VST host kvetching...

Sometime within the next year, I'm thinking of upgrading my machine and
also have been toying with trying a new VST host. I like the VST host I
have a lot (VAZ Modular 2.54), but it would be so nice to be able to get >
16 MIDI channels of input to do really big orchestral stuff. The next VAZ
version might provide that, and if so, it's a no-brainer to upgrade, since
VAZ also has microtuning, and it's really stable, and I like the mixing
model quite well. It's just like a big one-buss console mixer. Totally easy
to operate.

So I've been looking recently at various VST hosts and running some
demos... What I really want doesn't seem to be available!

The MIDI standard as we know has 16 channels. If you have more than one
MIDI sound card or multiple MIDI loopbacks (like MIDI OX), you could
theoretically get > 16 channels. Finale can output MIDI data to as many as
8 MIDI drivers (e.g., 8 different sound cards, etc.) Some hosts can take
data from more than one MIDI source... Hmm...

I'm looking for a VST host that can *input* live MIDI data from more than
one MIDI source at the same time, e,g, MPU401 and/or MIDI OX. I've been
checking around at kvr-vst.com and such...

The host also must have a builtin mixer that can mix >16 stereo channels
at once, and where those >16 stereo channels can all be VSTi soft-synths.

It should also behave like a "rack". I don't really like the
connect-the-dots totally modular approach of some hosts because there are
too many cables to keep connecting all the time.

There are a couple of hosts that seem like they would (or should) sort of
work, but... The ones I've investigated by trying the demos can't do both
mix >16 channels in a nice way *and* receive >16 channels of MIDI! They're
all pretty lame.

The latest Fruityloops, for example, can supposedly mix 48 channels, but
it apparently can't get MIDI on more than *one* channel! Not even 16
channels! (I couldn't get it to do anything but play ONE note (low d) in a
soft-synth; no matter what note I played, if it wasn't low d, no sound came
out!) So, it can't take input from more than one source, and is thus
useless for connecting to Finale. If Fruityloops could get decent MIDI
input, it would work really well for me, because it has what appears to be
a nice mixer and effects.
There's an app called "Console" from Art Teknika that can take >16
channels of MIDI input, but it doesn't have a *mixer* that can mix more
than 4 stereo channels at once. (It uses the freebie CMX844 VST mixer.) If
"Console" had a better mixer, it would be useful enough, as-is, it's lame.

The new "Forte" (version 1.2) can take a lot of MIDI input, but it doesn't
have any mixer. Nothing. It depends on (yuck) channel volume! If Forte had
a mixer, it would be perfect. As-is, it's lame.

With Psycle I couldn't get any sound output at all. Seems totally lame.

Also Aodix was lame. "Chainer" was lame... Multitrack Studio Lite wouldn't
even run after installation. Bidule has a lame builtin mixer and crashed
my machine after a few minutes of use... So much for cheap and free hosts!

My conclusion is that the free or inexpensive hosts are all really lame
and/or buggy. I guess you get what you pay for! (I paid >$275 for VAZ
Modular.) I'm not even going to look at any of the expensive hosts yet,
figuring that they're probably lame, too. It seems that anything with a
built-in sequencer (i.e., that tries to be an all-in-one composition &
playback tool) has lame MIDI input capability... Is that right? Should I be
looking at Steinberg?

Oh, and whatever I buy *cannot* require a dongle. I categorically won't
run anything that requires a hardware dongle.

Anyone out there working the way I work, needing just a VST "rack & mixer"
host, and using an external sequencer via MIDI OX or other loopback? What
host are you using? How does it work for you?

So... after all that kvetching, here is Uncle Rick's Guide to Cheap and
Free VST Hosts for Windows!! (Format: Host name; can it use > 16 channels
of Midi?; can it mix decently? "DIY" means do it yourself, in other words,
it's a modular or other environment in which you can probably hack
something together that might work for the task. Was it buggy? "YES" if it
wouldn't run or crashed.)

Host Midi>16? Mix>16? Buggy?

