Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

194,483 users have contributed to 42,922 threads and 257,973 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 2 new thread(s), 9 new post(s) and 78 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. Software
  3. Vienna MIR & Vienna Suite
  4. Question about VE Pro Workflow

  • Question about VE Pro Workflow

    M
    M

     I'm just wondering what the best approach might be to this situation: I have a slave computer which runs nothing but VE Pro hosting Kontakt 3.5. Since I'm on Sonar 8, I can't use vst3, so the most I'll get from any one instance of VEPro will be 16 midi channels.

    Is there any disadvantage (computer power-wise) to having sixteen separate instances of Kontakt opened in the one instance of VEPro (so one per VEPro track channel) as opposed to having one instance of Kontakt with a 16 channel multi loaded into it (so taking only one VEPro track channel)? <<< each of these kontakt patches is a 'bank' with several articulations loaded for program changing >>>

    If I go the sixteen separate kontakts route, I can have effects/panning, etc on the individual channels without extra routing.

    Just wanted to know if there may be a disadvantage to this that I'm not aware of.

    Thanks,
    Mahlon
  • K
    K
    There should be no substantial disadvantage from VE Pro. Kontakt itself might have some overhead per instance, but this is probably not substantial either. Both approaches should work equally well. The best way is to just try it out. Would love to hear if there's a noticeable difference. Thanks.
  • M
    M

     Thanks. I will let you know.

    Mahlon
  • D
    D
    Hi Mahlon,

    I'm running Sonar 8.5 with an XP slave and about 10 instances of Kontakt running there. I'm not seeing any glaring performance issues (but I can't really compare due to Sonar's lack of VST3 support) The only downside is having so many instances to manage.

    DMJ
  • M
    M

     DMJ,

    In Kontakt, are you using banks for articulation switching? I've found that this is working very well sending patch change information from Sonar. And since the patch information can be customized (labeled to whatever you want) they show up nicely in Sonar's event view with proper, descriptive names. Kind of a poor man's VST Expressions in Cubase, I suppose. They chase, too, so I find it a great alternative to keyswitching or having the articulations in separate Kontakt instruments.

    Mahlon
  • civilization 3C
    civilization 3C

    I can relate to you my experience with Kontakt 3.5 before VEP. In terms of resources I found no noticeable loss using Kontakt in a number of, up to over a dozen in some cases, instances in Cubase. The annoying procedure that is setting up multiple outs from an instance of Kontakt in meant that usually I would just open a new instance. That's with KMS enabled btw. I think that as separate instances rather than a large multi Cubase was taking better advantage of my multicores.
  • D
    D
    last edited
    last edited

    @Mahlon said:

     DMJ,

    In Kontakt, are you using banks for articulation switching? I've found that this is working very well sending patch change information from Sonar. And since the patch information can be customized (labeled to whatever you want) they show up nicely in Sonar's event view with proper, descriptive names. Kind of a poor man's VST Expressions in Cubase, I suppose. They chase, too, so I find it a great alternative to keyswitching or having the articulations in separate Kontakt instruments.

    Mahlon

    I've read about this actually, just haven't tried it. My main concern with it is sacrificing control. Sometimes I like to layer a staccato with a sustain patch to give it some bite for fast dynamic passages.. But that amounts to tons of MIDI tracks. I've been considering the bank approach for a while though, maybe I'll give it a try.