Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

196,038 users have contributed to 43,014 threads and 258,388 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 2 new thread(s), 18 new post(s) and 136 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. Software
  3. Vienna Instruments Pro
  4. VE Pro 6150 - RTAS port and node naming continues to be upside down

  • VE Pro 6150 - RTAS port and node naming continues to be upside down

    J
    J

    VE Pro 6150 - the update Port abbreviation in ProTools is appreciated -- but it is still quite confusing and the naming is (still) inverted.


    The port names and midi channels as listed in protools 8 get VERY confusing if there is more than one VE Pro server node connected.


    For example -- let's say there are two instances of VE Pro in protools. 

       


    Notice that the "node names" are "VEPro 1 1" and "VEPro 1 2"


    This is the root of the naming mess --- the node names should simply be "VEpro 1" and "VEPro 2"  (just like any other instance of more than one VI) - please keep reading...


    SO -- when you want to assign a midi channel to VE Pro - node 2, port 3, channel 11, you are really assigning it (now) to: "VEPro 3 2 ch11" (should be "VEPro 2 3 11", right?)


    ===> The NODE and the PORT numbers are reversed! The FIRST number in the midi channel assignment SHOULD be the NODE, then the PORT, then the channel -- instead, it is PORT then NODE... which is counter-intuitive.


    Can you please fix this naming convention. I can't tell you the number of times a day that I am frustrated (because I have to think, and do a double take) in trying to figure out where the track is routed. If slave #1 is always node 1, and slave #2 is always node 2, and I know the port and channel numbers of my template, then assigning midi channels in a multi-node, multi-port rig should be easy and intuitive. It's still pretty geeky, even to me. If assigning midi channels were more intuitive, and it listed things as we think about them, NODE > PORT > Channel, then it would be much more logical.


    Can someone explain why the VE Pro product is designed this way? Doesn't anyone else hate this?


    Thx


    J
  • W
    W

    Jeremy,

    I had to laugh when I saw your post because I had the same reaction as you when I first started setting up VePro recently!  The port/node layout also felt backward to me (and counter intuitive) and I had to actually think about what I was doing.  But, once I started adding more instances to the VePro server, and then adding multiple Kontakts (for example) within instances, it became clear and I could see the logic. But until I did that, it did seem a bit bass-ackwards.  

    I don't think of the word 'node' at all.  I think of the node as the instrument instance (or set of sounds I am using, for example Big Band Horns, or Orchestral Brass, etc... I think of it as 'VePro port 1 OF instance 1 (Big Band Horns)', VePro port 1 OF instance 2 (Orchestral Brass)', etc.  If I add a second Kontakt instrument to Big Band Horns, it will be Port 2 of Instance 1...  After a while of building instances and custom setups, it becomes more second nature.

    My $.02 is that it's just different.... takes a little getting used to, but isn't that big of a deal. 

    Best,

    Greg
  • J
    J

    Hey Greg,

    Thanks for your comments.

    I see how you have convinced yourself to justify the thought process! But as an old guy, who used to have (4) 20-space racks of samplers and modules, the ONLY way to know what was going where was to map it out, and the (North American?) way of looking at this was:

    Rack number > module name or # > midi channel

    If I had to think of Roland 760# 11 in rack 3, channel 9, that just doesn't flow to me. I ALWAYS looked at it as: source > rack # > module ? channel.

    To me, the VEPro method is upside down:  "3rd port in the 2nd node (instance), channel 14". You have to think a bit to map the routing from a signal flow train of thought...

    Audio engineers are trained from day one to respect the signal flow FROM a point TO somewhere else. In a patchbay, the sources are on the top row and the destinations are on the bottom row. Signal flows FROM the origin TO the destination. Linear. Just like a music score for the non-engineers reading this. Measure 24 is always after measure 23 (except if you start getting into crazy DS or DC layouts). I guess that's why this always frustrates me. I have spent my career thinking linear signal flow, but now I have to invert the signal flow for ONLY VEPro.  

    "Hey, look, that's my son in the marching band, and he's the only one in step!"

    I don't expect this to ever change, but I am happy to share my frustartion with the forum and encourage respectful conversation. I'm not calling you guys who LIKE it this way morons. Just trying to explain why there may be a better, more intuitive approach.