FL Studio NO YES NO
Bidule YES DIY YES
Console YES DIY NO
Forte YES NO NO
Psycle NO NO NO
Aodix NO NO NO
Chainer NO NO NO
MultitrakStu NO NO YES
SynthEdit NO NO NO

Thanks,

Rick

Rick,

{you wrote...}
>Sometime within the next year...

I'll get back to you on that one - that is a lot of writing for one post! :)

Cheers,
Jon

So, I put some of my opinions into this page with an HTML table similar to
the one I posted a while ago here...

http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/Text/Guide-To-VST-Hosts.html

Maybe someday I'll update it, but meanwhile, there you have a few opinions.

Rick

Rick,

{you wrote...}
>There are a couple of hosts that seem like they would (or should) sort of
>work, but... The ones I've investigated by trying the demos can't do both
>mix >16 channels in a nice way *and* receive >16 channels of MIDI! They're
>all pretty lame.

What about Sonar? Not cheap, but you *are* asking for a pretty advance work scenario, one that dabblers probably wouldn't be using (i.e. ruling out free/shareware).

>The new "Forte" (version 1.2) can take a lot of MIDI input, but it doesn't >have any mixer. Nothing. It depends on (yuck) channel volume! If Forte had >a mixer, it would be perfect. As-is, it's lame.

Well, I don't know about lame. If one were to use it for a live performance front-end for a number of softsynths, it would work pretty well. But even there more mixing capability would sure be nice. In my current setup I could set each of the 8 sliders on the Radium kbd to the volume control of an associated synth, and that would work out fine. I think the whole move towards control surfaces and instruments/effects that can 'learn' midi input from knobs and sliders is really going to open things up.

>I'm not even going to look at any of the expensive hosts yet, figuring >that they're probably lame, too.

Well, c'mon Rick, you gotta try! Seems like if your machine has enough CPU and mem horsepower you owe it to yourself to at least download the demos and see if they work for you.

>It seems that anything with a built-in sequencer (i.e., that tries to be >an all-in-one composition & playback tool) has lame MIDI input >capability... Is that right? Should I be looking at Steinberg?

Possibly. Lots of people have used Cubase in it's varying forms. And while you are using virtual synths, you gotta know that reams of Hollywood composers have been using a lot more than 16 midi channels for a long time.

>Oh, and whatever I buy *cannot* require a dongle. I categorically won't >run anything that requires a hardware dongle.

I saw someone mention that on another list, and I can't remember the last time I even saw a dongle (that's what happens when you hit 50, I guess...) It must have been on my Amiga!

>Anyone out there working the way I work, needing just a VST "rack & mixer" >host, and using an external sequencer via MIDI OX or other loopback? What >host are you using? How does it work for you?

We'll keep looking. I sure wish more people would chime in, but I think MMM is still in the semi-dark ages of midi/soft music making. I'll also call a couple film composers I know to see about their big studio setups.

Cheers,
Jon

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

>Possibly. Lots of people have used Cubase in it's varying forms. And while >you are using virtual synths, you gotta know that reams of Hollywood >composers have been using a lot more than 16 midi channels for a long time.
> >
I've got Cubasis, which is the cheapest form. Lemme see ... Cubasis VST 4.0. I don't actually use it for much. I bought it for multitrack recording, because Kyma and the older Cubasis Audio weren't up to the job. It works fine for my purposes (and far less likely to crash Windows than the Cakewalk demos I tried or the free Pro Tools) but I haven't used it with VST instruments.

I do have a feeling that I agreed to an IDE optimisation question before, which may be why my hard disk behaved so "erratically". But I said no this time, and haven't noticed any performance problems. (Or file corruption, but I haven't been using Windows much.)

I don't think it can get more than 16 channel input. It's not something I've ever tried, but I think inputs are either enabled or not. I don't even think you can record to more than one track simltaneously -- you should be able to record multiple channels to one track. There must be a limit to the number of audio channels as well, what with it being the cheapo version.

I expect those Hollywood composers are recording one channel at a time, so they don't need what Rick's asking for.

Oh, and no dongle.

Graham

G,

{you wrote...}
>It works fine for my purposes (and far less likely to crash Windows than >the Cakewalk demos I tried or the free Pro Tools) but I haven't used it >with VST instruments.

