# Question about Vienna Ensemble Pro outputs' impact on performance.



## choppy777 (Jun 8, 2020)

I have been building an orchestral template using VEPro into Cubase (Nuendo actually). I have been building it with 2 outputs per Kontakt instrument, one for long articulations and another for short articulations so I can apply different processing to them within Nuendo.

I don't have many libraries at the moment, mainly the Spitfire Studio Professional series. Each instrument has 6 different mic positions to choose from and I recently discovered how to route each mic to its own output within Kontakt. What I am considering doing is making a separate output for each mic position so I can choose later whether or not I want to pan each mic separately for a better stereo image. This would result in 12 outputs per instrument instead of the 2 I am currently using. This would put my one brass library to 408 outputs alone. 

Is there any noticeable performance impact for having so many more outputs? I don't imagine I would use every mic all the time but I would like to have the option there when I want it. Would it be too messy if I try to go back later and add additional outputs when I want them?

This is my first template and I am only running a single machine, so I don't know how far I should push it. I have a 6 core i7 8700k with 64 GB of RAM.

Thanks all, any insight is greatly appreciated!


----------



## choppy777 (Jun 8, 2020)

I think I just answered my own question. I experimented with just enabling the 408 outputs that I would need instead of the 68 I am currently using and my CPU usage went from around 18% to a constant 30% with a peak of 40% after they first loaded. This is without anything actually playing. Unfortunately I don't think running a template of that size is doable on a single machine. Oh well.


----------



## Epimetheus1707 (Jun 9, 2020)

Good on you for starting to dive into VEP and templates! I will make your work much more streamlined. In my template I decided to go with no more than three mic positions per instrument. Close, mid and tree works great for woodwinds and brass depending on the project. With strings I only use close and tree mics, but I route the longs and shorts differently, as you do too. With percussion I also limit my template to close and tree mics.

In a full ensemble context you rarely need more than one mic per instrument because your mix is about blending than depth. This is an interesting article on this topic: https://orchestraltools.helpscoutdocs.com/article/128-reverbation-and-placement

Also, as you build your template, don't over-think it. The goal is to have it be an environment that always gives you a good general sound to start of with.

Hope that helps!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 9, 2020)

also consider submixing directly in VePro to avoid so many outputs


----------



## dadadave (Jul 6, 2020)

Dewdman42 said:


> also consider submixing directly in VePro to avoid so many outputs



If you submix in VePro, is there any advantage to just submixing inside that specific kontakt (or other sample player) instance? All I can think of is that you have all the instruments nicely laid out in VEPro's mixer (and that might be worth it already), but is there anything else I might be missing? The downside of submixing in VEPro is that you still have to change focus from your DAW and have your mixing split across multiple apps (and windows), I guess.

I'm currently also planning ahead to create a template, hence why I ask...


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jul 6, 2020)

the VePro mixer channels has FX plugin slots so you can apply EQ, sends to other bus channels, etc just like in your DAW. Its much much better then mixing directly in Kontakt.

Now as to whether you should have to go back and forth between two different apps, that is definitely a consideration. However, if you have a hundreds of audio channels being routed between VePro and your DAW in order to mix it all in the DAW, then there is going to be some overhead associated with that, especially if you use VePro slaves.

Some other advantages of sub mixing in VePro, is that you can establish a "mix" or your orchestra and then easily switch between different projects in your DAW...not only without having to reload samples, but the mix will remain consistent across those projects.


----------



## dadadave (Jul 6, 2020)

good points, thanks!


----------



## maestro2be (Jul 6, 2020)

I am not 100% sure how much performance hit there is once the projects up and running but I absolutely know it impacts the loading time of the project as the count goes up.

I try to keep all mixing in VE Pro unless it's a plugin that doesn't work there (VST3 or one that crashes).


----------



## Ben (Jul 6, 2020)

I would also suggest to do use sub-mixes in VEP. You can automate the mixer and FX for things you change all the time.
And you can create multiple versions of your instruments with different characteristics and use the automation to disable the ones you don't need at the moment.


----------



## DaddyO (Jun 8, 2022)

I want to resurrect this thread from 2020 and see what current users (and Ben?) think.

The question is whether to:

1. Mix in your DAW only, which requires many more outputs, indeed it seems to me one stereo output per VEP channel. Pros: mix all in one place with one user interface and set of protocols. Cons: The large number of outputs could drag VEP performance way down. It seems to me it also might require breaking larger VEP instances into more instances, not sure if there is an upper limit on outputs per instance.

