Best Practices for use for live guitar processing

[gastric]

I posted a different thread about how to integrate Cantabile with a DAW. But that's a separate issue.

I've been trying to find some How To's or Best Practices or even some detailed examples of how you would setup Cantabile to manage a 20 song set list running 6-10 different VST per song, with each song likely using one or more presets per VST.

I currently play bass, and am venturing heavily towards electronica. I've done some proof-of-concept with VST and feel that a pure software solution will help me get there much better and easier than a rack of gear and pedalboard.

So you mostly approach it like you hardware?

RACK 1 - dirt/preprocessing effects
RACK 2 - Preamp
RACK 3 - Modulation
RACK 4 - Delays
RACK 5 - speak sims
RACK 6 - master out

Then compose songs using sessions/subsessions composed of those specific racks?

If I use three different VST throughout my set list for dirt is it best to leave all three of those VST in RACK 1 and simply enable/disable the bypass in each session/subsession?

There doesn't appear to be a monstorous amount of users based on the forum activity. But there still must be enough collective use that there are some ideal practices to put into place that could be documented to help the newbies ramp up as fast as possible.

Currently, I'm trying to piece together the various options via screenshots on the product page and scraping this forum for clues. It's a bit tedious and I'm looking for a shortcut.

[dluther]

So you mostly approach it like you hardware?

RACK 1 - dirt/preprocessing effects
RACK 2 - Preamp
RACK 3 - Modulation
RACK 4 - Delays
RACK 5 - speak sims
RACK 6 - master out

It really sounds like you've got it pretty much figured out there -- each rack feeding into the next rack's audio sounds exactly like I would imagine a guitar rig would do. Partial sends sounds exciting in this application.

One of the neat features I've found is Cantabile's "Custom Triggers" which allow you to take incoming MIDI messages (like program change messages from a foot controller) and then create a wall of tasks associated with that one event, like turning on/off plugin processing, sending specific patch change information to plugins, level adjustment at the host and plugin level if they support MIDI CC mapping...

[gastric]

I'm just trying to wrap my head fully around the construct and implementation before deciding to finally make the plunge. I have a FCB1010 and 6 MIDI capable rack units right now, on top of 8 pedals on a board. I've spent a lot of time building sounds, tediously programming patches, etc. And lugging it around. I've had enough.

I'm assuming I can program the FCB1010 with a really boring setup. Static CC sends for 5 of the footswitches (thanks to UNO stomp mode) and 2 CC via expression. The other 5 foot pedals for straight patch # selection. All on the same MIDI channel. Then do all the actual MIDI filtering right in Cantabile and never have to think about or reprogram the FCB1010 again. Which was always 1/2 the battle making sure that was set correctly and each rack unit was programmed to match. I've blown way too much time with that and lost a ton of playing time.

I'm 95% sold on Cantabile as my host/management and going pure software. Get a dinky SKB Studio Flyer 4U, stick my 2U power amp in there, 1U for Profire interface, laptop on top. I pop 2 latches, pull the covers, plug in the power, plug in the bass, speakers and FCB1010, fire up the laptop and VIOLA! A rolling 4U rack and a 5 minute setup tops. Yet mountains of audible fun.

Pinch me!

But really I'm just trying to leverage as much of the existing knowledge as possible. I've had to learn a lot on my own setting up the hardware. I'd hope there's a bunch of other users already doing what I'm planning and have worked out the general construct, workflow, etc. already and can share that knowledge.

[gastric]

Well, I made the purchase for Performer and started massing some racks.

Expect some posts with my slew of questions now that I'm starting to use the product. I've already encountered some issues saving sub-sessions in regards to successully recalling specific programs in VST. There seems to be some odd correlation between the built-in presets in some VST and the external FXP files I'm saving for custom presets. But it's late and I didn't have time to really crack the case on it. But somehow 3 of my subsessions ended up with the same VST program even though they had 3 separate ones when I first created them and saved their individual programs to FXPs.

Now that I have a few subsessions saved I need to figure out how to successfully map my Behringer FCB1010 to control the bypasses of certain effects (momentary filter, for example, where I press the foot pedal, filter engages, then disengages when I released the pedal), and selecting subessions by program change, while not sending MIDI changes to anyplace I don't want. I'm hoping that'll be easy and stress free.

[gastric]

Back to the original topic.

