# Templates



## José Herring (Dec 22, 2005)

Does anybody here use templates with the reverb and send and panning position of instruments already set?

If so tell me a little bit about the advantages and disavantages. Basically I'm looking for a way to have the basic orchestral instruments set up and ready to play so that I can just power up and go. Problem I'm having is that with so many articulations I'm afraid the boot up time will take more time than I'm willing to sit still for.

Jose


----------



## PaulR (Dec 23, 2005)

josejherring said:


> Does anybody here use templates with the reverb and send and panning position of instruments already set?
> 
> If so tell me a little bit about the advantages and disadvantages. Basically I'm looking for a way to have the basic orchestral instruments set up and ready to play so that I can just power up and go. Problem I'm having is that with so many articulations I'm afraid the boot up time will take more time than I'm willing to sit still for.
> 
> Jose



I personally don't - but I will do when I get another Mac - probably the Quad. Partly to do with the reason you say in terms of loading times, but mostly to do with ways of working. 
I never know what I'm going to use as panning or reverb any given point - it's all very hit and miss. Articulations are a bane AFAIC as you well know by now. Articulations are time consuming and a pain to me - others live by that way of realism and there's nothing wrong in that. Articulations are one of the sole reasons so many mock-ups do not connect with the listener maybe - iow, people may well spend far too much time messing around with articulations and not enough time on the actual music.

The problem of course then arises when (talking strictly orchestral here) one hears a mock-up that just doesn't even sound like a facsimile of an orchestra, even though the writing is great. So it's a difficult one to balance out.

Not much use to you there -hahah! But if you want the templates I think you want - you're going need several PC's or a couple of Macs I think. On Macs of course you can get Altiverb, which is lot more efficient these days in terms of cpu. And Alt 5 'places' instruments. Midi panning for orchestral working is probably s h i t e anyway.

The other method that everyone knows about is VSL's VI coming soon. In other words, stacking articulations within one track and the use of key-switching and mod wheel etc. And then later, presumably there will be MIR. And then by that time most of us will be broke anyway. :lol:


----------



## D.J. (Dec 23, 2005)

Hi Jose,
I'm not sure what your specific set up is like, but it sounds like you might benefit from more than one template. (Say, a mix temp, a full set, and various reduced temps, like strings, or ''chase'' from a cue you find practical...)You asked about the benefit of rev/pan set ups, but acknowledged that it's the samples that take so long to load.
Do you do your mix seperate from your orchestration? 

In my case, because it's the samples that take so long to load with larger templates,
I like to have the whole temp labeled, all tracks assigned and all panning and rev sends set up. But then I remove all the more esoteric or non essential samples. i.e. I empty those samplers. But the tracks are labeled so those articulations are very easy to find and load as needed.

Here's another idea:
http://www.beat-kaufmann.com/tipspcmusic/howtousevslaudio/index.html (http://www.beat-kaufmann.com/tipspcmusi ... index.html)

(BTW maybe this link could go with that tutorial archive V.I. started?)


----------



## José Herring (Dec 23, 2005)

It's a tough one.

Back in the hardware days I use to have all my samples setup and prepanned and each group assigned different stereo outputs in my hardware. Problem being that I never really did good mockups with that setup due to the fact that I had to use hardware mixers and reverbs and I never did get it all down. 

So now that everything is in software I'm a lot more comfortable and proficient and things of course have gotten a lot better.

As of now I just have a sequencer template so I still need to assign the sounds. At any rate because of the sheer massive size of the libraries these days templates become a difficult thing to plan.

Thanks for the help. If I make any progress I'll let you know.

Jose


----------



## jc5 (Dec 23, 2005)

I am a big template user - I create and save templates for every situation and 'flavour' (but ultimately have one 'main' one that I use for most major work). To me having everything already setup in a manner that I am familiar with (seeing as I use the templates again and again) is one of the biggest time savers and streamlines work. Having to setup my sounds and settings for every project from scratch is (for me!) a time waster, and one of the biggest drains on inspiration/creativity... It gets in the way of actually making music. After all, if one were working with pen and paper you would just write it down, no setup time required. :wink: 
In terms of _realistic orchestral simulation_, the orchestra is what it is - an instrument unto itself, that works in its own specific ways (immensely varied though those ways are!) - and the creativity must go into the music, not the sound setup. I am also an articulation maniac. I'm the one who uses every last sample in a set, and sees nothing as superfluous - and is always seeking more, MORE! :wink: 
With enough articulations and some clever combinations and tricks, I find that it is possible to get out the music in one's head and have it play back in a credible manner (for the most part). To keep all that material realistically manageable though, that is where the familiar templates come in. I don't find the load times to be a problem really... and in the end, if one is getting ready for a long day's work you turn things on once and carry on till night. The load time is perfect to go get some coffee. 8) 

My views based on how I work, of course! :wink:


----------



## D.J. (Dec 23, 2005)

jc5,
what's your pc set up like? And how many track do you typically run?

