Is 'Cantabile' what I'm looking for ?

[Muziksculp]

Hi,

I'm currently looking for a very efficient, 64-bit, Windows 7 compatible, simple to use, VST hosting application, that I could install on two PC slaves, mainly for VST instrument hosting. I use a Mac Pro for my main master DAW. (Logic Pro 9 and Cubase 5).

I came across 'Cantabile'.

I'm not going to use 'Cantabile' for Live performances, but mostly studio work, where Cantabile will allow me to load various VST instruments on the two PCs, and route their outputs via their audio interfaces, to my Mac Pro/Master DAW's audio interface's inputs. (My studio is setup with a MADI system).

A few general questions :

Q1) Is Cantabile a suitable 64-bit , VST-Host for my needs ?

Q2) Does it work with Windows 7 , 64-bit versions ?

Q3) Does it efficiently utilize multi-processors i.e. ( i7 Quad-Core) PC ?

Q4) Is it easy to learn, and save custom VST-Instrument templates in Cantabile ? Good work-flow ?

Any feedback, or any other recommendations would be appreciated.


Thanks.

[TiUser]

Hi.

I can not really scientifically answer your questions but add my impressions here.


A1: Maybe it's best to just get the 30 days trial and check out "Solo" or "Performer" version.

I am not sure how you want to transfer audio between your multi machine setup. As far as I know Cantabile does not support direct digital audio transfer over network or similar.

Did you consider alternatives like receptor?

I myself am curiously awaiting the SM-Pro Audio V-Rack (not to mix up with the v-machine which is already out yet) which looks like it could provide similar functionality... and as it is announced to have isernet I hope for audio transfer via isernet too.


A2: Who knows much about Win7...? But I can run both - Cantabile 32bit anf Cantabile 64bit in Vista64 bit, so I guess Cantabile works in Win7 64bit too...


A3: All I can say is Cantabile's audio engine is efficient.

One of the things I do is using Virus TI in Cantabile with 128 sample buffer and I can play this live with low latency. Take note that this means pushing audio through twice... as in from TI plugin and out again sending it to the Viruses' audio interface to get the sound.

I first noted that I could do this at all on my old Pentium 4 Notebook - P4 @3.0 GHz hyperthreading - with NT. Cantabile even used both hyperthreads. Now I'm using Cantabile on a mainstream Quadcore Q8200 @ 2.2 GHz.

The multi core efficiency depends basically on the plugins and rack configuration in Cantabile. If you're using a multi port, multi channel, multitimbral VSTi Cantabile can't do magic - the plugin itself should provide efficient multi core support then... but most latest plugins of that kind do.


A4: Cantabile can save rack configurations including selected patches/banks as "sessions".

I'm not sure what you understand by "templates"... but since your're not after live performance, loading time of seconds should not ne an issue and the "Solo" Version might be appropriate.

Ease of use depends on what you associate with "easy"...

The setup of racks is easy. However some setup needs to know where to find... but to be honest, I've never seen any host with such a massive and flexible selection of midi filter options - you just need to adopt the concept.


In general:

Cantabile is available as 32bit and 64bit version. The 32bit version is a no brainer... the 64bit version works similar but needs 64bit plugins. It can not load 32bit plugins without "jBridge", a tool filling this gap. However, "jBridge" seamlessly integrates in Cantabile once you've installed it. So I'm a bit careful because "jBridge" isn't perfectly reliable - I wouldn't use it right now for live purposes or at least without having checked the plugins I want to use with it.

If you need external midi gear routing options you might wish to consider "Performer" too, even if you don't need the live performance addons here, like subsessions...

Hope this helps a bit.

[Muziksculp]

Hi TiUser,

Thank You for your detailed feedback, and answers to my questions. I'm still evaluating 'Cantabile' vs other options.

I will be routing audio outputs on the PCs via a MADI interface. (not networked audio). but rather actual physical digital audio interfaces. So, I'm guessing that should not be a problem with 'Cantabile'.


Q) Are most 'Cantabile' users currently using it for Live performance work ? What about Studio applications, what are the benefits of using 'Cantabile' , or what is 'Cantabile' used for in a studio environment (Not Live performance), since it is not a traditional DAW like Cubase, Sonar, ..etc. ?

