Hi
Willing to change from my heavy weight rack to a slick Laptop-solution…
In my setup, every audio Signal per (guitar) string, 7 in total, gets processed sepetately.
…
Could somebody imagine, if and how I could set that up with GP?
I would want to automate and switch (via MIDI).
If not possible, I’d go with such a solution (but would rather want to save bucks and unnessecary complexity) Nexus-GK – Cycfi Research
Thanks
What Audio Interface are you using?
Actually im looking for a new one : min. 7 IN’s (sadly, none of one feat. 7 hi-Z) and min. RTL
Thx
OK, what is min. RTL?
Well, as a keyboardist, what I would say regarding unnecessary complexity is use a guitar with a single monophonic output 
I you want more, it will necessarily become more complicated and expensive.
It is not very clear to me what this devices brings. Apparently not, that much, but I am perhaps wrong? 
Indeed intruments inputs are rare on Audio Interface, but I have a solution in mind, using a rackable 8x DI Box like this one:
If you don’t have height mic input on your audio interface but an ADAT input, you could additionnaly use this:
Then you need an audio interface with ADAT inputs, this one could be enough:
Well, a very exotic rig which necessitates a 3U 19" flightcase and a laptop, but would give a huge flexibility when used with GP.
Unfortunately you have a considerable amount of homework to do on your design end - you need to decide what type of processing and control you want/need to do and where you want to do it. GP will not be the bottleneck as several other commenters have noted.
So each string in your guitar has a pickup, but are you planning on being able to manipulate the audio for each string?, and how much manipulation do you plan on doing for each string? - any effect in the universe? With midi added to the audio output per string? Each string controllable from external devices to your guitar? And for what and with what other instruments and/or effects? Only when you have a complete understanding of what you have and what you want to do can you select the hardware and software to achieve your ends or replicate what you have(??)
Having said the above, I have something perhaps a little similar as I play and record only one instrument. I could have 8 different individual outputs from my instrument, but five are managed and combined onboard the instrument itself and only two are extracted as separate (passive) outputs. Those go through a Behringer 4 channel inst/mic audio interface and then I use GP to do all sorts of different things with those two inputs which are then combined with the other output from my instrument, which was routed through another device to the other two inputs Behringer and GP. I thought about doing what it sounds like you are thinking about but is was just too complicated and little return for what I was trying to achieve.
BTW, thanks for the links to the other very cool hardware all of you know about and/or using. The Nexus universe looks like something I would be very interested in when I build my next instrument.!
Unfortunately, you are giving very little information.
No clue if you have complex FX “patches” in mind, or just quite simple ones,
like “only” some EQing and panning per string, but not much more ?
But i try, refering here -with “also” having more complex patches in mind- doing my post:
For the part within GP4:
if you want to run 7 strings, each independently,
----> AND want to proceed each strings independently within GP4,
for example: a own EQ per string / own FX per string,
will you have to create one signal chain per string.
so you´d do basically the same like for any otrher guitar, just now —> per string !
So, your whole plugin count would be multiplyed by 7 for example ( in case the whole “patch” would be same)
one EQ per string, = 7 EQs
one Delay per string = 7 Delays
and so on.
the whole control of that is doable within GP4, since we deal with widgets.
It would just take some work to set the widgets up properly.
check on YT for GP4 and the Video about “Widgets” to see how Widgets do work.
Midi is doable as well. no problem, …again: since we deal with widgets.
example:
it would be doable to have one own Delay per string, and control all 7 delays by just one CV potentiometer on your guitar.
with the GP4s widget system are quite complex controls doable.
But this could become “workloady”,…and preferable to be donne by more experienced users. The single tasks within GP4, as such, are simple, tough.
i´m now btw. VERY much interested in that pickup system myself (for Bass).
yes, exactly to run different FX per string.
its really all doable.
BUT: it will suck up ALOTS of CPU power assoon as you leave super simple “patches”.
EQ and PAN per string would be simple. Easy on the CPU either.
