The next step

[fahl5]

After we have seen what great improvement a softwareupdate as the new VI-engine for usability might be, it seems to me worth to ask, why - if we now don't need no more 3.Party Sample-software - we now have to rely on such a tiny software like Vstack.

To me (softwaredeveloping ignorant) it seems to be just another feature to add, to allow the VI-sofftware to open up several instances as Standaloneapplication and connect them together to the Soundcard-out and the Midisignal-in.

As far as MIR is planned to integrate the VI-Software, why should another Update not include the required equalizing and mixing options we had in GS to run multiple VI-Instances independent of anyother 3.Party-Hostsoftware for each slave.

I dont want to be ungrateful, but it seems reasonable to me when i hear Users investings quite a bit for their new SC and ending up messing around with a 50 € VStack.

OK it works fine for me, but what would it be if this part of the software would likewise adapted to the VSL-needs like the new Sampleengine?

just a thought
Steffen

[DG]

I think that adding effects and such like is counterproductive. I know why they introduced them to GS, but I would rather have them in the sequencing application, as then they are easily available for VSTi, hardware sound modules and "live" recordings.

Regarding the hosting software, all VSL has to do is make VI multi-timbral and the hosting software will not be needed. I seem to remember Herb mentioning that this was planned for the future.

DG

[fahl5]

@DG said:

I think that adding effects and such like is counterproductive. I know why they introduced them to GS, but I would rather have them in the sequencing application, as then they are easily available for VSTi, hardware sound modules and "live" recordings.

Regarding the hosting software, all VSL has to do is make VI multi-timbral and the hosting software will not be needed. I seem to remember Herb mentioning that this was planned for the future.

DG

I am not bound to add an stack of effects to the VI engine, but as far you can't get with all soundcards all opened instances seperatly to the host mixer, it would be necesarry to have an option for basic individual adjustments (eq, pan, vol and MIR) for each instance in the slave before sending an already mixed Output to the host.

This was good with GS3 and this is still possible with V-Stack. If the VI should be multitimbral as standalone, this basic adjustment options seems to me inevitable in Vi to.

On the other hand the network setup might be perhaps easier and optimized for VI-demands if one would be able to directly connect audio and Midi from VI to the Soundcard.

Steffen

[DG]

@DG said:

I think that adding effects and such like is counterproductive. I know why they introduced them to GS, but I would rather have them in the sequencing application, as then they are easily available for VSTi, hardware sound modules and "live" recordings.

Regarding the hosting software, all VSL has to do is make VI multi-timbral and the hosting software will not be needed. I seem to remember Herb mentioning that this was planned for the future.

DG

I am not bound to add an stack of effects to the VI engine, but as far you can't get with all soundcards all opened instances seperatly to the host mixer, it would be necesarry to have an option for basic individual adjustments (eq, pan, vol and MIR) for each instance in the slave before sending an already mixed Output to the host.

This was good with GS3 and this is still possible with V-Stack. If the VI should be multitimbral as standalone, this basic adjustment options seems to me inevitable in Vi to.

On the other hand the network setup might be perhaps easier and optimized for VI-demands if one would be able to directly connect audio and Midi from VI to the Soundcard.

Steffen
I think that we're in agreement here. I have to say that so far using FX-Teleport via network has very few drawbacks. A multi-timbral version would be even better, as each instance of a VSTi takes away RAM from sample usage.

DG

[fahl5]

@DG said:

I think that we're in agreement here. I have to say that so far using FX-Teleport via network has very few drawbacks. A multi-timbral version would be even better, as each instance of a VSTi takes away RAM from sample usage.

DG

OK thinking at Kontakt 2 a likewise multitimbral VI will do a good job even if it has not that range off possibilitys to influence the Samples that Kontakt 2 offers.

But:
...if you use FXTeleport, and if you are satisfied with it there is no need for any multitimbral VI, since you can open several Instances in the same "FXTp-server" parallel. I dont think that the amount of used RAM will be that significant between one multitimbral or several normal VI's.

But:
...It may depend to my poor server-PC (AMD2600/2GBRAM) or old Teleport-License (Version 1.0), with the VI I get an awful Latency of 1280 Samples with FXTeleport, meanwhile Kontakt 2 and another multitimbral Sample-VST both produce on the same "FXTp-server" only 384 Samples which is quite acceptable.
Don't you have any similar latencyproblems with VI over FXTeleport?
Steffen

[DG]

@DG said:

I think that we're in agreement here. I have to say that so far using FX-Teleport via network has very few drawbacks. A multi-timbral version would be even better, as each instance of a VSTi takes away RAM from sample usage.

DG

But:
...if you use FXTeleport, and if you are satisfied with it there is no need for any multitimbral VI, since you can open several Instances in the same "FXTp-server" parallel. I dont think that the amount of used RAM will be that significant between one multitimbral or several normal VI's.

But:
...It may depend to my poor server-PC (AMD2600/2GBRAM) or old Teleport-License (Version 1.0), with the VI I get an awful Latency of 1280 Samples with FXTeleport, meanwhile Kontakt 2 and another multitimbral Sample-VST both produce on the same "FXTp-server" only 384 Samples which is quite acceptable.
Don't you have any similar latencyproblems with VI over FXTeleport?
Steffen

I'm running at 512 on a 100Mbit network and am just about to upgrade to a Gigabit. However, the latency is OKish and I just put up with the few pops an clicks that I get. When "rendering" I just up the latency to ensure that there are no pops.

Each instance of VI eats up to 45Mb in Teleport server.exe, so I would prefer to have as few instances as possible. Whilst we are still in XP land (and not Vista) and without the 3Gig switch, every Mb counts!

DG

[JBacal]

Is Vista going to allow programs to access more memory?


--Jay