So what is Logic 9's RAM ceiling?

[daveyboy]

Do we have a basic definitive answer or is dependent on people's individual setups? I know I don't get past 2 gbs, and I have 10 installed on my mac. Are there some known VI culprits that make Logic crash/shut down at an earlier ram usage amount?

[ski]

Overall footprint is still the same as before: 4G. I don't think there's any way to put an exact number on the ceiling, as the overhead required by different plugins is going to vary. I've seen reports (including yours) ranging from 2G to 3.5G. IMO, the number you're looking for is going to be specific to your system, or maybe more accurately, the specifics of any given project (i.e., which plugins you're using).

 

The ceiling will be increased (in a virtual sense) if you're using EXS-24 with disk streaming ("virtual memory") on. Other plugs, like Kontakt 3.5 will utilize RAM outside of Logic's footprint, etc. etc. etc.

[Freedom]

Do we have a basic definitive answer or is dependent on people's individual setups? I know I don't get past 2 gbs, and I have 10 installed on my mac. Are there some known VI culprits that make Logic crash/shut down at an earlier ram usage amount?

 

I did extensive testing and I found it's around 2.17 gigs of real RAM. (Not virtual RAM -- that doesn't matter).

 

The way to measure is to open Activity Monitor, and click on the "system Memory" tab. It shows you how much Real Memory and Virtual Memory Logic uses.

 

Add certain plugins and you'll see the memory it uses climb. The bigger the RAM hog the plugin is (like Omnisphere) the more Logic uses to run it.

 

You could have 50 plugins is they don't take much RAM, or only be able to run 2 plugins is they take a lot.

[daveyboy]

Do we have a basic definitive answer or is dependent on people's individual setups? I know I don't get past 2 gbs, and I have 10 installed on my mac. Are there some known VI culprits that make Logic crash/shut down at an earlier ram usage amount?

 

I did extensive testing and I found it's around 2.17 gigs of real RAM. (Not virtual RAM -- that doesn't matter).

 

The way to measure is to open Activity Monitor, and click on the "system Memory" tab. It shows you how much Real Memory and Virtual Memory Logic uses.

 

Add certain plugins and you'll see the memory it uses climb. The bigger the RAM hog the plugin is (like Omnisphere) the more Logic uses to run it.

 

You could have 50 plugins is they don't take much RAM, or only be able to run 2 plugins is they take a lot.

That sounds about right. I have the Activity Monitor open too but don't think I've ever seen it get up to 2 gigs of actual ram. I wonder why it's so low? I might start reverting back to L8 when it's time to mix.

[fattymatthews]

Can someone tell me what their activity monitor reads when they open logic pro and the standard 'produce' template.

 

As soon as i open mine, its sitting at about 400MB real ram and 1.3GB virtual. There is not a single plugin FX or synth loaded. I thought it seemed quiet high.

 

I just got Trilian and its maxing out the virtual RAM REALLY quickly, much more so than omnisphere does. Memory limitations blow.

 

Im using logic 8.0 10GB Ram, 10.5.8 OSX

 

I was playing with bidule some months back, has that come along at all?

[codedwire]

I just downloaded a demo of Vienna Ensemble Pro that can serve as a host for 32-bit and 64-bit VST/AU plug-ins. Just tried loading Trilian and BFD 2 in a 32-bit instance and Stylus RMS in a 64-bit instance (both instances within Logic) and my memory usage looks like this:

 

VE64: 432 MB Real / 395 MB Virtual

VE32: 1.87 GB Real / 1.27 GB Virtual

Logic: 304 MB Real / 310 MB Virtual

 

Got RMX set up as multi-timbral with multiple output channels routed back to Logic. Haven't played very long with it yet, but it looks very promising.

 

More product info can be found here:

http://vsl.co.at/en/65/71/1738/1356.vsl

[Ashermusic]

A guy on another forum explained this well;

 

"All software - whether an application or plugin - utilizes virtual memory. Generally speaking, software does not know about or care about the amount of RAM on the computer. Increasing or decreasing RAM will not affect the features or capabilites of an application.

