Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

182,266 users have contributed to 42,216 threads and 254,738 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 3 new thread(s), 21 new post(s) and 41 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. Sample Libraries
  3. Vienna Instruments Libraries
  4. 52 instruments (7 articulations each): Which setup?

  • 52 instruments (7 articulations each): Which setup?

    J
    J
    Hey there, We are thinking in trying the "one computer" route, so here's the deal. We need to be able to load 52 "instruments" with an average of 7 articulations for each. (Of course the idea is not only being able to load all the articulations, but also that it run fines when it plays back.) What does the VSL team recommend to do this? Can it work with VE2 or do we need to wait for VE3? Can is simply be done? Thanks, Jerome
  • S
    S

     I'm not a member of the VSL team, but this is my present understanding:

    If you really favor moving to a one (or two machine) setup, you might consider purchasing a new MacPro machine and lots of (3rd party) RAM.

    In a one machine setup you could run VE or VI as a plugin + multiple instances VE 2 as a standalone. This would require some means of "loopback" for the output of the standalones so that their output is available to your DAW. This can be accomplished by using an audio interface whose software allows connections between any output and any input such as those made by RME or a physical loopback setup such as the one I use in which the ADAT output of Bank C of a MOTU 2408 is connected via an optical cable to the ADAT input of Bank B. On the MOTU  2408, this yields 4 stereo pairs. Then each of the 4 Bank B inputs is assigned to an AUX channel in Logic with the output assigned to Channels 1-2. This would effectively circumvent the limitations imposed by the fact that VE 2 is currently available for OS X only in a 32 bit version. 

    If you want to run a two machine setup, you could also consider purchase of a new MacPro equipped with lots of (3rd party) RAM. To run the 64-bit version of VE 3 in the immediate future, it appears you would also need to purchase Windows Ultimate (64.bit) and install it via Bootcamp. Your current machine would be the master running the DAW, the new machine would be dedicated to running the sample libraries. The new machine would not require an audio interface if running VE 3 as VE 3 will send audio over ethernet to the master machine. When a 64-bit OS X version of VE 3 becomes available, you could, if you wished, switch to OSX operation of that machine.  
  • J
    J
    Thanks Steve for your post. Our goal is definitely to have a "two-computer" setup - one sequencer, and one slave hosting VI. We're currently running a Mac Mini farm, the idea is to replace all 8 of them with one crazy-fast computer. Since VE 64bit is only for Windows (XP64 or Vista64), I guess that's going to be the best solution. Is a 3.2Ghz MacPro the fastest computer money can buy right now? (I don't care buying a Mac or PC if I'm going to run Windows on it anyway). I don't really care for VE3's network capabilities, as we're using our network for lots of other things and we already own all the audio interfaces we'll need. Is there any memory or CPU management improvement in VE3? Or can this setup work as well in VE2? (VE2's current features are enough for our needs). Thanks, Jerome
  • S
    S

    I don't know if the 3.2GHz, 8 core MacPro is the fastest computer one can buy - - or even if the increase in speed over the base 2.8GHz model is meaningful enough in this application to be worth the extra $1600.  However, one advantage of any MacPro for Mac oriented users is that, when VE 2 & VE 3 become available in 64-bit OSX versions, one can switch to OSX. Another possibility, since you apparently have audio interfaces or would use one with the new machine is to run it as an OSX machine with multiple VE 2 standalones. 

  • J
    J
    I'm not a huge fan or running multiple VE2 standalones... I'd rather have everything in one, 64bit app. Which I believe is doable with the Windows version. I understand your point regarding the cost / performance ratio, but if according to most benchmarks, the 3.2Ghz model is 7 to 11% faster than the 2.8Ghz model. If that difference allows me to load 52 instances of VI instead of 48 and thus makes my system complete, I say it's worth the money. Jerome
  • A
    A

    I recall a recent post by Herb that set out capabilities of his new machine loading thousands of samples, but I am not sure that post addresses the question here.  I would be interested in more input on this, if anyone has it to offer.