I am looking for a new "Unison Mode" to run ST2 in. What I want is a version of ST2 which will only allow a maximum of 2 parts to be loaded. Everything else is the same, including the 5-chain of effects etc. This will save a huge amount of CPU usage.
Secondly, ST2 "Unison" needs to be able to receive incoming MIDI on any channel (i.e. I don't want to specify which channels either of the two parts are).
Why do I want this? Well, mainly because I love the quality of the samples in ST2XL, but there a lot of cases where I only want to use one or two of the sounds, and apply external compression, reverb, delay etc to just the track that ST2 is inserted on.
I want to have more control of the mix outside of ST2, and I am used to inserting multiple instances of the same VSTi - it's the way many people work inside their DAWs. It also liberates me from being forced to work "inside" the ST2 environment; something which is counter-intuitive to my workflow.
I don't think it would be very difficult to implement these changes - the only thing that would change is multi part section of the GUI would only cater for one or two sounds instead of sixteen. You can also remove the midi channel, volume, panning, solo and mute control.
To recap:
1. Low CPU "Unison" mode for ST2
2. Maximum of two sounds layered at once
3. Remove the volume, pan, solo, mute, midi channel controls
4. Allow incoming midi on any channel (or no channel specified)
5. Create a "Unison" mode, where the 5-chain of fx are applied to both loaded parts at once, saving even more CPU.
Let me know if this is something you'd consider. I'd also love to hear from others who think this is a good idea and who'd like this "mode".
Keep up the great work on ST2 - I love the quality of its sounds!
ST2 New Feature Request - "ST2 Unison Mode"
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 725 posts since 30 Mar, 2004 from Melbourne, Australia
-
- KVRAF
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
Some thoughts:
ST2 supports up to eight stereo outs, which means you can use up to eight parts in a single ST2 instance and still have once mixer channel per instrument sound.
ST2 supports up to sixteen parts internally but each part can have its MIDI receive channel set independently - which means you can set up ST2 as an eight-channel sound source where each channel is actually a two-instrument layer. You can save a a setup like this as a template.
ST2 should be (relatively) pretty CPU efficient when it's not playing any sounds - so you shouldn't have much problem loading many instances. Psychologically it feels like overkill because a single ST2 instance can do so much more than what you're asking of it (and because the GUI is pretty big).
Currently there's no way to "bus" more than one ST2 part to a single effects chain. I agree - it'd be cool, but it'd also make ST2 much more complex - to do it well, IK would have to implement a whole mixer topology (which would also make the UI bigger). I know you're just asking for two channels -> one effects chain, but if you get that, I'll want modular routing!
Volume, pan, mute, etc use negligible CPU. They also use hardly any UI space either.
Essentially:
Most of what you want can be done with ST2 already.
IK will probably NOT fork ST2 - they've already got about nine or ten different versions of it to maintain (four or five plugin formats across three operating systems!). Creating an ST2 "unison" product would double the number of version to about TWENTY!
Forever,
Kim.
ST2 supports up to eight stereo outs, which means you can use up to eight parts in a single ST2 instance and still have once mixer channel per instrument sound.
ST2 supports up to sixteen parts internally but each part can have its MIDI receive channel set independently - which means you can set up ST2 as an eight-channel sound source where each channel is actually a two-instrument layer. You can save a a setup like this as a template.
ST2 should be (relatively) pretty CPU efficient when it's not playing any sounds - so you shouldn't have much problem loading many instances. Psychologically it feels like overkill because a single ST2 instance can do so much more than what you're asking of it (and because the GUI is pretty big).
Currently there's no way to "bus" more than one ST2 part to a single effects chain. I agree - it'd be cool, but it'd also make ST2 much more complex - to do it well, IK would have to implement a whole mixer topology (which would also make the UI bigger). I know you're just asking for two channels -> one effects chain, but if you get that, I'll want modular routing!
Volume, pan, mute, etc use negligible CPU. They also use hardly any UI space either.
Essentially:
Most of what you want can be done with ST2 already.
IK will probably NOT fork ST2 - they've already got about nine or ten different versions of it to maintain (four or five plugin formats across three operating systems!). Creating an ST2 "unison" product would double the number of version to about TWENTY!
Forever,
Kim.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 725 posts since 30 Mar, 2004 from Melbourne, Australia
You missed my point Kim. I don't want to fiddle with seperate outs. My DAW is Tracktion, which has no mixer. A mixer is a piece of tech from studios first designed 50 years ago, and I don't use them, and I won't use them.Jeez wrote:Some thoughts: ST2 supports up to eight stereo outs, which means you can use up to eight parts in a single ST2 instance and still have once mixer channel per instrument sound.
Precisely. I don't want to be forced to assign MIDI channels. No other VSTi forces you to do this. I don't want an 8-channel sound source.Jeez wrote:ST2 supports up to sixteen parts internally but each part can have its MIDI receive channel set independently - which means you can set up ST2 as an eight-channel sound source where each channel is actually a two-instrument layer. You can save a a setup like this as a template.
I imagine almost *every* VSTi is CPU efficient when it's not playing soundsJeez wrote:ST2 should be (relatively) pretty CPU efficient when it's not playing any sounds - so you shouldn't have much problem loading many instances. Psychologically it feels like overkill because a single ST2 instance can do so much more than what you're asking of it (and because the GUI is pretty big).
Re: multiple instances - the ST2 manual actually advises against using more than one instance; enough said.It will simplify ST2, not make it more complex. If you can apply fx to 16 parts individually, how hard would it be to treat a combination of 2 parts as a third channel? About 10 lines of code is my guess.Jeez wrote:Currently there's no way to "bus" more than one ST2 part to a single effects chain. I agree - it'd be cool, but it'd also make ST2 much more complex - to do it well, IK would have to implement a whole mixer topology (which would also make the UI bigger). I know you're just asking for two channels -> one effects chain, but if you get that, I'll want modular routing!
Again Kim, nothing personal, but you've missed my point completely. I absolutely loath how I have no control of volume, pan, mute and solo *OUTSIDE* of ST2. It goes against the design of almost every VSTi that I use. The last thing I want to do is have to call up the ST2 interface every single damn time I want to fine tune pan, volume and mute or solo tracks. It completely disrupts the work flow. Oh and by the way, there is a huge amount of audio bleed between the 16 parts in ST2, so mute is almost pointless anyway.Jeez wrote:Volume, pan, mute, etc use negligible CPU. They also use hardly any UI space either.
9 or 10 versions? Let's see: ST2LE, ST2L, ST2XL - all 100% identical engines except a few internal flags set to disable some code hooks. Sounds like one codeline to me really.Jeez wrote:Essentially:
Most of what you want can be done with ST2 already.
IK will probably NOT fork ST2 - they've already got about nine or ten different versions of it to maintain (four or five plugin formats across three operating systems!). Creating an ST2 "unison" product would double the number of version to about TWENTY!
Like I've said before - the only thing that keeps me using ST2 at the moment is Squids' outstanding samples and quality sounds. But ST2 needs work and needs to be simplified.
This is 2004 - I don't want a 16-part multitimbral workstation - that's what my Korg M1 did 15 years ago. We have the CPU grunt to have many, many instances of very complex synth and sample engines. It's the way songs are constructed these days. The likes of ST2 and Hypersonic hark back to paradigms of yesteryear that are no longer relevant.
Sort of like the mixer really. A dinosaur of a tool that is no longer needed.
I hope the IKM devs are reading this thread. I for one am not afraid to critique this product. They have damn fine technology, superb effects, and probably the best sample collection right now. All they need to do now is think a little more laterally and not make their users conform to their architecture - it's getting in the way of my music and I don't like it.
Let's have some more opinions on this please
-
- KVRAF
- 4692 posts since 28 Jan, 2003 from In these very interwebs
I haven't used Traction, but it seems that it's much weirder than I previously thought! Since I don't know your sequencing environment, it probably doesn't make much sense for me to keep talking about workflow.
However, I would like to clarify something -
I mentioned that IK are maintaining about nine or ten versions of ST2. I wasn't talking about the "consumer" versions (where the only difference is the soundset). I was talking about the different plugin protocols and operating systems:
RTAS: OS9, OSX, Win
VST: OS9, OSX, Win
DX: Win
MAS: OS9
AU: OSX
That's nine versions. The design of the software is the same throughout all nine, but the code differences are hardly trivial.
Oh, and I haven't noticed any audio bleed.
Forever,
Kim.
Since I don't know your sequencing environment, it probably doesn't make much sense for me to keep talking about workflow.However, I would like to clarify something -
I mentioned that IK are maintaining about nine or ten versions of ST2. I wasn't talking about the "consumer" versions (where the only difference is the soundset). I was talking about the different plugin protocols and operating systems:
RTAS: OS9, OSX, Win
VST: OS9, OSX, Win
DX: Win
MAS: OS9
AU: OSX
That's nine versions. The design of the software is the same throughout all nine, but the code differences are hardly trivial.
Oh, and I haven't noticed any audio bleed.
Forever,
Kim.
