Some great information here.
Just wanted to add that i knock up the score first, and use a self built soundbank with Sib 3 (or even just write out the score 'by hand' depending on requirments.), then export the midi to sequencer into a matching template. I then carry out the second part of the process, that of tweaking the 'higher quality' sounds, then bounce to audio for the third part of my working process, mix.

It may well be that VSL SE could substitute for the soundbank, but given the current playback facility in notation programs, that means an extra bit of software to host the VI. I'm not sure it has to be that complicated.

For laying out a score, and if required, a playback reference as one goes, the simple sample sound set (Sf2=130MB with 4 basic artics for each string section, and two each for the others) is sufficient to get an idea. My particular soundbanks come in two varieties, small orch and large orch, and i've removed all non essential instruments and sound effects. Works a treat when speedy input and at least a coarse reference is required.
I will add to this, that are occasions when i simply lay out the score in SIB, then print it, and play into the sequencer with the score in front of me in hard copy. It's not really that much more work, and when i sequence input, i can concentrate on getting the sound right, blending, etc.....

So for me (generally) there are three distinct stages.
Write.
Perform.
Mix.

Seperating the three may just give a clearer idea of system requirements to play everything 'live', and if you've already made the articulation decisions before loading the sample 'big guns', then you may save a lot of resource before you even begin. I think a lot of the overload challenges come from writing as one goes (nothing wrong with that) instead of writing first, then performing/recording. Let's face it, if you've already written the score, and know where you going musically, then the only instances you need to open at early stage is those you're working on,with maybe a few others for balance, then hit the 'purification' button in the VI and add the rest.
I think the VI is a great opportunity, but the introduction of this technology also means we may have to re-examine our working methods, and tinker with them here and there.

Two roubles worth.

Alex.

Hey Alex-- for a long time I really felt badly for not being able to do everything at once quickly enough. It's nice to know that others think in "phases".

I really want to be as fluent with this stuff as I am with a pencil and paper, but the other hurdle for me is Syncrosoft ^&%@*!!! It's the single most abysmal, unstable piece of tripe I've ever seen. I do fine for a while, but Syncrosoft will wait until two days before a project is due to glitch. I've often had to revert to another orchestra library, working from scratch to meet deadlines. I'll get it sorted out, but I lose my momentum and motivation.

I'm hoping that it works better on my MacPro-- while I was doing the test for aplanchard, Syncrosoft decided not to authorize-- so the test took 45 minutes instead of 15 as it should have. Three restarts!!

If it weren't for VSL's amazing sounds, I'd have given up long ago.

@JWL said:

Hey Alex-- for a long time I really felt badly for not being able to do everything at once quickly enough. It's nice to know that others think in "phases".

I really want to be as fluent with this stuff as I am with a pencil and paper, but the other hurdle for me is Syncrosoft ^&%@*!!! It's the single most abysmal, unstable piece of tripe I've ever seen. I do fine for a while, but Syncrosoft will wait until two days before a project is due to glitch. I've often had to revert to another orchestra library, working from scratch to meet deadlines. I'll get it sorted out, but I lose my momentum and motivation.

I'm hoping that it works better on my MacPro-- while I was doing the test for aplanchard, Syncrosoft decided not to authorize-- so the test took 45 minutes instead of 15 as it should have. Three restarts!!

If it weren't for VSL's amazing sounds, I'd have given up long ago.

JW, Thinking in phrases (a good description) has been the most consistent part of my working method through many years of experimentation with efficiency, and speed. Like you i can write fairly quickly, and i found that trying to write digitally, as i go, often slowed down the flow, and gave me sense of frustration.
I guess the psychological effect of quickly drafting out with a small soundbank first, is the 'sense of achievement' i get when the draft is finished, quickly, without getting slowed down by my inability to input digitally as fast as i write. Not everything is right, or sounds near enough, but the overall objective is achieved at the first step.

Reading your comments it strikes me that my next stage avoids that Synchro frustration as well. (Learnt from dealing with the Cubase Redbrick dongle many dusty years ago)
That is, once everything is written, and i'm in the next stage of 'performing', as each small section is finished, i bounce to audio. This may seem contrary to the idea of working with a VI, but i think the two complement each other, as i view VI's as a fast means of inputting, not neccessarily a multi instanced 'end to finish playback'. I can appreciate others will want everything playing at once, with the possible reasoning being the chance to tweak and adjust instantly, but most of my audio chunks are 1 or 2 bars long, and with practise, it doesn't take long to create another chunk. (In Logic for example, there is the opportunity to mute regions, so once a 1st Violin tremolo section has been 'bounced', for example, the midi region can be muted, instead of erased, and further adjustments can be made by unmuting, and re-bouncing.)

