Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

181,942 users have contributed to 42,195 threads and 254,636 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 5 new thread(s), 13 new post(s) and 51 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. Software
  3. Vienna Instruments Pro
  4. VE-PRO/VI - Cubase 5-Logic 9 Performance Testing Results

  • VE-PRO/VI - Cubase 5-Logic 9 Performance Testing Results

    C
    C

    Thought some of you may be interested in the results of some performance testing I've been doing.... 

    For the past few weeks I've been evaluating various combinations of sequencers and orchestra libraries as to their performance on my Mac Pro.  I am very impressed with the results found in using Cubase 5 combined with VE-PRO.  From a real-time perspective, for my system, this combination surpasses all others.

    My system:

    Mac Pro 2x3 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 16 GB 667 MhZ DDR2 FB DIMM  - (Not the fast one available - older version)

    4 - 750 16 GB Serial ATA Drives - System/Sequencer on 1, Project on 2, and VSL (entire library) on 3 -- other libraries on 4.

    3 - 30" Cinema Displays, M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 and Apogee Ensemble Sound Interface.

    VE-PRO - Audioports = 60  --  Multiprocessing = 6 Threads

    Cubase 5.1.1 Build 120

    Logic 9.1.0  Build 1697.23 64-bit

    I used Jay Bascal's Tutorial The Right of Spring - Part 1 as the sequence (GREAT JOB Jay!!!).  Loaded 98 instruments in a single VE-PRO instance, 2 busses (1 for orchestral depth position using wet & dry sends on each channel and 1 for overhead hall).  Each channel in VE-PRO had a Vienna Suite channel EQ loaded.  The two busses had each a channel EQ and Convolution Reverb, both Vienna Suite.  The position depth IR was the GrosserSaal Near and the overhead hall was the Inspired Acoustics Bella Bartok Concert Hall - Stage Stereo Front Row 13 - 0.  The Master Bus had the VE Suite Multiband loaded.  There was also 29 Stereo outs (58 total) routed to the Cubase Mixer sub-groups - mainly for visual bar purposes.  All mixing was done in VE-PRO.

    Using VE-PRO and Cubase 5, I was able to play the entire sequence with the CPU averaging about 69% with a range between 66% - 73%.  There was no cracking nor any noticeable delay.  VERY IMPRESSIVE!!!

    I thought I'd try the VI 64-bit in Logic 9 (64-bit) for comparison sakes.  I established 98 tracks and loaded each with an instance of VI.  I tried to run the sequencer as is with no samples or effects loaded just to ensure Logic could handle the loaded before I spent any additional time configuring.  It choked.  I played with the various buffers etc. with no luck.  Logic just couldn't handle the demand without freezing tracks.  Not sure at this point how many -- Don't want to spend the time finding out.....

    Bottom line...... VE-PRO  """Rocks"""".

    Great Job Herb and the VE-PRO Development Team!!!!  You have a very CPU efficient product.
  • Cyril BlancC
    Cyril BlancC

    Hello

    Did I understand well, you compare Cubase and VE to Logic and VI ?

    Best

    Cyril

    MacBook Pro M3 MAX 128 GB 8TB - 2 x 48" screen --- Logic Pro --- Mir Pro 3D --- Most of the VI libs, a few Synch... libs --- Quite a few Kontakt libs --- CS80 fanatic
  • C
    C

    Yes Cyril,

    I compared using VE-PRO (all VSL Instruments) and Cubase 5 to using Logic 9.1 and VI 64-bit.
  • Cyril BlancC
    Cyril BlancC

    you are comparing carrots to chicken[;)][;)]

    To do a good comparaison you shoud compare VE pro with Cubase and Logic then  VI with Cubase and Logic ! [;)][;)]

    Best

    Cyril

    MacBook Pro M3 MAX 128 GB 8TB - 2 x 48" screen --- Logic Pro --- Mir Pro 3D --- Most of the VI libs, a few Synch... libs --- Quite a few Kontakt libs --- CS80 fanatic
  • C
    C

    I disagree Cyril,

    I'm comparing carrots to carrots when the object was to determine what VST host would perform better using the Vienna Instrument, Logic or VE-PRO.  I wanted to see how VI performed if I use it in Logic versus using it in VE-PRO.  I may find the same results trying to host 64-bit VI in Cubase when it becomes 64-bit capable.  The jury is still out on this one.

    Technically speaking, it shouldn't matter what sequencer or Notation program one is using when linked to VE-PRO considering that the audio processing is accomplished in the host application.  The sequencer is just transmitting MIDI data to the host for audio processing which should require very little CPU demands.  The Audio Processing is what really hits the CPU.

    The ideal test would be to compare Cubase and Logic performance using VE-PRO but that's impossible unless I want to create seven instances of VE-PRO in order to handle the 99 required instances of VI (for this particular arrangement).  At least then, one could test how Cubase and Logic perform with VE-PRO - understanding if there is any overhead in just sending MIDI data.  Creating seven instances of VE-PRO is crazy if I can get by with a single instance using Cubase.  Not sure what kind of overhead is involved in loading multiple instances either?  It all has to do with the AU implementation allowing only 16 channels per instance in Logic.  Cubase, Pro-Tools and Sonar VST implementation blows that limitation out of the water making the final solution more streamlined.

    The whole idea here was to simply the template configuration into a single host now that we have a 64-bit sequencer and VI instrument plug-in.  Control everything with in Logic 9.1 including effects and mixing.  In many way, I prefer Logic over Cubase due to it's straight-forward MIDI programming capabilities.  Unfortunately, Logic 9.1 doesn't seem to have the performance thru-put from a hosting perspective that VE-PRO has rendering it useless for large arrangements unless one want to freeze tracks or bounce audio to save CPU resources.  That's the conclusion that I have derived based on my testing. 
  • D
    D

    Chuck, AFAIK you can use VI 64bit in 32bit Cubase, 32bit Logic and 64bit Logic. That way you would be able to tell whether or not 32bit Logic is less efficient than 64bit Logic, when using 64bit VI, as well as doing a direct comparison with 32bit Cubase.

    As far as VE Pro, I found (in Windows) very little difference between 1 huge instance and 5 smaller ones.

    DG
  • cmC
    VSL Team
    cmC

    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

    and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds.
  • C
    C

    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.  
  • C
    C

    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?
  • D
    D
    last edited
    last edited

    @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
  • C
    C
    last edited
    last edited

    @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......
  • Cyril BlancC
    Cyril BlancC

    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

    MacBook Pro M3 MAX 128 GB 8TB - 2 x 48" screen --- Logic Pro --- Mir Pro 3D --- Most of the VI libs, a few Synch... libs --- Quite a few Kontakt libs --- CS80 fanatic
  • C
    C
    last edited
    last edited

    @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.
  • M
    M

    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?
  • C
    C
    last edited
    last edited

    @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.
  • C
    C
    last edited
    last edited

    @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???