    Best,

    J

    PS -- I am a big fan of VEPro -- use at least 2 instances 10-12 hours a day. Every day. I have sold more copies of VEPro to others than I can count. So it's only with a passion to improve it do I make comments. I am not calling you guys who like this naming convention stupid. I do wonder how you are able to think this routing as fast as the inverse. :-) Moving on.

    PPS -- I received a few private emails after my initial post. One person called me "negative, impolite and degrading". Another said that they wish VE Pro worked exactly as I suggested. This person pointed out that Bidule (which I have no working knowledge) does exactly this. So go figure. I try to write a technical, professional report, and I get shot down. I am not a VSL fanboy. But I am a customer. Thanks for the dialog.
  • P
    P

    Negative post? I don't think so at all. What you're saying makes sense and I see no product bashing at all.

    I think it's more likely that people translate posts differently.........perhaps it's a cultural difference?

    In any case if anyone is used to forums and posting protocol I would be suprised if they found your post offensive in any way.

    We need constructive posts like that to make the software even better.
  • W
    W

    Hey Jeremy,

    Didn't you leave out the midi interface in your 'rack number > module name or # > midi channel' layout above??  In my old-guy (North American) racks I used to have multi-port interfaces routing midi to my rack mounted gear and keyboards... 

    Anyway, the midi routing stuff for me is probably the thing I'm the least interested in, being a composer.  So once it's set up, I forget about it.  Definitely don't keep re-visiting it and having to go through that thought process again and again.  So, to me.... no big deal once I got the hang of the VePro midi layout.  Like I said, my $.02.... not shooting you down... just my opinion, like you have yours.

    But, the fact that you go out of your way_twice_to say "I am not calling you guys..... morons/stupid", kind of says otherwise don't you think? Not that it matters to me, BTW....  but since you're encouraging 'respectful conversation' maybe it would have been better left unsaid.  Just a thought.

    Best,

    Greg
  • K
    K

    The ordering in Pro Tools is indeed rather strange. Unfortunately this is a problem with Pro Tools rather than VE Pro. We have no control over the ordering of these ports. I suggest you report this to Digidesign instead, because it applies to any RTAS with multiple MIDI ports.
  • J
    J
    last edited
    last edited

    @Karel said:

    The ordering in Pro Tools is indeed rather strange. Unfortunately this is a problem with Pro Tools rather than VE Pro. We have no control over the ordering of these ports. I suggest you report this to Digidesign instead, because it applies to any RTAS with multiple MIDI ports.

    Hi Karel,

    Thanks for your reply.

    I will report this to Avid. 

    The issue here is how the RTAS plugin displays node (instance) vs. the "port" on each instance, and in the MIDI channel assignment popup for instrument and midi tracks. If you are saying this is entirely a Protools thing, I will make sure the engineers at Avid are aware of this.

    Please confirm -- if Avid were to "fix" this, VEPro would simply start reporting the "correct" order of node > port > channel without any changes on your part?

    Thanks,

    Jeremy
  • J
    J
    last edited
    last edited

    @wgturner said:

    Didn't you leave out the midi interface in your 'rack number > module name or # > midi channel' layout above?? 

    Greg,

    Yes, I did. I had a network of (4) Opcode Studio5XLs -- each rack had it's own Studio 5, so it was quite easy to assign midi, since Rack#1 = interface #1. Each Interface had 15 midi i/o -- it was incredibly complicated, but remarkably simple and reliable.

    Before the Studio 5s (before many VSL users were born), we used midi switchers -- and THESE were a mind-f*ck to use -- don't EVEN wanna think about that.

    If it weren't for the "nasty" email that I received from one person, I would have just continued on my way, and after hearing from Karel that this is an Avid issue, I will ask Avid to fix this.

    ProTools users get a much better experience with VEPro than other hosts --  but we need it more than they do to start with!

    J
  • K
    K
    last edited
    last edited

    @Karel said:

    The ordering in Pro Tools is indeed rather strange. Unfortunately this is a problem with Pro Tools rather than VE Pro. We have no control over the ordering of these ports. I suggest you report this to Digidesign instead, because it applies to any RTAS with multiple MIDI ports.

    Hi Karel,

    Thanks for your reply.

    I will report this to Avid. 

