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

[whyterabbyt]

But VAC and such implementations are generally written for the OS-generic driver types, eg MME, not ASIO. Why is ASIO4ALL, which sits on top of a generic driver, capable of lower latency than the generic driver itself? There' a clue to your question in the fact that it is capable.

It can, because it is a driver itself.
On user-mode you don't talk to a WDM driver, but to a user-mode API such as MME, WASAPI, DirectSound, HaveYouSeen.. This APIs are wired into the windows audio server, which does resampling, mixing and all that stuff and then it passes it down into the kernel mode.
This adds latency. So some guys invented ASIO and about 20 years later, Microsoft also added an offical interface to talk to the driver directly: WDM-KS
'KS' means "Kernel Streaming" and it is basically same ASIO: bypass user-mode stuff and send your audio to the driver directly.
Now.. what ASIO4ALL does, is that:
ASIO API [user-mode] -> ASIO4ALL [kernel] ->WDM driver [kernel]
It skips all resampling, mixing, .... done by windows audio server to get low-latency.

Yes I knew all that. And if you already knew all that, one wonders why you were asking your questions in the first place.

ASIO still doesnt do multiple drivers at a time, though. And VAC and the like still dont use ASIO.

So whatever it is about generic drivers (eg MME) that makes them higher latency than the ASIO equivalents probably has an impact on virtual audio drivers, which generally get implemented for use with 'regular' window applications, not the high-performance-audio niche that ASIO serves.

It's the windows audio stack.
Your audio driver most likely runs the exactly same code to transport audio for both, ASIO or via MME/DS/.. . It's just a differnt way on how it gets it data from user-mode land. With ASIO/WDM-KS data comes form the app directly (fast / low-lantecy), with MME&co audio travles through windows audio ecosystem (slow / high-latency)[/quote]

And again, answering your own question, in response to me answering it. I find that bizarrely pointless.

What was your point in asking what was happening again? Just avoiding dealing with the context, ie ASIO as a singleton driver?

[PurpleSunray]

Yes I knew all that. And if you already knew all that, one wonders why you were asking your questions in the first place.

Because you brought up the point there is a general latency issue with drivers like VAC.
I did not know about such an issue yet, so was asking about details to know why VAC-like driver f*ck the latency (as of last state of discussion - they don't, but it is the user-mode audio server). It's not realted to you (don't want to blame you), but to me (I want to learn something I did not know before)

[ZapAxe]

From my experience it's rarely worth it to use multi-computer setups unless the VST is truly hungry - like, 20% CPU or thereabouts. Otherwise the overhead from transporting it to/from the network almost always makes it not worth it.
The way reaper does it is better - it processes rows of VSTs for a single track, unlike teleport which transports the data per-VST, which means you can stack up even low-CPU VSTs on the slave.
Unfortunately any multiple-computer setup means loading projects - particularly old projects - is cumbersome.
And fraught with difficulty.

It wasn't easy at 1st, but once I got the hang of it, and become accustomed, it's not that difficult. There is more overhead involved, and is more cumbersome, no one can deny.

As to whether it's worth it, that's a personal decision. I actually liked the challenge of figuring out a multi-PC setup, and love the art of working with it. It's not for everyone, and for those who just want to create music and be done with it, go with a single powerful computer. If on the other hand, you're a technical type who loves experimenting, and are up to the challenge...either out of great interest, or in need of more power, you won't be disappointed. With multiple computers, you have no limitation to run as much of anything & everything you want.

I've said previously in the thread, that I have a unique approach and work flow. Although I'm a multi-PC user, I most often work with only one PC at a time, so I get the best of both worlds. I accomplish this by careful considerations and planning, and with the help of supporting routing gear. But routing gear is more important when running three or more computers. Running just a master & slave computer is nothing, and you can go directly between them.

The only reason I have five DAW PC's is that four of them are my older 32 bit Win XP PC's. I only have one Win 7 64 bit PC with 12 cores & 48 GB ram. If I had two of these 64 bit beasts, and all the 64 bit plug-ins I'll ever need, I'd just be using two. But I'm keeping the XP PC's to at least run all my legacy 32 bit stuff.

I'm actually currently working on a project with just using my one powerful 64bit PC only. as a test to find out what this thing is capable of. I'm finding it almost difficult to work in one PC... partly out of habit, and partly due to the fact that I don't have a lot of 3rd party VSTi's & plugins in 64 bit, so I'm constantly tempted to run an XP slave to use my favorite VSTi's. I'm very big on redundancy & having virtually unlimited resources, so I'll always be a multi-PC user.

[metamorphosis]

Edited to clarify

From my experience it's rarely worth it to use multi-computer setups unless the VST is truly hungry - like, 20% CPU or thereabouts. Otherwise the CPU/motherboard/bus overhead from transporting it to/from the network almost always makes it not worth it.

[Roman Empire]

From my experience it's rarely worth it to use multi-computer setups unless the VST is truly hungry - like, 20% CPU or thereabouts. Otherwise the overhead from transporting it to/from the network almost always makes it not worth it.
The way reaper does it is better - it processes rows of VSTs for a single track, unlike teleport which transports the data per-VST, which means you can stack up even low-CPU VSTs on the slave.
Unfortunately any multiple-computer setup means loading projects - particularly old projects - is cumbersome.
And fraught with difficulty.

