"High" Sierra Better For 2018 Than "Plain" Sierra"?

[TNM]

Originally Posted by K Roche

So this thread got me curious I realize everybody's workflows are very different
But most of my virtual instrument recording is one track at a time
I have tried recording a drum kit like the big boys and play all the drums to different tracks at the same time but frankly being a guitarist I suck at it .
I have recorded PT' Boom to different tracks a number of times

Any way

I just ran some tests at 16-44, 24-44, and 24-88 sample and bit rates
At 32- 64 and 256 Buffer .

I was using the PT Bundled Mini Grand piano and AIR Dynamic Delay
Tracks were record armed I would play notes with my keyboard and record

At 24 -88 at 64 buffer I could run 5 tracks over that I started getting spikes and ocasional overload system squeak noises

At 24 -44 at 32 buffer I could run 12 tracks with no spikes @ about 31% total at idle but it would go up to 80 -95% when playing notes.
At 13 tracks the system usage total meter would spike for a few seconds but drop and I could play and record.
At 14 tracks the total was up about 55% and it redlined a couple times but played fine . at 15 it started squeaking

At 16 -44 at 32 buffer it played 20 tracks I gave up there

boom, the included air stuff, is SO light, even my system where i have massive problems at anything under 128, is ok with those at 64 or even 32 for a few of them.. so your results sound about right..

I'll explain what's happening..

once the buffer hits 64 or lower at 44/48K, or 128 or lower at 88/96K,

and you arm a modern VI.. something like kontakt or any vi synth that uses a decent bit of cpu..

pro tools equally loads all threads on the machine.. on mine it's 8 logical cores..

But because it's a single instance of a plugin, which is impossible for the *DAW itself* to multithread, it's actually simply replicating the loading on other cores, in other words, in my case, and anyone with 8 threads/logical cores, it is literally using 7 extra cores for NOTHING at all..

It's a big, big problem and the reason why people say pro tools sucks for Vi's.. but once you have recorded them at 128 buffer, and they shuffle back onto a playback internal buffer of 1024 samples (when you disengage the instrument record button), pro tools spreads them around the cores very, very well.

Unfortunately my DSP usage topic was deleted so i can't point you to it, but i can assure you there are no real issues if you are willing to work at those higher buffers.

This is why i am trying to ascertain how HDX performs in these situations with native VI's, and HDN..the thing i have been trying to find out for months.. unfortunately the only HDN machine i had access to had zero vi's on it, so i could only test low buffers with record armed audio tracks and native effects. He wouldn't let me put one synth on, and the included stuff like xpand is pointless to test as there are no issues with those.

[K Roche]

Originally Posted by TNM

boom, the included air stuff, is SO light, even my system where i have massive problems at anything under 128, is ok with those at 64 or even 32 for a few of them.. so your results sound about right..

I'll explain what's happening..

once the buffer hits 64 or lower at 44/48K, or 128 or lower at 88/96K,

and you arm a modern VI.. something like kontakt or any vi synth that uses a decent bit of cpu..

pro tools equally loads all threads on the machine.. on mine it's 8 logical cores..

But because it's a single instance of a plugin, which is impossible for the *DAW itself* to multithread, it's actually simply replicating the loading on other cores, in other words, in my case, and anyone with 8 threads/logical cores, it is literally using 7 extra cores for NOTHING at all..

It's a big, big problem and the reason why people say pro tools sucks for Vi's.. but once you have recorded them at 128 buffer, and they shuffle back onto a playback internal buffer of 1024 samples (when you disengage the instrument record button), pro tools spreads them around the cores very, very well.

Unfortunately my DSP usage topic was deleted so i can't point you to it, but i can assure you there are no real issues if you are willing to work at those higher buffers.

This is why i am trying to ascertain how HDX performs in these situations with native VI's, and HDN..the thing i have been trying to find out for months.. unfortunately the only HDN machine i had access to had zero vi's on it, so i could only test low buffers with record armed audio tracks and native effects. He wouldn't let me put one synth on, and the included stuff like xpand is pointless to test as there are no issues with those.

