# Questions About Logic Templating, updates, VEP



## 100khz (Aug 5, 2016)

*Part 1 *of my question

What are the best practices for updating an existing template in Logic? For a big template, with VEP instances on slave, if I am working on a project, updated the project while working on it, should I save that on the original template file?

What if i am working on multiple projects, I have improved somethings on 2 different projects those are based on the same template. But now how do you guys update template selectively. Do you open template separately and do the changes manually or overwrite it from the project.

Shouldn't there be a better way for template management proposed by DAW itself. Like push these changes to template etc.??

*Part 2
*
How do you guys use logic with VEP? Will be happy to hear some popular workflows here. I have read a lot about the same on other threads with which i concluded my current workflow - 1 instrument per 1 VEP instance perhaps works best. Which gets me 256 DAW buffer size on VEP5 with VEP instance buffer set to x4.

With VEP6, I could reach 128 buffer on DAW, VEP6 instances connects with x4 buffer.

Someone here suggested to consult others who can suggest a better workflow with logic.


----------



## garyhiebner (Aug 5, 2016)

Hi 100Hz, I'm also interested in what others do here with Logic and VEP. Seems like the most popular method is one instrument per instance. But yeah also interesting what to do with changes to the template per project. DO you create a duplicate of your template and then rename this one just for that projected then make the edits. Or using the coupling so the DAW retains the changes for the template?

Here's another question. I know with Logic, 1 instance per instrument is better. And then with Cubase it's preferred to use more instruments in each instance so you have less instances.

But what if you jump between Logic and Cubase. Then which method do you take with the VEP template?


----------



## 100khz (Aug 5, 2016)

garyhiebner said:


> But what if you jump between Logic and Cubase. Then which method do you take with the VEP template?



Nor sure, try not to jump  but if you do, then perhaps 1 instance per instrument with cubase as well or you can stretch upto 16 instruments per instance with logic and then cubase too, but the arrangement of instruments can get confusing.

Best would be to have 1 instrument per instance as suggested here which can be cpu intensive. Not sure, did not compare the other approach.

Well, the MIDI protocol was initially hardware driven. I am talking about early 1990s. I think midi protocol should be re-written now if possible. The 16 channel theory should get updated according to the current digital world. Any thoughts on that?

BTW, AUv3 can accomodate 256 midi channels. But its not out yet.


----------



## mc_deli (Aug 5, 2016)

Part 1 - there is no way around this AFAIK. I have the same problem. I end up making some "save as template" updates but then manually editing the template if I find some desired changes in another active project.
The answer is: finish your track before moving on to the next one!

I think working in a modular way can also help: saving patches for track stacks etc. Working with a smaller basic template with buses all ready (that therefore requires less updating) and then adding only the patches (tracks stacks etc.) you need. Of course this doesn't make updating VE Pro settings any easier. And I don't trust Logic with saved patches that include auxes...

(...bit sad today as post-holiday, and after going 10.2.4, it seems I have an old problem resurface where controller lanes are not being saved as I left them :( )


----------



## garyhiebner (Aug 5, 2016)

Controller lanes in Logic? Are they sending CC messages to VEP instruments? That is a bit scary.


----------



## mc_deli (Aug 5, 2016)

garyhiebner said:


> Controller lanes in Logic? Are they sending CC messages to VEP instruments? That is a bit scary.


Articulation switching (with AG Toolkit)


----------



## garyhiebner (Aug 5, 2016)

That is the next item on the wishlist! And maybe that will stop me from jumping between the two. I love Logic, I've used it for years. But man Cubase has some great features as well. Not to hijack the post and start a Cubase vs. Logic debate. Just saying....


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 5, 2016)

The best workflow is what you are doing, one VEPro instance per instrument and even better, 1 track using an articulation switchher. I use Peter Schwartz's SkiSwitcher, after trying them all.


----------



## samphony (Aug 5, 2016)

1) i save my templates with date and maybe add spotlight descriptions. I also use OS X tags extensively.

2) I too use a single instance per instruments with LPX. Hopefully AU v3 will be enabled with the coming LPX updates and we can start experimenting which method is more efficient.

If possible I would like to slim down instances and have a crossover approach between LPX and studio one.

In logic I use ski switcher 2 where in studio one I still work with my old method one articulation per track.

If I work on a more synth related project with bits of orchestra I don't use VEP at all.

side note:
Personally I would love to see a quantum leap in loading time and more efficiency when hosting kontakt inside the DAW.
I know it's already fast and efficient (all ssds and Vader helmet here) but hosting kontakt inside the daw on a Mac and calling up the GUI still shows a lot of lag. Maybe k 5.6 will improve a little on that front.