I agree about the necessity of using templates. In the working world i just don't know anyone who can afford not to and still meet deadlines.
Especially in series tv.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 23, 2005)

D.J. said:


> jc5,
> what's your pc set up like? And how many track do you typically run?
> 
> I agree about the necessity of using templates. In the working world i just don't know anyone who can afford not to and still meet deadlines.
> Especially in series tv.



That's what I'm running into. My typical turn around went from one month for a feature to 2 to 3 months. My God. I can't keep going in that direction especially as I get new stuff. Man, I don't even think a movie is worth working on for more than 1 month-- 6 weeks tops. But then again I don't want to spend 6 weeks as my Daw fires up either.

Jose


----------



## jc5 (Dec 23, 2005)

D.J. said:


> jc5,
> what's your pc set up like? And how many track do you typically run?
> 
> I agree about the necessity of using templates. In the working world i just don't know anyone who can afford not to and still meet deadlines.
> Especially in series tv.



I have a three system rig for the time being.
I find having one track per articulation extremely inefficient (and ultimately a mess... my vision of musical hell actually :lol: ), so I try to keep things on as few tracks as possible via patch changing. Typically between 20 and 50 (usually 40 since I generally just work from my main template - after all, why not? :wink: ). Within that there will be generally be well over 200 patches at work.
I also work from notation 95% of the time rather than a sequencer since for my workflow it is just much faster and more efficient that way. Just type it in, no multiple takes, no problems, and ready to print (if printing is needed). So my 40-50 tracks further reduce to 16-20 staves of music. Nice and clean.

I am currently waiting for the end of the 2gig ram limit to be able to take things to the next level... hopefully it will come soon!

I agree, with a deadline to meet it is best to have a well setup and familiar template to be able to just get on with it.
If I have to setup from scratch for a project with little time available, the compromises start to come fast and furious, and that generally leads to frustration and an unhappy work experience - and a lesser end product than would have been had with my full 'arsenal' available.


----------



## D.J. (Dec 23, 2005)

[/quote]But then again I don't want to spend 6 weeks as my Daw fires up either. 

LOL, 

Jose, Ever considered hiring someone? I mean it. 
For example: I read an interview and at the beginning of each season John Keane (CSI) has an engineer come in and 'calibrate' his studio for that season. All mix effects are in place, aux sends etc...
It's a buisness and getting the product done has to be streamlined at some point. It sounds like your in a growth period. A tech can help assess your work flow and even just suggest a possible setup. 
If hiring an engineer/tech once can help bring your turnaround time back down from 2-3 months closer to 6 weeks, then it pays for itself.

(I'm also saying this because I personally know lots of great engineer/tech friends that love to help me out with stuff like this......
In fact I'm surrounded by them! Montreal must have more audio engineering programs than ......well.......
snow......or... something there is a lot of......doh!)

I just don't know any composers :cry: )


----------



## D.J. (Dec 23, 2005)

jc5,
Very generous of you, and very helpful. Thanks.

You also nailed it when you mention the point 
at which the compromises start coming.

This patch change technique, is it something that I can use in 
Logic? Doesn't it take too long to re-load all those articulations
in real time? Or is this a Giga thing?

what am I not understanding?


----------



## jc5 (Dec 23, 2005)

D.J. said:


> jc5,
> Very generous of you, and very helpful. Thanks.
> 
> You also nailed it when you mention the point
> ...



No problem DJ, I hope this has been of help.  

When I first switched from my old and relatively simple synth based setup to a 'mega-samples' way of working, I put some hard thought into how I was going to get all these expanded sonic possibilities to work for me in a way that was coherent, efficient - and even _enjoyable_. Ironically in my case it simply meant expanding on what I had already been doing but using the new technologies. The key was to avoid having to compromise in ways that adversely affected both the composing experience and the final results of that work. Clearly to different people that will mean different things. :wink: 

Patch (or 'program', the term varies here and there) changing is part of the basic midi spec - I'm fairly sure Logic can send the signals (as most sequencers and notations programs can), though I don't know if EXS will respond to them (never used it really)?
That is the thing with soft-samplers - Giga responds to them like a charm(one of it's strengths in my opinion - and in that sense it is a 'giga thing', heh), but Kontakt (and all its minions) _do not_ - which is just such a huge flaw in my eyes.. :? and basically makes my style of workflow impossible as things stand.
Most old (and new) hardware synths or samplers accept patch/program changes as well, and so would your old $10 sound blaster. :lol:

The software and sample libs you use will in part determine which options in workflow you have to choose between.[/i]


----------



## D.J. (Dec 23, 2005)

That's what I thought.
I have exs and Kontakt and I've seen this function (patch change).
I've used it once.
But exs can't reload a bunch of samples on the fly fast enough.
I don't need to try it to know this. Just loading them one at a time is long enough. 
If the patch was only midi info( like on a synth), or used the same samples
then maybe. Even then it can be sluggish with the exs sampler.

I should tell you I'm using a very small system right now and only just starting to plan for the big mac G5 leap.

But there a few of the techniques you use that I'd love to 'see in action'.
I'm a visual type. It would be great to visit a studio and see how an artist actually runs all this together ...from sketch to score so to speak.

Thanks, you've provided a lot.


----------



## fv (Dec 23, 2005)

Hi jc5,



jc5 said:


> Patch (or 'program', the term varies here and there) changing is part of the basic midi spec - I'm fairly sure Logic can send the signals (as most sequencers and notations programs can), though I don't know if EXS will respond to them (never used it really)?
> That is the thing with soft-samplers - Giga responds to them like a charm(one of it's strengths in my opinion - and in that sense it is a 'giga thing', heh), but Kontakt (and all its minions) _do not_ - which is just such a huge flaw in my eyes.. :? and basically makes my style of workflow impossible as things stand.



Kontakt 2 does respond to program changes. It is a new feature. I have not used it much but you load the programs into an Instrument Bank and then they respond to program changes. Since the programs are already loaded, it responds much like program changes in GS. Don't know if you were talking about Kontakt 1.x or not but you are correct about that version.

HTH,
FV


----------



## José Herring (Dec 23, 2005)

D.J. said:


> Jose, Ever considered hiring someone? I mean it.
> For example: I read an interview and at the beginning of each season John Keane (CSI) has an engineer come in and 'calibrate' his studio for that season. All mix effects are in place, aux sends etc...
> It's a buisness and getting the product done has to be streamlined at some point. It sounds like your in a growth period. A tech can help assess your work flow and even just suggest a possible setup.
> If hiring an engineer/tech once can help bring your turnaround time back down from 2-3 months closer to 6 weeks, then it pays for itself.



It's a good idea. Unfortunately I'm not a John Keane's level of success so I'll probably have to learn to do it myself. But I could afford for somebody to come over for a day or two.

Thanks,

Jose


----------



## Scott Cairns (Dec 23, 2005)

Im looking to refine my template too. Currently it sits at around 150 tracks across 3 machines. Ive been thinking about loading more KS patches, perhaps some program changes would also help.

Im also working in notation more and more these days, right now, its a major PITA to try and distill masses of tracks down to a dozen or so staves.

Getting back to your initial question Jose, and I dont know if this helps, but I buss the sections of the orchestra into different subgroups. Some instruments like a solo f. horn have their own channel in the mixer too. From there I can apply individual treatment to a lead instrument or orchestral section. I also like to eq out some of the low mids for each section too, the end result is a lot cleaner and less "honky"

-Scott.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 23, 2005)

Yeah, I've been avoiding multi machines but it's looking like a necessity now. I've gotten spoiled on one machine but as the orchestration gets thick things max out fast. 

Time to upgrade my old system and use it as a good slave.

Jose


----------



## jc5 (Dec 23, 2005)

fv said:


> Hi jc5,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see.. interesting! Has this been a recent update that came after the initial release?
Yes, I was talking mainly about Kontakt 1.x, and I also thought that held true for K2 as well since when it first came out people had reported that patch changing had not been implemented. And no one had mentioned it since... seems like a pretty major addition to me.. :lol: 
Well, this is a step in the right direction!


----------



## fv (Dec 23, 2005)

Hi,

I thought that program changes and banks had been implemented right from when Kontakt 2 was released but I might be mistaken. It is definitely there in the latest version. 

You need to create a bank and have instruments loaded in the bank. You have 128 program slots in the bank and can choose between them. I don't believe that it accepts bank changes but I might be mistaken. I can't load that many programs in anyhow unless I'm using small sample sets. 

Program changes do work and seem to work well. HTH,

FV


----------



## Scott Cairns (Dec 23, 2005)

fv said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't believe that it (K2) accepts bank changes but I might be mistaken.



Thats my understanding too. K2 will accept 4 banks of 16 instruments in stand-alone mode, but still only 'recognises' 16 patches in VST mode. They are apparently looking into it.


----------



## fv (Dec 23, 2005)

Hi Scott,

That's not quite right. There are 128 patch slots in the bank so it accepts 128 instruments per bank with 4 banks. As per the MIDI spec, you have 16 different midi channels per bank I believe.

FV


----------



## Scott Cairns (Dec 23, 2005)

aH, thanks for the pickup. :wink:


----------



## synthetic (Dec 24, 2005)

I've building all of my instruments in GigaStudio and assigning them to three groups - winds, brass and strings. I then assign an instance of GigaPulse to each group - all set to the same room - and place each stereo pair in the room. I put the winds up front, the strings behind that and the brass behind that, all in stereo. I read this technique on the VSL board, I think, and it's working well for me.


----------



## Synesthesia (Dec 31, 2005)

Interesting subj. 

I currently use 4 visiondaw pcs running ewqlsoxp, a giga3 pc running some vsl (mainly chamber strings) and a giga2.5 running vsl woods. 

My main machine is a g5 running tools as my DAW/seq and kontakt 2 with epic horns, some private bits and other non-orch stuff. Midi is via midiolan and I control the pcs using chicken of the VNC

I am reluctant to expand even further, as I have had no joy using wormhole (too much latency) and so another PC would mean another 192DigiIO to keep everything digital (running one 192 analog and 2x digi at the moment) and you have to draw the line somewhere.

I have reluctantly resolved that I have to spend 2-3 days at the start of every major project tweaking the whole setup. even then I find I need to load extra sounds as I'm going along!

Its also still a balance of just too many tracks (about 150 at the moment) and usability. I colour code in tools so I can quickly locate the brass or whatever.

The only big problem for me is I like to sketch on the piano first, and I always end up with two big probs in tools:

1. its a nightmare to reclock bars to a loose nontempo performance.

2. i have to export midi to sibelius to get a printout of what I've played so I can play along to it. Making parts from tools is also a nightmare as the midi export only goes about 4-500 bars in for some reason, so when I keep a whole ep of a TV show on one session, I have to make three copies of it to export the later midi for making the parts.

even with those probs, I still want to run tools rather than logic, as I need to have lots of control over audio.

Anyway, just my 2p worth!

Cheers

Paul


----------



## Waywyn (Jan 11, 2006)

Heyja,

pretty the same like Scott's setup.

Currently work with three machines connected via FXT and control the slaves with vnc.

The setup is currently 150 something tracks (depends on the project size). Sometimes less, sometimes more ...

For me it really became necessary to create templates because i hate sitting and choosing which instrument to load next. Sometimes if i am in hurry i start to forget to take care about certain instruments. Call me dumb, but if it has to go really fast i finish my track and suddenly recognize that i didn't do anything for the clarinet etc.
With the template and the complete overview of the orchestra (of course it was a stupid example, but it happened before ) it makes it much more easy to work. Especially you can transfer ideas directly to your session.

Sometimes i also let the template inspire me. I see the percussion section and think that it would be nice to insert a nice Tom Roll or whatever. Don't wanna say that i make music through the template but sometimes it happens here and there that you see an instrument or an articulation and you use it right away.

Also i don't understand that some people complain about loading times. I start my PCs in the morning, decide on which piece to work on and load the setup. Of course it takes like 10 mins to load the template but only on the first time (if you reload templates or instruments you used before it is much faster).

Then, if i have to work on another piece i load the new template and use the time to make tea, bring out the garbage or what the hell ever. I think there is enough time to do something between the loading time and i really can't understand people who stay in front of the PC while the project is loading 

It is also positive to create group tracks for the sections or dry and wet instruments, but i don't insert the reverb plugins and all that stuff. Sometimes it depends on the project, which reverb i want to use and sometimes i use different plugins to get the sound i want, but that is also a CPU thing. If i probably would work with a X2 4,8 i would easily open a lot of reverb instances without takeing to much cpu power you would need just for the work flow.

But generally, I NEVER want to miss my templates again!


----------

