so next, I built a script that created ramps that reach their target within a defined number of tempo-based quarter-notes: Another attempt at controller smoothing
lately, I am using the excellent “Smoothie” VST plugin written by @Hamlen: New VST: Smooth Fades for Cantabile - in the thread, there is also a good discussion on how to best use it in different scenarios
My buffer size is 128 samples - I can live with that latency for live playing, even using virtual guitar amps, which means one input AND one output buffer. A song like “Shine On” gives my a time load of about 40-45% - a good enough margin for live playing.
It’s all about optimizing the CPU footprint of your individual “instruments” and avoiding sample-reloads (especially mid-song!). Typically, my sample-based instruments are loaded once when loading the rack, then stay static throughout a gig (very few, very well-tested exceptions).
Splitting lower-keys foundations with selectable upper-keys states seems to be a super efficient way to stay flexible during jamming.
Also, thanks for pointing out the “Smoothie” plugin by @Hamlen, I’ll definitely check it out!
Good to know you’re running rock-solid at 128 samples with a 40-45% Time Load on heavy songs like “Shine On”. Keeping sample-based VSTs static once loaded inside the racks definitely seems to be the key to avoiding mid-song spikes.
Note: I’m not talking keyboard splits, but a two-keyboard setup. My main keyboard is a weighted 73-key keybed mainly used for piano-like playing; the upper is a 61-key lightly weighted waterfall-type keybed (with aftertouch) for synth-/organ-type playing.
For some time, I tried using just one 88-key controller on-stage, but that became too fiddly with splits changing too frequently. Having a “main” and a “second” keyboard makes things lots easier with far less mental strain trying to remember what is which split zone…
FWIW I rebuilt my gig rigs a couple years ago and got the Intel NUC12, I think it was around $900 at the time. Or look at small form factors. I got the 2626 a few years before that and I have to say that was a game changer for me. It’s been awhile since I measured it but when I first got it and after all optimization etc I was running around three or four ms RTL. It pays to go with a quality interface where the manufacturer writes their own driver sets.. most don’t and use third-party drivers and that really contributes to latency, I think.
Tom
I tend to use the set list / song / state structure. I play in a worship band at church which has recently gained a drummer, but still no bass guitarist! So I cover the bass myself.
I like to have a particular overall sound canvas for each song, with different sound combinations for each verse, chorus, pre-chorus, etc. I play from a Yamaha MX61, and control it all with a Behringer FCB1010 and it works fine.
We normally work with around 5 songs per set list, but are occasionally playing 7 or 8 in a set, and a typical set list will have between 23 and 28 vsts loaded. I have number of bindings in the background rack because my needs don’t tend to vary, and have a few embedded racks for compressors and limiters, and specific reverb set ups , as I can set the overall outputs and apply them across all songs and set lists, which helps the pa guy quite bit.
We are now running songs into eachother more often, which to this old geezer is a nod to the good old days of prog rock!, so I will now combine a couple of songs, occasionally more, into just one song, with careful labelling of the states within these “super songs” so I can keep track of where I am. Mostly this is because moving from song to song isn’t seamless, and I have to avoid silences punctuated by frantic stepping on the old FCB1010! I have done a complete set as one song, but it takes a lot of work to put it all together,so it won’t happen too often!
The beauty of Cantabile is that even at my relatively simple level of use, it is incredibly flexible and powerful. I am nowhere near at the level of you regular guys on here, but it has transformed my playing enormously! Thanks to all guilty parties!!!
Ah, my bad, Torsten — I probably expressed myself poorly! I actually completely understood you were talking about a two-keyboard setup, as I use a very similar rig myself.
My setup consists of an 88-key semi-weighted lower master keyboard (mainly for pianos and foundations) and a smaller 41-key upper keyboard dedicated specifically to synths, leads, and Hammonds.
Having two physical keybeds definitely eliminates all that mental strain of remembering complex split zones on a single board during a live performance! Although, in the end, I still occasionally find myself setting up three split zones on the lower keyboard and a couple on the upper one… ah, the beauty of the 80s keyboard repertoire! :)))
Hey Sausagefingers, I’m completely new to this software myself, but day after day I keep discovering new things and realizing just how comprehensive, flexible, and powerful Cantabile really is!
Absolutely. I started with just a Yamaha MX61 which boasted over 1000 sounds which I could split or layer. The sounds were already a little dated, with the choir sound particularly weak, so I bought a choir vst. I didn’t realise at the time that vsts are like the tamagotchis my kids collected and played - “GOTTA GET EM ALL”!!! And yes I have loads and loads of them. The beauty of them is you can buy lots of them and you never get caught trying to smuggle yet another one in through the front door!
I tried to play them in my DAW, but that is clumsy. One of the heroes in this group is @Derek who I met on a Yamaha Owners forum, and he introduced me to Cantabile, and I am ever grateful to him!
Late to the party, but just to give my input. I play in a cover band where we play standard rock songs from 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, and a few newer if they sound like the old ones. I play piano (grand/wurlitzer/rhodes), and sometimes split and play an organ (hammond/vox/farfisa) also. And add saxophone and/or harmonica to this. But basically, nearly all songs use the same basic setup, so I have a generic song with instrument racks for pianos (Pianoteq), hammond (GSi VB3-II) and transistor organs (Vox/Farfisa), plus a rack for audio input (sax/harmonica). I use LivePrompter to orchestrate this, so I have my set list in LivePrompter, and it returns a banked program change, which is decoded into selecting the active racks and the sounds for each rack. I made an excel sheet for setting up a song, i.e. encoding the settings, so I just pick the split I want, the instruments and the sounds, and get a complete set list for LivePrompter. Works very well for me. Works well for me, we have 2 - 300 songs, and I think maybe 10 are not covered by this setup and have separate song files.
But I also play keys in another band, with original material. And even though I still use the same principles (splits and instruments), I have separate song files for each song. We have a limited number of songs (20 right now), and I want to be able to tweak the sound of the instruments exactly to my liking for the song, and save that.
I’ll have to say that it took some time to get the generic song to work, and Torsten (the other Torsten) also strongly recommended to have separate song files. However, it works for me in a setup where we often pick up songs, play them for a few months and then move on - then it is a lot easier just configuring the song in Excel and be able to play.
I wasn’t aware there was a party, but I guess I was late too. I’ve missed many things lately, but I am still alive, and trying to play catch up. The cream of the crop is on top of this thread.
Thanks for sharing TorstenH
It makes total sense to split your strategy: relying on a master template for massive cover repertoires, while keeping individual song files for dedicated original material where every sound detail needs to be finely tuned.
That would be the best way, covering both options. For me, creating a “supersong” set list does make moving from song to song as smooth as silk, but as I am playing in a church worship band, a set list is a complete one off, never to be repeated! So it is a lot of work for a single use, but well worth me doing. It gives what in a non-church setting would be as slick and professional a presentation as possible, but in church it is less about slick and professional, and more about excellence.
