Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Forum Jump  
Any reason to use VE in a single computer setup?
Last post Fri, May 18 2018 by littlewierdo, 14 replies.
Options
Go to last post
Posted on Wed, Apr 25 2018 13:01
by Paul McGraw
Joined on Mon, Feb 29 2016, Georgia, USA, Posts 422

I use Cubase 8.5 pro within a single computer. I have MIR Pro and Vienna Suite. I typically write for full orchestra. Usually all VSL, occasionally using some Kontakt instruments.

So far I have used all of my Vienna Instruments Pro instances with Cubase without using Vienna Ensemble. I have not had a problem with memory or CPU as of yet. Although I have had a few Cubase crashes for unknown reasons. 

Adding VE would add another layer of complexity. So is there any reason to use VE if everything seems to be working properly?

Posted on Wed, Apr 25 2018 15:47
by matthieu.lechowski
Joined on Thu, Nov 13 2008, Posts 47

If you are used to a workflow without VE, have no lacks and are happy like that, stay away from it : indeed it's a layer of complexity slowing the workflow, and there are bugs not fixed (developpers are on Synchron Player...), lags, crashes for some people...

Posted on Thu, Apr 26 2018 08:22
by MMKA
Joined on Tue, May 22 2012, Posts 363

Hi Paul,

I use VEPro all the time and put as much as possible all my instruments in it (VSL, Kontakt, UVI, East West). I'm happy with it.
In VEPro you can put plugins (for example Vienna Suite applications) and you can use midi cc for automation of that plugins. It is possible for example to connect a slider of a plugin to a midi cc number. I use this very much and it works perfectly. I'm not familiar with Cubase, so I don't know if connecting midi cc numbers with plugins in Cubase is possible. 
I use Samplitude as a DAW. I don't have much crashes in that program, but when it crashes, all the instruments stay up and running in VEPro. And it costs less time to restart that project, because when you start a project, that project searches for the instances in VEPro. Are they loaded, then the DAW is been coupled to the instance that is already opened. A nice feature.
Another good thing is, that when you set a new VSL instrument in VEPro, VEPro recognizes that and put the write settings of MIR PRO automatically.
Happily I have no crashes in VEPro 6. I have 2 pc's with Windows 10 Pro, but use for music in many projects just one pc.
So I'm very happy using VEPro, but indeed there is a learning curve to walk through. It is possible to get a demo licence for 30 days to try it.

Good luck in making the right decision for your self.

Posted on Thu, Apr 26 2018 09:35
by Richard Ford
Joined on Thu, Nov 25 2010, Posts 38

Yep I also use VEP6 with cubase 9.5 on a single machine. I went without doing this for years thinking "Why would you do that?" I owned VEP5 but never used it. But after reading others' posts on the subject and finally making the effort to move in that direction I'm very happy that I did.

I find (for myself) that if vastly simplifies the large template approach, and I feel (again for myself) that having the instruments and their plugins all hosted in a separate entity makes cubase itself run smoother as it's got so much less to do. Separating the 'audio sources' from the sequencer also is a little easier for my brain to understand in the middle of a big project too, and it's a bit reminiscent of working with racks of kit when we still had tape.

Broadly my arrangement is separate VEP instances for instrument sections (dead easy with VEP6) - bussed out to Cubase as stems, with instrument specific effects plugins either as inserts on VEP or aux busses inside VEP - and then traditional aux busses for reverb, parallel processing etc.. in Cubase.

So my cubase sessions really only consist of:

Lots and lots of midi channels; no VST instruments at all- only VST racks that are routed to VEP server instances; seven assignable FX aux returns; stem groups for mixing with VCA's attached to each. I also add Britson channel (very light processing and quick trim and EQ) to each stem group for extra level trimming, so I don't have all my faders in wacky positions.

When I render a midi track to audio the routing automatically stays the same in cubase so I also retain my stems in the correct places in the mix as sub-busses.

The main disadvantage I can think of is that when I want to make a change to an instrument in VEP I have to select it effectively twice - once in VEP and then go and find it in Cubase - and whilst I may actually have a methodical approach to where all the tracks are and the routing, sometimes that can be a bit of a nuisance. But on balance the up-sides outweigh such a negative.

Posted on Thu, Apr 26 2018 09:37
by Richard Ford
Joined on Thu, Nov 25 2010, Posts 38

....oh and I forgot to mention  (probably touched on elsewhere) that MIR Pro only works to its full potential in VEPro - so I would also have as one of my Cubase aux busses MIRacle as VSL recommend.

Posted on Thu, Apr 26 2018 19:29
by nicola74
Joined on Sun, Aug 02 2009, Posts 49
Originally Posted by: Richard Ford Go to Quoted Post
....oh and I forgot to mention (probably touched on elsewhere) that MIR Pro only works to its full potential in VEPro - so I would also have as one of my Cubase aux busses MIRacle as VSL recommend.


