Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

198,109 users have contributed to 43,101 threads and 258,723 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 4 new thread(s), 7 new post(s) and 61 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. Sample Libraries
  3. Vienna Instruments Libraries
  4. VI on PT

  • VI on PT

    R
    R
    I understand word on the street is that Vienna Instruments doesn't work, or work well, in Pro Tools.

    Silly me, unaware of this a couple of months ago, I wrapped my new Vienna Instrument with fxpansion 2.1, loaded PT M-Powered 7.3, and went to work. Since then I've had 8 or 10 instances playing simultaneously,many voices, used the GUI extensively. Aside from having to chase the GUI (reinstantiate) all the time, which I understand isn't just a Pro Tools issue, the thing has been as reliable as any software I run.

    Perhaps it runs more efficiently elsewhere, I don't know. But it runs fine on Pro Tools and a Mac Pro. Maybe word on the street needs to be updated, or at the least qualilfied.

    Mac Pro Quad 2.66, PT 7.3cs3, fxpansion wrapper 2.1, VI 1.11.
  • cmC
    VSL Team
    cmC
    thanks for the report JohnnyMarks, although 8 or 10 instances are not too much this confirms that latest PT and fxpansion gives better results than anything before.
    i have heard sinilar about PT 7.3.1cs4 though would still not call it *supported* regarding performance.
    christian
    and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds.
  • D
    D
    last edited
    last edited

    @JohnnyMarks said:

    I understand word on the street is that Vienna Instruments doesn't work, or work well, in Pro Tools.

    Silly me, unaware of this a couple of months ago, I wrapped my new Vienna Instrument with fxpansion 2.1, loaded PT M-Powered 7.3, and went to work. Since then I've had 8 or 10 instances playing simultaneously,many voices, used the GUI extensively. Aside from having to chase the GUI (reinstantiate) all the time, which I understand isn't just a Pro Tools issue, the thing has been as reliable as any software I run.

    Perhaps it runs more efficiently elsewhere, I don't know. But it runs fine on Pro Tools and a Mac Pro. Maybe word on the street needs to be updated, or at the least qualilfied.

    Mac Pro Quad 2.66, PT 7.3cs3, fxpansion wrapper 2.1, VI 1.11.

    As I am one of the guys on the street, I have to say 8-10 instances is a joke. When you can get 30 with the same efficiency then tell me that it works well. [:D]

    DG
  • R
    R
    last edited
    last edited

    @Another User said:

    As I am one of the guys on the street, I have to say 8-10 instances is a joke. When you can get 30 with the same efficiency then tell me that it works well. DG


    Not to interrupt your axe-grinding here, but...to clarify, the point of "8 or 10 instances" was not to impress but simply to state the number of instances I required and used - and I've no particular reason to think it wouldn't scale.

    You have run VI in Pro Tools on an Intel Mac and had problems? If so, I'd be interested in your experience.
  • D
    D
    No axe-grinding. I just like to see accurate information. You might be very happy with 8-10 instances and I'm very pleased for you. Many on this form would find that unusable. Would you be happy if someone followed your recommendation to use PT, only to find that they couldn't run a half decent template? If something doesn't work, I say so, even if it's not what some people want to hear.

    I'm glad that you're doing more testing. If you look back 20 months ago when VI was first released, you'll see that I did a huge amount of stress testing and sample load tests, so it's not as if I'm not prepared to put the time in to help others and give accurate, up-to-date information. Because of these tests improvements were made to FXT which has helped all users of this software, for example.

    DG
  • R
    R
    last edited
    last edited

    @DG said:

    No axe-grinding. I just like to see accurate information. You might be very happy with 8-10 instances and I'm very pleased for you. Many on this form would find that unusable. Would you be happy if someone followed your recommendation to use PT, only to find that they couldn't run a half decent template? If something doesn't work, I say so, even if it's not what some people want to hear.

    I'm glad that you're doing more testing. If you look back 20 months ago when VI was first released, you'll see that I did a huge amount of stress testing and sample load tests, so it's not as if I'm not prepared to put the time in to help others and give accurate, up-to-date information. Because of these tests improvements were made to FXT which has helped all users of this software, for example.

    DG


    I humbly apologize to you for my wholly irresponsible post.
  • R
    R
    So what about the word on the street as far as RTAS is concerned. I was made aware of the beta testing. Any ETA on this?