----------



## 100khz (Aug 5, 2016)

thanks everyone. I found out that cubase 8.5 has option to import tracks from other projects in your current project. That somewhat solves the issue of template building. You open the template, import all that you did to tracks on other projects and improve your template. I think one can import inserts tracks, busses etc as well. Sadly thats not possible yet with logic.

1 instrument per track it is then. Still the most favorite workflow with VEP i guess.

One of my slave PC hits 40% CPU just by hitting play on logic.

BTW, what buffer settings most of you are able to manage with 1 instrument per instance approach?

Is 512 good? I am only concerned about lyrical legato pieces. I would love to have 64 buffer size (less than 4 ms latency) for those recordings, other than that, with mild quantization, i am fine with higher latencies.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 5, 2016)

256 works fine here with Logic Pro X here playing the Hollywood Series in VE Pro on my slave PC. RME HDSPe-AIO is my audio interface.


----------



## samphony (Aug 5, 2016)

Logic can import from other logic projects as well. It's even more dedicated then cubase. It allows also to choose what to import and allows to rebuild all needed AUX channels and routings for audio and instrument tracks. 



100khz said:


> thanks everyone. I found out that cubase 8.5 has option to import tracks from other projects in your current project. That somewhat solves the issue of template building. You open the template, import all that you did to tracks on other projects and improve your template. I think one can import inserts tracks, busses etc as well. Sadly thats not possible yet with logic.
> 
> 1 instrument per track it is then. Still the most favorite workflow with VEP i guess.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jaredf920 (Aug 5, 2016)

100khz said:


> thanks everyone. I found out that cubase 8.5 has option to import tracks from other projects in your current project. That somewhat solves the issue of template building. You open the template, import all that you did to tracks on other projects and improve your template. I think one can import inserts tracks, busses etc as well. Sadly thats not possible yet with logic.



This is possible with Logic. If you open a new project, press "B" then on the far left hit the "All Files" tab. Navigate to the Logic project you want to grab from & double click it. You can import, meter changes, tempo track, markers. Then for instruments, you have the option of importing just the content (MIDI/AUDIO) or just the channel strip (VI, Plugins, etc.) or both! You can also import buses (/aux tracks) & Project settings.

There is also a way to import environment windows (I don't really mess with this as my template has all the environment stuff set up to stay that way.) 

You could also open the project you want to grab from "Save a copy as" then treat it as an entirely different project file. Hope this helps!


----------



## whinecellar (Aug 5, 2016)

As usual on these Logic/VEP threads, I'll be the advocate for multitimbral instances. My template is around 1000 tracks now, divided across 16-channel VEP multis. It works perfectly. My Logic buffer is usually 256, all VEP instances at 2 buffers. Main machine is a 2014 MacBook Pro quad i7 driving 4 slave machines; audio hardware is UA Apollo via Thunderbolt.

I started building this template years ago when VEP first became viable, and I just keep adding to it. Loving every minute of it - VEP should win the Nobel Peace Prize for adding years back to composer's lives 

Cheers!


----------



## Jaredf920 (Aug 5, 2016)

I also use milti-timberal Instances. 
On my rig (at Kevin Kiner's studio) I've got 8-instances of VEP, each has 1-instance of Kontakt 5 with 16 patches loaded. (PitchedPerc, Orch Perc, LASS1, LASS2, Winds, Brass, Misc Perc, K5 Strings (8Dio/Spitfire). 
Choir, Omnisphere, and a few other other synths are loaded in my native machine in Logic itself (when I need them). The slave machine is: 8-core (3.0GHz) Mac Pro 2,1. 24GB of RAM. Samples are all on 2x 2TB HDD 7200 RPM, no RAID. I also run Video on this machine using either Pro tools 9 or Video Slave.
The Main Machine on this setup is: Mid2010 Mac Pro, 2.4GHz 8-Core , 48GB RAM.
I run Logic 9, occasionally Logic X.

Kevin's setup is a bit more elaborate- 4x slave computers: 1x Mac Mini running 1-instance of VEP including all of LA Scoring Strings, thunderbolt chasis with a RME RayDat card. Audio goes into a pro tools interface. 2x PC Slaves (i7, 24GB Ram, samples on SSD Raids, RME RayDat Card) 1-instance of VEP. PC1 runs Brass (play, hollywood brass diamond & Kontakt CineBrass). PC2 runs Strings (Mural, Leogria, Sable, Hollywood Strings).
Then, he has a 2012 12-core mac pro (2.66GHz), 64GB RAM, RME MADI Card.... 1-instance of VEP: VSL Winds, Cine Winds, 2 instances of Altiverb, Cine Perc, VSL Harp, Misc. VSL Dimension Strings (never used anymore) misc. VSL Appasionata Strings (Never used anymore), Kontakt version of EWQL Percussion, Pianos, and some misc. Kontakt String patches (AIR, Albion, Symphobia)

All of his slaves receive MIDI via ipMIDI over the network, then they send audio out their soundcards & into one of many Pro Tools interfaces. The Pro Tools Rig is a low model mac pro quad core, 16GB RAM, 3x HDX cards. Everything is monitored through & stemmed into Pro Tools, which also runs video. 

