V Racks vs VE Pro

[oceantracks]

I'm about to become a new user of DP and am wondering if anyone with large templates uses V Racks rather than VEPro?

I'm one of the apparently rare souls who just doesn't like VE PRO, and find it confusing and cumbersome. Yet most composers you see on YouTube seems to use it. To me V Racks are much simpler, and I'm curious as to why DP users would choose VEP over them.

Thanks
Tom

[James Steele]

I'm about to become a new user of DP and am wondering if anyone with large templates uses V Racks rather than VEPro?

I'm one of the apparently rare souls who just doesn't like VE PRO, and find it confusing and cumbersome. Yet most composers you see on YouTube seems to use it. To me V Racks are much simpler, and I'm curious as to why DP users would choose VEP over them.

Thanks
Tom

I think the main reason composers are using VE Pro is because usually they are hosting their virtual instruments on another computer which is lightening the load on their main DAW machine. You can’t do that obviously with V racks. Also, many people have reported that it is more efficient on CPU hosting virtual instruments within VE Pro even on the same computer.

[dix]

I use VEP on a single computer. I still prefer it to V-Rack on large projects. It's at least as efficient CPU-wise as DP in pre-gen, but runs noticeably smoother. V-Rack is better, and far simpler to use, for small to medium projects, but VEP is still a necessity for me on big ones.

[FMiguelez]

Yet most composers you see on YouTube seems to use it. To me V Racks are much simpler, and I'm curious as to why DP users would choose VEP over them.

It's not that you choose one over the other... you use them together, as a team.

I use multiple computers, but I'd use VE Pro the same way even with one. In VE Pro, I have my full template always loaded, but only the stuff I'm currently using is active. In DP, I control which VI's I'm currently using, and from DP I can control many other aspects of VE Pro.

This way, RAM and CPU management become almost a non-issue (with certain caveats, of course).

I could not see myself working without VE Pro. It's the central hub of everything, which DP controls.
Try it out as a free demo first. I bet you will improve your workflow ten-fold and will love it too.

[labman]

I am using VEP now on single computer with gobs of ram. The last mac we bought enabled us to move away from the life of slaves. I has been an absolute joy with DP 10 and then 11 with VEP on the host mac. DP runs so stinking fluid it makes my head spin.Very grateful

[dix]

I am using VEP now on single computer with gobs of ram. The last mac we bought enabled us to move away from the life of slaves. I has been an absolute joy with DP 10 and then 11 with VEP on the host mac. DP runs so stinking fluid it makes my head spin.Very grateful

Well, the OP said they'd prefer not to use VEP. I would think that with a 2019 Mac Pro and gobs of RAM you would have the option to work with fairly large templates using V-Rack only. For me, I stick with VEP because of the resource efficiency. If that wasn't an issue I'm not sure I would bother with VEP. Have you tried creating and using VEP-less templates, labman?

[bayswater]

I am using VEP now on single computer with gobs of ram. The last mac we bought enabled us to move away from the life of slaves. I has been an absolute joy with DP 10 and then 11 with VEP on the host mac. DP runs so stinking fluid it makes my head spin.Very grateful

Well, the OP said they'd prefer not to use VEP. I would think that with a 2019 Mac Pro and gobs of RAM you would have the option to work with fairly large templates using V-Rack only. For me, I stick with VEP because of the resource efficiency. If that wasn't an issue I'm not sure I would bother with VEP. Have you tried creating and using VEP-less templates, labman?

No doubt things are better with VE Pro than without. But if the goal is to run reasonably sized project with a few VIs on a reasonably up to date Mac, I don't think you need it. My test project with 32 instances of VIs including NI and Falcon, with 4 MIDI channels on each, on a 32G 2018 Intel Mini, along with another 400+ audio tracks and loads of Aux channels and effects, gives CPU loads at around 60%. I might be able to push things further with VEP, or run all this at lower buffer sizes, and less CPU load, and some members here no doubt have orchestral templates that would bring this Mini to its knees, but I think you have to be running some pretty demanding stuff before VEP is really needed, or indeed, makes any noticeable difference.

[labman]

I am using VEP now on single computer with gobs of ram. The last mac we bought enabled us to move away from the life of slaves. I has been an absolute joy with DP 10 and then 11 with VEP on the host mac. DP runs so stinking fluid it makes my head spin.Very grateful

Well, the OP said they'd prefer not to use VEP. I would think that with a 2019 Mac Pro and gobs of RAM you would have the option to work with fairly large templates using V-Rack only. For me, I stick with VEP because of the resource efficiency. If that wasn't an issue I'm not sure I would bother with VEP. Have you tried creating and using VEP-less templates, labman?

Hey there Dix! The file size of each DP file bloats too big for us to do that all inside DP. Our VEP template stays pretty much unchanged, excepting for timekeepers that need hands on alot. Those go inside DP itself. Enables us to keep the DP file size under 10mb. And because we are suing VEP the way we do, DP is very fast and effeieicnt for us. Good suggestion though!

[FMiguelez]

... And because we are suing VEP the way we do, DP is very fast and effeieicnt for us. Good suggestion though!

[dewdman42]

I'm about to become a new user of DP and am wondering if anyone with large templates uses V Racks rather than VEPro?

I'm one of the apparently rare souls who just doesn't like VE PRO, and find it confusing and cumbersome. Yet most composers you see on YouTube seems to use it. To me V Racks are much simpler, and I'm curious as to why DP users would choose VEP over them.

Thanks
Tom

There are many valid ways to work, without or without either. That being said, V-Racks are not a direct replace of Vepro for several reasons that I will elaborate on below. And in fact if you use VePro you will want to use V-Racks also together with it!

VePro has the advantage of running in a separate process, and if you want, on a separate computer. Since its in a seperate process (Even when on the same computer), you can load and unload projects from your DAW at your will without having to reload all the sample libraries all over again. V-Racks provide the same thing when switching between different sequence chunks...but if you need to load a seperate project...then....it doesn't. That is one way VePro can really help, if you use a lot of large orchestral templates...you can have all your sample libraries loaded up 24/7 regardless of which project, or even which DAW for that matter; that you want to use at any moment...all the DAW projects become much thinner without having to load any sample libraries.

VePro has very good automation support, V-Racks do not support parameter automation at all!

If you use VSL instruments and/or MirPro, then VePro has a lot of cool stuff built in for hosting those things...This may be moot point if you aren't using those.

anyway, if you do decide to use VePro you will still want to host the VePro plugin in a V-Rack... That way the V-Rack is a proxy that connects to the VePro instance...and you can switch your sequence chunks at will, and they all route the MIDI through the V-Rack to get to VePro.

VePro is not for everybody and nor do I think its absolutely essential but I do feel it offers some advantages over V-Racks that should be acknowledged and I think if you are going to regularly work with large orchestral templates that require multiple minutes, maybe even 10's of minutes...to load....then VePro is almost essential IMHO.

[dewdman42]

ps - I don't use VePro at all for non-orchestral projects.

[labman]

... And because we are suing VEP the way we do, DP is very fast and effeieicnt for us. Good suggestion though!

Good catch FM!! I sure aint known for my typing abilities! Even worse with dictation.

[KenNickels]

VEP has many benefits. One is that I am able to reduce my buffers from 1024 to 256 or even 128. At 1024 I had to edit MIDI tracks excessively because of the delay relative to the quantize value. What a chore just using DP! Now it's very snappy and I'm happy again.

[dewdman42]

Vepro actually adds a very large buffer automatically, so that's why it performs as if you have DP set to a very large buffer size.

The only thing affected by the smaller buffer size is the current live channel...and then in the VePro plugin there is the 2x, 3x, etc.. setting which is actually multiplying whatever your DP setting is...for the same reason...

Generally Vepro running on the same machine as your DAW will have very comparable buffer size results as just using your DAW alone. If you put VePro on another computer then you may have to increase that multiplier.

There is nothing else magic going on with VePro that will somehow get more out of your computer... its just that since it is enlarging the buffer sizes, even though you may not have realized, that seems like its performing better, but you could just enlarge the buffer of DP and accomplish the same thing with V-racks.

[Michael Canavan]

It should be mentioned that if you're simple about the VEP plug in routing wise, hosting the plug ins in the VEP server on the same computer can increase the responsiveness of the GUI in DP. Probably because VEP adds it's own buffer as Dewdman mentioned, so I'm guessing here but, you have armed real time tracks, VEP which adds a buffer to armed tracks, and unarmed tracks which DP adds it's own increased NextGen™ buffer to.