 

Virtual memory is an imaginary block of memory that is 4 GB on 32-bit computers, and is nearly unlimited in size in 64-bit computers. Every application has its own block of virtual memory.

 

The operating system (OSX, Windows, Linux, etc) takes care of all the work to convert that virtual memory into the physical RAM on the computer. For example, an application can store and refer to 4 GB of data, even though the computer has 2 GB of RAM. Not only that, you can run six different applications at the same time, each of which has its own 4 GB of data it is utilizing, and they will all execute okay on just 2 GB of physical RAM.

 

The magic to make that happen is a "page file", which is a disk file that the operating system uses to move application data in and out of the physical RAM.

 

When an application reports "out of memory", it does not mean that the RAM is too small, instead it means that "I am hitting the 4 GB limit of my virtual memory". Adding RAM will not fix that. Closing other applications will not fix that. What will fix it? Here are a few solutions: (1) shift to a 64-bit computer and use a 64-bit application; (2) On Windows: use the "3 GB" option in your boot-up file; (3) use a "bridge" plugin such as J-Bridge or VE Pro (which effectively gives you two applications, with 4 GB each); (4) Try to reduce data usage by the application, for example, close unused plugins; for Trilian: make sure you have Streaming turned on on the System window; turn on "Lite" choice in the patch browser; reduce the Pre-Load knob on the System window; finally: Trilian and Omnisphere include a "Lite" option that will only load the minimal samples necessary to support the notes that are in the song your host is playing. Refer to the Reference Guide for details.

 

If virtual memory is so important, why bother installing more RAM? Because undersized RAM means that the operating system will have to frequently move lots of data in and out of the page file: lots of disk IO means slower execution speed and possible audio glitches.

 

Conversely, adding RAM will not eliminate the "out of memory" errors from hosts, but it will make things run faster and may prevent audio glitches.

 

If you have a 64-bit system, and a 64-bit host, and a 64-bit plugin, you will never see the host issue an "out of memory" error, because virtual memory is nearly unlimited. However, you will see performance problems if you load up lots of plugins and lots of data, and your RAM is under-sized."

[Larry Mal]

In other depressing news, I understand that Cubase will not be going to being a 64 bit application on the Mac platform until Cubase version 6. I know of no plans for any DAW to be 64 bits on the Mac OS anytime soon, except for possibly the Studio One (which may already be) or REAPER (same).

 

I've been feeling a little grumpy about this, it seems very much as though the 64 bit application revolution is passing this platform by. I saw a wonderful video from the Sonar people of them running some massive project stumble-free using Sonar 64 bit, Windows 7 64 bit, and wrapping all the 32 bit plug ins into itself in allotments of 4 GB's- that is, the 32 bit plug ins are allocated 4 GB's, when that is filled up, then they are allocated another 4 GB's. Sonar 64 is obviously not limited to any amount of RAM.

 

http://mixonline.com/video/mixtv/gear/cakewalk_sonar_85_session/

 

I posted this once before.

 

Anyway, I'm not saying that folks should panic and switch to Sonar (although it seems to be a great product in its own right), but I will say this: the world was already pretty well served with guitar amp simulators. That wasn't really what Logic users were crying out for that I am aware of.

 

I'll also say that those that are saying that 64 bit can't happen until all the third party vendors are on board are also incorrect, and Sonar and Cubase (on Windows) have found ways to do so.

 

I have heard ad nauseum how Apple is making the transition to 64 bit computing seamless, but it seems slow and painful at this point. Snow Leopard seems like more of the same at this point, I didn't notice any improvements, and whatever the GPU processing is adding is negligible. But now I have a 64 bit Chess application (which was actually 64 bit in Leopard as well).

 

And instead of mentioning when 64 bit pro application versions might appear, Apple clarifies exactly what they mean when you run out of memory, which is such a commonplace occurrence that it's genuinely necessary.

