SE is one Collection, not several so this is why it is impossible.

DG

Sorry but that is not what it actually says! It says

"Of course you can also run several Collections on more than one computer, e.g., Solo Strings and Chamber Strings on Computer A and Orchestral Strings and Brass on Computer B. "

If you read that carefully it is quite clear - you can run several collections (presumably including the SE collection) on more than one computer.

In short, you can run Vienna SE on more than one computer!

Except, apparently, you can't.

I agree that it is a tad ambiguous if you haven't followed the threads for the last year, but in fairness it does not say that you can run one Collection on more than one computer, which is what you're suggesting.

However, the good news is:

1 PC with VI (and 4GB RAM) is about as efficient in sample loading terms as 5 Giga PCs, so it shouldn't be as much as a disaster as you currently think it is.

DG

We have released 16 different Vienna Instruments collections. (more will come)
Each of these collections can run on a dedicated computer.
The Special Edition is one of these 16 collections:

Collections 1: Solo Strings
Collections 2: Chamber Strings
Collections 3: Orchestral Strings I
Collections 4: Orchestral Strings II
Collections 5: Harps
Collections 6: Woodwinds I
Collections 7: Woodwinds II
Collections 8: Brass I
Collections 9: Brass II
Collections 10: Percussion
Collections 11: Saxophones
Collections 12: Appassionata Strings
Collections 13: Bosendorfer Imperial
Collections 14: Konzerthaus Organ
Collections 15: Elements
Collections 16: Special Edition

best
Herb

@DG said:

However, the good news is:

1 PC with VI (and 4GB RAM) is about as efficient in sample loading terms as 5 Giga PCs, so it shouldn't be as much as a disaster as you currently think it is.

DG

Does this mean that with SE on just one computer, I can be at least 100% as comfortable in sample loading terms and processing load, as I'm now with Opus, on my 2 K2 PCs (each one with 2 Gb of ram ) ?
It would indeed be good news, [:)] IF confirmed... [[:|]]
Are you sure about your numbers ?

@DG said:

However, the good news is:

1 PC with VI (and 4GB RAM) is about as efficient in sample loading terms as 5 Giga PCs, so it shouldn't be as much as a disaster as you currently think it is.

DG

Does this mean that with SE on just one computer, I can be at least 100% as comfortable in sample loading terms and processing load, as I'm now with Opus, on my 2 K2 PCs (each one with 2 Gb of ram ) ?
It would indeed be good news, [:)] IF confirmed... [[:|]]
Are you sure about your numbers ?
I don't have any numbers about K2 in particular, but I did do a fair amount of testing with Giga. Assuming that K2 is about as efficient as Giga in terms of sample loading, then you should be better off with one VI machine than 2 K2 machines. However, this is only true if you load the same samples.

Regarding processing load, I would imagine that per MIDI track (as VI is not multitimbral) the VI processing load would be more. I hope that this helps.

DG

Mike,
I'm not being flippant when i say this, but have you actually tried loading the SE on one computer, and seeing what happens? And as i have Sibelius as well, i understand a little of what you're trying to do. However it's been my experience that Sibelius will only load on one box as well, and anything you pipe into it can come from another. As you've clearly stated, you have 3 computers.
So you'd be using two of them without the disadvantage of trying to load samples on your system drive along with Sibelius, plus once you'd written a line, and then purged it with the ram save, you're going to get back a lot of RAM and CPU resource.



Alex.

Thanks, Alex.

I have to admit I haven't yet tried it - I'm still struggling slightly with exactly what the best way of setting VI up. What I'm used to, and what I would have liked to have duplicated using VI instead of Giga, is the following -

PC1 running Sibelius (as well as being my main machine for email, Office etc)

PC2 running Giga with a complete set of string and piano samples permanently loaded

PC3 running Giga with wind and brass and other bits and pieces

MIDIoverLAN to direct stuff from Sibelius to the appropriate Giga machine

Fixed bank/patch numbers for every instrument, all controlled via Sibelius sound sets. Changes of articulation done via the Sib dictionary facility - so if I want pizz, I write pizz in the score; if I want detache, bells up, mute, whatever, I just write it in the score. Works absolutely brilliantly - except when GS crashes!

