PT Logic

Logic Pro 9 reducing load caused by Omnisphere

P

peterlemer

Logician
Intel Mac 2.66 ( old)
OS 10.6.4
Logic Pro 9.1.1
7G RAM

I have a project with the following software instrument plugins:
Wavestation
Omnisphere x 3
sculpture
ESX
Kontakt4 x 2
Trillian

The project is crashing and nothing I can do will wake it.

the crash log seems to suggest that it is Omnisphere*

I can open saved versions with fewer plugins.
I can open it with Core audio disabled

I can open the crashed version with Omnisphere disabled.

I can open the crashed version with one instance of Omnisphere.

... so I'm trying to get to grips with Omnisphere in Multi mode.

1. Would such a Multi with 3 internal channels/tracks use less CPU?

2. How do I create tracks in Arrange which I can mix separately, yet address the same Multi?

* could be Trillian

pete
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Well, your computer is about the minimum configuration for Omnisphere.

That said, I would suggest you try something like VEPro and run Omnisphere in a VEPRo project. I have been doing this kind of thing with one of my tech clients, and there are 2 benefits: 1) the VEPro app can be set to use a cpu core or 2 on just Omnisphere, and 2) if VEPro crashes, it won't take Logic down... one other thing: Running like this doesn't tax your Logic core audio driver like it normally would, because it's not running in Logic.

I a few days of testing, we are able to run 1 big Omnisphere and 2 Trillians in a single instance of VEPro in a 3.2 Ghz Mac Pro with 2 cores assigned to the app.
 
Upvote 0
Thanks again George 🙂
>Well, your computer is about the minimum configuration for Omnisphere.

can you expand on that, please? If it means I have to upgrade my Mac, I need to get a feel for why.

> VEPro

a quick google got me that it's a plugin with its own mixer - which is a bit daunting. Not sure i want a proliferation of channel strips. Is that how you do it?

pete
 
Upvote 0
For whatever reason I always run the spectrasonics stuff in lite cpu mode (or whatever they call it). Some of the patches have some fx that you could disable if they're not really helping the sound any. Plus, you could freeze or bounce those tracks which is quick to do.
 
Upvote 0
Would such a Multi with 3 internal channels/tracks use less CPU?
Click to expand...

A basic concept is whatever is on a channel strip is processed by a single processor. The multi would use more of a single processor, but perhaps not more overall processing power.

. How do I create tracks in Arrange which I can mix separately, yet address the same Multi?
Click to expand...

When you create a track you can select mutli-timbral (or create such on an existing track use New With Next MIDI Channel in track menu). Choose the multiple out choice of your plug-in and assign auxs to receive those outputs. Logic's mixer will do this automatically by clicking the + sign in the lower right corner of the SI channel strip. Assign the auxes to the arrange window if you want to automate anything.
 
Upvote 0
deveyboy, thanks - have bounced regions - have had to drop this project for a while, but will compare how much I can get away with using different modes.

pete
 
Upvote 0
George and others

> Well, your computer is about the minimum configuration for Omnisphere.

time to upgrade!

OK, how do I conduct a new Mac beauty parade?

Do all of these qualify as much the same in terms of Logic? ( perhaps using the number of Omnisphere instances as a crude metric):
Mac Pro 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Mac Pro 2.26GHz 8-Core Intel Xeon
Mac Pro 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon

pete
 
Upvote 0
peterlemer said:
OK, how do I conduct a new Mac beauty parade?

Do all of these qualify as much the same in terms of Logic? ( perhaps using the number of Omnisphere instances as a crude metric):
Mac Pro 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Mac Pro 2.26GHz 8-Core Intel Xeon
Mac Pro 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon

pete
Click to expand...

Hi Pete

Choosing between the current Mac Pro models is not as straightforward as used to be the case, in particular when you are looking for high core performance (which you need to run instruments such as Omnisphere) and good multicore performance (i.e. lots of cores).

Having said all that, I would like to confuse the issue even more by suggesting you add the 6 core 3.33 GHz model to your short list. The reason being, those are the fastest cores currently available. An instance of Omnisphere, (or any Instrument running in Logic) must run on one core, it's load can't be spread over multicores. So, if you are running some very demanding instruments, you may very likely get more mileage out of 6 x 3.33 GHz cores than, for example, 8 cores clocked at 2.4 GHz.

Just something else to bear in mind ...

Whatever you do, budget for plenty or RAM.

kind regards

Mark
 
Upvote 0
This whole thread got me thinking about how people use plug-ins like Omnisphere, RMX, and Kontakt... plug-ins that allow multi-timbral performance...

Q wouldn't it make sense to run 1 instance with each part rather than one with multiple sounds? It would use less CPU on a tread, correct?

Any takers for an answer? I'm sure I could figure it out with a bit of testing, but someone might have a good idea right now.
 