Couldd you explain this, please?
What MIRX can do only in VePro?
Thanks...
I am making a template using VePro6 and Cubase 9.5 and I have noticed that in some instrument I can't decide the character in MirX Teldex, the field is empty and I can't do anything.
Is there anyone having a good suggestion to resolve this?
Posted on Fri, Apr 27 2018 02:47
by jesse.nemitz
Joined on Sun, Jun 12 2011, Posts 26

You can connect midi cc to individual parameters. you need to use quickcontrols (vst) in device setup.

Posted on Fri, Apr 27 2018 10:44
by Richard Ford
Joined on Thu, Nov 25 2010, Posts 38

Originally Posted by: nicola74 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Richard Ford Go to Quoted Post
....oh and I forgot to mention (probably touched on elsewhere) that MIR Pro only works to its full potential in VEPro - so I would also have as one of my Cubase aux busses MIRacle as VSL recommend.


Couldd you explain this, please?
What MIRX can do only in VePro?
Thanks...
I am making a template using VePro6 and Cubase 9.5 and I have noticed that in some instrument I can't decide the character in MirX Teldex, the field is empty and I can't do anything.
Is there anyone having a good suggestion to resolve this?

It sounds like you're confusing MIRX with MIR Pro - they are different things. And they work differently - and when I first set this up I got terribly confused by the whole thing. I had MIRX - but upgraded to MIRPro - annoyingly VSL don't offer an upgrade option between the two - so I do also have a licensed MIRX that I'm npot using. Ah well..

MIRX works the same in both environments - (ie: in cubase as VI OR inside VEPro) (and is a lot cheaper)

But MIR Pro is tailor-made to work in VEPro. (if you don't already have it and don't know what it's features are I'd strongly suggest reading about the software on the VSL site - it's quite different to use than any other reverb I know of)

Essentially it looks like an insert (you're replacing the stereo pan) and you add it to each instrument - but then the whole thing becomes a sort of holistic stage GUI where you can move your instruments around the space and change things like mic types / instrument orientation, reverb length and on and on.. 

The main trouble I had was using a VIPro patch that already had MIRX and then added MIR - I can't quite remember exactly what went wrong now but it was a world of pain that finally went away when I switched the VIPro reverb to bypass after implementing MIR Pro.

Please accept my apologies if I'm telling you things you already know !

Posted on Fri, Apr 27 2018 11:01
by Richard Ford
Joined on Thu, Nov 25 2010, Posts 38

...about your other question regarding MIRX Teldex...

I'm responding from memory of several months ago - I think that some Vienna instruments will automatically have an MIRX profile assigned to them, and so when you select Teldex it will fill in the correct soundfield position etc..

But if I remember correctly that does not apply to all Vienna instruments - so there will be some (perhaps old legacy ones, I can't quite remember now) where it will not auto-assign, and you have to figure out which is going to be the best profile for yourself. I may have missed something there.

However if you are getting different results when you load a VIPro instrument into VEP than you were getting in Cubase then my suggestion would be to save the VIPro instruments that you want whilst you have them set up in Cubase (using the save button bottom right of the VIPro window).

Save them as user presets and then recall them from within VEPro - they should load exactly the same way in both programs, reverb settings and all - (as long as it's on the same computer and therefore using the same installation and licensing etc..)

Posted on Fri, Apr 27 2018 11:45
by Richard Ford
Joined on Thu, Nov 25 2010, Posts 38

Originally Posted by: matthieu.lechowski Go to Quoted Post

If you are used to a workflow without VE, have no lacks and are happy like that, stay away from it : indeed it's a layer of complexity slowing the workflow, and there are bugs not fixed (developpers are on Synchron Player...), lags, crashes for some people...

Whilst I agree that if one is happy with their current workflow, why change it - I can't say I really agree about slowing the workflow. By far and away the biggest advantage I have seen in using VEP6 / Cubase 9.5 with all VI's hosted in VEP is that my workflow is much slicker. For large projects, particularly orchestral, it's the best approach I've ever used.

One huge advantage that I don't think has been mentioned is that in VEPro you can have hundreds of Kontakt intruments with presets set up, and any number of soft synths, all nicely tucked into their own labelled folders and with midi pre-assigned from Cubase, and then have them all in standby ready to load up any time you need (will take a second or two only) - so they are not taking up any CPU power or RAM when you're not using them - that simply cannot be done in Cubase, you either have them in your project or you don't - and that's another serious time-saver.

As it happens I also have a hardware Access Virus TI which has historically been a pig, but it is rock solid in VEPro6, so it gets used all the time now.

As for Synchron, I haven't seen the player yet, (although I do have synchron strings and percussion libraries on VIPro) - and (I'm touching lots of wood here) I'm currently running latest versions of C9.5, VEPro6, all SSD's and running on El Capitan (still) - it's more robust than any large bunch of software I've ever run before. Crashes are, not quite, but virtually non-existant. - Let's touch some more wood, just to be sure....:-)

Posted on Fri, Apr 27 2018 13:38
by Paul McGraw
Joined on Mon, Feb 29 2016, Georgia, USA, Posts 422

Thanks to all who have answered my question. I have only actually tried VE a couple of times, but it sounds like I would have to make a really extensive effort to try it before I would know for sure if it would help me or not.

