Combination of VI's and Hardware

[nigelpry]

Originally Posted by albee1952

Indeed, i5 and minimum RAM is woefully underpowered. i7 and lots of RAM makes a major difference

Woefully underpowered? Really?

Yes, an i7 is more powerful than an i5, and it is true that the more RAM you have, the more breathing space you have for disc cache and loading samples into VI such as Kontakt.

An i7 is helpful for massive sessions, but the OP gave no indication that he's doing anything on that scale. An i5 should be more than capable of doing what he wants.

Personally, I think we should all be very careful about spreading myths along the lines of 'woefully inadequate'. i5 computers may be underpowered compared to top of the range systems, but they are still very able to do a decent day's work.

Not forgetting that an i5 with 4gb RAM is what is specified here ...

http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/e...m-Requirements

... as required 'for optimal performance and reliability'.

So unless the guy is trying to do something well above average typical sessions, the i5 is by no stretch of the imagination 'woefully underpowered' for his needs.

I can do a lot in Pro Tools 12 even on my 2009 Core2Duo MacBook Pro ... record 24 tracks at once, record overdubs while playing back those tracks, load Superior Drummer to an Instrument Track and feed 10 channels of audio from it into aux tracks, load up Vienna Ensemble Pro, link it into Pro Tools using its AAX plugin, with Kontakt loaded in Vienna, and several sample libraries loaded and playing via Vienna's multi-out audio into yet more aux tracks in Pro Tools.

I don't use many Native FX, as I have a UAD Satelite Quad and UAD Solo connected, but I do sometimes use a handful of Native FX too.

By comparison, an i5 has much more power.

The second room in my studio has an i5 iMac with 16gb RAM, and we run full band recording and mixing sessions in there with very little problem.

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by albee1952

Indeed, i5 and minimum RAM is woefully underpowered. i7 and lots of RAM makes a major difference

Seriously doubt that is the issue here, we recorded and mixed a pretty big hitsong last summer on a i5 with 8 GB RAM on the internal harddrive and had no issues at all. Atleast 100+ tracks and automations for days. Lots of plugins although we had bounced most to audio.

[VRW]

Originally Posted by guitarist9891

I currently have 2.4 ghz i5 with 4 gigs of ram. Late 2013 13 inch macbook pro.

Well, whatever some wizards may be able to accomplish finally , an i5 with 4(!) GB Ram, PT12 and lots of VIs...how is this supposed to be working?
Yeah, it may not be the only issue in this case but this IS underpowered indeed.
Anyway, as it is not my own, personal problem actually, good luck to everybody who is trying to get it to work actually! The best of success!

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by VRW

Well, whatever some wizards may be able to accomplish finally , an i5 with 4(!) GB Ram, PT12 and lots of VIs...how is this supposed to be working?
Yeah, it may not be the only issue in this case but this IS underpowered indeed.
Anyway, as it is not my own, personal problem actually, good luck to everybody who is trying to get it to work actually! The best of success!

No I wholeheartedly agree 4GB RAM is probably on the absolute lowest level but i was commenting on the i5 processor which would work just fine. Putti g in another 4-8GB RAM would make a pretty significant difference but i5 is well enough though

[guitarist9891]

Originally Posted by nigelpry

The Delay MIDI Real Time Property can be set to ticks or samples. Were you using it as ticks?

Also, perhaps its my old ears, but if you've got it correct to one millisecond, or one tick, are you actually hearing a one tick/ms flam, or is it just irritating because the clips are not precisely aligned.

For me it's close enough, especially as I don't generally 'double up' sounds using a combination of hardware and VI.

The delay compensation issues are a pain though at mix time, so I generally print the MIDI, especially from hardware, as soon as I can.

At least you are in a better place than you were ;-)

Well I actually like to keep in MIDI as long as I can. I even record my real guitar tracks (which replace really terrible midi GTRs from XPAND 2) after my final Lead/backing Vocals are recorded. That way if I decide to experiment with tempo, key, modulate the last chorus etc - it is very easy and can be done in a minute.

