@fabio.angeleri said:
1) One simple solution could be to join with the nearest note. Another solution (more affordable) should be assigning the part legato control to a dedicated midi CC (say 15). The composer could "label" every part with the same value, recognized by VI. Example: every CC 15 vith value "10" corresponds to the lower line, and every CC 15 with value "100" corresponds to the upper line, and so on. In this way, the composer should have the power and the flexibility to say to VI which notes have to join.
2) I would use one VI in Logic (mac) controlling, i.e., 16 differents midi channels, exactly as another multi output sampler can do. Personally i find VE a poor solution to this limit of the VI.
3) Useful only in limited tweaking situation
4) Yes, i have to update my system, but i've spent my money buyng VSL libraries 😉
- So how would you manage to phrase each polyphonic part independently? You can't use more than one continuous controller to control velocity xFade at a time, so all parts would have exactly the same timbre. Not a very professional solution IMO. It's much better to have independent parts on separate Instruments. The only time this becomes a problem is when using a notation program, and this causes other problems, which are probably best left to another discussion.
- Sorry I don't quite understand this. The MIDI controls the sampler, not the other way round. It's not the VI that's limited, it's the lack of 64bit applications on Mac. When OSX has caught up with XP or Vista, then this probably won't be necessary.
- Well I have yet to hear an example of LFO working well with samples. That's not to say that there isn't one; just I've never heard one.
- Yeah, this game ain't cheap....!
DG