It seems like a lot of extra work to do all this twice, (Write then Perform) but it's proved to be fairly quick and a lot less taxing on the nerves! As far as feeling bad about not being as fast digitally, personally, i'd rather be acknowledged for excellence compared to speed. If it takes a few hours more to get something done, then the time is worth it (IMHO). We write this stuff for ourselves, not as a test of workflow for others to condemn or judge.

But then i'm one of those chaps who worries over every note! [H]
A big thanks to you JW, for conducting this test, as I consider it thoroughly worthwhile and valuable information, and while give your results serious thought.

And i'm also one of those fellows that thinks from parchment and quill first, and it's slower for me as well with the digital stuff.
So you're not on your own!

Regards,

Alex.

@aplanchard said:

So question is how many additional Macs (or PCs) will I need to be able to load a full orchestra for example in Universal Mode?

what method do you use to actually "add" more computers?
Can you access each VI on the main DAW computer or is it more of a "sequencer + external sample players" approach? How do you render the whole project?

I'm on Nuendo3 (Mac).

To keep it simple, I use (and will add) external computers as sample players (K2 or Gigastudio) with audio piped into my main Mac comp's audio interface via ADAT and via midi interfaces, although many have had success with midi over ethernet.

ipMidi from nerds.de is excellent. Rock solid and much easier to configure then MOL (which requires a lot of networking knowledge).

This is how I use a dedicated GS computer with my Mac, but all this computer switching is not fun at all, really hope for a real network processing solution some day though.

How do you host VIs on the external machines?

@Abel said:

ipMidi from nerds.de is excellent. Rock solid and much easier to configure then MOL (which requires a lot of networking knowledge).

This is how I use a dedicated GS computer with my Mac, but all this computer switching is not fun at all, really hope for a real network processing solution some day though.

How do you host VIs on the external machines?

Abel:

First of all, thanks of the tip on ipmidi. I'm going to try it out in the next day or two.

You are using a dedicated GS computer with your Mac already, so your question of hosting VIs on an external machine strikes me as funny. It seems you're already doing it! [:P]

The external machines are setup pretty much the same as they would when using one computer. Independent MIDI and audio interfaces are connected in-to-out, out-to-in. Both computers are aware of each other.

External machine is loaded with VIs and routed from its own outputs to the inputs on the master machine.

The master machine "sees" the external machine's audio and midi, and all sequencing is done on the master machine. In my setup, the external machine just sits there-- receiving midi from and returning audio to the master. There is no transport synchronization between the two machines.

All devices are also connected via a central word clock hub.

Unlike GS3, which has a multi channel and multi bus engine,
VI Standalone is a non multi-timbral stereo output instrument
and you can run only one VI Standalone at a time.
So, I understand that you use multiple VST VI instances instead.
My question is, what software do you use to host them.
(Cubase, V-Stack?)

Abel,
I've been using V-Stack and it's been fine so far. I believe you can only open up to 16 instances in V-Stack, but that's far more than I need per computer. As they say, you'll run out of RAM before needing more instances.

I wish I could get more stability out of FXTeleport, but something is amuck in Denmark with my system. I know other people run FXTeleport very well, though. Problem is for me, I have very little networking knowledge to draw on when things go wrong, so I waste enormous amounts of time trying to figure it out. I eventually had to give up and go back with the old midi interfaces.

Best,
Mahlon

@Abel said:

Unlike GS3, which has a multi channel and multi bus engine,
VI Standalone is a non multi-timbral stereo output instrument
and you can run only one VI Standalone at a time.
So, I understand that you use multiple VST VI instances instead.
My question is, what software do you use to host them.
(Cubase, V-Stack?)

Ah, now I understand.

Yes-- almost any virtual instrument DAW will work as a host, but the lower its profile, the more resources there will be for the instruments.

Currently, I have Digital Performer on both machines with multiple instances of VI Cube loaded. But there is AULab among the OSX developer apps that appears to be a great low-profile host for AU plugins.