hey Rob - terrific music!
i can't see where patch changes offer any advantage or impact ram. That said, optimizing instruments that a patch or keyswitch, etc. might change can have a significant impact by focusing on what you might need and eliminating what you dont. instruments can usually be reduced in size depending upon what's important to you. some people have reduced everything to mono which will double the amount you can load. i do this on my laptop along with whole note mapping which doubles the load yet again. These are audible changes so i dont use them on my main system, but perhaps it would be efficient to create a set of instruments like this to sketch with, then load up just the full instruments you need to render a final performance.
I take advantage of other trade offs on my main system. for example, having all legato string patches available along with the ability to cross fade between layers is important to me. But with ensemble brass and winds, the advantage of more layers seems to outweigh the benefit of the larger legato instruments. the opposite seems true of the solo instruments which can stand out of the texture and have phasing problems if layered. Similarly, I couldn't make the case for four or fiive levels of pizzicato articulations, so i reduced them and added more repetitions to play in round robin (to avoid having to use the repetition or alternation tools). Actually, i've done this with almost all the shorter articulations. I also found limited usefullness in the intermediate length articulations. either a note is short, or a longer articulation can be cut off early without much detriment in the real world. in fact anything i can do to create the articulation thru performance technique (rolls, glisses, swells and even some sfz - not strings though) can save ram and not be detrimental if done musically. Some may not agree, which raises the valid point that the trade offs each of us makes will always be very personal and adapted to our unique sensitivities.
As for load limits, my machines all run at about 62-63%. Using GigaPulse would reduce that, so I distribute that processing power instead to the G5 using Altiverb. Obviously, that cost a little more money, but perhaps in the realm of what a fourth machine might cost. This is important because the camparison betweeen our systems might be an apples and oranges one. what can be acheived with three machine plus altiverb, might take four machines using gigapulse (for about the same money, and neither being inherently better).
Obviously, not the most direct answers to your questions, but perhaps something you can extrapolate from as you think through how you want to grow your system. just let me know if i can help, and thanks again for putting up the really cool music (i actually listened to several things on your site and would encourage others to do the same!).
i can't see where patch changes offer any advantage or impact ram. That said, optimizing instruments that a patch or keyswitch, etc. might change can have a significant impact by focusing on what you might need and eliminating what you dont. instruments can usually be reduced in size depending upon what's important to you. some people have reduced everything to mono which will double the amount you can load. i do this on my laptop along with whole note mapping which doubles the load yet again. These are audible changes so i dont use them on my main system, but perhaps it would be efficient to create a set of instruments like this to sketch with, then load up just the full instruments you need to render a final performance.
I take advantage of other trade offs on my main system. for example, having all legato string patches available along with the ability to cross fade between layers is important to me. But with ensemble brass and winds, the advantage of more layers seems to outweigh the benefit of the larger legato instruments. the opposite seems true of the solo instruments which can stand out of the texture and have phasing problems if layered. Similarly, I couldn't make the case for four or fiive levels of pizzicato articulations, so i reduced them and added more repetitions to play in round robin (to avoid having to use the repetition or alternation tools). Actually, i've done this with almost all the shorter articulations. I also found limited usefullness in the intermediate length articulations. either a note is short, or a longer articulation can be cut off early without much detriment in the real world. in fact anything i can do to create the articulation thru performance technique (rolls, glisses, swells and even some sfz - not strings though) can save ram and not be detrimental if done musically. Some may not agree, which raises the valid point that the trade offs each of us makes will always be very personal and adapted to our unique sensitivities.
As for load limits, my machines all run at about 62-63%. Using GigaPulse would reduce that, so I distribute that processing power instead to the G5 using Altiverb. Obviously, that cost a little more money, but perhaps in the realm of what a fourth machine might cost. This is important because the camparison betweeen our systems might be an apples and oranges one. what can be acheived with three machine plus altiverb, might take four machines using gigapulse (for about the same money, and neither being inherently better).
Obviously, not the most direct answers to your questions, but perhaps something you can extrapolate from as you think through how you want to grow your system. just let me know if i can help, and thanks again for putting up the really cool music (i actually listened to several things on your site and would encourage others to do the same!).