Multiple Virus control plugins at once, (1 per track)

  • yes, that would be nice but unfortunately it's technically impossible. if you have 16 plug-ins open all of those want their discreet stereo signal from the virus and we all know that this would be great but it is impossible with the current bandwidth restrictions. as for automation, depending on which host you use, you _can_ put automation on all tracks routed to virus control, not only one.


    best, marc

  • it would all be solved very simply with a softsynth version of the virus...


    the bandwith restrictions are a result of a poor design decision imho..


    USB 2.0 was a well established standard at the time of release .

  • it would all be solved very simply with a softsynth version of the virus...


    the bandwith restrictions are a result of a poor design decision imho..


    USB 2.0 was a well established standard at the time of release .

    I think all is not that easy ...


    However, about the technical impossibility : I know there are plugins that communicate between the different instances (e.g. for sidechaining). Wouldn't it be possible to have one "master" VC instance manage all the streams to the Virus, and the other instances just accepting automation and sending it to the master instance ?

  • yes, that would be nice but unfortunately it's technically impossible. if you have 16 plug-ins open all of those want their discreet stereo signal from the virus and we all know that this would be great but it is impossible with the current bandwidth restrictions. as for automation, depending on which host you use, you _can_ put automation on all tracks routed to virus control, not only one.


    best, marc

    Marc, it would be possible to load up 3 different instances though, right? Since we can do 3 discrete stereo outs as a multi-output plug-in. That would be awesome even if it's just 3!

  • what would be the benefit for you? it would cripple the synth to three parts.


    marc

    Mainly because in logic multi-timbre instruments share the same automation lane (the channels just mirror each other). It would be more clear cut if I didn't have to select the part and then the parameter I want to automate. I've made mistakes before because of that. Maybe it's just me, or a lack of knowledge on my part.

  • what would be the benefit for you? it would cripple the synth to three parts.


    marc


    As for just three parts, I tend to be limited to around 3 parts anyways before facing drop-out. This is fine for me as I have other instruments I use too.

  • marc[/quote]Mainly because in logic multi-timbre instruments share the same automation lane (the channels just mirror each other). It would be more clear cut if I didn't have to select the part and then the parameter I want to automate. I've made mistakes before because of that. Maybe it's just me, or a lack of knowledge on my part.[/quote]


    Can't you just tweak the control with a knob first then edit if it needs fixing? Can't accidently use the wrong midi channel when choosing from a very long list..


    There was a time when we had to do all automation on channel 1, is it still like that for you??

  • marc

    Mainly because in logic multi-timbre instruments share the same automation lane (the channels just mirror each other). It would be more clear cut if I didn't have to select the part and then the parameter I want to automate. I've made mistakes before because of that. Maybe it's just me, or a lack of knowledge on my part.



    Can't you just tweak the control with a knob first then edit if it needs fixing? Can't accidently use the wrong midi channel when choosing from a very long list..


    There was a time when we had to do all automation on channel 1, is it still like that for you??




    All 16 multi-timbre channels mirror each other, which is the equivalent to having all automation on channel 1. I'll make sure when I get home today and let you know if I'm wrong.

  • it would all be solved very simply with a softsynth version of the virus...


    the bandwith restrictions are a result of a poor design decision imho..


    USB 2.0 was a well established standard at the time of release .


    Believe me, there is NOTHING 'universal' about USB 2.0 - for the sake of stability, and the ability to be more than 50cm away from your PC, USB 1 was a good decision...

  • This is the whole reason why I use a midi controller to record midi automation instead of using automation lanes.
    This way it's much easier to rearrange automation and sort it in cubase.
    I use a BCR2000 with alot of knobs. I press record and that's it. No selecting parameters and stuff.
    The only downside is that not all parameters are availble, then I have to use the matrix.


    I wouldn't need the bcr2000 if the virus sends midi in VC mode. I've stated something like this on the infekted forum, but then marc said something like: get over it :(
    On the upside: the knobs on the ti won't wear cause i don't touch them..

  • you wont get all the automatable paramaters with midi cc, they will all be unnamed,
    and you will also have to use sysex dumps on tracks to pull up patches... not a very good solution marc.

  • AtonyB Wrote:


    Believe me, there is NOTHING 'universal' about USB 2.0 - for the sake of stability, and the ability to be more than 50cm away from your PC, USB 1 was a good decision..."


    ---
    ?(



    I do 15 foot usb2 runs all of the time...

  • Indeed, for a successfully engineered product these feats are possible - but, depending on the product, it can take time to get there (also, this IS somewhat of an 'old fashioned' problem...)

  • Why not have Firewire in the acess virus ti..? would that help and would that be some thing access might look into in the near future..?

  • How about a MIDI to MIDI plugin that sends only Note, CC & Sysex parameters to the Master Virus TI plugin, I think that would solve a lot of problems people are having with automation, and surely that's possible. It would certainly streamline production not having to look up through my list of CC's etc.

  • "it would be impossible with the current bandwidth restrictions"


    well then:
    - support as many channels as possible (looking at other usb hardware at least 8 stereo channels shall be possible) - AND: Why not support 2 usb connections?
    - let one plugin instance switch between following options:
    -> output to vst plugin output
    -> output to global, shared channel which appears as audio interface in the daw
    - keep supporting more than 1 patch per plugin instance


    come on, keep thinking... this concept is weird and so hard to use... i think i will not use it at all but route analog audio output back through an audio interface in the daw. i hope there is an acceptable solution for midi automation - however - having all automation in one track is not acceptable for me. i mean - look at this click-actions you will need to move a clip to some other song position by discretely keeping the automation... this is no fun!


    At AtonyB: "for a engineered product all these features are not possible" Please do not use such "kill-them-all" statements. There are lots of features that can be done via a software update to improve this concept.