Cantabile Best Practices?

[Dewdman42]

I have been playing around with Forte3 and Cantabile2 demos, close to making a decision. Have a few questions about best practices. I will make some general observations about both programs at the end of this post, but first I have some questions about best practices for Cantabile, as it has a lot of flexibility and options. I am definitely leaning towards Cantabile at the moment.

1. Is there any way to assign an effect to the final master bus before it goes to the stereo out on my sound card? I do notice that Cantabile has a built in limiter, which is great, but if I wanted to apply a single graphic EQ or gate or something to the entire mix...is there a way to do that?
2. When does it make sense to put more than one VSTi into a single rack? seems like the program is ideally suited for using one instrument per rack and the only reason for putting more than one plugin in a rack is for serially processing the output, for example, to run a keyboard sound through amplitube or something like that. Do I have that right?
3. When does it make sense to use the midi routing? Seems like the racks themselves do everything the midi routing does, so just by changing sessions or sub-sessions can essentially do the same things as using a midi route, unless I'm missing something? When is an applicable situation to use the midi router?
4. Program changes are not clear to me yet. Sometimes I would need them to pass through to the plugin and sometimes I don't want the program c hange to go through, I want a certain preset selected and have plugin ignore program change. I dunno, what is the best practice here?
5. I have 3 basic scenarios I would use cantabile and wondering what others thing would be the best way to set it up for easiest use.
   
   One situation (A) is during a gig to move through a setlist. That is pretty obvious, I should use sessions and sub sessions, setup each subsession exactly the way I want, only move to new sessions as it makes sense for stuff that uses a lot of sample memory or something, but probably can have all the plugins I need for a set open in a session and just use sub sessions to mute and unmute them, change presets, keyboard splits, etc.
   
   Another situation(B) is when rehearsing with my band where i need the flexibility of not having a setlist per say, but most of the time will need to setup complex splits for each song, etc.
   
   Another situation(C) is when I just want my computer setup at home to play around, and from my master midi controller I would select which plugin I want to hear by changing midi channels. In other words it becomes a massive multitimbral instrument of sorts and I could either sequence it from another computer or just play one cantabile rack at a time by changing midi channels from the master and then using program changes on the midi controller to move through presets. What kind of session would I set up for that.

Regarding Cantabile vs Forte, I think Cantabile has leaps more functionality. I know some people say Forte may have a bit lower latency or lower cpu, and it kind of feels like it yes. I also love the stress tester they provide and the sceneview. However, many little problems to solve in Forte come built into Cantabile, the midi filtering, the partial sends, Multiple Racks, and numerous other things. I own older versions of of both products, but Cantabile upgrade price is substantially more than Forte for sure, but it may be worth it due to all of these things being solved. I also could not get Cantabile to crash so far, and Forte has crashed numerous times. I think some years ago Forte was really innovative and was way ahead, but it seems that as of now Cantabile has far surpassed Forte for reliability and all the various audio and midi routing handling that is kind of poor in Forte. That is my opinion based on limited trial usage so far. I do wish Cantabile had the scene view however for gigging without concern about the GUI.

I'm also considering Mainstage2, as my PC is a bootcamp enabled MBP. Mainstage has some pros and cons also. In general its CPU use looks to be similar to Cantabile. However, its mixer view is more straightforward to understand then the Rack concept initially. It does not provide nearly the sophisticated midi routing as Cantabile. However one thing it does provide is a way to fully edit the gig-time scene view, including visual CC controls that can be mapped to VSTs, etc. That is very handy. I haven't been able to get that one to crash either. Its only $29 and comes with a bunch of other instruments too. However on the windows side there are a lot of great free plugins and I own a few windows only plugins like Cobalt and OPX, so maybe I will still end up on Windows for that reason alone.

I welcome all feedback but mainly on this forum I would like to hear best practices for setting up Cantabile for a typical gigging keyboardist. hahaha.. typical. Nothing is typical I guess..but just imagine..no track playback, no backing tracks, just use one or two midi controllers to play back keyboard sounds, sometimes layered, sometimes split, sometimes just one sound at a time...probably using only 2-3 plugins at any one time, but during a set needing maybe a dozen plugins available.