I see so I wonder why kontakt is causing such a problem and for example the OP said Omnisphere isn't ? is it that Omnisphere is like you say "so lite" like the bundled instruments ? Is it something different in the AAX coding related to different 3rd party developers ?

Since I do not have HDX or Kontakt I can't really offer any help other than what I have posted. And since I never tried such a thing on Sierra I can't answer the OP and state HS is any better than Sierra

But your post brought up another question what happens when you are playing back and recording on different instruments tracks at the same time ? ( what buffer is PT using is it the 32 or 62 for recording ? or the 1024 for playback ? is it both ? is that possible ?

My only other experience I have is with using Reason slaved to PT which seems to work fine. Even with 4 - 6 , synths and VI's running and maybe one or two PT VI's also as well as audio tracks .

If your Kontakt VI is a "must have go to" then before investing in HDX it would seem prudent to make certain it is coded for HDX,
and or if Kontakt is still problematic even DSP ?

I have no experience per se, but I am aware that 3 rd party VI performance has been an issue with PT since the get go
So the only other work around I have heard being used and what some have done, which is use a third party to host VI's and slave it PT via Rewire etc.
I think some are using Reaper to do that and I know some have used VIENNA ENSEMBLE PRO

[GTBannah]

Originally Posted by TNM

....

Unfortunately my DSP usage topic was deleted ....

What happened there?!

Were you using percussive language?

[TNM]

Originally Posted by GTBannah

What happened there?!

Were you using percussive language?

i asked for it to be closed for a couple reasons but they deleted it instead. It is what it is.

[GTBannah]

Originally Posted by TNM

i asked for it to be closed for a couple reasons but they deleted it instead. It is what it is.

Hm! O.K.

[TNM]

Originally Posted by K Roche

I see so I wonder why kontakt is causing such a problem and for example the OP said Omnisphere isn't ? is it that Omnisphere is like you say "so lite" like the bundled instruments ? Is it something different in the AAX coding related to different 3rd party developers ?

Since I do not have HDX or Kontakt I can't really offer any help other than what I have posted. And since I never tried such a thing on Sierra I can't answer the OP and state HS is any better than Sierra

But your post brought up another question what happens when you are playing back and recording on different instruments tracks at the same time ? ( what buffer is PT using is it the 32 or 62 for recording ? or the 1024 for playback ? is it both ? is that possible ?

My only other experience I have is with using Reason slaved to PT which seems to work fine. Even with 4 - 6 , synths and VI's running and maybe one or two PT VI's also as well as audio tracks .

If your Kontakt VI is a "must have go to" then before investing in HDX it would seem prudent to make certain it is coded for HDX,
and or if Kontakt is still problematic even DSP ?

I have no experience per se, but I am aware that 3 rd party VI performance has been an issue with PT since the get go
So the only other work around I have heard being used and what some have done, which is use a third party to host VI's and slave it PT via Rewire etc.
I think some are using Reaper to do that and I know some have used VIENNA ENSEMBLE PRO

I wish I could test omnisphere but there is no demo sadly.. 499 a bit much to spend to test it hehe.

That's very strange indeed.... omnisphere is meant to be quite the hog.. are you saying you can happily play omnisphere at low buffers and not all the cores are being engaged? How low? 32? 64?

PT's buffering system is two fold.
Whatever you have chosen in your playback preferences for record armed tracks, no matter how many you have simultaneously armed, they will all be on that low buffer. The rest are on the 1024 samples playback buffer..
Have you noticed when you are playing, for example, a VI with your keyboard cause it's in "live" mode, then you switch that off and suddenly the cpu usage lowers? That's why.

You can have 10 VI's armed if you like (for example), and they'll all be on the low latency buffer (or whatever you have selected in playback).
Hey, if you have chosen 1024, you will see that it makes no difference to processor load whether you have 50 tracks record armed or not. I did some tests to work out 1024 is exactly what pro tools is using for it's playback safety buffer, so it's basically like having 1024 selected as your main buffer at all times.

Yes, reason will work fine, cause the included synths in reason are so light, you can stack a few of them onto one core no problems, especially on any i7 cpu.
Now, if you use heavy rack extensions, you might be able to get one via rewire at low buffer, then the same issues will happen. Same with reaper in rewire slave mode. Depends on the cpu hunger of the synth in question.

