete system to obtain the resources to load the data, while VIPro is doing this in background.

Thanks,
George.

@gyohng said:

VIPro has a larger base memory size and CPU usage per instance, than VI. For example, VIpro has a default polyphony of 128 voices, compared to 64 voices of VI, and thus will take more memory just for the buffers. Also VIPro contains multiple outputs, all of which need some post-processing.

 You can set for each VI PRO instance the voice limit  also to a much lower amount than the old VI offered (64), especially for dedictaed instances which absolutely don't need high voice counts.

best

Herb

I agree with info_9427. I shelled out for VI Pro immediately, essentially because of background loading and the humanization feature. However I don't need so much polyphony and so many outputs. It would be nice to be able to make these into options.

On my setup, switching polyphony from 128 to 16 on single open instance of VI Pro didn't have any visible influence on idle CPU usage.

Just my 2c.

Exactly. It doesn't make much sense to me to make the VIP better than VI in some cases. It should be better. Period. It should be lighter or at least similar to the VI when loading VI programs and then offer all the power in the world when needed with modularily rising resource requirements. Kontakt can do that, why can't VIP?