It wasn't easy at 1st, but once I got the hang of it, and become accustomed, it's not that difficult. There is more overhead involved, and is more cumbersome, no one can deny.

As to whether it's worth it, that's a personal decision. I actually liked the challenge of figuring out a multi-PC setup, and love the art of working with it. It's not for everyone, and for those who just want to create music and be done with it, go with a single powerful computer. If on the other hand, you're a technical type who loves experimenting, and are up to the challenge...either out of great interest, or in need of more power, you won't be disappointed. With multiple computers, you have no limitation to run as much of anything & everything you want.

I've said previously in the thread, that I have a unique approach and work flow. Although I'm a multi-PC user, I most often work with only one PC at a time, so I get the best of both worlds. I accomplish this by careful considerations and planning, and with the help of supporting routing gear. But routing gear is more important when running three or more computers. Running just a master & slave computer is nothing, and you can go directly between them.

The only reason I have five DAW PC's is that four of them are my older 32 bit Win XP PC's. I only have one Win 7 64 bit PC with 12 cores & 48 GB ram. If I had two of these 64 bit beasts, and all the 64 bit plug-ins I'll ever need, I'd just be using two. But I'm keeping the XP PC's to at least run all my legacy 32 bit stuff.

I'm actually currently working on a project with just using my one powerful 64bit PC only. as a test to find out what this thing is capable of. I'm finding it almost difficult to work in one PC... partly out of habit, and partly due to the fact that I don't have a lot of 3rd party VSTi's & plugins in 64 bit, so I'm constantly tempted to run an XP slave to use my favorite VSTi's. I'm very big on redundancy & having virtually unlimited resources, so I'll always be a multi-PC user.

I hear what you´re saying and I respect what you´re doing, but could you come up with any reason why you´d rather want to have a multi-computer setup over just one computer with equivalent power in it?

And what I said about it being too late was with regards to being stuck with a bunch of computers one have realized is not the ideal way of working - if that´s what will happen. That´s money wasted.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

[Kaine]

ASIO by design is supposed to give you a direct connection to CPU and bypass windows, so I can understand why this exclusivity needs to happen. I know the's some interfaces whos driver allow for interface teaming,

ASIO is an interface to pass audio data to into a kernel mode driver (bypassing windows audio system)
That's it.
The driver can do whatever it wants with it. It can pass it to DAC chip, irgnore it, crash the system, print the sample values on the printer... or memcpy it from output buffer queue of a playback device into the input buffer queue of a capture device. Last is what all those software routing tools do.

Ok, so I simplified too far. Your right, my point was that it's there to bypass the windows kernal and the latency it brings.

I have mentioned "Virtual Audio Cable" already, but there are many more.

Have you ever actually tried using VAC or any of these alternatives as an ASIO device while simultaneously using some other real ASIO hardware.
Because pretty much all of these things run under some other, higher-latency, driver standard.

Routing audio from application to application via virtual audio devices has latency issues, because drivers have latency issues. That's why solutions like VEP, FXteleport, Reroute and plasq wormhole are designed to run as plugins, not drivers.

I've been using VAC for a good decade, perhaps 2 at this point for exactly the task mentioned before, i.e. routing from Youtube or live streams in order to capture audio, the latency has always proven too high for real time use with ASIO in the past. Another one I should maybe revisit in case of other progress I guess.

VB audio Bananna mixer claims to offer full ASIO support, and they do their own VB Cable you may wish to checkout. This combination is on my to look into list, although third party feedback from people I've recommended it too for routing problems, have also fed back that the latency is too high for much more than capturing work.

Rewire could be an option, that had slipped my mind completely, been a while since I've used it. As long as it gets it own resource allocation pool, outside of the sequencer it's plugged into then that may well be a good workable solution, think I need to grab a server and have another play with that.

[ZapAxe]

I hear what you´re saying and I respect what you´re doing, but could you come up with any reason why you´d rather want to have a multi-computer setup over just one computer with equivalent power in it?

And what I said about it being too late was with regards to being stuck with a bunch of computers one have realized is not the ideal way of working - if that´s what will happen. That´s money wasted.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

Hi Roman, I'm certainly not attempting to talk anyone into, nor out of anything But for some, it's personal preference on whether to use one, or multiple computers, for others it's a definite need. There are many good reasons for and against it, there's no claiming otherwise. One has to take all these things into consideration.
From a general mind-set from the start, if using one computer makes sense, get the most powerful you can, or even exceeds your needs by a reasonable margin. If two or more computers makes the most sense, research the methods available, and make a determination as to which makes the most sense for you. With that said, it can end up being that the method you thought best, is not. Or you're just curious as to what else is out there to try. I've personally went through three different methods before I settled on what I like best. (1st audio/midi sound card networking, 2nd FX-Max FXTeleport, 3rd Steinbergs own proprietary VST System Link). But I could certainly go back to using my 1st audio/midi sound card networking.
If one finds themselves in a situation that a multi-computer set up is for them after all, I have to think that they haven't done their homework, or acted too soon. By all means, have one powerful computer that you think can do everything you need. But if it ends up being that it still isn't enough, or you wish to work in different ways, add a 2nd computer when and if needed. You either want or need it and you'll know it, simple as that.

