Okay, three instances stand-alone outside Logic, one instance inside Logic, and one Kontakt 2 outside Logic all working perfectly and solidly on a cue made up of :25 of noodling. The CPU load is normal, latency is fine...although I'm not stressing the memory at the moment.

At this point the only issue is with K2, getting it to see the right MIDI channels of the IAC bus, but it will.

Nick:

Are you saying that the VI plugin loaded into Kontakt 2 inhabits a separate memory segment from that occupied by the VI plugin in Logic so that you're getting two instances of the VSL-Server?

There's no V.I. plug-in loaded into Kontakt 2. I'm running an instance of K2 outside Logic in order for it to get its own memory space just like the V.I. stand-alones are.

I have a V.I. plug-in and a K2 plug-in loaded inside Logic as well. The system isn't maxed out at the moment, but the point is you can access about 7GB that way! And you might be able access as much as 15GB in a 16GB machine!

http://homepage.mac.com/virtualinstruments/.Pictures/Logic,%203%20Viennas,%20K2,%20other%20stuff.png">

Nick:

I think get it - - you are running non Vienna Instrument samples in Kontakt 2. And thanks for your persistent intelligence. (No wonder I'm a subscriber to Virtual Instruments magazine!)

One more question: am I correct in believing that, in light of what you've suggested regarding using the built-in-audio s/pidf output and feeding it back into the main audio interface, one could do the same thing with one or more audio interfaces (attached to the same computer as the main audio interface) so that each of these interfaces could provide a separate output destination for the VI stand-alone but be fed into the main interface?

I want to say that the discussion on this thread is an example of truly creative response to a challenge. I very much hope that the folks at VSL are taking notice and willl incorporate features that make overcoming the 32 bit limit part of the design goal in future releases of Vienna Instruments software.

Stephen

Sure Steve, you can loop the audio back into any audio interface; the interface doesn't know it's coming from its own output. The only potential issues are the obvious ones: you might not want to give up a whole 8-channel lightpipe just for two channels; and you have to be careful not to set up feedback loops.

What I was actually suggesting is looping the Mac's optical S/PDIF back to its own in, and adding the built-in audio interface as part of an aggregate device. I haven't tried that to see if the latency is okay, though; I have been using the Mac's digital in to monitor my MBox 2 dongle for the Pro Tools software, and the latency isn't very good. But that may not be representative, since I'm going through an RCA-optical format converter and haven't tried lowering the buffer.

And thanks for both the compliment and subscribing. [;)]

By the way, both Jerome and I from my armchair were suggesting that making the stand-alone see separate outputs shouldn't be a big deal. It occurs to me that it's using the same output driver the system sound uses; am I right that other software hooks into Core Audio through a different pathway? That might not be so trivial a change.

Oh, and I should also report that Soundflower is the shizzle. I installed it yesterday, and it works really well.

@jbm said:

...
Also, have you heard the recent rumors about Clovertown-based (8-core) Mac Pros in November? Makes my geeky bones shiver.

J.

8 core Mac Pro??????? Where did you hear these rumours???

[[:|]]

M a y a

It was on macrumors.com -- a pretty good place for the latest gossip. The Clovertown processor is a four-core cpu, so two of those, and... welll.... [;)]

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061025231946.shtml

The mid-November part of the rumor may be far-fetched. Basically, they're just pointing out that this is when Intel launches the Clovertown chip. So, if a Mac Pro revision were ready to go, as it were, it would have to wait for Intel's release... So, they're saying basically "any time after mid-November".

The Clovertown has already been unofficially tested as working in the current Mac Pros (the test article for this is linked from the article above).

cheers,

J.

Maya:

The rumours about 8 processor core Macs based on Intel's Clovertown chip have been rampant on Mac rumor sites for several months. You can check this out at:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2176

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061025231946.shtml

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6

http://techfreep.com/eight-core-mac-pro-a-reality-with-clovertown.htm

However, the story told by more conservative observers is that Intel will begin to ship the chips in large quantity in November and that the first Macs that will incorporate them may be shown at the MacWorld show in January and become available sooner or later after that. Then in the late spring OS 10.5, which is purported to be a fully 64bit (but compatible with 32bit applications) version of OS X is scheduled to be released. My own hunch that release of OS 10.5 may be followed by a release of a 64bit version of Logic.

