Additional Computers as Soft Synth running in Sync

[Jackie The Shepherd]

Network of Computers

In a bid to spread my music across multiple computers, I have designated a Master computer running Presonus Studio One Plus based on a Presonus Studio 1824c and a Behringer ADA8200 ADAT Pre. I plan to use this machine for recording and mixing, and may be some hardware synths but definitely not for soft synths.

Three other machines, designated as Slaves 1, 2 and 3 are planned to run soft synths and perhaps a few hardware synths, broadly in the following configuration:

Slave 1: Presonus Studio One Plus (I am allowed to run on two machines using one licence) based on a Behringer UMC 1820 and a Behringer ADA8000 ADAT Pre. The primary software shall be NI Kontakt Komplete 14 Standard (for now). Besides Komplete 14, the Presonus Studio One Plus subscription offers a plethora of soft synths.

Both, the Master and the Slave 1 are powerful computers running Windows 10 Pro.

Slaves 2 and 3 shall be running legacy hardware and software products as below:

Slave 2: E-MU 1212M card + Sync Daughtercard (WC+ADAT+SPDIF+SMPTE+...) + optional breakout box 1616M connected by EDI cable in case I need (in which case the 0202 card goes). This will run Emulator X3, besides some old gen soft synths and samplers. I plan to also run an old Reason 3.5 licence on this. The primary DAW shall be Reaper.

Slave 3: ESI Wami Rack 192X with breakout box, running Proteus X2 soft synth (not hardware dependent, to run as standalone)

Each PC is connected to its own dedicated MIDI Interface. Morever, I have also in stock with me, the MOTU Digital Time Piece, ART Syncgen, DOREMidi MTC-20, MOTU Pocket Express, Hosa CDL313 and a few digital signal converters.

I have quite a few hardware synths as well, but am yet to make up my mind as to which computer to connect them to.

Independently, the PCs have been seen to run properly, with only slight glitches.

But now I have to connect them up so that the three Slave machines acting as synth modules, sync up to the Master so all three can record in sync into the Master DAW. I have done some reading on this subject, but haven't really found any concrete steps to follow so that I can successfully connect up and start making music.

I have therefore come with great hope that someone could possibly lead me to such a stepwise "handholding" exercise, to help get setup.

Any links or references of writeups / books / papers / real world similar setups etc. would help.

Thanks
Sumit

[The Elf]

I can only speak for myself in that, having travelled this path, it was more trouble than it was worth. One decent computer can handle so much these days that juggling multiple computers isn't necessary, and it isn't worth the hassle.

Just thinking about sorting out the latency between multiple computers makes me break out in a sweat...

[Jackie The Shepherd]

I do get it. But will latency will still be a problem if MOTU DTP is for word clocking?

[Luke W]

I'm with The Elf, to an extent! I wouldn't be trying to run multiple DAWs and interfaces across all the machines, and I dare say that the reason you haven't found any comprehensive guides on how to do so is because it's an absolute pain that relies on lots of workarounds and general jiggery-pokery.

That said, I'm running a Mac and PC alongside each other at the studio, and am very happy with it. I'm doing it with VSL's Vienna Ensemble Pro, which allows everything to be sequenced from the DAW on the main machine, and requires nothing but a Cat 5 cable to connect the two together. Once all the routing is set up and saved it's wonderfully simple.

If I were in your position, I think I'd keep all hardware connected to a suitable interface on the first computer, which would make getting the other (software-only) ones synced up easier. The struggle will probably be in getting the older stuff to play nicely alongside newer machines/operating systems, which I suppose is your reason for wanting to run multiple DAWs... My (potentially unhelpful) solution to that would be to consider how much of it I really couldn't find a suitable modern alternative for!

[The Elf]

I do get it. But will latency will still be a problem if MOTU DTP is for word clocking?

It's not just the clocking. Let's say computer-A sends a MIDI note out, and computer-B is hosting the synth. When are you going to hear the note from computer-B back at computer-A? How are you going to render synth audio?

I'm running a Mac and PC alongside each other at the studio, and am very happy with it. I'm doing it with VSL's Vienna Ensemble Pro...

This is the way I used to do it (and would again, if I absolutely needed to). One network cable, no multiple audio interfaces to muck around with, and the software takes care of all the nasty sync/latency, etc. It works, but... it's still a bit of a faff, and always used to play up when time was most critical.

