Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

182,061 users have contributed to 42,201 threads and 254,657 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 2 new thread(s), 8 new post(s) and 41 new user(s).

  • Routing Reaper and VE (MIDI ports) & template building ideas

    last edited
    last edited

    Hey there, VSL-iacs!

    Now that my new computer is assembled, I am working on my DAW setup.

    I had an idea for my orchestral template, which I want to share - hoping to receive some feedback and constructive critisism; I'd be most thankful. Of course, there is a problem as well, which I will present right afterwards.

    Template Idea
    I had the idea of installing a VE instance for every big group, say [winds], [strings etc], [percussion + others].
    Every instrument of the group would have its own MIDI port.

    Example: piccolo on port 1, flute on port 2, oboe port 3 etc.

    I would then use the 16 channels of the respective port for further differentiation.

    In the example: flute 1 on (port/channel) 2/1, flute 2 on 2/3 2/2, flute w/ transposition trick on 2/5 2/3, flute with different VIP settings (eg. Vel-X-fade controlled via velocity not CC2) on 2/7 2/4etc.
    (The reason for choosing odd channel numbers is the idea of sending the keyswitches on the correlating even channel number in order to easily omit them when exporting MIDI data to a program like Finale.) EDIT: This is not necessary, because the channels in the Reaper track do not automatically mirror the channels in the routing. I can have 16 channels in the Reaper MIDI track and can send all (or any other combination) to them to, e.g., 2/2.

    The reason for this approach is: I want to keep the template modular (*), which means that I will only add cases like above if necessary. For it would mix up channel numbers etc when just randomly inserting a "third flute track for whatever reasons", I thought it would be nice to have the instruments capsuled in their own ports, which gives 16 (or 8 in the aforementioned style) possible tracks per instrument and keeps the routing matrix clean and clear. If the current piece demands a cello divisi, I'll just add appropriate tracks in the "cello port" and so on.

    Every instrument (read MIDI port) would then send the audio of its channels to one dedicated instrument bus, which routes back to Reaper, resulting in one audio track per instrument for stem rendering and post production. (This way I try to limit myself during my first steps of mixing.)

    (*) I'm new to this and I know that template building is really hard, not least because of the uncountable possibilites and styles. I'm trying to find my way of doing things, and I'm sure that this won't be the last template (or attempt of a template), I'll be building...

    That much about the template idea - feel free to comment, I'll GLADLY listen to your advice and experience!

    The Problem
    I'm working with the latest version of Reaper and I have a problem with routing the channels to a VE instance. The first bus works fine, but all other busses do not send their MIDI to the VE instance and I cannot figure out why. I feel like it's a very simple thing, but I can't find it. I read that the multi-port-possibilites come with the VST3 standard, which VE supports automatically(?).

    I appended a very simple project, showing the problem (the cello tracks produce no audio, the MIDI information doesn't even reach the VE instance).

    I appreciate any help and thoughts!

    Kind regards,

  • Hi LucSa,

    the main question is: Does Reaper support the VST3-format at all?

    Kind regards,

    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
  • last edited
    last edited

    @Dietz said:

    HiLucSa, the main question is: Does Reaper support the VST3-format at all? Kind regards,
    Hello! 😊 Yes, it does. Lukas Ps.: I just saw that this thread slipped into the mixing etc subforum, while the vi & VE forum would be adequate. Feel free to move it there, please. 😊

  • Hello!

    Update! It works - it was kind of foolish-easy. I wasn't aware of the fact that VST3 introduces a new format and that VST3 plugins are .vst3 files. I scanned for them and thus made Vienna Ensemble VST3 available in Reaper. The setup of the project in the OP works as expected, when replacing the dll with the vst3 version.

    Might demand some Reaper-specific knowledge: Should I run the Vienna Ensemble plugin "Default", "Separate Process" or "Dedicated Process", when choosing it in the FX dialog?

    I am still very curious about your opinion on my template approach, though! :D

    Kind regards,

  • Your template aproach seems a bit convoluted to me but once you work out all the details it should work fine for what you want to do.

    One thing about strings.  Due to layering techniques, and seating arrangements (Standard, German, etc) or what I like to call "strings recipes,"  be prepared to have several string templates unless of course you just have one string library.  Start with the largest most bombastic string template you can make and use that as a starting point for all string needs.  Then create more detailed templates based on the needs of each individaul project.  Reason being, it's quicker and easier to delete string sections that you don't need, for say a chamber piece, then it is to have to keep building them from scratch.

    Does that make sense?


    I just noticed your sig line and I guess you don't have that many strings to work with anyway.  In the future, if you decide to get more strings...


  • last edited
    last edited

    @Another User said:

    Your template aproach seems a bit convoluted to me but once you work out all the details it should work fine for what you want to do.

    Because of the MIDI port thing? It brings the limitation of having only 16 "instruments" per VE instance, which could be seen as squandering resources...
    Right now there is one instance for winds, one for strings, harp and keys and one for percussion and others. I might put harp and keys to the percussion group, since only solo and orchestral strings make 10 ports already (plus considering your argument concerning strings).

    Maybe I'll drop that idea anyways and go for another setup after the current project - I guess it's a lot of trial and error. The main motivation of this approach was to leave some room for project specific adaptations and for keeping the routing "clean".

    Right now I'm trying to find a useful general matrix layout for the instruments...