Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

188,892 users have contributed to 42,633 threads and 256,656 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 3 new thread(s), 16 new post(s) and 50 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. Sample Libraries
  3. Vienna Instruments Libraries
  4. Velocity XFade controller not saved in VE

  • Velocity XFade controller not saved in VE

    S
    S

     I recently came across this phenomenon:

    In an instance of VI instantiated within VE, I turned Velocity X-Fade on and assigned CC11 to Velocity X-fade.

    After having saved and re-opened the file, velocity X-fade was still turned on but, in the Map Control window, "None" was the control assignment for Velocity X-fade. When I looked at the list of controllers under the flip menu, I could see that CC11 was selected. To get it to reappear correctly in the Map Control window I had to reselect it.

    This behavior contrasts with what happens when a VI instance is instantiated in Logic 8 and the file is saved. All settings remain as they were when the file was reopened. I hope this will be addressed as it is very laborious to go through a large template and redo the control mapping for each parameter that may have lost its mapping.I will test with other parameters and controllers.

  • D
    D

    This is not what happens on PC in Nuendo, where it performs as expected. Maybe try to test with Cubase (Mac) or DP, to see whether it is a Mac problem or a Logic problem.

    DG
  • D
    D

    It is not a Mac problem - I observed exactly this behaviour when trying to understand my volume problem a few topics below this one - I'm using Windows XP2 / Sibelius 5.1
  • D
    D
    last edited
    last edited

    @DaveDrewry said:

    It is not a Mac problem - I observed exactly this behaviour when trying to understand my volume problem a few topics below this one - I'm using Windows XP2 / Sibelius 5.1

    Hmmmmmmmmm. I can't reproduce either of the problems, which I think are unrelated. I've followed the steps given for the xFade thing and it works every time, and with every controller, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

    As to your problem, Can you give a step by step repro (on your own thread) so that I can try it out in both studios here.

    DG
  • M
    M
    Stevesong, Yes I have the same behavior in DP4.6... After reopening a Saved File using VE Under -Preform-Map Control- is showing -NONE- except for those who has Name in the Control# list (1, 7, 11, 64). So, If DP -Setup- -Set Event Chasing is setting-up you just have to hit the -Play- button (as your first action) and you will see all of your Control# appear in VE Map Control...!!! Hope to help??? Cheer...
  • S
    S

     Alain:

    You are absolutely right. Thanks!  As you note, the correct controller appears in the Map Control window after playback starts (using Finale as the MIDI source in this case.)

    However I do note that Logic is a significantly more efficient host than VE on my G5. Once I get beyond a certain very limited number of VI instances (and limited number of articulations) in VE (and one instantiation of Altiverb 6), there are random clicks and pops as the orchestration becomes thicker. Playing the same score with Logic 8 as the host, there are no clicks and pops. No doubt, because Finale eats up so much processing power during MIDI playback (for reasons, as discussed in earlier thread, that most likely have to do with it (Finale) being comprised of layer upon layer of legacy code.), overload occurs sooner than it would otherwise. Still, I have successfully played back much more complex scores with Finale as the MIDI source and Logic 7 the VI host without such artifacts. Can't wait to get a MacPro!!

    Has anyone checked out Sibelius' consumption of processing power during MIDI playback? Does anyone know if Sibelius is multi-pocessor aware? (Finale is not.)
  • D
    D

    Steve

    I see no evidence that Sibelius is multi-processor aware - I use a PC quad-intel Q6700 and running approx 40 staves (not all necessarily playing at once) CPU 1 runs at 20-55% and the other three at 10-20%. When I added velocity cross-fading into VSL Ensemble, CPUs 2-4 became much busier, often 20-30% (I use 3 instances of VSL Ensemble in standalone mode on the same PC as Sibelius 5.1)

    Task manager usually shows approx 25% (averaged) overall (that's with the cross-fading configured) and Sibelius.exe usually shows 0-1% (!). I'm not asking Sibelius to add any effects such as reverb.

    The PC is 4Gb RAM, 4 hard drives (but 1 & 2 RAID) - there usually appears to be plenty of headroom on the CPUs - I find I'm more limited by disk access / RAM.
  • S
    S

    I downloaded the Sibelius 5.1 demo and checked CPU readings with Activity Monitor.

    Activity monitor reported that Finale 2008 playing one empty staff with scrolling and "Human Playback" turned off consumes 104% of one processor and around 60% of total processing power on my G5. (The different figures reflect the reading in front of the application on the list of active threads and the reading next to % User at the bottom of the Activity Monitor window.

    Running the same test (single empty staff) with Sibelius 5.1, Activity Monitor reports that Sibelius 5.1 is using 16.5% of one processor and 10-15% of available processing power.  Playing a score with multiple instruments instantiated in VE (itself instantiated as a plugin within Sibelius 5.1) consumed 30% of total processing power.

    These figures appear to indicate that Sibelius 5.1 (or at least the Sibelius 5.1 demo) has a far more efficient playback engine than does Finale 2008.

    Hopefully running Finale and VE together on an 8 processor core MacPro will mitigate the problems encountered with my G5 - - as I would really, really rather not have to learn Sibelius. 

  • M
    M
    Stephen, As usual your report is very interesting! The major thing with Sibelius is that it is not supporting both - Independent Time Signature and Independent Key Signature.... I think what you are showing now means also that Finale is becoming a old software and it could worth to rewrite the whole thing to get a less demanding Processing engine.... Alain
  • D
    D

    Daniel on the Sibelius forum said "Sibelius does use separate threads for playback, which means that if multiple cores are available, the operating system will share those threads between cores" when discussing v4.1 but as above I get a very skewed CPU distribution unless using CPU intensive activities on the other processors such as VE interpreting the Sibelius expression controller changes to drive velocity crossfade...
  • S
    S

    Alain:

    I've only fooled around with the Sibelius demo a bit - - but, contrary to what seems to be majority opinion, I don't find Sibelius terribly intuitive - - and it seems to make decisions for the user - - channel assignments, for example, seem to be automatic in accordance with instrument order - - and unchangeable. Similarly there doesn't, in Sibelius, seem to be any equivalent to Finale's MIDI Tool - - you are dependent on Sibelius' playback dictionary.  In light of this first impression, it doesn't surprise me that it does not support independent time and key signatures. From my point of view, Finale, on the other hand, needs fewer new features and more work on basic things like the playback engine. It's interesting to note that, 12 years ago, I could play back orchestral scores (with multiple external hardware samplers) with Finale running on a Quadra with a 40MHz 040 processor without problems. That it now uses 104% of one 2.5GHz G5 processor to play a single empty staff strongly suggests that the playback engine needs to be overhauled. 

    In regard to independent signatures in Finale: be careful when extracting parts (the old fashioned way as separate files) from a score with independent time signatures - - if you don't disallow different time signatures in each part after it has been extracted, then Finale does weird things with spacing. Until I figured this out, I noted that after I'd spaced everything as I wanted on page 2 and then continued working on the next few pages, when I went back to page 2, much of the work I'd done had been undone - - with notes in some bars jammed on top of each other. Once I unchecked "allow independent time signatures" in the part, this behavior stopped.