Virtual Instruments

[inthemix69]

Hi all ...

I'm still a newb to Logic and trying to get to grips with many of it's functions. I'm enjoying the transitition from Cubase, but there are many little frustrations in terms of workflow that I'm having to try and find my way around. One of my biggest problems currently is resources and quickly maxing out the cpu ! I don't want to get into a Logic v Cubase debate, but one thing I'm really noticing is how much worse Logic is with third party plug ins ...My Mac is similarly spec'd to what my PC is ( both contain Intel i7 cpu's and run on SSD with 16gb ram ), but I find logic max's out with only a couple of instances of certain Roland plugs ins /virtuals, whilst in Cubase I can run a few more of the same in any given project.

So, lookiing at ways to reduce cpu load, one thing I can't figure out is how to use the same loaded instrument on a number of midi tracks. In Logic, it seems it has to open a fresh instance of an instrument for any new track you load -this seems like a massive waste of cpu resource. In Cubase, I would open Kontakt and can have the instrument on any number of midi tracks ... Is there a way to do similar in Logic ? This would help massively if it can be done ...

 

Many thanks in advance.

[fuzzfilth]

Menu Track>Other>New Track with Same Channel

[des99]

All part of the learning curve while you figure out how Logic does things.

 

Logic has always been one of the most efficient DAWs, at least on the Mac, FWIW. Remember to compare like for like, in terms of buffer settings etc, and there are lots of things you might not be aware of, like Live Mode, that can affect performance in ways a new user might not understand.

[inthemix69]

Yes, totally Des99 ... there is indeed very much to learn. 'Live Mode' ??

[inthemix69]

...And thanks, Fuzzfilth ... this will save me a lot of cpu.

[des99]

Yes, totally Des99 ... there is indeed very much to learn. 'Live Mode' ??

 

I wouldn't worry about these details too much for now, there's a lot to learn and you should hang out here regularly and see peoples questions and solutions etc, or search the forum for existing threads on pretty much everything Logic related.

 

I can't compare your Mac's performance to your PC, but I can say that if you compare the Mac version of Cubase vs Logic on the same system, one DAW is not going to run head and shoulders above the other in terms of how many instruments/plugins you can run (given comparable settings like buffer sizes, sample rates and so on), as each third-party plugin will take the CPU it needs to run and these will be essentially the same for any given plugin.

 

I don't use Cubase, but I would expect the performance these days to be broadly comparable (unlike earlier times, where Logic was *way* more efficient).

[inthemix69]

... ' one DAW is not going to run head and shoulders above the other in terms of how many instruments/plugins you can run (given comparable settings like buffer sizes, sample rates and so on), as each third-party plugin will take the CPU it needs to run and these will be essentially the same for any given plugin'.

That would of been my expectation, but that hasn't proved to be the case in my recent experience. My projects in Cubase were all 32bit float, 44.1khz. I set my Logic to the same. As regards systems specs, my PC is a i7 ( 2.4 ghz ) quad core, along with 16gb DDR3 ram and 1TB SSD from Samsung. My Mac Mini is the virtually the same specs. My audio device is the same on both systems ( Focusrite Scarletts ). Buffer set to 128 on all projects and I start with a template of 16 midi tracks and 8 audio tracks - the same on both machines. I have Kontakt, Spectrasonics ( Omni 2.5 and Trillian ), Roland, Korg ( Triton and Wavestation ), East West Play and String Ensemble loaded up automatically on both ... CPU overhead hangs at 7% in Cubase, but a whopping 40% in Logic and that's before I start recording ! These are startling differences.

[triplets]

my PC is a i7 ( 2.4 ghz ) quad core, along with 16gb DDR3 ram and 1TB SSD from Samsung. My Mac Mini is the virtually the same specs

 

I doubt that. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Your PC has probably a dedicated graphics card, the Mac mini has an integrated one. That makes a difference.

 

3rd party plugins react different on PC and Mac. Cubase on PC runs better than Cubase on Mac. Always has. So there's no point in comparing Logic and Cubase like that.

 

You have to make sure the Mini runs as best as it can with what you throw at it. And if you're running many 3rd party plugins there's more fine-tuning to be done.