Things could explode in complexity, in case you´d want to make own “complex FX setups per string”. Your choice 
doable is everything, even for a beginner. But it will make a big difference if you are very familiar with all the tasks, and things just happen fluffy,…or if you are quite new to GP.
The workload to setup complex patches that way would be …depends on complexity…up to immens !!
yet, yes, you could setup things in GP4, nowhere else doable !..or only doable by even higher workloads, and dealing with bigger latencys for your audio.
( i run since many years such ideas myself, …and my dream was allways a Bass, with a pickup system per string, and an FX setup —> per string !
so, i´m familiar with that whole idea )
Audio interface (for M1macs)
the presonus quantum 2626 would be a good idea to run with a M1mac ( TB3 connection / very little latency doable ! )
…i´d personally really recommend a M1mac for such undertaking, at least, asoon more complex patches would be the idea to acomplish.
as sayed, very little info has been given by you, and what exactly you want to achive.
But yes, GP4 would allow for alots !
( even without scripting / none of what i had in mind posting, requires any scripting, …which is then another level, one could enhance the functionality and doability even further)
edited for spelling
Hi.
Thanks for answering. I highly appreciate the vital forum here.
Sadly I dunno how to quote on every passage as you did…maybe it’s because I’m using a Phone?
… RTL :
Round Trip latency.
I’m looking for the fastest RTL for my strings-into-Laptop solution.
All above 10ms is a pain in the a** to my concerns…
…
about the ‘unessecary? complexity’ :
I’m using several instruments.
A Chapman Stick with four outs, whilst a Stick usually feat. 5 strings bass as a group and 5 strings grouped to baritone, other-hand
Those groups I subdivided to distinguish 4 audio outs in total.
Why? Because of effects.
Morover I play hurdygurdy - 4 to 6 distinguish outs necessary.
After all my guitar with a Roland GK2, whilst all 7 strings separately processed guarantee much better pitch-tracking garuanteed.
So, my first concern/task for building my dream setup would be i can assure myself to have an (automatable) audio-Matrix-switch, first of all. IMHO, this extra complexity is a one-time-brainer I will have to do one time. After all, my setup stays same on that Level…
…
Thanks for all thoughts else…
…
To the computing Performance needed - indeed, I absolutely inted to get myself one Apple M1 and a fitting Audio interface.
I will take a Look in the Presonus, thx.
Concerning my instruments (espec. Hurdygurdy) I’m desperately looking for a
Last Generation Bus audio interface (TB3 or USB3) with 4 mic/instr. INS at least, as this instruments has 4 piezo source which, yh… need good preampings…
Thanks so much guys.
the quantum2626 is a TB3 interface. It has super small latency.*
i run one myself on a M1mac . And: i checked the market for alternatives.
any other possible -modern/newest generation- alternative is just in another price segment and way more costly !..and there are in fact not many. most are TB2
A CPU load - as shown in GP4- of around 56% or so, is doable without clicks.
Then going closer to 60% CPU load, first clicks “can” allready appear.
my setup is also mostoften based on just working with FX, btw. . (and all the routings)
seems, i misunderstood your post. not shure.
if you mean with “many strings” different instruments,
then the whole situation is completly different, than what i described !
But: it seems that one of your guitars is meant to be “processed” per string.
thats two completly different scenarios then !
creating patches that should work for several “different string instruments” is easy !
yet, …look, the plugin FX world is so so so powerful, AND: Gigperformer allows for so so much ways to deal with that power of all the given plugins,…it IS a journey to dive into all this ! …and requires its time anyway.
Slightly aside from the subject, looking at the Nexus stuff has me considering one of their pickups and 6 instances of MidiGuitar.
Thanks especially, Funky40.
…
I intentionally had a Motu Ultralite Mk5 in mind to be run on USB3 - as the form factor is half in opposition to the 2626 (but due to the lack of preamps…please guys, proof me wrong). Other super low latency audio Interfaces introduced warmly welcome!