I'm not sure having 50 VST loaded in 8 different racks (every VST I could possibly imagine using, arranged into racks based on relative function like a couple delay VST in a "Delay" rack), then building sub-sessions for my various sounds comprised of the various racks is the most ideal solution.

Maybe building a separate rack for each song would be better?

1 Master Input rack for light gate and compression.
1 Master Output rack for light noise gate and master limiter (maybe that's reduncant from the built-in Cantabile limiter?)
Then an individual rack for each song.

That method would be easier to see at-a-glance what each song would be using and the signal flow VS trying to decipher what kind of interaction is going on between 8 different racks.

I'm not saying I have 50 different VST that I use. But probably at least a dozen, maybe more. And sometimes I'd like to have multiple instances of the same VST running. And once I get hot-and-heavy into this I'll likely explore split signal chains so I can split my input signal and run it through two totally separate chains, then mix them back into a stereo output through the master. For example, take my bass, gate/compress, split the input, one sound would be a sub-bass line, the other an octave above but voiced in a dirty wah to be able to effectively play two lines at the same time. That just further complicates things from the planning standpoint.

I realize there's a significant load-time advantage to having everything in one main session. But I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the best way to manage everything that way. The screenshot examples on the website show someone using subessions to pick-and-choose between a mere 4 VST. I wish it were that easy over here.

Thoughts?

[TiUser]

I wished I could throw in anything helpful for your demands, but I'm a keys player...

I am not sure if it is possible to change audio routing fundamentally with subsessions. You have to load the structures/chains you need and mute and/or suspend the stuff you don't actually need.

Not sure if one rack for each song is a good idea as you have for sure to load the same plugins a lot of times - which needs at last memory. To activate one rack by disabling all others you don't need seems to be a bit pain striking process to me as well...

Don't you think one rack for each effect chain you consider is manageable?

Having a separate rack for input and output is a good idea IMHO. I use a separate rack and the partial send to add general reverb in aux bus style manner. Special things I want to put on just one synth remains in the according rack.


Putting things in several sessions is another option but keep in mind that session changes will stop the audio engine for some time... this is a bit unpredictable, check that out before putting a lot of work in this. I recommend to put everything you want to change as seamless as possible in the same session.

Finally putting racks together depends also on how you want to release an effect when switching to the next and also on the plugins switching behavior itself...

...hope that's of any help...

[mauseoleum]

Pardon my french, but wouldn't it be much simpler (cheaper as well) to buy a 2nd hand basspod xt (the rack unit) and one of their floor boards? Smaller package as well (the older 2U rack), no "will it crash" fear etc.

[gastric]

Pardon my french, but wouldn't it be much simpler (cheaper as well) to buy a 2nd hand basspod xt (the rack unit) and one of their floor boards? Smaller package as well (the older 2U rack), no "will it crash" fear etc.

I own a ton of hardware. Trust me when I say the POD products won't morph your guitar/bass into anything seriously electronica. They do have some available synth sounds, but they're weak, limited, and there's not any really powerful modulation. And no MIDI Clock functionality AT ALL (very weak). For basic guitar/bass they're good. But with software skies are the limit. I considered sticking a laptop in the effects loop of my amp and using it for filtering using tools like Volcano. That'd certainly work as well. And that's still an option. But I figured if I'm going through that trouble, why not go full monty and go all software.

I'll try to get some audio clips to share soon so you can see what I'm talking about.

[TiUser]

Pardon my french, but wouldn't it be much simpler (cheaper as well) to buy a 2nd hand basspod xt (the rack unit) and one of their floor boards? Smaller package as well (the older 2U rack), no "will it crash" fear etc.

That's an endless question if it's "better" to buy a device with proprietary built in software or a PC based system where you add software for yourself.

I guess only thing we can do in discussions is exchange ideas about that. Everyone has to find out for himself then which one suits better his individual ideas.

If one is looking for a rack mount you can consider Open Labs new "sound slate" 1HE all in one PC. Ok, that's not cheap but as convenient as dedicated devices.

And to finish with, I myself have no final opinion here, both sorts of setups and devices have benefits and disadvantages.

Referring to my very personal experiences with dedicated "reliable" HW, well I don't trust both since my expensive workstation keyboard broke down totally after just 3 years of moderate use and cost point for repair is uneconomical and I could buy two mainstream PC's from that... on the other hand I never had any issues even with the cheesiest PC HW... maybe that's just me, don't know... couldn't also tell that dedicated HW is more stable - there is too much software in it nowadays too.