Bamboo, my limited understanding of MIR is that Dietz has done a really great job in providing VI users with excellent ready-made yet flexible reverb solutions. And I don't doubt that the VS verbs are fine and versatile plugins. But those intrepid and curious users who wish to venture beyond the fine, safe and versatile domain of MIR & VS would do well at the outset, I believe, to give themselves plenty of time to experiment extensively for themselves with various types of makes of reverbs.

It can be a huge adventure and there's masses to learn. Dietz of course always gives good advice - he's a well experienced pro - but try not to be misled or daunted by others here who may make it seem just a matter of knowing a few simple rules. It's not. It's a matter of developing an ear for the various types and makes of reverb plugins, and there's no quick way around that. It can take years - which is probably why many VSL customers are obviously so happy to stick with MIR and VS verbs.

Yes some theory of natural acoustic reverb and the various approaches for modelling it digitally can come in handy. But for that stuff I'd strongly recommend you go to textbooks or widely approved and respected technical articles in specialist technical magazines and journals.

Said this forum's worst troll. Lolol. Lovin' your projection, champ.

You've clearly never worked in a high pressure, high-end pro technical environment. Believe it or not, words matter in technical matters. No one ever told you that?

If you want to be "specific" about this stuff, it's best if you direct your technical questions to

Oh and there are other threads far more relevant than this one for iLok and E-Licenser issues. Thanks so much for dragging this one off topic.

So Dewdman once again you claim you're being "specific" in a technical matter? Well just for now, let's try to pretend all those previous unfortunate occasions never happened, and deal with this one.

• Macker said "operated together", but you appear to think it significant just being able to "have" E-Licensed and iLok-licensed products together in one machine? As far as I'm aware it's not been identified as an issue by VSL, given that they're different products. So what's its significance for you? And in what circumstances would it be useful to have both versions of the same VSL product installed on one machine?

• Do explain precisely in full detail how you think users such as Viktor and others should proceed so they can have various E-Licensed and iLok-licensed VSL products operating together in one machine. Then I hope you'll request that VSL post a technical note on the topic, just to verify your advice.

• What technical difficulties, limitations and risks, if any, might possibly attend following your advice?

• What steps have you taken to ensure that you're not leading innocent users up the garden path again? Oh wait - strike that "again" - we're supposed be be temporarily forgetting about those previous instances and pretending to be keen to hear advice given by someone who speaks as if he takes the veracity and validity of his technical advice earnestly, seriously and responsibly.

Anyone from time to time might make a fool of themself by asserting stuff they really don't know about or have misunderstood. That's generally accepted as part of being human. And if called out on such an occasion, most people are willing to see their mistake or misunderstanding, and perhaps laugh about it, or make an apology, or even blush and fart and rush off in tears. A few might try to dig themselves in deeper, which doesn't usually end well for them. And even fewer might have a marked tendency to double down, and use various kinds of trolling, lying, projecting, gaslighting, ghosting, smearing, pity plays, triangulation, and other nefarious techniques to try to negate the calling out and to defame whoever did the calling out. Only in this last case is there likely to be damage done to the general integrity and wellbeing of social intercourse, and so sometimes it calls for handling of the sterner kind.

I'm speaking hypothetically. It's just a story. What could possibly go wrong in connection with "kind, benevolent and light" discussion of technical matters in a forum that is accustomed to dealing with technical matters? Because after all, we have centuries of modern empirical science and technology to call upon in order to find the truth, and to sort fact from fiction, don't we?

And there I will leave it for others to judge. I'm simply a guest in this revered forum.

And no dewdman, I've learnt the hard way. I'm not trusting you by giving you info up front. You ask to borrow my watch then turn round and tell me the time. It's an old management consultancy trick from the days when being a management consultant was for some a license to print money and win fame and fortune. And these 101s do come at a big price, dewdman. as you will discover.

ER content. You haven't explained how this "places the instruments on stage". Let's hear your understanding of this first.

Right oh, some more engineering 101, to counter the harm of dewdman's fake news.

Proximity effect. You really should have googled that one, dewdman. It refers to a property of most microphones whereby very close sources tend to elicit an enhanced response at lower frequencies, compared to the mic's frequency response to the same source at much greater distances. It could perhaps be more properly called the "close proximity" effect, since it becomes noticeable within about a metre or so between source and mic.

I'm willing to be wrong but I very much doubt if any of VSL's sample recordings have ever deliberately invoked the proximity effect. Otherwise mixing with VSL sample libraries would include the ever-present chore of EQing out the proximity effect on instruments that are to be placed farther back than right in your face!

The "Proximity" plugin that I assume you found in your random googling (as if Paolo can't google for himself) has a facility for EQing in or out the actual proximity effect of a typical microphone, but this of course has nothing to do with making a distinction between 10 metres and 15 metres, for example.

And you say this is the same as the other EQ-distance effect that I carefully questioned; i.e. the HF absorption of air (now you can google ISO 9631-1), which plays very little if any significant part in distinguishing differences between player positions on stage.

Tut tut. A big bit of noob confusion there by you, methinks. And yet you still make it sound as if you know what you're talking about, and that can cause untold mischief and confusion amongst non-technical music makers who all too often just accept what they're told to do about the technical stuff. They need to be protected from fake news merchants out just to make a name for themselves by any means, fair or foul.

dewdman, oh hey I was beginning to miss your speciality. But now we have a lovely bit of projection here from the one whose posts change with the wind - oh yes I've seen you do it to cover your backside time and time again. Give me one example of me editing one of my posts that constitutes downright dishonesty and cheating, and I will apologise. That's your trick, sunshine, not mine.

No worries Macker. I've got this - but of course do chime in if something takes your fancy. I slipped up once, and we have a googled answer as a result. But as it turns out, it helps with the job at hand, Lol.

dewdman your answer means the advice you gave to Paolo no longer stands. Good. Now perhaps this thread might proceed without you sidetraacking it any further.

dewdman, I notice you still haven't elucidated on any of your advice which appears to have been aimed at helping Paolo with his specific objectives as stated in his thread here. So do you stand by your advice or withdraw it? If the former, that would leave a bit of a mess to be cleared up, sorting the wheat from the chaff as well as the outright nonsense; but someone else will have to take care of that, right?

I notice also you've gone way off topic.

I do hope, for Paolo's sake and for others who might be interested in what Paolo is trying to achieve here, that this thread can now proceed without being sidetracked any further.

Still keenly anticipating your own elucidations of your remarks, dewdman.

dewdman, you speak of these technical matters authoritatively, as if from your own knowledge, understanding and experience. I'm all for learning from someone else's understanding and experience, but you only hint and imply that you have these things, without actually imparting any of it. I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to benefit from some actual elucidation from you.

You mention the "proximity effect." Please explain how this is relevant to Synchron libraries.

You identify 2 plugins (both of which I have, and have trialed fairly extensively). You say you "don't have much experience with them", but also say, as if you do actually have understanding and experience of them: "Try subtle settings. Nice thing about these is that you can more directly affect the proximity aspect without messing with ERs and width". Does that mean, for example, don't use the "Proximity" plugin's main fader to render a calibrated difference of distance but use it subtly instead? And do you mean that Proximity's "Width" parameter should be disengaged, and why? Please elucidate by giving us the benefit of your own understanding of these 2 plugins.

You seem to be concerned about ER. Please explain the role of ER in Synchron libraries and why it's of concern in this context.

You say, "And there is always just using EQ to make things seem further away." What principle does this involve, and how does that principle translate into making actual EQ settings to affect distance? Please elucidate.

I like the idea!

Having done time with the traditional MIDI file export/import faff, as Andi properly suggests above, I'm well chuffed that it's now looking possible to record any or all MIDI straight into Logic from Dorico, etc. I've been thinking about buying Dorico as a front end for Logic-with-VEPro. I've always wanted a pro score editor, but not at the price of not having Logic always readily at hand for familiar and convenient MIDI and audio editing, control, automation and mixing.

