Jbm:

Thanks very much for responding. One thing I've thought of is of using Cycling 74's Soundflower (freeware) to direct the audio output of the standalone to an aux track in Logic. Haven't tried this as I know little about Soundflower. If that worked then the question would be how to get MIDI to work in this context. Would one make the Standalone an AMS Object? How would one direct MIDI output to it from Logic - would one create it as a MIDI instrument within Logic or define it as an external instrument, etc. ?? What about using Plogue Bidule on the same machine with Logic - woud the plugin inhabi the same memory block as that occupied by the plugins hosted within Logic? I'd me most appreciative of your thoughts. Thanks.

You've probably found the answers to most of these questions already, but yes, any plugin, in any host, will run under the vsl-server. So they're all sharing the same memory space.

J.

"in a certain way the license control center provides this functionality with the transfer license wizard."

Absolutely. What I should have said was, VSL users are frustrated by the bulk grouping of instruments. I was envisioning a drag-and-drop where individual instruments could be assigned per key. Christian, is there a technical reason why VSL couldn't allow for that?

"Repeater." Yeah, that's a good word.

Each collection consists of only one standard licence (it doesn't matter how many instruments are included in one collection), and it's not possible to duplicate or split a single license.

best
Herb

Herb:

This is why I'm trying to figure out how the VI standalone might be used along with the VI plug-in on the same computer (Mac) so that one could address an additional 2.5GB of samples. Since the standalone appears designed for live performance, it is not immediately obvious how one might send MIDI data to the standalone from a sequencer (e.g. Logic) and route its audio back into the sequencer's aux channels - - any suggestions? The Solo String Library is so large that it is difficult to see how one might use all its samples simultaneously on one computer. However, one could make use of the standalone in this case then it would minimize the problem of the one license per library section. If this is not possible with the present version of the standalone, perhaps you might consider making it easier to do in an upcoming version? The alternative would be to freeze tracks I guess. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Stephen

With the Symphonic Choir from East West the Word builder app doesn't open as a plug-in in Logic (it has to be used in stand-alone mode)

There is a tutorial on the EastWest site about how that is done. Now I don't know if the same work round they illustrate could be adapted to get a standalone VI instrument to fire from a Logic arrange page but I did get my Logic songs to play the EastWest Wordbuilder app and for the audio to route out with Logic's audio.

Julian

This licence non-splitting is a big mistake by VSL. Many people will want to mix and match Violin sounds from all the Violin Collections. Because Solo and Chamber Strings only have one licence each, it means that you have to run both those Collections and both Orchestral Strings from the same computer. There is no no option to run Violins/Violas from one and Cello/Basses from another. Let's hope that the powers that be see sense and change the Solo and Chamber Strings to have two licences each. Of course it will all get worse with the Appassionata Strings. Let's hope that this Collection follows the Orchestral Strings pattern of 2 Collections.

DG

same problems here ...

4 pc´s and a MAC and no way to "share" samples. the pc´s (incl. 3 gb switch) are often not big enough to host all samples i need ... no way to transfer a part of it to another computer ...

just a thought:

if it isn´t possible to split the libraries and to give away a second licence (i understand this!), maybe a solution could be to have a MASTER KEY for the whole library and personalized slave keys, which only can run in the entirely network, where the master key is shown ...

thomas

It's interesting this topic is coming up again only now. I had expressed concern over the license allocation in a thread back in the beginning of the year, but it didn't stir up much interest. This has been the bane of my otherwise blissful VI experience. And it wouldn't be an issue if I didn't love the product so much! My workflow and the time constraints I have (to say nothing of creativity) require me to have an "all-up" style environment. I work on a Mac with 8 slave PC's. Even with the 3GB switch the most I can load is about 2.8GB into RAM on each slave.

Since the license bonds the whole of each Vienna Collection to 1 machine, there's no possible way to load, from most individual collections, all of the instruments needed for a basic orchestral section using (for sake of universal reference) the L2 patches which give the basic level of needed articulations.

Solo and Chamber strings are the obvious culprits because of their relation to Orchestral Strings which has a fairly reasonable split point. The Vlns,Vlas can reasonably be loaded into 1 machine and the Vc,CB can reasonably fit into another.

So why clump everything else?! The only collections that seem to be reasonably allocated are OSI,OSII,Harps, Percussion. The solo and chamber string libraries have been mentioned in this thread, but the wind libraries exhibit the same problem. Look at WWI. If you want to have an orchestra up and loaded, you need Flute,Oboe,Clarinet,Bassoon there's no way to get all 4 of those loaded into 1 machine let alone having some room left to get in some of the a3 patches for unison lines.

It just makes it impossible to use VI (even on multiple computers) without having to load, render, unload, reload, render, etc., etc. It kind of puts a big kink in the ol' creative process not to be able to just write.

The real frustration is that VI is the first product to actually make fluid orchestral writing a reality. Once you customize your matrix's and master the (ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!) interface, you can actually get the music out of your head and into the computer before it flits away into the world of lost ideas. Then enters the license (and/or library allocation) and puts a choke on the whole thing. It's like having a Ferrari with a governor installed and set to 60MPH.

Herb and co., you guys are phenomenal and VI is really revolutionizing (at least my) orchestral sampling and workflow. But there's got to be a way to let the user decide how to spread the instruments of the orchestra across their "farm" to allow an "all-up" situation while still protecting the property. I agree that the Clarinet doesn't need to be on more than one machine, but if I've already maxed out that machine with Flute, Oboe, and Bassoon, my virtual conductor isn't going to be happy when I tell him that the clarinet is going to have sit in the lounge eating doughnuts and then come back to do overdubs once the rest of the session is over. [[;)]]

Just my 2cents (..or $87.50 as the length of my reply would suggest)

Cheers

Magnum, you summed it up very well. Exactly the problem we encountered.

Actually, I've just read the Licence Agreement (which is, for once, not too long and understandable!), and here's what I found:

2. License
Vienna Symphonic Library GmbH grants to You, the Licensee, a non-exclusive, perpetual license to use the Software for your own personal use and not for sublicense, subject to the terms and conditions stated in this License Agreement. You may: (a) install the Software on one or more computers, (b) transfer the Software from one computer to another provided that it is used only by the licensee ...;

3. Restrictions
Unless expressly permitted by this License or otherwise applicable law, You may not, or allow any third party to, ... (b) install or electronically transfer Sounds of the Software on a network for use by multiple users, unless each user has purchased a license; ... .

So, let's say you split your Woodwinds I and II between two computers, to have Flutes and Oboes on Slave 1, and Clarinets and Bassoons on Slave 2.

It is authorized by the Licence Agreement to "install the software on one or more computers", "providing that it is used by the licencee" and "not by multiple users".

So, you put the software on two computers - but you still use the two licences - and you only have one user.

The only thing is that you can only have one ViennaKey to do this - since some of the WWI and WWII are both on each slaves - but you do have the two licences on the key.

So, in that specific case, you could plug the key on one slave, boot it up, remove the key, plug it on the other slave, and boot it up too.

This would only works because these are slaves - you never access the GUI, so VI won't be looking for the key once it's loaded. You would still need the key when the computer crashes, when you restart on purpose, when you do updates, or when you need to access the GUI. So, you couldn't "launch the whole thing" and then get rid of the key - you do need it (no fear of keys being given away to someone else.)

As such, this wouldn't work in a situation where you access the GUI on a daily basis. Which is fine, because, in that case, you don't need to have more than one ViennaKey anyway, since you're not spreading your samples over various computers. This would only be valid for a slave/farm situation.

Anyway, it seems to me that this is allowed by the Licence Agreeement. Did I miss something or am I right on this one?

Jerome

Magnumpraw,

You've really hit the nail on the head for me, as well.

cheers,

J.

@thomas wolter said:

same problems here ...