…
As knowing the world of guitar-MIDI a little:
The only way to go HAS TO BE computation per string in 2022, still (if you like to hear that or not - and same applies for vst’s doing that job). The market brought us new algoritms and comp.power (look at EHX Mel9 pedal, etc). It might give you the Illusion multi-string recognition is already there, though… those pedals aren’t working rock solid (without glitches) and will give you a 14ms-plus-latency feel guaranteed - not more. You still will have to forget alternative tunings, Bass, etc…
…
So, yh - I rather go and get myself a M1 (dreaming of an M1 Ultra ;p) and setup a fork for ‘introducing’ each string seperately and discretly.
The Nexus would be a professional solution, but I will have to cut Budget on some Positions) - purchasing the audio interface first, then the M1, then the ‘Nu’ Pickups from Cycfi.com. I will probably nit get myself a Nexus by trying to find a work-around via Gig Performer.
Best
ok, your situation becomes now clear.
AND, several here might be in the same boat
i´m now also VERY much exited vs. these Nexus pickups ! but in my case for 5 string Bass.
…it might be doable for me financial wise, end of year.
( need to understand how to install the plain pickups on a 5 string fanfret tough. Can´t use the base on bass, …and nayway not on my fanfret /i´ll open a own thread on this later)
vs. pickup-audiosignal to midi: i´ve not donne much, but some experiments.
To notes: there is also the VCV Rack2 software. The free one is good, has it all, but only the payed one can be loaded as a VST. VCV Rack incloudes also a module for audio 2 pitch tracking, and works quite good. Latency is ok, compared to other solutions i tryed.
( in case, open somebody a own, new, thread vs. this software)
i agree, pitch tracking per string has to be the real solution
@kooplog
vs. your Mac purchase ( and i´d really ONLY consider a M1mac and up)
A ultra might not bring you any advantages.
Keep these numbers in mind:
you can load GP4 only 4 times, …4 instances.
With sayed hack, …a special mac-based script ( vs. the mac),…can we load on a apple silicon mac up to 8 GP4 instances ( in theory, i never tryed, …but i have the script installed, i just had to open all 8 to check ).
8 GP4 instances means: you would use 8 cores of a mac.
For a 7 string guitar, 7 cores.
The new mac studio max, has 10 cores. Thats plenty, it will allow to run a DAW beside all 7 GP4 instances, easily.
A ultra on the other side, is much to doubt, that it will give you any advantage for “this type of audio usecases” with its 20 cores. Save that money i´d say !
The Ultra is for video processing people !
also to notes:
there seems to be a new M2 apple silicon on the horizon. Also a new macmini with that chip.
It is to expect that this will have higher single core speed !
And thats what we need for GP4 !! …single core speed.
The saying is, there should come a 4 core, and a 8 core macmini ( performance cores),
the saying says, probably end this year / macbooks, but seems that saying is also for the new mini
btw. in case your Guitar to midi aplication is more about playing plugin instruments,
then: might one GP4 instance do !
you just would send all audio signals separatedly into GP, you might proceed each string separate vs. ausio2pitch / 2midi conversion, but then…if its just about vst instruments…there´s no need for separate GP instances per string ! …definitly not.
i on the other hand, would want to create complex audio signal FX processing ----> ** per string **…i had to go that route, and use 5 GP4 instances, one per string, plus another for exuberant master FX.
i´d expect, it would take me two years, to develope bigger and good working patches.
But thats the nice thing with GP4 and having an M1 mac: its worth it now that time…
sorry for my long posts ! in case somebody feels disturbed
A Fault Confessed Is Half Redressed… But, only half! 
Hey again. Good, were talking…
As things now clear up for me I now started to understand:
Running one program instance per Audio Signal was not what I was expecting to do, as Id percepted GP also serves for routing Management - but that’s now, not the case.
I imagined, to GP also gives me Tools for input/output routing…
Bummer.
A DAW vice versa is able to do, but on a higher Performance Tag, Right?
