Coordinating a multi-computer setup for CPU-hungry VSTs...what's a reliable plan?

[Esgalachoir]

Hello KVR,
It's been awhile since I've been on here! First off, I've tried Vienna Ensemble Pro, but we didn't seem to get along all that well, since at the time I tried it, it seemed to aimed at gaining access to more RAM instead of Processor power.
I think I'm willing to go the more hardware-ish route, meaning that I would want a master computer with the DAW running, sending MIDI to slave computers with the extra VSTs that have their channels routed back to the master computer by line-outs or something similar, as opposed to an all digital signal like ethernet.
Basically, I want something that will have nearly no latency and very little digital clicks and pops.

My end goal is to have pieces completely composed, mixed, and mastered that will use probably upwards of a 150 VSTs...I'm getting dizzy from all the separate projects I've got to bounce back and forth from just for one piece. I'm thinking it would be significantly more time efficient to not have to do that. I've always thought it would be quite something to have ALL of the instruments immediately available at my fingertips...to me, that sounds like a much more dynamic workflow!

So, am I being realistic? Should I just continue to suck it up and stick it out on my single PC?...the poor old horse...


- Corin

[Roman Empire]

You´ll prolly get as tired as what you suggest, as you´ll get of bouncing or limitations you felt you had with Vienna.
Why not invest in a multi-cpu mobo, latest Intel CPU´s, perhaps an UAD card. I think you´d be able to get all the power you need that way, and in the most convenient and accesible way.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

[Kaine]

Due to load balance performance loss over dual CPU systems, it often ends up being cheaper and better performing to do it with a master slave configuration as originally suggested, certainly if you already have a system as a kicking off point.

[Roman Empire]

Due to load balance performance loss over dual CPU systems, it often ends up being cheaper and better performing to do it with a master slave configuration as originally suggested, certainly if you already have a system as a kicking off point.

True, but if the guy can afford it, having all under one hat IMO is always the most convenient. Setting up vst´s on different computers where his eyes need to be on 4-5 different monitors (or swap between screens on the same monitor) sounds to me like very tiring.
I´d rather go with a quad-cpu board with Haswells on it. Despite the performance loss, I still think there´ll be enough juice in such a system to meet his needs.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

[Esgalachoir]

Okay. The options each of you has presented so far seems like it'll be the biggest decision factor, so thank you both.
The only thing I don't like about UAD stuff is that it doesn't seem to support any of the plugins I enjoy using, or else I'd have started using their PCI cards long ago. Using mostly Zebra, DIVA and Ariesverb.

- Corin

[Lotuzia]

Simply put :

- CPU hungry synths : Max CPU clock speed and core number
- Big sample libs : Max RAM ( 32 Go seems a good starting point)

Both : Unfortunately : Max both

If you use Kontakt and big libs, dont forget to use all the tools to restrain DTD charge. It is usefull -and efficient-

Else, you'll get latency (Midi + audio etc etc), even in a star network.

[PurpleSunray]

A slave PC seems to be inconvenient to me.
Buy a server board and stack Xeon's.
4 x 24 core and a 256GB RAM.. or something like that, it's all just a matter of $$$

[Kaine]

No sequencer supports more than 40 cores, the majority won't do more than 32 and the slower the cores the less they can process in any given cycle and increase the likelihood of an early overload, if using complex effects chains.

1 X 24 core will offer you the same performance as 4 X 24 cores in your sequencer and the highest 24 core CPU runs at 2.2GHz

Picking up a 16 core at 3.2GHz would save you thousands and wipe the floor with it.

You could still however use Ensemble on the single system to link more plugs ins back in and use those extra cores. Given the absolutely insane prices of high core count chips however, it's still save you the cost a reasonable small car if you master slave it.

Yes, it's easier to do it all in one box, but you're normally throwing away money in doing so.

[PurpleSunray]

No sequencer supports more than 40 cores, the majority won't do more than 32 and the slower the cores the less they can process in any given cycle and increase the likelihood of an early overload, if using complex effects chains.
1 X 24 core will offer you the same performance as 4 X 24 cores in your sequencer and the highest 24 core CPU runs at 2.2GHz

So what's the point of a slave machine then if 1x24 is same as 4x24?
I mean.. I could run 4 DAW instances on that 96core machine without any problem. So I have setup like you do, with Main + 3 slave PCs, but I run it all one system, because it's a system made for doing exactly that (if you rent a web-server, you most likely get a virtual machine running on such a server system, even if you rent a "dedicated server"... gues why, because having it all on one system is cheaper and easier to maintain, than buying + running a own physical machine for each webserver).