Kevin's Main machine/sequencer is a late 2013 Mac Pro (trash can), 12-core 64GB RAM. We've got 2x Pegasus Promise Mini Raids, loaded with 4x 1TB SSDs attached via Thunderbolt for samples... and another for his Logic Projects...and a RME MADI card in a thunderbolt Chasis.

Buffer is usually at 256. VEP at 2 buffers. Kevin runs Logic X & Pro Tools 10HD.

My Setup at home is running Cubase... I'm slowly switching over. After talking with a bunch of other composer's assistants & additional writers, Logic X is not nearly as cool as Cubase. [Computers are: 2012 12-core mac pro main, 2x Mac Mini Slaves (one is LASS, other is Spitfire), 1x PC slave (6-core)(Winds, Brass, Perc, and more), Mac Pro video/PT machine)]

I used to use a lot of Digital Performer (7, then 8) when I was working on Danny Elfman's team... His setup is/was similar to Kevin Kiner's, but with DP and a couple more slave machines. Same monitor & stemming into Pro tools.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 5, 2016)

You can believe me or not, but I tested it every which way there is and the best performance with Logic and VE Pro is one instrument in a VE Pro project (with all its articulations) connected to 1 VE Pro instance in Logic Pro It is just like a score page also,m which makes sense to the classically trained.


----------



## whinecellar (Aug 5, 2016)

I believe you Jay. I'm just way too invested in what's been working perfectly for me for years to start over from scratch with a 1000 track template


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 5, 2016)

Understood Jim, and it was not directed at you since your way works for you, just advice for those starting out or those whose current approach is not working for them that well.


----------



## 100khz (Aug 6, 2016)

wow, over 1000 tracks.. I like a stable template approach jim. Do you think you could do the same template with 1 instrument per 1 VEP instance approach? Since i think the constant connection of more VEP instances shall definitely have toll on resources. Else 16 instruments per instance with 1 kontakt instance should be a little less resource hungry.

But i will keep working with my current template with 1 instrument per 1 VEP instance for now. Will give it more time.

Jared - I used a cubase trial for a month and loved its midi capabilities. And it keeps getting better. I think for midi based composers, cubase should be best. Studio one being a close competitor though.

Thanks everyone for inputs.


----------



## samphony (Aug 6, 2016)

Studio One will get better. That's all I can say. 



100khz said:


> wow, over 100 tracks.. I like a stable template approach jim. Do you think you could do the same template with 1 instrument per 1 VEP instance approach? Since i think the constant connection of more VEP instances shall definitely have toll on resources. Else 16 instruments per instance with 1 kontakt instance should be a little less resource hungry.
> 
> But i will keep working with my current template with 1 instrument per 1 VEP instance for now. Will give it more time.
> 
> ...


----------



## garyhiebner (Aug 6, 2016)

So Jay, you using one instrument per instance with articulations? How do you do the articulation switching in Logic? With SkiSwitcher2 or ARTzID?


----------



## whinecellar (Aug 6, 2016)

100khz said:


> wow, over 1000 tracks.. I like a stable template approach jim. Do you think you could do the same template with 1 instrument per 1 VEP instance approach? Since i think the constant connection of more VEP instances shall definitely have toll on resources. Else 16 instruments per instance with 1 kontakt instance should be a little less resource hungry...



That's always been my concern with massive templates as well - the more VEP connections, the longer it will take to connect/disconnect when you open a session - I can't imagine 1000 VEP connections! I gotta think at some point any CPU savings via the single instance approach would be negated by the number of connections. But I have no data to back that up - I just know my approach has been flawless for me and I'm never lacking in horsepower. But it helps to have 5 computers spreading the load


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 6, 2016)

Yes, Jim, that is the downside and maybe with 5 computers your approach is better for that. I have 2. and I am willing to trade a little connection time for better performance, but I am more patient than a lot of folks these days.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 6, 2016)

garyhiebner said:


> So Jay, you using one instrument per instance with articulations? How do you do the articulation switching in Logic? With SkiSwitcher2 or ARTzID?




Yes. I started with the SkiSwitcher, transitioned, to the ARTzID, and now have returned to the SKiSwitcher 2. (I reserve the right to change my mind again though


----------



## Matt Riley (Aug 6, 2016)

whinecellar said:


> That's always been my concern with massive templates as well - the more VEP connections, the longer it will take to connect/disconnect when you open a session - I can't imagine 1000 VEP connections! I gotta think at some point any CPU savings via the single instance approach would be negated by the number of connections. But I have no data to back that up - I just know my approach has been flawless for me and I'm never lacking in horsepower. But it helps to have 5 computers spreading the load


I have a mix of both methods (yours and Jays) in my template. For each of your 16-channel VEP multis, do you have separate audio for each track in Logic? Or do they all come through the 1st track in each multi?


