@mschmitt said:

Honestly, I don't see how having every different articulation on a seperate midi channel is more convient then having an entire instrument on  single channel and being able to change articulations via key switches, and I would be worried about stuck notes, but if it works for you then thats all that matters. Good luck.

This might be because you are not aware how Logic is handling midi channel information. Each single event, be it a note or a CC has its own channel information, usually set to 1. Logic uses this to handle piano staves with flexible splitpoints - notes which are set to channel 3 are displayed in the lower staff, channel 1 in the upper.

In the track settings you usually select ONE midichannel, so that the individual note-by-note channels are ignored, and all events are sent to your VSTs on that selected channel. So the note-by-note distinction is merely meant for logics internal use.

BUT, you can swich the track's channel to ALL, which means that the individial channel information is forwarded to the receiving instrument. So, you do not have multiple midi tracks (one for each articulation) which all adress the same multitimbral plugin, but one single track that controls the multi. You can consider the individual channel information as a third note information (besides pitch and velocity) so that you do not need any further entries (like keyswiches or CCs).

Indeed I would find it VERY useful, if there was a way to switch between more than 16 articulations by simply altering one value which is directly tied to the specific note, just as you alter velocity. VI has 144 Cells, maybe 127 possible slots would suffice.

Cubase Expression maps seem to come close to that approach, and maybe I will give the above mentioned Articulation maps PRO a try when I finally upgrade to Logic X.

Thinking about the VE workaround - this is not really an equivalent, as it would not be possible to play - say - a sustain patch, and then a legato transition, because the legato patches won't trigger the transition from a note which is played in another instance of VI

@MassMover said:

Thinking about the VE workaround - this is not really an equivalent, as it would not be possible to play - say - a sustain patch, and then a legato transition, because the legato patches won't trigger the transition from a note which is played in another instance of VI

It's good to hear someone elses point of view who understands the workflow I've been ranting and raving about.

If the curent AU spec was updated to support more MIDI channels (64-128) that would be ideal.

@MassMover said:

... Thinking about the VE workaround - this is not really an equivalent, as it would not be possible to play - say - a sustain patch, and then a legato transition, because the legato patches won't trigger the transition from a note which is played in another instance of VI....

If it triggered a transition, you wouldn't be getting true multitimbrality; so it would still be vintage-synthy. Multitimbrality is virtual modules acting independently.

Of course you are right. i just wanted to clarify, that there isn't a 1:1 solution for George to keep his workflow. Actually, within Logic, multitimbrality can in combination with some virtual instruments (f.i. Kontakt) be abused to achieve a quite convenient way of articulation switching. Contrary to my first post I later realized, that VIs performance scripting relies on staying in the same instance, so this "feature" won't work with VE. 

@MassMover said:

... you can swich the track's channel to ALL, which means that the individial channel information is forwarded to the receiving instrument. So, you do not have multiple midi tracks (one for each articulation) which all adress the same multitimbral plugin, but one single track that controls the multi. You can consider the individual channel information as a third note information (besides pitch and velocity) so that you do not need any further entries (like keyswiches or CCs).

Indeed I would find it VERY useful, if there was a way to switch between more than 16 articulations by simply altering one value which is directly tied to the specific note, just as you alter velocity. VI has 144 Cells, maybe 127 possible slots would suffice.

Cubase Expression maps seem to come close to that approach, and maybe I will give the above mentioned Articulation maps PRO a try when I finally upgrade to Logic X....

On Windows with VST's in Reaper, which is all I know lately, it would be possible to write some code that intercepts MIDI from Reaper, translates channel-info into keyswitches, and send it on to VI. Easy code, but not as easy to find someone with the right expertise to implement it. Maybe the same is possible on Mac with AU, and maybe that's what was meant by the suggestion about "Max" above? All this potentially irrelevant to the OP's inquiry, because it would provide legato transitions instead of true multitimbrality.

Something else: under the MIDI spec (as I recall it from decades ago), each CC change goes out on a specific channel, so DAW's are free to set a CC to one value on one channel and set the same CC to a different value on a different channel at the same time. There'd need to be a system for mediating such conflicting data.

Cubase can also do channel assigment on a note by note basis.

You would never get a legato transition if you went from channel to channel because of the way MIDI works. Data is specific to the channel, and, for better or worse, messages between channels are incommunicado.

Forgive me for bringing this up again, or to come across as patronizing, but after reading this thread I'm still confused about what exactly the issue is with using Vienna Ensemble/Ensemble Pro. I just tried to do exactly what the OP is doing and it worked perfectly. I do almost exactly this every day, but I don't use it to switch articulations; I use it to send data to different channels in a divisi part on a note by note basis. For example, setting up Strings Ensemble on channel 1, then Violins 1 on channel 2, etc. That way I can sketch using a general patch and then just send different notes of my voicings to different channels. Then using Cubase Note Expressions I can actually shape the dynamic of the individual channels within a single MIDI track.

I've also done this within Sibelius.

Vienna Ensemble is a multitimbral host just like Kontakt/Play. The only difference is the tracks are laid out horizontally rather than vertically. From what I can see, the two do exaclty the same thing. Instead of loading Kontakt, just load Vienna Ensemble, not Vienna Instruments.

It might be due to the fact that the OP up to now was used to libraries with no legato transitions, hence, the midi-channel system had been a very conveniant way. At first glance this workflow could be transferred to VE, but you won't get legato transitions between different instances. Thatswhy this would only work, when only simple patches without performance algorithms would be used. As those are a main feature of VSL this approach is not working to the library's full extent.