As for my 'own' reasons for using multiple PC's - not anyone else, as each person has their own unique needs, work habits etc - First off as I said previously, I do have a powerful 64 bit PC, 12 cores @3.06 GHz per core, with 48 GB ram. I do rock/pop music, so my requirements aren't anywhere near what others may be.
But not long ago I was still using 32 bit Win XP, with four nearly identical quad core PC's. One of these PC's wasn't enough resources for at least the majority of my projects, two were just barely enough for only my largest projects, three was a lot more headroom than I've ever needed, so the 4th PC has never been needed/used in any project. That's 16 cores either @2.5 Ghz, or @3 Ghz, and 16 GB ram in total at my disposal. Which may be all I'd ever need for life.
Yet still, for no real good reason at all, as I really did not need it, I got my newer much more powerful 64 bit PC, with 12 cores & 48 GB ram. Seemingly powerful enough for anything I would ever do. But I have several years of collected hardware & software that just loves Win XP 32 bit, so even though my 64 bit PC may be powerful enough (which remains to be seen), I continue to run my 32 bit XP PC's for what I have on them...much like anyone, including myself, with a hardware synth/module that wants to use a sound from it, that just can't be had on any software they have. Or want to add UAD cards etc (which I am not a fan of).
In addition, any one of my extra PC's can be used as a back up machine to use in case I have a major failure. They also provide extra storage capability, which can be used to store extra copies of my song projects on, or anything else I want storage for. I often will use my extra older PC's to do some initial hashing out of idea's on, while not wearing out my newer powerful main PC. The older PC's get continued use, what I have invested doesn't go to waste, getting every bit of use out of them until there's no usefulness left.
All my major 3rd party VSTi's are 32 bit, and are installed on at least two of my Win XP PC's. I do not feel the need to upgrade/reinvest any of these VSTi's to newer 64 bit versions at this time. They still work & sound great. I use the XP VSTi PC's to record all my midi onto directly, assigning appropriate VSTi's for the song, and their stereo sub-mixes get sent to my monitor mixer & main system, when needed.

Like getting a new computer every so many years, even when they have enough power already, then a new OS version, a newer version of DAW software, a newer version of a VSTi, or even new VSTi's or plugins that you didn't have before, you'll may also need a newer interface to run on it...you really may not NEED them, so why keep reinvesting? Wanting to use a multi-computer set up can also fit into this category of 'just because'... but each can also be because of an actual real need.

For myself, it started out as a real need. My quad core XP PC wasn't cutting the mustard. In which I then set up my 1st older single core DAW PC as a slave running audio/midi sound card networking. It filled my needs so well that I then built an identical quad core PC. This was doing just fine for everything I was doing except a couple of larger projects. It was then realized I really liked working this way, and have expanded on this to ridiculous & obsessive proportions. But again, I am considering getting a 2nd 64 bit PC, and going back to just using two....for all the reasons I've explained above.

[Roman Empire]

I hear what you´re saying and I respect what you´re doing, but could you come up with any reason why you´d rather want to have a multi-computer setup over just one computer with equivalent power in it?

And what I said about it being too late was with regards to being stuck with a bunch of computers one have realized is not the ideal way of working - if that´s what will happen. That´s money wasted.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

Hi Roman, I'm certainly not attempting to talk anyone into, nor out of anything But for some, it's personal preference on whether to use one, or multiple computers, for others it's a definite need. There are many good reasons for and against it, there's no claiming otherwise. One has to take all these things into consideration.
From a general mind-set from the start, if using one computer makes sense, get the most powerful you can, or even exceeds your needs by a reasonable margin. If two or more computers makes the most sense, research the methods available, and make a determination as to which makes the most sense for you. With that said, it can end up being that the method you thought best, is not. Or you're just curious as to what else is out there to try. I've personally went through three different methods before I settled on what I like best. (1st audio/midi sound card networking, 2nd FX-Max FXTeleport, 3rd Steinbergs own proprietary VST System Link). But I could certainly go back to using my 1st audio/midi sound card networking.
If one finds themselves in a situation that a multi-computer set up is for them after all, I have to think that they haven't done their homework, or acted too soon. By all means, have one powerful computer that you think can do everything you need. But if it ends up being that it still isn't enough, or you wish to work in different ways, add a 2nd computer when and if needed. You either want or need it and you'll know it, simple as that.