I wouldn't rely on Macrumors to decide wether you should wait to buy a new computer or not. They're known for speculating a lot. Of course Apple will come out with 8-core computers. Nothing new here. What's total speculation is the launch date.

Apple came out with the Mac Pro in August, I highly doubt they are going to introduce an update like this 3 months later!

By the way, according to C-Net, the "Clovertown, a four-core processor, will start shipping late this year and hit the market in early 2007." It is very unlikely that it will be manufactured in large quantities before at least January, AND anyway the CPU will be probably too expensive when it comes out...

Someone posted this on the Logic TDM mailing list (which I still skim even though I'm not using TDM anymore).

http://www.xcellent-productions.de/downloads/activity2.png


[:)]

....... right [:D]

J.

So why does my G5 2.0ghz crash when VSL server reads 1.4Gb RAM (real mem)? Is this not normal?

Miklos.

@jbm said:

Hey Stephen,

Well, as I say, I haven't actually got it working with Logic. It just works taking direct hardware midi input, and sending audio directly to my RME card. So I don't know how it will work with Logic -- it just works in principle.

However, if I were going to seriously try, I'd probably try using the IAC bus or MIDI Patchbay for MIDI and Jack OS X or Soundflower for audio. Give it a go and let me know what happens!

Has anyone got any further with this?

I'm keen to use the Standalone along with VI plugins in Logic, but I have no idea how to do the MIDI and audio routing. (Something that works like Rewire to get back into Logic?)

I now have a Dual Quad with 8 GB RAM so I'd really like to maximise my resources here.

@jbm said:

Hey Stephen,

Well, as I say, I haven't actually got it working with Logic. It just works taking direct hardware midi input, and sending audio directly to my RME card. So I don't know how it will work with Logic -- it just works in principle.

However, if I were going to seriously try, I'd probably try using the IAC bus or MIDI Patchbay for MIDI and Jack OS X or Soundflower for audio. Give it a go and let me know what happens!

Has anyone got any further with this?


My apologies, I didn't see beyond the first page of the thread so missed all that great stuff re: Soundflower, jack and aggregate devices. Thanks everyone for your excellent theories, testing and explanations.

I now have two standalones working nicely.

1) output to Built-in Digital out connected to Optical S/PDIF in of Ensemble

2) Soundflower (Ensemble + Soundflower aggregate)

I've spent 3 hours trying to get Jack happy and no luck. Maybe I'm just being thick. Should I be able to use it to route a 3rd standalone output assigned to Ensemble, so that the Audio routes to a spare Ensemble DAW input (e.g. to 13/14)???

Ensemble doesn't have a loopback mode, i.e. it can't route outputs back to inputs without a cable. As far as I know the only ones that do that are RME's interfaces, but Metric Halo is adding a loopback feature to their interfaces.

The Ensemble sure does sound nice, though.

I think we need a step by step tutorial and links to the relevant sites / third party software, plus some diagrams and screen shots would help ! [[:)]]

This is a very clever and excellent work around by the way, congratulations to the masterminds behind it. I agree, VSL should release a standalone version with the option of selecting a different output - we're not asking them to implement this workaround as an officially supported feature, just quietly allow a standalone to support *choosing* the output (as opposed to multiple outputs) - they can even say "we don't support this work around we are just adding a tiny little bit more functionality to the stand alone in case people would need to use it" [[:)]]

Of course by now I imagine they are hard at work on the 64bit version of the server??!! But then again who knows when Leopard + Cubase / Logic + VI will be a workable up to standard and reliable set up?? It could take many months after the initial release of leopard before it's all bug free, and it will probably be the Cubase / Logic side of things that will take the longest to be worked out. Armchair speculation of course...

Miklos.

I'll put one up on www.VirtualInstrumentsMag.com shortly. We've had yet another letter on the subject, which I'm answering in the magazine, and I'll just stick it up there as a perennial article.

Give me a few days...

And of course I don't mean to preempt VSL in any way. [:)] That's in addition to what anyone cares to post here.

By the way the latest Metric Halo software's loopback mode works very well.

Hey you remembered I have a 2882 [:)] what a memory! I don't know my age or the year most mornings let alone the day of the week.

Thanks Nick you're a champion for the cause! Your good work is much appreciated.

Miklos.