    The issue here is how the RTAS plugin displays node (instance) vs. the "port" on each instance, and in the MIDI channel assignment popup for instrument and midi tracks. If you are saying this is entirely a Protools thing, I will make sure the engineers at Avid are aware of this.

    Please confirm -- if Avid were to "fix" this, VEPro would simply start reporting the "correct" order of node > port > channel without any changes on your part?

    Thanks,

    Jeremy

     

    That is exactly what would happen indeed.
  • J
    J
    I too would prefer a clearer and more intuitive labelling for instruments within VEPro... I'll happily send a message to AVID, and perhaps this could be addressed in a future release (although this would not help either myself or Jeremy, as we are both on PPC, and have sadly been end-of-lined...!) However, I can't help but notice that Bidule does deal with port naming in a more intuitive way than VEPro. Perhaps I'm comparing Apples with Oranges here, and probably not understanding the issues, and how they might be resolved...? But when a new instrument is created in Bidule, you name it, and it's name comes up as an option within PT. For me, something akin to this this would be a fantastic improvement to speed of workflow with VEPro. When running large sessions it's certainly easy to get in a tangle with a lot of numbers....
  • K
    K

    The MIDI port names of a single VE Pro RTAS instance are named "VEPro 1", "VEPro 2", "VEPro 3", and so forth. The problem is that Pro Tools attaches the RTAS instance number after that, rather than before it. The list is sorted alphabetically by Pro Tools and this gives the unintuitive numbering. We only have control over the MIDI port names of a single instance. The MIDI port names aren't referring to instruments, but to MIDI ports, which can be assigned to multiple instruments as well. This is a Pro Tools bug that we can't fix on our side at all unfortunately.
  • J
    J
    last edited
    last edited

    @Karel said:

    The MIDI port names of a single VE Pro RTAS instance are named "VEPro 1", "VEPro 2", "VEPro 3", and so forth. The problem is that Pro Tools attaches the RTAS instance number after that, rather than before it. The list is sorted alphabetically by Pro Tools and this gives the unintuitive numbering. We only have control over the MIDI port names of a single instance. The MIDI port names aren't referring to instruments, but to MIDI ports, which can be assigned to multiple instruments as well. This is a Pro Tools bug that we can't fix on our side at all unfortunately.

    Hi Karel,

    With only a single instance of VE Pro, the midi port names are:

    VEPro 1 1 > channel

    VEPro 2 1 > channel

    etc...

    Yes, Protools HD is appending the "node" (instance) after the port.

    I did some digging -- I do not know of any other multi-port instruments that are RTAS plugins. I do know that Kontakt is multi-port, but only in the standalone version, and Kontakt names its ports letters: A, B, C, D

    A possible solution, and a way to make this more intuitive, is to call the VEPro "ports" letters, and let ProTools continue to number the nodes.

    This would potentially simplify the VEPro interface as well, since "ports" would always be letters and midi channels would always be numbers.

    Although the display in ProTools would still be inverted, it would be clearer, since the letters would always be ports, and the nodes (instances) would always be numbers.

    So a midi assign box would look like:

    VEPro A 1 > channel

    VEPro A 2 > channel

    VEPro B 1 > channel

    VEPro B 2 > channel

    THEN -- if Avid were ever to correct this, the pull down would be ever more clear:

    VEPro 1 A > channel

    VEPro 2 A > channel

    VEPro 1 B > channel

    VEPro 2 B > channel

    etc...

    I would like to formally propose the use of LETTERS for port naming in VE Pro (similar to Kontakt), as opposed to numbers.

    Thanks for listening,

    J

    PS -- I used to use mach5 (rtas) but stopped using it -- my memory on this is not perfect, but possibly mach5 was able to send more than output number to the ProTools INPUT assign? If anyone uses mach5 in PT, can you please post what mach5 sends back to PT at the midi assign as well as the audio input routing? Thx.

    PPS - every orchestrator or composer has their own workflow, and not all of us build and use templates that never need to change. The workflow for many still involves assigning midi channels to ports and nodes for each instrument. i work in too many genres to ever consider the mega-template. Each project or song or cue typically requires that I start from the ground up. So I get the pleasure of assigning midi and audio channels. And I get to think about ports and nodes. How lovely.