As for my 'own' reasons for using multiple PC's - not anyone else, as each person has their own unique needs, work habits etc - First off as I said previously, I do have a powerful 64 bit PC, 12 cores @3.06 GHz per core, with 48 GB ram. I do rock/pop music, so my requirements aren't anywhere near what others may be.
But not long ago I was still using 32 bit Win XP, with four nearly identical quad core PC's. One of these PC's wasn't enough resources for at least the majority of my projects, two were just barely enough for only my largest projects, three was a lot more headroom than I've ever needed, so the 4th PC has never been needed/used in any project. That's 16 cores either @2.5 Ghz, or @3 Ghz, and 16 GB ram in total at my disposal. Which may be all I'd ever need for life.
Yet still, for no real good reason at all, as I really did not need it, I got my newer much more powerful 64 bit PC, with 12 cores & 48 GB ram. Seemingly powerful enough for anything I would ever do. But I have several years of collected hardware & software that just loves Win XP 32 bit, so even though my 64 bit PC may be powerful enough (which remains to be seen), I continue to run my 32 bit XP PC's for what I have on them...much like anyone, including myself, with a hardware synth/module that wants to use a sound from it, that just can't be had on any software they have. Or want to add UAD cards etc (which I am not a fan of).
In addition, any one of my extra PC's can be used as a back up machine to use in case I have a major failure. They also provide extra storage capability, which can be used to store extra copies of my song projects on, or anything else I want storage for. I often will use my extra older PC's to do some initial hashing out of idea's on, while not wearing out my newer powerful main PC. The older PC's get continued use, what I have invested doesn't go to waste, getting every bit of use out of them until there's no usefulness left.
All my major 3rd party VSTi's are 32 bit, and are installed on at least two of my Win XP PC's. I do not feel the need to upgrade/reinvest any of these VSTi's to newer 64 bit versions at this time. They still work & sound great. I use the XP VSTi PC's to record all my midi onto directly, assigning appropriate VSTi's for the song, and their stereo sub-mixes get sent to my monitor mixer & main system, when needed.

Like getting a new computer every so many years, even when they have enough power already, then a new OS version, a newer version of DAW software, a newer version of a VSTi, or even new VSTi's or plugins that you didn't have before, you'll may also need a newer interface to run on it...you really may not NEED them, so why keep reinvesting? Wanting to use a multi-computer set up can also fit into this category of 'just because'... but each can also be because of an actual real need.

For myself, it started out as a real need. My quad core XP PC wasn't cutting the mustard. In which I then set up my 1st older single core DAW PC as a slave running audio/midi sound card networking. It filled my needs so well that I then built an identical quad core PC. This was doing just fine for everything I was doing except a couple of larger projects. It was then realized I really liked working this way, and have expanded on this to ridiculous & obsessive proportions. But again, I am considering getting a 2nd 64 bit PC, and going back to just using two....for all the reasons I've explained above.

Ok, just trying to understand how other people work and why, thanks. So am I getting you right that if you did not have all these extra computers and was to buy a new one (for audio only!), then the best would be to buy ONE powerhorse exceeding your current needs by many times? We´re not talking about other needs, such as surfing, movies, backing up etc. I have have 4 computers; one for downloads and backing up stuff, one for general surfing/programming/encoding/listening to music (with an almost 20 years old version of Winamp) etcetc., and one for my minimal homegym and one for music making - my DAW.
I could come to a point where I´d need more power, and I´d rather want to exchange my DAW with another one than distributing load onto the other machines. But in your case, I guess you´d use your other computers for the load which makes complete sense. But is that only because you already have the computers, or is there anything that helps your workflow to get smoother by doing this instead of getting a more powerful monster-DAW?
Sorry if you´ve already answered this, it´s just not so clear to me.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

[ZapAxe]

Ok, just trying to understand how other people work and why, thanks. So am I getting you right that if you did not have all these extra computers and was to buy a new one (for audio only!), then the best would be to buy ONE powerhorse exceeding your current needs by many times? We´re not talking about other needs, such as surfing, movies, backing up etc. I have have 4 computers; one for downloads and backing up stuff, one for general surfing/programming/encoding/listening to music (with an almost 20 years old version of Winamp) etcetc., and one for my minimal homegym and one for music making - my DAW.
I could come to a point where I´d need more power, and I´d rather want to exchange my DAW with another one than distributing load onto the other machines. But in your case, I guess you´d use your other computers for the load which makes complete sense. But is that only because you already have the computers, or is there anything that helps your workflow to get smoother by doing this instead of getting a more powerful monster-DAW?
Sorry if you´ve already answered this, it´s just not so clear to me.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

I already do have one powerful monster DAW, it just so happens to be running under older Win 7 64 bit

All five of my computers are dedicated DAW computers, no internet on them, they serve no other purposes than perform duties to create/support recording music. I have other computers for all other things I'd need outside of making music. At the time I began this, I only had my quad core DAW, and my old single core DAW that had been retired (re-retired & now dismantled).
The reason I have so many 'music computers' is because I built them myself from scratch specifically for music, which I was still running Win XP until this past year. I'm not going to discard them because they're still useful for literally anything I'd ever need DAW's for. Nor will they likely ever be used for anything non-music, as I have several non-music computers already.

Yes, I use multiple PC's for making music, in part because I already have the dedicated DAW PC's and all the hardware & software that go's with them. They're still great working useful machines. I like working with multiple PC's in general, but really like having unlimited resources. I've already had all the resources I've needed so far, with just 3 of my 4 Win XP PC's. With the addition of my 64 bit 12 core PC, it 'may' be possible to using just that by itself for what I do, but honestly I can't really know for certain, because I don't have any other 64 bit VSTi's & plug-ins besides what the newest Cubase version includes. Only then could I put it to the test. But already, I can realize a little strain ... eg, the sluggishness I mentioned previously with using Cubase's Vari-Audio while I have a lot of other things going on, even on this PC!

Now hypothetically, if for some odd reason I suddenly did NOT have all the software & hardware that I have now, and I had to start all over, what would I do 'personally' right now as in today? I'd get two Win 7 64 bit 12 core PC's with 48 GB ram each. This would allow me to have an entire identical back up computer, in case one failed on me in the middle of a session. Having back ups for everything is what I do, for personal stuff, and especially with my business, this is important for me.