 

Anyway, I have to say that it seems like the real innovations are taking place on other platforms, and that a lot of what Windows users accuse Macs of being are in fact correct as it sits now, when professional applications are withering on the vine and Apple bloats with App Store royalties and iPhone sales.

[muziksculp]

IMHO, the lack of 64-bit DAWs on the Mac side, has helped PCs become more popular, since they have been able to develop 64-bit DAWs on the PC platform for quite some time now, while Mac OS users, are still dreaming, and waiting eagerly for a single 64-bit DAW to emerge, and I would even go as far as saying that I am not optimistic that LP9 will be the first, my bet is on the new Presonus Studio One Pro taking the lead in this area. (Keep an eye on Presonus Studio One Pro this coming WInter NAMM 2010) !

 

Macs have always been great computers for demanding, and creative people, who want quality, performance, stability, and a great OS. BUT, the lack of 64-bit support on OSX platform has provided the Windows platform a big advantage, and made it very popular, especially for the memory intensive sample libraries, especially orchestral libraries.

 

I would also love to see the new features in OSX-SL, such as GCD, and Open-CL, along side 64-bit support implemented in demanding applications, and DAWs in the near future, so far it seems like these features have been just fancy marketing tools, and nothing more, it's about time they become real useful tools that applications can take advantage of.

 

Hopefully we will begin to see all that change during Q1 of 2010.

[Larry Mal]

I mean, it'll happen sooner or later. But this sort of says to me that what folks are saying about Apple (no longer Computer) is correct, that they are more concerned with being a multimedia family oriented entertainment hub than professionally designed machines.

 

What I don't understand is what the roadblock is with the apps themselves- why haven't Digital Performer for instance developed a 64 bit version and tried to gain some market share there? Logic, we can forget about- they're under the aegis of Apple and are thus immune from market forces and will develop when they see fit. But why haven't MOTU or Cubase grabbed for the ring here? I mean, consider what happens when Pro Tools goes 64 bit, which will likely happen before Logic (after all, that's all Digidesign does, they have nothing to lose). Why would there be any reason to stick with Logic's not infrequent lack of memory messages when trying to do a larger mix? Why not go with the industry standard, with all its advantages, then stick with a lesser program? The guitar amp sims? I tell you this, I'll go to whatever DAW offers the most performance and stability- I never fell in love and married any of them to have to stick through "better or worse". I just want better.

 

Either there is some holdup with going to 64 bits on the Mac platform or there is just not enough market share to be worth it compared to the Windows platform.

 

Neither of these bodes well for those of us who have sank our time and money into Apple. If the problem is with Snow Leopard, then Apple's policy of refining their OS more frequently does not seem to be to the benefit of professional app users, if it means it's a harder platform to develop for. Alternatively, if there is some reason that it is easier to develop for the Windows platform still, despite all the smugness of the failure of Vista, then professional apps are always going to lag with the Mac base. Think of water following the course of least resistance- why would a company not develop where it is easier to create for and a larger customer base?

 

If the case is that the market share is just not there to develop for, which you can see with Cubase, who found it a priority to come up with a 64 bit version for Windows first, then we are exactly where we were in 1996 or so, when the Windows platform held all the innovations since Mac was a dwindling prospect.

 

This has long been that case with games, but for a while it was looking like Mac was the choice for professional users. But if it's proving easier to develop for Windows, and there is still the larger customer base to reach out to, then that won't last. I think we can surmise at this point that Windows 7 is not a disaster, it seems to be going over pretty well. Anyway I don't see it causing a large exodus from the Windows platform like Apple has hoped.

 

Think to Final Cut Pro- for all intents and purposes, they only compete with Avid. Why they haven't found it necessary to make that be a 64 bit application in such a prestige area as motion pictures before Avid does, and try to grab a dominant position in that market, is pretty frightening. It says either the technology, the demand, or the will isn't there. None good alternatives to consider.