4 pc´s and a MAC and no way to "share" samples. the pc´s (incl. 3 gb switch) are often not big enough to host all samples i need ... no way to transfer a part of it to another computer ...

just a thought:

if it isn´t possible to split the libraries and to give away a second licence (i understand this!), maybe a solution could be to have a MASTER KEY for the whole library and personalized slave keys, which only can run in the entirely network, where the master key is shown ...

thomas

I was going to suggest the same thing, a master lic or slave lic that only activate when networked with their master

The post by magnumpraw is right on.
The limitations created by the license layout is killing what should be an all up virtual orchestra. Most of us have invested into multi computers loaded with ram in order to be able to have an all up orchestra at our finger tips. There has to be a better way to make VI lib more flexible when it comes to how we can share it accross our systems.

If anyone at VSL is interested - this issue is the last one that keeps from updating my pro edition to the Cube.
The list of bugs that gave me pause has improved (DP bug, OSX slave, load times etc).
It all looks pretty good at this point. All except the limitations on licenses.

The posters here have all made excellent points. This issue should be re-thought.

@Another User said:

The posters here have all made excellent points

this makes me assume you also mean the one i made. subsequently there is nothing left to re-think. except you come up with a totally new idea how else it could work.
sorry, christian

Beside my question, which was merely asking if my understanding of the current VI licence was right, and which has not yet been answered, Thomas made an interesting proposition, I think:

@Another User said:

Maybe a solution could be to have a MASTER KEY for the whole library and personalized slave keys, which only can run in the entirely network, where the master key is shown ...

Getting your input on this would probably be valuable for all of us here...

Jerome

jerome, either i do not understand or it has already been answered.
master key for the whole library - you mean any VSL vienna instrument? this would make any licensing obsolete.
personalized slave key - how shall this be done if a) the license control is not worling over network at all and b) an entire network would be the whole internet.
??? christian

Has anyone mentioned for example WW's 1a and WW's 1b type of license splitting? So you would maybe have 1a be Flute/Oboe and 1b be Clarinet/Bassoon? You could even have 1c be the a3 Winds.

Does this pose any risk to VSL?

CM - what if, for the PC world, the slave keys were active only for a restricted set of machine IDs? You pick the number of those you would allow, say 2 to 4. That would give your customers the flexibility to split libraries across their slave machines, and would give you the copy protection you want. Synthogy is doing this successfully. In fact, when I explained to them the difficulty I was having running your product in my environment, they gladly gave me three more authorization codes for my network.

@cm said:

jerome, either i do not understand or it has already been answered.
master key for the whole library - you mean any VSL vienna instrument? this would make any licensing obsolete.
personalized slave key - how shall this be done if a) the license control is not worling over network at all and b) an entire network would be the whole internet.
??? christian

My question was basically about what the licence currently allows. According to my understanding, the licence allows to split the samples on two different computers, albeit using only one licence for each. Since you don't need the key after launching VI, it is technically possible to start one slave, and then a second one, with the same key. This seems to be allowed by the licence. I just wanted to know if my interpretation was correct or not.

The idea for a "Master Key" would come with a set of "Slave Keys". You could basically buy as many slave keys as you want to run your library on as many slaves you want. But these keys wouldn't work without the Master key attached to the network. So VSL is sure that the slave keys are all being used by the same user.

I don't think your objection re. Local Network being the Internet is valid - Apple iTunes' sharing feature used to be over the internet, but (because of copyright issue) they removed the feature; now you can only access shared libraries in your acutal subnet. It thus seems doable to have a key that only work inside one said subnet.

The fact that your current licence protection doesn't work over the network is obviously an issue. But I think we're just brainstorming here, to see if there are any alternatives to the current licence scheme, which - you'll have to admit - doesn't please everyone. I believe we're trying to suggest solutions that would both protect VSL's product, and honest users' freedom (and right!) to use the product at its full potential.

Of course, these alternatives might not work technically in the near future, but for the following products, it might be good that VSL take into consideration these complains and suggestions, don't you think?

Jerome