How would I then 'work' with these two PC's? Since I had two, I'd switch back & fourth between them for different song projects, just to wear them out evenly. But I'd also make use of them by trading off in master/slave roles. My way of working already, and what I'd continue doing in this scenario, is I record all my midi parts into my acting VSTi PC, and work in any VSTi's that I want to use for the song at hand. I work with just the one PC at 1st for several days/weeks. After I've created my song to a satisfactory point, I sync up with my acting master PC, which I could either keep them both synced while working on all my audio tracks, or better yet just take 5 stinking minutes, and digitally send over a temporary stereo audio sub-feed from my VSTi PC, to my audio PC, so I can then work with just ONE PC again, recording all my audio tracks for days/weeks. At any give time, if I need to make some minor changes to my VSTi tracks arrangement, or audio tracks arrangement (because I heard something off, or thought of something new, etc) within minutes I can boot the other PC and satisfy my 'fever' to change something. I do not need to re-send any temporary sub-mix from one PC to the other because they'll very likely to be subtle changes that won't affect my ability, or creativity to say continue recording guitar or vocal tracks, but certainly can if I really need for some reason.

As to whether I, or anyone else really NEEDS a 2nd powerful 64 bit computer, that's up to the individual. In my hypothetical scenario above, I already have two identical powerful 64 bit PC's whether I really need the extra resources of both or not. I may as well get use of them both. But I really prefer, and believe that even a powerful computer can be asked to do 'too much' at once. If anyone's single DAW computer does everything they need all by itself, and this would include not needing any external synths/sound modules, UAD cards etc, etc, because it wouldn't be much different than using two computers ....and does not have the criteria that I've mentioned for myself above, then that's fine.

But I would assume that anyone considering multiple computers, as the OP originally inquired, has a need, or desire to do it. I've even read countless times of people running out of resources on their computer, so they buy/build a super powerful system to replace it... after all being "a few years old" etc, but then only to find that they're still bringing the new system to it's knee's. Then again, for others, an old dual core Win XP with 4 GB of ram computer is enough.

[Roman Empire]

Ok, just trying to understand how other people work and why, thanks. So am I getting you right that if you did not have all these extra computers and was to buy a new one (for audio only!), then the best would be to buy ONE powerhorse exceeding your current needs by many times? We´re not talking about other needs, such as surfing, movies, backing up etc. I have have 4 computers; one for downloads and backing up stuff, one for general surfing/programming/encoding/listening to music (with an almost 20 years old version of Winamp) etcetc., and one for my minimal homegym and one for music making - my DAW.
I could come to a point where I´d need more power, and I´d rather want to exchange my DAW with another one than distributing load onto the other machines. But in your case, I guess you´d use your other computers for the load which makes complete sense. But is that only because you already have the computers, or is there anything that helps your workflow to get smoother by doing this instead of getting a more powerful monster-DAW?
Sorry if you´ve already answered this, it´s just not so clear to me.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

I already do have one powerful monster DAW, it just so happens to be running under older Win 7 64 bit

All five of my computers are dedicated DAW computers, no internet on them, they serve no other purposes than perform duties to create/support recording music. I have other computers for all other things I'd need outside of making music. At the time I began this, I only had my quad core DAW, and my old single core DAW that had been retired (re-retired & now dismantled).
The reason I have so many 'music computers' is because I built them myself from scratch specifically for music, which I was still running Win XP until this past year. I'm not going to discard them because they're still useful for literally anything I'd ever need DAW's for. Nor will they likely ever be used for anything non-music, as I have several non-music computers already.

Yes, I use multiple PC's for making music, in part because I already have the dedicated DAW PC's and all the hardware & software that go's with them. They're still great working useful machines. I like working with multiple PC's in general, but really like having unlimited resources. I've already had all the resources I've needed so far, with just 3 of my 4 Win XP PC's. With the addition of my 64 bit 12 core PC, it 'may' be possible to using just that by itself for what I do, but honestly I can't really know for certain, because I don't have any other 64 bit VSTi's & plug-ins besides what the newest Cubase version includes. Only then could I put it to the test. But already, I can realize a little strain ... eg, the sluggishness I mentioned previously with using Cubase's Vari-Audio while I have a lot of other things going on, even on this PC!

Now hypothetically, if for some odd reason I suddenly did NOT have all the software & hardware that I have now, and I had to start all over, what would I do 'personally' right now as in today? I'd get two Win 7 64 bit 12 core PC's with 48 GB ram each. This would allow me to have an entire identical back up computer, in case one failed on me in the middle of a session. Having back ups for everything is what I do, for personal stuff, and especially with my business, this is important for me.

How would I then 'work' with these two PC's? Since I had two, I'd switch back & fourth between them for different song projects, just to wear them out evenly. But I'd also make use of them by trading off in master/slave roles. My way of working already, and what I'd continue doing in this scenario, is I record all my midi parts into my acting VSTi PC, and work in any VSTi's that I want to use for the song at hand. I work with just the one PC at 1st for several days/weeks. After I've created my song to a satisfactory point, I sync up with my acting master PC, which I could either keep them both synced while working on all my audio tracks, or better yet just take 5 stinking minutes, and digitally send over a temporary stereo audio sub-feed from my VSTi PC, to my audio PC, so I can then work with just ONE PC again, recording all my audio tracks for days/weeks. At any give time, if I need to make some minor changes to my VSTi tracks arrangement, or audio tracks arrangement (because I heard something off, or thought of something new, etc) within minutes I can boot the other PC and satisfy my 'fever' to change something. I do not need to re-send any temporary sub-mix from one PC to the other because they'll very likely to be subtle changes that won't affect my ability, or creativity to say continue recording guitar or vocal tracks, but certainly can if I really need for some reason.