----------



## whinecellar (Aug 6, 2016)

Matt Riley said:


> ...For each of your 16-channel VEP multis, do you have separate audio for each track in Logic? Or do they all come through the 1st track in each multi?



I keep it really simple: just a stereo out of each multi. I have everything pre-mixed within Kontakt/Play/VEP before it even gets to Logic. When it comes time to deliver, I simply bounce regions in place and then I can do any further processing if needed. Works great


----------



## Matt Riley (Aug 7, 2016)

whinecellar said:


> I keep it really simple: just a stereo out of each multi. I have everything pre-mixed within Kontakt/Play/VEP before it even gets to Logic. When it comes time to deliver, I simply bounce regions in place and then I can do any further processing if needed. Works great


Does it get tedious when you need to make mix adjustments?


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 7, 2016)

I also just use stereo instances with my single instrument per VE Pro instance method. (Can no longer call them v-frames as they have a different extension now 

Works fine for me as I would never e.g. process one violin articulation differently than I would process another from the same library.


----------



## whinecellar (Aug 7, 2016)

Matt Riley said:


> Does it get tedious when you need to make mix adjustments?


Not at all. Like I said, my entire template is pre-mixed & balanced in VEP, and if I want to process something further, I just bounce region(s) in place which usually takes just a second or two since all slaves are pulling samples from fast SSDs.


----------



## mc_deli (Aug 7, 2016)

Guys/girls - what about real-time playing responsiveness (basic midi latency) - @whinecellar @Jaredf920 @Ashermusic and anyone else - with 128/256 buffer are you getting a responsive feel (at what I guess is a reported 10-12ms latency) - and do you notice any live playing latency difference between slave-hosted vs daw-hosted libs?

(I am not getting the responsiveness I would like at 128 buffer and trying to get an idea what I should expect)


----------



## whinecellar (Aug 7, 2016)

No responsiveness issues here at 256 in Logic and 2 buffers in VEP. You would think it would feel "laggy" - especially addressing slave machines, but that's something that has always amazed me about VEP: it doesn't! It's not much different than in the old days of playing external MIDI modules, IMO. But with myriad advantages of course


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 7, 2016)

whinecellar said:


> No responsiveness issues here at 256 in Logic and 2 buffers in VEP. You would think it would feel "laggy" - especially addressing slave machines, but that's something that has always amazed me about VEP: it doesn't! It's not much different than in the old days of playing external MIDI modules, IMO. But with myriad advantages of course



Exactly my experience as well, Jim.


----------



## Jaredf920 (Aug 8, 2016)

100khz said:


> Jared - I used a cubase trial for a month and loved its midi capabilities. And it keeps getting better. I think for midi based composers, cubase should be best. Studio one being a close competitor though.



Ya, that is the consensus I was getting as well. 
I may re-do my rig at Kiner's studio, 1-VEP instance per instrument to see how it performs.... the only downside I see of that is each project taking a few minutes to open because of disconnect/reconnect times. I'll test i though, I'm curious! 
I am loving cubase so far.... the logical editor is sooooo goooood, definitely speeds up the workflow.

Studio One, I had a free version of v1... I was very active on their forums and with one of their artist representatives. When they added video support & some more 'advanced' MIDI features in v2.0, I got a copy. I had a pretty good template (all in one machine), but it still had some quirks about it. Studio One v3 looks awesome. I'm already too deep on my way to Cubase & loving it.

I still really enjoy Logic, but it is still my comfort zone.


----------



## PeterBaumann (Aug 10, 2016)

whinecellar said:


> No responsiveness issues here at 256 in Logic and 2 buffers in VEP. You would think it would feel "laggy" - especially addressing slave machines, but that's something that has always amazed me about VEP: it doesn't! It's not much different than in the old days of playing external MIDI modules, IMO. But with myriad advantages of course



Any suggestions as to what might be wrong with my setup? I've attached the VEPro file and Logic Template here, but can't reduce the buffer size to less than 1024 on my setup despite its specs without getting pops and clicks or system overload messages. Details of my systems are in my signature.

Here's a Google Drive folder with the files, in case anyone has a spare minute or two to quickly double check that there isn't anything glaringly obvious wrong with the setup. I have very slow internet on holiday so files are gradually uploading and should be there within 45 mins or so

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_T8B_Ym9M37QTBWMWU2ZU1vcnM


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 10, 2016)

I charge money to help people with Logic Pro/VE Pro but I did download them and when I try to open the v-frame, it repeatedly crashes.