[pinkcanaru]

I have been playing around with Forte3 and Cantabile2 demos, close to making a decision. Have a few questions about best practices. I will make some general observations about both programs at the end of this post, but first I have some questions about best practices for Cantabile, as it has a lot of flexibility and options. I am definitely leaning towards Cantabile at the moment.

1. Is there any way to assign an effect to the final master bus before it goes to the stereo out on my sound card? I do notice that Cantabile has a built in limiter, which is great, but if I wanted to apply a single graphic EQ or gate or something to the entire mix...is there a way to do that?

Yes - I have my setup configured so that all racks are routed through a rack called 'master'. Insert what you like in there.

[*]When does it make sense to put more than one VSTi into a single rack? seems like the program is ideally suited for using one instrument per rack and the only reason for putting more than one plugin in a rack is for serially processing the output, for example, to run a keyboard sound through amplitube or something like that. Do I have that right?

This becomes an instinctive thing. The advantage of a separate rack is that each rack has discrete sends and can be routed anywhere. However, the convenience of having a rack with, say a tube screamer> compressor> guitar amp > speaker sim is very obvious. A rhodes piano into a chorus into a panner. Stuff which belongs together and for which a the settings are dedicated to creating that homogenous sound.
I've been doing a lot of guitar stuff with Cantabile and that logistic question took me a few days of experimentation to determine what worked best in the real world. I ended up creating one rack of stuff that formed a basic rig. Another rack has a tuner in it which can be put into Solo and mute all audio with the touch of one footswitch. That wouldn't have worked nearly as well if the tuner was in the same rack.
Things like synths I tend to create a dedicated rack for each one and then have dedicated racks for send FX. It all ends up going through a master rack, as in your first question.

[*]When does it make sense to use the midi routing? Seems like the racks themselves do everything the midi routing does, so just by changing sessions or sub-sessions can essentially do the same things as using a midi route, unless I'm missing something? When is an applicable situation to use the midi router?

Ha ha - your questions are the same I asked when I first started with Cantabile- and that one in particular. At first it seemed redundant because the basic functions were right there on each rack for splitting and transposing etc. The light went on when I realised that when using several controllers (I use 4 midi controllers into my rig) the ability to have limitless splits, transposes and filters addressed by the controller of my choice was a vital function. You can get away with no Midi Routing Table if the setup you are using is straightforward.

But let's consider the midi input for a given rack; You get to assign ALL available midi sources or you get to assign the input from any ONE port. But what if you want the input to come from two sources and not from the other two?
The only way to do that is to use the MIDI Routing Table. (You set the rack input to NONE and the MRT takes care of it.

As you use Cantabile more you start to see where some things are handled easily from the rack and other things which require a more comprehensive way of targeting and filtering need the MRT. We're hoping to see some significant steps forward in the way the MRT presents itself because the list can get long and unwieldy if you don't organize your naming efficiently.

[*]Program changes are not clear to me yet. Sometimes I would need them to pass through to the plugin and sometimes I don't want the program change to go through, I want a certain preset selected and have plugin ignore program change. I dunno, what is the best practice here?

Here's a classic example of how the MRT comes to the rescue. Each rack can filter or allow program changes. However, it's a global setting. The same goes for the filters at the rack. Using the MRT, you could set up two filters - one with program changes enabled and one with them suppressed. And, of course, you can have the MRT with entries for each rack. Each sub-session remembers the status of the MRTs. (Note that there is an enable/disable tick box for each MRT entry.)
Something else to consider in this area is the use of the 'Entire Bank' function which is available to each plugin in any rack. If you right click an instrument you see a drop down for 'subsession behaviour'. If you enable Entire Bank then a snapshot of the plugin is recalled with every subsession.
You can see, there are several ways to skin that cat.

[*]I have 3 basic scenarios I would use cantabile and wondering what others thing would be the best way to set it up for easiest use.

One situation (A) is during a gig to move through a setlist. That is pretty obvious, I should use sessions and sub sessions, setup each subsession exactly the way I want, only move to new sessions as it makes sense for stuff that uses a lot of sample memory or something, but probably can have all the plugins I need for a set open in a session and just use sub sessions to mute and unmute them, change presets, keyboard splits, etc.