As to whether I, or anyone else really NEEDS a 2nd powerful 64 bit computer, that's up to the individual. In my hypothetical scenario above, I already have two identical powerful 64 bit PC's whether I really need the extra resources of both or not. I may as well get use of them both. But I really prefer, and believe that even a powerful computer can be asked to do 'too much' at once. If anyone's single DAW computer does everything they need all by itself, and this would include not needing any external synths/sound modules, UAD cards etc, etc, because it wouldn't be much different than using two computers ....and does not have the criteria that I've mentioned for myself above, then that's fine.

But I would assume that anyone considering multiple computers, as the OP originally inquired, has a need, or desire to do it. I've even read countless times of people running out of resources on their computer, so they buy/build a super powerful system to replace it... after all being "a few years old" etc, but then only to find that they're still bringing the new system to it's knee's. Then again, for others, an old dual core Win XP with 4 GB of ram computer is enough.

Thanks, I think I got the answer there.. that if you have enough power in one computer, then that´s the most advantageous solution. It´s true that the OP mentioned a multi computer setup, but since he also said "My end goal is to have pieces completely composed, mixed, and mastered that will use probably upwards of a 150 VSTs", I thought it´s worth it making him aware of his other options.
Indeed it´s not uncommon that people thought their needs were covered with one particular combo of CPU and RAM, later realizing that they were wrong. However, although demands grow for most people, there should also be a breakeven one day. Not only do you grow older and feel less and less tempted to learn every new synth technology developed but stick to what you have and start getting an idea of what your needs are. Also, synth technologies IMO can´t go on forever putting more and more demands on peoples systems. There should be a spot where the most CPU hungry VST´s have been made. Finally, we now have CPU´s that are so fast that nearly nobody would have a need for extra computers (DAW only, not backup, gaming, etc.) even with very hungry VSTs and large projects.
So in my opinion, we´re lucky as musicians to have come to this point, unlike 3d-rendering enthusiasts for instance who dream of having perfectly realistic and complex projects running in realtime at UHD.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

[ZapAxe]

Thanks, I think I got the answer there.. that if you have enough power in one computer, then that´s the most advantageous solution. It´s true that the OP mentioned a multi computer setup, but since he also said "My end goal is to have pieces completely composed, mixed, and mastered that will use probably upwards of a 150 VSTs", I thought it´s worth it making him aware of his other options.
Indeed it´s not uncommon that people thought their needs were covered with one particular combo of CPU and RAM, later realizing that they were wrong. However, although demands grow for most people, there should also be a breakeven one day. Not only do you grow older and feel less and less tempted to learn every new synth technology developed but stick to what you have and start getting an idea of what your needs are. Also, synth technologies IMO can´t go on forever putting more and more demands on peoples systems. There should be a spot where the most CPU hungry VST´s have been made. Finally, we now have CPU´s that are so fast that nearly nobody would have a need for extra computers (DAW only, not backup, gaming, etc.) even with very hungry VSTs and large projects.
So in my opinion, we´re lucky as musicians to have come to this point, unlike 3d-rendering enthusiasts for instance who dream of having perfectly realistic and complex projects running in realtime at UHD.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

Certainly for many the time is already here that a single computer can be powerful enough for what they need it for. Especially if that's the primary desire and/or focus, then this will fit in perfectly with their criteria.

For those who are less concerned about creating added complications with using a multi-computer DAW set up, and it can be, it can open up and expand your capabilities.

Many of the pro's and cons can be countered, for or against using one, or multiple computers. Each can be valid, there's no wrong or right, only what fit's for the individual.

My own criteria of having unlimited resources at my disposal, being able to spread the loads among PC's as I wish, by running VSTi's on a dedicated PC etc, strain almost non existant, plus the benefit of redundancy in having an entire back-up machine, obviously isn't the same criteria for everyone.

When two computers are in operation, and on their own video monitors, like say when running a VSTi PC, and audio PC together (just one of many possible scenarios), it's very much like the experience of using just one PC with two monitors, where you can have your project lanes on one screen, and VSTi windows on another etc.

[Roman Empire]

Thanks, I think I got the answer there.. that if you have enough power in one computer, then that´s the most advantageous solution. It´s true that the OP mentioned a multi computer setup, but since he also said "My end goal is to have pieces completely composed, mixed, and mastered that will use probably upwards of a 150 VSTs", I thought it´s worth it making him aware of his other options.
Indeed it´s not uncommon that people thought their needs were covered with one particular combo of CPU and RAM, later realizing that they were wrong. However, although demands grow for most people, there should also be a breakeven one day. Not only do you grow older and feel less and less tempted to learn every new synth technology developed but stick to what you have and start getting an idea of what your needs are. Also, synth technologies IMO can´t go on forever putting more and more demands on peoples systems. There should be a spot where the most CPU hungry VST´s have been made. Finally, we now have CPU´s that are so fast that nearly nobody would have a need for extra computers (DAW only, not backup, gaming, etc.) even with very hungry VSTs and large projects.
So in my opinion, we´re lucky as musicians to have come to this point, unlike 3d-rendering enthusiasts for instance who dream of having perfectly realistic and complex projects running in realtime at UHD.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

Certainly for many the time is already here that a single computer can be powerful enough for what they need it for. Especially if that's the primary desire and/or focus, then this will fit in perfectly with their criteria.

