Cantabile as a VST?

Cantabile
41

@Lowell: A bit longer response to explain my reasoning

First let me repeat my wish for the option to have Cantabile racks available in other VSTs. And I do like Unify, so this is not to bash Unify…

UNIFY fulfills a part of the need to be able to have setups portable between DAWS, but in my view misses out on a number of key features available in Cantabile

UNIFY DOES NOT REPLACE CANTABILE
This is what we agree on. UNIFY is a nice new development that enables us to have preset/setups portable between DAWS. But the strong points of CANTABILE are - for me at least – the setlists that can be preloaded, using linked racks in various songs. Like this, if I have for example five songs all with my favorite Omnisphere strings patch of let say 2GB ram inside, it only loads that linked rack once - using 2Gb RAM instead of 10Gb RAM memory -, with no waiting times between the songs. UNIFY and DAWs cannot do this. Furthermore, UNIFY does not have setlists. Reaper for example does have setlists, but does not have the linked racks memory saving option, so your memory is pretty full if you load already a few songs. As far as I know, Unify cannot load two songs at the same time. So there are waiting times between loading two songs.

So we want to explore if it makes sense to use UNIFY within CANTABILE. At least this is what I am trying.

If we use SINGLE VSTs with a UNIFY patch, the 2-3% CPU load of each Unify instance will add up in songs that would contain then several UNIFY patches. Also, CANTABILE in a preload setlist mode would recognise all these single UNIFY patches as separate items and accumulate on memory and CPU usage.

If we use MUTIPLE VSTs within a single UNIFY song patch within a CANTABILE song, we indeed only add little CPU and we do have the advantage to be able to port the patch to a DAW for recording etc. BUT, we lose here the option to have linked racks. Also, again, CANTABILE setlist with songs build from single UNIFY song patches will be pre- loaded as if they are all unique items, so accumulating all the memory and CPU needed for the individual VST and patches.

So I came to a point where I am wondering where UNIFY does help me out with respect to CANTABILE, and as it stands I do not see the benefit of using UNIFY within CANTABILE, at least not if you have songs with demanding sample-based VSTs like Omnisphere etc. that you want to use in live situations.

What UNIFY does well in my judgement is using multiple core functionality.

Perhaps UNIFY still grows in functionality, but I do hope @Brad is able to develop the Cantabile Rack porting possibility. A bit like the Reason Rack option.

2 Likes
42

Though I fully agree that it would be nice to have a Cantabile rack in the DAW I can imagine that it’s not so easy to implement since cantabile has its own preset management system.

BTW: Recently I tried out the Studio One Show Page. Though it is nice to have it as a Studio One user it its far away from the flexibility Cantabile has. You can’t even set split points for virtual instruments. I asked Presonus and they answered something like “… you can do that with your hardware”. Hm, I have 3 masterkeyboards at different locations and I don’t want to reprogram the hardware everytime I make a new song. This must be possible in the software.

1 Like
43

There are many vst hosts which could do the bridge but no one will be like a “Rack vst host” this will be the best.
About Unify its a great idea, great host, great Synth, but it lacks audio input in any way and that limits it very much to serve the pourpose we are talking here, because not all people are using VSTIS some do process audio live with Cantabile. Will love unify if it will do that as well.
After a time researching this matter I think Patchwork is one of the best options and probably the one I will end purchasing wiht a Cantabile Solo version, otherwise I would purchase Cantabile Performer, I will do in the future if it adds this function, because its very important to have the same presets in Cantabile and in the Daw.

44

So to clarify, it seems like folks who want Cantabile as a VST want it so they can use their existing rack setups in a DAW (i.e. not in live performance). That is why I’m talking about Unify. It is “platform agnostic” in that sense. Use it in Cantabile, use it in a DAW. So we don’t need Unify to have setlists, etc.; Cantabile is IMO the best live performance tool for us Windows users.

For live performances, yes, Cantabile can load a linked rack with the resources of the 1 rack across multiple songs. This is only a benefit if your songs actually use similar racks, which is a scenario I suspect many people have, though not all of us. So that efficiency diminishes if you don’t use the same setups across songs as much.