(edited to add: one stereo output per channel assumes each channel has a unique instance of a VSL instrument. That's the way I work, anyway.)

or,

2. Submix in VE Pro with channels routing to group buses, allowing fewer outputs. The group busses could then be finally mixed in the DAW. Pros: Less drain on VE Pro. Cons: Having to work in two different programs with separate interfaces and protocols.

Thoughts? Recommendations?

Are there other considerations? Am I correctly understanding what I have noted?


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jun 8, 2022)

Pros and cons. I prefer to mix in VePro, but that is because I am using orch templates in VePro that once I setup an orch mix I want to reuse that over and over, regardless of which DAW I am using..the mix has already been established in VePro in a consistent way. Not to mention the issue that I get a bit more efficiency when not having to use a lot of audio outputs from VePro into the DAW.

But there are some good reasons to mix in the DAW, like some kinds of automation are easier to deal with, you can make use of various audio FX that are built into your DAW, instead of using the ones that are built into VePRO, perhaps a few other benefits...

but for me personally, if I am going to mix it in the DAW, I probably would just pull VePro out of the equation and host everything in the DAW without using VePro at all. You end up with a lot of complication when you start messing with a lot of returned audio channels, the automation mapping, etc, etc.. when in that case it will be much more simpler to just do it in the DAW. UNLESS of course you're using VePro slaves...then you gain an advantage by using VePro for that reason...even if you still return every audio channel to mix it in the DAW.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jun 8, 2022)

DaddyO said:


> I want to resurrect this thread from 2020 and see what current users (and Ben?) think.


I do a bit of both.

In VEP, I apply corrective EQ to individual instruments - things like lo cut, filtering bad frequencies, sweetening highs. I also volume balance everything in that submix with itself - e.g. so if submix was 'strings' (or in my case 'CSS'), I'd make sure each instrument was balanced with the others in that submix. 

For a completely dry libraries like LASS or Sample Modeling, I would also apply a basic 'room' or 'scoring stage' reverb in VEP so the sound coming back into the DAW at least sounds like it was recorded in a space.

That's all the 'mixing' I do in VEP.

In the DAW, depending on the needs of the track, I can apply more EQ (but only at the submix level), or send the submixes to an overall 'hall' reverb to blend everything. If compression is required, I'd apply that in the DAW too.

So, basically, for me VEP is mostly being used as a 'sample host' - with some minor mix tweaks - not really a full mixing station. I want each instrument to be 'load and go' and this gets me most of the way there. Volume-wise, I find that if my sections / submixes are balanced within themselves, there is little need to tweak volume of individual instruments. And if I need to do that, I have CC7 and CC11 (always leave some headroom for those).

(PS - I never mix libraries in the same submix. E.g. I wouldn't have BWW and CineWinds in the same submix because they have different reverb needs and I do that part in the DAW)


----------



## DaddyO (Jun 8, 2022)

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, guys. I’ve started building a VEP Server project in conjunction with a Studio One template just to see how it goes. Again, great advice.


----------



## NoamL (Jun 8, 2022)

I am trying to build my next template with as much mixing as possible inside VEPro. There are lots of advantages to this.

1. I can send my VEPro project to a colleague and bam they have my template - even if they have a totally different DAW and need to create their own DAW session to hook up to the tracks.

2. If I need to update something about the mix over the course of a project, I update the VEPRo project and bam, it's propagated across every cue in the project.

3. It enforces a certain amount of restraint. Using fewer libraries and really making them gel rather than blind loading a ton of libraries into VEPro & never using most of them.

The only thing I currently have "outside" VEP (back in the DAW) is hall verb and tape.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jun 8, 2022)

NoamL said:


> I am trying to build my next template with as much mixing as possible inside VEPro. There are lots of advantages to this.


This could definitely be 'the grail' if you are working in a team environment. Lots of ways to keep things consistent and predictable. I like it!

For my part, I am experimenting with a 'load as you go' template approach, basically what you see in this Alan Silvestri video:


Hoping this will give me the advantages of a template, without actually having a 'template'. Really, it's just building a template for the specific film / game / whatever. Once you've determined your palette, you can always save the VEP project, set decoupled in the DAW and have the best of both worlds. At least, that's my hope... 🤷‍♂️ 

(it's OK this is only my 43rd attempt at finding my own 'grail' solution for VEP)


----------

