Nuendo excessive memory consumption

Hello,
Referring to this post from the old forum,
http://forum.nuendo.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=23106&start=75
Timo noted that Steinberg are looking into the memory consumption issues with Nuendo 4/5 and large track counts. We have already lost two Nuendo seats to PT9 because the editors who do the content cuts and project prep on their MacBookPros can’t load the sessions.

This issue is not going away. Waiting for several things - MacOS 64bit version, more memory in laptops, and whatever else - will not fix the problem. The only times our sessions hit a large rackmount desktop with huge ram installed are during recording because we’re forced into it by Nuendo, and during final mix using PT HD. Many intermediate editing and production steps are done on laptops with 4G of ram and will stay that way for a while. As they upgrade their laptops track counts always increase and libraries always get bigger, so they will never be able to load a large Nuendo session. Remember - if the audio is in the pool, even as an unused library track, it contributes to memory consumption.

Someone from Steinberg please advise on your progress with this issue - it’s not going away and has already crippled two of our Nuendo seats. In addition as folks discover that PT9 is actually usable they won’t go back to Nuendo because of the ubiquity of PT in the US.

Sincerely,
Hugh Healy
Denali Video

Assuming there will be a response to the question I’d like to add the following for consideration:

My understanding is that the new video engine runs Quicktime, which doesn’t run 64bit natively - is that correct?

If so, surely the solution to the problem won’t be switching to 64-bit OS’, right?

No, wrong. The video engine uses a wrapper so that it works in the 64bit version of Nuendo.

DG

Ah. I thought there was an issue with the wrapper using a Windows 64 bit OS… I guess I was wrong then… Or perhaps it was Decklink related…

Yes, that is correct. Since Decklink workds with QT and/or has no wrapper for QT, external video through a Decklink card it doesn’t work.

Fredo

Hey Fredo,
Any comment on the original post in this thread??

Hopefully . .

So my question still stands for those who have been recommended to get the Decklink cards then, right? Because I recall many having been recommended to get these cards specifically to help with a professional solution to playing back video with good resolution and performance…

Looks like the “stay on topic” directive never made the transition…

The underlying coding which created the memory consumption issues affect everything from session length to cursor jitter during tracking. It is the most serious correction to resolve for the future of this application.

Hi Hugh,

have you read the statement from Thorsten Marx in the old forum?

I think the complete answer is appropriate here:

Hi,
the waveforms RAM consumption is the same as it was in Nuendo 4. The Nuendo 5 mixer consumes more memory, due to the new routing features.
We actually plan to evaluate ways to reduce the applications memory footprint. The resulting changes however can only be implemented in the next big update. It’s not possible to do these changes in a short term maintenance updates.

We recommend Windows 64 bit operating systems to users who work on very large projects because the application memory is not limited to 2GB by the OS. As a result, the application runs more stable when large projects are used.

Best regards,
Thorsten

Well then you understand my concern when it won’t work as a solution for all those that have a Decklink card, right? All of those people are basically stuck between a rock and a hard place: Swap hardware which opens the door for new conflicts, or swap software, which I’m guessing Steinberg would rather they don’t.

It’s just a bit weird when you claim that Steinberg spent weeks on tweaking support for old video cards (OpenGL 1.x) and then let the memory issue apparently take the back seat… At least that’s how it looks…

But while we’re on the topic: Seeing that Cubase 6 is likely to be announced soon, are we leapfrogging significantly again or can we expect a Nuendo 6 with this issue fixed then within a reasonable time frame?

We have 4 Win7_64bit systems in use, running Nuendo32bit with Decklink Studio cards. Works like a charm.
This allows you to use up to 4GB of memory, which is largely sufficient for the most demanding projects.

But yes, you need to “upgrade” your systems in order to take full advantage of the possibilities.
But know that Steinberg is not that much different than other companies. In order to run the latest ProTools, Photoshop, Premiere and many other applications, Win7 is the only choice you have.


Fredo

Hi,
the waveforms RAM consumption is the same as it was in Nuendo 4. The Nuendo 5 mixer consumes more memory, due to the new routing features.
We actually plan to evaluate ways to reduce the applications memory footprint. The resulting changes however can only be implemented in the next big update. It’s not possible to do these changes in a short term maintenance updates.

We recommend Windows 64 bit operating systems to users who work on > very large projects > because the application memory is not limited to 2GB by the OS. As a result, the application runs more stable when large projects are used.