I must say that I have only had one crash with Sonar 2.2 (which is a Cakewalk product) in quite a lot of usage.

>I don't think it can get more than 16 channel input.

That may be Cubasis, but it might be your setup as well. With my Midisport 4x4 midi box, I can easily get input from 64 different channels (well, more importantly, I can *output* 64 channels). I'm sure the same could be done with one of the software loopback devices.

>There must be a limit to the number of audio channels as well, what with >it being the cheapo version.

Yeah, they gotta cut back *somewhere* to validate the low cost! :)

>I expect those Hollywood composers are recording one channel at a time, so >they don't need what Rick's asking for.

Well, I think Rick is really looking for *outputting* to more channels. Since he drives the final product with a printed score (Finale), what he is looking for is to expand the number of channels that can be assigned to, to increase the number of staffs in a score with separate orchestrational lines.

>Oh, and no dongle.

Tried Viagra?

Cheers,
Jon

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

>I must say that I have only had one crash with Sonar 2.2 (which is a >Cakewalk product) in quite a lot of usage.
> >
It all depends on your system, and for whatever reason mine really doesn't get on with the newer Cakewalks. I'm not sure if I tried anything new enough to be Sonar, so perhaps that would work. The old Cakewalk Apprentice that came with my Wave Blaster was fine, but it refuses to work without a soundcard in the Sounblaster 16 line installed, and my system doesn't like dual soundcards either :( And it doesn't do audio. Cubasis is fine provided I don't run it at the same time as Kyma :-0

>That may be Cubasis, but it might be your setup as well. With my Midisport >4x4 midi box, I can easily get input from 64 different channels (well, more >importantly, I can *output* 64 channels). I'm sure the same could be done >with one of the software loopback devices.
> >
Sure, I've got a Midisport 2x2 and have used software devices in the past. But although it's possible to use multiple devices simultaneously, there's no way I've found of labelling which device they came from. If you set a track to "-" channel, then it remembers which channel things came in on. But only one track can be active for input at a time, and each track has to be assigned a single output device, which limits it to 16 channels.

>Well, I think Rick is really looking for *outputting* to more channels. >Since he drives the final product with a printed score (Finale), what he is >looking for is to expand the number of channels that can be assigned to, to >increase the number of staffs in a score with separate orchestrational lines.
> >
He specifically says here:

http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/Text/Guide-To-VST-Hosts.html

that he wants to *input* to more than 16 channels, and he says it a second time with emphasis. So I take it that's what he means, unless he comes here and says otherwise. He wants to output them *from* Finale and *into* a VST host. Cubasis isn't designed for that, because it expects to be used as the MIDI sequencer. That's what it started out as anyway.

However, as it's also an audio sequencer, there'd be no problem recording 16 channels at a time, and I've verified that 4 track stereo works even on my hardware. So if you're working on an orchestral score, you have the equivalent of 64 channels. The problem's that you can only play with 16 of them at a time. And perhaps that you'd have to bounce the MIDI through one track at a time as well.

I wonder, is it possible to have each softsynth talking directly to the MIDI device?

Graham

Jon asked,

> One last thing I meant to ask: when you are doing the final 'product' of
> your pieces, is it actually a real-time playback of Finale, going into VAZ
> with 11 instances of Rhino (and one percussion via DR-005) 'live' and
> simply capturing the audio output, or do you have a way of 'rendering'?

Yes, it's a real-time playback from Finale and I capture the live output.
I send Finale's output through MIDI Ox to VAZ, where I have the instances
of Rhino as channel inserts in the mixer. To record, I go into VAZ and hit
the "capture" button, so it starts writing to disk. Then I go back to
Finale and click the "play" button. When the piece is over, I click "stop
capture" in VAZ. Then I load the WAV and snip the ends of the file with
CoolEdit. It's very simple. To get the best performance, I minimize the VAZ
window after I start the capture, and in Finale, I use the non-scrolling
play with "pre-scan" option.

I've found that with my CPU, 1.8GHz, pretty much the max I can get is
about 9 simultaneously sounding notes; typically 7 or 8 gets dicey. On each
Rhino instance, I turn the polyphony setting down to 2 (unless I need
more).

[Aside: I also have noticed that there is some weird bug apparently in
Windows XP that causes the machine to go into a mode where the task manager
is sucking a huge CPU percentage. If that happens, all sound cracks up and
even the mouse won't move smoothly... so I have to re-boot and the problem
goes away.]

> Well, I think Rick is really looking for *outputting* to more channels.
> Since he drives the final product with a printed score (Finale), what he is
> looking for is to expand the number of channels that can be assigned to, to
> increase the number of staffs in a score with separate orchestrational
> lines.

Not exactly. In my current setup, remember, there is no MIDI hardware at
all. It's all done with software loopback drivers. I'm looking to connect
one program to another.

Finale can already support a huge number of staves, and it can output 64
MIDI channels (i.e., 16 to 8 drivers). It has multiple MIDI outputs. Some
VST hosts can *input* over 16 channels by having more than one "MIDI input"
thing, each of which has 16 channels. The MIDI output from the VST host
doesn't matter at all to me. What I would like is to connect the 64 output
channels of Finale to 64 input channels of the VST host. And of course, if
I feed the host more than 16 channels I would expect it to be able to
render sound on those channels also. This is "research" for the future,
when I get a new machine. I already know that with my current CPU, I
couldn't actually play that many notes without dropout!

Cheers,
Rick

Rick,

Thanks for finally clarifying. A few thoughts...

{you wrote...}
>Yes, it's a real-time playback from Finale and I capture the live output.

[snip description]

Yes, that's what I *thought* you were doing.

>I've found that with my CPU, 1.8GHz, pretty much the max I can get is >about 9 simultaneously sounding notes; typically 7 or 8 gets dicey. On >each Rhino instance, I turn the polyphony setting down to 2 (unless I need >more).

And this seems like a burden to me. Certainly I've always noted a lot of polyphony (well, quite a bit of independent lines if nothing else!) in your pieces, but if you ended up wanting to write pieces that also had extended pads or beds (to use modern terms for old harmonic constructions) you would start bumping into problems. More in a minute...

>Finale can already support a huge number of staves, and it can output 64 >MIDI channels (i.e., 16 to 8 drivers).

Um, you mean 16 to *4* ( =64 ), right?

>The MIDI output from the VST host doesn't matter at all to me.

Right: your food chain stops with capturing the resulting audio after the VST host.

>What I would like is to connect the 64 output channels of Finale to 64 >input channels of the VST host. And of course, if I feed the host more >than 16 channels I would expect it to be able to render sound on those >channels also. This is "research" for the future, when I get a new >machine. I already know that with my current CPU, I couldn't actually play >that many notes without dropout!

There is the crux of the matter. My new system, while not bleeding edge, certainly is in the upper range of horsepower: 2.53ghz processor, 512mb of very fast ram. At this, I can still get dropouts and glitches if I get lots of notes going, etc., which is why...

...the rendering option is (currently) the most feasible way to go. Jacky Ligon was the first person to clue me into this. So I'm wondering: you mentioned doing a lot of tweaking to the Finale score, mostly with minimal tempo and dynamic markings. How well does this translate to a midi file? I ask, because you might be able to work, with Finale, in a slightly limited fashion (can you turn off output to individual staves? i.e. if you have a big score and want to just hear a couple of lines, could you 'mute' the midi output of the others?).

In any event, if you could export to a midi file and retain your nuances, you could import the midi file into an application like Sonar (probably others as well, I don't know what JL uses), and then "export" the audio. I learned with with a couple of demo files from the z3ta+ synth - there were 12 tracks of the synth itself, and the audio engine would balk at realtime playback, but all you had to do was export the file and voila - you have the audio track. You'd be able to do an automated mix with the mixing console, and even put in audio effects, etc., and then dump it all to a .wav file.

