Vienna Ensemble alternative?

[Apratim]

i would say go with reaper as i have used it for quite some while with my slave and i am quite happy with it only thing i would say get a good network switch if you use multiple slaves or a multi port gigabit ethernet card from intel(Intel EXPI9404PTLBLK PT to be exact is what is use in which i use only 2 port so rest is are for future upgrade) and reamote is inbult in reaper whereas (i think) VE pro is needed to be inserted to be a plugin so thats that 60$ and u are done

[ZapAxe]

Of course, VSL is not for everyone. You have to be a Steinberg product user to start. The cost can actually be fairly inexpensive if you buy extra interfaces, used or entry level Cubase, and even a computer used as I've done.

Did you mistype? VSL doesn't require you to be a Steinberg product user. You do have to use the eLicenser. But, you don't have to own any Steinberg products. It is expensive, but it is far more than just a vehicle to communicate between multiple computers. The instance management and configuration choices for instances are beyond any of the other solutions recommended. However, you are right that it is expensive.

No I did not mistype, I meant what I wrote. Are we talking about the same things here? 'VSL' as in VST System Link?

As far as I know, when you have Cubase, Nuendo, or another Steinberg product installed/activated on all computers in your multi-computer VSL network, you have to open the VSL window box application within that Steinberg product in order to communicate with each other. Communicate, meaning sending & receiving the VSL information, which can consist of digital audio, midi, clock and transport commands.

If it's possible to use VSL on additional computers in a VSL network without having to install a Steinberg product, please elaborate on how this is possible.
If this is indeed possible, then Steinberg is giving false information and making people believe they have to buy multiple licenses of their product, and false information in their manuals on how to run VSL. Therefore, all the hoopla & nay-saying about VSL over the years is incorrect.

Unless Steinberg is selling the VSL app, separately all on it's own - which I am not aware of - I wouldn't understand the value in that, as having even the cheapest-lowest-end Cubase product would include VSL, and is a full DAW software, capable of doing everything (recording & playing more audio & midi tracks, virtual instruments, effects etc). A low-end brand new Cubase version - say Cubase 8/ Elements - is dirt cheap and can be bought for as low as $69 on sale. A used/older full-versions can be had at a steal. You can also buy used high end audio interfaces for your slaves..then there are used high-end powerful PC's that can be bought for relatively little money. So with the above, using VSL is not necessarily such a high cost, even for the home enthusiast .... granted, there is an added investment yes.

[ZapAxe]

Did you mistype? VSL doesn't require you to be a Steinberg product user. You do have to use the eLicenser. But, you don't have to own any Steinberg products. It is expensive, but it is far more than just a vehicle to communicate between multiple computers.

I do of course realize without additional Steinberg products installed on all computers, that digital audio can be sent among computers or other audio devices though, but that's not VSL in particular. Therefore I don't believe that without VSL you'd be able to send all the information...ie; digital audio, midi, clock/synchronization & transport commands.

[SJ_Digriz]

Did you mistype? VSL doesn't require you to be a Steinberg product user. You do have to use the eLicenser. But, you don't have to own any Steinberg products. It is expensive, but it is far more than just a vehicle to communicate between multiple computers.

I do of course realize without additional Steinberg products installed on all computers, that digital audio can be sent among computers or other audio devices though, but that's not VSL in particular. Therefore I don't believe that without VSL you'd be able to send all the information...ie; digital audio, midi, clock/synchronization & transport commands.

VEP works identically in all hosts. There is nothing it can or can't do in Cubase/Nuendo that you can or can't do in any other DAW.

[jancivil]

Apparently a confusion here per "VSL" which was used for VST System Link.
Which connects Cubendo w. Cubendo AFAIK. VE Pro is a mixing host which connects to a DAW host as a plugin, of course.

Comparing VE Pro with Reaper's connection thingy is preposterous and one just wouldn't consider it having *any* experience w. VE Pro.

[jancivil]

BTW, I tested REAconnect or whatever and it *never* connected on my Macs.

It is not like VE Pro except that it uses Ethernet.

[ZapAxe]

VEP works identically in all hosts. There is nothing it can or can't do in Cubase/Nuendo that you can or can't do in any other DAW.

That's the thing... you need a host DAW software to do all the things, like record audio & midi tracks.

But good that VEP does what it does best, the same regardless of what DAW software you're using. It doesn't do what I want to do personally.

[SJ_Digriz]

That's the thing... you need a host DAW software to do all the things, like record audio & midi tracks.