Upvote 0
MarkDVC

> if you are running some very demanding instruments, you may very likely get more
> mileage out of 6 x 3.33 GHz cores than, for example, 8 cores clocked at 2.4 GHz.

here in UK, I'm looking at this website:

http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/specialdeals/mac

and there isn't a 6-core on offer atm. I don't mind waiting a bit, the box you mention is /just/ outside my budget, which means I might fall for it 🙂

http://store.apple.com/uk/product/G0LF1B/A

why would a 6- core be better than an eight - can you expand a bit on that?

I am just about getting dual Omnisphere functionality with my 2.66 Dual Core. Does each instance of Omnisphere use a separate core?

How does the clock speed relate? IOW would a dual core @ 3.33 be better than a quad at 2.4?

Sorry to ask, it might be simpler to say - OK Mark, thanks for your recommendation, I get it 🙂

but I got that curiosity thing < slaps wrist>

oh - I found an interesting thread here:-

http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=12605693

pete
 
Upvote 0
peterlemer said:
why would a 6- core be better than an eight - can you expand a bit on that
Click to expand...

Hi Pete

It depends on the type of processing required for the type of work you do.

I am just about getting dual Omnisphere functionality with my 2.66 Dual Core. Does each instance of Omnisphere use a separate core?
Click to expand...

It is more the converse situation - one instance of Omnisphere cannot use more than one core. If Omnisphere is causing your computer to overload, you may conclude that you need a faster computer.

How does the clock speed relate? IOW would a dual core @ 3.33 be better than a quad at 2.4?
Click to expand...

That is the key question.

Let's, for the sake of argument, paint an extreme and very theoretical picture:

If Omnisphere would overload *any* 2.4 GHz processor, it wouldn't matter whether you have 4, 6, 8 or 12 of them, nor wold it help if there was nothing else running. In this situation the only thing that helps is to have a machine with more powerful cores. Right now, the fastest cores come in the 3.33 GHz 6 core Westmere I mentioned.

Of course, this argument is based around the premise that a single instance of a VI could take up all the processing power a single core offers. That is difficult to determine, and what makes matters much more complicated is if the OS and Logic divide up the work so that along with our Omnisphere instance, other work is given to this core.

In the case of someone doing mostly audio recording, mixing with standard stuff such as many EQs and Comps, some delays and reverbs, but not relying on CPU draining Instruments, then more (even slower) cores may be of more benefit. As it stands, the 6 core 3.33 model strikes me as being a very good compromise.

Hope it is a little clearer now.

kind regards

Mark
 
Upvote 0
No-one has discussed using Server mode in Omnisphere:
Click on the [System] button
Under [Streaming] click-hold the Mode menu and select Server.

From the Omnisphere manual:
Server mode is a way of solving the "out of memory" problem that can happen when using large sample sets with 32-bit hosts and is an alternative to using 64-bit hosts. The Server mode should be used when you are running a 32-bit host on Mac, and you are loading large samples. If you are running a Mac 64-bit host (such as Logic 9.1 or higher), it is not necessary to enable Server mode.

NOTE: The Sample File Server uses physical RAM to load samples, and a minimum of 6GB of RAM is recommended when using Server Mode, especially when loading larger Keyswitch Multis.​

I use this this mode (running Logic in 32-bit mode) and it seems to help a lot....
 
Upvote 0
markdvc:

> Right now, the fastest cores come in the 3.33 GHz 6 core Westmere I mentioned.

I can see that argument - it makes a lot of sense, thanks. Am looking for a buyer for my 2.66 dual core as we speak 🙂

pete
 
Upvote 0
george: as you have probably gathered, I'm slightly under-informed and under-equipped to use the gear I currently own for the projects I'm currently undertaking.

I have the following multitimbral instruments:
Kontakt4; Omnisphere; DSLMusicDevice: ESX24; Ultrabeat; Battery; Trillian: Superior Drummer.

I have never been attracted to 'multi' use, and really avoid using any built-in mixers and fx, as I dislike having multi-layered mixing consoles with some out of sight and having different GUIs. I make an exception re FX with Omnisphere, since some of the presets have been designed specifically to use them - so I go with that. along with Logics own preset instruments - some of them sound great and I would never have had the time to program some of the combinations of tone generator+ fx. But I remain in stereo for the reasons above

pete
 
Upvote 0
further on the 'which mac to buy next" issue.

I found this thread here with the following comment:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1000550

" Logic does not use all 12 cores of the 12-core Mac Pro, and will not do so any time soon. Mine arrived this morning, I ran some tests and then spoke to Apple, who performed a complete U-Turn on their official 12-core / Logic Pro position of last week. Logic isn't coded to work on 12 core systems, and to do so requires a major upgrade, was the very clear message. Last week they told me the exact opposite.

In short, don't consider either the 12 or 6 core machines for use with Logic, if you want to maximize the hardware resources available. Logic is better optimized for 4 and 8 core rigs (which are also cheaper).

If you've already bought or ordered a 6 or 12 core system, you may want to consider returning/replacing it for reasons which Apple would have trouble arguing with.

More info here:

http://redirectingat.com/?id=690X129...-66-ghz-3.html

---------------
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top