Well... I'm currently considering other options, one being (Cubase 5 Studio), which is a more expensive option compared to 'Cantabile', but I'm comfortable with Cubase 5, so it would take me less time to use a lighter version of Cubase 5, rather than learn another application such as 'Cantabile'. But, I have not made my final decision yet.

Cheers.

[TiUser]

I do not know about any statistics but Cantabile is meant for performance.

You can of course use it as an instrument host for other uses.

Cantabile can record what you are playing very comfortably but this is not meant for multitrack production. It's great for capturing ideas and snippets or recording to a backing, just to name two things that work well.

A thing that might be missing for producers is a dedicated mixer in cantabile, there are just the rack level faders. Well Cantabile has a sophisticated audio bus system under the hood but that's not so easy to set up and use.

To use more than a stereo bus inbetween your machines will imply to use a lot of audio interfacing out and back in to feed individual channels to your main DAW PC and I think this is not a very great approach - either in handling and in cost.

Technically I'm personally looking a lot on this audio integration because it simplifies use and preserves audio better too. Just such techniques are rare... The Virus TI can do that, as far as I understand the Korg M3 with firewire expansion (I do not own this) and a receptor via networking. Maybe there are some others I do not know but these are rare. [Edit: Roland's SonicCell seems to provide a kind of VST integration via USB too...]

When referring to the TI it's still limited in mixing... you can either use it's dedicated plugin mixer which works like other multitimbral plugins or group audio to max 3 stereo outputs...

I still think outboard gear makers have to do a lot to seamlessly integrate their products into PC DAW or other hosting systems to conveniently expand processing power by external DSP devices... it still looks like a lot of islands in a sea...

[Steviebone]

I use Cantabile in a studio setting - One master DAW for capturing analog signals and two slave PC's running various VSTIs. After much experimentation I settled on transferring MIDI data from the DAW to the hosts over physical MIDI cables where each PC had multiple MIDI interfaces (at least 4x4). I don't use Cantabile to transfer or process any audio per se, but merely load and configure racks of MIDI gear and fx for tracking in sync with the DAW. Sync is accomplished through Wordclock (consoles) and MIDI timing (Cantabile).

Cantabile works great in this configuration. I have tried every VSThost/DAW combination out there. For this type of setup, Cantabile works better than any other alternative I have found to date.

[TiUser]

...thanks for letting us know.

Concerning your midi interfaces, maybe "Nerds" ipmidi is an interesting hint for you to check out to get rid of the oldstyle midi stuff...

See: http://nerds.de/en/download.html

[Steviebone]

...thanks for letting us know.

Concerning your midi interfaces, maybe "Nerds" ipmidi is an interesting hint for you to check out to get rid of the oldstyle midi stuff...

See: http://nerds.de/en/download.html

well maybe... but then I don t see the point... it saves cables but increases network traffic... I tried some other software methods and found them to be unreliable in heavy or congested setups. I often have dozens of instruments loaded & spread over multiple machines... MIDI interfaces/cables are cheap and work flawlessly.

I'm not gigging with this setup so the cables get plugged in once and then left to rot...

[TiUser]

...I'm not gigging with this setup so the cables get plugged in once and then left to rot...

ok, never change a running system...

[Steviebone]

...I'm not gigging with this setup so the cables get plugged in once and then left to rot...

ok, never change a running system...

Xcatly! the bandwidth sounds nice but I can't say I have problems so if it aint broke.... no need to fix it...

thing is, I tried some other similar stuff out there that claimed bandwidth... I concluded there are alot of other variables which come into play... results are not typical, ACTUAL bandwidth may vary lol.... I never figured out if the problem was Cubase or what, but moving to physical connections solved the problem.

[TiUser]

I agree, I've concluded similar from the old USB - Firewire - PCI interface debate... Firewire claims less raw bandwidth but usually works better than USB. PCI is the way to go if one can put a card into a box... but maybe better use no Creative cards... LOL...

I just thought IpMidi would be interesting because you'd possibly have networked the PC's anyway... so why additional HW? Midi interfaces can add latency too if there are no good drivers... Windows "plug and play" midi drivers are usually not a great choice either.