I have 48gb of RAM, and I know how to use the ram efficiently in both Kontakt and VI Pro, so RAM has not been an issue for me as of yet. I have had a few problems with CPU workload with a full orchestra. I have an i7, but if I use MIR Pro, plus lots of other plugins, it can get to be too much for my CPU. So far my best solution is to render in place some of the instruments or sections, which then frees up CPU power. 

I have heard that VE is easier on resources. This seems a bit hard to believe since it is an additional level of program running. But if it really does save on CPU strain, that would be a big incentive to use it. Anyone actually test this out? Does it really use less CPU power?

Posted on Fri, Apr 27 2018 18:46
by Richard Ford
Joined on Thu, Nov 25 2010, Posts 38

Originally Posted by: Paul McGraw Go to Quoted Post

I have 48gb of RAM, and I know how to use the ram efficiently in both Kontakt and VI Pro, so RAM has not been an issue for me as of yet. I have had a few problems with CPU workload with a full orchestra. I have an i7, but if I use MIR Pro, plus lots of other plugins, it can get to be too much for my CPU. So far my best solution is to render in place some of the instruments or sections, which then frees up CPU power. 

I have heard that VE is easier on resources. This seems a bit hard to believe since it is an additional level of program running. But if it really does save on CPU strain, that would be a big incentive to use it. Anyone actually test this out? Does it really use less CPU power?

I'm using a 12 core Mac and 64GB RAM so I don't expect to see too many resources issues (except for what seems like a bug I reported elsewhere) A full orchestral project I was running a couple of days ago which had some synths going too (including Serum which is CPU heavy) was running at approx 25% CPU in activity monitor during realtime playback and RAM usage is less than 50%. But that case would be with less than 10 Kontakt instruments. Most VIs being VSL. And also because the samples are on SSD I have RAM preload in VIPro Directory Manager at a much lower setting than I'd need with spinning discs. This all helps.

I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to which method would really stress the CPU more with the exact same / equivalent project information - but Cubase definitely is more spritely than when I used to run everything on that, and crashes less often too. But if it does crash, it tends to take VEPro with it. Don't know why.

As to the time invested in creating a new orchestral template using the VEPro method - it took me at least a week's work, possibly two altogether, and with lots of changes along the way - and trial and error. It was far from simple but I'm genuinely glad I made that effort.

As you own MIR Pro I would personally say that on it's own is a great reason for trying it out. You can load up a couple of instances with VI's relatively quickly (and of course use just a single MIR Pro "instance" per VEP instance, because that's the way it works) in order to make a judgement about the CPU / RAM usage.  You could do that in half an hour. Just use the duplicate instrument function (cmd D) if you want to hammer the system quickly. It dupes the instrument and all the midi/audio routing and any plugins too.

There is a CPU usage monitor bottom right corner of the VEPro window which helps too. I can't say I understand how that relates to core usage though.

To give you a rough idea my String section VEPro instance is split into the usual parts and I have 8 1st violin VIs all active at once (with some inactive extra ones ready to switch on) and a similar idea for the other parts of the string section - I count 31 altogether including a couple of ensemble patches (synchron ensemble and Cinematic Strings 2) These ones are all active and set up with MIR Pro Synchron stage.  The CPU usage monitor in VEPro says 25% during playback, but this figure is not 25% of the entire CPU - VSL would have to explain it properly but I think pertains to the core usage and thread count set up in VEP (mine set to 3 threads). In reality it's no more than 5% of my entire CPU, if that. Hope that helps.

Posted on Fri, May 11 2018 14:31
by Brian Dean
Joined on Sat, Apr 29 2017, Posts 2

One of my use cases is for VST's that are very CPU hungry. It spreads the load across all the cores. 

Posted on Fri, May 18 2018 05:50
by littlewierdo
Joined on Sun, Apr 24 2016, Posts 234

I use ensemble because I dont need 100 instances of VI running. My primary soundfont collection comes from Vienna, with a spattering of soundfonts from EastWest (namely their choirs), Spitfire (brass), and cinesamples (when I need that epic booming percussion that eastwest and vienna lack). The reason ensemble is so good is that the instances of Vienna Instruments are all contained within ensemble such that when I maximize ensemble, all my vienna instruments and the control panel is self contained there.

Its all about organization for me. Spending time finding the thing annoys me to no end, which is why I spent the time to setup a template that works for 95% of what I write and requires little customization, and I get this all by opening a cpr file for Cubase, which in turn, loads ensemble, with all the soundfonts for every instrument I use already pre-configured, as opposed to having 20 instances of instruments pro running and searching for the instance that is my fanfare trumpets.

Of course, it is very possible I dont know what Im talking about and there is a way to configure Instruments Pro to handle more than 8 instruments...haha, that would not surprise me :)

You cannot post new threads in this forum.
You cannot reply to threads in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.