You're prior point was that it required steinberg products, which other than the dongle it doesn't. I was simply pointing this out. Jancivil is probably correct, you are confusing VST Link with VEP. Link is built into Cubase hence it would require Cubase.

But good that VEP does what it does best, the same regardless of what DAW software you're using. It doesn't do what I want to do personally.

I don't think the OP cares if it does with you want. He wants to know if their is a cost effective substitute for VEP. The answer is, only if you want something with vastly inferior feature set. Which may actually suffice for some people. For managing orchestra libraries across multiple computers, I don't think there is anything that compares. But YMMV.

On the idea of doing it over the internet ... playback can use look ahead, so only real time monitoring would be difficult to deal with. I've thought of having a local playback head that does a synthesized version of the voice in real time that reverts to the connected instance voice once monitoring is disabled.
But, I don't have the time to spend to try and build out an Azure or AWS streaming platform to support the instance management and audio streaming + sync. I'm sure it could be done though.

[jancivil]

Did you mistype? VSL doesn't require you to be a Steinberg product user. You do have to use the eLicenser. But, you don't have to own any Steinberg products. It is expensive, but it is far more than just a vehicle to communicate between multiple computers.

I do of course realize without additional Steinberg products installed on all computers, that digital audio can be sent among computers or other audio devices though, but that's not VSL in particular. Therefore I don't believe that without VSL you'd be able to send all the information...ie; digital audio, midi, clock/synchronization & transport commands.

You can send MIDI to it and VE Pro has a transport function. You can send audio to it and use it as an FX rack. I have not sent MIDI out from an instrument via VEP, I don't know about that. I don't quite get why 'clock/synchronization' is mentioned there. Cubase is the clock. Cubase won't be a slave, so...

VSL stands for Vienna Symphonic Library (the makers of VE Pro) also, ZapAxe.
For the record: to use VSTSL one needs two Cubase licenses on two dongles.

[jancivil]

That's the thing... you need a host DAW software to do all the things, like record audio & midi tracks.

You're prior point was that it required steinberg products, which other than the dongle it doesn't. I was simply pointing this out. Jancivil is probably correct, you are confusing VST Link with VEP. Link is built into Cubase hence it would require Cubase.

But good that VEP does what it does best, the same regardless of what DAW software you're using. It doesn't do what I want to do personally.

I don't think the OP cares if it does with you want. He wants to know if their is a cost effective substitute for VEP. The answer is, only if you want something with vastly inferior feature set.

The confusion is VSL, which makes VEP. I don't think that's a good abbreviation of VST System Link, because 'VST' is not a word. It's pretty evident that VEP is not a sequencing host, alright. It's a plugins host, and a mixer application. The alternatives are none of them anywhere near 1:1 correspondence in terms of function or efficiency of processing unless one's uses are pretty limited, in which case why use anything other than Cubase.

[ghettosynth]

BTW, I tested REAconnect or whatever and it *never* connected on my Macs.

It is not like VE Pro except that it uses Ethernet.

REAConnect gives a way to run audio channels across a network. ReaMote allows offloading processing of plugins onto slave computers across the network.

VEPro does the latter but not AFAIK, the former.

ReaConnect has problems receiving channels from a Mac, I've tried to find the discussion about this that gives the right direction for a solution, I remember reading it once, but I'm at a loss. In any case, it doesn't have any difficulty sending from a Mac to a PC nor does it have any difficulty sending/receiving between PCs.

If you want to just route some network audio between two machines where you terminate the audio at both ends in either a DAW or with hardware, for example, running the bus outputs from one machine to another machine that's connected to an external mixer via a multi-out sound card, then ReaConnect is the tool for the job. The thing is, you won't get very good latency with Reaconnect, not good enough to play a synth and monitor it remotely.

If you want to run plugins on a remote host then either VEPro or ReaMote will do that, but they work differently and each has advantages and disadvantages.

Reamote does not work cross platform, VEPro does.

Reamote does not run cross host, VEPro does.

Reamote does not require any special plugins on the host, VEPro does

Reamote does not require that you access the remote to edit the plugin, VEPro does

Reamote will allow the same chain, as defined in the DAW to run remotely or locally, VEPro will run any chain defined in VEPro to run remotely or locally, but it is distinct setup from your DAW's chain. This has workflow advantages and disadvantages. With Reamote, if your setup is using too much CPU, you just go into any FX chain and select a remote to run that chain on and watch your CPU drop on the local machine.