For those who are less concerned about creating added complications with using a multi-computer DAW set up, and it can be, it can open up and expand your capabilities.

Many of the pro's and cons can be countered, for or against using one, or multiple computers. Each can be valid, there's no wrong or right, only what fit's for the individual.

My own criteria of having unlimited resources at my disposal, being able to spread the loads among PC's as I wish, by running VSTi's on a dedicated PC etc, strain almost non existant, plus the benefit of redundancy in having an entire back-up machine, obviously isn't the same criteria for everyone.

When two computers are in operation, and on their own video monitors, like say when running a VSTi PC, and audio PC together (just one of many possible scenarios), it's very much like the experience of using just one PC with two monitors, where you can have your project lanes on one screen, and VSTi windows on another etc.

Ok, apart from the backup part - which I don´t consider part of a multimachine-DAW setup, but just common sense to prevend data loss - I´m not sure if I really understand the benefits of spreading a project over multiple computers rather than keeping it on one workhorse containing more power than you´ll ever encounter the need for.
I understand the fun of nerding with it, and perhaps the time taken to nerd around even contributes to some peoples musical creativity.
I love nerding with things myself when I need them, but sadly I don´t feel that my musical creativity gets a boost from it, unless we´re talking about nerding in a musical way; figuring whether to use a substitute chord, when a modulation to another key is appropriate, using a more muddy reverb etc. Then again, we´re all different people and the world only becomes a more interesting place to live, the more different thoughts that go into the global melting pot.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

[ZapAxe]

Ok, apart from the backup part - which I don´t consider part of a multimachine-DAW setup, but just common sense to prevend data loss - I´m not sure if I really understand the benefits of spreading a project over multiple computers rather than keeping it on one workhorse containing more power than you´ll ever encounter the need for.
I understand the fun of nerding with it, and perhaps the time taken to nerd around even contributes to some peoples musical creativity.
I love nerding with things myself when I need them, but sadly I don´t feel that my musical creativity gets a boost from it, unless we´re talking about nerding in a musical way; figuring whether to use a substitute chord, when a modulation to another key is appropriate, using a more muddy reverb etc. Then again, we´re all different people and the world only becomes a more interesting place to live, the more different thoughts that go into the global melting pot.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

You got me!

Nerding is certainly an aspect, as in many other technical endeavors, you almost have to be. I've even said earlier, that this is a passion of mine.

When I had only 32 bit Win XP PC's I definitely had a real need, even for what I do. With my Win 7 64 bit PC, not as much I feel, but as I had said it's too early to tell. After all, most of what I do is with VSTi's & other software now. Even as a guitar player mainly, I work some midi guitar tracks in with a guitar controller & VSTi's (same with bass), my real amps sit in the corner while I record my real guitar with soft amp sims, I use pitch correction on vocals, my edrums & drum VSTi's, my keyboard/synth controller for keyboard related VSTi's and other instrument VSTi's. All this for seemingly just simply rock/pop songs can really eat through resources fast. It took at least three quad core 32 bit Win XP PC's together to do some of my songs. I could not even run Amplitube soft sim on any song project that was anywhere near being completed due to lack of resources, therefore I dedicated one entire Win XP PC just for everything guitar.

Anyway, while it may not be a solution that everyone needs, for some others even with the most powerful computers available, they still need more. This may not be you, it may not even be me anymore with my newer PC. For just recording vocal & guitar, any old thing will get the job done. It really depends on what you do, how much anything you use, and also how you want to work.

For those who 'want or need' it, the benefit of a multi-PC set up is not only the ability to have unlimited resources (one computer can never provide that), but also can eliminate any needs for workarounds to conserve on anything, and no need to raising your buffers when the project starts to get busy, never be worried about using too many VSTi's, plugins, no limit to the number of audio tracks and with whatever you gluttonously pile on, no limitations at all.

[Roman Empire]

Ok, apart from the backup part - which I don´t consider part of a multimachine-DAW setup, but just common sense to prevend data loss - I´m not sure if I really understand the benefits of spreading a project over multiple computers rather than keeping it on one workhorse containing more power than you´ll ever encounter the need for.
I understand the fun of nerding with it, and perhaps the time taken to nerd around even contributes to some peoples musical creativity.
I love nerding with things myself when I need them, but sadly I don´t feel that my musical creativity gets a boost from it, unless we´re talking about nerding in a musical way; figuring whether to use a substitute chord, when a modulation to another key is appropriate, using a more muddy reverb etc. Then again, we´re all different people and the world only becomes a more interesting place to live, the more different thoughts that go into the global melting pot.

Best Regards

Roman Empire

You got me!

Nerding is certainly an aspect, as in many other technical endeavors, you almost have to be. I've even said earlier, that this is a passion of mine.