Well, the VSL team could however implement midi channel information as another source for X/Y-axis-patch selection in the VI player. Of course, this would only work, if the VIs are loaded directly into the DAW. I guess, it would not be a very difficult task for the software engineers, so, I would appreciate this as another option.

@MassMover said:

Well, the VSL team could however implement midi channel information as another source for X/Y-axis-patch selection in the VI player. Of course, this would only work, if the VIs are loaded directly into the DAW. I guess, it would not be a very difficult task for the software engineers, so, I would appreciate this as another option.

I hope you get the functionality you want one way or another. As long as you can work efficiently (no unnecessary eye-motion, mouse-motion etc.), I don't see it mattering whether VI is receiving data marked "channel 1" or not. OP cares about that, but my impression of most users is that they care more about what their eyes and hands are doing than what particular numbers are being communicated beneath the surface between two software components.

If VSL dedicated MIDI channels 2 - 16 for this, that would preclude other uses for them in the future; the coding would be easy but the design decisions might not. On the other hand, you could get what you want by upgrading to Logix X and using Articulation maps PRO, or by using Max as described above (unless I've misunderstood something).

@BachRules said:

you could get what you want by upgrading to Logix X and using Articulation maps PRO, or by using Max

Thanks, but that would not allow me to quickly change the MIDI channel of a note within the score (as shown in the attached screenshot of Logic Pro X). For me, there is no opening any other MIDI editor, just a quick flip of the MIDI channel to change articulations directly within the score.

Perhaps you are right as I am unfamiliar with VSL's current implementation of legato transitions. However, the old versions of their libaries for Logic's EXS24 sampler had the performance tool that activated the performance legato and repetitions.

I want to dive into these libraries but would like to maintain focus on the score when writing. That's all.

I'm so lost--- Logic X, Articulation Maps?[:S] I'm literally right now doing exactly what the OP wants. I loaded up Vienna Ensemble with 16 string sounds all on different channels. I'm controlling them all separately or together with a single MIDI track and manipulating nothing about the track except the channel number of the notes...[:)]

Load up one instance of Vienna Instruments within VE Pro and load that one instance with 16 articulations, and then...

Go into the score and select one note and change that note's MIDI number to reflect an articulation within the matrix of Vienna Instruments.

It's not possible. Vienna Instruments is not multitimbral.

Then those libraries are not truly multimbral.

ETA: I'm not sure if you mean they do legato-transitions out of other articulations.

@Another User said:

Must be nice, getting that efficient workflow

Yes, it absoultely is.

@BachRules said:

you could get what you want... by using Max

Thanks, but that would not allow me to quickly change the MIDI channel of a note within the score (as shown in the attached screenshot of Logic Pro X). For me, there is no opening any other MIDI editor, just a quick flip of the MIDI channel to change articulations directly within the score.

It actually would allow you to "quickly change the MIDI channel of a note within the score, no opening of any other MIDI editor, just a quick flip of the MIDI channel to change articulations directly in the score". Where'd you get the idea it wouldn't?

@Another User said:

... possible to play - say - a sustain patch, and then a legato transition

MassMover is describing a VI feature not available in "multitimbral" synths, since multitimbrality here would mean articulations acting independently. You have to decide if you really want the limitations imposed by "multitimbrality", because if you want that limitation, VI won't give it to you; it gives you options here instead of limitations. VSL has customers who value the ability to legato-transition out of different articulation; they aren't about to abandon those customers in order to gratify one guy requesting vintage "multimbrality". Of course, you can still get the VI articulations you want by setting MIDI channel in Logic, which is a separate issue, despite your conflation.

@BachRules said:

Must be nice, getting that efficient workflow

Yes, it absoultely is.

I'll let your association of Play with "niceness" speak for itself, and a lot of readers are personally familiar with Play.

@MassMover said:

... I would find it VERY useful, if there was a way to switch between more than 16 articulations by simply altering one value which is directly tied to the specific note, just as you alter velocity.

In case this interests you: [url]

This is all getting a little OT now, I think. I'm clear on what the OP wants, but have still not got my head around two things:

1. If you change MIDI channel within the player (assuming that one could) wouldn't that mean that the first note on this channel change would always be a start note, and therefore there would be no transition material heard when using legato or reps?
2. For basic use I can see that using the MIDI channel change might be efficient, but my String template (for example) has 44 articulations loaded. I wouldn't want to be limited to only 16 of these. How would one get around this?

@Another User said:

... For basic use I can see that using the MIDI channel change might be efficient, but my String template (for example) has 44 articulations loaded. I wouldn't want to be limited to only 16 of these. How would one get around this?

One would get around that by using the articulation-change options VI has been providing all along which aren't tied to MIDI channels, as the MIDI-channel specification is a relic designed in 1982 to accomodate slow cables and 8-bit CPU's.

That setting in Logic is for MIDI Channel. There are 16 MIDI Channels, as was decided in 1982. If you use that Logic setting, you get 16 choices, not 44. Logic could add another setting right next to it for Articulation, not limited to 16 choices; but that's off-topic I suppose.

@DG said:

... If you change MIDI channel within the player (assuming that one could) wouldn't that mean that the first note on this channel change would always be a start note, and therefore there would be no transition material heard when using legato or reps?

If you sent a sustain on channel 1 and then a perf-legato on channel 2, the synth could do a legato transition from the sustain to the legato, if the engineers coded it to do so. This would make the synth non-multitimbral, however, and so OP's requests for multitimbrality continue to be a bad idea.

That was my point really. You can't have both if you want to be able to use the fantastic features of the VI player properly. The only way round that I can think of is if it was possible to send a command to force a note with a legato transition, but then the feature of using seperate channels for each articulation is no longer simple and quick.

DG