[inthemix69]

Triplets ... as I'm very much finding out. Yes, I hadn't really given much thought to the graphics card, tbh.

I'm just about to load Cubase 10.5 Pro on to my Mac, so it will be interesting to see how well it run on this platform.

I've spent a fair bit of time looking at ways to both maximise and streamline Logic Pro X to get the most out of it, but like any new software, there's a learning-curve. I wrote in Cubase from way back when it was Cubasis, but a number of people I'm currently helping and collab with all use Logic. I decided to learn the software and there are many apsects to the progam I really like so far, but much frustration as Islow to crawl again and again with just workflow, navigational matters ... That's where sites like this great resource becomes invaluable.

Thanks again.

[triplets]

I wrote in Cubase from way back when it was Cubasis, but a number of people I'm currently helping and collab with all use Logic.

 

I started with Cubase 5 on OS9 way back and went to Cubase SX later. Then I discovered Logic and never looked back.

 

Now I look at the Cubase interface and the way it works and it gives me shivers.

It's all about personal workflow and I got so used to Logic that I cannot work comfortably on other DAWs.

 

On another note: with all the 3rd party plugs you throw at the Mini, if it's a 2012 i7, I think it's a little underpowered. Especially with the latest Logic version on Mojave or Catalina.

[Atlas007]

@ inthemix69:

Feel welcome here to ask all your questions. Many members will try their best to help.

 

Logic is indeed a deep and complex software as it permits to achieve stunning results. That comes with a price: a rather steep learning curve.

 

Coming from Cubase could be an advantage since you are already familiar with many aspects of making music with a DAW.

However, there are inherent differences between DAWs, which may lead especially at the beginning, to confusion and/or frustrated expectations.

 

Logic like all the other DAWs has its quirks. But considering the way it is conceived, permitting different approaches to achieve a same result, most of the times, there is a workaround to solve the issue.

 

One difference to consider between Logic and Cubase 3rd party plugin performance vs CPU resource could be the type each are using.

Logic is using strictly AudioUnit, while Cubase VST.

It's been reported that many third party vendors would only wrap their VST coded plugin into AudioUnit, instead of actually rewriting/converting them to that latter format. Same could understandably hinder their CPU resource efficiency.

[splunk]

If you're running the latest Mini with the onboard graphics, make sure your monitor resolution in the system preferences is set to the native resolution of your monitor. If that makes things too small, try 1/2 of the native resolution. The idea here is that you don't want the Mac to have to scale the video. I find that the CPU hit is significantly lower when I run at my monitor's native resolution (3840 x 2160, in my case). It's especially noticeable in Live Mode with heavier virtual instruments.

[inthemix69]

' It's been reported that many third party vendors would only wrap their VST coded plugin into AudioUnit, instead of actually rewriting/converting them to that latter format. Same could understandably hinder their CPU resource efficiency'.

 

... I think this is potentially a serious factor in the cpu hit, Atlas007 ( well cited ! ).

 

Des99, my Mac Mini is indeed an older 2012 ( network ) unit - picked it up for an absolute bargain ... However, I had the hard disks replaced with 2 x SSDs and upped the memory to the max. It does have an i7 cpu too, albeit the older, original architechture ... I chose this as an inexpensive way to enter the Mac World and t cut my teeth on Logic. Itwas my intention to go for one of the new Power Macs once I felt up to speed with Logic Pro. However, I've been utterly horrified by the pricing structure of the range of Power Mac's - I think Apple have gone and lost their heads, quite frankly. Are thy no aware of the global pandemic and the sheer hit just about every global ecomony is going to be taking in the very near future ?! Almost £6k for the basic model is ......g !! ridiculous.

 

Thanks again everyone ...

[des99]

... I think this is potentially a serious factor in the cpu hit, Atlas007 ( well cited ! ).

 

Not really, the CPU hit in using a wrapped plugin is tiny compared to the work the plugin actually does. If you want to check, pick a few plugins wrapped liked this (and these days, the number of these is small as most developers use a framework like Juce which can easily generate all the formats required) - use something like Live that can load both VST and AU and compare the performance on the same plugin. I doubt you'll notice any real difference in CPU hit - but feel free to prove me wrong, I don't have time to do this right now. (I've certainly done it in the past...)

 

However, I've been utterly horrified by the pricing structure of the range of Power Mac's - I think Apple have gone and lost their heads, quite frankly. Are thy no aware of the global pandemic and the sheer hit just about every global ecomony is going to be taking in the very near future ?! Almost £6k for the basic model is ......g !! ridiculous.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "Power Macs" - if you mean the Mac Pro, then yes, these machines aren't really intended for the likes of you or I, really.

 

Like I say, I can't compare your hardware Mac specs to your PC specs, or the differences between running audio software and drivers on OSX vs Windows , so I don't know what's going on in your specific case. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say the CPU load is 40% before you even get started, because if there are no notes on instrument tracks, there should be no load - Logic is pretty good about allocating resources and doesn't process plugins when there is no data. Also make sure that whatever this 40% figure is, is that 40% of one core, or 40% of all cores? (Make sure you have an empty audio track selected when you check these numbers so you're not shifting some plugin combination into Live mode.) You can also progressively disable/enable plugins to review which ones are heavier on the CPU. Also, yes sometimes as reported here Mac Minis have had CPU load issues to do with graphics cards - the native resolution suggestion made above is a good one. It's not something I've personally come across, but I don't have one of those Mac Minis, so...

 

But the bottom line is, the resources you have are the resources you have. Any given reasonably well-coded plugin is not really going to perform significantly differently on similar hardware, plugin developers work hard on this kind of thing. It could be that perhaps the Mac you bought you *thought* would have a similar performance to your PC, but perhaps that isn't the case.

 

But suggesting that the reason must be because Logic is inefficient, or looking for other things like "oh it must be because wrappers" etc is, in my experience, not looking at the problem in the right places...

[Dox]

"pricing structure of the range of Power Mac's - I think Apple have gone and lost their heads, quite frankly." - inthmix69

 

I have a Power Mac it is a G5 one that I bought in 2003 for a lot less than $6,000. Apple consider that model to be obsolete now.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh

[inthemix69]

... Yes, I was referring to the new Mac Pro, Des99 ( I must ensure I'm a little more accurate in what I write here ).

 

I can quite afford to buy one of these units, make no mistake ( could buy a few comfortably, for the record, not that this matters one jot ! ). However, it's the principle of the matter for me - the pricing just seems very 'greedy' from Apple, but I digress ... I have a couple of close friend's that will no doubt invest in one or two of these new gen Mac Pros' for their studios pretty much immediately, if they haven't done so already, but wouldn't it be great if one of these powerful units was priced at a point available to the student/home studio owner perhaps around the £2k - £2.5k mark ? A Mac that would offer plenty of grunt for their projects without running out of puff ? I guess time will tell ...

 

I'm still a bit flummoxed by this 'Live Mode' you've referred to a couple of times. What is this and how does it impact cpu situation ?? Cheers.

[des99]

Well, the iMac is plenty sufficient for the student or casual home studio guy, and the iMac Pro offers more power and better cooling for a more pro machine (but also more expensive of course).

 

The Mac Pro is really designed for facilities, media folks running FCP installations and requiring as much power as possible, scientific research, and very demanding music producers (film scores, large orchestral templates that would previously require multiple machines etc) - the sort of folks where the individual machine prices are not really a concern, and the expense is well justified with the commercial returns of a faster smoother workflow.

 

Would we all love an inexpensive, powerful Mac? Of course! But *nothing* made by Apple has ever been inexpensive, really, and any product that's not directly consumer focused is going to be extra expensive because the numbers are so small for Apple it's hard for them to care too much...

[inthemix69]

... And 'Live Mode' ?

[Atlas007]

... And 'Live Mode' ?

Live mode in Logic usually refer to a special "software awareness" state that requires from the CPU extra resource.

For instance, that permits capture recording.

[triplets]

... And 'Live Mode' ?

 

When a software instrument track is selected and you see the red R, it means it's live waiting for midi signal, thus using CPU resources.

[inthemix69]

Triplets and Atlas ... Ahh, ok, that makes sense ...and thanks for clarifying.

[des99]

And it shifts all plugins on that channel (and all other channels in the signal path) onto one core for special higher priority and lower latency treatment...

[inthemix69]

...