Also, in Logic Pro while the new Playback and Live Tracks setting helps with the Live mode single core issue, overall performance is worse.


----------



## whinecellar (Aug 10, 2016)

PeterBaumann said:


> Any suggestions as to what might be wrong with my setup?...



All my settings are identical to yours except my Logic buffer is 256, and I crank all my VEP audio inputs/outputs down to 2 each since I only use them in stereo. There are so many variables though: specific libraries, drive allocation/speed, network settings/hardware, audio driver... without being there, it's tough to say!


----------



## PeterBaumann (Aug 10, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> I charge money to help people with Logic Pro/VE Pro but I did download them and when I try to open the v-frame, it repeatedly crashes.
> 
> Also, in Logic Pro while the new Playback and Live Tracks setting helps with the Live mode single core issue, overall performance is worse.


Thanks for taking a look though, odd that it crashes. I'm not getting regular crashes here, so not sure what that's all about.


----------



## PeterBaumann (Aug 10, 2016)

whinecellar said:


> All my settings are identical to yours except my Logic buffer is 256, and I crank all my VEP audio inputs/outputs down to 2 each since I only use them in stereo. There are so many variables though: specific libraries, drive allocation/speed, network settings/hardware, audio driver... without being there, it's tough to say!



Are you using EW patches? If I set the audio settings to 2, how does that work with multitimbral percussion instances I've got, or doesn't it?


----------



## NameOfBand (Aug 10, 2016)

whinecellar said:


> As usual on these Logic/VEP threads, I'll be the advocate for multitimbral instances. My template is around 1000 tracks now, divided across 16-channel VEP multis. It works perfectly. My Logic buffer is usually 256, all VEP instances at 2 buffers. Main machine is a 2014 MacBook Pro quad i7 driving 4 slave machines; audio hardware is UA Apollo via Thunderbolt.
> 
> I started building this template years ago when VEP first became viable, and I just keep adding to it. Loving every minute of it - VEP should win the Nobel Peace Prize for adding years back to composer's lives
> 
> Cheers!


How on earth are you able to such a huge project with a Macbook Pro as master computer? Doesn't your system choke? I'm asking since I'm looking into buying a new computer, and have been thinking about something like a Mac Pro to be able to handle huge templates.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 10, 2016)

PeterBaumann said:


> Thanks for taking a look though, odd that it crashes. I'm not getting regular crashes here, so not sure what that's all about.




Maybe because you built in VE Pro 5 instead of 6, I dunno.


----------



## whinecellar (Aug 10, 2016)

PeterBaumann said:


> Are you using EW patches? If I set the audio settings to 2, how does that work with multitimbral percussion instances I've got, or doesn't it?



I do run a 16-channel instance of PLAY (StormDrum2) in VE Pro on my main machine; all my other PLAY libraries are on my PC slave. On my main machine, I have maximum voices at 512; engine level high. Not sure if that helps or not - all these factors work together of course...


----------



## whinecellar (Aug 10, 2016)

NameOfBand said:


> How on earth are you able to such a huge project with a Macbook Pro as master computer? Doesn't your system choke?...



I have 4 slaves which are doing most of the heavy lifting. I'm only running 10 instances of VEP on the MB Pro, so my memory usage is only about 11 GB out of 16. So even though my template is massive, it only consists of about 60 multitimbral instances of VEP, a bunch of EXS24s, and a handful of audio plugins (EQ, dynamics, reverbs & delays). It doesn't hurt that Logic is incredibly efficient, and VEP is genius at core distribution... the two are a match made in heaven, especially when you start adding slave machines and SSDs. 

So no, it never chokes... in fact even on my biggest sessions, CPU usage is extremely low


----------



## NameOfBand (Aug 10, 2016)

whinecellar said:


> I have 4 slaves which are doing most of the heavy lifting. I'm only running 10 instances of VEP on the MB Pro, so my memory usage is only about 11 GB out of 16. So even though my template is massive, it only consists of about 60 multitimbral instances of VEP, a bunch of EXS24s, and a handful of audio plugins (EQ, dynamics, reverbs & delays). It doesn't hurt that Logic is incredibly efficient, and VEP is genius at core distribution... the two are a match made in heaven, especially when you start adding slave machines and SSDs.
> 
> So no, it never chokes... in fact even on my biggest sessions, CPU usage is extremely low


Wow! How come composers have so beefy computers then? If it would be enough with just a good laptop and some slaves? What if you'd wanna throw more plugs at the template, what do you think would happen? When is a stronger master computer needed?


----------



## whinecellar (Aug 10, 2016)

NameOfBand said:


> Wow! How come composers have so beefy computers then? If it would be enough with just a good laptop and some slaves? What if you'd wanna throw more plugs at the template, what do you think would happen? When is a stronger master computer needed?