After my extensive tests with VE Pro, Reaper and REason, i have concluded there is no benefit to running them on the same machine, if VI performance is the goal. If you have your buffer in PT at 128 for 44/48k and 256 for 88/96k, pro tools will actually make maximum use of all cpu cores to the point where they are completely and utterly hammered with no room left to spare.

I re ran some new fresh tests after my DSP topic was closed, heavily testing VE Pro and Reaper, and VE pro only gives gains if the buffer is as 2x the pro tools buffer. So if you have your pro tools buffer at 128, and choose x2 in ve pro, your VE pro buffer is 384 (128 + 2x128).. you might as well just set your buffer in PT at 256 and it will give a bigger benefit than VE Pro can anyway.

Ve pro's big advantage is if you have a spare machine lying around.

There is no DSP version of kontakt.. how it behaves in HDX at low latency, depends entirely on how avid coded the HDX driver and if it reacts differently and more efficiently than core audio at low latency for native VI's and effects. I have no idea, it's not something that one can buy just for a quick test LOL.

Now, finally.. if you have say one really really heavy VI synth maxing out a core, then say another 8 VI's that are not very heavy..and you see one core in pro tools meter maxed out and the others only say, 20% used, THEN, of course there is space to rewire reason or add a VEPro instance or whatever, if you want to use something that doesn't exist in AAX format for pro tools itself, like the reason 10 synths, or a special vst synth or in the case of VE pro, an old 32 bit synth for example.

What I am not yet *100%*sure of, is if one core is maxed out, if pro tools is intelligent enough to keep adding further AAX synths onto all cores EXCEPT the maxed out one, or if it always cycles back in sequence, one core per every Vi track..

I am pretty sure that even if a core is maxed out and all the others have a tenth of the load, that PT will still put the next VI, say there are 8 Vi's on 8 instrument tracks, i am pretty sure it will still try to put the 9th on the first core again (assuming in this example the 1st core is the maxed out one).. and could then cause overloads. The solution here is to quickly freeze that heavy VI to re balance everything out and give you plenty of room to use more VI's again. To freeze just one synth here or there is not a workflow breaker, especially considering just how fantastic pro tools freeze system is. They implemented it perfectly.

If Avid manage to fix the issues at low buffer settings for native VI's/plugins, then pro tools will be even better than it is now.. it would make it unstoppable in my opinion.. I keep looking at Cubase cause it has integrated pitch editing with no need for melodyne, as well as powerful articulations for midi and much better VI handling at 32 and 64 samples.. But i know that i wouldn't even demo it anymore (nor demo ANY other daw), if Avid fixed the low buffer problems.. so that tells me that my heart really does lie with pro tools, and that i should just learn to live with the low buffer problem...
Especially once pro tools gets integrated pitch correction and folders, any other DAW would cease to exist for me.. But of course, that could be just my personal opinion

[K Roche]

Originally Posted by TNM

I wish I could test omnisphere but there is no demo sadly.. 499 a bit much to spend to test it hehe.

That's very strange indeed.... omnisphere is meant to be quite the hog.. are you saying you can happily play omnisphere at low buffers and not all the cores are being engaged? How low? 32? 64?

PT's buffering system is two fold.
Whatever you have chosen in your playback preferences for record armed tracks, no matter how many you have simultaneously armed, they will all be on that low buffer. The rest are on the 1024 samples playback buffer..
Have you noticed when you are playing, for example, a VI with your keyboard cause it's in "live" mode, then you switch that off and suddenly the cpu usage lowers? That's why.

You can have 10 VI's armed if you like (for example), and they'll all be on the low latency buffer (or whatever you have selected in playback).
Hey, if you have chosen 1024, you will see that it makes no difference to processor load whether you have 50 tracks record armed or not. I did some tests to work out 1024 is exactly what pro tools is using for it's playback safety buffer, so it's basically like having 1024 selected as your main buffer at all times.