When I had only 32 bit Win XP PC's I definitely had a real need, even for what I do. With my Win 7 64 bit PC, not as much I feel, but as I had said it's too early to tell. After all, most of what I do is with VSTi's & other software now. Even as a guitar player mainly, I work some midi guitar tracks in with a guitar controller & VSTi's (same with bass), my real amps sit in the corner while I record my real guitar with soft amp sims, I use pitch correction on vocals, my edrums & drum VSTi's, my keyboard/synth controller for keyboard related VSTi's and other instrument VSTi's. All this for seemingly just simply rock/pop songs can really eat through resources fast. It took at least three quad core 32 bit Win XP PC's together to do some of my songs. I could not even run Amplitube soft sim on any song project that was anywhere near being completed due to lack of resources, therefore I dedicated one entire Win XP PC just for everything guitar.

Anyway, while it may not be a solution that everyone needs, for some others even with the most powerful computers available, they still need more. This may not be you, it may not even be me anymore with my newer PC. For just recording vocal & guitar, any old thing will get the job done. It really depends on what you do, how much anything you use, and also how you want to work.

For those who 'want or need' it, the benefit of a multi-PC set up is not only the ability to have unlimited resources (one computer can never provide that), but also can eliminate any needs for workarounds to conserve on anything, and no need to raising your buffers when the project starts to get busy, never be worried about using too many VSTi's, plugins, no limit to the number of audio tracks and with whatever you gluttonously pile on, no limitations at all.

... and this is where I disagree: One computer CAN provide unlimited resources (in the sense that you´ll never hit the ceiling), unless you buy a computer that does not meet your requirements, obviously. there MAY be a one in a million person who requires more than 40 cores to play with, but even then you could buy a board that´ll let you fit 4x22 core CPU´s (Intel Xeon E5-2699 v4) on it, have two ASIO cards and run one instance of Vmware with Cubase in it (or two VMs if your prefered daw is one that can only handle 32 cores). The second ASIO card will run under the Vmware, where you´ll use the same technique to sync it with your primary sequencer as you would if you had multiple computers. This gives you an 80 core setup (in reality a bit less due to by others previously mentioned loss of performance in such a setup, but still), and saves you space, electricity, motherboards, psu´s, cables, harddrives, polution, licenses, system cases, noise, and not least time. It may NOT save you money, but IMO time is a bigger creativity killer than money


Best Regards

Roman Empire

[ZapAxe]

... and this is where I disagree: One computer CAN provide unlimited resources (in the sense that you´ll never hit the ceiling), unless you buy a computer that does not meet your requirements, obviously. there MAY be a one in a million person who requires more than 40 cores to play with, but even then you could buy a board that´ll let you fit 4x22 core CPU´s (Intel Xeon E5-2699 v4) on it, have two ASIO cards and run one instance of Vmware with Cubase in it (or two VMs if your prefered daw is one that can only handle 32 cores). The second ASIO card will run under the Vmware, where you´ll use the same technique to sync it with your primary sequencer as you would if you had multiple computers. This gives you an 80 core setup (in reality a bit less due to by others previously mentioned loss of performance in such a setup, but still), and saves you space, electricity, motherboards, psu´s, cables, harddrives, polution, licenses, system cases, noise, and not least time. It may NOT save you money, but IMO time is a bigger creativity killer than money


Best Regards

Roman Empire

Have you actually done this VMWare set up yourself, and used it with DAW recording applications? Feel free to further enlighten me, as I haven't read anywhere of this actually being done specifically with DAW's successfully. According to this thread, it seems that it's not a viable option for DAW work. I know little about it myself though. In the end , it's still a single system, which can be good or bad depending on how well it works for anyone.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-c ... ed-windows.
And while a single system can certainly provide enough resources in terms of it's user "hitting the ceiling" of course, this can also be said from the lowest spec computer, on up to the highest spec computer, depending anyone's own needs.

One can take a position to not run multiple computers for all their own reasons, as with any other solution of course. But the main idea is that each system is allowed to process it's own set of specific tasks independently. By contrast a single system is required to process everything that's thrown at it, which can be good or bad depending on the over all total strain.
My own experience that turned me into a believer was, while one PC completely caved under a projects demands, dividing the same tasks among two PC's resulted in each system taking much less of a hit than expected... as if I had an unexplained 'excess' in usable resources. It appeared that there's a bit more going on than just the amount of CPU & Ram alone, but other factors of the individual systems combined, adding to the overall performance, especially when no one system is being stressed.

A multi-computer set up can truly provide unlimited resources as you add more systems. You can't really claim one system can provide 'unlimited resources' per say IMO, only provide enough resources for what you need, or even more ... which of course is fine if all your demands are being met without any strain. The reality remains, that no matter how powerful of a computer you can possibly get, having TWO of these computers in fact doubles that power...that is, if you should so need it.

For those who wish to just discard their DAW computer every few years for a more powerful next generation one, and if that does the trick for them, that's fine too. But again, this thread was inquiring about viable options for using multiple computers. Of course this may require more cables, power supplies, licenses, etc. All of which can be negligible. And you don't need all the same licenses on each computer in most cases, just the one you want to run them on. As I said, for my own multi-PC set up, I often run just ONE PC at a time, which only is the noise and electricity use of one PC