Well, if I had a more powerful main machine, I wouldn't need 4 slave machines. I'd actually like to get down to just 1 powerful master machine and 1 slave, but this is just the way my studio evolved. The main reason I'm using a MacBook Pro is because it's the only computer I have that will drive a 4k display.

As for your second question, I can throw a ton at the MacBook Pro and it doesn't even break a sweat because most of the sample streaming is being done by the slaves. The MBP is a quad core i7, so it's no slouch - the 16GB RAM limit is really the only bottleneck.


----------



## Matt Riley (Aug 11, 2016)

whinecellar said:


> Well, if I had a more powerful main machine, I wouldn't need 4 slave machines. I'd actually like to get down to just 1 powerful master machine and 1 slave, but this is just the way my studio evolved. The main reason I'm using a MacBook Pro is because it's the only computer I have that will drive a 4k display.
> 
> As for your second question, I can throw a ton at the MacBook Pro and it doesn't even break a sweat because most of the sample streaming is being done by the slaves. The MBP is a quad core i7, so it's no slouch - the 16GB RAM limit is really the only bottleneck.


I’m trying to duplicate your setup and test it out. Am I doing this right?

1. create a new software instrument in Logic
2. Choose Vienna Ensemble Pro stereo
3. Click Multi-timbral, 16 parts, number of tracks =1
4. Connect to a new instance on my slave.
5. Then on VEP Server create a new Kontakt 5 stereo instance and load 16 instruments

Good to go?


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 11, 2016)

Matt Riley said:


> I’m trying to duplicate your setup and test it out. Am I doing this right?
> 
> 1. create a new software instrument in Logic
> 2. Choose Vienna Ensemble Pro stereo
> ...



Unless I am wrong and that Jim is working coupled rather then decoupled, actually, I am pretty sure that Jim's process is:

1. On a slave in a VEP Server project, create a new instance with Kontakt 5 stereo instance and load 16 instruments
2. Create a new software instrument in Logic
3. Choose Vienna Ensemble Pro stereo
4. Click Multi-timbral, 16 parts, number of tracks =1
5. Connect to the new Kontakt instance on the slave


----------



## whinecellar (Aug 11, 2016)

Yep, exactly what Jay said ^.


----------



## Matt Riley (Aug 11, 2016)

whinecellar said:


> I do run a 16-channel instance of PLAY (StormDrum2) in VE Pro on my main machine; all my other PLAY libraries are on my PC slave. On my main machine, I have maximum voices at 512; engine level high. Not sure if that helps or not - all these factors work together of course...


Any reason you don't go higher than that? I have same setting but I think it is the default. I'll leave it if it is safest.


----------



## whinecellar (Aug 11, 2016)

Matt Riley said:


> Any reason you don't go higher than that? I have same setting but I think it is the default. I'll leave it if it is safest.


For me, only because I'm just running StormDrum 2 on that machine, which isn't at all demanding


----------



## 100khz (Aug 29, 2016)

recently downloaded cubase 8.5 trial. Loving it so far. I use the macbook 2015 as master as of now, going to upgrade it to macbook pro 15" with 16 GB ram soon. But since all the load is with slave, my tiny macbook 2015 is able to run everything smoothly.. So, slave processing is the key. Using windows on slave machine with remote desktop app. Also, regarding buffer size, I wish I could work with 64 size. Keeps things tight. But thats not possible so far. Working on either 256 or sometimes 384.

I am planning to move my slave machines to cheap dell laptops to make my master slave rig mobile. Anyone totally on laptops with VEP? Limitation is 16 GB rams but 4 latops with one being a mac based master, seems quite mobile yet powerful. Just a thought.


----------



## PeterBaumann (Oct 8, 2016)

whinecellar said:


> Yep, exactly what Jay said ^.



How do you then route a second instance of Kontakt (a violin 2 section for example) within that VEPro instance?

If I fill the first Kontakt instance with 16 violin 1 patches, I can easily enough get that to connect to a Logic multitimbral x16 track. But then if I want another kontakt instance with another 16 patches, this time for violin 2, I can't work out how to route that in VEPro/Logic. Setting up another multitimbral track in Logic only allows me to connect to a new VEPro instance, not to the same instance of VEPro as the violin 1s (obviously).


----------



## whinecellar (Oct 8, 2016)

PeterBaumann said:


> How do you then route a second instance of Kontakt (a violin 2 section for example) within that VEPro instance?
> 
> ...Setting up another multitimbral track in Logic only allows me to connect to a new VEPro instance, not to the same instance of VEPro as the violin 1s



Exactly. For each new 16-channel multi, I create a new VEP instance. What do you see as the downside? That's how VEP was designed to work


----------



## PeterBaumann (Oct 9, 2016)

Ah ok, no I'd just misunderstood. I'd seen people with 4 metaframes of Strings, Woodwind, Brass and Perc or similar and couldn't work out how they'd managed it (I'm still not completely sure!) 

