• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Topic: Omnishpere-Multiple Instances vs. Single instance/multitimbral?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Omnishpere-Multiple Instances vs. Single instance/multitimbral?

    I've got a couple weeks to redesign my template before starting my next job and I had a quick question for anyone that could shed some insight...

    I have 12 Omnishpere patches that are part of my general template and am wondering if I should use 2 instances of Omnishpere or use 1 instance for each patch.
    I believe that for Kontakt and Play, they both recommend 1 instance for each patch for best performance. Just wondering if that was true for Omni as well, or if it's synthesis engine would start sucking a lot of CPU if replicated a bunch of times. (I'm assuming the same answer would apply to Trillian as well)

    Anyone have some data on this? Any recommendation from Spectrasonics?
    Thanks!!

    System:
    2009 Mac Pro 2.9 GHz with 12GB RAM
    Snow Leopard
    DP 7.01 running at 128 buffer
    VEPro VI hosting software.

  2. #2

    Re: Omnishpere-Multiple Instances vs. Single instance/multitimbral?

    on a muticore system a plugin usually can only run on a single core.
    There is no way to spillover so to speak.
    That means that you could hit the ceiling with 8 parts in one instance but the same song would run fine if you had 2 instances with 4 parts each.
    Because the Mac will distribute the two instances to two cores instead of one.
    In my template i use 4 instances of Omnisphere.
    Pad, Lead, Arp, FX
    Depending on the song i might use several parts in the pad instance and Lead instance to create a superfat stacked pad sound or lead and i will use several arp parts in the Arp instance but each with its own midichannel.
    Same for FX.
    I am on an 8core and this setup allows me to use 4 cores for Omnisphere and the rest for VSL, Trilian, RMX and NI.
    Works like a charme!

  3. #3

    Re: Omnishpere-Multiple Instances vs. Single instance/multitimbral?

    Thanks for the input. It's always interesting to see how someone else is doing it. What I'm wondering is since each plugin instance is spread to a different core, would there be a downside to opening a separate Omni instance for every patch I want to use? It seems that would be the most even way of spreading the load.

    Thoughts?

  4. #4

    Re: Omnishpere-Multiple Instances vs. Single instance/multitimbral?

    true
    if you wanna use 8 supercomplex patches with a maximum of voices
    opening up 8 instances will distribute the load better over your 8 cores than using the same 8 patches in one instance.

  5. #5

    Re: Omnishpere-Multiple Instances vs. Single instance/multitimbral?

    Quote Originally Posted by magnumpraw View Post
    Thanks for the input. It's always interesting to see how someone else is doing it. What I'm wondering is since each plugin instance is spread to a different core, would there be a downside to opening a separate Omni instance for every patch I want to use? It seems that would be the most even way of spreading the load.

    Thoughts?
    Not a good idea on any 32-bit systems, because then you are duplicating the memory footprint 8 times, which will eat up a lot of RAM unnecessarily.

    Hans approach of 2 Omnisphere's and spreading the parts is the best way to go all-around in a multi-core 32-bit system.

  6. #6

    Re: Omnishpere-Multiple Instances vs. Single instance/multitimbral?

    Of course Eric is right about the RAM issue on 32 bit systems but since you are using Snow Leopard and VE pro you could simply open all these extra instances in VE pro in 64 bit and you never have to worry about RAM and still enjoy the maximum Core usage.
    My workflow has improved a lot ever since i went that route.

  7. #7

    Re: Omnishpere-Multiple Instances vs. Single instance/multitimbral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hans Scheffler View Post
    Of course Eric is right about the RAM issue on 32 bit systems but since you are using Snow Leopard and VE pro you could simply open all these extra instances in VE pro in 64 bit and you never have to worry about RAM and still enjoy the maximum Core usage.
    My workflow has improved a lot ever since i went that route.
    AFAIK Omnisphere and Trillian are not yet 64 bit on a Mac, only Stylus RMX, so they can not (yet) be loaded in the VE Pro 64 bit server.
    Composer, Logic Certified Trainer, Level 2,
    author of "Going Pro with Logic Pro 9."

    www.jayasher.com

  8. #8

    Re: Omnishpere-Multiple Instances vs. Single instance/multitimbral?

    true for now but he can still access 4 GB more ram than with just Logic.
    Thats the system i am using and i have yet to hit the ceiling with that.

  9. #9

    Re: Omnishpere-Multiple Instances vs. Single instance/multitimbral?

    I've got one instance of Trillian with one patch and one instance of Omnisphere fully loaded and I'm getting memory error messages.
    Mac Pro 8 core, 10G RAM in Ableton Live 8.09. Everything tweaked according to the online Spectrasonics FAQ.

    I'm still baffled as to why Eric et al haven't focused their efforts in reducing the memory footprint of their instruments. Simply instantiating an empty Omnisphere uses up more RAM than several other VST instruments I use put together.

    Using single instruments would make my life much easier with Omni (loading them into Kore, not having to back and forth with which track is simply MIDI, which ahs the VST loaded etc).

    It's a shame that Spectrasonic's attitude seems to be "that's just the way it is."

  10. #10

    Re: Omnishpere-Multiple Instances vs. Single instance/multitimbral?

    AFAIK Live can only use about 3 GB of RAM.
    If you want to use more RAM you need to use something like VSL Ensemble Pro.
    I can really recommend that. Totally transparent and painless.

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •