Jeff, thanks for the response. I hope you don't think my caution at the end of my post above was aimed at blaming you - it certainly wasn't (I've now added a small edit to rectify). We currently have a problem here with one particular member who's also busy spreading his bluff and nonsense in other forums too; no names, no pack drill. My comment was hoping to help you see the benefit of a bit of caution and skepticism (well, quite a lot of caution and skepticism these days) in casting around to find help with your horrible (and no doubt costly) current problems with your pro composer's rig. Of course I can understand your frustration.

Odd that I can't reproduce your missing MIDI clock problem on my iMac; a key difference might be that I'm not piping it out to a slave system, only to a local host VEP server. Maybe a detailed report to VSL's Support might bear more fruit than a bug report to Apple. And whilst Logic 10.6.3 may be ok for some, when I get absolutely sick and tired of the unreliability and weirdnesses of today's Logic, I still have Logic 10.4.8 which, relatively, is a haven of peace and order. Hell's teeth, I remember when I could depend on Emagic's Logic almost as if it was a scientific instrument!

Anyway, best of luck getting through this current sh**storm of techie stuff.

Jeff. You've not made it clear if you're reporting problems you've had while using your own ARM computer(s), or just commenting on reports and comments posted in various forums. Would you kindly clarify.

Re your main complaint about MIDI Clock not working when using Logic and VEP (AU3) on an Intel processor: it works for me (on macOS 12.6, latest Logic and VEP). Just now I've tested it using various VI Pro (latest) instruments with factory preset internal sequences, and also using some of (latest) Kontakt's sequenced drum loops in the Factory Library. In both cases Logic can start and stop sequence playback in these instruments in VEP, either triggered live from a MIDI keyboard or from a programmed MIDI region. Also these sequences change playback speed in real time in response to tempo changes I make in logic. Perhaps there are other built-in sequencers in other instruments that won't sync with Logic's timing  via VEP - would you specify actual examples you've encountered?

You haven't said which particular AU2 VEP multi-port workaround gave rise to the many hanging notes you speak of. Of the two workaround designs I know about, one from VSL and one from a third party, neither is a faultless solution, as proved by some stress-testing reported by a member of this forum. Nor can there be a perfect solution constructed for VEP AU2 in Logic's Environment (I can back up this assertion with digital realtime comms theory if you're interested). Those stress tests showed that the 3rd party workaround (provided by Dewdman42) is far MORE prone to the hanging notes problem than the factory workaround. Actually I don't believe there can be a less error-prone workaround than VSL's ultimately simple one. In the past I've used VSL's AU2 workaround without encountering the "stuck notes galore" problem you've reported; which might be because I kept the port count per VEP instance low, as recommened by VSL.

I certainly agree that setting up a large and complex template for VEP (AU3) with Logic is a lot of work, but I'm currently getting good results with mine - in between Logic crashes!

I'll have a bet with anyone who'll stake $1000, that we have NOT come to the end of life of the VEP server for Logic and VEP running on ARM processors.

I'll just add this: it's worth being VERY cautious, Jeff, about claims made in various forums about this or that problem or about tricks for solving or getting around them. Unfortunately for the majority of us, there are a few individuals out there whose craving for attention, adulation and validation on social media far outweighs their abilities to provide useful and reliable information, and who have little or no conscience about that. In my experience this particular forum is generally one of the very best, in that the vast majority of members who post here clearly value truth, honesty and integrity very highly and are able to communicate perfectly well, no matter how short on technical knowledge or expertise they may be in some particular topic.

*sigh*

Give Dietz a break ...

RTFM

I'm calling your bluff. Get the word from Plugin Alliance and show it here. Then we'll all know if your "trick" is a "steal" or not.

And if you can't bring yourself to approach PA to get to the truth of the matter, I'll do it. And if I have to do it, be assured, I won't spare your blushes when I report the facts you don't want to know.

I say again, you need to look at the Terms of Service.

I don't care what you can or can't convince yourself of. I do care about the risk of members of this forum being led up the garden path ..... again. Thanks anyway for your "confession. by projection".

Ask them directly in plain language. And tell us what they say. I think you're in for a disappointment.

The FAQs aren't the legal stuff. You need to look at the Terms of Service.

So Plugin Alliance run a "Father Christmas" business model now? Do please tell us more about your "trick" for picking up a DearVR Monitor so cheaply, Dewdman. Specifically, tell us how you get around clause 12 in PA's Terms of Service, i.e.:-

"... Upon cancellation of your Subscription, you will no longer be charged for additional Subscription Terms, and you may continue to use the Plugin for the remaining Subscription Term for which you were charged."

Seems to me that when your final month expires, so will DearVR Monitor's licence. Not such a "steal" after all, uh?

Plugin Alliance have been around a long time and I regard them as shrewd operators. You think they can be "gamed" that easily?

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?