Yes, reason will work fine, cause the included synths in reason are so light, you can stack a few of them onto one core no problems, especially on any i7 cpu.
Now, if you use heavy rack extensions, you might be able to get one via rewire at low buffer, then the same issues will happen. Same with reaper in rewire slave mode. Depends on the cpu hunger of the synth in question.

After my extensive tests with VE Pro, Reaper and REason, i have concluded there is no benefit to running them on the same machine, if VI performance is the goal. If you have your buffer in PT at 128 for 44/48k and 256 for 88/96k, pro tools will actually make maximum use of all cpu cores to the point where they are completely and utterly hammered with no room left to spare.

I re ran some new fresh tests after my DSP topic was closed, heavily testing VE Pro and Reaper, and VE pro only gives gains if the buffer is as 2x the pro tools buffer. So if you have your pro tools buffer at 128, and choose x2 in ve pro, your VE pro buffer is 384 (128 + 2x128).. you might as well just set your buffer in PT at 256 and it will give a bigger benefit than VE Pro can anyway.

Ve pro's big advantage is if you have a spare machine lying around.

There is no DSP version of kontakt.. how it behaves in HDX at low latency, depends entirely on how avid coded the HDX driver and if it reacts differently and more efficiently than core audio at low latency for native VI's and effects. I have no idea, it's not something that one can buy just for a quick test LOL.

Now, finally.. if you have say one really really heavy VI synth maxing out a core, then say another 8 VI's that are not very heavy..and you see one core in pro tools meter maxed out and the others only say, 20% used, THEN, of course there is space to rewire reason or add a VEPro instance or whatever, if you want to use something that doesn't exist in AAX format for pro tools itself, like the reason 10 synths, or a special vst synth or in the case of VE pro, an old 32 bit synth for example.

What I am not yet *100%*sure of, is if one core is maxed out, if pro tools is intelligent enough to keep adding further AAX synths onto all cores EXCEPT the maxed out one, or if it always cycles back in sequence, one core per every Vi track..

I am pretty sure that even if a core is maxed out and all the others have a tenth of the load, that PT will still put the next VI, say there are 8 Vi's on 8 instrument tracks, i am pretty sure it will still try to put the 9th on the first core again (assuming in this example the 1st core is the maxed out one).. and could then cause overloads. The solution here is to quickly freeze that heavy VI to re balance everything out and give you plenty of room to use more VI's again. To freeze just one synth here or there is not a workflow breaker, especially considering just how fantastic pro tools freeze system is. They implemented it perfectly.

If Avid manage to fix the issues at low buffer settings for native VI's/plugins, then pro tools will be even better than it is now.. it would make it unstoppable in my opinion.. I keep looking at Cubase cause it has integrated pitch editing with no need for melodyne, as well as powerful articulations for midi and much better VI handling at 32 and 64 samples.. But i know that i wouldn't even demo it anymore (nor demo ANY other daw), if Avid fixed the low buffer problems.. so that tells me that my heart really does lie with pro tools, and that i should just learn to live with the low buffer problem...
Especially once pro tools gets integrated pitch correction and folders, any other DAW would cease to exist for me.. But of course, that could be just my personal opinion

To clarify it was the OP that said Omnisphere was no problem (which I stated in my post)

[GTBannah]

Originally Posted by K Roche

To clarify it was the OP that said Omnisphere was no problem (which I stated in my post)

Maybe, it was a Kontakt issue. i don't know.

[fixxer49]

Originally Posted by TNM

it's the only way to solve it. THEN, you will be surprised how good pro tools performs with Vi's.. It just can't do really low buffers.. even on very powerful macs..This one thing is still a thorn in my side and why i keep playing with the Cubase 9 demo every now and then.

Anyway, Cubase is killing Pro tools with Vi's at 64 or 32 buffer, but pro tools wins at 128 buffer (44K).

How does Cubase compare to PT at 128 buffer (48k)?

Also: I too am inching closer to Cubase 9.5 with each passing moment (see our previous correspondence re VE Pro, etc...)

[K Roche]

Thought I would point out this guys thread about "hyperthreading" and CPU problems .. Have no clue about it , it but will test later today

http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=397448