Processing slowness

Dorico
1

I have an M1 Mac Mini with 16gb RAM, running Dorico 4.3.2 on OS 12.6 Monterey. It’s pretty capable of a lot, but Dorico is by far the most processor-intensive app I’ve used—way more than Logic Pro with a hundred or more tracks, tons of virtual instruments, all kinds of Space Designers, etc. I know the efficiency of software is some kind of combination of processing, RAM, how they interact, speed of the hard drive, graphics, etc., but I don’t know exactly how Dorico requires those resources.

I’ve been working on a large score: 18 flows, full orchestra (about 45 players/instruments, and a handful of doubles on top of those). I don’t know the total measure count, but I’m guessing it’s around 3000 measures total. I have the playback template silenced, and the file size is about 25mb. Condensing is on. I worked on each flow in a separate file until it was time to unify style and layout the full score in order.

Making any changes to the score is INCREDIBLY slow. Inserting a note here or there in write mode isn’t too bad, and since I don’t need to really add many notes at this point I can wait a second or so for it to appear. Grouping, linking, ungrouping, and unlinking dynamics, which has to be done a LOT to get things aligned properly, takes a little longer.

But when it comes to almost anything else, it takes forever. For example, adding a new playing technique (not assigning it but just defining it for the list, or editing an existing technique) takes nearly a minute to process, sometimes longer. I had to add a new flow at the end of the project to create a percussion map to use as an incipit on a front page. Just adding the flow took nearly 5 minutes to process—during which time of course I cannot do anything else in Dorico. Removing a player from a flow by unchecking the box in Setup mode takes two-three minutes.

What I would like to know is this: what kind of Mac system would I need to improve this situation? I don’t think it has anything to do with RAM. But will an M2 Mac of some kind really, really, improve performance?

2

Firstly, check Activity Monitor to see what’s going on.

It’s possible that your VST plug-ins may have an effect, because every time you make a change, you get an audition sound. You may want to see if the Silence Playback template is any faster.

It’s certainly true that score size is a factor, but it shouldn’t be THAT slow. Something is ‘not optimal’ if it’s taking over a minute to create a PT.

However, Dorico is doing lots of computationally expensive things – Condensing being much more complex than anything Logic does.

A better Mac might not actually help you out, if your Mac isn’t being maxed out already.

3

I will check, thanks, but I’m already in silent mode.

4

I have a brand new M2 Mac Studio Ultra with 128 GB of RAM, and I’m also having frustratingly sporadic slowness which I’ve been trying to get help solving from Daniel and co. but so far no dice. It just suddenly introduces long pauses between when I try and do something and when it finally happens - entering text, page forward and back, entering chord symbols, entering system breaks. Very frustrating.

  • D.D.
5

The only editing you should be doing with condensing mode on is engraving.

If you need to actually edit musical data, switch back to galley view, so that dorico isn’t trying to recalculate the layout with every change.

1 Like
6

Any of the edits I’ve been doing are always in galley view, FWIW. It’s still very slow.

7

Here’s what my activity monitor looks like when I create a new playing technique:

Screen Shot 2023-08-13 at 7.01.59 AM
Screen Shot 2023-08-13 at 7.01.59 AM1052×373 54.8 KB

After about 20 seconds, I see “Dorico (not responding)” for several seconds, and then it finally completes the task.

8

Perhaps you can privately share the file with one of us, or the team, and we can see if it behaves the same on our system. I have a 16gb M1 mini, and there are many others with similar machines. A few of us (and the team, certainly) could also test if there’s a difference between performance in V4.3 vs. 5. With every iteration, there are lots of background bugs that are quashed and other processes are streamlined, so perhaps you might have better luck with the newer version of the software (even if this is not an ideal answer).

(as an aside: looks like you might want to kill the chrome helper… 24%+18% for background processes… yikes!)

1 Like
9

Chrome is such a resource hog in general it is banned from my house - and all those background processes it makes!

1 Like
10

Thanks guys. I would prefer not to use Chrome at all, but the institution where I teach uses Canvas as its LMS and it only works reliably on Chrome. If I close Chrome, I have to login constantly with two-factor authentication and . . . ugh, I wish it weren’t so. On top of that, this very forum will no longer run on the version of Safari I use.

11

In your Dorico user folder (not sure where that is on Mac) there should be a series of files named application.log, application.1.log, application.2.log, etc. After an extended delay, open the application.log file, look at what caused the delay and what the processing time was. You’ll see entries like this:

log
log1317×49 9.56 KB

What sort of delays (in milliseconds) are you getting with which commands?

12

Any reason you’re not on Ventura? Similarly, there are some performance improvements with Dorico v5.

Are things any better with Condensing OFF?

A faster CPU will only improve matters by the difference in single-core speed. Some tasks in Dorico have to be performed sequentially, so they can’t be split over multiple cores.

13

Only because I am afraid something will stop working. I’ve had the unfortunate experience in the past of updating the OS only to find out some plugin in Logic no longer operates.