I see no need to have Logic send its received MIDI straight through to VEPro while recording that MIDI from the notation app. That would be irrelevant for my purposes of sending notation app MIDI to Logic. So the 'snag' described above doesn't bother me. However, I'm not so confident about how I'd get Logic's MIDI back into Dorico for final tarting up, but no doubt I'll find a suitable way.

It's looking very much like Apple are determined to make Logic Pro top DAW.

Have you quite finished insulting the intelligence of forum users and Logic users, and smearing 'old' Logic's capabilities as a DAW, dewdman42? And do you think we all believe that the only way we stand a chance of understanding the technical issues here is to be read into your top secret knowledge base of absolute truth (notwithstanding that Jedi know only the Sith deal in absolutes)? Spoiler alert! It's all there in the name of this feature of 'old' Logic:-

demix BY CHANNEL. 

But just so you don't feel left out, we'll disengage our Warp engines for now and see if we can manage to simplify the enormously complicated and profoundly technical concepts involved.

  •   Auto demix BY CHANNEL cannot demix multiple MIDI input streams if there's no difference in their channel number. Wow! Now there's a revelation! Not.

  •   Auto demix BY CHANNEL is pointless if a single channel input MIDI stream is routed to multiple MIDI destination channels.

  •   Auto demix BY CHANNEL is pointless if multi-channel input MIDI streams are routed to one destination.

There, I think that pretty much nails it. Not exactly startling news for most DAW users, I suspect.

Over the past couple of decades some Logic users have been applying perfectly legitimate workarounds that let them use the auto demix BY CHANNEL feature as they wish. To call these workarounds "fiddly" is as relevant as saying to a violinist that he or she should change to playing the piano because bowed instruments are too "fiddly". Is there any serious DAW that doesn't have numerous opportunities to get "fiddly" with it? Aren't those opportunities an important part of what endears users to their DAWs, and let them put their skills, craft and art to best possible use? Your smear tactics are obvious and tiresome, but they do let us gauge your standards of argument.

You didn't orginally mention auto demix as a posssible solution to Roger's problem. But once Macker introduced the idea you went ballistic trying to prove that "no way" could it possibly work. Erm ... yes way. It does work. And it can be made even more useful with two kinds of time-honoured workarounds, which I won't go into now; I've already made enough essential points for one post.

Here we go again Hahaha.

Dewman42, there is a now a very clear pattern. If you can't or won't admit you were just plain wrong in the face of clear technical evidence, that's one thing. But why launch into these long dogmatic obfuscations apropos of nothing that does anything to develop, let alone resolve the matter at hand in any seriously technical or even practical way; not to mention your attempts to smear everyone and everything that doesn't align perfectly with your opinions? Why not simply accept the technical evidence that's as plain as a pikestaff for all to see, and peacefully go about your business?

You need to explain yourself more accurately, clearly and precisely, dewdman42 - to yourself if no one else. You're not actually making sense here. I've said already the problem's been solved. So I'll ask again - what are you trying to prove or disprove, exactly?

What did you mean by "if its possible to record a multi port onto many tracks at once"? I don't think that's what Roger was asking. That's simply not a problem in old Logic. (Each of my MIDI controllers comes into Logic on a different port - how about yours?) Rather, wasn't it about how to get multiple MIDI channels recorded simultaneously across multiple ports in a multi-port VEP template? Macker's test result proves it is certainly possible. What was it you wanted to prove or disprove, exactly?

It looks to me very much like Macker has addressed Roger's very practical enquiry pretty thoroughly already - and backed it up with test results! I don't get why your tirade was necessary after that.

Hahaha, how many arms and legs do you have, dewdman42? Do you perhaps have a one-man-band type of MIDI controller rig with loads of levers and bits of string attached from every conceivable movable part of your anatomy to a vast array of MIDI controllers? Because you do seem to be getting a tad shrill about old Logic's 16 MIDI channel concurrent live recording limit.

Don't you think that over the many many years this limit has been there in Logic, either E-magic or Apple would have responded if hordes of users had complained, as you seem to be, that there's something desperately  inadequate about this 16 channel live recording limit?