I'm not saying it is bulletproof, and so much of this is hardware intensive work, and will only get better with beefier systems, and with gradual improvements in hardware. But it does seem a way that, while there are a few compromises during composition, they don't seem totally ruinous to the musical/creative front-end to the project, and (hopefully) the end result will get you a larger orchestration.

I think. :)

Anyhow, some of this can be deferred until you have a heftier platform (and you're just running a Soundblaster card?) and I really noticed a difference with the ASIO drivers in my Aardvark audio card, really helped the latency in live playing.

I'm calling it a day early, I gotta go celebrate something...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_5277.html#5295

> So, I put some of my opinions into this page with an HTML table
similar to
> the one I posted a while ago here...
>
> http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/Text/Guide-To-VST-
Hosts.html
>
> Maybe someday I'll update it, but meanwhile, there you have a few
opinions.
>
> Rick

***Thanks so much, Rick! This is very helpful. It appears, however,
that the Steinberg website is down for the moment. It's Sunday;
perhaps they're working on it...

J. Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"

/makemicromusic/topicId_5277.html#5298

> We'll keep looking. I sure wish more people would chime in, but I
think MMM
> is still in the semi-dark ages of midi/soft music making. I'll also
call a
> couple film composers I know to see about their big studio setups.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Well, personally, I really like all this new input, and it sure
looks like, ultimately, a softsynth will be the way to go. However,
at the moment I'm perfectly happy with my working methods, and don't
want to invest the time to change. I'd rather be writing music!

My instinct, provided that my sequencer "Digital Orchestrator Pro"
wouldn't handle the newest softsynths, would be to purchse some
stable product like Sonar as a host and work from that base... Pricy,
yes, but then I wouldn't be in bug-land. Would that approach be
sensible?? (Maybe somebody already said this? Is there an echo in
here?? :)

J. Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_5277.html#5308

> [Aside: I also have noticed that there is some weird bug apparently
in
> Windows XP that causes the machine to go into a mode where the task
manager
> is sucking a huge CPU percentage. If that happens, all sound cracks
up and
> even the mouse won't move smoothly... so I have to re-boot and the
problem
> goes away.]
>

***I'm using XP at work, and I've noticed this strange effect. All
of a sudden XP seems to "stall." I have no idea what it's doing, but
whatever it is, it take it *forever* to get going again (maybe as
long as a full minute in some cases...)

J. Pehrson

Yesterday Jon wrote...

> [...] So I'm wondering: you
> mentioned doing a lot of tweaking to the Finale score, mostly with minimal
> tempo and dynamic markings. How well does this translate to a midi file?

Ah. It translates really well. Finale can apparently save a MIDI file of
the precise thing that it is performing, with all the nuances, etc. So you
can tell it to play in real time, or save the same thing to a MIDI file.

> [...] you might be able to work, with Finale, in a slightly limited
> fashion (can you turn off output to individual staves? i.e. if you have a
> big score and want to just hear a couple of lines, could you 'mute' the
> midi output of the others?).

Yes, that all works quite well. It's possible to record each line
separately and mix them externally if needed. All you would need to do is
worry about syncing them or whatever.

Anyway, maybe this is getting a bit off-topic for MMM...

Thanks to everyone. I'm still interested in hearing about your experiences
with hosts, etc.

Rick

Rick,

{you wrote...}
>Ah. It translates really well. Finale can apparently save a MIDI file of >the precise thing that it is performing, with all the nuances, etc. So you >can tell it to play in real time, or save the same thing to a MIDI file.

Well, to cut to the chase, and to keep things about making music, if you saved your output as a midi file and imported it into Sonar 2.2 (which I've done), you would have multiple tracks for your synths, as well as a mixer. I'm *sure* that after you get up into the >12-16 instances of VSTs you are probably going to have to mute some as you work on your mix, but since Sonar can 'export' the file, in non-real-time, your end result will be what you want.

Just a thought, that's all. Cakewalk is coming out with 3.0, so you might see 2.2 in blowout sales this fall. And Cakewalk (has anyone else had problems with that name and trying to pass it off as a professional product?) has been bought and adopted by Roland for use with their product lines, so they won't be going away.

As we are learning, more than one way to peel a grape.

Cheers,
Jon