Really hoping someone (of all the new VI users) has the same set up as me (SX on HOST with multiple slaves running the new VI).

How have you gotten this to work?


--sorry for being so 'thick' on this


Rob

Rob

Have been watching your posts this week, and I've postd my own observations and porblems.

It appears that much of the user problems at the moment are NETWORKING rather than VI related. However, if you can't have one without the other....

I have tried FXTeleport, MOL and forte.....huge amount of audio pops and distortion in all of them....cpu spikes everhywhere.

Yet I've had 12 VIs open as VST instruments inside Cubase SX as slave to a master PC running Nuendo, with CPU usage of 10%. This seems way better for me, except I cant address an individual midi channel, as oppsed to a midi port, in SX. This means that as it stands, I need a midi port for each VI.

This is of no significance over a network, but is if you physically wire the maaster/slave combi.

Wil keep reporting as I go, no dubt you'll do the same.

Andy O'Callaghan

Hi Rob,
I personally have no problem with V-Stack on a slave.
My setup seems pretty similar to yours. Also 4 Slaves and one Host with SX3.

In the Moment I am just runnig three slaves (the third is reserved for Brass), one with Cubase SL2, one with Cubase SE and one with V-Stack. All Slaves are 'physically' wired to the host, what means via midi interfaces. so each has up to six Midiports, which appeare in the Menu of the Midi 'in'-field in Cubase. I think you know this. In V-Stack you dont have any Midi'in' field like this if you have'nt loaded any VST.

If you load a VST in the VST-Instruments Window the field of the loaded VST's gets several new fields on the left side. in one you can read "not connected" as default if you open its menu you should see all available Midiports to choose for the connection. On the rightside of the loaded VST-Intrsument field there is another option to choose the channel of the connected port.

I dont know, if this ismuch diffrent with MOL, but I assume your MOL-Ports should likewise be available in V-Stack of your slave.

For me at least thats all I need for the VI connection on a slave to the host. It seems to me even easier than with GS3 and the Performance-tool.
I hope it help perhaps a bit.
cheers
Steffen

Rob et al

Some progress here......tried Forte again....hadn't set the correct audio driver before...changed driver to ASIO Fireface...pops gone!!!

So, PILOT ERROR....

Will try to test forte/bidule/chainer and vstack and report back

Andy

@andyocallaghan said:

It appears that much of the user problems at the moment are NETWORKING rather than VI related. However, if you can't have one without the other....

I have tried FXTeleport, MOL and forte.....huge amount of audio pops and distortion in all of them....cpu spikes everhywhere.
Andy O'Callaghan

Andy, this is not quite accurate; AFAIK your network doesn't abide by any of the stated requirements for FX-Teleport to work. I can assure you that it does work, but you have to follow the guidelines [:)]

DG

Accept your point DG, but really a lot of our current issues are due to a lack of understanding on our parts, as opposed to any major issues with VI [yet!!!]

I'm coming to this from Pro Edition/Gigastudio running on 1 slave PC to my sequencer running on the master. Connection was via MIDI into Gigastudio, and the audio out was through the soundcard on the Slave machine...fine.

Now, VI arrives, and we hear of various options MOL/FXTele/VStack etc. etc.

Having tried some of these options, I'm aware now that they are filling different roles, i.e.

FXTeleport will being the audio back into the Master computer...I dont want that to happen, as it puts CPU pressure on the master, and it limits my routing options.

So, as I understand it now, FXTeleport is NOT an option for taking the audio out of the slave computer.

MOL provides MIDI only over the network - has no audio/VST function whatsoever.

The other four - forte/chainer/bidule/vstack - act as VST wrappers - so if can get Midi input to them [either via Network or hardwired], I can use them to output my audio from the VI slave.

So far, I've tried forte, and after a bit of pilot error, its now working.
I intend to try the other two [cant test vstack], before reporting back my findings

If I'm wrong on any of this [and I could well be so!!!], please do correct me

Andy

Andy, I wasn't trying to chastise you in any way, just trying to figure out what way you prefer to work so that I could maybe offer some help [:)]

@Another User said:

The other four - forte/chainer/bidule/vstack - act as VST wrappers - so if can get Midi input to them [either via Network or hardwired], I can use them to output my audio from the VI slave.

They are hosts, in the same way as your sequencer is. They provide a receptacle for your VSTi to sit in.
I would say that if you want your system to work as it always has, then a VST host is the way to go, All I was trying to point out (and sorry for this ramble) was that FX-Teleport works very well, is cheap and provided that the network is set-up correctly, just as easy to use as a hardwired option.

DG

DG - firstly, dont worry about feelings - not an issue, I assure you - merely trying to get the best results through pooling our knowledge!!!
Also, apologies for my ramblings...could never stick to the point!!!

OK, I can say that through the forte demo so far, I have found a method that will work...midi [hardwired] out of master into forte on slave running multiple VI's, audio out of slave to mixing desks. So far, so good, and I'll be happy if this continues with no other issues.
[Ive just tried bidule - looks a lot more complicated - had a quick look at chainer...maybe]

If I try FXTeleport, each VST that I start in Nuendo adds about 10% to the CPU usage - so 5 VSTs and my master CPU is at 50%. So why are my cpu resources being eaten up by the program.

Ok - none of these issues or VI specific, yet I hope any solutions will contribute to getting everybody up and running, at least.

Andy

@andyocallaghan said:

If I try FXTeleport, each VST that I start in Nuendo adds about 10% to the CPU usage - so 5 VSTs and my master CPU is at 50%. So why are my cpu resources being eaten up by the program.

Andy

I think that this is very interesting (I really should get a life [8-)] )

I have just loaded up 30 instances of VI (mostly empty to save time). My Master CPU is moving between 25% and 40%, the slave is running at about 40% and I have about 1.4Gb instruments loaded.

I think that if 5 instances are getting you up to 50% then there is definitely something wrong going on. However, as you seem to have found a system that works for you, it probably doesn't matter in the short term.

DG

@fahl5 said:

Hi Rob,
I personally have no problem with V-Stack on a slave.
My setup seems pretty similar to yours. Also 4 Slaves and one Host with SX3.

In the Moment I am just runnig three slaves (the third is reserved for Brass), one with Cubase SL2, one with Cubase SE and one with V-Stack. All Slaves are 'physically' wired to the host, what means via midi interfaces. so each has up to six Midiports, which appeare in the Menu of the Midi 'in'-field in Cubase. I think you know this. In V-Stack you dont have any Midi'in' field like this if you have'nt loaded any VST.

If you load a VST in the VST-Instruments Window the field of the loaded VST's gets several new fields on the left side. in one you can read "not connected" as default if you open its menu you should see all available Midiports to choose for the connection. On the rightside of the loaded VST-Intrsument field there is another option to choose the channel of the connected port.

I dont know, if this ismuch diffrent with MOL, but I assume your MOL-Ports should likewise be available in V-Stack of your slave.

For me at least thats all I need for the VI connection on a slave to the host. It seems to me even easier than with GS3 and the Performance-tool.
I hope it help perhaps a bit.
cheers
Steffen

Thanks Steffen - I think this will lead me to a solution! Your post has some 'routing' specifics that I have overlooked (definitely pilot error on my behalf.) [:O]ops:

I'll be in the studio in about 3 hours and will report back my progress - thanks to all (especially DG who emailed me a half dozen times late in his evening [[;)]] )

Rob

@Rob Elliott said:

[I'll be in the studio in about 3 hours and will report back my progress - thanks to all (especially DG who emailed me a half dozen times late in his evening [[;)]] )

Rob

Awwwwwww, shucks.......... [:O]ops:

DG