Logic 10.7's very nice new MIDI input port & channel assignment faciliities in the Track Inspector address the old inconvenience that arose mainly when using a template in which hundreds of instruments are crammed solidly into every available channel, such that recording multiple channels of live MIDI using auto-demix typically necessitated having to change the MIDI controllers' internal MIDI channel numbers to match the template MIDI channels - for users who didn't fancy venturing into the Environment. But now it's a doddle. Even so, I'm still trying to conjure an image of you wearing your one-man-band MIDI controller rig and playing many dozens of MIDI channels into Logic all at once ... hahaha.

dewdman42, I stand by my word of caution on Logic's Scripter, trusting that users are able to use their own eyes and make up their own minds.

I'm reasonably sure most Logic users are well aware of the evolutionary step of 1 KS to 3 KS in Apple's recent introduction of Articulation Sets. So I guess I'm probably not the only one to be very curious to know more about your claim that the update from 1 KS to 3 KS was an "afterthought", rather than a legitimate and duly considered update of the functional design of Articulation Sets. Do you perhaps have insider knowledge on that particular update? Please do let us know. I'm also curious about your opinion that the additional 2 KS functionality was "tacked on to the GUI in an awkward way": what is it specifically that makes it awkward for you? Do let us know. I for one have had no problems in understanding and using the new GUI.

As for your opinions on the virtues of Logic's Scripter, I don't regard further elaborations on that topic as suitable or proper for this forum. So I'll just say this. Of course I do understand that one would want to promote one's own cottage industry in JS scripts, and be keen to identify as many apparent 'problem areas' as possible that would seem to make their scripts appear as 'absolutely great' solutions. But it's another matter altogether if that involves wilful neglect of technical realities and, even worse, groundless smearing of the perceived competition. No names, no pack drill.

For my part, I happen to be one of the minority who are JS skeptics and who tend to take a critical and objective stance towards today's very obvious push to expand frontend website programming thinking and practice into woefully unsuitable areas of application. I'm sure many people are familiar with the image of the proverbial "man with a new hammer looking for nails to knock in", but it seems to me more a case now of a man with a stapler looking for any kind of 'fixing' job whether or not the job actually needs a man with a hammer.

Stig, I've found Articulation Sets in Logic to be a mixed blessing - visibility being one of its awkward aspects, among others. Apple's choice of a maximum depth of 3 KS per Articulation operation might have something to do with the serious problem of giving easy, rapid, practical and convenient visibility to large numbers of selection possibilities - more than 8 possibilities at a time tending to give little if any workflow advantage over conventional KS-Dimension switching, as far as I've found.

I've tried using my own MIDI Scripter scripts that can stack more than 3 KS per operation, to make Articulation Sets work conveniently with Syz Dimension Strings - the ultimate test!! - but have yet to find any real advantage in actual practice.

After much experimentation I now use KSs conventionally for main Dimension Tree selections in Synchron Player, then use Articulation Sets only if and where I need some very fast, agile patch switching within the part of the tree already selected by conventional KSs. But in practice it's not often I need to do that.

A word of caution on Logic's Scripter - watch your CPU performance meter! I've noticed that scripts tend to be absurdly juicy, and can too easily introduce a serious CPU burden when running on many instruments - whether the scripts are Apple's or my own. Whatever the exact process used by Logic is to compile/interpret scripts, the resulting machine code is pretty obviously far from optimal for embedded realtime control tasks in a very fast DAW like Logic.

dewdman42, since your comment appears to have significant consequences for thousands of Kontakt/VE Pro users, would you please elaborate, including at least one citation of an authoritative source for the technical basis of what you've said.

To @Dewdman42,

You answered me by claiming I'm wrong. And you tried to back up your claim with some apparently technical points that don't make technical sense. Oh please, I'm no noob. All I spoke about was some testing I'd done, the fact that your spreadsheet gave answers way different from my test results. and that my test results agreed with Macker's numbers. Eventually you changed your spreadsheet, saying that a "fudge factor" seemed to be needed, instead of admitting you got it very wrong. And not a word of apology from you to anyone.

What's up with that?