Hi

Although the audio input plugin in VE Pro 5 is great, it could be a whole lot better. My workflow in Nuendo is organised in such a way that I want FX audio to return to my FX return track classes. This is not possible, as VEPro 5 must return all audio to an instrument track. Which basically ruins the whole point of using VEPro 5 to serve up FX.

IT's messy. The send will be sitting on one instrument track (or an FX track) but the return is coming back as an instrument. This makes soloing with FX not really work, and my mixer is just, well, ugly. If you solo a track sending to the plug, the return gets soloed too. Yes I could solo protect, but I have various mixer windows divided by track class. This does not suit.

One could do a workaround and setup a group with the send on prefader, and another group with the return, etc etc. But again not great. And there is no way to get audio to feed into an FX track in Nuendo. It MUST come from an insert within the track architecture itself.

What we need is for the Audio Input Plugin to be able to RECEIVE the audio back from the VEPro5 server. Obviously this would be quite a major bit of programming on VEPRo5, with the requirement for VEPro 5 to target it's audio output selectively to the Audio Input Plugin in the DAW. But in effect, the Audio Input PLugin needs to work properly as an insert. Inserts must provide a return to work within the way DAWs are designed. As it is, the Audio Input Plug is a pretty bizarre thing really. Why would one use it this way?

I have no idea if my request is posisble, but it would be the only way for this to work for me. I can imagine a new track class type in VEPro5, which would allow an input (from the DAW via the Audio Input Plug as we have now) AND an output back to the plug (using up a pair from the outputs available perhaps). This return would probably have to be classed separately within VEPro.

This way you would (in Nuendo/Cubase) therefore create an FX track, and instatiate the Audio Input Plugin as an insert on that FX track. Voila.

VEPro 5.1 maybe?

Thanks.

I completely agree, and it has been the subject of discussion almost since VEP 5 was released.  Martin explained, and he has replied to the other threads, the intention and design philosophy of the plug - and understanding the roots of the product, it makes complete sense. 

That said, DAWs such as PT10HD Native do not take advangtage of HyperThreading nor is PT 64 bit (yet). There is a larger market potential here for VSL than that of supporting VIs and MIR. With the recent fluctuation in plug-in formats (AAX for example), VE Pro is ideally positioned to take advantage of this market, simplify support for plug manufactureres, provide DAWs upgrade proof containers of Virtual Outboard Gear for users - and own this market. This would allow the ofloading of the majority of PT's (and other DAWs) VI and Audio processing to VE Pro. However, as you and others have outlined, philosophy and design changes would need to be made.  VSL can rise to the challenge - which is exciting.

The current design is very much Virtual Instrument specific, and unfortunately, counter intuitive for audio engineers and producers working daily with DAWs.  Changing its intended functionality to that expected of any audio engineer would open the market up to a world beyond orchestral. Simplifying the audio insert to facilitate the sending and returning audio, along with providing functionality to render strips InActive within the VEP mixer, would propel VSL into a larger, more sustainable market, and provide the user base a stronger company to rely on.  

VE Pro is already gaining momentum in the Avid boards (and I'm sure other DAWs as well), now partnering with the plug manufacturers to increase DAW productivity by expanding the natural ease of use and providing simplified plug-ins format support for DAWs  - seems like a natural new market push. 

VSL - your users support you and love your products.  These suggestions would not only make VEP a stronger product, but would increase your market and hence your ability to innovate quicker. I urge VSL forward in this direction!

As I explained, there's quite a difference. For one thing, it would be possible to be at risk of creating a feedback loop, as it would be possible to send to VSL from a channel that is receiving from the same VSL channel.

For another, you need to place the VSL Input plug in a group. Fine, so one simply sends from any given channel to that group to send to the FX. Just like an FX channel. But, the return MUST come through a VST channel. One could then mute this and send it pre-fader to another group, which would be the return. But if you then solo a channel that is sending, the send group will be correctly solo protected, but the return would not. 

It is a mess. But reading the posts above, it does make sense that the real point of the Plugin was to bring MIR into the picture. The mess is really a by product of that situation.

I would like to add my own encouragement and recommendation to VSL that they look at the audio engineering market.

One bright poster above as pointed out that there is a jungle of plugin formats right now. For example, in Cubendo, it is not possible to run ANY Waves plugins under 64 bit, as the bridge does not work. In fact, it was for running Waves that I explored the VEPro 5 plugin, as an FX solution.

For now, I will use my tried and tested solution, which is to run Vienna Ensemble Pro (non server) with audio hard wired, set up as external FX in Nuendo. This really does work well. Indeed. A networked version of this would be very very attractive indeed.

VSL, are you tempted?

B