I'm not going to tell anyone not to try, as I did it myself, but I wouldn't try again. Make of that what you will.

[James Perrett]

Reaper used to have ReaMote but that has now been removed so it looks like Vienna Ensemble Pro is probably the neatest way to do this currently. I certainly wouldn't want to go faffing around with Midi and ancient audio interfaces on separate machines.

[merlyn]

I've had audio going over a network using Linux, and the latency was negligible -- 4 samples i.e. nothing.

The first problem I solved was how to control the 'slave' machines, which I would call servers, or remote machines. I used VNC, so I could have the remote machine's desktops on my main machine, which means a monitor, mouse and keyboard is not required for each remote machine.

There is Audiogridder https://audiogridder.com/ which has two parts -- a server installed on the remote machine, and a plugin for the main machine.

[James Perrett]

There is Audiogridder https://audiogridder.com/ which has two parts -- a server installed on the remote machine, and a plugin for the main machine.

That looks very neat.

[OneWorld]

Get that lot set up and you deserve a gong. It'd be easier to put a lander on Mars I'm sure.

Back in the day when multi-tasking was all the rage, when in fact it wasn't true multi-tasking but very fast task switching, giving a seamless swap from one app to another. The really preferred option was true parallel processing but hardware was prohibitively expensive.

Would it be the case nowadays that a computer with say 4 processors would run as 4 discrete computers in the same box? I guess when we all have a computer capable of quantum computing on our desktop then yes. That said I seem to under the mpression that today's OSs can arrange things such as the DAW would be dealt with by one processor, VSTs another? and so on. But I seem to think that is already done, where the user can opt to devote one physical CPU to everything the DAW uses and farms out discrete operatons, say VSTs to another?

If thatv be the case, would you really need separate physical computers? Though not unheard of course.

I wouold be just frit of a Microsoft update coming along and upsetting the lot. Win 10 seems to have matured now and got out of its growing pains, but a WIndows update each week on several machines. I have read the runes and they tell me we'll be hearing from you again and again, and again - nothing wrong with that of course

[Luke W]

There is Audiogridder https://audiogridder.com/ which has two parts -- a server installed on the remote machine, and a plugin for the main machine.

That looks very neat.

I knew there was another option floating around my brain somewhere... Good call.

There are certainly good arguments for just having a single machine, especially considering the power that's on offer these days. But I have to say that the main + server approach is working brilliantly for me, it's made running large sample libraries much slicker. The more I do with it, the more I feel I'd miss it.

[Folderol]

I think that sort of thing is only going to be viable with something like Dante, AVB etc. as the backend.

[resistorman]

I think that sort of thing is only going to be viable with something like Dante, AVB etc. as the backend.

^^^
My thought too. Sounds like an interesting experiment but not that useful.

[ajay_m]

The only way I can see this making sense is if the slave machines were just treated as hardware synths IE they respond to midi and send audio back to a multichannel audio interface on the master.
There is some latency but that can be compensated for on the master I would think.
Changing patches on the slaves is challenging since afaik kontakt doesn't support midi patch change so as "soft synths" there are some challenges to be overcome but possibly not insurmountable. But as syncd recorders.... Cripes, just getting midi sync working for slaved devices from master sequencers can be a right challenge.

[RichardT]

This sounds like a recipe for losing your hair. A host and multiple slaves are going to cause all sorts of problems.

If you possibly can, get a single machine fast enough to run everything. Refurbed machines a few years old will be fine if you don’t want a new one.

[Jackie The Shepherd]

The only way I can see this making sense is if the slave machines were just treated as hardware synths IE they respond to midi and send audio back to a multichannel audio interface on the master.
There is some latency but that can be compensated for on the master I would think.

That’s exactly what I intend doing. Slaves as hardware synths. Or did I say soft synths in my OP? Anyway that’s the idea.

I got an idea from a post on MOTUNATION regarding transport sync between two instances of DP. They mentioned doing it simple - Master sends MIDI time code (or may be MMC is the right term for transport control) to Slave. Here’s the post, but the second para is intriguing to me - didn’t understand the point re external audio interfaces requiring clock lock:

“There's a simple answer to this question. One computer is the master. The second is the slave. The master sends MTC. The slave receives MTC all you need is a MIDI interface on each computer and one MIDI cable. You can mess with MIDI over network but I absolutely prefer a hardware solution.