1ms actually feels different. It can make a performance feel slightly behind the beat (which gives the part a lazy feel, not always a bad thing)/ make it feel in the center or slightly ahead. If I record a gtr solo for example nudging it 1ms to the left can create a feeling of the guitar part driving the song forward.

Yes definitely in a better place than I was :) Before I used a Motu 424 and a Tascam Dm24 digital mixer and I would route all my channels through the mixer and my outboard synths would monitor through the mixer as well so latency was never an issue. Now that plugins are so good I am 100% in the box.

[guitarist9891]

Originally Posted by VRW

Well, whatever some wizards may be able to accomplish finally , an i5 with 4(!) GB Ram, PT12 and lots of VIs...how is this supposed to be working?
Yeah, it may not be the only issue in this case but this IS underpowered indeed.
Anyway, as it is not my own, personal problem actually, good luck to everybody who is trying to get it to work actually! The best of success!

The work can be done, it is just not as convenient. I slowly up the buffer size as the song progresses. In fact if I was recording audio only like vocals and gtrs, I can keep my buffer at 1024 permanently and monitor through my sound card mixer, which gives me an option to add compression and reverb, through its internal DSP on monitor only and record dry with no comp or verb. With Midi I live with some crackles and pops while I am recording MIDI and monitoring though Pro Tools. After each instrument was recorded, I change the buffer size from 128 or 256 to 1024, edit the part then choose a buffer 128 and record the next midi part, and so on.

and I am running 2 instances of superior drummer, 3 instances of addictive drums, at least 5 instances of kontakt, and ez drummer 2 for shaker, and Xpand 2 for really plastic gtr parts which I replace later. That is my usual writing template. Vepro 5 is currently hosted on the same comp as Pro Tools although in the future I plan to add as a second comp.

The reason I run so many drum VI is because I hate mixing overheads. I have each drum VI for every individual drum. I get my drum sound dry but still natural and add reverb later. So the kick for example is not just one kick mic but kick from the kick mic plus overhead mics. That goes in Pro Tools to my Kick AUX, and so one for every drum part.

So yes a more powerful computer would be more convenient without a question. Actually 2 more comps (one for pro tools one for VIs) and a Korg Kronos and an Integer 7 for additional sounds But in the meantime I can still write, record, bounce all MIDI to Audio for Mixing and get some music done.

[nigelpry]

Originally Posted by guitarist9891

Well I actually like to keep in MIDI as long as I can. I even record my real guitar tracks (which replace really terrible midi GTRs from XPAND 2) after my final Lead/backing Vocals are recorded. That way if I decide to experiment with tempo, key, modulate the last chorus etc - it is very easy and can be done in a minute.

1ms actually feels different. It can make a performance feel slightly behind the beat (which gives the part a lazy feel, not always a bad thing)/ make it feel in the center or slightly ahead. If I record a gtr solo for example nudging it 1ms to the left can create a feeling of the guitar part driving the song forward.

Yes definitely in a better place than I was :) Before I used a Motu 424 and a Tascam Dm24 digital mixer and I would route all my channels through the mixer and my outboard synths would monitor through the mixer as well so latency was never an issue. Now that plugins are so good I am 100% in the box.

Fair enough I guess, it's what you feel and hear that counts.

You do know that there are FAR BETTER VIs for guitar sounds out there, don't you ;-)

Perhaps fair to say that one tick/ms difference won't matter for some tracks, so you only have to pay extra special attention to those that do matter.

Just out of curiousity, what MIDI hardware are you using? What are they giving you that VI don't? Is the difference worth the aggro of all the messing about you have to do to get stuff sounding so accurately in sync?

For me, I still use a fait bit of hardware. I'm seduced by the bias in my own ears/head that there is something inherent in each bit of hardware that imparts a 'sound' on everything that comes out of it.