I've got it set up like this: lots of VEP instances (one for violin 1, one for violin 2) each with 16 patches loaded into play. 

I was trying to see if it is possible to consolidate those violin 1 and violin 2 instances into one 'strings' instance. So one instance with 5x 16-channel string patches for each instrument. 

Is that possible in LPX?


----------



## whinecellar (Oct 9, 2016)

PeterBaumann said:


> I've got it set up like this: lots of VEP instances (one for violin 1, one for violin 2) each with 16 patches loaded into play.



So far so good - that's the best way to go for optimal CPU core distribution and overall performance. Well, actually some would go even further and use 1 instance per instrument - no multis - but that wouldn't work for my way of template organization 



PeterBaumann said:


> I was trying to see if it is possible to consolidate those violin 1 and violin 2 instances into one 'strings' instance. So one instance with 5x 16-channel string patches for each instrument.



Not possible in Logic until the AU3 spec drops, and again, there's really no need for this. The more you cram into an instance, the less efficient your system will be


----------



## khollister (Oct 30, 2016)

Jay...

I noticed earlier in this thread (yeah, I'm slow) that you had been using ARTzID but changed back to SkiSwitcher 2. Why? From looking at everything on Peter's site, it appears ARTzID is the more flexible system and doesn't seem much different to use. What am I missing?

If I stay with Logic I have to get one of these tools, although playing with the Cubase demo the expression maps and ease of using multitimbral VI's is seductive


----------



## Ashermusic (Oct 30, 2016)

khollister said:


> Jay...
> 
> I noticed earlier in this thread (yeah, I'm slow) that you had been using ARTzID but changed back to SkiSwitcher 2. Why? From looking at everything on Peter's site, it appears ARTzID is the more flexible system and doesn't seem much different to use. What am I missing?
> 
> If I stay with Logic I have to get one of these tools, although playing with the Cubase demo the expression maps and ease of using multitimbral VI's is seductive



The ARTzID is better if you need more than 16 articulations in an instrument, which in 98% of cases, I do not, although it was handy for integrating keyswitch patches with non-keyswitched patches as you could separately see and access the articulations within the keyswitch patches. It also allows you to see the articulations in the Smart Controls, which is cool but which after using it a while, I realized, I was not even looking at, and with the SkiSwitcher I could see them in the Script, if I wanted to. In order to make full use if the ARTzID's additional channels, I needed more than the 16 program buttons on my Kurzweil, which I prefer to having a second little keyboard or using the lowest (or highest) keys on my Kurzweil. So instead I tried using TouchOSC on my iPad to control it, and realized I don't want the additional complication of adding that device and did not enjoy the non-tactile feel of it.

So I went back to the classic SkiSwitcher, which personally I find a more direct and simple workflow and which I just felt more fluid with. However, Peter feels that I threw the baby out with the bathwater and he is way smarter than me, so there you go. It is possible I may revisit it at a later date, as I am notorious for constantly re-inventing my workflow 

Either way, you can't really go wrong.


----------



## khollister (Oct 31, 2016)

Thanks, Jay. Peter has been great via email and sent me the install manual for ARTzID so I could see what was involved. I think I will go that way primarily because I like the idea of using the articulation ID's as a "purer" implementation. I would agree that needing more than 16 articulations would be rare.



I'm planning on picking up a NanoKey to use for switching.

Keith


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Jan 26, 2017)

I have been trying out ARTzID and I just cannot get my head around it based on my template. How do you guy use VE PRO with your ARTzID setup. Because I have two systems: One which handles Kontakt (Mac Pro) and the other which handles all my EastWest VIs (PC on Windows 10).

I have all my Adagio strings in the one Instance of VE PRO 6 and each part (Violins, Violas, Cellos etc) is on its own midiport (Violins P1, Violas P2 etc) and then I use the event input plugin to manage the additional ports. I think perhaps I am doing something the long way, but I am really not sure.

It is actually this very reason that I tried to move to Cubase on Mac, because the whole single port thing is a nightmare for me, trying to work out other ways around that :(

Please could someone help, as i have been on this issue almost a year now, round and round I go.