If both computers are using external audio interfaces I would also recommend having a unified clock signal. The master computer is now both time code and clock master. Connect a BNC, S/PDIF, or AES cable between the two audio systems and set the slave computer to also slave to that external clock.

Once the second machine is set up to slave to MTC, you press play on that machine. The Play button blinks while waiting for sync. Press play on the master and MTC is sent to the slave. The slave rolls. Go to any sequence position on the master and when you press play the slave will follow and chase.

If you want to record on the slave machine, set an auto-punch point. Press record. The slave waits for sync. When it gets to the punch point it goes into record.

If you want to use an external controller for transport, have it send it's commands to the master DP. The slave will still do it's thing and chase.”

[adrian_k]

No the original post was pretty clear, master PC doing the recording, slave PCs as ‘instruments’, possibly some hardware synths.

Re the clocking question, if you are able to provide digital output from your slave
PCs, and can input digital to the master PC audio interface, then they will all need to be synchronised to a master clock.

If you are sending the master PC analogue signals from the slaves then you wouldn’t need to worry about clocking any more than you would with the analogue output of a hardware synth.

If you’ve got all the kit why not give it a go and see what problems you hit?

[Jackie The Shepherd]

sorry had to delete. will revert

[Jackie The Shepherd]

If you are sending the master PC analogue signals from the slaves then you wouldn’t need to worry about clocking any more than you would with the analogue output of a hardware synth.

Kept thinking about this a while. Say I have two audio interfaces one each on two PCs, and I want the outputs of both PCs to pass through my analogue mixing console, so that all signals from the console (coming from 2 PCs) go into the first PC through stages of sub-mixing / sub-groups.

If I am sending analogue signals from slaves to master this way, and I want the transports to play in sync, would I not need some kind of clock to tie them up together?

[James Perrett]

If I am sending analogue signals from slaves to master this way, and I want the transports to play in sync, would I not need some kind of clock to tie them up together?

If you just treat the slaves as stand-alone synths all you need to do is to send Midi note information to them from the master computer. If you are using sequences on the slave computers then you just need to send Midi clock or Midi Timecode over the same Midi link.

[adrian_k]

If I am sending analogue signals from slaves to master this way, and I want the transports to play in sync, would I not need some kind of clock to tie them up together?

If you just treat the slaves as stand-alone synths all you need to do is to send Midi note information to them from the master computer. If you are using sequences on the slave computers then you just need to send Midi clock or Midi Timecode over the same Midi link.

This ^^^^

I'm not sure how you will allow for any system latency/latencies in the first case (midi note received by slave(s) to filling digital buffers, converting then transmitting audio signals). In the second case you'll need a way to make sure that play/pause/stop/rewind works coherently across all computers (and other external sequencers?). At this point you are way beyond my pay grade! Reading earlier posts in this thread it seems that more capable people than me have tried and felt it wasn't worth the effort.

But I'm a great believer in plugging things in and seeing what happens (prototyping), until then it's guesswork as to exactly what the problems will be. No doubt you will learn something along the way.

[OneWorld]

If I am sending analogue signals from slaves to master this way, and I want the transports to play in sync, would I not need some kind of clock to tie them up together?

If you just treat the slaves as stand-alone synths all you need to do is to send Midi note information to them from the master computer. If you are using sequences on the slave computers then you just need to send Midi clock or Midi Timecode over the same Midi link.

This ^^^^

I'm not sure how you will allow for any system latency/latencies in the first case (midi note received by slave(s) to filling digital buffers, converting then transmitting audio signals). In the second case you'll need a way to make sure that play/pause/stop/rewind works coherently across all computers (and other external sequencers?). At this point you are way beyond my pay grade! Reading earlier posts in this thread it seems that more capable people than me have tried and felt it wasn't worth the effort.

But I'm a great believer in plugging things in and seeing what happens (prototyping), until then it's guesswork as to exactly what the problems will be. No doubt you will learn something along the way.

That's possibly the best way of approaching the issue, after all, we all love a good tinker abouot with things and yes such methods are great learning opportunity, finding out how the whole thing hangs together