Choice of instrument allocation in libraries?

[magnumpraw]

I am wondering if anyone has an answer to a somewhat frustrating limitation to an otherwise stellar product. I'm speaking specifically about the choice of instrument grouping into libraries and the inability to spread a library accross more that one computer.

Illustration:
--The Orchestral Strings I and Orchestral Strings II libraries have a very sensible allocation of instruments in that there are two instruments allocated to each library (OSI=violins and violas, OSII=celli and bass) this allows me to put OSI on one computer and OSII on another and load a fairly comprehensive preset for each instrument.

--Now... I use the Chamber Strings to orchestrate divisi in my string lines and it sounds great! I can have two groups of 6 violins in divisi rather than playing 2 notes with 14 violins each. I can also have a smaller chamber sounding orchestra if need be. Wonderful!

THE PROBLEM ARISES in that the Chamber Strings are grouped into 1 library instead of 2 and the license cannot be split accross more than 1 computer. This makes it so a much more handicapped preset has to be chosen for each of the 4 instruments (VI,VA,Vc,CB) because of current RAM limitations.

Why would VSL spread the string section over 2 libraries in OSI and OSII but relegate them to 1 library in Chamber Strings? It's not like the computer can tell there are less violins. [[;)]]

The problem only compounds itself as we move to the woodwind and (I'm sure) the upcoming brass libraries. Now we have 6-8 instruments per library. And if I want to have Flute, Oboe, Clarinet, and Bassoon as well as their ensemble versions available, I have settle with a terribly incomplete set of articulations. (speaking about the WWI library)

I've invested a fair amount of money in a PC farm which allowed me to distribute my old PRO Edition over several computers allowing me to make decisions on how to allocate my resources so I could have an active "live" setup which wouldn't require bouncing and/or reloading instruments.

Would it be too difficult for VSL to implement a way to spread the license for "parts of libraries" to different computers. ie: allow the authorization of only Chamber VI and Chamber VA on one PC and Chamber Vc and Chamber CB on another? My syncsoft key is showing each of those instruments as a separate entity already, I just have to have them all on 1 comp currently.

With the amount of money invested in this product already (I've purchased the whole Extended ball of fun) would it be to selfish to ask for a license method that would allow me, not VSL, to choose how the instruments in each library are distributed accross my computers?

Thanks again for a such great product!

[cm]

magnumpraw, i can follow your arguments, but if i have counted correctly there would consequently be the need to split the symphonic cube in its current appearance into 50 sections.
each of this sections had to have an own installer then and you had to enter at least 50, in worst case 100 activation codes (and manage a respective longish list of licenses then).
we considered this to be at least impracticable, if not prohibitively annoying.
there are theoretically a few options to *outsource* temporarily instruments to another computer without adding a second license, but currently (and in the near future) it is impossible for technical reasons.

sorry for having no better news, christian

[magnumpraw]

Thanks for your reply, cm.

I see your point with all the installers, etc. and would certainly not ask to have the installers and/or libraries reconfigured. I thought it was something that could be implemented on the user end by adjusting the syncsoft key. I'm obviously not familiar with the technology of the syncsoft and the libraries. I knew it was possible to combine more than one license on a key, and I thought it would be nice to be able to split licenses into sections accross more than one key.

However, if the way things are set up requires a full library per key, then it is what it is. I guess I'll need to focus my time on bugging microsoft to quit delaying vista so that we can be free from the shackles of (current) RAM limitations. [:D]

You mentioned the possibility of "outsourcing" instruments to another computer. Are you speaking of something like FX Teleport or Logic Nodes? If so, PLEASE, PLEASE let me know so that if it's not currently possible, I can at least dream about it at night.

Thanks!

[DG]

@cm said:

magnumpraw, i can follow your arguments, but if i have counted correctly there would consequently be the need to split the symphonic cube in its current appearance into 50 sections.
each of this sections had to have an own installer then and you had to enter at least 50, in worst case 100 activation codes (and manage a respective longish list of licenses then).
we considered this to be at least impracticable, if not prohibitively annoying.
there are theoretically a few options to *outsource* temporarily instruments to another computer without adding a second license, but currently (and in the near future) it is impossible for technical reasons.

sorry for having no better news, christian

Yes, this "collection" allocation nonsense is starting to cause problems. It turns out that I have to have Strings I, Strings II, Chamber Strings and Solo strings all on the same computer. There is no option to put any of them on another PC. Why? Because although Strings is split up into 2 instruments per collection, neither Chamber Strings nor Solo Strings is, so if I want to create a preset (or even matrix) that has a combination of collections, even though it may just be for violins, I have to have the cellos and basses on the same computer. It would have made more sense to split both Chamber and Solo Strings into 2 collections as well. I suppose that I should just be grateful that Woodwinds I isn't Solo instruments and II Ensemble ones. [8-)]

DG