Reamote is supposed to allow remote editing from the local U/I, however, in my experience it is a bit buggy and this varies with plugins.

Getting Reamote to respond well with synths and low latency is a bit like pulling teeth.

Reamote is super fussy that whatever plugin, down to the exact same version, you want to run remotely, must be the same as the local install. This has another disadvantage, you have to have a license for the plugin on both machines.

If you have two machines that have largely identical plugin setups, that are both the same OS and your main interest is to offload high usage FX to a remote machine (or machines), then Reamote works great and it comes with Reaper.

For running synths remotely, distributing your licenses as well as your CPU usage across multiple machines, multiple hosts, and/or different OSes, or being able to quickly setup a new machine to use existing configurations then I don't think that there is currently a cleaner or more powerful solution than VEPro.

On that last point it means that you can have one license for say an expensive orchestral library installed on a powerful machine and you can install all the VEPro client plugins on other machines. This gives you the ability to access that library, through VEPro, on any of your machines. You can't use more than one remote machine concurrently on the same "instance" (in VEPro parlance), but it gives you convenient flexibility for where you access that from.

AFAIK, VEPro is not a replacement fro ReaConnect because there is no way to pull audio out of the remote and into hardware on the remote machine, nor is there a way to pull audio into VEPro on the remote machine. I'd actually like to be wrong about this and have thought about trying some workarounds that give access to hardware through a VST. That way I could setup a remote that is near my hardware synths and be able to easily bring them into my local setup.

In short, ReaConnect is not a replacement for VEPro, but neither is VEPro a replacement for ReaConnect. Whether or not ReaMote is a better choice for you than VEPro is a matter of what your specific needs are.

VEPro is serious software though and as far as I can tell there is nothing that can compete with it given that your workflow is compatible with its limitations.

[SJ_Digriz]

REAConnect gives a way to run audio channels across a network. ReaMote allows offloading processing of plugins onto slave computers across the network.

VEPro does the latter but not AFAIK, the former.

Actually VEPro does that as well. For example I can feed an audio track output to VEPro and have Kaleidoscope on the the remote audio channel process that audio signal and send it back. I do that all the time. No instrument involved. Straight up audio path.

[ghettosynth]

REAConnect gives a way to run audio channels across a network. ReaMote allows offloading processing of plugins onto slave computers across the network.

VEPro does the latter but not AFAIK, the former.

Actually VEPro does that as well. For example I can feed an audio track output to VEPro and have Kaleidoscope on the the remote audio channel process that audio signal and send it back. I do that all the time. No instrument involved. Straight up audio path.

Correct, however that is not what I'm talking about, I should have been more clear there but I elaborated on this point later in the post. ReaConnect allows you to run audio channels "across" a network. VEPro requires that you run them "across into the VEPro server, and back, and then terminate them in the same host that they originated from.

AFAIK, you cannot run audio to the remote machine and then terminate that audio in an interface or DAW running on the remote machine. You can do this with Reaconnect but not with VEPro or ReaMote.

Again, I'd like to be wrong about this. If you can run audio to a VEPro server, then out of that server on the remote machine to an external audio interface, then back into the same instance of vepro server, or to run midi out of VEPro server then take audio back in, that would be fantastic. AFAIK, this would require a VST that is able to access external midi ports and audio interfaces. Several experimental plugins like that exist, but nothing that is robust, again, AFAIK.v

What would be great is if you could connect different hosts to the input and output side of an instance. So then a remote host could send midi or audio in, and a client running on the server machine could connect to the audio output side.

[jancivil]

Whatever. The topic is VE Pro alternatives and the meaning is not that vague.
The whole idea of VE Pro is server farm, the innovation is the simple LAN connection over a CAT6 cable rather than a sound card per each slave to port MIDI into and audio back out of to the sequencing host, which was the composer's lot before it was developed, using Gigastudio.

If these REAPER jobs provide a great mixing host and control of core assignments per instance, and 48 MIDI ports, preserve the instance so it stands alone unconnected to the DAW we can consider to compare the two, such as how well does it work. Not at all in my experience. Not once, for either.

JUST USE REAPER in extremis there, it's no alternative.

[SJ_Digriz]

hmmm, you know I've never tried but I'm pretty sure you can call a VEP server from multiple hosts, so technically there shouldn't be a problem setting up the audio relay. I have no idea what advantage that would be, but it is a curious experiment.