That 'signature' in the sound is probably a factor of the hardware's circuitry, including the manufacturer's specific choice of d/a convertor for digital gear. Using different hardware gear in a song just somehow seems to make it a touch easier to separate stuff out in the mix.

But I'm prepared to accept that it's probably just a preconceived bias in my mind to justify internally the amount of gear I have at home to supplement what's at the studio. 50U of kit at home .... plus a few extras that won't fit in the furniture I had built to house it all with room to spare ;-)

[guitarist9891]

Originally Posted by nigelpry

Fair enough I guess, it's what you feel and hear that counts.

You do know that there are FAR BETTER VIs for guitar sounds out there, don't you ;-)

Perhaps fair to say that one tick/ms difference won't matter for some tracks, so you only have to pay extra special attention to those that do matter.

Just out of curiousity, what MIDI hardware are you using? What are they giving you that VI don't? Is the difference worth the aggro of all the messing about you have to do to get stuff sounding so accurately in sync?

For me, I still use a fait bit of hardware. I'm seduced by the bias in my own ears/head that there is something inherent in each bit of hardware that imparts a 'sound' on everything that comes out of it.

That 'signature' in the sound is probably a factor of the hardware's circuitry, including the manufacturer's specific choice of d/a convertor for digital gear. Using different hardware gear in a song just somehow seems to make it a touch easier to separate stuff out in the mix.

But I'm prepared to accept that it's probably just a preconceived bias in my mind to justify internally the amount of gear I have at home to supplement what's at the studio. 50U of kit at home .... plus a few extras that won't fit in the furniture I had built to house it all with room to spare ;-)

I know I just don't want to spend money on GTR plugins when all my final parts are being recorded with my AXE FX 2. Guitar is my main instrument, so MIDI guitar parts are just for scratch parts and sketch the song out until it gets replaced with live guitar. I used to have a Triton rack (which I recently sold) and used my good friend's roland XP30. I agree that hardware has a signature sound.

Honestly I spent a lot of money on software VI's and although they do sound great, I always feel that one day the company that made the plugin will close or stop supporting the plugin and I will loose that plugin with the next computer upgrade because it won't be compatible with a new OS. I never feel like I actually own anything with software instruments. Yes hardware can break but is easily replaceable by buying a used unit and unless you are unlucky a good hardware module can last you 20+ years. Especially now that everything sounds so good. I think Kronos piano sounds as good as any VI. one might prefer one over the other but its not a night and day difference in quality and is a matter of personal preference. And actually KRONOS is a VI, it just lives inside a keyboard :)

In terms of messing around in Pro Tools with MIDI offset, yes I think it is worth it. More options are always better for writing and one never knows what might spark your inspiration.

Right now I was just experimenting with my Yamaha P155 piano which I use as my controller for all my VIs. that is the only external keyboard I now got. as i wrote earlier in the post I was using some external hardware a number of years ago and actually kind of miss working with outboard instruments. Hence my interest in Korg Kronos and Integra 7. But before purchasing the two, I wanted to test how hardware implements in the 100% ITB world with no outboard mixer.

[filosofem]

Originally Posted by guitarist9891

I have noticed that my Yamaha P155 is out of sync tempo wise with my VI.

True hardware and computer synchronization is achieved by a dedicated time clock like Innerclock Systems - Sync Gen II Pro.

[guitarist9891]

Originally Posted by filosofem

True hardware and computer synchronization is achieved by a dedicated time clock like Innerclock Systems - Sync Gen II Pro.

Thanks for the link. Perhaps I should not have said "tempo". I meant the waveforms were not aligned. As far as I understand it was a buffer size issue. So MIDI track offset fixed the problem.

The box in your link does it compensate for what I had automatically? Or what I had was a separate issue? In other words will getting this box mean I will no longer have to input midi track offset manually?

and will it also make monitoring the external gear through pro tools tighter?