And whether I'm writing a new score or editing an old one, I don't have to worry about channel numbers, or purging memory, or loading instruments. They're all there ready to go. In fact the Giga machines are on a KVM switch and I rarely even have to look at their screens or type anything at their keyboards - they just purr along. As long as each stave is set up in the Sibelius Mixer to send the MIDI to the correct Netport, the rest is automatic. The only time I have to go into Giga is if I need to load up some odd instrument or articulation that I don't usually use.

So why do I not just keep[ this fantastic setup and forget VI? Good question! - but I was tempted by the reviews of VI and fed up with the unreliability of GS.

What I haven't yet worked out is whether it's possible to get anywhere close to the above using VI. Bank and patch numbers seem to be pretty useless in VI...??? - and without that degree of control the whole thing seems at the moment like a bit of a retrograde step!

It may be that I can use just one computer for VI where I had two for GS, which would be great because I could keep GS on the other one for some of the odd instruments that VI doesn't have! But I still have to solve the problem of how to control all this from my score using standard musical notation and articulation terms, rather than messing about with keyswitches and stuff like that!

Any ideas or thoughts gratefully received.

Mike, good post, and you've reflected a frustration with Sibelius that others (including me) have felt.

Setting up soundsets in Sibelius is problematic at the best of times (at least for me) and i've got more than one unfinished as a result of sheer frustration with the process.
(Nowadays i use Sibelius for score only, playing back with a small orchestral soundfont i built to get a general idea, and use Logic to build up a more decent 'playback.')

I don't know how well the VI will connect with Sibelius, but i don't think this is a problem with VSL, rather the limited capability of modern Notation editors in general to playback from large complex libraries, and recognise notated articulation. It would seem that developers are roaring ahead in the progress race, and software, especially notation software, still has some catching up to do. (program changes and manual cresc plugins. Ptooey.)It would be rather clever of Sibelius, for example, if they added a column in the Dictionary for assignable keyswitches, then one could automate the process, and enjoy the bliss of just writing articulative directions, and not have to do anything else. However, others far smarter than I, like the esteemed and knowledgable DG, may have a better idea how to put this together.

It may well be, frankly speaking, that marrying VSL's VI to Sibelius specifically may be somewhat of a challenge. The dictionary is useful in Sibelius, as I, even with my modest computer skills have discovered, but there's still a lack of usable input interface that gels easily with modern sample libraries.

Maybe it's worth a try, and getting back here with your progress, so one of the smarter tools in the forum box can give you a better idea. I for one would be interested in how you get on.
My last, and somewhat cheeky question is, how long did it take you to setup and fine tune Giga until you were happy with it?

Regards,

Alex.

Alex -

Setting up GS the way I have it now didn't take that long - the main thing was to decide on a scheme for bank/patch numbers, and then edit the .gig file to hard-code the bank numbers in there. (Most samples arrive preconfigured for bank 0, and at the time I was doing this the GS bank/patch manager wasn't working, so I edited the gig file directly.)

So bank 31 is orchestral violins, 32 is violas, etc; and on each of these patch 0 is legato, 1 is spiccato, etc. etc.

Then it took a wee while to set up a Sibelius soundset to relate each Sibelius named instrument and articulation to the correct bank and patch numbers. I found it easier to start off by editing the text file directly rather than using Sib's soundset editor (which is what you had to do pre-Sib 4 anyway).

But overall it didn't take that long to set up, and it's quite easy to add new instruments as required. And while I agree with you that the way Sib uses sound sets and the Dictionary leaves quite a bit to be desired, the setup I have works pretty well most of the time.

But of course, all this relies on Sibelius issuing an instruction saying "please load cello pizzicato onto MIDI port 1 channel 3" - or whatever - and the sampler software responding accordingly. Which VI does not!

So the main problem with VI as opposed to GS - as I see it as a VI novice, and I'm hoping that someone there will be able to enlighten me! - is that it won't respond to those bank change instructions. And therefore presumably every instrument has to be loaded into the required channels manually every time. What a pain!

Of course, I can see that for most people the VST host and the sequencing software are the same thing, so the problem probably doesn't arise. Where I think I went wrong was in thinking that the "standalone" VI software would act as a true standalone sample player, responding on multiple MIDI channels, in the same way that GS does. Clearly in that respect VI fails to deliver.

Mike