Multiple Monitors

Does anyone know if there is a connection between multiple monitor screens and Logic running slow?  Or could it be that my Logic is slow since the latest update?  I use 4 monitors - two on the Mac's dual monitor inbuilt card and two via USB3 to DVI/HDMI adapters.  Logic is running painfully slow with lots of SWOD's happening.

 

TIA Jay

4 monitors?? And your Mac Pro has what graphics card?

I have four monitors on a 2008 Mac Pro eight-core (3,1), with two dual-port ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT driving three 27" monitors and one 24". I've never noticed slowness due to monitors. I mean, this is an old computer, and "I've Grown Accustomed to Your Pace," as Lerner wrote -- but it's not connected to the monitor load. 

 

I absolutely see a connection between a long, far-flung orchestral files and a decrease in response time. Also, if I'm looking at a conductor's score of several (+20) pages, even moving a slur by mouse or KC invokes the beach ball. But again, that's not a monitor issue, because in a brand new empty file, the response is better. The lag I describe is due to CPU / full score redraws. 

Hi Plowman.  I also use a 2008 Mac Pro 8 core.  I agree - the more tracks the slower.  But I wouldn't think that 5 woodwind, 2 horns, 5 strings is excessive - but it invokes exactly what you describe - beach ball at every move (nearly).  I don't suppose you know of a cure for this?

I fear the lasting solution is a new Mac Pro, and this is a uniquely bad time to buy one, as I'm sure you know. 

 

What you describe should not be excessive. But overall length may trump track totals. Also, there may be a link to CPU consumption and the amount of samples loaded. But again, a full-load orchestra in a brand new file seems just fine. 

 

The only solution I've found is to lop off huge sections, save the partitioned file, and resume working with better (but by no means ideal) response times in smaller sections. Then, at the end of it all, I reassemble the file, having been careful not to adjust global elements, add bars, you know, anything that complicates the final assembly. 

 

It's common advice to adjust MIDI and score elements at deep, per instrument levels. I've seen response times improve a bit doing that. But I compose and lay out at a conductor's score level, and it's kind of loony trying to do it any other way. 

 

Here's to a new Mac Pro in both of our futures. 

 But I wouldn't think that 5 woodwind, 2 horns, 5 strings is excessive - but it invokes exactly what you describe - beach ball at every move (nearly).  I don't suppose you know of a cure for this?

Same thing with just one monitor connected?

Hi Plowman.  I'm not up for a new Mac Pro just yet.  I have invested in a 250GB SSD to house my Logic projects (which leaves me around 500GB on my system drive - enough and to spare for disk swapping) and I run Hollywood Strings from a hybrid with 8GB SSD.  I also have 32GB RAM.  I'll have to live with it - but I'm relieved it's not a multiple monitor issue all the same.

 

Thanks for your insight.  Kind regards, Jay

but I'm relieved it's not a multiple monitor issue all the same.

What makes you conclude that? Do you have the same graphics card as he does?

Hi Triplets.  No I don't have the same graphics card as Plowman.  All I know is that I have 2 DVI outputs on the back of the Mac.  Is that the graphics card?  And how do I find out what my graphics card is?  Sorry to be a bit ignorant on the subject but I'm a composer not a computer scientist.

Hi Jay, go to the Apple on the top menu, click on it and select About this Mac.

It should tell you there depending on the operating system you have. Otherwise there should be a system profile button or similar. And on that new window look for Graphics.

Hi Triplets.  Graphics card is ATI Radeon HD 2600.  My conclusion that the problem is not monitor related is purely instinct based to an extent on Plowman's comments about number of tracks and plug-ins.

 

Jay

Hi Plowman. 

 

I think I've found an improvement in performance when changing audio preferences Processing Threads from automatic to 8.  I'd like to hear your views on this.

 

Best wishes, Jay

Graphics card is ATI Radeon HD 2600

That graphics card has only 256 MB of Ram. Not a lot but enough for 2 monitors.

Plowman has 2 of those graphics cards for his 4 monitors.

 

You run the other 2 thru USB, so I think the CPU gets involved with that.

HI Triplets.  You're probably right that usb connections use more cpu.  Going back to my suggestion about changing the processing threads from automatic to 8 - I definitely see a significant improvement in performance.

 

Jay

So I'm asking you again: What happens with just 2 monitors instead of 4?

Hi Triplets.  It's a tad faster with just 2 monitors.  In Activity Monitor the DisplayLink User Agent (that's the usb3 - DVI/HDMI adapters) takes about 6% of cpu activity.

 

But, as I say, I think there's a marked improvement since I changed the processing threads thing.  And I need those extra monitors anyway.

 

Jay

Hi all. My evening session was on 8 instead of automatic. Sadly, I did not enjoy Jay's improvements in speed. I may not appreciate my tolerance for delayed response until I upgrade -- only then will I realize all that I've been missing. It seems to get slower later into the session, but that may be my waning patience. 

 

Jay, if you've got an empty slot in your 3,1 (eight-core early 2008 Mac Pro), you might keep an eye out for a second Radeon 2600 XT. In fact, before posting, I checked eBay and there's one for 27 dollars plus shipping. Yes, it's always a roll of the dice, but I've bought extra cards before on eBay, and they've always worked. (Be advised: this same card exists for a PC, and that version will NOT run on a Mac. They're less expensive too, so don't get fooled.)

 

If memory serves, our computer can also take a certain GeForce card, but my experience with it was dismal. ATI Radeons have served me well. 

 

We agree that it is likely (though not proven) that your multiple monitors are not at fault. So I'm not suggesting a new card as a solution. But having a spare is never a bad idea.