So…
If it’be the case im right on this -
We can only hope, Gig Performer Sees this as a Feature to implement hopefully for GP version 5
The issue with multiple audio devices is an OS problem – it is Windows that needs to properly support aggregate devices.
I see. So now, Im beginning to understand the bedrock of limitations.
Are there Alternative OS’s out there allowing…? Screams again, for some New hardware (vst) host, IMHO
(but what do I know)…
i completly do not understand the point you are making.
i can do everything within GP4 in regards to audio routing !
way better than in any DAW ( but i´m not so much into DAWs…one point IS the routing limitations the DAWs have )
its Gigperformer which lets you do and route things completly freely !
its GP which surpasses anything other in exactly that aspect. IMHO
your point is not clear.
you´d need to explain “spezific scenarios” explizitly.
if its about working with different audio interfaces, …and complex routing shemes vs. that
then there are tricks and hacks available.
Example: use different GP instances, send audio to other GP instances with the BlueCat Connect plugin.
Now have you this at your disposal: you can set each GP4 instance to use another AI, inclouding “virtual audio cables” like “blackhole” (freeware)
on Macs is ALOTS possible !..one reason i´d never use a Windows PC for such things.
you´d really need to specifie what exactly you want to do !
but much likely: if you can´t get there with GP4,…you won´t find any other solution either
(thats at least my impression / beeing a person who is also doing very uncommon stuff with audio on my mac )
it is in fact doable to setup a own GP4 instance just for audio routing purposes.
i´ve donne that once.
"Blackhole and Blue Cats “connect” (plugin) are then the key-points, to proceed from there, GP4 beeing the host, just for this Audio routing work.
look, at some point, the “overlook all” factor becomes very “weighty” ( vs. “your” whole preset management / but doable is alots)
It seems to me that this whole thread has an inherent lack of focus with these individual multi-string pickups that a number of manufacturers like Roland and CYCFI Research (amoungst others) are selling, and the problem these products are attempting to address. It has never been a problem to get individual string pickups since day one. As is readily apparent from reading the Roland documentation for their individual pickup product line, the sound shaping for individual strings is a relatively robust
solution for the problems this type of arrangement was developed to address - for most people using these types of products. The CYCFI website in fact highlights their free Ascend plugin (Ascend VPU is an audio plugin for modeling the sonic characteristics of electric guitar pickups. Designed for multichannel pickups with wide and flat frequency response.) I still say that without a robust design understanding of what you want to do and the reasons why it must be that way you will wind up spending unnecessary inordinate amounts of money on a lot of hardware with the risk you still won’t achieve what you want.
I agree that for MIDI, separate strings processing has some advantages such as assigning a different virtual instrument for each string although I don’t often have a use for it or it is very basic.
As a guitarist playing on stage with GP4 and using for several years a MIDI conversion plugin to play virtual instruments (Midi Guitar), I would like to clarify several points:
tracking is not a problem as long as you adapt your playing technique to the constraints and characteristics of the chosen virtual instrument (a keyboardist does the same for example by using the pitchbend to simulate a guitar bend, but conversely a guitarist must avoid making a bend while playing a piano or a virtual organ 
).
You do not play a guitar on a virtual instrument the same way you play guitar on a guitarist’s equipment.
This plugin has built-in MIDI processing slots that allow you to split ranges of notes over different MIDI channels (and many other functions that can be created by coding in LUA language).
Any alternative tuning is possible.
Latency is not a problem and the cpu load is very reasonable.
I have already (to check) used 6 instances of this plugin (in a single GP4 instance) each assigned to a different virtual instrument and a processing plugin for each. Everything works perfectly with a CPU load of no more than 30%.
Above all, I am only using a Windows 10 PC with an Intel i7 processor.
I was thrilled with this plugin which I used at first as standalone integrating a virtual instrument plus several audio and MIDI fx, then I switched to GP4 integrating it as the starting source of all my audio and MIDI connections and now I am fulfilled. 