I am finding I can get the entire set with heavily loaded samplers into one Session. Just load and LOCK the samplers by having them NOT load bank when changing subsessions. If you have 8 gig of ram in a laptop and you are streaming, you can get a LOT of stuff in. You should at least try and see if your particular situation allows you to work this way. MUCH better, I have found, than loading a session in the middle of a set. I just want it to be there, ready to go. Elsewhere on this forum you'll find a topic about 'who is using cantabile live' and I list my setup there. I am constantly amazed at how much stuff I can get going without needing to reload.

Another situation(B) is when rehearsing with my band where i need the flexibility of not having a setlist per say, but most of the time will need to setup complex splits for each song, etc.

This is tricky. There is nothing worse than having impatient band members watching you configure splits etc. It can be done quickly of course - but you know that 'pressure' can make things slow down at the worst possible time.
In that situation, you probably don't wanna be futzing with the MRT and should have a configuration available which allows you get playing ASAP. Then refine your setup in the comfort of your own home/studio. One thing to really watch is that if you are working on a new tune, immediately save a new subsession for it so that you don't overwrite something you're already happy with. Learn the advantages and pitfalls of the 'autosave subsession' function. The advantage is that it stores the current subsession so that its last state is recalled when you come back to it. That's also its disadvantage
If you have a particular B3 setup and you're changing drawbars during the song, you will overwrite the previously stored data automatically. You can see how this is very useful when you are setting things up, but its something you have to watch once you've got it all dialled in.
IMPORTANT NOTE - the auto save subsession function is RAM only!!! It doesn't overwrite the session as it exists on disk. So you're safe as long as you don't overwrite the session. Hope that's clear.

Another situation(C) is when I just want my computer setup at home to play around, and from my master midi controller I would select which plugin I want to hear by changing midi channels. In other words it becomes a massive multitimbral instrument of sorts and I could either sequence it from another computer or just play one cantabile rack at a time by changing midi channels from the master and then using program changes on the midi controller to move through presets. What kind of session would I set up for that.[/list]

Well, beware that something you dial in at home you could well wish to use live! There's no reason why you can't use the same session with dedicated 'work in progress' subsessions. You have the same choices of using the rack or the MRT to determine how things interact. I always save incrementally so that if I screw something up I have the previous version of the setup to call on. Disk space is cheap.

Regarding Cantabile vs Forte, I think Cantabile has leaps more functionality. I know some people say Forte may have a bit lower latency or lower cpu,

I'd be surprised if the latency claim for Forte were true. I run my rig every day with a buffer of 64 samples for guitar at 48khz. The reported latency is 1.3 MS. That's as low as my interface will go at that sample rate.
The only way it can 'feel' different is if the buffer is different.
Cantabile is extremely efficient.
Live I run a combination guitar and keyboard rig at a safe 128 buffer.

and it kind of feels like it yes.

I'd like proof of that. The buffer is the buffer. The question is, does the software click at lower latencies doing the same job? Does Omnisphere or Diva run more efficiently in Forte? If anyone has real proof, I would like to see it. I ran Forte for 48 hours and it wasn't for me.

I also love the stress tester they provide and the sceneview.

That's a great idea but it doesn't make it more efficient. It just shows you when you're in danger of it crapping out. As you can see from posts from people like Tony Ostinato (who's using a combo of Reaper and Cantabile) and myself (Cantabile only) if you are seriously using a computer at low latency to perform live, you simply have to test the music you're playing. That's the only test that means anything. You can tell from Cantabile's load meter when the stress is on. Then we're into the whole question of optimizing your computer and that's something we LOVE to talk about here LOL!!!:D

However, many little problems to solve in Forte come built into Cantabile, the midi filtering, the partial sends, Multiple Racks, and numerous other things. I own older versions of of both products, but Cantabile upgrade price is substantially more than Forte for sure, but it may be worth it due to all of these things being solved.

Any product that doesn't provide solutions to your needs is a liability - but I guess the way of the software world is that everyone plays catch up. I'm sure that the Forte people watch Cantabile and vice versa.

I also could not get Cantabile to crash so far, and Forte has crashed numerous times.

