pinkcanaru wrote:As it stands now, you can load any sampler to the gills and have it NOT load entire bank when changing subsessions. That's equivalent to locking samples in memory, and that's exactly what I do live. My scene changes are fast.
If you are using SSD drives then you can reduce initial load time accordingly, and Forte is just as subject to reload the entire shebang as Cantabile is should you need to reboot it. So, what's the difference, especially as all modern respectable samplers and some notable romplers stream anyway?
The drawback with Cantabile is that you must use subsessions from the same session in order to make this work absolutely seamlessly, and that's exactly what I do.
Everything is in ONE master Session and it's the Setlist which determines which of those subessions are actually used.
I'm using those Seagate hybrid SSD drives and, although not as fast as pure SSD,I can get up and running PDQ, but this has nothing to do with Cantabile, per se. It's the ground work - the approach - which makes Cantabile as fast as anything, or super slow.
The fact is, as we all agree I think, there are certain areas of Cantabile's operation which need too much geek input, and the housekeeping can be a real DOG to handle - but I'm not sure, once the investment is made, exactly what's missing that would compromise live, fast, performance. Because that's exactly what I do get.
to cut a long story short: things can simply be translated from cantabile to forte and back to find a corresponding scenario in cantabile:
cantabile session <=> forte rack
cantabile subsession <=> scene in forte
cantabile entire banks <=> decision to reload (or not) a plugin on scene change (inclding samples!) in forte Scene Commands
I only use SSDs in my live PC (means no HDDs) and I think I'm aware of the pros and cons and the strategies to handle a sampler and I agree: all things I do in forte can also be done in cantabile.
The only problem: midi routing and trigger events (for program changes inside cantabile) are very poor supported in subsessions (I leave away the aspect of audio routing here as it is not in the focus).
I know in general this all can be handeled by creating lots of midi routings and trigger events and activating / deactivating them depending on what I need for a song. I simply don't want to:
the solution in forte (you know it's just the same as in cantabile in the background but shows up in the userinterface as a simple matrix) is much more comfortable for me, supports my workflow and gives me a good feeling on stage and of course anybody can see it completety different.
You had some discussions with TiUser during the last months on how to solve these problems in cantabile. I think I understood most of the ideas mentioned and - yes - if Brad would implement one of them into cantabile I would be the first to overthink my decision as I like cantabile a lot. But at the moment this is the way I see it.