Or you could run 10 virtual machines, withs a windows + DAW that connects to your master DAW on the host operating system. If this "salve PC" is about having additional operating system instances, not only about DAW instances.
Don't know what you want to gain by setting up a second machine, with second mainboard, second PSU, second tower, second display, second ........ you only lose (audio data travels over network vs audio data travels over RAM bus or hyper-v)
Should be way more convenient to have it all on one system.

[PurpleSunray]

Yes, it's easier to do it all in one box, but you're normally throwing away money in doing so.

It's vice versa actually.
If you have it all on one, you add CPUs and RAM.
If you have dedicated systems, you add CPU, RAM, mainboard, PSU, tower, display, ect pp

[Roman Empire]

No sequencer supports more than 40 cores, the majority won't do more than 32 and the slower the cores the less they can process in any given cycle and increase the likelihood of an early overload, if using complex effects chains.

1 X 24 core will offer you the same performance as 4 X 24 cores in your sequencer and the highest 24 core CPU runs at 2.2GHz

Picking up a 16 core at 3.2GHz would save you thousands and wipe the floor with it.

You could still however use Ensemble on the single system to link more plugs ins back in and use those extra cores. Given the absolutely insane prices of high core count chips however, it's still save you the cost a reasonable small car if you master slave it.

Yes, it's easier to do it all in one box, but you're normally throwing away money in doing so.

As far as I know, number of cores supported in recent versions of Cubase is unlimited.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

[ZapAxe]

Hello KVR,
It's been awhile since I've been on here! First off, I've tried Vienna Ensemble Pro, but we didn't seem to get along all that well, since at the time I tried it, it seemed to aimed at gaining access to more RAM instead of Processor power.
I think I'm willing to go the more hardware-ish route, meaning that I would want a master computer with the DAW running, sending MIDI to slave computers with the extra VSTs that have their channels routed back to the master computer by line-outs or something similar, as opposed to an all digital signal like ethernet.
Basically, I want something that will have nearly no latency and very little digital clicks and pops.

My end goal is to have pieces completely composed, mixed, and mastered that will use probably upwards of a 150 VSTs...I'm getting dizzy from all the separate projects I've got to bounce back and forth from just for one piece. I'm thinking it would be significantly more time efficient to not have to do that. I've always thought it would be quite something to have ALL of the instruments immediately available at my fingertips...to me, that sounds like a much more dynamic workflow!

So, am I being realistic? Should I just continue to suck it up and stick it out on my single PC?...the poor old horse...


- Corin

Yes, you are very realistic. There is of course more than one way to skin a cat, and in the end, the cat gets skinned I didn't read what DAW you're using here, so that may make a difference in which solution works best for you. Some solutions are universal, others are proprietary to a certain DAW. I also feel the hardware-sih solution is the best solution. The more I duties I can remove from the computer, the better! I've been working with multiple PC's for a handful of years now, and my system has been changing & growing.

My 1st set up was simple audio/midi networking. I had 2 PC's with their own DAW host software (Cubase in my case, but can be any DAW). Between my main PC's audio/midi card, I send midi out, then midi into my 2nd PC's audio/midi card where I had all my VSTi's installed. This 2nd PC was basically used as an outboard midi sound module, hosting VST's. I sent this VSTi PC's audio back into my main PC. Very simple, very effective, latency undetectable.

My 2nd set up was trying FX-Teleport via Ethernet. It worked well, but only up to about 8 to 12 VSTi's before a total cave in... audio crackling & popping, and both computers crashing. Granted these 2 PC's were only Win XP 32 bit. My main PC a quad core, my slave PC a single core. However! ...when I used this same single core Win XP PC as a midi sound module hosting VSTi's with my audio/midi networking method, I could run 32 VSTi's on without a single problem! Ethernet with FX-Teleport put a strain ob both PC's!

I went back to my audio/midi networking method for a while, and in the mean time, I built a 2nd identical quad core Win XP PC, and I never did max out my quad core VST slave PC. But I was still curious on what else I could try.

Since I'm a Cubase user, I learned how to use Steinbergs own 'proprietary' VST System Link (It's also known as VSL, you have to use a Steinberg DAW host software of some kind on each machine). Each computer needs an audio interface with any type of digital audio I/O's (s/pdif, ADAT, AES/EBU etc) to run back & forth/in and out between computers. WOW, this was even better! Not only can you still use a master & slave set up just like the audio/midi method via a digital audio connection, sending midi from your host's midi tracks to your VSTi slave PC and it's audio back, you can do so much more, and it's seemingly only limited to your imagination... you can also use each computer (Mac or PC) to run anything you want locally, audio tracks, midi tracks, VSTi's, effects etc. VST System Link synchronizes all computers in the VSL network with sample accuracy. Since VSL can synchronize (a great added benefit) each computer, I just chose to record all my midi tracks 'directly' into my dedicated VSTi slave PC. This also allows me to work with just my VSTi PC turned on by itself, to work my midi tracks & VSTi's..I like to create my songs purely in the midi domain for a perfect template to work with before I record guitars & vocals. After I'm done enough, I'll sync up PC's via VSL, and send over a temporary stereo audio sub-mix to my main audio PC, and work with just the audio PC powered on, working my audio tracks to my VSTi sub-mix. Of course I could also just run all PC's in the network without using a sub-mix, but there's no sense in running multiple PC's at once if you don't have to! This is the beauty of using separate DAW computers, with using VSL, or otherwise.
This all worked out so well for me, that I ended up building TWO MORE identical quad core Win XP PC's running VSL with various Cubase versions. So 1st 2 PC's, then 3 PC's with Steinbergs recommended 'ring network'...that is, running digital audio out from 1st PC, into 2nd PC, out that into 3rd PC and then back into 1st PC...basically in a continuous loop. Worked great, latency with 3 PC's were undetectable to my ears. But before I added the forth PC, I picked up a matrix switcher. Since I use coaxial RCA s/pdif digital audio, and just need a stereo, rather than multi-channel audio between all PC's, I bought a matrix switcher with coaxial RCA I/O's. (in/8 out). Cheaply, I bought a Shinybow 5588 which is actually a video/audio matrix, but I only use it for it's digital audio capabilities. So with this matrix switcher, it allows me to choose any PC as my acting master, and send the VSL information to all other PC's simultaneously in a 'star network' now. Instead of the ring network, which with each added computer, technically add a small latency (could not detect with 3 PC's though).
VSL by the way, can send audio, midi, transport and clock all down the same digital audio cable...yes even 2 channel s/pdif without problems! So with that, and my matrix, I'm sending transport & clock info from one PC, to all other PC's. With the matrix, I can of course change which PC can be my master and which can be my slaves at any time. Plus, I can always route it so that I can be configured in a ring network in my matrix, as any input can be routed to any output independently! But, in a true Steinberg recommended 'ring' network, if you want to have one of 3 or more PC's turned off, you'll break the link, therefore will need to physically reroute your digital audio cables. ...screw that! So I enedd up with 4 Win XP quad core PC's with this method.
I NOW have a newer Win 7 64 bit PC, my fifth PC in my VSL network! It has 12 cores (2 6-core Xeons @ 3.06 GHz per core), and 48 GB ram I have no 64 but plug ins of any kind, so I'll use my 32 bit quad core PC's to run everything 32 bit I have. I'm considering for the future to go all 64 bit at some point, and may scale down to using 2 64 bit super computers, one as my dedicated VSTi. But of course, I'll still keep at least 2 of my Win XP PC's in my network and use as needed.

I've also bought a dedicated hardware synchronizing device, a MOTU Digital Timepiece (DTP). With this type of device, you can use any DAW software again, as it's not proprietary like Steinbergs VSL is. You can also use a combination of PC's and Mac's. I plan to use it primarily as my dedicated master clacking device. Since I'll still be using Steinberg Cubase for some time, I'll set ALL my OC's as 'slaves' and use just 'pure' clock with the Motu. I'll use VSL primarily for transport commands (although with the Motu DTP, you would normally juse a midi connection for transport only commands in conjunction with it's clocking capabilities. The Motu DTP, send clock via BNC, via s/pdif and other options, so it can clock with neaaly anything. It's an old unit, so it will not have some newer protocol connections available, so if they're needed, a newer hardware synchronizing device may be desired. Totally a hardware solution for multiple computers.

Also, you'll have to consider keyboards, mouse(s) and monitors. You can either get a hardware KVM switch, which I use as I like 'hardware' solutions' or you can use a software solution to this, such as 'Synergy'. I've used Synergy myself before I bought a KVM and it works great actually! Like a hardware KVM (keyboard/video/mouse) it allows you to share one keyboard, one mouse and one monitor among several computers. I'd suggest 'trying' Synergy before buying a hardware KVM, you may actually love it. But I have anything Ethernet disabled, for my own reasons, so I bought hardware. This is another reason I'm not planning on using Vienna Ensemble Pro (VEP), I do NOT want to use Ethernet for audio, or midi, or anything!

But since I have now 5 PC's in a System Link network, I also have 4 24" LCD video monitors. This means I've taken my video OFF of my hardware KVM, and just use it for my keyboard & mouse. So instead, I bought a video matrix switcher! (Can't use my Shinybow 5588 audio/video matrix as it only has RCA, and I use VGA). So I bought an Extron 8 in/8 out VGA matrix switcher. I can route up to 8 PC's to up to 8 video screens, in any combination/configuration I want. This may also come in hand when and if I want more than my 4 monitors, and place a monitor at my edums set up etc.

All the above said, and back down to planet earth... It's a very easy solution to set up just TWO computers! And with any method you choose to use...
* audio/midi networking
* VEP or FX-Teleport via Ethernet
* dedicated synchronizing device (Motu DTP for one example).
* iPmidi 2, or any other method that I've not tried
* Or any of the DAW software with their own proprietary solutions (like my System Link with Cubase) etc.

Even though I may have a powerful 64 bit PC, and may be able to get away with just using that PC by itself, I love working with a multi-PC set up, there's other reasons why I need more than one PC as well...anywhere from back up PC's, supporting PC's, extra hard drive space, using one in a specific dedicated role such as I have one set up for 'everything guitar' from audio tracks to effects to soft amp sims. I actually use a 6th PC in my home studio, and THAT's a laptop which is the ONLY PC that is enabled to go 'on-line' but it also has the ability to be used in my System Link network in which I was experimenting using is as my master controller/command center. Ah, but I more so like it to have right by my side to go on line if I need to while working on music, otherwise it sits there turned on at all other times to view my video surveillance camera/DVR system. I have 15 camera's outside & inside my home....even a camera in my home studio! Which is especially great, because I can view my house and my studio from anywhere in the world remotely while away

[Esgalachoir]

Alright. Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply so far. It's been helpfully informative.
ZapAxe - FX-Teleport has peaked my interest. ...Seems kind of like a 'no bells and whistles" approach to the the problem I'm confronted with. I did a bit of poking around on the internet and from what I'm finding, it seems that FX-Teleport doesn't care whether your system is 32bit or 64bit.

[Roman Empire]

Alright. Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply so far. It's been helpfully informative.
ZapAxe - FX-Teleport has peaked my interest. ...Seems kind of like a 'no bells and whistles" approach to the the problem I'm confronted with. I did a bit of poking around on the internet and from what I'm finding, it seems that FX-Teleport doesn't care whether your system is 32bit or 64bit.

Better do some reading on FX-teleport (which is abandonned btw) and alot of testing before buying all those computers. I can´t remember what the issues are, but I know they´re there. As far as I remember it can only host 32-bit plugins - I think that´s why I bought VSL, which I still haven´t used btw. because it´s such a workflow killer for me to sit and do separate setups on multiple computers. It helps me a bit to have bought a couple of DSP cards instead, and luckily I´m more and more dependent on kontakt sample libraries only, which CAN be heavy on CPU, but not as heavy as certain modern synths.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

[ZapAxe]

Yes, FX-Max's FX-Teleport (FXT) has been abandoned, though it can be downloaded & used for FREE from their site, so there's no loss to try there. I know a guy who has been using Vienna Ensemble Pro & FX-Teleport together, because they each have their own pluses & minuses. I'm not clear on what those are, though I think it may have something to do with how well they utilize VSTi's & effects, or not? You'll have to hear from some horses mouth about this for further understanding. I also can't give any answers on 32 bit vs 64 bit, I believe the person who I talked to uses it on 64 bit systems(?).

Keep in mind that FX-Teleport also works via Ethernet connections, which I thought it was said that Ethernet wasn't desired? I had issues with FXT, in that I was limited to a low number of VSTi's (on my older Win XP systems), others have claimed great successes with FXT.

It at least 'appeared to me' that in general, Ethernet solutions put more of a strain on each system than other methods, where other methods put zero strain on your master system, and put all the 'added load' onto the slave(s). That was my own experience anyway, and for this reason I haven't bothered to try Vienna Ensemble Pro. The other reason is Steinbergs proprietary VST System Link is working great, being I am a Cubase user. I'm sure that for newer powerful systems, these Ethernet solutions can work well, as others swear by them. I would always suggest trying things for yourself. Again, FX-Max can be had for FREE, and some people are still finding it useful.

One of my main concerns with using multiple computers, is that I will always want a system where I do not have to have several machines on at the same time. I want to run as little as one, and work with more only when and as needed. Each computer in my own case only requires and provides it's own stereo sub-mix, which all feed into a monitor mixer, for which I can send to my near field speakers, or headphones. In every aspect of my entire system, I can run & use as little or as many pieces as I need. This is much more important when multiples of computers, but using just TWO computers is very straight forward, and very little involved by comparison. EVERYONE should start out with just two computers anyway for simplicity. When ad if a time comes when you add a third, a fourth etc, you'll find yourself needing much more elaborate solutions in conjunction. Using multiple computers has been a personal passion for me, so all the complications that come with that have been a challenge that I dove head on into with high interest in working out the solutions as they arose.

I also want to repeat that the hardware synchronizing device I bought - used Motu Digital Timepiece (DTP) for very cheap - is a solution that does not care if you're on a PC, Mac, your OS, whether 32 bit or 64 bit, or what DAW software you're using, it can synchronize nearly anything, as long as you have the types of connections this older unit has. You may THINK you do not need synchronizing (I sure didn't at 1st) but oh the wonders of it!