Best regards,
Thorsten

In order to be clear - what’s your definition of a “very large project” ?

Cheers,
Bernard

That is relative, it depends on the nature of the project.
More specific how intensively you are using features which consume much memory.
You can bring down a single track N4or N5 project on XP down with a few instances of certain VSTI’s…
But at the same time, you can run many hundreds of tracks on that same machine without problem.

Look at it this way; Nuendo is a car without engine. The engine is your computer.
Want to drive faster or you want to carry more heavy loads, then you need a more performant engine.



Fredo

This was a FR on the previous forum as well, but might as well repost it.

I was wondering if we could get a project info dialogue that shows a number of things about the project, so that it is easier to troubleshoot problems.
It can sometimes be quite difficult on a session to figure out who or what the culprit is; is it excessive memory use on waveforms? Is it a memory leak in a plug-in or a particular memory hungry Vsti?
As an end user, it is practically impossible to figure out, other than looking at the task manager; but this only tells you how much Nuendo as a whole is using; no detail.

So a dialogue with something like this would be incredibly useful:
-memory used on waveform cache
-memory used on pool database
-vst plug in memory use, with perhaps a top 5 of plugs that use the most, with an unfolding view that can show it per plug-in used in the session
-the same for VSTi’s (this should be separate, as I’m sure there are a fair few people that never use them)
-memory used in total for all vsti/vsti’s loaded
-memory used on automation data
-memory used on midi data
-total memory for session
-total memory free in program (with a warning if you’re running low)

For example, I recently found out a plug-in I use often probably has a memory leak (db_glitch, though the new version might have fixed this). But on a Vsti heavy session with nearly a hundred plug-in instances of various types, it can be a lengthy process to troubleshoot.
A window with a breakdown like this will make it easier for both SB and the end user to troubleshoot problems.
In fact, it could stop people from posting issues that aren’t in fact bugs, but people running out of memory and not realizing it.

I kinda like the idea. We are using Logitec G15 keyboard which display the CPU and RAM consumption, so I see the advantage. That being said, XP is as dead as can be (and it should have been buried long time ago, if only Vista wasn’t that bad) and W7 will take over extremely fast. Which means, by the time this feature is build, RAM will become a non-issue. But I support the idea. Even when people are “forced” to W7, this doesn’t mean they will replace their old machines and/or they will add RAM to their machines.

Fredo



I wish you would spell it out using simpler language Fredo. So the following is correct then:

‘You can’t use 64-bit Nuendo 5.x on a Windows OS and use Decklink to play back external video.’

Right?

That is the political twist you want to give it, and it is not correct. It would be more correct to say:
Suppose QT releases a 64bit version for Windows tomorrow, then tomorrow you would have a working 64-bit Nuendo 5 version using a Decklink to play back external video.


Or better: You can’t play any QT movie on W7-64bit.

The solution for the moment is to use the 32-bit version of Nuendo 5 on the W7-64bit OS.

Fredo

So it’s been less than a week on the new forum and this is how you want to start it off? I just asked you to clarify what you were saying because it wasn’t particularly direct and clear. Is that too much to ask from a site admin?

If it is not correct it then means that:

‘You can use 64-bit Nuendo 5.x on a Windows OS and use Decklink to play back external video.’

Is the above true?

Talk about politics!!!

If there was a 64bit Windows QT release tomorrow, then tomorrow we’d “have a working 64-bit Nuendo 5 version using a Decklink to play back external video.”

I was, however, asking about today.

Huh?

You see why it’s confusing?

It seems the directive to upgrade systems in an attempt to extend the useability of Nuendo 4/5 due to the excessive RAM use is a copout. The cure is better coding, not insisting every user must upgrade their OS and computer system only to gain a degree of headroom.

The attitude that the coding can be inefficient because you can force users to compensate with continual hardware upgrades sets a very bad precedent.

We know this coding change implemented for Nuendo 4 under the guise of improved waveform display is now manifesting itself as numerous issues, not to mention that waveform display is not necessarily any better than Nuendo 3.
Decisions were made to increase horizontal zoom at the expense of vertical zoom and a 400% increase in RAM consumption and peak file size. It may not have mattered much in 2006 due to CPU speeds being the major limiting factor to project capability, but it matters a great deal today.

The bottom line is that the attitude and condition is now costing Steinberg customers.