200bpm

Karyn

200bpm
I have come up with a hack using the External Insert and RME UFX loopback to put a single VST on any number of input tracks, retaining use of the channel faders (as opposed to routing them all to a stereo bus.)

You've confused me now...
 
What precisely is the problem you're trying to solve?

I've got a really cool and sophisticated reamp setup with multiple mics, multiple busses, multiple amps.
 
Impressed with what Sonar is letting me do, just needs a few workarounds.
 
Blowing minds across the internet. 

"Blowing minds across the Internet" Yes, but not the way you think! 
 
Is possible to get a concise and clear answer when asked a question? 

Anderton

Karyn
What precisely is the problem you're trying to solve?

 
Just when I think I know, I realize I have no idea what he wants to do. Obviously he's not getting three separate audio streams through a single instance of AmpliTube 3 so I guess if he's solved the problem, that's not what he wanted after all.

 
Yes I am.  Just took some creativity.  Sonar does not normally allow this but RME totalmix has some cool features.. 
 
The setup I'm using is just like if I had multiple DI tracks that were feeding a single hardware amp, except in this case I am using totalmix to create a piece of "hardware" using a VST.
 
This is better than having multiple instances of a plugin because much less overhead and you don't have to worry about changing each plugin separately.  And you have independent fader control of each track so you can change level of track independently depending on what song needs.  Better than using automation or setting levels independently at the clip/object level (does Sonar allow that?)
 
 

Sorry 200bpm that is as clear as mud. If you output to a buss with the FX inserted in it why are you not able to use the track faders to adjust volume of each track? 

John
Sorry 200bpm that is as clear as mud. If you output to a buss with the FX inserted in it why are you not able to use the track faders to adjust volume of each track? 

Because the original track, a DI, needs to be fully processed by the plugin.  So lets say I send it to a bus with Amplitube, only the bus fader is relevant at this point.  OTH, if the send was POST fader, then the signal being sent to the VSTi would control the input gain to the plugin, and that is not the desired affect.  
 
I can send multiple DIs to a VST on the bus, but at this point the bus fader controls the output; I dont have independent control of each track's level.
 
If it was a miked track and I was sending it to a bus with parallel FX, the original fader would be relevant.
 
Sorry, can't explain it any better than that.  Perhaps if you are primarily a keyboard player you don't recognize what will happen when the input gain to an amp plugin is lowered and why a post fader send is not relevant.

200bpm

Anderton
Just when I think I know, I realize I have no idea what he wants to do. Obviously he's not getting three separate audio streams through a single instance of AmpliTube 3 so I guess if he's solved the problem, that's not what he wanted after all.

 
Yes I am.

 
Do you know what an audio stream is? Mono is one audio stream. Stereo is two audio streams. AmpliTube has a mono input and stereo output. That is not three separate audio streams.
 

Better than using automation or setting levels independently at the clip/object level (does Sonar allow that?)

 
Yes. 
 

John
Sorry 200bpm that is as clear as mud. If you output to a buss with the FX inserted in it why are you not able to use the track faders to adjust volume of each track? 

 
Let me explain. With distortion, AmpliTube's tone depends on the level of the input signal feeding it. So, if the send is post-fader and he adjusts the fader, it will vary the input going to AmpliTube and change its tone. If the send is pre-fader, then the input level to Amplitude will be constant so its tone will be constant. However, the channel fader affects only the DI sound because nothing is in the FX bin. He wants the channel fader to affect the output of the processed sound, but wants to use a single VST, and wants to do this without using the FX bin.
 
Although he claims he can send three separate audio streams through AmpliTube, I can assure you he cannot. So either there is a language issue or a lack of clarity about what his routing actually accomplishes as opposed to his supposition of what it accomplishes. If he could clearly define what he needs to do, i.e., the intended goal, what are the outputs, the sources, the destinations, and the final result it may very well be possible to do what he wants in SONAR. However he has a solution that he at least thinks works, so if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

Ultimately Karyn's approach seems the easiest way to go. 

Anderton

John
Sorry 200bpm that is as clear as mud. If you output to a buss with the FX inserted in it why are you not able to use the track faders to adjust volume of each track? 

 
With distortion, AmpliTube's tone depends on the level of the input signal feeding it. So, if the send is post-fader and he adjusts the fader, it will vary the input going to AmpliTube and change its tone. If the send is pre-fader, then the input level to Amplitude will be constant so its tone will be constant. However, the channel fader affects only the DI sound because nothing is in the FX bin. He wants the channel fader to affect the output of the processed sound, but wants to use a single VST, and wants to do this without using the FX bin.
 
Although he claims he can send three separate audio streams through AmpliTube, I can assure you he cannot. So either there is a language issue or a lack of clarity about what his routing actually accomplishes as opposed to his supposition of what it accomplishes. If he could clearly define what he needs to do, i.e., the intended goal, what are the outputs, the sources, the destinations, and the final result it may very well be possible to do what he wants in SONAR. However he has a solution that he at least thinks works, so if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

I got that. Thanks Graig. I agree. 

John
Ultimately Karyn's approach seems the easiest way to go. 

Agreed, but he seems to imply he has a much more complex setup that requires more than simply processing three inputs to produce three processed outputs. I was able to run three instances of AmpliTube on an ancient dual Athlon; I'm not sure what he uses because his sig lists an i7 but he said maybe he should buy an i7. If he's using an AMD PhenomX4, which he also mentions in his sig, although it's a quad core it's optimized for energy efficiency. There are likely tweaks that need to be made to defeat the power-saving features to have it run at its full potential. If it's paired with Radeon HD graphics, then he's also probably being stalled by the stupid HD driver I wrote the tip about. So we really don't have much to go on in terms of being able to help. But if he has a solution, great.

Anderton

John
Ultimately Karyn's approach seems the easiest way to go. 

Agreed, but he seems to imply he has a much more complex setup that requires more than simply processing three inputs to produce three processed outputs. I was able to run three instances of AmpliTube on an ancient dual Athlon; I'm not sure what he uses because his sig lists an i7 but he said maybe he should buy an i7. If he's using an AMD PhenomX4, which he also mentions in his sig, although it's a quad core it's optimized for energy efficiency. There are likely tweaks that need to be made to defeat the power-saving features to have it run at its full potential. If it's paired with Radeon HD graphics, then he's also probably being stalled by the stupid HD driver I wrote the tip about. So we really don't have much to go on in terms of being able to help. But if he has a solution, great.

i7 is  my notebook that I only briefly used as a DAW and use for paying (non music) work.  It may become a DAW in the near future if I upgrade to a new notebook.  It has twice the power of the AMD, however notebooks generate alot of EMI so its not ideal when I am tracking with electric guitar.  The AMD is quieter.  The AMD has all my audio apps loaded and its optimized for music and solid for 4-5 years.   I haven't needed to upgrade and I still dont based on how I'm running.
 
Craig, you are closest to understanding this, but this you do not get:  I am able to send 10,20, 30 separate DI tracks to a single instance of Amplitude because I am using Totalmix to make it seem like a single VST is a piece of hardware.  This is not something that Sonar does on its own.  While I could start loading up tracks with VSTis, its bad practice because not all of them are lightweight- Revalver and Guitar Rig are heavier.  And I also want the headroom to run channel / bus fx at 48 samples / sub 5ms round trip latency.
 
It would be great if there was a "Insert effect" that you could set virtual I/O to/from a VST in the rack and route multiple tracks to it.  The way FX inserts in sonar work are single input, but theres no reason multiple tracks cant be routed to a VST as long as they are not playing at the same time.