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

Notification

Icon
Error

Forum Jump  
Audio Input Plugin great but....
Last post Tue, Feb 14 2012 by stuartbeattie, 9 replies.
Options
Go to last post
Posted on Thu, Feb 09 2012 12:57
by benbartlett
Joined on Thu, Apr 26 2007, Posts 160

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.

Posted on Thu, Feb 09 2012 15:26
by MS
Joined on Wed, Feb 19 2003, Vienna, Austria, Posts 1762

VEP was never intended as a network FX host, and as such doesn't have functionality geared for it. The Audio Input plugin was primarily done to get audio tracks into the MIR environment.

--
Martin Saleteg
Software Developer
Vienna Symphonic Library GmbH
Posted on Thu, Feb 09 2012 17:26
by treason
Joined on Sat, Apr 02 2011, Posts 24

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 ProHowever, 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 unfortunatelycounter 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!

treason
Posted on Thu, Feb 09 2012 21:50
by ptlover
Joined on Tue, Feb 08 2011, Posts 117
benbartlett wrote:

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.

 

Is this specific to Nuendo? I can return audio on auxes, instrument tracks and audio tracks. Also, the manual encourages us to use VEP as a FX rack. Cool

Vienna Ensemble PRO Audio Input Plug-in

The Audio Input Plug-in is a stereo effect plug-in. Assignable to a connected Server Interface plug-in, it

sends audio to one of the available stereo audio input buses in the connected Vienna Ensemble Pro

Server instance, where the audio can be processed. This makes Vienna Ensemble PRO a great virtual FX

rack on your slave computer as well, because all latency is automatically compensated!

Stig-R. Eliassen

Master: PT 7.4.2 HD3 Accel | Dual 2.3 G5 w/6.5GB RAM | 10.5.8 | 192 I/O | D-Command ES
Slave: VE Pro 5.0.10309 | 6-core 3.33 Westmere w/24GB RAM | 10.6.8
Posted on Fri, Feb 10 2012 08:16
by civilization 3
Joined on Sat, May 16 2009, SF Bay Area, Posts 1942
ptlover wrote:

Is this specific to Nuendo? I can return audio on auxes, instrument tracks and audio tracks. Also, the manual encourages us to use VEP as a FX rack. Cool

what is specific is that Cubendo does not call it AUX. the routing is to make a group channel, assign the returning vsti channel from VEP's output to the group, & make an audio chennel with that group as input. the functionality itself will be the same, albeit with that extra group added to the mixer. which can he hidden and unhidden.

MacBookPro 18,3
Apple M1 Pro: 2.3 GHz 8-core i9

Mac OS 12.3.1
VE Pro 7.1298, Nuendo 11.0.41
Posted on Fri, Feb 10 2012 08:27
by civilization 3
Joined on Sat, May 16 2009, SF Bay Area, Posts 1942

benbartlett wrote:
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
specifying the effect plugin, eg., VEP Audio Input, while instantiating an FX track inserts that plug-in. I have no idea what difference you're indicating other than how it returns from the server instance, which can isolated as you know via the group with the audio track input from that group. the only real difference i see is the extra clutter in the Cubendo mixer, which can be hidden if it's not useful.

also, VEP Audio Input can be inserted on any channel in the Cubendo mixer.

MacBookPro 18,3
Apple M1 Pro: 2.3 GHz 8-core i9

Mac OS 12.3.1
VE Pro 7.1298, Nuendo 11.0.41
Posted on Fri, Feb 10 2012 14:15
by benbartlett
Joined on Thu, Apr 26 2007, Posts 160

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

Posted on Sun, Feb 12 2012 04:54
by Animus
Joined on Fri, Sep 25 2009, Posts 146

Yes the workflow is definitely counter-intuitive and I even requested this at first but the whole purpose is for MIR, which I have learned makes mixing so much easier and you don't need to engineer/mix in the traditional sense as much, and you don't even need to use near as many mix plugins as you do without MIR.  It's really that amazing.  It's not really a reverb.  It's a mixing tool imo.

Posted on Tue, Feb 14 2012 23:07
by stuartbeattie
Joined on Thu, Oct 06 2011, Posts 49
Part of me wonders why MIR wasnt just produced as a plugin rather than couple it to VEP?


Ive spent over a month trying to establish a smooth workflow by routing audio channels from my DAW (studio one) to VEP to take advantage of MIR. Its a great mixing tool but Ive been pulling my hair out trying to get everything to work. Perhaps its the combination of two new bits of software communicating together but I wouldnt exactly describe the setup as stable.


Biggest gripe at the moment is that the Audio Input plugin is unreliable. Routing 64 channels in and out of VEP with effects added in VEP and on the outputs in Studio One, well the thing just breaks too easily. And when it does I often find I have to restart both pieces of software and sometimes I even find I need a reboot just to get everything back online. My hair is growing greyer by the day.


Its really really important that this routing mechanism into VEP is rock solid. Otherwise all of the benefits of MIR as a mixing tool become overshadowed by a frustrating experience and workflow. I hope that the VEP development team are spending time stress testing the Audio Input Plugins. Its absolutely critical that these work reliably.


On that note it does surprise me that there is not a dedicated remote 'Insert Effect' plugin for VEP. VEP was advertised as being capable of performing like a remote FX rack. And as it is it can be used in this way. BUT having used FX teleport in the past it does fall somewhat short of my expectations. Routing to separate outputs really does makes things very messy. And there are issues with delay compenstation within my DAW using the audio inputs - im not sure if its studio one or VEP at fault but when I have a song with a mixture of tracks local to S1 and routed to VEP they do not sync. Disable the VEP plugin and they re-align. I have to use sample delay plugins as a workaround which is a real pain.


I think MIR is a tremendous product. But I need confidence in a rock solid workflow if I am to incorporate it into my setup. Im hopeful that the next software updates will go some way to providing this.


Stuart
Ryzen 3950x 16gb
i9 9900k 32gb
Windows 10 Pro
RME Babyface Pro
Softube Console 1
Softube Fader
Cubase 11
VEP7
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.