So regarding using Unify for your setups, and then using it in Cantabile not just your DAW… You can create linked racks with Unify inside no problem; it’s a VST of course. So you can take advantage of both the power of Unify and the resource usage of Cantabile. Yes, this does require creating a rack with Unify in it, but little needs to be done with that rack setup other than just adding in Unify because you’ve already set up all your FX, layers, other VSTs, macro/CC controls, keyboard splitting and dynamics, routing (via ComboBox), etc. inside of the Unify patch.

What I do is use Unify to build my favorite patches, and use them anywhere; standalone, DAW, Cantabile. In Cantabile for live performances I build a simple rack with the Unify patch (or patches) in it. Best of both worlds.

Also, with Unify’s PolyBox you can make a monophonic instrument polyphonic, or use it to tame crazy CPU usage in heavy multis in Omnisphere, for example. Those things I can’t do in a Cantabile rack (and don’t need it to, frankly; it’s not really the purpose of Cantabile).

1 Like
45

I’m curious, what would you need audio input for in Unify? Again, Unify is not a replacement for Cantabile. You can process live audio in Cantabile and use Unify as a platform agnostic “rack” system for your setups.

46

If I am not mistaken, Blue Cat could also be used. I could build my BC racks in Cantabile, and pick them up in the DAW. I haven’t tried it, but seems very possible. Regardless, rebuilding racks in outside software is time consuming, so might as well rebuild them in the DAW to begin with, instead of wasting time going through other software. Just saying…

47

Oh yeah, rebuilding “racks” anywhere is time consuming. I’ve been looking for a platform-agnostic tool that can be that “one place” I have all my favorite patches, categorized and tagged and searchable. I thought Akai’s VIP could be that, but it seemed really clunky and confusing to work with. I watched some videos on how to use but still, it didn’t seem to do what I wanted.

When I started with Unify, and now a year later, I still think this is that one place for me. They keep adding pretty useful and cool functionality to the app, increasing its “instrumentality” but even if they didn’t it’s still the simplest, most lightweight VST I can find to do everything I need in a “rack” solution.

Before Cantabile I was building all my setups in the DAW, which is clumsy and hard to catalog, and hard to use across songs. What I can do in Unify in seconds takes WAY longer in a DAW, but also increases my ability to quickly add in a new layer (could be a single VST, or another Unify patch that has multiple VSTs, as you can load Unify into a Unify layer) to creatively make new patches easier.

Also, being able to save FX preset layers (i.e. there are some built-in basic mastering layers, or you can build your own with your preferred FX) and pop them into any Unify patch in a couple of clicks is really cool and speeds up my workflow when building setups. Way easier and far more flexible than a DAW.

2 Likes
48

Glad that works for you.

49

I play guitar so I need to route audio from the guitar to a “rack” where I configure several plugins to make a preset/sound.
Even I play exaphonic guitar and I route 6 string signals to 6 separate branch plugins.
I suppose there are many other cases where a singer or instrumentalists may want to process their signal with different effects, the possibilities today of creating sounds are enormous.
So yes, we need a Vst Host that can route audio.
Asked in the unify forum and the developper replied that routing audio (mono, estereo and multi channel9 would be implemented, but not yet.

1 Like
50

Yes that was the Vst Host I mentioned from BlueCat, its called Patchwork, its very capable.
Rebuild patches is very tedious and so much inefficient, if you create a sound composed by many different plugins, synths, etc etc, which I do, then you need a “Rack Vst host” or some alternative.
I suposse that other people dont need that, because they use more simple Presets, that case is different of course.

51

Ah, yes. So your racks probably mostly have FX in them, not instruments. Makes sense.

52

Yes exactly, but wait I also use Vsti, in fact many of my patches are guitar processed and synths combined! I use MidiGuitar 2 which uses the guitar sound to convert it to midi.
The possibilities are endless, but that complexity needs a container to be able to carry it easily. Try to rebuild that every time is a nightmare.

1 Like
53

Thanks @Lowell, I will experiment a bit more using your approach. The thing is I have all my favorites already in Cantabile Racks, and having Cantabile racks with Unified favorite patches forces me to redo all that work… But your work method is not more clear to me

54

As has been said above, the request really revolves around:

  1. acknowledging the creative advantages of using Cantabile to make setups
  2. the understanding that recreating the work in a DAW is cumbersome, time consuming, not portable.

It also seems like a potent marketing feature.

1 Like