 

Again, when I consider these things, I can't help but think that the professional application market is not that important to Apple at the moment. And there's no reason it should be, it doesn't make money compared to iPods and is expensive to develop for. But if they can't make the effort, then someone else will, and if they are more innovative then the professional app market will follow them to whatever OS allows for better professional work.

[muziksculp]

Apple's switch from Carbon to Cocoa was the main reason we are at this poor state of affairs on Mac OSX as far as 64-bit support is concerned.

 

Apple and only Apple is to be blamed for this. Developers were moving forward in developing 64-bit Carbon based versions of their Applications, but the sudden switch to Cocoa halted their momentum, and wasted lots of invested development time, and money.

 

Let's hope they have learned a good lesson from their bad planning, and abrupt changes, that basically delayed development, and put the Mac platform behind PCs as far as 64-bit support is concerned.

[Larry Mal]

Right, right- I'd forgotten about that.

[mconnelly]

I other depressing news, I understand that Cubase will not be going to being a 64 bit application on the Mac platform until Cubase version 6.

 

Where did you hear that? Rumors or official announcement?

 

There IS a holdup going 64 bit, and that is converting the code from the old carbon to the new cocoa, which is necessary to go 64 bit and takes a ton of work. Cubase has announced that they have done it already, the current version is already cocoa, so I'd be surprised if it takes too long for them to make the switch since they've already done the hardest part. Supposedly Logic also has made that conversion, so I don't know what is the holdup for them.

 

I bet Pro Tools may be the one app that takes longer than Logic, they don't even have a 64 bit version on windows, do they? And while PT is a great app for audio, it still has lots of problems with running virtual instruments well - RTAS seems to be a poor format for that sort of thing.

 

Snow Leopard isn't the problem, and in general it's probably not necessarily a harder platform to develop for. The problem is simply that apple took an old family of code and made it obsolete, and it's going to take time for devs to replace all that old code. So with an app like cubase, they didn't make it a priority to do a 64 bit version on windows first, it was simply possible to do that sooner on windows, and possibly easier to make the switch on that side since there was less rewriting of code. But once that transition is made, I don't know that developing on the windows side is any easier.

 

The same thing applies to apps like Final Cut, apple has to rewrite all the code in all their apps just like the third parties have to. Maybe the pro apps aren't the priority they should be, but maybe apple is making them a priority but the task is just too big and is taking years despite their best efforts.

[Larry Mal]

It's how I interpreted it, but you can come to your own conclusion:

 

http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/musicproduction/cubase5_product/cubase5_newfeatures/cubase5_newfeatures_5.html

 

And yeah, maybe I'm getting a little emotional about it. I'm just annoyed with the advantages of 64 bit passing me by while Apple sorts out their act.

[mconnelly]

That could mean Cubase 6, could mean a 5.x update. Either way, the fact that they've gone cocoa already means it's much closer than if they haven't (which may be the case with DP and PT). I think they're much more likely to ship a 64 bit version first than anyone else, but that's just speculation on my part.

 

And I'm annoyed about it as well, as far as I'm concerned the whole situation is a black eye for mac development and completely undermines apple's 64 bit hype (for both users and developers). Apple wants people to believe that going 64 bit isn't hard, but it's hard to believe it when they can't get 64 bit versions of any of the apps they sell (or even iTunes).

[Larry Mal]

Yeah, it's just a DAW, but Logic 9 really could stand from being 64 bit, it's got a heavy footprint to say the least.

 

And I could understand MOTU or Steinberg being caught unawares, but how didn't Apple see this switch coming? Why aren't they ready with 64 bit software for the professional apps that could actually benefit from them? Mail doesn't need to be 64 bit. Why was that the priority?

 

The only answer is, they didn't care, and the fact that they are becoming less innovative in professional apps means that when detractors say they are more concerned with the iTunes and other consumer business, then they are correct.

 

Which is why, once I see clearly something better, I'll reward that by purchasing another company's product.

[mconnelly]

I don't think they were caught unawares as much as they aren't up to the sizeable task that is required (and a task that could have been avoided if not for a decision they made). Or that the Logic team didn't want to go 64 bit and stalled on doing it (if comments reportedly made by the devs are true). Mail and Logic are two separate teams, so it's not like they told all the Logic guys to stop work on Logic and work on Mail instead. Although they probably work on Garage Band, we'll see if that goes 64 before logic. I assume Mail got done first because it's way newer code and it's a way smaller app, meaning the job was way easier and quicker.

 

I think it's more likely that either the Logic team or the marketing guys decided that flex time and guitar sims would sell more copies than a 64 bit version. For now, that may be true, but as more and more users run out of memory, and as other apps go 64 bit and leave it behind, that will no longer be the case.

[muziksculp]

I'm very confident that Presonus 'Studio One Pro' will be the first true 64-bit DAW running on OSX-SL. Most likely they will announce this major development during Winter NAMM 2010.

 

I expect 'Studio One Pro' to mature pretty fast during 2010, it currently is missing many advanced features that competing DAWs have, but that's going to change pretty fast ! Watch out Steinberg, Apple, Ableton, and MOTU. Studio One Pro is here !

 

I think Steinberg will update Cubase 5 to 64-bit on Mac OSX-SL sometime during the first or second Quarter of 2010. I don't think they will make Cubase 5 users wait for Cubase 6, if they do, they are making a big mistake.

 

So far, not a single mention of 64-bit support for LP9 from Apple, and I'm not a bit surprised, since it is very clear that their priorities are NOT on developing 64-bit Pro applications, but rather more gadgets, that make them more $.

[Larry Mal]

Well, sure, I know that Mail is smaller and not done by the Logic team. I actually was wondering if Garage Band as shipping with Snow Leopard was 64 bit- I thought they all were, or I thought I'd heard that anyway.

 

Anyway, this is turning into a real bash Apple thread, but then again, they deserve it in my opinion. I was saying this before Snow Leopard or Logic 9 came out, that they need to do what Windows apparently did with 7, which is to streamline the performance and make a better, more stable product.

 

Rather than load up a bunch of new features, which brings me to the guitar amps and time stretching. But then again, that's what folks were most complaining about, so you can say that the Logic team gave us what we wanted.

 

A 32 bit CPU hog that chronically displays that it's out of memory. But at least I have my seventh guitar amp sim package.

[muziksculp]

The Flex audio editing features in LP9 were being requested by many LP8 users, since audio editing features in LP8, and previous versions, were way behind the competition. That's one thing the LP9 team delivered, and I have to say, they did a great job ! But... they are still missing flexible pitch editing, i.e. similar to Cubase 5's Variaudio feature for editing monophonic pitch.

 

Guitar Amps on the other hand, were NOT as far as my memory serves me, one of the most requested features LP8 users were asking for. I wonder what motivated them to go in that direction. Although it's still cool to have, but I would have much preferred them to have put their energy into a 64-bit version release of LP9. Which would have made a lot more sense, given its importance, and the fact that we are so far behind in this area, Guitar Amps can be easily acquired via third party developers, 64-bit LP9 support can't.

[mconnelly]

Garage Band doesn't ship with OSX, the iLife package is sold separately and based on past timing, probably will get updated next fall. It will be interesting to see if any or all of the apps (also including iPhoto, iWeb, and iMovie) are updated to 64 bit.

 

I absolutely agree that Apple should do for Logic what they did with the OS, focus on optimization and stability until they are acceptable before going back to adding new features. Although I have to admit that the new time stretch is a great improvement and was sorely needed to catch up a bit with most other audio apps. Now they just need to tackle pitch (and a number of other things), but I'd still rather see a stable 64 bit version first.

 

The guitar sims are nice, but I have to agree that nobody was asking for them, and there were already plenty of third party options.

 

muziksculp, what makes you think that Studio Pro will go 64 bit soon? Have you read things hinting at that, or just your gut feeling?

[muziksculp]

@ mconelly,

 

I sent you a PM. regarding your question about Studio One Pro.