----------



## Peter Schwartz (Jan 26, 2017)

Hi Shadowlands,

SkiSwitcher2 or ARTzID aren't designed to work with multi-timbral patch setups where you have all of the instruments of an orchestral family (vn1/2, va, vc, cb) all packed into a single instance. To work with that kind of setup requires using Logic's "multi-part" track setup -- where each track outputs on a different MIDI channel, and the techniques used for articulation-switching in these systems isn't designed for this (in fact, the design philosophy is to avoid using multi-part setups altogether):






But let's say that you _could_ use ARTzID for this kind of track setup. The first problem is this: when you have a Script on the lone instrument channel from which these "part" tracks fan out, the number of articulation-switching keys or buttons would become enormously long. Let's say you have 10 articulations for each instrument. To access violin 1's articulations, you'd use the first ten ID's (1 - 10). For violin 2, you'd be using ID's 11 - 20. And so on. That's upwards of 50 keys/buttons.

The second problem you'll run into is inconsistency when it comes to the device you use to select articulations. Whether you use keyboard notes or TouchOSC-based buttons on an iPad, it's nice to have key/button #1 select (say) sustained/legato for each of those instruments. But per the scenario above, you'd have to have dedicated keys/buttons for every single one of those articulations.

The way around this is simple: instead of packing everything into one plugin, use one plugin per instrument type -- meaning -- 5 instances of Kontakt for your strings. And if they're hosted in VEPro, all the better. (And don't let anyone tell you that having lots of Instances in VEPro is a bad thing.) What you'll end up with is this:

• 5 tracks as before, but each track's level, EQ, automation, etc. will be completely independent. You can record/engineer/automate each instrument individually. That's always an issue when working with multi-part tracks and invites the creation of additional outputs (eek).

• Consistency with respect to the keys/buttons you use to select articulations for the various instruments.

So you know, I'm happy to work with you to make the most of your setup with ARTzID. We can of course discuss details here or you can write to me via the support link on the http://www.skiswitcher.com (www.skiswitcher.com) website. But in order to gain the benefits of the system, you'll likely have to re-jig your template design somewhat -- all without having to give anything up.


----------



## MrZarlton (Feb 9, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> Yep, exactly what Jay said ^.


Hi Jim, sorry to drag up an old post, I’m pretty new to VEPro and I too am on a MacBook Pro for my main computer. I really like your approach and would like to implement something similar but just have one question that I don’t think has been explained here, if it has, please forgive me as I must have misunderstood. 

What I’m curious about, is there any reason why it’s preferred to have one kontakt with 16 instruments as oppose to 16 kontakts each with one instrument all in the same instance?

Once again, apologies for dragging up and old thread, but it’s been a particularly helpful thread for me.

Thanks
Zach


----------



## whinecellar (Feb 9, 2018)

MrZarlton said:


> ...What I’m curious about, is there any reason why it’s preferred to have one kontakt with 16 instruments as oppose to 16 kontakts each with one instrument all in the same instance?...



I suspect it's easier on resources to have one 16-channel multi rather than 16 individual Kontakt instances - especially on a really large template. Each instance uses some RAM and CPU. Also, the way I allocate things, it's very rare that more than one part is playing from any one multi (LASS violins, for example, playing one articulation at a time) - so it's not like a multi is hogging a bunch of CPU. Make sense?


----------



## MrZarlton (Feb 9, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> I suspect it's easier on resources to have one 16-channel multi rather than 16 individual Kontakt instances - especially on a really large template. Each instance uses some RAM and CPU. Also, the way I allocate things, it's very rare that more than one part is playing from any one multi (LASS violins, for example, playing one articulation at a time) - so it's not like a multi is hogging a bunch of CPU. Make sense?


Thanks for the quick response Jim, that makes sense. Am I right in thinking you use articulation switching? If so, do you use the multi’s to load up say all violin 1’s from each library and then choose which you use on a case by case basis by having them each on a different midi channel? I don’t have many libraries now, but I want to start as I mean to go on.


----------



## whinecellar (Feb 10, 2018)

MrZarlton said:


> ...Am I right in thinking you use articulation switching? If so, do you use the multi’s to load up say all violin 1’s from each library and then choose which you use on a case by case basis by having them each on a different midi channel? I don’t have many libraries now, but I want to start as I mean to go on.



I generally use keyswitches on each track rather than dedicated tracks for each articulation. My template is already ~750 tracks as it is - splitting everything out per articulation would be insane. As for the Kontakt/PLAY multis, they are always per library. For example: all LASS violins, HW violins, Spitfire violins, each in their own multi - that way I can apply overall EQ and verb to pre-balance my whole template at the sources, and make everything sit together nicely.

Hope that makes sense!


----------



## MrZarlton (Feb 10, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> I generally use keyswitches on each track rather than dedicated tracks for each articulation. My template is already ~750 tracks as it is - splitting everything out per articulation would be insane. As for the Kontakt/PLAY multis, they are always per library. For example: all LASS violins, HW violins, Spitfire violins, each in their own multi - that way I can apply overall EQ and verb to pre-balance my whole template at the sources, and make everything sit together nicely.
> 
> Hope that makes sense!


Perfect sense...thanks Jim, much appreciated.


----------