Game, set, match. This is live software. I use Cantabile in front of concert going audiences and if it crashed ONCE live that would be once too much. That's why I have tested my rig exhaustively and even over the last month found ways to eliminate some peaking that was concerning me. (Although I was always within a safe threshold.)

I think some years ago Forte was really innovative and was way ahead, but it seems that as of now Cantabile has far surpassed Forte for reliability and all the various audio and midi routing handling that is kind of poor in Forte. That is my opinion based on limited trial usage so far. I do wish Cantabile had the scene view however for gigging without concern about the GUI.

The only thing we have in Cantabile is the Status panel which can show the song name in BIG letters. What would you like to actually see just out of interest?

I'm also considering Mainstage2, as my PC is a bootcamp enabled MBP. Mainstage has some pros and cons also. In general its CPU use looks to be similar to Cantabile. However, its mixer view is more straightforward to understand then the Rack concept initially. It does not provide nearly the sophisticated midi routing as Cantabile. However one thing it does provide is a way to fully edit the gig-time scene view, including visual CC controls that can be mapped to VSTs, etc. That is very handy. I haven't been able to get that one to crash either. Its only $29 and comes with a bunch of other instruments too. However on the windows side there are a lot of great free plugins and I own a few windows only plugins like Cobalt and OPX, so maybe I will still end up on Windows for that reason alone.

Real work is being done with Mainstage. At 29 bucks it makes absolute sense to check it out and see how it really compares as a serious keyboard rig.

I welcome all feedback but mainly on this forum I would like to hear best practices for setting up Cantabile for a typical gigging keyboardist. hahaha.. typical. Nothing is typical I guess..but just imagine..no track playback, no backing tracks, just use one or two midi controllers to play back keyboard sounds, sometimes layered, sometimes split, sometimes just one sound at a time...probably using only 2-3 plugins at any one time, but during a set needing maybe a dozen plugins available.

Well, I hope you found the above useful. Cantabile constantly surprises me with its ability to address my needs. At the same time, there are some areas which could use some sprucing up - but I would never take graphics over efficiency. Cantabile's remit is to allow the best possible reliable platform for live performance. I suspect some of its success in this area is down to its simple GUI.
You can find wishlists here which would definitely enhance the usefulness of Cantabile and I think that you will see a flood of enthusiasm at this forum when the long promised update starts to materialize. In the meantime, there are no showstoppers in the current version. It is efficient, reliable and flexible - even if some areas are a little perplexing for the new adopter at first.

Cheers!

[Dewdman42]

The only thing we have in Cantabile is the Status panel which can show the song name in BIG letters. What would you like to actually see just out of interest?s!

Well most of the time I don't want to touch the computer. I actually want my computer far away from my keyboard stand. I don't want to have to interact with it. I want to send program changes and just know it will be where I want it to be. I guess the scene view of Forte gives me some kind of peace of mind, which may not be rational at all, that its in a dummy-proof mode of some kind, if that makes any sense. Mainstage does the same thing. If the computer is far away, it is a moot point really. Mainstage provides a nice set list view, which is handy and you can put knobs and such to control VST parameters also on that screen if you want. It also can have a graphical display of anything you want...so people put chord charts, lyrics, and other stuff on there. Ok... I would like it if it showed me maybe the current keyboard splits as a reminder to what sounds are under my fingers, a reminder about transposition, etc. and yes..the setlist, I'd prefer to see the whole setlist...

I am looking now also at the Network server in Cantabile and I may write an iPad app for controlling it through that protocol. Basically i could create a scene view type of app for the iPad that remote controls Cantabile which is backstage or at least back at my backline rack rather than with the keyboards. Then I can velcro the ipad to my keyboard and have a touch screen control of cantabile, enough to move through the setlist, so what's next, etc.. Possibly even to get some info from cantabile to display about the keyboard map currently in use. that feature of cantabile is not present in either Mainstage or Forte by the way, the only way to control them with an iPad is through remote desktop. So that has a lot of promise.

[pinkcanaru]

One thing that might be of concern is that network connections tend to have a bad relationship with low latency audio. Hope you can get it working.

it is true that you have to be pretty close to a laptop screen to get anything from it - As long as I can see this (have you seen the status display yet?) - I'm pretty comfortable the rest of it is working: