When I noticed that Analog Labs (AL) presets only supported 2 parts (2 layers or 2 splits), I was shocked.
So I have 2 questions:
Sorry if this was discussed in a separate post. Let me know if I misunderstood how AL works.
Hi @EricP ,
Analog Lab have up to 2 parts in each instance. You canāt get more parts in one instance.
How can you be shocked about this?
Only Arturia know about the future product plans if any excist.
Shocked because I figure people that like simplicity (who want to avoid using Mainstage and the such) and that bought an Arturia controller would probably expect more than 2 parts w/o having to run multiple instances of ALV.
I think the fact that there are two parts in AL is a pretty marvelous achievement in itself. Some of the instruments (I am thinking Pigments) are pretty CPU intensive and allowing two instances of that is a miracle. It must be hard to optimize the code run on a variety of different spec PCs. I would rather Arturia concentrated on stability and performance in its present incarnation than trying to add more parts.
What I would like to see which I think is achievable, is multiouts for the two parts so they can be treated individually in a DAW.
I just thought, that people will and can expect the advertised product.
I donāt see Analog Lab advertised to have more than two parts.
I also donāt see Analog Lab is launched as a competitor or equal to applications like Mainstage and Gig performer or DAWās with some kind of Multiinstrument possibilities.
I can understand, if you have wishes for a product.
There are feature requests to be able to use Arturias effect plugins in Analog Lab and in other Arturia instruments.
If you mean Analog Lab should be more than it is or there as an alternative should be a new product, then feel free to make a feature request even if itās just for more parts and not something like Mainstage and Gig Performer.
Iām not sure how much you shall expect though. Especially not within a short timeframe. But i donāt know what Arturia have on their mind. Arturia will normally also not tell until a product is certain and mostly first when the product is launched.
I have no problems with Analog Labs having two instruments in unison/split.
If you want to be able to rapidly swap between instruments then you can favourite the ones that you want can you not?
If you are trying to compare it with something like UVI workstation that you can load and assign multipl,e instruments but you are giving up quite a bit of functionally in the process.
Now Iāve used UVI workstation in with the soul strings and assigned different bass guitar to olverlay in a chorus effect . But I am not sure if that is what you were looking to achieve
I agree, itās a product/marketing type of idea for Arturia but itās also a surprise thatās it isnāt already to be frank.
I guess that what Iām expecting (or hoping for) is to eventually have a good MIDI controller with Arturia software instruments, a powerful laptop and simple software (like ALV) and be able to play songs (in a band) the same way as if Iād have a āworkstationā keyboard from Korg, Yamaha, Rolandā¦ (with 5+ layers/splits).
In other words, with a good/simple combination of software suite, MIDI controller and laptop (e.g. latest Macbook), I should at least be able to compete with todayās workstation keyboard within the same kind of budget or lower, no?
As for today, Iāll continue to use a simple workstation keyboard (e.g. with 2+ layers) acting as MIDI controller and use ALV (for 2 additional layers in a different sound ecosystem) and hope that I donāt need more to get pushed into more complicated software. Or I might just go back to not using Arturia altogether and use a more expensive synth (e.g. MODX)? It just feels like Arturia is not making it easy for me (given how great their software synth collection is).
Thanks for your answers. I think I got it now. It feels like a flexibility/quality over performance/quantity design decision.
The manual says āYou can use more than one instance of Analog Lab V in a DAW project (in standalone mode you can only run one instance of Analog Lab).ā. Is ALV considered Standalone mode? I thought that Standalone Mode was running each software instrument outside of ALV.
Standalone is when you literally open the Analog Lab app. You can open one instance of it, as a standalone app. Hosting it as a VST/AU in your DAW, you can open as many instances of it as you want until your computer waves its white āI surrenderā flag.
I actually do hear your complaint, to be fair. But I think it was an absolutely understandable move for Arturia to limit the app to just two instrument-layers.
I canāt tell you the number of posts we already get that say something along the lines of āIāve opened 15 instances of Pigments in my DAW and now my PC [which wasnāt blindingly powerful even six years ago and now is verging on being an antique cripple] has started to cry. When are you going to do something about your softwareās awful efficiencyā. I can only imagine what these people would be like if Arturia allowed them to load up say 5 instruments in Analog Lab. All we would see here every day are complaints from cretins who donāt understand how processor-intensive accurate modelling actually is.
May i ask how much the Workstations you try to compare with cost?
A new Mac PRO 2024 is quite expensive. What does that cost? A normal computer can do much more than needed, so itās also a tool for other things.
What does the controller you wish for cost?
What shall the Analog Lab version you ask for cost, and shall it include full control over the instruments so it include full versions of all instruments?
I assume you wanāt new sounds, that the workstations you talk about canāt provide.
In theory i would say it should be possible to create a Arturia workstation of some kind with for example 6 Parts with a speciel onboard computer, if Arturia want to create one. I have not estimated a price, but i assume it could be in a price range of at least some workstations.
Arturia have btw recently launched Astrolab.
Arturias products including the software are already for a long time used live with the existing possibilities.
Hello @LBH , thanks for playing along with me on this.
Cost Comparison
Let me throw some numbers just for the sake of a discussion:
So simply put, Iām hoping to enable the move from an affordable/simple physical synth in the 1000$-3000$ range to a 3000$-range Arturia/Mac Combo without additional performance software.
On one hand, the Arturia combo probably gives me a better keybed and more flexibility/accessibility for sounds but Iām compromising my current ability to play all the songs Iām able to play in my band if I only use Arturia software (with ALV). So I have to invest additional time to get into Mainstage, Gig Performer or other.
So my hope is to have enough layering/splitting capabilities in ALV (w/o DAW) and have only 2 support channels to deal with: Arturia for MIDI controller/software, Apple Care for Mac/MacOS.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, Iād love to try one. Another point I have about physical synths/keyboards is that (with my IT background), Iām always a bit nervous about relying a lot on one piece of hardware that may not be super easy to replace upon failure. Of course, you might answer something positive about the reliability of purpose-built stuff and I couldnāt argue.
Probably the right answer is to keep complementing hardware instruments with software and have a mental backup plan if something goes wrong.
hi again @ericc ,
Yes it make sense what you want.
It doesānt look like you leave much room if any at all for the new application or extra features/ functionality you want. Also a controller need to be upgraded to handle it.
The numbers you mention is what you can do already with the current existing software.
Also iām not sure a Macbook Air will not run hot and not being able to keep up the power. For example running 6 parts of the most demanding presets will probably require a very powerful CPU running in good conditions and temperature.
Iām on Windows. I do not know anything about MAC performance. But i think even Apple mention that the Air can heat up easily compared to a mac PRO and then have a negative effect on performance.
To me it look like you wanāt more for less or the same amount of money as the workstation you compare with and you want it now. I think thatās to much to expect. But who knows?
I didānt assume you would buy Astrolab. I didānt suggest that. I understand your concerns. Nothing is certain for any product.
I also do understand what you want. I think i would use an existing host and the existing Arturia software. Perhaps you can find a free host out there, that have enough functionality. I donāt know.
I think the right answer for you is to do whatās possible the best way possible for you, when you need it.
I hear you. I crashed Pigments within Logic myself but I think it was a different issue.
I wonder if there couldnāt a way to still support a few more parts per preset (in a future version of ALV-standalone) and combine that with metric-supported warnings or limits around bad combinations leading to too much processing. Itās nice to have all the flexibility in the world (with Pigments especially) but it doesnāt help anyone if itāll fail or chop w/o warning even with just 2 parts.
For example, ALV could show a stability warning when a preset is about to be saved with lots of processing-intensive settings. This would mean that all software instruments would have to provide some kind of processing cost projection based on how theyāre used. IMO, this would help make designers and users more aware of their choices and it would make ALV feel more predictable.
Does that sound like a viable Enhancement Request?
All sounds fair. Thanks!
BTW, I already have Mainstage and I can navigate it. Iām thinking Iāll use it for specific songs if I really need it. Iām also already able to make ALV and Mainstage switch presets on MIDI program changes. So Iām only thinking ahead and hoping for more simplicity and portability (lighweight gear).
I guess but Iām mostly thinking of using splits/layers w/o having to switch presets, as part of performing one song (e.g. 1 layer for the left hand, 2 layers for the right hand). I do use preset switching within songs but sometimes itās too hard to do. But as discussed here, Iāll keep combining hardware and software instruments to make things possible. Iām just not sure if thatās what other (lower-tech) users would want after investing themselves fully with Arturia (software instruments + controller). I do understand the whole thing about processing and DAW usage so we can avoid rehashing this.
Oh but yes, with Pigments (multiple oscillators, built-in layering), ALVās 2 parts and favorites (or MIDI program changes), we can assume that most songs could be covered. Good point. Thanks!
If you donāt mind me to reply to this too. Perhaps @Jon_Vincent have other or more thoughts about it.
Arturias applications already have performance meters. So have hosts and computers.
I think the best thing to do is to know how to do things as efficient as possible.
CPU load depend on so many factors like.
I think itās learning by doing.
Planning each preset when creating it to for example reduce the use of effects, and to reduce the maximum number of voices, can help a lot. Sometimes it can even work and sound better musically.
Many so called CPU usage issues can be helped by for example reducing the number of voices. Sometimes the issues for example is about a setting in a host.
@LBH, @Jon_Vincent, @Funtmaster, @innovationsinm,
Good stuff you all. Thank you so much for helping me wrap my mind around product focus and performance pitfalls. Iāll keep progressing by increasing my use of software instruments but now Iāll be more mindful about performance, thanks to you all.
Follow us for the hottest sounds, fresh content, exclusive offers and Arturia news as it happens.