Here’s what I found in the application.log file:

2023-08-13 07:00:46.703 [info] Posting command (requested): Engrave.EditPlayTechniqueAppearanceStyles PlayingTechniqueCategory=kBrass, Set=true, Post=true
2023-08-13 07:00:46.704 [info] Executing command: Engrave.EditPlayTechniqueAppearanceStyles?PlayingTechniqueCategory=kBrass&Set=true
2023-08-13 07:01:29.378 [info] ping response received: from silk service
2023-08-13 07:02:14.755 [info] ping response received: from silk service
2023-08-13 07:02:15.832 [info] ========== Activate Document changed 3 → 3
2023-08-13 07:02:20.989 [info] ========== Activate Document changed 3 → 3
2023-08-13 07:03:00.151 [info] ping response received: from silk service
2023-08-13 07:03:06.736 [info] notifyPostCommandExecute: Engrave.EditPlayTechniqueAppearanceStyles?PlayingTechniqueCategory=kBrass&Set=true (140035 ms)

You can see the part I emphasized. :melting_face:

Here’s another fun one:

2023-08-11 06:48:07.180 [info] notifyPostCommandExecute: Project.Flow.New (275152 ms)

And just to clarify, I am not in the adding-notes stage once I’ve turned on condensing. However, during the editing process it is inevitable that I find something here or there that needs fixing. At that point, I may have to add or change a note, accidental, etc.

This is where I need a :jumpoffbuilding: emoji

1 Like
14

Yikes!!! Those are some really slow times!

2 Likes
15

Kill me.

1 Like
16

It’s still worth seeing whether you do get much improved times with Condensing off. If nothing else, it identifies the culprit.

17

Here are the results. First, the time it takes to turn condensing off, then the time it takes to add a new flow:

2023-08-13 11:20:45.901 [info] notifyPostCommandExecute: Edit.ToggleLayoutCondensing?Set=false (64254 ms)
2023-08-13 11:20:46.542 [info] UI Delay 3.0s
2023-08-13 11:21:01.332 [info] Posting command (requested): Window.SwitchMode WindowMode=kSetupMode, Post=true
2023-08-13 11:21:01.333 [info] Executing command: Window.SwitchMode?WindowMode=kSetupMode
2023-08-13 11:21:01.510 [info] notifyPostCommandExecute: Window.SwitchMode?WindowMode=kSetupMode (177 ms)
2023-08-13 11:21:07.938 [info] Executing command: Project.Flow.New
2023-08-13 11:21:08.168 [info] Sync video soundtrack with engine
2023-08-13 11:21:29.800 [info] ping response received: from silk service
2023-08-13 11:22:15.169 [info] ping response received: from silk service
2023-08-13 11:23:00.514 [info] ping response received: from silk service
2023-08-13 11:23:20.999 [info] Posting command (force): File.AutoSave Post=true
2023-08-13 11:23:22.041 [info] Applying playback template playbacktemplate.silence, (incremental)
2023-08-13 11:23:39.044 [info] Syncing Audio Engine
2023-08-13 11:23:40.667 [info] notifyPostCommandExecute: Project.Flow.New (152735 ms)

I guess I can’t say there isn’t some improvement, but it’s still terrible. Plus, I would hate to find out how long it would take to turn condensing back ON.

18

Woah. I’d recommend sending your document to one of the team. They may be able to identify some problem with the file, or something they can fix in the app itself.

2 Likes
19

OK. I’ve sent files to @dspreadbury before, so I hope he won’t mind my preemptively sending him this one.

20

They say an ounce of testing is worth a ton of opinion. Especially mine :slight_smile: Romanos had a great idea IMO. about sharing the project to be confident in the facts for your situation. .

I will say that 3000m x 45+ instruments sounds like a very pro project to me, and Apple does not consider the mini as being their pro line. Congratulations on having premium professional computer requirements. :frowning:

I love macs. But the same physics that may have you driving a minivan can still come into play. More work = more power = more heat. Those are the sort of things that separate what a cpu CAN do versus what it WILL do consistently especially in those base versus boost cpu numbers. Under load my pc runs at the highest cpu speeds full time rather in microsecond bursts - but it’s got a cpu cooling tower about twice as big as the entire Mac Studio. Ditto the power supply.

I saw you at 330% cpu or so - you have 8 cores right? So not using about half of them? Having 4 performance and 4 efficiency cores in the mini- I’m guessing but I’d be willing to bet that the overall mini design isn’t robust enough to power all 8 as hard as you need.

The M2 studio ultra sounds great. The M2 ultra has 16 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores - yet it has a maximum of 370 watts of continuous power. Versus 800 to 1000 watts or so in a pro pc. Cores or not, that limits the amount of work that can get done at once, including the need to drive all those ports, etc. I have to ask why they went so small with power, and I come back to their need for managing heat in a sleek form.

I really do love mac design. Yet I use Dorico on a custom pc. I also own a minivan.

3 Likes