I think Paul is referring to full string patches -- those programs that use violins, violas, cellos and basses on the whole keyboard at once. Often those patches are used as sketch sounds, for convenience. Otherwise, Strings I and II are indeed separable.

"...put chamber strings with winds I since i dont really envision using chamber strings very often." Remember that chamber strings can be layered with other strings for focus, detail, and texture. I don't know how much programming you want to do, mixing and matching, but it may be better to keep, for example, violins of all kinds close to one another. Sometimes this may not be feasible. Just don't limit your concept of any group -- particularly solo and chamber strings -- as something that will always be played by itself.

I don't own Brass II, but I wasn't aware of any instrument redundancies in the entire SC. We have a Viennese horn, then a double (or was it triple?), then a4 and a8.

@Plowman said:

I think Paul is referring to full string patches -- those programs that use violins, violas, cellos and basses on the whole keyboard at once. Often those patches are used as sketch sounds, for convenience. Otherwise, Strings I and II are indeed separable.

Thanks for that clarification, Plowman. I thought I'd lost my mind for a second.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

Why not just get a second Mac Pro instead of all those Minis? It'll be better and less expensive.

I may have mentioned before [6] that I don't think Minis are the right solution for big musical applications.

Hi Nick...thanks for chiming in. I've appreciated reading much of what you have written on these forums.

a second mac pro would cost the same as three mac minis. Im not convinced i could run the same amount of sounds on one mac pro as i could on 3 minis due to the 32 bit RAM limit (sorry, i know you have addressed this, but i dont quite understand how you work it).

Also, i am in a fairly tight space and am concerned about having room for 2 mac pros and dealing with the heat they generate...

I understand much of your criticism with the mini setup, but i havent seen an alternative as clearly laid out as jerome's. Could you elaborate a little bit on your set up?

"I don't think Minis are the right solution for big musical applications."

Hmm... that's not what a few big-time film composers out here would say... [;)]

Jerome

Perhaps the reason you're resorting to vague name-dropping is that you know I'm right Jerome? [:D]

An alternative answer: perhaps that's because they don't care about the price, given the budgets they're dealing with? [[;)]]

cuts, if the price really does work out - even after figuring out how you're going to get the audio out of those machines and clocked together, and also sticking FireWire hard drives on them - then I agree you're going to do better with three minis.

But while a stack of those things has sex appeal, my educated guess is that it doesn't add up, that you're going to get a lot more mileage out of machines that don't have such a minimalist design. 2GB of RAM is a waste of a machine, they have slow hard drives due to their lack of cooling, and they don't have PCI slots (he says after arguing against PCI due to the constant obsolescence...).

I don't like dealing with Windows machines when something goes wrong*, but they do work well in between, and you can put together an equivalent machine to the Mini that has none of its shortcomings for less money. The Mac Mini really is more expensive than comparable Windows machines; the Mac Pro is less expensive.

Note that I'm not seriously arguing with Jerome. He's obviously put together more than one very solid rig with those machines, and of course they work well. I just wouldn't spend that much money on half-assed computers - especially now that 64-bit memory access is just around the corner (as are considerably more powerful machines, according to rumors).

* The two times I've really got into trouble with my Windows machines, I posted to VI-Control, asked around, searched the net high and low, and in one case even called the people who sold me my custom Windows machine (www.VisionDAW.com). Nobody was able to sort me out, and these are people who use Windows every day. I finally got there on my own, but it was ridiculous both times.

Point being, if you'd rather deal with Macs because of that, I fully understand. [:)] But I personally would stick with Mac Pros.

Or maybe I spoke too soon:

http://community.vsl.co.at/viewtopic.php?t=10764&start=0

Nick..

i can usually pick up on ironic tone on message boards..so , at least to me, you dont seem to be "arguing"... [H]

Windows computers, in my mind, are not an option. i understand the huge cost savings (and possibly even performance gain with VI) compared to mac, but for me reliability is a higher priority than cutting costs. The work i do tends to be more in the 30 - 60 sec range, so the turnaround around on projects is often 1 day or even just a couple of hours. If my windows machine goes down, i cant afford to spend a lot of time trolling the internet for help in fixing it. My degree is in music and ive never taken computer music classes or anything like that, so im already handicapped a little. [*-)] Hopefully we'll hire someone to help set these up like we do for our pro-tools rigs. [I]

So, are using all Windows for your farm? how many? how are you spreading the samples between them?

Chris

Well, I only have about half of the Vienna Instruments VSL, so I'm probably not the right person to answer. My template is sort of all over the place, and it includes a lot of other libraries as well as the original VSL in both Giga and ESX format.

I'm running two G5s and two Windows machines. But I'd like to get rid of one of the Windows machines and possibly the second G5. I imagine I'll keep my main G5 whenever I move to Intel Macs, because it has a lot of stuff on it that's working very well and it has 8GB in it.

Thanks to everyone for the clarification of Strings 1 & 2. It's a moot point for me right now as I'm running everything one computer for the moment waiting for the rumored 8 processor Mac Pro, OS 10.5 and 64 bit versions of Logic and Vienna Instruments... I'll keep the G5 for a long time as it runs the last reasonably reliable version of Finale - - Fineale 2005 - - and is generally a great machine. BTW I strongly recommend against installing the OS 10.4.9 upgrade - - it appears to break a number of things.

stever...


what problems have you heard about in 10.4.9?

It appears that the AU validation procedure has changed and that some audio units won't work any more under 10.4.9; see for example

http://www.wavesupport.net/Content.aspx?id=2287">http://www.wavesupport.net/Content.aspx?id=2287

The Mac version of FX Teleport was supposed to be released in the beginning of April, but now it will be released much later because apparently a lot of extra work is required to make it compatible with 10.4.9.

@Another User said:

Point being, if you'd rather deal with Macs because of that, I fully understand. [:)] But I personally would stick with Mac Pros.

Well that's perhaps because you don't care about the price, given the budgets you're dealing with? [[[:D]]] [[[;)]]]

[6]

Actually, as far as I know you're right that Mac Pros with a lot of RAM haven't been tested. I do know that G5s have been tested, although cm and others have reported that the Intel Macs are better for VSL.

In any case, it actually is true that Mac Pros are less expensive than comparable PCs - at least they were when I added it up a few months ago. In fact they were several hundred dollars less than just the components on the internet.

But it really just comes down to how much money you want to throw at the system. Of course I too would much rather use Macs when I can.

nick and jerome...

you guys should be on Vienna's payroll.

seriously, i dont think i would invest into this library without your descriptions of how you use them...particularly jerome's mac mini setup and also nick's ability to get beyond the 32-bit RAM limitations.